How DRM Won

Nerval's Lobster writes "In 2009, when Apple dropped the Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions from songs sold through the iTunes Store, it seemed like a huge victory for consumers, one that would usher in a more customer-friendly economy for digital media. But four years later, DRM is still alive and well — it just lives in the cloud now. Streaming media services are the ultimate form of copy protection — you never actually control the media files, which are encrypted before delivery, and your ability to access the content can be revoked if you disagree with updated terms of service; you're also subject to arbitrary changes in subscription prices. This should be a nightmare scenario to lovers of music, film, and television, but it's somehow being hailed by many as a technical revolution. Unfortunately, what's often being lost in the hype over the admittedly remarkable convenience of streaming media services is the simple fact that meaningfully relating to the creative arts as a fan or consumer depends on being able to access the material in the first place. In other words, where your media collection is stored (and can be remotely disabled at a whim) is not something to be taken lightly. In this essay, developer Vijith Assar talks about how the popularity of streaming content could result in a future that isn't all that great. 'Ultimately, regardless of the delivery mechanism, the question is not one of streaming versus downloads,' he writes. 'It's about whether you want to have your own media library or request access to somebody else's. Be careful.'"

Comments

XBMC

[ganjadude]

XBMC takes care of alot of that. it is a grey area of course but for the time being legal.

Re:XBMC

[jedidiah]

XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.

Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.

Re:XBMC

[Em Adespoton]

XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.

Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.

Odd; I use iTunes to control my own content. It's on my computer, and is not controlled by Apple (not even in their preferred "Library". The stuff in iTunes is also mirrored in the cloud.

"The Cloud" is a means of distribution; it's equivalent to making backup copies of your DVDs that you use all the time, keeping the originals stored away. Cloud services allow you to access select content from anywhere; I'd stay away from ANY cloud service that didn't allow you to have a local copy of your cloud contents as well (I'm looking at you, Facebook).

As such, this entire article is based on a false premise. While Cloud services could be moving in that direction, right now they are used (and advertised) as an alternate distribution system for content you own. Deleting all copies except what's in the cloud is silly, as you never know when cloud access will vanish.

The big issue with Cloud data is that you lose primary control of the data -- that's fine for disposable/consumable data (music, movies, etc) but for anything you don't want to also belong to other people, don't put it in the cloud.

All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.

Re:XBMC

[Ash Vince]

All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.

Steam is a good example of DRM.

It is fairly obvious though that it won simply because it works and the only restriction it places on you is not being able to sell games you bought second hand (which you agreed to when you bought the game from them anyway). It does however let you install games on loads of different machines, even at the same time unlike most DRM systems. They also release games on steam at the same time all over the world to my knowledge which is another reason why people pirate, to obtain something that is not yet available by legal means in the their country.

When DRM is invisible in this way to most users then they simply don't care about it. I am sure there are some people who refuse to buy all steam titles as part of some crusade to get them to drop the restriction on second hand sales, but they are so few in number that Valve just ignores them as acceptable losses.

This is probably made even easier by the same people piping up how bad Steam is on forums and saying they boycott it for restricting second hand sales through DRM while also having obviously played games only available on steam with this restriction. This means they played the game illegally anyway without paying so it is very easy for Valve to dismiss them as people who just want to play games without paying for them. If you are actually trying to boycott something effectively, you have to really boycott it or it dilutes the message you are trying to put across.

Sorry to disappoint you that this is not a troll, I just think that if I pay for every game I play then you damn well should too or do without playing it. I know that this might not result in any lost sales to the publisher, but if I pay for something and you don't that is not fair.

1st

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not that bad if you think of the cloud streaming more as a service, like XM or your cable service you pay to have access to be entertained by there content for the duration of your subscription

Re:1st

[pixelpusher220]

Saying it's 'OK' because it's like your cable company may not be the best argument...

Re: 1st

[i_ate_god]

How is streaming online any different than streaming over The air?

