Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Says "Don't Expect DRMed Music To Work Forever"

Oracle Goddess writes "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."

24 of 749 comments (clear)

  1. Forever? by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a proud user of GStreamer-based media players, I didn't expect it to work at all.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    1. Re:Forever? by !coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, what he's basically saying is that there should be no expectation on the consumer's part that the product he's paying for should work at all (regardless of whether we're talking about "owning" said product, or acquiring a "license" to enjoy said product).

      Um, maybe I'm being naive here, but isn't that, you know, against the law? They *could* have said, "we're selling you the _right_ to play this for X years, or until date Y", and that'd be fair if they just say this up front, I suppose, but this sounds like they want a free pass to sell you the illusion that you're buying the "right" to access certain content, when in reality they're just selling you a rental license -- one that expires at the sole discretion of the seller.

      In essence, because a license is supposed to be a sort of contract, it's like saying they want to be able to not only dictate all the terms in said contract/license scheme (as they already do, one way or another), but they also want a couple of "open clauses" that they can fill in later on, essentially nullifying the other part's contractual rights, if, when and where they see fit.

      This is exactly the kind of "fine print" bullshit that corps have been getting away with for far too long. Yeah, I know you're supposed to read every contract you sign, but when even a simple song purchase entails a multiple-page "Terms of Use" or whatever, which usually includes something along the lines of "this text is subject to change, new clauses can be added, rights terminated, changes are applied retroactively and there's no obligation to notify the user of any change, it's the user's obligation to consult the updated terms at link" -- it's time to tell these assholes to go fuck themselves, for crying out loud!

    2. Re:Forever? by Abreu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, "We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to receive a consumers' money".

      I'll bite.

      I in favor of backing up a CD to my harddrive. I am also in favor of being able to watch and listen to media files in the software of my choice.

      Yes, I am also in favor of copying a loaned CD and to share the occasional music file on the internet, even if that means not supporting Copyright Owners.

      I am all in favor of supporting Artists however, and will gladly pay to see them live, I'll buy their merchandise (if its attractive and reasonably priced) and generally try to support them in a way that does not imply having to buy "a license" to listen to their work a finite number of times...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:Forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANAL but this is illegal in the UK. This is why EULAs are not enforcable over here (although I'm not sure if its been tested in court).
      The seller/licensee cant dictate terms after the sale has been made.

    4. Re:Forever? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is basically the reason why Image Comics was formed. They (Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, and some others) decided they weren't gonna give up the rights to their own creations to Marvel, so they formed what is essentially only a publisher of comics, not the typical publisher-studio combo that DC and Marvel are. They then became one of the top 4 comic publishers in the US because they were only publishers.

      So, why doesn't someone try following their lead in the music industry?

    5. Re:Forever? by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are right on. As far as I'm concerned, this is a declaration of war against the people that pay them. This is the much touted 'free market' in action. They dictate the terms and if you don't like it, go without.

      --
      One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    6. Re:Forever? by suzerain79 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is called a Deceptive Trade Practice and it is illegal. If you represent a product is X and when you sell it is Y or does not have the capabilities as previously advertised, then it is actionable. Treble damages and attorney fees in Texas if you win.

    7. Re:Forever? by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like buying a scratched DVD in a second-hand shop.

      Except that it's *not* scratched, and it's bought *new* from the original "manufacturer" (or agent thereof.) And you can't physically examine it to check for "scratches" before you buy it, and the "scratching" is being deliberately done by the manufacturer after you get it home.

      So, basically it's like buying a scratched DVD from a second-hand shop only if you define "like" as "completely unrelated and in no way similar in any way, shape, or form".

  2. Just because we can't kill lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

  3. Re:that will keep your customers happy by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't care. Providing product isn't in their business model anyway.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  4. Dear Mr. Metalitz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Fuck you.

  5. Illegal by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?

    I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!

  6. I half agree with him by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.

    Yes of course. But that's because the creative works should be public domain after a while. And I don't mean after 70+ years either.

    1. Re:I half agree with him by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since they are using copyright to sell works which will stop working, doesn't that break copyright?

      Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?

      Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public? After all, if copyright on existing works is extended, you're taking away from the public what was supposed to become theirs under the original deal when the work was created - and you're NOT increasing the incentive for the corpse of Ub Iwerks to create Mickey Mouse for Walt Disney 70 years previously when you extend the copyright...

      So isn't it simply a land grab? Taking something away from others simply because you have the greed and the power to do so?

      Can't the same be said for DRM? Taking the benefits of the copyright/public domain bargain while not holding up your end of the bargain?

      And can't the same be said of breaking fair use?

      --
      This space available.
  7. Seriously? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Record sales are slowing down, and you are trying to cash in on the digital economy. How do you go about it? Well, if you're the RIAA, you publicly come out and announce to everyone that you are going to sell them a product that can arbitrarily stop working. Ugh, I really hope that the RIAA is not long for this world. Oh, and if they start getting bailout money I am leaving the country, mark my words. They have undermined their own business and they deserve to fail.

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  8. They are Goblins. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Everyone knows that when a muggle or a wizard buys a goblin made object, it is not really sold. It is licensed to the user but eventually it should be returned to the maker.

    "You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."

    "But if it was bought ---"

    "---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it [the Sword of Gryffindor] ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:They are Goblins. by Draek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except they're not the maker, they just licensed it first.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  9. Re:Obligatory by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Funny

    And if you choose to look under the hood to see why it stopped working, we will sue you. If you remove the MakeItNotWork-O-Meter so that the car runs, we will prosecute. If you publish your findings, we will have you branded a terrorist.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  10. This is simple. by Static-MT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's stop making such a big deal about this. The solution is simple. DO NOT BUY DRMed MEDIA! There's plenty of quality media available outside the recording industry. Articles like these need to go away IMO.

  11. Re:iTunes makes this a non-issue by localman57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes it is. The point is DRM in general, not just DRM for your particular music in your particular format, from your particular vendor. The decisions made now about DRM will set precident for Movies, Books, Software, and technologies we don't even consider now, possibly including virtual worlds, 3d models for 3d-printers, and who knows what else.

  12. Re:That's funny by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?

    Just start buying your CD's in bulk directly from the RIAA, with checks written in disappearing ink...

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  13. Re:That's funny by poolecl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, but a chair only has a finite lifespan. So if it falls apart after 3 years of normal use I would probably not be responsible for fixing it. Although you may tell all your friends that I make crappy chairs.

    On the other hand YOU can buy a screwdriver at any hardware (or most dollar stores even) to fix the chair.

    The real issue is that I have persuaded congress to make it illegal for you to buy the screwdrivers that fix the chairs I sell. And now I am saying that I should not be expected to keep any of the screwdrivers around either. And even if no one has the right tools to fix the chair YOU still can't build one.

  14. Re:That's funny by DogDaySunrise · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Sorry, the rights on that payment have expired. Would you like to supply more goods in exchange for another one?" :oD

  15. Violation of the U.S. Constitution by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...

    Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?

    Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public?...

    Right you are. The growing abuse of copyright that has been underway for four decades is in opposition of the express purpose and practice that is spelled out in no less a document than the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress):

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    The whole notion of extending copyrights held by parties other than the originators indefinitely after the fact (and often after the originator is dead), clearly defies the constitutional basis of copyright in the first place.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj