More People Realizing That Copy Protection Is Just Bad

from the slowly,-but-surely dept

It seems that a growing number of people are recognizing that, despite everything the entertainment industry says, copy protection simply doesn’t make any sense. Not from a consumer standpoint and not from a business standpoint. Sure, there have been a group of people who have been pointing this out for years, but the entertainment industry likes to refer to them as “zealots.” As more and more people recognize this fact, it becomes increasingly difficult for the explanation to just be ignored — and maybe the entertainment industry would stop, listen and recognize that the opportunities for their market could be much larger by embracing what people want — and not treating your best customers as criminals. In the meantime, though, copy protection won’t work in stopping copying, it’ll make life much more difficult for paying customers and it will lower the value of whatever it “protects.” That doesn’t seem like a business model that’s primed for growth.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “More People Realizing That Copy Protection Is Just Bad”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
ConceptJunkie (profile) says:

HIstory repeats itself...

You know, the software industry went through all this in the 80’s with copy-protected floppy disks which were a huge pain for legitimate users and little deterrent for pirates. Eventually, the companies realized they were penalizing the good guys and having little or no effect on the bad guys, and stopped doing it.

It’s funny how it happened again with CD-ROMs in the past 5 years or so, and now we’re going through it all over again with digital media. I’d accuse the media giants of not learning from history, but that presupposes that they are capable of learning anything.

wolf68 says:

Re: HIstory repeats itself...

yeah and it is pissing me off. I purchas my music at and am having all sorts of problems moving my music to my new computer. the licenses don’t want to transfer and i cant get them to work. i’m just going to wind up burning them then ripping them to mp3. what a pain in the but for someone who is trying to be lagal about their music. it has pisse me off to the point i’m not going to buy any more i’m just going to borrow someone’s cds and rip them or just download them from now on. I’m sure not going to start buying a whole cd for 1 song and it isn’t worth the effort of paying for it if i cant put it on 2 computers that I OWN. SCREW the RIAA . and to think until yesterday i was paying money to support their CRAP. not until they change something big.

discojohnson says:

Re: HIstory repeats itself...

the difference between now and then (in the context of digital media) is there was a tangible object to mess with. Tricks put on the disc (safedisc, etc) prevented freelance copying, without hindering in any way the normal usage of the disc. with the digital media, i already have the data in its entirety. now, if you were to encrypt the data and require software to call home to get the key that would keep freelancers out of the mix (i think this would only work with singles streamed over the web). the bigger issue is that once i convert it to mp3 (which takes the education of a 3rd grader, or less, with WMP), there’s no method to stop the playback. you’d pretty much have to shut down the proliferation networks in their entirety and hit every new one as they come up. you could only do that with new legislation worded to protect the industry, which isn’t that far fetched of an idea. old models die hard, and this is just the paradigm.

Dosquatch says:

Re: MySpace

Sucks that the recording is now merely advertising…In sum,I don’t understand the business model, at least in the niche of upstart indie/pop/rock..etc.

The recording is advertising, yes. This has always been the case. A good song attracts attention, gets played more, attracts more attention, and so on… but what is it attracting attention to? Itself? Nope. It drives people to come looking for you. You are the product. Embrace this idea, it will take you far.

Think about it – we don’t celebrate “Hound Dog” or “Jailhouse Rock” – we celebrate Elvis. People make pilgrimages to Graceland, for God’s sake. Why would they do this, for the music? When it’s cheaper and easier to load a CD in the stereo at home? NO! It’s because Elvis, the “product”, is special to them.

In much the same way, I just paid $150 for 3 tickets to see Nine Inch Nails. I already own all of the CDs, so why would I do this? Because the experience of going to see Trent perform holds some merit to me above “merely” enjoying the music. Apparently, at least $150 worth of merit… that says something, I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what.

Yes, your album is a product, but it is not the product. That’s you. Your job is to capitalize on this truth. Follow-up albums. Concerts. Shirts. Posters. Offer people what they want, and they’ll give you money like you wouldn’t believe.