Re: 1st

[tripleevenfall]

There are no ways to track what people are doing OTA. There are also no ways for people to interact with the content.

OTA is monodirectional communication. The two are totally different mediums.

Re:1st

[Lord Lemur]

I think alot of people miss the point hiding in there. The Netflix - DRM model is the direct result of winning the war on DRM. Most consumers are unwilling to actully buy DRM encumbered content for the price that is being charged. Instead there are a few, legal and moral, options left. Movie and Recording Industries have basically deceded that non-DRMed content won't be available at any price. So instead of renting something, and being told we are buying it. We just end up with only rentable content. You can pick from several reasonable rental services, all way cheaper then what you would have paid for nearly the same content access before.

The Battle Continues

[ScottCooperDotNet]

There's hundreds of plug-ins, extensions, and rip programs to grab the content. It has to be de-coded to be played, moving to streams only turns the tide slightly.

It seems we're coming to a middle ground though, as most streaming DRM does not significantly get in the way of most (read:Windows) users.

Re:The Battle Continues

[chuckinator]

I listened to an OpenBSD release song once. I will never make that mistake again.

Re:The Battle Continues

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like it, change it! That's what Open Source is all about! The tools are available, even if they are sub par and you don't have the time or skillz.

Re:The Battle Continues

[thunderclap]

True. Its one of the reasons that I still use Windows rather than abandon it totally for Chromium. The tools to fight the drm to download and archive content still exist for Windows. While Windows thinks its converting to tablet its actually committing suicide. However, that's neither here nor there on drm. Streaming and the cloud have not given DRM a victory by no means. In fact its a sign of desperation. The content distributors are so desperate to continue the distribution that they are willing to lose it entirely. Huh? you say.
What happens if we suffer a terrorist attack? A nuclear 9/11 on silicon valley? Or an earthquake? That cloud will dissipate and with it goes all those songs, movies and games. You don't have it if it doesn't sit on a device in your possession. You rent it instead. Anyone remember those DVDs that lasted 3 days? I loved them. Why? because there had absolutely no encryption on them at all. All I had to do was rip the movie and I owned it. Still do in the original sleeve. of the new disc has a name in sharpie on it.
DRM has never been about copyright infringement. DRM has always been about blocking alterations to the change in distribution. The big names like their money. They don't want it to go away. Short of having all their property seized and them arrested and put in jail, this wont change. (unless aforementioned event above happens)
The cloud is meaningless extension of that interference hailed as progress so those who do it causally will quit. We need to be vigilant to remind that that ownership requires physical possession. If you don't have it so it can play anywhere at anytime, you don't have it.
Will it ever change? Not until either aforementioned event or arrest is made.
We are headed to the world of Continuum. (if you haven't watched this series, you should. Its excellent and very prophetic in a not overt way.)
We must be the change in which we seek. We must continue to fight. DRM has not won. Its hasn't lost either.

Popularity of streaming content?

[Mitreya]

I hate streaming content because my home internet is too crappy to keep up. I'd much rather download the file and watch it off local storage.

Forget TV shows, it is incredibly hard to find a downloadable high-def movie trailer, all websites seem to insist on streaming even that.

Re:Popularity of streaming content?

[h4rr4r]

Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.

Re:Popularity of streaming content?

[Mitreya]

Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.

It's a use case regarding the "popularity" of streaming content. There are others -- I also tend to travel (watching things on a train is great). If these streaming clients had at least allowed a "local cache" option, they would be far more usable.

Re:Popularity of streaming content?

[spire3661]

Sounds like every streaming video device should have enough local storage to hold at least one whole movie. Streaming isnt the problem, its the implementation that sucks. Every one of the streamers should have local caching ability.

Re:Popularity of streaming content?

[hedwards]

4k isn't around the corner, unless you've got a theater around the corner. 4K has so many pixels that you would need a huge TV mere inches from your face in order to observe the difference between it and bluray.

