Music/Movies and DRM - arghhh!

[Phog Allen]

Good morning chaps. As the title of this posting suggests, a rant about this whole DRM thing is about to follow. Now lets be civil here. I am NOT one of those who thinks that any and every artist's works should be free for the taking. There are those in the world who seem to have the idea that anyone else's property should be theirs is if they can get their hands on it. This goes much deeper than music or video. These are the same people who steal stuff from work, shoplift, or take tools from jobsites because some hard working bloke left his drill sitting in one spot too long. A pox on these people. They are thieves plain and simple. Their "philosophy" seemingly applies to everything they do. I have worked with people like this. They nauseate me. Okay, moral rant over for now so lets get down to the rat killing.

What is this whole deal with DRM for music and movie downloads? I honestly do not understand how it all works. I read this Article about DRM from May. Huh? The very thing the recording companies DEMANDED from Apple and everyone else is now eating into their ability to control and make money from the same product? Well my, my, my. Aren't things getting interesting? After all the MILLIONS of dollars wasted in lawsuits, management schemes, and scaring the public to death, these brain trusts may be coming to the conclusion people who PAY for something own it! What a concept.

When I bought my Dell pc with Windows MCE 2005 installed on it, there was of course a lot of setup involved. The one thing I well remember was a lot of licensing stuff being mentioned in Windows Media Player. Which I have since deleted since it would not configure correctly. Anyroad, it kept asking me about setting up licensing and automatically renewing them or some such. I avoided it like the plague and installed Media Player Classic from Sourcforge. A situation I don't regret. I just didn't understand what was being asked of/from me about this licensing nonsense. I am glad I didn't because according to articles like that one, if you have licensed music files from MSN on your pc and you have to install new hardware there is the possibility that your files that you already PAID for will no longer be playable. I guess they shut down the service that provided these licenses. I have never downloaded music from anywhere online and don't plan to. I have tons of music on CD and will rip my own. I would not be so against the downloading thing if I was sure I would not be hamstrung about moving it back and forth between the pc and a portable. I take it this is not easy to do now? At least between different brands of players/music services?

I just don't get the "you bought it but we own it" mentality of the recording companies. Does this mean you just "rent" the music or video and they can tell you what you can and can't do with it? I liken this to buying a Ford truck and being told that you cannot sell or trade the truck to anyone but a Ford dealer since GM or Dodge may get their hands on it and make some sort of profit on it by selling you a competing model and then reselling your Ford truck to someone else! Think of the profit loss for Ford! Think of the humanity! Yet this is basically what they are telling us with entertainment products. My example of the trucks would fly about ten seconds in any court in the country. You bought the vehicle, you OWN it. Any manufacturer trying to tell you what you can do with it in regards to selling or giving it to someone else would be laughed at and probably sued to non existence by the justice department. I have a news flash for these geniuses. Cousin Timmy copying a cd or movie for Grandma Hattie on his own pc isn't your problem. Pirates who press out thousands of copies per day ARE. The average schmuck does not want to lose cover art, cases, disc printing or whatever else when they have a music or movie collection. With the price of DVDs as cheap as they are, why on earth would anyone ever worry about the average Joe copying them? There is no advantage to it financially. The artificially inflated prices of CDs should have taught them this. When DVDs first came out they wisely dropped prices to head off the recording situation. It worked. Get rid of the DRM music/video downloads and I predict that sales will skyrocket. Kids these days want only the songs they listen to and don't bother with the others on an album. Is it okay to call a CD an album? I am showing my age I guess. It is just that this is nothing new. The record companies screamed when audio cassettes came along. They were convinced it would end LP sales. It didn't. They screamed at VCRs. They would destroy Hollywood but they didn't. In fact, through the 80's/90's Hollywood saw some of it's biggest profits. Then came CD recorders and that was going to kill music. It ddin't. Then came the evil downloaders and sharing sites and that didn't kill music either. Now these guys seem to be saying that it is better to sell you something you want whenever they can instead of worrying about funneling you through some Orwellian downloading scheme. Yeesh. I can just tell you that till I see these music types state in WRITING that I own my download and will not be punished for loading it on my SD card so I can use it in my truck, I will NOT pay for nor download a damned thing from them. There endeth the sermon.

Regards, Todd

 

[AaronX]

the worst thing about DRM is it only slows down the average consumer not the pirate. I know how to get around DRM but the average consumer does not so it's highly ineffective. Heck I ripped all my DVDs I own to H.264 MP4s for use on my AppleTV, CSS and faulty disk authoring be damned!