David says:

Re: Re: MySpace

I don’t know that I buy this at all. For instance, think of people that write books. Some do write so that they can go on tours and get speaking engagements, however the vast majority write to publish a book, and want to sell the book, and for the most part a tour or speaking engagement is to SELL THE BOOK.
They have a product and they want to sell a copy of it. They don’t want to perform, to have a concert, to be in front of a crowd.
So what is different between authors and musicians? They both create something in general by themselves with little help from others (beyond editors or producers). They, in general, create the whole thing. The final product can be digitized and thus downloaded, but usually is put on some kind of medium (CD or paper).
So are you suggesting that all authors now need to upload all their work to the net and hope that people will want to come see them “perform”?
There are bands (one of my favorites – Alan Parsons Project) that for the most part never had a concert or sold a T-shirt. They sold albums. They were a studio band. I know Gorillaz has “performed” but they are a studio band as well – hell, they are cartoons!
What do artists do that don’t want to/can’t perform? Are they just SOL? “Sorry, you can’t make any money from your music, you need to dance for the people. Come on and dance, monkey!”
I just don’t buy any of that. Your business model is lacking. Music IS the product. Not T-shirts, not concerts. People don’t go to Graceland for Elvis because he was a great truckdriver, they go because he was a singer and produced albums that they enjoyed.
To be honest, I got burned out on concerts pretty quickly. It’s a fleeting experience and the music is never as good as that coming from my stereo. I don’t wear T-shirts, so what reason do I have for buying anything from a musician if he gives his music away as “advertising”?
I want a CD. I want the cover art and liner notes and lyrics. I want something that someone thought about for a while, that they at least showed to a friend. I don’t want to have to sift through every little fart they thought was good and decided to put up on Myspace with no effort.

Sum Yung Guy says:

Re: Re: Re: MySpace

Authors and musicians are completely different; musicians (like actors, dancers, et al) are PERFORMERS – they have a skill set that is DEMONSTRABLE and subsequently requires DEMONSTRATION (or PERFORMANCE.) A writer’s skill set is not demonstrable – there is nothing to perform on the written word (although some performance artists might disagree.) It is meant to be READ, either alone or in public library in front of 5 year olds, but it is not a PERFORMANCE. The musician’s product is a function of his/her ability to PERFORM, while a writer’s product is just that, a product. Songs are not stories (again, that could be semantically argued) it’s the performer that makes it special.

Short version is : You could listen to a Metallica cover band doing “Sad But True”, or you could listen to Metallica doing it – which is worth more, and why? That should make it clear that the “song” is most definitively NOT the product, the reason, the final outcome, whatever you want to call it.

Sum Yung Guy says:

Re: Re: Re:2 MySpace

Michal – that’s the point in noting the difference between musicians and writers (and whatever else you want to throw in there.) You can read a story a dozen times because it’s written beautifully (see Nabakov’s “Spring in Fialta”), or you can read a story one time because the general premise is interesting (although the writing is on par with 3rd grade GATE students – see Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code”.) Whatever the reason, the story can (and should) stay with you for quite a long time.
You can also listen to a song once and love it or a thousand times and love it, but in the end it’s the PERFORMER’s version of the song that captures you and makes you want to listen to it again and again.
Short Version Again : If I rewrote “Spring in Fialta” using my words or ideas and then published it, I would go to jail. If my band played our version of “Sad But True” (a version which we don’t have, gladly) and then performed it, some people might like it. But I strongly think that no one would suddenly become a Metallica fan because we played a song he/she loved but had never heard before. I would even venture a step further and say that that person might actually become a fan of my band, not Metallica, because of that performance (see Phil Collins’ “Against All Odds” vs. The Postal Service’s updated version.) And that points back to musician as product, not song. (Was this really the short version?)

Thomas says:

Re: Re: Re:2 MySpace

one difference. how many times can you read the same book, vs the number of times you can listen to the same song.
I’ve read through many good books countless times. I’ve listened to many good songs countless times. The number of times a book remains enjoyable is only determined by it’s quality. Same with music.