In practice, few Americans, Europeans or people in general have rooms large enough to house a TV that would permit one to appreciate the difference.

Re:Popularity of streaming content?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous. Of course he'd like things faster. He'd probably like a pony, too. But his home internet connection is almsot certainly already easily capable of handling the application, and plenty of people with that speed or slower, trivially use their connection for top-quality-bitrate video. For many decades we have had the tech for addressing the problem of n minutes of video taking n*i minutes to transfer: saving a file. If the movie people can't take advantage of the current tech for presenting hte best experience, then some middleman will. Today, we call those middlemen "pirates." They're pirates because no one else wants the money, so people obtain this service (which isn't available at any price) for free.

And that's the real problem: there's a lot of "we don't want your money" going around. It's pathological to the point where it gets really difficult to respect copyright at all, because it's directly contrary to the whole "financial incentive" goal. Whatever happened to people doing business?! Business is where you tell a customer "Yes sir" AND TAKE THEIR FUCKING MONEY. "No, your network is too slow or you're doing too many things with it" is totally alien to some of us, especially when we already know there is no such thing as too slow, just degrees along the convenience-impatience spectrum.

These "we can't deliver video to 7 MBps users" luddite companies shouldn't be allowed to have government-granted copyright on video. If they're not going to use it, they should lose it, because he copyright isn't doing anyone any good, not creating incentive, etc.

Another thing I hate about this situation, is that I get so habituated to everyone saying they don't want my money, that I've nearly stopped looking to see if there are any serious businesses left. It's easier to just let sickbeard and couchpotato pirate everything for me, instead of merely sticking to the DRMed stuff. The rotten apples are making it harder for everyone by poisoning the market and telling everyone to just pirate things, if you want them to work worth a damn.

Seems like an over generalization...

[maccodemonkey]

I use iTunes Match which means all my files are stored in the cloud. But, before the cries of "evil lock in!", iTunes lets me download all my cloud files at any time DRM free, so I can listen to them offline or even archive them.

Am I upset I can't download rented media DRM free? No. Why would I be upset about that? It's the same deal I had with movie rental stores. If I buy it to own, I definitely want a download. But I haven't run into many services at all where I purchase something and I can't download it.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[h4rr4r]

Amazon lets you download the music over and over.

You can simply download it again if it gets corrupted.

Just shows what we already knew

[Barlo_Mung_42]

DRM is only an issue if it gets in the way of letting the user do what they want. Make a service that is convenient and easy to use, that works the way the user wants it to work and they won't care about DRM. e.g. Steam, Netflix, Hulu etc.
Music streaming services have the nice feature of me not needing to worry about storing, tagging, organizing my music collection. If the service is good and people are willing to pay for it that's all that matters.

Before responding about how much you personally care about and dislike DRM please note that you are not a part of the "they" I was talking about.

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[KarlIsNotMyName]

DRM is an issue, because it targets the paying customer. It can only get in the way, it has no other purpose.

If they could make DRM that didn't get in the way, they wouldn't need DRM in the first place.

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[JaredOfEuropa]

The thing with the rising popularity of streaming is not DRM. The real problem is (as usual) the way they'll ruin it with advertisements, and then DRM will come into play, making sure you cannot edit out or skip ads. And thanks to technology, it's now super easy to inject all manner of interstitials and pop-ups and pop-overs and watermarks and other crap on top of the content.

That is why I hate streaming, and it's why I will cling to media that I *own* for as long as I can. Until they start ruining that with ads too (like Disney and their infamous unskippable trailers).

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[Rockoon]

DRM on streaming services does not get in the way of the paying customer.

For example, I subscribe to netflix. It uses DRM. I can still watch the movies in their collection, repeatedly.

The thing is that I do not pretend to own any of the movies. I am paying for the service, not particular movies. I also subscribe to Pandora. I am paying for the service, not particular songs.

In neither case does either party pretend to transfer ownership of any specific content.