 

[mhdagley]

Good morning chaps. As the title of this posting suggests, a rant about this whole DRM thing is about to follow. Now lets be civil here. I am NOT one of those who thinks that any and every artist's works should be free for the taking. There are those in the world who seem to have the idea that anyone else's property should be theirs is if they can get their hands on it. This goes much deeper than music or video. These are the same people who steal stuff from work, shoplift, or take tools from jobsites because some hard working bloke left his drill sitting in one spot too long. A pox on these people. They are thieves plain and simple. Their "philosophy" seemingly applies to everything they do. I have worked with people like this. They nauseate me. Okay, moral rant over for now so lets get down to the rat killing.

What is this whole deal with DRM for music and movie downloads? I honestly do not understand how it all works. I read this Article about DRM from May. Huh? The very thing the recording companies DEMANDED from Apple and everyone else is now eating into their ability to control and make money from the same product? Well my, my, my. Aren't things getting interesting? After all the MILLIONS of dollars wasted in lawsuits, management schemes, and scaring the public to death, these brain trusts may be coming to the conclusion people who PAY for something own it! What a concept.

When I bought my Dell pc with Windows MCE 2005 installed on it, there was of course a lot of setup involved. The one thing I well remember was a lot of licensing stuff being mentioned in Windows Media Player. Which I have since deleted since it would not configure correctly. Anyroad, it kept asking me about setting up licensing and automatically renewing them or some such. I avoided it like the plague and installed Media Player Classic from Sourcforge. A situation I don't regret. I just didn't understand what was being asked of/from me about this licensing nonsense. I am glad I didn't because according to articles like that one, if you have licensed music files from MSN on your pc and you have to install new hardware there is the possibility that your files that you already PAID for will no longer be playable. I guess they shut down the service that provided these licenses. I have never downloaded music from anywhere online and don't plan to. I have tons of music on CD and will rip my own. I would not be so against the downloading thing if I was sure I would not be hamstrung about moving it back and forth between the pc and a portable. I take it this is not easy to do now? At least between different brands of players/music services?

I just don't get the "you bought it but we own it" mentality of the recording companies. Does this mean you just "rent" the music or video and they can tell you what you can and can't do with it? I liken this to buying a Ford truck and being told that you cannot sell or trade the truck to anyone but a Ford dealer since GM or Dodge may get their hands on it and make some sort of profit on it by selling you a competing model and then reselling your Ford truck to someone else! Think of the profit loss for Ford! Think of the humanity! Yet this is basically what they are telling us with entertainment products. My example of the trucks would fly about ten seconds in any court in the country. You bought the vehicle, you OWN it. Any manufacturer trying to tell you what you can do with it in regards to selling or giving it to someone else would be laughed at and probably sued to non existence by the justice department. I have a news flash for these geniuses. Cousin Timmy copying a cd or movie for Grandma Hattie on his own pc isn't your problem. Pirates who press out thousands of copies per day ARE. The average schmuck does not want to lose cover art, cases, disc printing or whatever else when they have a music or movie collection. With the price of DVDs as cheap as they are, why on earth would anyone ever worry about the average Joe copying them? There is no advantage to it financially. The artificially inflated prices of CDs should have taught them this. When DVDs first came out they wisely dropped prices to head off the recording situation. It worked. Get rid of the DRM music/video downloads and I predict that sales will skyrocket. Kids these days want only the songs they listen to and don't bother with the others on an album. Is it okay to call a CD an album? I am showing my age I guess. It is just that this is nothing new. The record companies screamed when audio cassettes came along. They were convinced it would end LP sales. It didn't. They screamed at VCRs. They would destroy Hollywood but they didn't. In fact, through the 80's/90's Hollywood saw some of it's biggest profits. Then came CD recorders and that was going to kill music. It ddin't. Then came the evil downloaders and sharing sites and that didn't kill music either. Now these guys seem to be saying that it is better to sell you something you want whenever they can instead of worrying about funneling you through some Orwellian downloading scheme. Yeesh. I can just tell you that till I see these music types state in WRITING that I own my download and will not be punished for loading it on my SD card so I can use it in my truck, I will NOT pay for nor download a damned thing from them. There endeth the sermon.

