Hard News: Another nail in the coffin of music DRM
691 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 28 Newer→ Last
-
what's on Hitler's iPod?
-
excellent :)
-
oppss, sorry,
the actually answer wasHitler's personal record collection found, after over 60 years. The most astonishing fact about the records — essentially Hitler’s “Best of . . .” collections — is the presence of Jewish performers. Among the recordings is a Tchaikovsky concerto performed by the virtuoso Polish Jewish violinist Bronislaw Huberman.
but I'm sure we could come up with something a lot funnier that that.
a little screwdriver perhaps?
-
possibly the sparks cos he liked their facial hair?
-
In the not rolling over corner the MPAA won a court settlement of almost 111 million dollars against BitTorrent search engine site Torrent Spy.
The site recently closed down of their own free will but due to the legal pressure put on them, but that didn't stop them getting judgement against them to the tune of $30,000 for each of nearly 3700 disputed files listed on their site.Torrent sites excuse of "we don't actually hold the pirate content, just a file which instructs your computer how to find it" and "We're no more guilty than the postal system is for carrying pirated dvds to customers" didn't wash with the judges.
ouch. or not. the site owners have filed for bankruptcy.
-
and in other "copyright fights back" news,
zune is installing a feature that will block unauthorised copyrighted video material from that player.
apple is still refusing to co-operate with blocking copyright material for itunes, although I assume they could do just that. -
I'm sure both the Zune owners will be well pissed off with that ;)
-
I'm sure both the Zune owners will be well pissed off with that ;)
Hahaha, I thought that myself, I've never even seen a shop that sells them.
wasn't russell's original indignation re drm that he couldn't transfer his files between platforms?
I guess we can assume he's zune owner number one. bill gates may have the other. no downloaded episodes of greys anatomy for them. -
I've seen them in Asia but neither the iPod or anything else comes close to the simple Nokia / Motorola as the MP3 player of choice up here.
-
in truck off etc thread
robbery saidif you pay for a download its playable on the platform you down load it on.
Don Christie said
That is also incorrect. Try again.
But even were to to be right, consider this, if your main music system is not connected to your main Internet system where does that leave you?
Pretty screwed as a customer, so you are wrong, again...
politely addressing your comments don
aside from the broad generalisation that infers everyone who buys music downloads can't make them work
if you're downloading music with drm in it and you download it to your computer and it doesn't play on your ipod (itunes) or Zune (what ever they use) then you're buying the wrong product.its as sill as saying I bought diesel and it doesn't work in my regular 91 burning mazda 323.
if you downloaded the right thing for your player lets say itunes, and it doesn't play then you have bought faulty goods and you should return them for a full refund, let the retailer you bought them off know they're broken and hopefully they'll correct the problem, cos they're in the business of selling music and obviously selling a track that can't play is going to put em out of business. I think its fair to assume that they reasonably want to supply you with music that is actually playable on one system of your choosing. if that system is an ipod then it is mobile and can be plugged into any other stereo.lets just say you had an ipod.
download to your itunes, sync your ipod, and then you can play said song on you computer in itunes, and any other player by hooking your ipod into said system. if you're in the car either plug your ipod directly into the system via mini jack or get one of those itrip fm transmitters to pump your music through a free frequency of your choice.assuming all this works as it should how are you not getting access to the music you purchased? can I have a real life example of how you have had an unsatisfactory experience with music your downloaded?
-
if you're downloading music with drm in it and you download it to your computer and it doesn't play on your ipod (itunes) or Zune (what ever they use) then you're buying the wrong product.
its as sill as saying I bought diesel and it doesn't work in my regular 91 burning mazda 323.
Ah, but the reason we largely have two kinds of hydrocarbon-burning cars (diesel and petrol) is because those two fuels have been very convenient for several decades, and thus carmakers have an incentive to produce vehicles to a shared standard.
Computers and IT equipment, alas, are not so homogenous. I understand where you're coming from, but can you see why people might not want to buy music that can only work on a particular system which they then become locked into? I sense potential for format wars and profit-gouging from closed music systems - if consumers were stupid enough to opt for them, which I'm certain they're not.
You could always attempt to herd the proverbial cats of the music industry into a single DRM format and player standard - but once you've moved that particular mountain with your pinky finger, you can bet that the same millions of people who have been cracking DRM files and uploading them to bittorrent over the last few years will find a workaround for the same system in time, bringing us neatly back to square one.
To return to the car analogy: you might well mandate swamp or wood gas as the fuel of the future and sell proprietary vehicles to that standard, but you'd be facing some skepticism from legitimate consumers used to more convenient alternatives.
-
if you're downloading music with drm in it and you download it to your computer and it doesn't play on your ipod (itunes) or Zune (what ever they use) then you're buying the wrong product.
If only. If I download DRMd music from Vodafone or Digirama to my computer, it doesn't play on my computer ...
-
Ah, but the reason we largely have two kinds of hydrocarbon-burning cars (diesel and petrol) is because those two fuels have been very convenient for several decades, and thus carmakers have an incentive to produce vehicles to a shared standard.
Also the fuel you put in your car only commits you to that car until the fuel runs out - a couple of weeks or whatever. The music you buy could commit you to that one player forever. Which given how fast technology is moving in this area is pretty unrealistic.
And the fuel that I put in my car isn't yet worth more than the car, not the case once I've purchased a dozen or so albums online in relation to my player.
-
If only. If I download DRMd music from Vodafone or Digirama to my computer, it doesn't play on my computer ...
are you saying all files downloaded from vodafone and digiama do not play on your computer or occasional ones, and do you think it is just your computer they won't play on or is it all computers, so all people downloading from these sources can't play them on computers?