Seems like a lot of slashdotters dont seem to understand streaming services, equating them with iTunes purchases and other stuff that are not streaming services.

I would gladly pay $50/month for a service that had everything on demand, and I wouldn't give a flying fuck about DRM that prevents me from copying the content, because I am paying for the service specifically so that I do not need a copy of the content.

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[93 Escort Wagon]

Until they start ruining that with ads too (like Disney and their infamous unskippable trailers).

One of the many advantages to ripping my legally-purchased DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, then running them through HandBrake, is never again having to watch a "coming soon" trailer for a movie that was in the theaters a decade ago.

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[Jason Levine]

How long until the entertainment industry tries to claim that skipping a trailer on a DVD for a movie that was in theaters a decade ago somehow retroactively results in lost ticket sales?

"Our movie did horrible because two years from now some guys will rip their Blu-Ray disc releases of an unrelated movie released by the same studio, removing the trailer for our movie. This future action will have already caused us to lose ticket sales!"

Bonus: The Hollywood accountants can factor future ripping in when figuring out why a movie that made $500 million more than it cost to make actually lost money.

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[Joey Vegetables]

For example, I subscribe to netflix. It uses DRM. I can still watch the movies in their collection, repeatedly.

For as long as they remain available via streaming. It is not uncommon for titles to drop out of the streaming catalog. It happened to me once while I was literally in the middle of watching a movie (watched part one day, hoping to watch the rest the next, and it was no longer available via streaming). That is another drawback of DRM. You are guaranteed to be able to watch your rented media today. There is no guarantee about next year or month or week, or even tomorrow.

It depends on the type of content

[Serenissima]

And it depends on your tastes. I used to have a remote job traveling around the country. I have several hundred DVD's that I purchased and have since ripped onto a hard drive. I have instant access to hundreds of movies and dozens of TV shows that I legally paid for. But honestly, I watch Netflix and Hulu more than any of the giant library I have because...well, I've already seen my movies and TV Shows. At this point in my life, I don't have a burning desire to watch every video I have again. So, I have a giant video library that gets used rarely. Streaming content is significantly better in this area for me because I don't have time/want to watch video again after I see it once.

Now music, on the other hand, is completely different. If there's music that I like, I go out and actually by the CD's and rip the music myself. Music IS something I consume repeatedly and it is very worth the money for me to have a big library of my own music. Pandora has its uses, I've found several artists I like through it!

Streaming isn't destroying anything and as long as there are people somewhere who are willing to pay to watch or listen to something as many times as they want, other people will sell it that way. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. And demand is generated by your tastes. It's kind of silly to think of a future where EVERYTHING is ONLY streaming ALL THE TIME because that won't happen as long as there is money to be made!

DRM is winning

[wbr1]

For the same reason the NSA has a mic and camera up everyones bunghole. We are a nation of apathetic, vapid, content consumers whose primary concerns are trivial and shallow.

They keep trying and failing

[davecb]

The first DRM I saw was funny formats on Apple ][ floppies, followed by DOS format misfeatures, followed by dongles, followed by own-code in apps, followed by ... ite ad infinitum.

Note that you don't see these forms of DRM any more. What you do see is that, each time a new format of anything comes out, some DRM vendor talks the publishers into "protecting" their work[1].

As long as new publishers are suckers, the DRM vendors will suck them in, and make lots of money off a technology that motivates people to not buy the publications.

The publishers lose two ways!

--dave
[1. One of my former employers almost got taken in by this scam, but the techies caught it. ]

Re:They keep trying and failing

[KarlIsNotMyName]

I agree, those whose business is DRM are the ones who benefit, not anyone else. My bet is that far more money is lost to DRM, than to piracy.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[systrace]

And Amazon is guaranteed to last forever and never change the terms of service.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[h4rr4r]

Not at all.
I am just presenting one current option.

Keep your backups on something like ZFS and odds are it will never matter.