Rick says:

Re: Re: Re: MySpace

You are being entirely too specific in your examples. Just because you want the album, doesn’t mean everyone does….
To further the model musicians have been offering, they can do many things to increase their own ‘visibility’ and ‘income’. Offer lower quality free downloads, then charge 99c for the high quality product. Offer ringtones, wallpaper, screensavers, posters, t-shirts, even physical CDs as they always have. Tours and Gigs are only the tip of the iceberg; income wise. Visibility is what drives sales and attendance – that’s where free and/or un-DRM’d media shines. If your music is good, it will spread and drive sales of what you are selling – if not, make better music.
Your argument only means the RIAA and Music conglomerates get 90-99% of the CD or DRM’d download and piss off THE FAN at the ARTIST (not at the RIAA unfortunately) when they have to BUY IT AGAIN when they get a new MP3 player or laptop. They probably won’t buy it again and probably will stop buying your product altogether, all thanks to ‘copy protection’
Offering un DRM’d media not only costs you less, it satisfies your supporters more, which in turn makes you more popular. If you’re really worth 99c a song and $20 for a T-shirt – you’ll get it – if not, take some music lessons and move on….
Stop paying and giving all your money and income to the RIAA, they only care about themselves, not the artists or the customers.

Dosquatch says:

Re: Re: Re: MySpace

For instance, think of people that write books. Some do write so that they can go on tours and get speaking engagements, however the vast majority write to publish a book, and want to sell the book, and for the most part a tour or speaking engagement is to SELL THE BOOK.

Apples and oranges. Music is inherently performance art, and as such expects an audience to watch the performance. Any doubts you may have about this should be answered by the existance of MTV, VH1, et. al. as compared to the complete lack of AuthorTV playing videos of, I don’t know, maybe Stephen King rocking out Chapter 3 of the Shining.

The final product can be digitized and thus downloaded, but usually is put on some kind of medium (CD or paper).

The ability to record sound for playback is a pretty recent invention in the scope of humanity (Edison Phonograph, 1877). Any music known to man prior to this (and for quite a while afterwards as well) was purely a performance art. Yet I give you Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Chopin, and on and on.

You say “final product” as if a recording is an end to itself and thus the only reason for there to be music. You are wrong.

Gorillaz has “performed” but they are a studio band as well – hell, they are cartoons!

This only sells what I’m saying. If they were purely a studio band, never seen and only heard, who would know or care that their “public face” is animation? They have to appear in public for this to be known or matter.

Music IS the product.

Yes, but music is not necessarily the CD. I can hear a song on the radio. I can hear it on MTV. I can hear it thumping out of the car next to me at a red light. I can borrow my friend’s CD. I can borrow a copy of the CD from a library. In all of these ways, and more, I can hear a song without the artist ever getting a cent from me. Are you suggesting that I should flog myself in guilt and rush off to stuff dollar bills in the artist’s pocket?

Every time I hear the song, it is advertising – which is all I said before. It is enticing me to spend money on things the artist is selling (CDs, posters, whatever). Pay close attention here, this is the tricky part: I am under no obligation whatsoever to spend this money. I don’t have to buy the CD, and if I never, ever hear his song, I probably won’t. It is to the artist’s benefit that I hear it for free on the radio. His song, in that way, is advertising, separate and distinct from the album.

The best way to convince me that I want to buy that album is to let me hear it. I mean, come on, Jimmy Dean figured out that the best way to sell sausage was to let people taste it for free in the grocery store, conveniently right next to a shelf full of product. How is this such a hard concept?

Tin Ear (user link) says:

Re: Re: MySpace

Dosquatch has hit the nail directly on the head. What the recording industry and the RIAA seem to be missing is that the music isn’t the product in question. The product is the ARTIST themselves and the potential for more of their art in the future! The music is an art form, and while it has value in itself, it is a secondary to the main product of the artist.

A famous painter attracts people with his/her paintings, but most of his/her customers want to meet the person responsible for the masterpiece!

