FCC Commissioner Wants To Push For DRM Just 'Cause She Likes It

from the not-in-the-job-description dept

The FCC's purpose is supposed to be about regulating the scarce resource (yes, this is up for debate, according to some) that is wireless spectrum. However, over the years, they've repeatedly worked to go beyond that basic charter, sometimes leading to them getting slapped down by those who remember what the group's purpose is. However, that won't stop some of the commissioners from pushing the envelope on pet projects apparently. Newest Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic. Apparently, her love of country music has brought her to this studied position -- despite increasing evidence that copy protection tends to shrink the overall market, and create fewer opportunities for musicians.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 3:34am

    Some people just shouldn't hold public office.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael Long, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 3:40am

    Shrinks the market?

    Say what? If by "shrink the overall market" you mean prevent people from obtaining that which they didn't pay for, then I guess it does. In my business, however, my "market" is defined as those who actually buy my products.

    I also fail to see how it "create[s] fewer opportunities for musicians".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      mkam, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:19am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      you must be new here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        PopeRatzo, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:39am

        Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

        I'll tell you how it shrinks the market:

        I will not choose to buy products with DRM. Many other people I know will not choose to buy products with DRM.

        I'm a big music fan and I'm trying to think of an artist I like so much I'll buy a CD or DVD with DRM. There is none.

        There.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Louis, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 5:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Shrinks the market?


          I'll tell you how it shrinks the market:

          I will not choose to buy products with DRM. Many other people I know will not choose to buy products with DRM.

          I'm a big music fan and I'm trying to think of an artist I like so much I'll buy a CD or DVD with DRM. There is none.

          There.



          Same here, I refuse to buy products with DRM. And so does my friends.

          Second, DRM does not work. No matter how much you want it too. So even if your product is DRM`d, all you`ve managed to do is piss off the people who payed for it. And then next time, they too, won`t buy DRM´d products.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Bradley VanTreese, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

            Amen, Brother.

            Let's face it, there's only one reason people (or organizations) suppoort DRM in the first place.....GREED, pure and simple. There's always one more dollar to be milked out of your undeserving public. What ever happened to artists creating art purely for the joy of creating? Is money all we care about anymore?

            I mean, how many yachts can they ski behind anyway.....SHEESH!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Just One Guy, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

              What ever happened to artists creating art purely for the joy of creating? Is money all we care about anymore?

              Bradley, although I very much appreciate your point of view, let's not introduce pointless idealism in this argument, which will be hard to win anyway.

              It's noone's business to tell artists what they should be after, money or art. Some of them are happy to just play guitar and share their last piece of bread with their dog in a squallid and rat-ridden basement apartment. Some prefer to buy luxury sea-front mansions and give swimming pool parties full of playmates. I am not so sure who is right and who is wrong.

              The point of this discussion is not that DRM allows artists to become greedy businessmen. The point is that, regardless, DRM does not prevent copies to be done on content, AND seriously hamper lawful buyers in their fair use of the content.

              Digital Rights Management DOES NOT prevent piracy, but it DOES burden legal users.

              This is why DRM should be abolished. Not some idealistic desire for purer motivations in artists. Or music producers, even less.

              Ciao

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Unknown, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:22am

          Re: Shrinks the market?

          DRM does shrink the market. I too will not buy DRM-laden content. it's bullcrap! i experienced this when I bought an "eBook".

          It seeemed like a really good idea. I though great, I can pay $6 for this book, drop it on my USB key and take it along with the cheap old linux laptop I usually take on trips so when I got bored, I could have 300 pages of material to read. It sounded awesome.

          Then reality set in: the ebook wasnt viewable in xPDF, was totally encrypted, wouldnt let me print it, no cut and paste, and finally (the worst part), forced me to create a f'in Micro$oft Passport just to "activate" my ebook reader. what the heck? i'm not a pirate, and i wont stand for being treated like one. If I pay for personal rights to a book, i darn right well expect to be able to use it, make backup copies, and have the content in an unencrypted format. I did pay for it, right?

          In the end, you know what DRM did? wasted two hours of my time (byebye DRM) and ensured DRM vendors are forever on my blacklist.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            drm_fan, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:31am

            Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

            Here's my contribution to DRM..

            To the guy who bought the ebook.. here's something to try.. get yourself a gmail account and mail the ebook to the account. Then login and open the email you just sent with the ebook attachment.. at the bottom there's an option to either download or "View as HTML" your attachment.. Choose the html option. It has a tendency to completely ignore DRM on PDF files. You should be presented with a nicely formatted HTML copy of the ebook which you can copy and paste into a word doc, or do with what you wish.

            I don't know for sure that it will work, i don't buy drm crap to begin with, but it's rumored to work.

            If it doesn't work no problem.. I’m sure those nasty evil godless pirates out there will come up with another way around the DRM in just a few days time… because DRM works.. /rolls eyes

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

              "I don't know for sure that it will work, i don't buy drm crap to begin with, but it's rumored to work."

              It stopped working within the last day after google "fixed" it in response to the widespread report of it working.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

          This kind of attitude that "all customers must be criminals" simply shows why the music industry keeps shrinking while piracy keeps increasing. Every time a new DRM product comes out.. more people find ways around the protection because hacking the encryption is actually EASIER than actually living within the unreasonable confines (and potentially damaging EULA RE Sony Rootkit) of most DRM disasters.

          Lets not even mention that most DRM solutions are not seamless.. and tend to lock out competing products rather than spur innovation.

          Just another example of why we need a replacement for Bush and a new congress.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Daniel, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 5:56am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Michael Long must be in the DRM business.
      Or just another scoundrel working for/at a MPAA.
      Pathetic lash back PR campain btw.
      What would be the purpose of limiting something that isn't limited?
      Keep It Simple Stupid.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      James Thurber, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:12am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      To Mr Long.

      Are you in the Copy protection business, if not, then you have obviously never been beset by a highly intrusive CP scheme that turned you off so much that you now refuse to buy any product with DRM.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Wolfger, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:11am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      If by "shrink the overall market" you mean prevent people from obtaining that which they didn't pay for, then I guess it does.

      You have got it completely wrong. DRM does not prevent people from obtaining "that which they didn't pay for". Pirates find DRM to be laughably pitiful, because along with the lock, they get the key. All they have to do is examine lock and key together, and the DRM is quickly defeated. The only thing DRM successfully does is prevent people who legitimately purchase things from using those things in legitmate ways (i.e. playing a CD on my computer). Oh, and because the legally purchased, DRM-laden, overpriced copies are so unwilling to let people use them, it encourages people to seek out pirated copies (for free!) that will allow them to do what they want. I will never pay money for a crippled version when I can get it uncrippled for free. Would you? It makes no sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Chief Elf, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:50am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      I will never, ever, buy another product with DRM.

      I reached this position for 2 reasons:

      1. A personal nightmare of an effort to get a legally purchased song onto my PDA/MP3 player.
      2. The incredible lack of concern for legal or moral constraints by companies applying DRM, such as Sony's "We don't care that we open your computer to crackers and crash your operating system if you try to remove it" rootkit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Navajo J, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:56am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Shrinks the market because people like me will not buy products with DRM on them. I refuse to have Hollywood decide what I can do with my music or video content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:11am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      most people who listen to an mp3 and like it go out and buy the album, it's been proven time and time again. If they never have the ability to hear the music free first, they won't buy it. It's no different than hearing a song on the radio. Well, it is different, because you have the opportunity to hear something other than the 12 songs clearchannel decides they want to repeat on every station across the country for the next 3 months. I hope you aren't really this naive...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:19am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      There have been studies that have proven that downloading music freely has increased record sales (it was mentioned on slashdot actually). Personally, I will often download two or three songs then go track down the album and buy it because putting it together yourself with out liner notes or any of the extras that may come with albums just isn't the same.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Josh, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:32am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      It actually does shrink you percieved market. Alot of people get marketed by listening to peer's copy of music. Its as old as making mixed tapes for friends. By taking away the ability to share music you are limiting the implicit marketing that takes place.

      On a personal level I think any national known artist is doing pretty good financially. They are not hurting for money. If anything music is overpriced.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:49am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      DRM doesnt hurt people that pirate music. It hurts legitimate users like me to can't play it on linux, etc. Those evil pirates everybody whines about just strip the DRM out and send it around. Thats why the market share shrinks--the only people that are affected are potential customers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      dm9290, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:50am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      If by "shrink the overall market" you mean prevent people from obtaining that which they didn't pay for, then I guess it does. In my business, however, my "market" is defined as those who actually buy my products.