Regards, Todd

The only good thing about drm is how easy it is to get around. If you need help just pm me. Also amazon.com's music store is drm free. (As i write this I am ripping a movie.Handbrake ftw)

 

[cl00bie]

I just don't get the "you bought it but we own it" mentality of the recording companies. Does this mean you just "rent" the music or video and they can tell you what you can and can't do with it? I liken this to buying a Ford truck and being told that you cannot sell or trade the truck to anyone but a Ford dealer since GM or Dodge may get their hands on it and make some sort of profit on it by selling you a competing model and then reselling your Ford truck to someone else! Think of the profit loss for Ford! Think of the humanity! Yet this is basically what they are telling us with entertainment products. My example of the trucks would fly about ten seconds in any court in the country. You bought the vehicle, you OWN it. Any manufacturer trying to tell you what you can do with it in regards to selling or giving it to someone else would be laughed at and probably sued to non existence by the justice department.

Well, no. The record company can't tell you what you can do with your property. You can listen to it, give it to your sister or sell it to me. What you cannot do is copy it and make a duplicate of it to give to someone else while still retaining your copy.

Your Ford Truck analogy might make sense if everyone had a Truck Duplication Machine in their back yard. And when you bought a Ford Truck, you could take it and for 25 cents make another Ford Truck and give it to someone else.

I have a news flash for these geniuses. Cousin Timmy copying a cd or movie for Grandma Hattie on his own pc isn't your problem. Pirates who press out thousands of copies per day ARE. The average schmuck does not want to lose cover art, cases, disc printing or whatever else when they have a music or movie collection. With the price of DVDs as cheap as they are, why on earth would anyone ever worry about the average Joe copying them? There is no advantage to it financially.

Cousin Timmy isn't much of a problem, but Cousin Timmy and 30 million of his friends are. Cousin Timmy with the entire Beatles catalog on his IPod, none of which he bought is a problem.

Because the price of a DVD is around $22 new, $6 to $12 used. The price of a blank DVD+R is about 50 cents. There is a lot of incentive financially for those who are dishonest.

The artificially inflated prices of CDs should have taught them this. When DVDs first came out they wisely dropped prices to head off the recording situation. It worked. Get rid of the DRM music/video downloads and I predict that sales will skyrocket. Kids these days want only the songs they listen to and don't bother with the others on an album. Is it okay to call a CD an album? I am showing my age I guess. It is just that this is nothing new. The record companies screamed when audio cassettes came along. They were convinced it would end LP sales. It didn't. They screamed at VCRs. They would destroy Hollywood but they didn't. In fact, through the 80's/90's Hollywood saw some of it's biggest profits. Then came CD recorders and that was going to kill music. It ddin't. Then came the evil downloaders and sharing sites and that didn't kill music either. Now these guys seem to be saying that it is better to sell you something you want whenever they can instead of worrying about funneling you through some Orwellian downloading scheme. Yeesh. I can just tell you that till I see these music types state in WRITING that I own my download and will not be punished for loading it on my SD card so I can use it in my truck, I will NOT pay for nor download a damned thing from them. There endeth the sermon.

Then don't. I buy DRM music when I can't find it in non-DRM. I buy it because it's worth my while to do so. I think that companies who see the light, and sell non-DRM for a little more will see an increase in their profits. Those who don't, won't. That's how the free market works.

I am a computer programmer. My livelihood depends on my being able to sell my software. If I normally would be able to sell 10 copies of my software, but can only sell one because Johnny copies it for 9 of his friends, that puts a real crimp in my bottom line. I'm not being compensated fairly for the fruits of my labor. If you don't want to buy my stuff, don't use it. If you don't want to buy the music, either on CD or downloads, don't listen to it.

It's pretty simple for honest people to figure out.

 

[student101]

I honestly think DRM is slowing down the inevitable transition from physical media to digital. The average consumer doesn't understand it and is scared of compatibility issues, etc. People just want the same kind of versatility they have with their physical media. Have a friend that wants to see a movie? Let them borrow your DVD. You can't do that very easily with DRM copies. At least with DVD's, people have the security of ownership. The DRM'd copies don't have that security. They are still "controlled" by the studios.

 

[Phog Allen]

Well, no. The record company can't tell you what you can do with your property. You can listen to it, give it to your sister or sell it to me. What you cannot do is copy it and make a duplicate of it to give to someone else while still retaining your copy.

Your Ford Truck analogy might make sense if everyone had a Truck Duplication Machine in their back yard. And when you bought a Ford Truck, you could take it and for 25 cents make another Ford Truck and give it to someone else.