Marco says:

Re: Re: MySpace

The recording is advertising, yes. This has always been the case.

Historically speaking this has never been the case outside of, say, Vegas and Broadway. The recording is considered the product and the concert tours, which fall on the other side of the accounting line (the negative side that is) are in promotion of the product. This would be why concerts are put on by promoters and CDs are put out by distributers. Dispite the extrordinarily high ticket prices, money is never made on concerts.

Your point about Elvis “being the product” really only applies to certain rare icons that can make money on residuals like action figures and holloween costumes.

Going forward, however, your point should be taken very seriously about how the industry is going to have to change in the future. There will always be some type of marketable product associated with rock and pop stars, but artists should definitely start looking at income streams other than the recordings themselves.

gene kildare says:

Re: MySpace

even if you would have gotten “the big record deal” and even sold a decent number of cds, how much of that do you think you would have ever seen? disc sales have _always_ just been adverts for the musician, who made their money playing live and selling merch. Nothing new here for the artist.

Check out:

Jim Garrison says:

Re: MySpace

You answered your own question. You’re getting gigs. The money in music has always been in concerts and other performances along with other merchandising like t-shirts. Artists make very little from each CD sale – that money gets spent by the recording companies, on things like paying radio stations to play the crap they churn out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Speaking as a software developer...

My target audience is 14 to 24 year olds in a close knit community. If I did not have copy protection on my software I would get maybe a handful of sales before it was spread throughout the community and it was given away for free.

This is the perfect example of when copy protection isn’t just desired, it’s downright necessary.

But on the other hand, 700MB movies sold on a global scale aren’t really in danger of becoming unprofitable without copy protection. The trick is making it just barely difficult enough to deter the average person while not punishing your actual customers.

People willing to spend money will do so as long as they don’t have a cheaper and just as easy alternative. Anyone else never intended to spend money in the first place and therefore their actions are irrelevant.

perry says:

Re: Speaking as a software developer...

copy protection is worthless for someone who has intelligence. Doesnt matter what kind of lock you put on a cd i can get it off. not to mention i would think spending those billions of dollars on lowering the price of your music or offering other cool services , instead of wasting time and money, would be a whole lot more profitable. dont get me wrong i think some security is necessary, but just a simple password for a zipped file because what you dont understand is all it takes is one out of all the people on the net to crack your security then everyone has it one person just wasted your multi million security campaign. MAKE IT EASIER to get your music, easier to buy, play, give tools that normal free songs dont get. I could go own but whats the point. Unless they come up with a better model the industry will keep losing money. Unless they plan on prosecuting say 150 million people across the world.

Mike says:

Re: Speaking as a software developer...

As a fellow coder, I understand, but disagree. There is always a way to create something so that you can give away a part for free and get people to pay something for the full product. With music, the “part” should be the songs, the concert (and merchandise, etc) should be the full product. With software, the “trialware” is the free and the unrestricted full version is the full product. With car sales, the test drive is free, but you have to pay for the car. With books, the library is free, but if you want to own a copy, it’s off to the bookstore.

The model CAN be applied everywhere, it’s just that sometimes you need to be a little innovative in the implementation.

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re: Speaking as a software developer...

My biggest problem with “restricted trials” is that they always block the features that I am interested in or they don’t allow saving. In the former, once I pay for it I discover that they don’t do as they advertised and I’m out a lot of money. The best thing I’ve seen to date is limited time trials and while those are usually pretty good, many recently seem to be getting the idea to restrict some of the features on top of the time limitations.

Though I will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER buy another data recovery program as long as I live. There’s a company(actually several) that claims to be able to do it well and you can use the program in demo mode to check it out and it reports that most of your files are 100% recoverable….then you pay for it and discover that the demo was lying to you and you’re out money and data. Then I download a freeware program that does it faster and doesn’t lie. I honestly prefer the idea of shareware..”if you use this regularly…you should pay for it”…cause most people only need data recovery once..but some of us need it constantly and I don’t see why my mom should pay $50 for software she’ll only use once and I pay the same amount and I use it as a daily part of my business.