      That is the difference between the capitalist and the artist.

      An artist wants to maximize exposure to his art. If DRM means less people will actually listen/read/watch etc.. then from an artistic perspective your market is smaller.

      The artist who only cares about getting paid is a prostitute.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        A nano mouse, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:58am

        Re: Re: Shrinks the market?


        The artist who only cares about getting paid is a prostitute.


        Amen brother, America has become rife with prostitutes and rampant economic debauchery. Every person that requires money for their talents might as well be selling their body to buy crack. All of you baristas out there, I hear your pimp Starbucks likes it hot. Construction workers, youre nothing but greasy hoochies slinging your caulk and riding your jackhammer for the home buying pimps of the world. Thats right; requiring money for your work makes you no better than any flea infested street walking ho. What ever happened to freedom? Free labor, free food, free music? People! Quit your jobs and send back your paychecks. Thats right; if you accept money for your labor then you are doing a great disservice to your fellow man! Shouldnt we all live in Communities striving to enrich each-others lives? Who says that architects have to accept money for designing the buildings that keep us dry and warm? What group of people working to better our lives should expect money for what they do? How come we cant have more non-profits churning out 3D video games, gangsta rap and SUVs? We should all be ashamed of ourselves, get out your sack-cloth and gnash your teeth for the grief you have caused this nation by expecting money for your labor.

        "He who is not aware of his ignorance will only be misled by his knowledge."
        Richard Whatley

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Just Me, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:53am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Shut up, doofus

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Elentar, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:19am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      DRM frustrates the average user, NOT pirates. The harder it is to crack, the greater the prestige. I no longer buy CD's new because of the threat of DRM--I don't listen to the CD, but rip it to my hard drive and play it on my iPod. DRM prevents this, making CD's useless to me. So instead, I copy other, older CD's from other people, or grab it from the net. If it's available from iTunes, I'll get it there, but the record industry wants to force iTunes to charge outrageous prices there too, and they even want to put copy and time limits on digital content. Eventually, all legitimate avenues will be blocked, leaving only the black market.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mousky, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:27am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Ways DRM creates fewer opportunities or "shrinks the market":


      1. Sell a CD that I cannot play it in my computer or my car stereo.


      2. Sell a CD that installs rootkit software on your computer without your knowledge and when trying to remove said software your computer does not function properly.


      3. Sell a DVD that refuses to play in my DVD player (thank you Disney)


      4. Sell software that 'calls home' or installs other software without your knowledge.


      So, in your business, do you punish your customers who acutally buy your products? Do you make it difficult for them to use your product once they have bought it?


      Most people who buy CDs and DVDs do nothing but use them as they were intended. Some may rip and then store their CDs (kids are quite good at scratching CDs/DVDs).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:47am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      "Say what? If by "shrink the overall market" you mean prevent people from obtaining that which they didn't pay for, then I guess it does. In my business, however, my "market" is defined as those who actually buy my products.

      I also fail to see how it "create[s] fewer opportunities for musicians"."


      DRM decreases the value of your product. As you can see, many people aren't going to buy products with DRM even if they do like your product. For musicians, this means a lot less people are hearing their music and they are less likely to be get popular.

      So you have to decide whats worse. Either make a good product at a reasonable price that people will buy (and some will pirate) or make a product with DRM that no one wants and is pirated even more.

      Dont forget also: You work for us. Not the other way around. We're not paying you for this DRM crap.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Fallen1, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:48am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      DRM, especially when it is poorly thought out and implemented, shrinks the market by preventing consumers from accessing the content they did pay for in the manner of thier choice, thereby alienating the consumer. In worst-case scenarios, such as the Sony-BMG rootkit fiasco, DRM has the potential to damage consumer electronics and information security. Personally I now refuse to purchase any form of media produced by Sony-BMG because of the company's complete distain for consumer rights. I also know dozens of people who now carefully check CD cases before they buy anything, and if they see anything to indicate the inclusion of DRM they won't buy it. Most of them also tend to avoid media put out by Sony-BMG out of a combination of anger and distrust, and warn others to avoid CDs with DRM as well as Sony-BMG in general.
      The current state of online music distribution also works to shrink the market and reduce opportunities for musicians through the lack of an open standard DRM. Apple won't let anyone else use thier DRM and refuses to support any other form of DRM, so consumers who have an i-Pod can only listen to music purchased through iTunes, while anyone who owns a non-Apple media player cannot purchase anything through iTunes and must find an online store that either sells DRM free music or uses a form of DRM that is supported by their media player. This is why I (and many others) refuse to purchase an iPod, and will not even consider purchasing any Apple product untill Apple either adds support for other forms of DRM or opens their DRM for use by others.
      The vast majority of us purchase our music, movies, and other media legally. A growing number of us are fed up with media companies decidiing they have the right to infringe upon our rights and tell us how, when, and where we are or are not allowed to enjoy the media we paid for, and as a result we refuse to pay for damaged goods. That is how DRM shrinks the market and reduces opportunities for musicians.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        The Bear, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:42pm

        An iPod Myth

        Actually, iPods play MP3 files just fine. yeah, purchases through iTunes are limited to iTunes/iPod play back (with a handful of CD burns) just as songs using M$ DRM from places like Buy.com are limited to a bunch of devices that handle it, such as the RCA/Thomsen and iRiver units.

        iTunes will convert a couple of formats to m4a or mp3 format.

        I won't buy DRM-crippled music myself. I'm going to stick with eMusic (65 tracks a month for $15, no tiers based on running time - I just downloaded a 50 minute piece - and a flow of free tracks, including a daily free download if you don't mind using the toolbar -- there's one for Firefox as well as IE) and allofmp3.com, which has reasonable prices and no DRM.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Fallen1, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:49am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      DRM, especially when it is poorly thought out and implemented, shrinks the market by preventing consumers from accessing the content they did pay for in the manner of thier choice, thereby alienating the consumer. In worst-case scenarios, such as the Sony-BMG rootkit fiasco, DRM has the potential to damage consumer electronics and information security. Personally I now refuse to purchase any form of media produced by Sony-BMG because of the company's complete distain for consumer rights. I also know dozens of people who now carefully check CD cases before they buy anything, and if they see anything to indicate the inclusion of DRM they won't buy it. Most of them also tend to avoid media put out by Sony-BMG out of a combination of anger and distrust, and warn others to avoid CDs with DRM as well as Sony-BMG in general.
      The current state of online music distribution also works to shrink the market and reduce opportunities for musicians through the lack of an open standard DRM. Apple won't let anyone else use thier DRM and refuses to support any other form of DRM, so consumers who have an i-Pod can only listen to music purchased through iTunes, while anyone who owns a non-Apple media player cannot purchase anything through iTunes and must find an online store that either sells DRM free music or uses a form of DRM that is supported by their media player. This is why I (and many others) refuse to purchase an iPod, and will not even consider purchasing any Apple product untill Apple either adds support for other forms of DRM or opens their DRM for use by others.
      The vast majority of us purchase our music, movies, and other media legally. A growing number of us are fed up with media companies decidiing they have the right to infringe upon our rights and tell us how, when, and where we are or are not allowed to enjoy the media we paid for, and as a result we refuse to pay for damaged goods. That is how DRM shrinks the market and reduces opportunities for musicians.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:53am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Perhaps that's because you're stupid and ignorant.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      squirrel, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:55am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Same reason that wine tastings expand the market for wine. The more people can try for free, the more likely they are to buy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Keith, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:56am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Copy protection & no amount of it will stop filesharing... it only irritates consumers that want to burn a copy of a cd for their car or rip it onto their computer because thats where their stereo is hooked up to.

      It shrinks the market because it makes me (and quite a few other people i know) want to stop buying products from these manufacturers simply because these products are a totaly pain the a**!!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:22am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      1. Shrinking the Market
      While this terminology might be a bit off--or, ahead of its time--the point is that the general population has a set of expectations about what they can do and should be able to do with the music they *buy*. This includes sharing with friends and moving music among their various playback devices.

      Eventually, if draconian DRM measures are implemented, the diminished ease of "use" of music products will catch up to the music industry in the form of a shrinking market. People will catch on (are beginning to catch on) and say "I'm still paying a ridiculous price for music and I can't even stick it on my MP3 player or burn a CD. This sucks. How can I avoid this?"

      2. Fewer Opportunities for Musicians
      I can see that what the industry wants is mandatory DRM built into playback hardware. Independent musicians who produce music without DRM will be unable to get their songs played on any of these devices, which will ultimately reject non-DRMed music files. This diminishes the opportunities for new musicians to get heard.