I personally do not keep collections of media, I own a little bit and do not intend to add to it. I don't tend to watch anything more than once or twice, nor do I want to listen to the same song over and over.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[stoploss]

This is why I've been working on getting FreeNAS+ZFS working so I have some bitrot protection on my mp3's.

Just an FYI: plain ZFS has bitrot detection, not protection. You need something like ZFS mirroring or ZFS RAID-Z for bitrot protection.

Furthermore, if you're using external USB drives then I strongly suggest you consider double-parity RAID-Z2 that can withstand the loss of any two drives. ZFS is very, very robust, but I have had USB 3.0 flakiness cause more than one drive to be simultaneously dropped during a scrub.

Oh, and if you are considering FreeNAS and are considering using their GELI-based disk encryption support then be very careful. As of a few months ago there were code paths in the FreeNAS GUI that would nuke your array by destroying volume keys. Be aware that the FreeNAS (GELI-based) encryption uses both a keyfile *and* a passphrase... and you need both in order to be able to mount the volume. By default, FreeNAS manages the keyfile for you behind the scenes so that it appears that all you need is the passphrase. However, FreeNAS's GUI configuration silently nuked the associated volume keyfile one time while I was attempting to bring a disconnected volume back online.

Anyway, the "sharp corners" were so bad that I eventually abandoned FreeNAS and ended up using a straight FreeBSD 9.0 configuration instead. It's not that hard to manage and it's very stable once it's setup. If you choose to use FreeNAS encryption then be sure you keep backup copies of your keyfiles and be sure you understand how GELI works behind the scenes.

Good luck in your efforts; I'm very happy with my BSD/ZFS NAS. Now that it's setup it's hassle-free.

Re:One word. Steam.

[Compuser]

Disagree. Most of entertainment is rarely reused and ultimately disposable.
Do I want to replay a game I already played through? Usually no. So I would rather rent it for a few hours (until I win or get bored).
Do I want to watch a movie again after I saw it once? Usually no. So rent makes sense.
Do I want to play a piece of music again? Usually yes, but if it is not available I will shrug and move on. So rent makes sense but it gets borderline. Some people are attached to their music.
Do I want to use a piece of mission-critical software repeatedly? Usually yes, and in many cases if it is not available then productive life is basically over. So DRM-free ownership makes sense.

The deal has changed, and for the better

[Anonymous Coward]

The old system: I pay 10 dollars for an album (lets call it $1 per song, to make the math easier), and if I ever lose the album, I lose it forever. I can make a copy of it to back it up, but if I lose all copies, it's gone forever.

The first DRM system: I pay $1 for a song, I can only play it on one (or 5) devices, and if I ever accidentally delete it, it's gone forever and I never get it back. This is the DRM system that sucked, and everybody hated.

The "new" DRM system: I pay $1 for a song, and I can play it on anything that supports the DRM mode (not everything, granted, but all of my devices, so it's cool with me). If I lose the file, I just download it again. If I want to listen to it on my second device, I just download it again. When I'm connected to the internet (most of the time for me) I can access and download every song I've ever bought in seconds. This is a good deal. I am willing to pay the same amount I used to pay for a song and accept the risk that apple might someday disappear in exchange for this convenience.

It all comes down to a trade off, but this "new" deal seems fair enough for me. It is more convenient than either of the old systems, and this way I don't have to carry around a 50GB external hard drive to have access to all of my songs on my 8GB iPhone. It costs more long term, but it is a better system.

Re:The deal has changed, and for the better

[EdZ]

I prefer the no-DRM system: I pay £1 for a song, and I can download it on anything that can handle http, and play it on anything that can handle a standard audio format. I can convert it to anything that can't. I can play it on as many devices as I want simultaneously. I can play it whenever and wherever I want. I can filter it, EQ it, upmix it, downmix it, or chop it into samples and annoy people with it on a keyboard as a soundfont. I can upload it, download it, back it up ad infinitum (online and offline), and it doesn't matter if the company that sold it to me goes bust. And if they're still in business, they can offer me a pittance of bandwidth for free and let me re-download in order to get me to return to their store and maybe buy another track.