Of course, I think I believe in the “Miracle on 34th St” syndrome a bit too much even if my idea of it is a bit more broad than the movie implied.

Joe Schmoe says:

Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a software developer...

To the previous poster (hopefully he’ll be back…)

Recover4all, though not cheap, I found to be a very good file recovery program and I am actually more than satisfied. Beyond just undeleting your files, it will also find and let you undelete previous saves/versions of files as well. I’ve even used it to sucessfully grab photos off of my flash card that I accidentally deleted in camera…

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a software developer...


The problem with full-featured, time-limited trials is hacking. It’s just too easy to disable the time-limitation and redistribute what is equivalent to a full version. Shipping with certain features disabled, but still included in the code, has the same effect. This is why it’s generally a good idea to ship an alternate build where certain features have been physically removed (as opposed to blocked). This way, it can not be hacked, because the code simply isn’t there.

Of course, anyone could buy the full version and distribute it illegally. I suppose nothing is ever secure.

christopher says:

Re: Re: Re: Speaking as a software developer...

I’ve equated pirating, in some cases, to civil disobedience for the past five years now. Hear me out.

In the case of “bait and switch” trials, if our Eric the White managed to find a full copy from Limewire, and discovered then that it would not recover his files in the least, he could avoid the hassle of writing Visa and saying “Do not pay these charlatans, as the software does not work as advertised”.

However, because he has the avenue of consumer protection afforded to him by Visa/ Mastercard/ AMEX, a decent legal case would rule that piracy is not his only recourse. More convenient, definitely, but it relies upon his personal integrity to pay for a license if it does prove to work well.

I’ve evaluated data recovery products, and resorted to buying them, returning them through Visa’s help. The ones I managed to find in the wild did NOT work as advertised, and most of the ones I bought didn’t either. Data recovery is a kind of “find a solution in case of emergency” application, so unless it’s your job you don’t generally know who’s good and who’s not.

Again, stay with me.

Music is the same way. Checking out new music is almost impossible without some kind of trial of the full album. Napster/ Yahoo has a subscription model that I think is fair, as you have an entire catalog to browse and trial the songs you might like. If you really like them buy the CD used.

In the absence of choices, you will go underground. It’s inevitable, and when (RIAA or MPAA or Microsoft) choke off all reasonable evaluations of a product, well, we go underground.

Jim D says:


I would like to mention an artist named Jack Johnson. I remember listening to Jack 3 or 4 years ago and nobody knew who he was. Through his websites message board, we all did “B&P”‘s (blanks and postage). You would “offer” a b&p up on the board and a certain amount of people got in. They sent you blank cdr’s along with return postage and packaging. All you did was burn the cd’s and send ’em back. Now, mind you, this was for live show material only, but out of that grew compilations like Jack Of All Trades (JOAT), TRIP 1&2 (Television, radio, interviews, preformances), etc. This grassroots style was (and is!) HEAVILY ENCOURAGED BY JACK AND HIS MANAGEMENT. He encouraged people to pass around FREE music! Then, when SONY wanted to sign him, he said no and helped start his own label, Brushfire Records. He may not be a mega-millionaire, but I think he’s doing just fine. The whole SDTK to Curious George. Live shows sell out in less than an hour in most cities. Like what was said in a previous post, JACK is the product.

Jim D.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Speaking as a software developer...

check out the music software ‘renoise’. i think they have a trick where they have some code that custom-generates an executable on the download page that has your name embedded. its market is something similar to yours.. a limited, fairly tight-knit group. The thinking is that you use shame to copy protect it… which of your users is going to give away the software if everyone knows which lamer gave it away?

Not infallible of course but its an interesting idea.

Kenneth says:

Copying is legal

Copying a purchased DVD or CD is perfectly legal to make a backup for yourself. Therefore, using the burned media instead of the original. Manufactures (spelling) need to realize this and program said media to alllow for a burn one time. That would but probably not make the public happy, because the public like to have something to complain about. It’s the old adage “you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please most of the people most of the time.”