      As a musician myself, I find it ridiculous to at best have to explicitly say "anyone can listen and copy at any time" when that was the intention of my music in the first place; and at worst, to have my software that I use jack up the price so that they can implement the mandatory DRM du jour. I will be forced to upgrade because my music will not play on devices because I'll have no DRM or outdated DRM.


      I can understand how someone in the industry would not understand these things, because they are middlemen whose only talent is the rake in money and connect talented people together. The prospect of raking in less money is unappealing. But, the Music Industry proper is overrated and overpayed. There is a lot of good stuff out there, and there are a lot of musicians and talented folks who are willing and able to charge a fair price for their wares to a local market--making a decent living and circumventing the bloodsuckers who ruined the artistry of making music.

      As for people who don't pay--I don't like someone creating artificial scarcity of the culture I live in. It is total bullshit. Why should anything created more than, say, 20 years ago, still be reaping a profit for some bloodsucking middleman who simply pays off my government to keep extending copyright law? Not paying is mass civil disobedience toward the power that corporations are attempting to weild over US, YOUR WOULD-BE CUSTOMERS.

      Want to keep piracy alive? Keep jacking your prices up and implementing more and more restrictive DRM. You might even help create a *market* (read money-making entity) that operates outside of your industry cartel.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:32am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Because letting people listen to music that the wouldn't initially buy will spur them to buy the album after the find that they are really a fan of the artist.

      Also DRM cripples the opportunity to let consumers transfer there music to other mediums like computers, ipods, and other electronic devices.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jim, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: Shrinks the market?

        You can transfer to computers? I heard that, and as a matter of fact, I vaguely remember a company called Sony.
        I bought my burner and disks, and then found out they'd sue me for using them. Guess as it turns out, I was just another ones of those saps that loved new technology, and they saw me coming from a mile away.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:13am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      DRM technologies make it harder for legal owners of music and other protected media to conduct "fair use" of their assets. This leads to people not purchasing protected assets in the first place - hence limiting the market. Addtionally, DRM implementations by and large have been problematic at best - witness the Sony DRM debacle; where sony installed software on computers without permission and the DRM software provided access to malicious activites from outside entities

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Reccashi, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:20am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      I currently own $2000 worth of anime(japanese cartoons). Had I never downloaded it from the internet I never would have bought ANY anime. This is how downloading and "stealing" increases markets! In fact. there would be virtually no anime sold in america if it wasnt for the tons of it downloaded off of the internet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Josiah, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:05pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Say what? If by "shrink the overall market" you mean prevent people from obtaining that which they didn't pay for, then I guess it does. In my business, however, my "market" is defined as those who actually buy my products.

      I also fail to see how it "create[s] fewer opportunities for musicians".

      First, a market is not merely the people buying a class of products, but is also made up of the people manufacturing, producing, and selling the products. The artists get almost none of the money from record sales, so they don't generally benefit from any aspect of recording industry policy unless they are regularly selling millions of copies of their work.

      Regarding musicians having fewer opportunities, or a "shrinking" market: the market is becoming less diverse, and less accessible to any musicians that are not directly supported by the recording industry. The reason that DRM is dangerous to musicians is that it is a tool used by the recording industry to control whose music is played on what equipment; and in the case of DVDs, even the geographical location matters. The recording industry is trying to get the hardware that plays recorded media to work only with works that are controlled by DRM, which will make it less possible for musicians who are not affiliated with the recording industry to make music available to the general audience.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ryan Ramage, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:22pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      I make money by coming up with new, non-trivial software applications, mainly built on the shoulders on open source. Musicians get their markets open by recording and distributing their music. They get paid by performing live, and coming up with non-trival derivations.

      I call it the evolutionary model of content creation. As the cost of content distribution approachs zero, the demand for original content increases. I think the inet will cause a brief lull in mass-market media performers, but will be the greatest boom in history for local artisans. People still will want to be entertained, and local performers will fill that void. This will be the great arts revolution.

      Ryan

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Laughing, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:39pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Michael, time for you to go back in your shell....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      TS, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:49pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      "If by "shrink the overall market" you mean prevent people from obtaining that which they didn't pay for, then I guess it does."

      Well how about the fact that it won't stop this from occuring since there will be workarounds trickling down to the average shmoe being able to use. Whether or not something should be bough or not is a strawman though in my opinion since the real issue is having a level of draconian DRM forced on us instead of just using the laws and power you alread have... kind of reminds me of this quote:

      "You had the awesome power to shape the world, and instead of wielding it, you asked the government to do it for you, reinforcing the view that we all need to be ruled for our own good. Well done, comrade."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lex, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 1:46pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Smart people refuse to buy products that are unreasonably restricted. Thus, given enough smart people, the market shrinks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Aaron E, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 3:53pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      The issue is not piracy. DRM tends to be restrictive in an attempt to detract pirates, but it also creates a hassel for a legitimate user. A person who has purchased a license to a piece of media shouldn't have to jump though hoops to do what they want with it. Getting a disc to play on your computer, car, stereo, or portable unit shouldn't be a struggle. Most current DRM systems do that.

      As for opportunities for musicians, having restrictive technology on media and devices means licensing requirements for producers. For the big industry, that's not an issue, but for the little guy, who doesn't have a few grand to throw around, it's huge. Musicians who are producing independantly (regardless of what labels they may be connected with prior) have to face that reality.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rick Boatright, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:39pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      But the problem with DRM isn't that it prevents people from getting what they haven't paid for. That _does_ occasionally happen of course, but it happens with _artifacts_. There are analog bootleg tapes, there are ocr's of Harry Potter books. Piracy isn't reduced OR eliminated by DRM.

      What DRM does do, which is a sin, is it prevents me from having access to something I paid for. I bought various books in Rocket E Book format. Without "breaking the drm" I can not move them to a new, better platform like a new Jinke e-book reader. DRM prevents me from having what I have.

      And that is bad. With an artifact, with for example, a CD, I can play it in my car, in my home, in YOUR home. I can take a book with me and use it wherever. But with drm burdoned digital artifacts, I can not do that. I can't play the song I bought on YOUR computer, because it's linked somehow to MY computer. And god forbid that my computer should die.

      Drm is evil because of its effect on the consumer.

      Experiance, as show by people as diverse as the Greatful Dead, Janis Ian, and Baen books suggests that non-drm laden downloads INCREASES SALES.

      It's not simple, but it appears to be true.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Steve, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:41pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      Your not a musician then. The more DRM is pushed on to people (and by proxy artists) the lest exposure those who are not signed get. Picture downloading an indie artists ogg file (since mp3 needs licenses that not everyone has) and find out you can't play it since your OS/Software/Hardware can't authenticate your right to listen to that file.

      This really comes down to what business people call 'untapped revenue streams.' Rarely is DRM just for making sure that you paid for something ... it usually goes into more detail about non allowing some items even those where the authors intent is to make it free or at least free of charge.

      It's not that I'm against people paying for digital products .... I think that is fine , but to basically force everyone to cripple their systems so that some media companies (and even more smaller companies) can control their 'property' on your computer 'property' is crazy.

      The act of stealing is wrong and against the law, but we do not cut off peoples hands to make sure they can not steal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      record buyer, Apr 20th, 2006 @ 4:15am

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      if i pay for a copy of a song i want to be able to listen to it wherever i fucking want to! and on whatever fucking player i own! these cock sucking record dicks don't even pay their artists fairly. they cheat and lie. talk to any soul or blues artist with classic tracks that are "owned" by those shitheads! they will tell you just how fair and honest these assholes who accuse and restrict their own customers can be!!!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2006 @ 5:35pm

      Re: Shrinks the market?

      How it shrinks the market.

      First, let's address your "market". You say they're the people who buy your products. I say they're the people who COULD buy your products.

      If the 10 people who buy your product share it with 100, and you then sell 15, you come out ahead.

      If 2 of the 10 people who buy your product can't make it work due to DRM, and none is shared, you come out behind.

      The marketer's idea of perfect DRM is something that invisibly and flawlessly allows only paying customers access.

      There are 2 flaws in DRM. First, it fails to recognize that sharing is advertisement. The second flaw in DRM is that it is never perfect, it utterly fails to deter piracy, and actively damages the customers that have already paid.

      Any music lover will tell you, they buy the music they know they like. If they hear it on the radio, or on an MP3 they found online, they buy it. If they don't buy it, it's because they don't like it enough.

      The assumption the RIAA makes is that the people downloading a song for free would have bought the song at full price if they couldn't. It's flawed.