Re:War on DRM?

[fredprado]

All DRM is bad. DRM is not and never was about protecting content, it is about control. Protecting content from pirates is impossible. Controlling apathetic legal users is feasible and profitable, on the other hand.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[sixsixtysix]

MP3's being compressed, are pretty vulnerable to bitrot.

wtf?

Alternative Solution?

[timmyf2371]

I subscribe to Spotify and I'm well aware of the consequences of its DRM; if I stop paying the monthly fee, I don't get access to any music I may have listened to during my time as a customer.

My question is - what is the alternative to DRM for services like Spotify? It seems to me that for such a service to exist, DRM must exist unless you choose to rely on an honour system.

As long as I pay them £10 per month, I get unlimited access to a massive library of tunes on my PC, as well as my phone. I can be on the train home and decide I want to listen to song x by artist y, and within seconds it is streaming to me. Best of all, it doesn't cost me whatever the going rate for an MP3 is these days.

If we lose the DRM, the proposition changes quite significantly. It becomes £10 for unlimited music with no DRM - why would I do anything other than subscribe for one month and download their entire library onto a massive hard drive, for later playback at my leisure?

For me, it's a trade off between cost and no DRM. Let's say I listen to 50 new tracks each month using Spotify Radio. At the iTunes price of 99p per track, this will cost me just short of £50. It's great that these tracks come without DRM, but for that same £50, I can get a return flight to Europe with a low cost airline. Or feed myself for a week.

Streaming isn't replacing records

[rcharbon]

Streaming doesn't replace ownership. Streaming replaces radio.

2 different things

[Endophage]

You're basically calling streaming services a replacement for owning a digital copy, but they're not the same thing. As everything, distribution of content especially has move online, streaming services are replacing Blockbuster and other video rental services. For the amount of content you can consume they are considerably cheaper than buying the content.

There are plenty of services, iTunes and Amazon particularly, that sell you digital media and can't revoke your access one you've purchased it. You can download it and burn a physical copy. There are various ways of removing the DRM (ignoring the legalities of whatever country you happen to be in). Netflix hasn't killed iTunes and isn't likely to, neither has Spotify.

DRM doesn't have to always be evil

[jetkust]

I don't see DRM as the issue here. If you purchase something and the terms of the purchase are that you can access it "as long as the company allows you to access it", this is different from a legal agreement that requires the company to provide access to it indefinitely. Something like Netflix has nothing to do with DRM because you are not purchasing content, you are buying access to it. The idea that companies can just on a whim take content away that you purchased, no they can't, unless you agreed to this when you purchased it, or if you never actually purchased it in the first place. And why would companies go away from "selling" content and move completely to a subscription model. Last time I checked, they make a lot of money off sales. Why would they want to stop doing it? A lot of people claim they want to own physical or digital copies of everything locally. That's fine. But I think more and more people are moving towards just wanting "access" to things, and not having to worry about managing files and discs themselves. And if a digital purchase is guaranteed to be permanent, it may be even more valuable to some than a local copy (which can be broken or lost).

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[jedidiah]

> MP3's being compressed, are pretty vulnerable to bitrot

They are also pretty trivial to back up to every device you own. Music is tiny compared to modern mobile devices. You can shove your entire collection into the underutilized space on most systems.

Re:Streaming is the case where I don't care

[viperidaenz]

In some countries, what you're doing is illegal - buying a CD and making a copy for personal use.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[jedidiah]

It may be easier but it certainly isn't cheaper. HELL, the thing you are interested might not even be available. That is one key problem with all streaming services. They ALL have limited availability when compared to what's available on physical media.

Once something is available for sale as a physical product, it's in the market permanently. So even if something is discontinued, you will still have access to it. It may be hard to find. It may even be expensive. But it will still be available.