Me says:

Line my pockets

I will say this, I own every Metallica tapecd and set that has come out. Why? Because I love the group, always have. I was in a stuck position over the whole napster deal being a Metallica fan. I do own a lot of music but I am not going to go out and buy cds anymore. Heck, I haven’t boughtdownloaded or ripped any music at all and won’t. Why? because I really can’t stand much of the music anymore. I am not young but I do like some of the new stuff but it’s really hard to do. There are a handful I may listen to but I am not going to bother downloading 5 songs, I am not going to buy a cd for 1 song. Maybe record off the radio? Maybe.

I see it like this, being from the 80’s and 90’s, I liked Ratt, and most bands of the sort, but I am not going to buy the cd. Come on, that was over 20 years ago for some groups. Why would I pay 99 cents a song for that? I truly believe that music , after it is no longer considered remembered by newer generations, should be able to be downloaded for free. No instead let the RIAA sit their fat cans on it , gloating. Stupid.

Sure, let new music be paid for for a while, not that the artists see that much of it, right big fat RIAA? I have noticed that music from 10 years ago isn’t even played much, on some stations maybe but big deal. Oh, did I mention that the statistics for even this generation of kids said if music was GOOD they would buy more cds? What does that say? I am around and get along with much of the new generation of kids and they have the same complaints to me, the music sucks. Many are resorting to big hair bands or at least back to Nirvana, etc…I applaud Green Day for coming back with at least a few good songs. The problem? RIAA has way too much control.

I saw a statement saying , those who were not planning on buying in the first place, wouldn’t anyway.(or to that order) I think that’s un-true. Price, need, want are 3 major things. Many can’t afford something as simple as a cd, so they either go without for years or they rip it, or download it. I know, having 3 kids, a disabled wife and college and work, I can’t afford gas in my vehicle. Although for another subject, our economy has a lot to do with who buys and who won’t. At one time it was, how do we get people to buy our product, now it’s just let those who can afford it , buy it, and if the rest have to go without, oh well.

Artist says:


I’m a singer in a rock band in hawaii.. we do covers and originals, average good cover band here makes 1500 to 3000 a show, average good original band 1500 to 5000… Here is my view, the recording is our advertisement, download it, play it, copy it, share it with your friends, run it up the flag pole, its yours…( altho we only have a few songs not a full cd as of yet) My band has no intention of making money on cd’s. We may charge a buck or two to cover the cost of recording at the studio, and the cost of the actuall cd (if you buy one at the show), but our goal is to make money at the shows, and if you copy, download, share, whatever.. the cd, odds are when you see us at a club, you’ll drop by, the club will make money, then we will make money.. it really is that simple. As a matter of fact, we’ve already discussed about putting a small disclaimer on the cd that says, “This cd is yours, do with it as you wish, you may copy, reproduce, share, destroy, perform, change, eat, or smoke it at any time.”
*sry bad spellings, im a singer, not a english major.

Jimmy Bear Pearson (user link) says:

Re: Singer

I’m all for your approach (Keep on keepin’ on! More power to you!). However…

A handful of us cannot tour, cannot do tour dates, or even do local clubs. For example, I have a full-time job and a family that I adore. I make my music after the kids are in bed and while my wife is studying her class work. I make music because I love it (and will continue to do so even if only 10 CDs sell this year), but it wouldn’t hurt my family to sell some music online or sell some of my self-produced CDs. My music is a catch 22 – it is both a wonderful expression of what my soul feels, and is potentially valuable for me and the members of my family.

I give away several songs from each of my albums. My albums (like many hundreds similar to me) are not DRM?d and are not touched by folks like RIAA. I want the world to have a copy of some things, I intentionally give away music on Audiri, purevolume, dmusic, etc.. It just wouldn’t be so bad if someone actually threw a little donation towards artists like myself to buy instruments, do stuff for our families, or even buy new recording stuff.

freakengine says:


Like it or not, the music business model is changing. I, for one, am very happy about it. I’d much rather the recording artists reap the benefits of their work rather than a buncha guys in suits at the label.