      If you're trying to get people that aren't currently interested in buying at the sticker price interested, you have to offer incentive, increase interest, or lower the price. DRM does none of those things.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Thomas Deaderick, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:05am

    People should eat what's on their own plate first

    You could spend the morning raising issues that are more relevant to the overall country's welfare than DRM. I would much rather our government focus on developing improved connectivity, funding research into wireless, etc. We need someone who sees the importance of connected communications in the same way that Eisenhower focused efforts on interstates. It would be really nice if these mental pygmies would invest some time looking at all the issues instead of the easier ones to put a box around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dissident, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:15am

    Wouldn't it be nice...

    if the government offices actually did what they were set in place to do? I mean, there are those who may believe that we have far more important things to worry about than policing our borders and manning our millitary but then again, what would all those dollars go to (besides wholly oversized back pockets)? I would be more upset but I just have lost the will to even care, whats the use. I can vote all I want, but there will always be morons that slip thru the cracks to say the least.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Howard Plumley, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 5:22am

    Political appointees are POLITICAL always

    Has anyone ever heard a Republican politician speak for the common good and against corporate greed. They truly believe that no matter how bad your business is (morally, ethically, legally), if it makes money and contributes to them 'God' approves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:42am

      Re: Political appointees are POLITICAL always

      Trust me, Howard, NO politician speaks solely for the common good (Republican, Democrat, Green, Constitution, or other). The days of "of the people, by the people, for the peole" are long gone, my friend.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Duopoly Problems, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:59am

        Re: Re: Political appointees are POLITICAL always

        "[...] NO politician speaks solely for the common good (Republican, Democrat, Green, Constitution, or other). The days of "of the people, by the people, for the peole" are long gone, my friend.
        "
        Elect properly, get the message out that only worthy contenders will win and then make it hard for them to access piles of money while they're there... then you'll get more reasonable candidates and the system might improve a little...

        Also, we have to stop electing one of two parties, that's a COKE/PEPSI relationship where all they have to do is bribe the other group to let them do evil... unless they have control of most of government in which case they can do what they want...

        Republicans or Democrats, either can cause damage when they have too much control...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Marius, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:05pm

      Re: Political appointees are POLITICAL always

      Hey now, I'm a religoius-right conservative, and I hate DRM just as much as the next guy. In fact, I have dreams of running for Governor one day (if you live in Texas, vote Cherry for gov in about 20 years, k?) and as a matter of fact, I see the whole premise of copyright law as an unenforcable sham, trying to claim jurisdiction over that which doesn't exist. Electronic media is just that - electronic. It exists as a translation of patterns, either over wires or on a hard disk. Trying to police that seems silly, honestly. I understand the root of copyright law, and I'm not going to re-sell anything I download, but I will share it, and I will be shared with. The information age has eliminated quite a few traditional definitions, and it's time government reflects that legislatively and judicially.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 5:49am

    Yeah - her saying she "just likes it" amounts to "I get money from lobbiest groups".

    Whenever something seems odd or fishy in government, you can be assured the answer lies in the money trail...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:26am

    DRM

    DRM should be a tool for internal use only. That is to say it should be used for 1) personal use, 2) internal group use, or 3) internal business use.

    The question is, should someone have the right to force their DRM onto someone else when they sell or give the product away? Should they have the right to force me to use a specific Operating System (OS) or application when I have bought their product, wheither it be music, video, or any other type of data? Did they sell me the product or just rent it?
    Am I an employee of theirs? Have I been convicted of copyright infringment or pirating?

    Can anyone answer ethically and morally answer yes to any of the above questions? I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Steve, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:39am

      Re: DRM

      The question is, should someone have the right to force their DRM onto someone else when they sell or give the product away? Should they have the right to force me to use a specific Operating System (OS) or application when I have bought their product, whether it be music, video, or any other type of data? Did they sell me the product or just rent it?
      Am I an employee of theirs? Have I been convicted of copyright infringement or pirating?


      I hate DRM as much as anybody else here, but you are twisting things around on their head.



      A company has the right to produce their product and distribute it in any way they see fit. If they want to ship CD's that only play with Windows Media Player 9, that is their decision.


      It is your decision if you want to buy that product.


      Now whether you have the right to circumvent the software protections to allow you to rip that music to ogg files and play it on your mp3 player is a different question. Personally I don't think there is any credible legal problem with you doing so.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:41am

        Re: Re: DRM

        "A company has the right to produce their product and distribute it in any way they see fit."

        I'm not sure if you're trying to argue that this is the way things are, or the way things should be.

        I certainly think this is the way things are, at least for media products. But this isn't the way things are in other markets, or the way things should be in general.

        Copyright law should be considered as providing benefits for both the buyer and the seller. Think of it as a "default" EULA, a social contract. In return for the exclusive rights to distribution, the buyer should receive the ability to exercise his "fair use" rights. These include time shifting, format shifting, the ability to quote the work in a review, limited classroom use, ability to view or use the work privately in any way, etc. If the publisher is trying to disable this, they shouldn't receive any of the protections of copyright law since they are trying to unilaterally change the terms of the social contract. The same, I believe, should hold true for shrinkwrap software licenses. Either accept the nuances of copyright law, or forego any of its protections in favor of an EULA enforceable under contract law alone.

        CDs, in particular, do need to be DRM-free if they wish to carry the Compact Disc trademark. Physical products, in general, must work properly under extenuating circumstances...I'm not sure that an auto manufacturer could get away with making "chipped" parts to prevent unauthorized mechanics or companies from doing maintenance or making replacement parts.

        As far as I can tell, the historical data for CD (and digital media) sales shows that so-called "piracy" has had little to no negative effect. Current incarnations of copyright law are more than sufficient to provide incentives for the creation of new work.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Johno, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:48am

          Re: Re: Re: DRM

          So if DRM were able to support the consumers ability to exercise his "fair use" rights. To include time shifting, format shifting, the ability to quote the work in a review, limited classroom use, ability to view or use the work privately in any way, etc. Also if you could add reasonable additional rights at will, but just couldn't pass it around completely freely, would it then be acceptable. Is the argument that DRM just doesn't work right yet or is the concept of rights management totally off the wall?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM

            "So if DRM were able to support the consumers ability to exercise his "fair use" rights."

            So if pigs were able to fly.

            "Is the argument that DRM just doesn't work right yet or is the concept of rights management totally off the wall?"

            Well, genius, when you come up with a version of DRM that is compatible with fair use, be sure and let us know.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Johno, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM

              So, what is your exact definition of "fair use"?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM

                "So, what is your exact definition of "fair use"?"

                My exact definition of "clown" is "Johno". You just offered a definition of fair use -- "To include time shifting, format shifting, the ability to quote the work in a review, limited classroom use, ability to view or use the work privately in any way, etc. Also if you could add reasonable additional rights at will, but just couldn't pass it around completely freely, would it then be acceptable.". So tell us how to implement DRM that is compatible with that -- and is not prohibitively costly. And explain what the point is, when it is always possible for DRM to be broken -- as someone noted, the key must be provided with the lock. But DRM can only be broken by criminals, not by legitimate users -- so it's mistargeted. The only thing that makes DRM even faintly effective is law enforcement -- but, as someone has noted, existing copyright law is already adequate.

                The whole idea of DRM is, upon a bit of reflection, quite stupid, and those who continue to promote it in the face the facts are morons.

                's too dangerous for legi


                . Aside from its evident impossibility, it would be prohibit

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 1:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM

                That I gain as much control over the content I've purchased as the purveyor/arist has over the money I gave him.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Johno, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM

              By the way "Pigs can fly," all you have to do is put them in an aeroplane!

              Some people just can't think out of their little box. and so just have to come up with rude names...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Old Bear, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:34am

      Re: DRM

      Check your EULA next time you "buy" software. You have paid for the right to use the product - but the software company still owns it and the rights to it. You have, in fact, just leased (rented) the product.

      This doesn't apply to music or movies though. Make all the DRM's you want - hackers will just find ways around them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JerseyRich, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:29am

    Yes, DRM is evil, but.....

    ....there are people who are still just stealing music.

    I agree that by not having DRM you open up the media to far more people (which may generate revenue in other ways), but what happens if people are just stealing the music, and the "other revenue" isn't materializing?

    There must be a happy medium.

    Personally, I would support a shareware business model: Distribute CDs for free, but ask listeners to send you $1 (PayPal or mail) if they like the music. Even if half of the people like the music, and only half of those send in the dollar, the artists still makes more money than they do with the labels raping them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mousky, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:41am

      Re: Yes, DRM is evil, but.....