Cousin Timmy isn't much of a problem, but Cousin Timmy and 30 million of his friends are. Cousin Timmy with the entire Beatles catalog on his IPod, none of which he bought is a problem.

Because the price of a DVD is around $22 new, $6 to $12 used. The price of a blank DVD+R is about 50 cents. There is a lot of incentive financially for those who are dishonest.



Then don't. I buy DRM music when I can't find it in non-DRM. I buy it because it's worth my while to do so. I think that companies who see the light, and sell non-DRM for a little more will see an increase in their profits. Those who don't, won't. That's how the free market works.

I am a computer programmer. My livelihood depends on my being able to sell my software. If I normally would be able to sell 10 copies of my software, but can only sell one because Johnny copies it for 9 of his friends, that puts a real crimp in my bottom line. I'm not being compensated fairly for the fruits of my labor. If you don't want to buy my stuff, don't use it. If you don't want to buy the music, either on CD or downloads, don't listen to it.

It's pretty simple for honest people to figure out.

Hi Tony. While I truly appreciate your position as a software writer having to deal with this, I think you paint with a broad brush. I would argue most vehemently that your first assumption, that the music companies are not telling you what to do with your music or videos is patently wrong. They are most assuredly telling you what you can and cannot do with YOUR legally purchased product. Don't think so? Can you tell me how you or anyone else gets MS to transfer or release their digital license for music files that no longer play to someone else? Apple? Rhapsody? Try telling them you are selling your lawfully purchased copy of the music file. Want to take any bets as to whether they are going to let you transfer this somehow to someone else? Is this telling you what you can and cannot do with it? You bet your butt it is. You bought it but they own it. It would seem that is exactly how they approach this. Here's another thing. Remember a few years ago when Garth Brooks and a bunch of other artists started hammering used CD stores? They were trying to do nothing more than grab second chance royalties on a CD they had ALREADY been paid for. So yeah, I appreciate your position as a software publisher. I won't pirate your software. So why don't these companies appreciate the fact that they are essentially trying to say they own your purchase forever?

Look, "honest people" don't give a hang about copying and redistributing software or anything else. It is amazing how our fictional cousin could damage the whole recording or software industry but the giants in the far East don't? If I read news stories correctly, the Chinese have a fabulous industry with pirated software and entertainment that they press out by the billions each year. I strongly suspect that good ole cousin Timmy is a convenient whipping boy in all this. I have seen home made DVDs. To put it mildly, they suck. It is why you still see people buying tons of movies at retail. They are not artificially inflated. $22 may be new price but they drop to $14 or so in three months and a year or so later you will be hard pressed to see them for much more than 6-9 dollars. Don't know about anyone else but I am not giving up surround sound, cover art, a proper case, extra features, etc. to save a few bucks. It is not worth the time and effort. I suspect if the music industry would have approached this the same way, then the wholesale downloading of music without pay would have never happened. When you have music CDs priced at $14-20 right out of the chute in this day and age, then it does not take a genius to figure out who has their thumb on the scales. If you buy the songs at $1 per download then they have essentially gotten the same money. No wait! They have made more since there was no shipping involved, no physical product to manufacture, no middle man to pay for the wholesaling, etc. Again, I am talking about products that people have PAID for. You are talking about Ford truck copying machines. The one is not to be confused with the other. I just found it interesting that the paranoid recording industry who demanded the draconian DRM agreements are now bitching that it costs them money. Hilarious.

Regards, Todd

 

[Phog Allen]

Hey Tony. Sorry if my response sounded harsh. It was not intended to be. Let me explain it this way and see if it makes better sense.

You mentioned you write software. Lets say I buy your software because it sounds like I could use it and I like the price point. Fine. I pay you your asking price and get a download link for the software. After payment is confirmed, you send me a key code "license" to use the software. Fine. I use it. I either like or dislike but have no problem with the transaction etc. A year later I decide the software is not what I need or want. So I start looking for something else. I find a program I want and buy it. I no longer need your software but another chap thinks it will work fine. Fine say I. I don't need it any longer so I am going to give my LEGALLY PURCHASED copy to my associate. Just how do I do this? I call Tony and ask how I can give this software to my friend. Chances are REAL good I am out of luck. There is no way to copy this and burn it to disk or send it via download. Tony says his software is download only. Okay, I have given the guy rights to my copy. I will send you either a letter or whatever it takes. I will likely get told that is not good enough since I may still have my original copy on my pc and you ain't taking the chance that I am lying. I fully understand why a publisher would take that approach but you see what I am getting at? The publisher is saying go to hell, I offer downloads, not license transfers. I don't care if it is payed for legally. Pay again or no license, savvy? This is EXACTLY what is going on with these download music companies. Trying to get paid over and over for the same download to the same person or whoever was gifted the software. I think you can see my point here as well as I can see yours.