Also, a rental may not even be available.

They also aren't as cheap as you're claiming.

I don't think you even use it at all despite the fact that you are trying to lobby for it.

Not buying this argument

[Skynyrd]

20 years ago we all watched TV, went to the movies, and had no problem not owning the content. Currently, I subscribe to Netflix and have Amazon Prime - just like TV, but on demand. I simply do not care about the DRM.I am renting content from them. It's easy, and it follows me wherever I go (TV at home, iPad when I travel). It's just like it has always been, but with added convenience. I also rent music from Pandora. I listen to music on BART, while driving, traveling. Again, no problem.

I generally don't buy video, but I do buy music. I buy used CDs or "new" MP3s from Amazon, Google or Apple - with no DRM. I own that music. If it's a physical disk when it arrives, I made a digital copy and put it on a hard drive, iPhone and/or USB stick in the car stereo. Then I make a backup. Some of it goes to the cloud, for playback while traveling. Even if Apple, Amazon and/or Google go out of business in my lifetime (not gonna happen) I still have my DRM free music.

I fail to see a problem here.

iTunes protocol as DRM

[Sloppy]

One way to look at these issues might be to phrase the question in legalese, particularly DMCAese: Is the inability to interact with iTunes cloud storage, using software other than iTunes, due to a "technical measure which limits access?" If someone were to reverse-engineer the protocol that the iTunes application uses to communicate with the backend, so that you could use the service without Apple's shockingly crappy software, and then if Apple sued 'em under 1201, would a fair judge (please, bear with me and pretend) strictly ruling by the letter of the law, say Apple is right or wrong?

If so, then at least it's DRM according to many governments.

I think Apple would do that (i.e. they would say it's DRM) if someone wrote an iTunes cloud client. And I suspect Apple would win, but I guess that depends on the details of the protocol. But history shows that the fact that nothing works with iTunes is on purpose, part of Apple's wishes, not merely due to laziness, lack of market demand, etc.

I do think that the "DRM" label gets overused and applied to things where it should not (e.g. watermarking to detect who leaked something -- that is not DRM!). But trade secret proprietary protocols cut much closer to the line, and when we're talking about a megacorp's proprietary trade secret for transferring media files .. c'mon. Of course you're going to find a "technical measure which limits access" there. Don't you think?

As for your codec example, if the codec were a trade secret (and there have been a few), then yes, it would probably count as DRM. When you get to non-secret things like a supposedly "industry standard H.whatever" where it's documented, I think calling it DRM might be a stretch. We would at least have to depart from the legalese way of looking at it. If the lack of a h.266 decoder were due to patent holders' prohibition, then in DMCA-speak that'd be a "dishonorable-lawyer-trick measure to limit access" rather than a "technical measure to limit access." ;-) At that point, when people refuse to take your money, you don't need to split hairs and argue about whether or not its strictly DRM. They've already gone to a lot of trouble to refuse the revenue, so leave it at that, and just go download the pirate copy which is encoded with the codec that you're allowed to decode. Then everyone wins.

Re:This is why...

[mjwx]

we buy what we want to watch.

Me too. This is why I have no movies. I cant find one where I actually own the content, I can only license it.

Re:One word. Steam.

[mjwx]

Disagree. Most of entertainment is rarely reused and ultimately disposable.

What is true for you is not true for everyone... Hell, it's not even true for the majority.

Do I want to replay a game I already played through? Usually no. So I would rather rent it for a few hours (until I win or get bored).

Which is why "replayability" is never mentioned in reviews, people never talk about playing System Shock/Deus Ex/Civ (insert favourite version) or any other classic again.

Do I want to watch a movie again after I saw it once? Usually no. So rent makes sense.

"So I re-watched Snatch/Star Wars/LOTR" again the other day... Again something no-one would ever do. Same with music, software, DRM-free ownership is important. Unfortunately most people wont realise it until its too late.