      First, it is not 'stealing'. As much as the RIAA, MPAA and their lawyers would like us to believe that people that share files are stealing, the fact is that you are violating copyright.


      Second, your argument about the "other revenue" not materializing assumes that each and every music download represents a lost sale. That is false. At best, every 'illegal' music download represents a potentel lost sale. The RIAA and MPAA like to throw out numbers that piracy 'cost' the industry X billions of dollars. Unfortunately for them, there is no "losses due to piracy" in their financial statements. If the RIAA was able to eliminate piracy, it is unlikley that they would see an increase in revenue that equals their so-called losses to piracy.


      That said, I do agree that the internet represents a huge opportunity for artists to bypass the corporate music industry. If anything, this is what the music companies are most worried about. Piracy is drop in the bucket.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Celes, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:46am

        Re: Re: Yes, DRM is evil, but.....

        There can't be "losses due to piracy" in their financial statements, Mousky. Financial statements are required to *accurately* represent a company's financial position. Their numbers, however scary, are just not accurate.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Searcher619, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:47am

    How can she get away with saying she is going to do something that she openly admits is not within the scope of her position? I try and do that in the company I work for and depending how far I overstep my bounds the higher up would either chew me a new one or fire me. Is there any better proof that our gov officials have huge "FOR SALE" signs on their foreheads?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wizard Prang, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:57am

    As for me and my house...

    I have no DRM'd games or music CDs.

    I will not buy one.

    Why? Because the business that employs intrusive DRM - and there is no other kind - has no respect for MY fair use rights.

    Just say NO

    Nuff said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Lonny Paul (profile), Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:23am

    FCC Needs to Understand It's Limits

    Well, no one ever said that DRM would be popular. When VHS tapes were encoded with Macrovision to not allow ease of duplication, people went crazy too, but I don't recall the FCC trying to get on that bandwagon.

    And last time I popped in a DVD, it wasn't an FCC warning, it was an FBI warning.

    Maybe she applied to the wrong department. Was this another "internal promotion" like Michael Brown?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ike "short" Dong, Apr 20th, 2006 @ 9:27am

      Re: FCC Needs to Understand It's Limits

      Deborah Tate Oobivously needs a good bitch slappin',to wake up to and understand actual reality,which is her stance on DRM has no meanigful relation to the FCC's limited jurisdiction. Part 15 ring a bell? Yet we see moronic imbiciles applaud and agree with this azzhole for attempting to modify
      existing law,where the FCC has NO jurispudence.Bozos,Bums and bitchs like these are,the main reason why politics put the U.S.A in the shape it's in.Dumb fookers get a clue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mad Mike, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:32am

    DRM is a waste of resources

    What publishers don't seem to realize....and I mean software and music....is that copy protection NEVER really works and simply adds to the cost of the product. There will always be a work around for any given copy protection. They spend millions of dollars to find new protections every few months, only to have them defeated within days of them being released. why? why not simply charge LESS for a cd?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anon coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:50am

    If it has DRM, I "steal" it

    I agree entirely with Wolfger.

    The lone dissenter says: "In my business, however, my "market" is defined as those who actually buy my products."

    Well, here's how I live (right or wrong): I steal music because if I pay a buck for a song, some jackass in a suit slips in some DRM code that prevents me from switching music software on my PC, or switching the type of MP3 player I use, or playing the music wherever I want.

    If you didn't put DRM in your media products, I WOULD be part of your paying market. If you do stick DRM in there, I will choose to deal with the Pirates instead and buy or copy cracked media. It seems the pirates have a better understanding of what consumers want than the media houses.

    Anon - because you wankers would track me down and hit me with an RIAA suit if I gave my name.

    PS: No matter what the industry says, copying music isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement". But that doesn't have the same ring as "stealing", so they embellish a little.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    User, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 7:54am

    Obviously Too Much Time on her Hands

    Have to love ignorant people in office who shine with stupidity and boldly proclaim their lackluster interest for their position they are supposed to focus on. She probably goes to tea time with Meg Whitman and Carlton S. Fiorina to discuss how to make the world more inefficient and apathetic all the while reading stock tips from Martha Stewart. I am sure glad my tax dollars subsidize the growing federal bureaocracy that is the USA. One should learn to keep their nose in their own business before it gets slammed in the door. Be a poster child for something that makes a positive difference, not a damaging, cumbersome, unstandardized sorry excuse for copy protection. Once the DRM noose is around your neck, they only need to tighten it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sheuer, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:09am

    Let her know how you feel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:21am

    DRM does burden legal users. This is the same thing as the (literal) games that require you to have a codewheel, manual, product key/ original disc, internet authentication. If you're a slob like me then you know all about how it takes an hour of searching to scratch an itch to play some game or reinstall your stuff - if your content isn't there when you want it then it isn't there because you're gonna be really pissed off by the time you locate the crippling proof of purchase.
    The goal of DRM is obviously the next approach on the war against consumers, once you've purchased something apparantly you are a much easier target than trying to get a /new/ customer. Country music is an excellent example of this concept. There is a limited market for ppl so easily amused - just hit the same suckers over and over again. Better yet it does society a favor when the content cannot span various generations or even different brands of delivery devices.

    That's just what you get. Deborah Tate - a platinum individual. The Brittany Spears, Metallica, etc. of government officials. I'm shocked that she is an 'appointed' official, the masses couldn't have voted a bigger asswipe if they tried.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike Shenanigan, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 8:59am

    Oh please

    How about all your DRM evangelists use your pulpit to preach about something more redeeming in value? Have you zealots nothing better to do?

    GET A LIFE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Justin, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:00am

    Shrinks the Market...where'd he go

    I see Mr. Long has decided to keep his mouth shut. I think everyone has explained to him how DRM shrinks the market. I agree with all of you too. I purchased one song with DRM and I will NEVER do it again. It's too easy to get a clean copy for FREE than it is to pay for a corrupt one. By corrupt, I mean embedded with DRM. I tried the legal way and it just pissed me off. If I was a musician, I'd invest in making money for my music through clean downloads without DRM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Max Howell, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:04am

    Michael Long = Moron

    In my markey I sell products, and I'm sure I sell more because I encourage people to give their friends copies.

    Word of mouth is making me rich. Long can stay poor for all I care, fool that he is.

    If you doubt me, then all I can say is that when I release new versions of my stuff, then people with free copies of old versions are far more likely to buy my new product than people who have never even used my product.

    It's fucking simple really, and people like Long piss me off with their stupidity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Drive-By Spammer, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:16am

    DRM is nice in theory...

    DRM is nice in theory, too bad it's so open to abuse by companies that don't care about consumer privacy or security. I've purchased two products (a music cd and a game) that have installed DRM 'applications' without my consent or knowledge and both of which leave gaping security holes in my computer (granting unknown programs system-level privileges and hiding them from virus scanners is a good idea how?)

    And the ironic thing is that serious pirates can easily circumvent these technologies, so only the legitimate consumer gets punished.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:23am

    Here's the problem

    First, let me say that I agree with those who say "DRM doesn't stop pirates, it just inconveniences legitimate users."

    However, the problem is, it's not an all-or-nothing situation.

    Let me explain what I mean.

    If DRM can protect a work for a limited period of time (until the DRM is defeated,) and during that limited period of time the copyright holder can sell a lot of copies, then the DRM has worked.

    If it had no DRM from day one there would be a lot more people stealing it.

    Because of the DRM a certain number of people who would have stolen it will buy it instead.

    I still don't like it, though. I buy my DVD's and CD's, but want to be able to back them up or transfer them to other media for my own personal use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike K, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:26am

    Bush nominee. Big surprise.

    http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/

    btw: I don't buy DRM either. Tried it once years ago and couldn't play the songs on my MP3 player. That and the persistant attacks by the RIAA and MPAA on their customer base have convinced me that they don't want me as a customer.

    Local music is a great alternative to the major labels cause the bands are too poor to put DRM on their CDs and you can usually get them for 10 bucks or so at the show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Richard, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:29am

    Why not DRM

    The irony is in the things that would have been lost if DRM existed say 20 years ago. Without the video recorder there'd be no home video industry. There may be no DVD industry - after all the relatively constrained laser disks didn't take off. There'd be no camcorder industry. A lot of people in diverse businesses who are a lot richer now thanks to the video recorder would not be.

    So many technologies we enjoy now would not have been allowed to develop if the current attitudes to content protection above all else exists 10 or 20 years ago.