BTW, don't think I am not blind to a software publishers plight. Especially a small, independent guy. However, ripping off software is already a crime. I strongly suspect a juror or judge would see a HUGE difference between someone copying a song for granny and someone who hacked your software and was reselling it all over the web. I know who I wold hammer more in that case.

Regards, Todd

 

[Isaias]

http://www.learnoutloud.com/content/blog/archives/2006/11/the_top_10_argu.html
and http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ The most quoted text against DRM.
Then again, if anyone has truly benefited from DRM protected content is the ipod and itunes. Not the users, not the record* labels, not the artists. So, I find this article from Steve Jobs a bit hypocritical

edit*

 

[Phog Allen]

Bingo Isaias! For those who wonder what I am complaining about, go directly to Number 9 in the first link. It says it all. You are NOT in control of what you buy when it is DRM'd. You are essentially renting it. I won't even get into the future player compatibility issue. By necessity, what "protects" the files now will be completely different five years from now. Good luck playing "your" music then.

Regards, Todd

I might add that I have gone the harder route to digital music. At least for me. It would have been easier to just use iTune, WMP, Sonic Jukebox, etc. to rip and encode my music files. All of them seemed to have just a bit too much interest in how, when, and where I did this. All seemed to mention this digital license stuff(with no real world explanation of how it worked) and most only converted to a proprietary format. I used EAC, LAME, Monkey's Audio, and even FLAC though I don't use it much. It was a major learning curve for me and I still do not understand all the "arguments" thingies they want you add in for parameters. Google is your friend here for cut and paste arguments. I also learned that mp3 is a proprietary format as well. Still, I have a lot of my CDs backed up in Monkey's or FLAC, and copies in mp3 for playing in my truck. I have a Kenwood radio with a usb port. I have never used a cd in it other than to test its function. The usb reader is the way to go. To tell truth, I would be happy with a new radio that eliminated the cd slot altogether and just had slots under the faceplate opening for usb, memory cards(multi types please) and a slot for popping in a 2.5 inch notebook hard drive. Talk about road ready.

 

[Aevum]

the main problem with DRM is that people accept it,
ipod users dont complain about itunes, creative and sony users dont complain about having to transfer music with windows media player,

the only way companies understand is when you vote with your wallet, and apple fanboys standing in line a week early to get the latest ipod dosnt help eradicate DRM,

 

[soapbox]

the worst thing about DRM is it only slows down the average consumer not the pirate. I know how to get around DRM but the average consumer does not so it's highly ineffective. Heck I ripped all my DVDs I own to H.264 MP4s for use on my AppleTV, CSS and faulty disk authoring be damned!

At least some DVD manufacturers are aware of "fair use". For instance, the Family Guy "Blue Harvest" DVD comes with a version for your iPod/iTunes already formatted on the disc. I'm sure there'll be more.

But yeah, DRM really just irritates the consumers and challenges the pirate. Neither of these outcomes are what the "labels" want.

 

[AaronX]

and apple fanboys standing in line a week early to get the latest ipod dosnt help eradicate DRM,

Those 10 people are not fanboys they are there for the attention. They are attention whores and are getting exactly what they want from the coverage. The first guy in line last year was a "professional line sitter" he does it for the exposure not because he was a fanboy either.

But yeah, DRM really just irritates the consumers and challenges the pirate. Neither of these outcomes are what the "labels" want.

it doesn't even challenge them anymore for the most part.

 

[castlecraver]

Screw 'em. Comeuppance if I ever saw it. Fortunately, like with so many things made more accessible to the creative masses by technology these days, record companies are not only irrelevant, they'll most likely be completely unnecessary in a very short time. Those who can evolve their archaic business model might persist, but (more importantly) those artists who put out music their fans deem worthy of paying for, owning a physical copy of, and seeing perform live will thrive. Those who don't, won't. "That's how the free market works."