The model used to be this: the label seeks out a new band and signs them to a contract wherein the band actually owes the label their production costs if the music doesn’t sell, and wherein the band only makes pennies to the labels dollars if it DOES sell.

Then the label shoves a single down radio’s throat via it’s payola network, and spends lots of money to promote the record. The band goes on tour, and since they had to sell their publishing rights to the label to get signed, they make very little money on the road.

Finally, the record sells, the record company gets rich, and they then try and discourage the success of the follow-up album(s). After all, artists that have a track record of sales can demand better contract terms, spend a LOT more money making their albums, and are generally a pain in the ass to the labels. It’s much easier to go on to yet another one hit wonder, and milk them dry too. Rinse and repeat and you have the RIAA business model we’ve all suffered with for the last few decades.

Now we’re finally freeing everyone up from this horrendous state of affairs and everyone’s whining. EVERYONE. Face it people, we’re moving on. If you don’t like performing live, then I’d suggest you try getting involved in more freelance work for film and TV where you get paid per project. If you love it live, go for it and reap the rewards. If you’re a label suit, find another exploitable resource. If you’re a consumer, just realize that we’re in the growing pains, and speak up to stop our own corrupt legal system from hobbling the future of music.

The only problem that I see with the newer models is the fact that I have to wade through a lot of crappy music to find the stuff I like…oh wait…I guess things aren’t that different after all.

IT GUY (user link) says:

No Subject Given

Is it not legal to make a backup copy of any software(or any other media) I LEGALLY purchased? Well copy protection prevents me from doing this. Seeing how many copies of certain software on P2P servers, I can tell it is not preventing any piracy. So basically the only thing copy protection does is prevent people from making a backup incase anything happens to the original.

TechNoFear (profile) says:

Re: Re: Personal Responsibility

All I hear from posters on this type of thread is how it is RIAA’s fault for having an ‘outdated business model’ that you are violating copyright.
Or that if content providers had better content you would pay for it.
Or that the content creator would not have made much money from it so you taking it for free is OK.
Accept you are too cheap to pay for what you want so you take it for free, depriving the creator of his income.
Accept that you cannot create this kind of content so you place no value on its creation.
Accept it is wrong and hurting the content creators, providers and the fans prepared to pay for the product.
Accept that invasive DRM (ie rootkits, StarForce) are your fault. If you did not take content without compensating those who created it, we would not need these forms of protection.
Accept that DRM will get worse before it gets better. The next step is hardware level authentication and none of us want that…..
>>The product is the ARTIST themselves
Who wrote the ‘GTA3 SA’ levels?
Who was the lead artist on ‘DOOM3’?
Name one member of the development team for ‘World of Warcraft’?

Yeah, the ‘artist’ is the product…..

Me says:

Re: Re: Re: Personal Responsibility

Are you mad? Let me tell you, I don’t illegally download music, BUT I won’t pay a damn cent for it either! It’s NOT that people are cheap, OK, some yes, but you had that before file sharing was even popular. The original problem that many forget, was the guy making thousands of illegal copies and selling them as actual cds, not a 12 year old sharing a file.

Your comments are well, STUPID to say the least. We can’t create so therefore we are jealous? Do you recall how the RIAA was over charging from the 70’s , if I remember correctly? They knew it and ripped off millions of people anyway? Justify that you RIAA wannabe.

TechNoFear (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Personal Responsibility

>>the guy making thousands of illegal copies and selling them as actual cds, not a 12 year old sharing a file.

Pirates have been coping software for decades, they just could not distribute them.

The issue is that the average user can now copy and distribute the content world wide in minutes.

DRM is a response to stop the average user not the pirate.

Just as car locks, alarms and immobilisers are to stop the average joy rider not the pro car thief.

Why you think that companies are spending all this extra money on DRM creation?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...