    Imagine what future technology may be prevented thanks to DRM and over protective copyright laws. All this to protect the short term interests of the few big business that are pushing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike Mixer, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:34am

    DRM and the average man

    One anonymous coward got it right on the head.
    How do we know we want to take a chance on a 20.00 cd if the only crap we hear on the radio is a 5 yr. old shitney spears song. I say the biggest problem the music industry is it's overuse of cute, trashy, no-talent, overbreasted teenie-boppers and underuse of valuable airtime in promoting them. Until we are free to hear what we want, free of the tyranny caused by
    Clear Channel and it's competitors(snort, laugh,wheeze) downloading of music will persist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mousky, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:01am

      Re: DRM and the average man

      Musical taste or 'quality of muisc" is not the issue. Pop music has always been that - popular. You may not like Britney Spears, but millions of people did. The music companies push what is popular. I don't blame them for doing that. Same goes for Clear Channel. By no means does this mean that I endorse DRM or the lack of competition ;)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mostly Anonymous, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:34pm

      Re: DRM and the average man

      Do you mean to say that you think the Clear Channel monopoly is a real issue in the domain of the FCC that someone who had -- oh, any relationship to reality, any leadership skills, or any incling of the appropriate functions (if any) of the FCC might actually take on?

      I didn't think you meant that.
      -
      -One anonymous coward got it right on the head.
      -How do we know we want to take a chance on a 20.00 cd if the only crap -we hear on the radio is a 5 yr. old shitney spears song. I say the biggest -problem the music industry is it's overuse of cute, trashy, no-talent, -overbreasted teenie-boppers and underuse of valuable airtime in promoting -them. Until we are free to hear what we want, free of the tyranny caused by
      -Clear Channel and it's competitors(snort, laugh,wheeze) downloading of -music will persist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NichardRixon, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:35am

    DRM is a fool'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dirk Belligerent, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:39am

    Uncreative people think everyone owes them free st

    That is the difference between the capitalist and the artist.

    An artist wants to maximize exposure to his art. If DRM means less people will actually listen/read/watch etc.. then from an artistic perspective your market is smaller.

    The artist who only cares about getting paid is a prostitute.


    Spoken like a person who has never and will never create anything that they could attempt to charge someone to buy.

    As evil as DRM is, the main reason it exists at all is no thanks to the entitled attitude of lazy, uncreative moochers who believe that everything should be handed to them for free and that anyone who would dare try to make a buck off their efforts is a greedy capitalist tool. Screw you, hippies!!! Take a bath and get a job!!!

    No sane musician gets into the business just to get rich, but if a touring regional act has to drive five hours to a gig and the cost to fuel up the van - you can't fit a band in a Prius, you granola munchers! - for the round-trip is $130, that $50 or $100 they get from the club isn't going to pay the petrol bill, much less the mortgage, grocery bill or anything else.

    They'll need to SELL SOME STUFF, but they better hope that moochers like the ones mewling here haven't decided that the proper thing to do is download their music, because, you know, an "artist who only cares about getting paid is a prostitute."

    Thanks for nothing, Bub.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:09am

      Re: Uncreative people think everyone owes them fre

      See, this is where I think a lot of musicians get it wrong, too. I work at my job 40+ hours a week. I don't know any musicians who actually work at their music 40+ hours a week (except for maybe professional symphony musicians), 50+ weeks a year. If making music is going to be your job, then making music should be your job.

      CDs should not be the product. The making of the music should be the product. Just like door-to-door salesmen of old, go out there and sell your product. Make your money on the tickets to the concerts you play 5 days a week. Let the CDs be nothing but promotion for the concerts you play 5 days a week. Write the cost of transportation off on your taxes as a business expense.

      There are a lot of jobs out there that require unusually hard work and great dedication. I would think "artist" would be one of them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Dirk Belligerent, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re: Uncreative people think everyone owes them

        CDs should not be the product. The making of the music should be the product. Just like door-to-door salesmen of old, go out there and sell your product. Make your money on the tickets to the concerts you play 5 days a week. Let the CDs be nothing but promotion for the concerts you play 5 days a week. Write the cost of transportation off on your taxes as a business expense.

        There are a lot of jobs out there that require unusually hard work and great dedication. I would think "artist" would be one of them.


        Wow. You really are a lazy mooching jerk, aren't you?

        Under your (non-)logic, The Beatles shouldn't have been paid for a single record they released after they stopped playing live in 1966!!! XTC (whose leader had stagefright) and any other band who primarily work in the studio and don't tour are also not entitled to make a buck in your world.

        Spare me your manure about "dedication" and "artistry" because it's clear that you're too much of a pansy to just stand up and admit, loud and proud, "I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR MUSIC AND IT'S WRONG FOR ANYONE TO TRY AND CHARGE ME FOR IT!

        You're a moocher and you are probably incapable of producing anything but flatulence. What color is the sky on your homeworld, the one where there is the ability for non-cover bands to play five nights a week and make a living?

        Bugger off, Bub. Go download someone's music and jerk off on your superiority elsewhere. Don't forget to watch "American Idol" while you're at it, because that's about all we're going to have after you bankrupt the struggling musicians.

        Gah! Morons like you almost make rootkits seem reasonable, but only if they trash your computer. Jerk.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      garygunrack, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:18pm

      Re: Uncreative people think everyone owes them fre

      No sane musician gets into the business just to get rich, but if a touring regional act has to drive five hours to a gig and the cost to fuel up the van - you can't fit a band in a Prius, you granola munchers! - for the round-trip is $130, that $50 or $100 they get from the club isn't going to pay the petrol bill, much less the mortgage, grocery bill or anything else.

      They'll need to SELL SOME STUFF, but they better hope that moochers like the ones mewling here haven't decided that the proper thing to do is download their music, because, you know, an "artist who only cares about getting paid is a prostitute."


      I manage to sell plenty of CD's on gigs like these. Including the live CD, which is downloadable for free on our website. I haven't done a traveling gig that pays quite so badly as that in years... enough people know about us that we can ask for more money.

      A band that is getting $100 bucks for a traveling gig is not even considering paying bills with music. Their time and money spent are an investment. The payoff is an increased fan base, so that next time they can make their money back because lots of people turned out. If their CD showed up on a torrent site somewhere, they would probably be thrilled.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jim, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:38pm

      Re: Uncreative people think everyone owes them fre

      Well, I suppose you could just get a normal job, like the rest of us, moochers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 1:29pm

      Re: Uncreative people think everyone owes them fre

      irrelevant. after you sell me that disc, you have no right to tell me how I can use what's on it. can I turn around and tell YOU how you may spend the money I gave you for it?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NichardRixon, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:48am

    DRM is a fool's answer to obsolesence

    DRM is a typical ploy from an aging industry attempting to prop up an obsolete business model with legislation. This kind of thing is frequently attempted instead of making the more difficult effort and investment to change with the times. No one capable of clear thought could think that DRM is ultimately a good thing for the country, the economy or the recording industry. Instead it will tend to stiffle inovation (which is one of the real goals) and unless it can be imposed worldwide--right!--will ensure that the US recording industry will come out behind the leader when inovation breaks out somewhere else.

    The only people who believe they will benefit are those who can't see beyond the next quarterly report.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mark, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:54am

    People over Profits ? Not here

    Not surprising to see that an FCC appointee, in the declining years (god will it ever end) of the Bush "administration" is a toady to corporate gods.

    The FCC has NOT eliminated the morse code requirment for ham radio because BPL interferes with ham radio, and who needs a bunch of ragtag hams when the power company can try to sell you broadband. Oh, yes, when the power is down due to a natural disaster, the hams can operate, but then there won't be any left. Once morse goes, a lot of technically oriented folks will get ham licences.

    Dammit, we will get the broadcast flag if we have to buy every republican senator, the whole RNC, and make sure that the republicans get good press..(oops, did we just say that out loud ?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:03am

    Hey, who appointed this Tate bozo, anyway?

    Musta been that goddamn fucking asshole in the White House.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matthew Brown, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:04am

    FCC is a dinosaur

    The FCC stopped serving its intended purpose a long time ago. It should be abolished.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Johno, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:16am

    Why not DRM

    Do you leave your house or your car unlocked?

    Why is it any different for a creator to control the use of his creation?

    Pro DRM....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      m0rd3r, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:22am

      Re: Why not DRM

      "Do you leave your house or your car unlocked?

      Why is it any different for a creator to control the use of his creation?

      Pro DRM...."


      See its like this: If I sell someone a car, I HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL THEM HOW TO USE IT. ITS THEIRS.