 

[Phog Allen]

Hi Pat. Well, that is about similar to my feelings on the matter as well. I am a free market supporter and to my mind's eye, the way it has been done the last few years is nowhere in the vicinity of a free market. This particular chunk of verbiage from the article says it well;

Ironically, the music companies are now abandoning DRM because it worked too well. Apple wouldn't license its version to rivals - so the best-selling iPod drove the iTunes store to its present position, where it is the third-largest music retailer in any form in the US. Rosenblatt says that record labels "have been desperate to find a viable competitor to Apple and iTunes". Industry sources suggest that Apple's iTunes store has more than 70% of the UK download market, and growing. "The record companies don't like dealing with Apple, because Apple is in a position where it can dictate the economic terms and dictate the business models," says Rosenblatt. "What's going to draw people away from iTunes? One answer is to get rid of DRM."

What? Locking people into DRM agreements that benefited essentially...no one, was ever a good idea? Well they thought it was a good idea when Jobs came calling didn't they? By god, we'll show those music loving college boys. Share one of our songs with someone eh? We'll just make it harder for us to sell you one. Then we'll see how you fare. Take that!

I guess it just never dawned on them that they sell unprotected CDs right along side their bastardised downloads. If someone really wants to copy stuff then they will do it. Those who would sell it for profit under the table are little interested in DRM. I guess I just resent the implication that all of us are just waiting to get our grubby mitts on unprotected music so we can launch a diabolical plot to sell illegal music. Think of it! We could make ONE MILLION DOLLARS(Insert Dr. Evil laugh here).

Sorry for the bitter rant. I don't even consider myself a huge music fan. I only listen to a limited CD collection and whatever might strike my fancy on the radio. That is, when they aren't playing Cialis commercials that I have to turn down when my 7 year old daughter is in the vehicle. Most radio play anymore is just awful. I would be more than happy to pay my way for music downloads. If they just won't assume I have an underlying plan to rip them off. As it is, they are making NOTHING off of me and any other savvy consumer.

Regards, Todd

 

[cl00bie]

Hey Tony. Sorry if my response sounded harsh. It was not intended to be. Let me explain it this way and see if it makes better sense.

You mentioned you write software. Lets say I buy your software because it sounds like I could use it and I like the price point. Fine. I pay you your asking price and get a download link for the software. After payment is confirmed, you send me a key code "license" to use the software. Fine. I use it. I either like or dislike but have no problem with the transaction etc. A year later I decide the software is not what I need or want. So I start looking for something else. I find a program I want and buy it. I no longer need your software but another chap thinks it will work fine. Fine say I. I don't need it any longer so I am going to give my LEGALLY PURCHASED copy to my associate. Just how do I do this? I call Tony and ask how I can give this software to my friend. Chances are REAL good I am out of luck.

Actually, it's very easy for you to do. You give your installation diskette which has already been serialized to your friend, and you delete it from your computer.

You're talking to someone who has already done this. I wrote an offline mail reader for fido conference mail (this was from the original BBS systems which predated the internet). My license was very liberal. Use it like a book. If you have two computers that only you use, and both copies would not be used at the same time, you were welcome to copy it.

There is no way to copy this and burn it to disk or send it via download. Tony says his software is download only. Okay, I have given the guy rights to my copy. I will send you either a letter or whatever it takes. I will likely get told that is not good enough since I may still have my original copy on my pc and you ain't taking the chance that I am lying.

Why not? With my software, it's pretty easy to see if you're lying or not. If two people post to a conference mail forum with the same serial number (which is printed in your tag line) I know you're screwing with me.

I fully understand why a publisher would take that approach but you see what I am getting at? The publisher is saying go to hell, I offer downloads, not license transfers. I don't care if it is payed for legally. Pay again or no license, savvy? This is EXACTLY what is going on with these download music companies. Trying to get paid over and over for the same download to the same person or whoever was gifted the software. I think you can see my point here as well as I can see yours.

I purchase my music from Napster. That is my vendor of choice. My music got corrupted, and I simply logged in to Napster and asked to re-download. No problem. I have up to 5 computers that I can service with the one account. I would prefer non-drm, or an option for .ogg format, but I have been pretty pleased with the way it works.

Problem is, I consider most people as honest. Anyone who plunks down 99 cents for a track rather than download it is showing a certain degree of ethics. I think it would be interesting to watermark a piece of music with some identifying mark after you buy it. Then you can do whatever you legally want with it. Would you agree to that? Or would there be "privacy" issues?

BTW, don't think I am not blind to a software publishers plight. Especially a small, independent guy. However, ripping off software is already a crime. I strongly suspect a juror or judge would see a HUGE difference between someone copying a song for granny and someone who hacked your software and was reselling it all over the web. I know who I wold hammer more in that case.

Sure, but someone copying for granny is committing a crime just like someone who is burning thousands of bootleg CDs. It's one count versus 100,000.

I think it ought to be like software. You get caught with bootleg intellectual property, and the fine is three times the cost of everything on your PC that violates.

One bootleg copy for granny will cost you $3 if caught. 100,000 copies will cost you $300K

 

[Phog Allen]

Well Tony you make some good points and believe me, if you are accommodating people who sell their software, then you are to be commended. What I gave for an example is not quite what you are describing. I am talking downloaded files or software programs. Most of that stuff cannot be copied. There is no disk or diskette involved. I was not talking about corrupted files either. Are the five computers registered to you or are they mixed between you and clients or friends? See what I am getting at here? I guess I should check out Napster or Rhapsody's user agreements and see if selling or giving your purchases away is "allowed" by them or not. As to you idea of a water mark or serial number, isn't that included in the DRM stuff now? If that was all there were to it I could probably live with it. However, who checks which portable player or pc it is loaded on? I have seen articles where software companies and recording companies have proposed that your devices will not play till they call home and get permission anytime they are turned on. This has not happened yet and unless they want to completely kill the music industry they had better not. There is no way to implement this sort of scheme without giving away unfettered access to peoples computers or players. That IS a privacy issue since it implies wrongdoing without any evidence. Only that you might do something.


Notice that NO WHERE in this conversation have I ever said or implied that people should be distributing copyright material over the net for download. I think the law is pretty clear about that. I am talking off line trading or selling of stuff you have already paid for. Lets look at the CD issue. As far as I know, copying your own CD's is alright. So now you have two copies of the same songs, CD and digital. Is this piracy? If it is okay to copy the CD since it is yours, is it okay to give away the copy? I think there is a marked difference between a software program which is designed to accommodate other applications and to create work and a single file which is a play only option. Anyway, good conversation and certainly lots of things to think about.

Regards, Todd

 

[analog_kid]

Problem is, I consider most people as honest. Anyone who plunks down 99 cents for a track rather than download it is showing a certain degree of ethics. I think it would be interesting to watermark a piece of music with some identifying mark after you buy it. Then you can do whatever you legally want with it. Would you agree to that? Or would there be "privacy" issues?

I agree with you, but I have a hard time having any kind of "ethics" when I'm a consumer of a industry that seemly has none. If even 50% of my money went to the actual artist, I would be more than happy to shell out $15 for a CD, but that isn't the case, not even close actually.

Why after I purchase something I'm not entitled to do what I want with it(except copy and sell it)is beyond me. I'm very happy to see DRM going away.

I think it ought to be like software. You get caught with bootleg intellectual property, and the fine is three times the cost of everything on your PC that violates.

So essentially, the punishment is three times worse than the crime itself? Don't we have laws in this country prohibiting stuff like that? Software itself in extremely over priced in my opinion. For example, my free Ubuntu distro works better than my $130 XP Pro. And considering I *should* have purchased the $350 full boxed retail version, it's really outrageous. Consumers will probably stop ripping the industry off when the industry stops ripping them off.

One bootleg copy for granny will cost you $3 if caught. 100,000 copies will cost you $300K

Not for that poor lady in Canada. The RIAA tried to get $1500 per song. She wasn't distributing the music, just songs she had downloaded for her own personal use but didn't pay for. I wonder how much of that money the RIAA was planning on sharing with the people who actually made the music in question?

 

[Isaias]

OK I did not want to get too deep on this but here I go.
Software revenue is of a completely different nature than music revenue. For instance, with communications as advanced as they are today you’d imagine that there are more efficient ways to distribute your music other than “promotion tours”. But the truth is that the artist does not make real money selling CDs. Unlike programmers, they profit from concerts and live presentations. Why else would they spend years outside home doing tours? Because they like the attention? Well yes, but the point is that they would not have the money they have if they go to the studio, sing, play the ukulele and go back home. The CDs we buy, help the Record Labels, which in turn help the artist to promote himself and be known by the public.