      Understand now?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Johno, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: Why not DRM

        But when you buy a song, you only buy certain rights to that song, you don't own it. To buy a hit song would cost many thousands of $$

        Its more like if you rent someone your house or your car you have some right left to tell the person how to deal with it.

        Try buying a hit song.... or even creating one :-)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Johno, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: Why not DRM

        But when you buy a song, you only buy certain rights to that song, you don't own it. To buy a hit song would cost many thousands of $$

        Its more like if you rent someone your house or your car you have some right left to tell the person how to deal with it.

        Try buying a hit song.... or even creating one :-)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Why not DRM

          "Its more like if you rent someone your house or your car you have some right left to tell the person how to deal with it."

          Ah, you're not really SO stupid as to not understand that there's a difference between locking your car and DRM. But you're still too stupid to understand the difference between renting a tangible object and buying a copy of an artwork.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Laughing, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: Why not DRM

        No, he doesn't understand, that's the problem....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:24am

      Re: Why not DRM

      "Why is it any different for a creator to control the use of his creation?"

      Because it's not his -- I bought it. Dumbfuck.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mostly Anonymous, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 5:09pm

      Re: Why not DRM

      Um - ridiculous and irrelevant analogy much?. The creator of a work does not control the creation, Herr Frankenstein! Have an orange to go with that apple.

      I'm sure U2 care about whether I can play their DRMed songs purchased through Itunes on my cube though. Oh wait ... maybe that's their record label wanting to reduce exposure of their material.

      Too bad someone from Negativland wasn't lurking on this list to add some actual artist versus corporation experience to this discussion.

      Give up -- your model is dead and legislating a corporate welfare program for it will end the same way the state-subsidized airline indistry is -- in bankruptcy after a long sad slide down hill. That's a relevant analogy.

      Lock your doors, not your music.

      -- what you said follows --

      -Do you leave your house or your car unlocked?

      -Why is it any different for a creator to control the use of his creation?

      -Pro DRM....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    suge, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:23am

    Letter to the Commissioner

    This is what I sent her.

    -- Begin Message --

    You must be retarted for wanting to empose this on the american public with force. Please reconsider your personal beliefs and do your job as a public servant and listen to what the public wants, and not what you or your funding party wants.

    -- End Message --

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Posterlogo, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:27am

    List of DRM'd crap?

    Can someone provide a link (if such link exists) to lists of DRM'd media? Specifically which music CDs or computer games will install DRM software onto your computer. I think many people would appreciate knowing before they buy what they are really getting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:32am

    Everyone steals

    i beat most if not all of you have downloaded atleast 1 illegal thing in your life. if the government ever shuts all that fully down (limewire, bearshare, ect.) and all they have is this DRM shit then i will just go wit out music cause all i have hear is bad things

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    SailorAlphaCentauri, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:40am

    Re: Why not DRM

    I do know a lot of people who do not lock their houses or cars (I think they're insane, but to each his own), but more to the point, DRM is not the same as locking your car. DRM is roughly the equivalent of selling someone a car, but only allowing them to drive it on I-90 and not anywhere else (not a very good analogy, but I'm new here), plus if you try to drive it somewhere else, your car may cease to function.

    Point is, DRM is more of a punishment to legitimate purchasers than a deterrant to thieves. As I have had a work computer crash for just playing a DRM-protected CD even before the whole Sony scandal came out, I have to say I'm against it.

    Besides, the person putting the screws to the consumer is not the artist but the corporate juggernaut which stands to make far more money per CD than the artist does per sale.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:59am

      Re: Re: Why not DRM

      "DRM is not the same as locking your car. DRM is roughly the equivalent of selling someone a car, but only allowing them to drive it on I-90 and not anywhere else (not a very good analogy, but I'm new here), plus if you try to drive it somewhere else, your car may cease to function."

      Not only that, but the seller still has the original car -- they only sold a copy. The fact is that there are no good analogies, because copyright simply is not the same sort of thing as tangible property. The equation between property and copyright is a lie, and people like Johno who propagate it are liars, scumbags, and idiots. Every rational analysis of DRM indicates that it cannot be effective, that it hurts both the seller and the buyer while having little effect on pirates, and yet Johno is "pro-DRM". The only reasonably conclusion is that he's a moron.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:42am

    drm free - inexpensive mp3's..

    mp3spy.ru/en
    allofmp3.com

    ahh mother land Russia

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    giafly, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:57am

    Please don't call it Copy Protection

    ...call it "Copy Restriction".

    It doesn't protect you or your copy. Rootkits anyone? DRM (Digital Restriction Management) just restricts your rights to use your own property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AnarChaos, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:11am

    DRM hacking

    since we can hack & crack software, it wont be long before someone removes DRM from music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pay for what you get, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:14am

    Pay for what you get

    I agree, DRM is the way everything should be sold and despite what "others" say. DRM does work and DRM does not stop functions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:28am

      Re: Pay for what you get

      "I agree, DRM is the way everything should be sold and despite what "others" say. DRM does work and DRM does not stop functions."

      What a retard.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Laughing, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 1:02pm

      Re: Pay for what you get

      Yet another idiot in the works....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      mostly anonymous, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 5:18pm

      Re: Pay for what you get

      I don't believe the liberal media either.

      -- what you said --

      I agree, DRM is the way everything should be sold and despite what "others" say. DRM does work and DRM does not stop functions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Gofe, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:18am

    Can you say Lobbying

    Sounds like the RIAA has been doing some heavy lobbying to me

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DoInstead OfComplaining, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:33am

    People just need to choose wisely!

    If the effort to get a product is too high, then you shouldn't get that product. If not enough people buy the product, then the producer should find ways to make his product more appealing (lower price, offer bonuses, etc), or, give up selling the product that is not worth his effort to produce.

    It's just the ongoing balance... People should expect products worth their money, and companies should expect money worth their product.

    The only entity able to shift the balance is government, and this is where there is cause for concern... It is still up to consumers though. We have to purchase goods from those companies that do not have DRM, and we also have to prevent companies from outweighing us in government...

    So, choose your corporations and government representatives wisely; pick the ones that have no hidden agendas that will screw us all in the long term... because in the end, you're the one giving them power...

    Note: Cheaper is not always better. More expensive doesn't always mean more quality...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:36am

      Re: People just need to choose wisely!

      "we also have to prevent companies from outweighing us in government"

      Sending Jack Abramoff, and hopefully Tom Delay, to jail helps. But we still have to deal with the rest of the Repugniscum crew.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    IPS, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 11:36am

    Even if you are famous the fact is that a single would have to be damn good for me to buy based on hearing it on the radio.

    Forgive me for not calling those who support DRM morons, but if you look at it from non-technical genius point of view it seems as if we are stealing music. But most of the time we're not really stealing it from the artists, but from the executives behind them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    fade-in, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:49pm

    Since when is it the government's concern

    Since when is it the government's concern when your business model is falling apart around you due to technological innovations?
    If groups like the RIAA always got their way, then America would be the hick backwater of the industiralized world. No FM radio, no television, no AC electricity, no choice in automobiles, etc.
    It alwas sickens me to hear about corporations who are the first to declare new tech witchcraft and call for burnings in the public square when the tide of innovation isn't working for them.
    The American dream isn't about clutching on to outdated technology. It is about innovation; and coming up with new DRM schemes doesn't cut it.
    The traditional music market is changing. They can change with the times, or go the way of the land-line telephone. Capitalism is a cruel mistress. And it is high-time that these media corporations do the bending-over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Emperor, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 1:04pm

    All of this

    I say the following:
    Fuck this DRM loving chick
    Fuck the MPAA and the RIAA for using this DRM bullshit
    Fuck DRM period, abolish it, get rid of it
    and
    EVERYONE, quit being so fucking grred for shits sake!!!!!!

    I don't give two shits if it adds extra cash to your wallet, get cash but get it fairly and justifiably, not being a greedy bastard.

    If you all want to see some videos for DRM and stuff that just pisses everyone off go to this website: www.illwillpress.com and feel free to roam around on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    whatever, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 2:03pm

    This is another in a long litany of excuses about downloading music. I'm not a starry-eyed idealist, I know the music and movie industries are over. The generation before mine grew up being a teenager and not having to pay for any intellectual property. This isn't going to change, they're never going to pay for a cent of any of it. You can dress it up as anti-DRM or the sorry state of mainstream music, but in essence it is capitalism. People aren't going to pay for anything they can get for free. DRM is a logical thing for the industry to do, they are dying, they had to give it an old college try. iTunes is a place for parents to download music while the teenagers use all the network bandwidth to download all of the TV shows Movies, and music they want. I wouldn't doubt that the record companies last chance is to lobby the TelCo's to not raise bandwidth. The only thing stopping DVD's from becoming a relic is the size of them. I mean more people played Doom 3 from a pirated version during the weekend of its release then the number of people who have bought it since its release. It's all over. The music industry will probably end up looking a lot like myspace with scattershot bands having to promote themselves do it yourself on these sites, build up a following, sell some tours, people buying merchandise. They can then buy the requisite managers and publicists to organize their schedules and such. But the centralized model of old is dying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      m0rd3r, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 2:37pm

      (little off topic) Re:

      "I mean more people played Doom 3 from a pirated version during the weekend of its release then the number of people who have bought it since its release."

      That was a different situation. Doom 3 was one of those games you really weren't sure about until you played it. Since they didnt release the demo until AFTER the game came out, a lot of people got the pirated version, rather then spend their money on what turned out to be a rather poor game.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 4:47pm

    One more nail in the coffin

    DRM is irrelevant, a footnote in the pages of music history. I can download or copy and play almost any media file for free and I'm not going to stop. Furthermore, I share my files with others who do the same thing. What good is a copy-protection scheme that is un-enforceable? I ain't going to pay, ever, for any media file because I don't have to.

    So what would I be willing to pay for? Live experience: I'm willing to pay to go to a concert ......and for T-shirts. There's no substitute for real-life experience and that's worth money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:24pm

    Once one person cracks any drm scheme and puts it on the piracy top sites, it'll quickly spread like wild fire across covert networks and encrypted channels to many other sites until it eventually reaches torrent and p2p networks, and by then illegal downloading will resume as it always had.

    Once I rented a DVD, Doom, from a rental store and it wouldn't play on my linux laptop or windows desktop (while all dvds before it had) due to a new drm shit, so I downloaded the movie I rented so I could simply watch it. Now I am less inclinded to rent or buy movies (though I recently bought King Kong) because I might not even be able to watch the movie I rented/bought. Whereas all movies downloaded over the internet are nearly guarenteed to work. This is just one example of how drm promotes piracy.

    If DRM prevents the customer from getting anything out of the product, then why would they it? I don't see how DRM could not destroy or at least significantly injure any industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Hans Gruber, Apr 20th, 2006 @ 5:53am

    DRM is for 'big business'

    Knowing people who are artisans, DRM does *nothing* to "save" their intellectual property, as DRM claims it does. What it does is "save" the IP of the recording industry (not even the recording studio that the artisan used is "safe", either). It protects the agents, lobbyists, agents of the agents, marketing promoters, et. al. A family member of mine is a singer, and makes a substantial amount of money for each performance. I will *not* state the actual figure, but for sake of argument, let's say that it's $100 per performance (which it really isn't, but is a nice *even* number that can be rounded out).

    Of the $100, about $20 goes to the union they belong to, $40 goes the the agent, marketing person, and promoting agencies involved, $10 goes for taxes (put aside), if a recording studio is involved, another $10-15 for them, leaving about $15-20 for the artisan. Not much, huh?

    Sort of like the double and triple taxes that we pay in each state on gasoline and cigarettes (hey...someone's gotta pay for the tobacco ccompanies loosing, right, why not be the smokers themselves that pay?), so along the same lines and mindsets that ensue, if we want to listen to music, we must first pay for it.

    Interestingly enough, the RIAA (and MPAA for the movie industry) take the attitude that we, as consumers, have NO RIGHTS whatsoever. We don't even have the right to view or listen to that movie or piece of music that we have. Therefore, every time we listen to music -- we should pay. Every time we watch a movie -- we should pay.

    We are quickly becoming (what some might say) an "ala carte society", where, every little thing, from using soap in the dispenser at a hotel, to driving your car down the street -- will be tolled and paid for -- BY YOU.

    DRM is the first of several steps to ensure that their rights remain intact, and that -- *years* after the copyright is long "dead" -- force consumers to continue to pay and obligate themselves to the structure and whim of big business.

    DRM enforces that you are *authorized* to play music or watch a movie. If you don't have the key, you cannot listen to or watch it ("NO TICKIE, NO WASHEE"). DRM *sometimes* goes overboard by OVER-enforcing and OVER-exerting big business rights over the consumer (let's talk about what Microsoft is doing, through cooperation of big business, of ensuring that their product is properly aligned with others, ensuring that all industry parties continue to operate -- FOREVER). DRM is self-policing that is indoctrinated into our society such that we don't and won't need to have a policeman or guard standing over us telling that we cannot watch that copy of a movie, or listen to that copy of a song. It ensures that big business rights are intact, and that we, as consumers, continue to *pay* to enjoy that high level of entertainment.

    Broadcasting flags are nothing new, and have been an ongoing, ensuring battle since the 70's. With digital technologies becoming ever cheaper, big business is once again, looking at restricting what we are allowed to watch on television. If we watch it, that's fine, since we're already paying for cable -- HINT: by 2009 standard broadcasting TV will go *PIFF* -- EVERYTHING will be DIGITAL ONLY. So, if we saw a TV show that we wanted to watch again, we have to pay for it. Makes sense, right? After all, big business spent MILLIONS of dollars to pay actors and actresses to be funny, sad, angry in front of millions of people, right? So, they should get their investments back. TV studios get that back by syndication -- this means selling copies of the TV shows on VHS tape and DVD. Expect to see VHS to go away within the next few years.

    Also, our government is *DIRECTLY* involved with big business, too. They want it as a form of control over the masses. They want to dictate how and what and where you read, view, watch, or listen to media -- as they see fit. If the government, the LARGEST big business in the United States (NOTE: I said U.S., ad NOT Japan or China, as their are single divisions of companies over there that make our own government look insignificant compared to them), then they will want to protect their interests in things, too, right? So, this means further data compartmentalization under the Bush administration, further restrictions as to what we can view and what we cannot view, what requires "sensitive, but unclassified" authorization (this is NOT "classified" data, in fact, it's not even "confidential", but you can't view it -- why? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAID SO!) The government represents "public domain", which means that you tax dollars *pay* for those documents to be publicly, freely, and openly -- available -- to you, the citizen of the United States (and if you're Mexican, you don't count, at least -- not yet). If the government manages to get DRM pushed into ever nook and cranny out there, then *THEY* can also use it, too. Makes sense, right? If at all, I forsee this as a modification of DRM, which I call "GRM", or "Government Rights Management". Realistically, the government is already working on such endeavors to restrict most data to the public -- or least bury it soooo deep within the confines of a database that it takes MONTHS for you to find anything worthwhile. It won't be called "GRM", but something similar, and it will be here by 2010 -- I *guarantee* it.

    So...what does all this spouting mean? It means that big business, and government, are taking extra steps/efforts of ensuring that you must pay for everything. Bills Gates called it "micropayment", and is part of an overall "New World Order" thing. By 2030, if not sooner, or if we haven't blown ourselves up, will all be part of a socialistic world, run by RICH bastards like Bill Gates (right now, there are about 5000-10000 people who have OVER $100 million in their names -- worldwide -- the "rich elite") who will own 97-99% of everything, wilst "commons folks" -- like you and I -- will own....NOTHING.

    There will be no more "Fair Use Doctrine".
    There will be no more "Copyright Act".
    There will be no more "Internet".

    Everything will be monitored (see NSA tapping on the shoulder of AT&T) -- at already is, just right now, it's illegal -- in a few years, it won't be.

    Everything will be controlled. We will be told what jobs we are supposed to work, what we can/cannot watch, view, read or listen to.

    Everything will be supported by government, which will be the pawn of the rich elite.

    Let's see....
    It's illegal to "reverse engineer" ANYTHING now (see "DMCA").
    It's illegal to record and distribute music, even if broadcast music (see "DMCA").
    It's illegal to record and distribute movies, even if broadcast TV (see "DMCA").
    It's illegal to access RF spectrums that's deems "forbidden" by big business and government (see "ECPA").
    It's illegal to *listen* to certain law enforcement and police frequencies, and have capabilities to listen to those frequencies (see "ECPA").

    That's just TWO laws, but there are more out there -- MUCH MORE, and there more coming out, many are what I would call "stupid laws", or laws that regulators are putting out there are "pork", or just to further restrict us even further. "Pork" is a law buried inside of another law, and worded such that you don't know that it's there until it has passed, and by then, it's TOO LATE to change it.

    So...

    Yes, DRM is protecting the rights of big business, but at the same time, is automatically enforcing "micropayment" to big business as long as the business exists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2006 @ 10:21pm

    who the fuck would want to copy cuntry moozic

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This