Another important thing is that music, as it is today, is designed to be portable. Do you need the latest version of Autocad and Photoshop on your car, your PC at home, at work, your cell phone and your MP3 player? Hopefully not, But you may need your favorite song in those places. Same thing happens with movies. You watch it once and you are done with it for the next 3 or 4 months. Music requires more freedom to be used, a freedom to which we are legally entitled, but DRM does not allow us to.
Moreover, Apple has repeatedly denied the access to their DRM technology “fairplay” and they have sued and discredited anyone that has tried to legally reverse-engineer it (AKA crack it ). Do they do it because they want to protect copyrights of the artist? No, they do it because they want to make sure that if you have an Ipod (like 80% of the owners of a portable player) you can only download songs from them. In this case, DRM has nothing to do with intellectual rights and more about who (Apple) controls the market of music downloads. (exactly what Phog Allen is trying to say). What is happening now? Records labels understand that if you want to combat Piracy you have to provide a better and more competitive market than what Apple/itunes currently has. How to do this? BY GETTING RID OF DRM! Rhapsody now offers DRM-Free Music. Same with Amazon and many other online stores.

Now what they are trying to implement is a watermarking system that will not try to go after single individuals but they will try to shutdown whole p2p networks that provide illegal content. Be prepared to another YouTube v. Viacom kind of legal circus.

 

[Phog Allen]

Hey guys. One last post from me on this subject. I realised I had posted five or six times to this. Enough. I will just say that I still don't believe in DRM downloads. I think it is evident the recording companies don't either or you wouldn't see the DRM free stores cropping up all over the place. It is all a pita anyway. When you think about it, all this downloaded music stuff is compressed to beat the band anyway. CD's are much better. I do think that if CD's were put out the door at a lower price point you would all of a sudden see a major increase in sales.

Matt. Agree with you about overpriced software. I can't tell you how much stuff came in shiny boxes promising all sorts of wondrous results. Most of it was barely usable. The nice things is, you can't return it. You are stuck with the junk. So the arguments about dollars and cents goes both ways here. I think both the publishers and consumers have much to complain about.


Isaias. Yes, you put it much better than I can. You make a clear point as to usage. Which is what I was trying to say with all the babble. Thanks.

Regards, Todd

 

[cl00bie]

I agree with you, but I have a hard time having any kind of "ethics" when I'm a consumer of a industry that seemly has none. If even 50% of my money went to the actual artist, I would be more than happy to shell out $15 for a CD, but that isn't the case, not even close actually.

I tend to agree with you. But we have a choice on whether or not we purchase the music. I don't buy a lot. I buy a track here and there and I have a bunch of CDs I like. Also, the artists signed contracts outlining what they are compensated for their work.

To draw an analogy, I have signed intellectual property agreements with my employers giving them the rights to what I produce. I did that so that I could earn a regular paycheck. The company takes all the risks.

If I didn't want to do that, I'd have gone into business for myself and assumed all the risk.

Why after I purchase something I'm not entitled to do what I want with it(except copy and sell it)is beyond me. I'm very happy to see DRM going away.

Agreed. Right now, I can take any track I buy, burn it to a CD, rip the CD to an MP3 and viola, no DRM (the quality takes a bit of a hit, but not much at least with the audio I'm using).

So essentially, the punishment is three times worse than the crime itself? Don't we have laws in this country prohibiting stuff like that?

Nope. It's called "punitive damages". It's to encourage people to do things legally. If you only had to pay for the stuff if you got caught, why bother following the law?

Software itself in extremely over priced in my opinion. For example, my free Ubuntu distro works better than my $130 XP Pro. And considering I *should* have purchased the $350 full boxed retail version, it's really outrageous. Consumers will probably stop ripping the industry off when the industry stops ripping them off.

That's the reason I have been using a flavor of Red Hat for about 10 years now. I have only purchased one copy of windows for one of my machines because my girls like it. My wife works with Linux just fine. When the girls move out I'm going to wipe the copy of Windows from my PC and sell the copy to someone else (or maybe give it away with the hard disk).

I am a huge open source fan and I've made a few contributions to the community over the years.

Not for that poor lady in Canada. The RIAA tried to get $1500 per song. She wasn't distributing the music, just songs she had downloaded for her own personal use but didn't pay for. I wonder how much of that money the RIAA was planning on sharing with the people who actually made the music in question?

Probably none of it. It wasn't a purchase, it was a lawsuit. I think the RIAA should be charged under RICO statutes. Also, they are probably paying in negative publicity. What artists are going to do is find alternate distribution channels for their music that bypass the rapists at the RIAA.

They are a dinosaur slowly sinking in the tar pit. The quality of home studio equipment is getting better and cheaper. Pretty soon they'll be living off of residuals of their oldies and that will be it. Can't come soon enough for me.