-
can you see why people might not want to buy music that can only work on a particular system which they then become locked into?
isn't that what we have been doing with CD (only playable on a cd compatible player), Vinyl (only playable on a turntable or with a sharpened fingernail) VHS tape (VHS machine), DAT, and even mp3 (they don't play on my turntable or fingernail). apply that to most other consumer products, they work within specific boundaries (vacuum cleaner bags, batteries, pen refills etc).
Why should we expect music downloads to work any differently?
I think the biggest issue with music downloads is you're paying a reasonable amount of money for a downgraded music source, and that most listeners don't seem to care about that issue over the artist and industry trying to maintain a level of control over their products distribution. That's why I would never buy an mp3 until it was at full quality resolution. I'll buy the cd and make my own copy. -
do you think it is just your computer they won't play on or is it all computers, so all people downloading from these sources can't play them on computers?
What's an acceptable percentage of users who can use the DRM content they paid for versus users who paid but get squat? How exacting should the hardware and software requirements be? What will it take before people walk away for MP3s which run on anything (and can be had for free by the unscrupulous)?
-
The music you buy could commit you to that one player forever. Which given how fast technology is moving in this area is pretty unrealistic.
with all due respect kyle perhaps you and I shouldn't engage in conversation kyle, you remember what happened last time.
your points however are flawed.
do you still use the same cd player you first bought (in my case a sony portable with a battery the size of a remote control) that machine is long gone but I can still play my cds even on my dvd player, cos the company has brought out newer format compatible players as I would expect them to, until the format is abandoned, like VHS and 8mm tape is being right now.And the fuel that I put in my car isn't yet worth more than the car, not the case once I've purchased a dozen or so albums online in relation to my player.
I wasn't talking about fuel in terms of its cost relative to the cost of the machine you run it on, just in terms of applicability to the machine you were running.
your application of my analogy doesn't quite stand up though.
an mp3 isn't worth more than a player, multiple purchases might be but then you put multiple loads of fuel into your car on a weekly basis and it is easily worth more than the price of your car these days, just like a life time of vinyl is more than a turntable, and doesn't play in the modern players.
I personally think a purchase of a music track is a purchase of a lisence to own that track for life, independent of media.
I think that this is being restricted in the past more because to not restrict it in the past would me complete loss of control of distribution, not that media distributors want to deny you easy access to your purchased music, just because they haven't figured technology to enable this to happen without abuse by third parties. -
isn't that what we have been doing with CD (only playable on a cd compatible player), Vinyl (only playable on a turntable or with a sharpened fingernail) VHS tape (VHS machine), DAT, and even mp3 (they don't play on my turntable or fingernail). apply that to most other consumer products, they work within specific boundaries (vacuum cleaner bags, batteries, pen refills etc).
The music formats you mentioned are standardised formats which will work on a wide variety of devices built to that particular standard. Vacuum cleaner bags are a bit more specific - but I prefer to hang onto my music for longer than a paper bag or a pen refill (I cannot speak on your behalf in this regard). If I'm trying to preserve music for a long time, it helps if it is transferable to a wide variety of devices after I've bought it. DRM is not terribly helpful in this regard.
And I thought you were a fan of music not as consumer good but as transcendental avenue to the heart of the performer? Oh well, carry on... ;)
-
What's an acceptable percentage of users who can use the DRM content they paid for versus users who paid but get squat?
hold your horses sam, I'm just waiting for some more info from russell be forgoing any further.
I would sat that there is a zero percentage of failure acceptable, but that if I bought something for an advertised function and it didn't do that function then I am protected under the consumer guarantees act, and that if I was a manufacturer producing an item which didn't do what it was supposed to do then I would try and fix that, or reasonably expect to go out of business, and be replaced by someone who can offer the same product or service reliably.
I don't think that this would require me to provide my services or product without copy protection, just copy protection that worked. it its killing the product dead straight off I'd say that is a clear example of doesn't work, if its allowing the product to be played in itunes and synced to an ipod, I'd say that is working within acceptable limits for now. I'd like to hear specific examples of "I bought this track and downloaded it to my xxx player for which it was designed and it didn't work". Then I'd like to hear what the retailer had to say about it. -
DRM is not terribly helpful in this regard.
it doesn't have to be unhelpful either. its just software locks, you can port software ownership to new platforms now. I think its fair to expect that to be applicable to future platforms, in the future, but not to all platforms now. you buy the track to itunes, you load it onto your ipod, you play that ipod through multiple systems. if that works as advertised then that's a reasonable deal I think, it would be great if it recognised your license across multiple platforms but technology is not at that stage and to expect retailers to put their product out there and not attempt to protect it or strive for protection of it isn't very reasonable, insightful or helpful.
-
I think that this is being restricted in the past more because to not restrict it in the past would me complete loss of control of distribution, not that media distributors want to deny you easy access to your purchased music, just because they haven't figured technology to enable this to happen without abuse by third parties.
No, no..one of the core elements of the business model used by the music industry over the decades since, well whenever, is enforced redundancy.
The massive profits that the big six earned from the eighties onwards came more from replacement of technologically redundant items already owned by the consumer as from new releases. The end of that cycle in the early part of this decade is a key reason why industry sales have fallen so much and is often ignored.
-
that is speculation though simon. When I make a music recording and sell it to someone on cd i'm not doing it cos I think I'm going to sell it to them again when the next audio format comes out, and remember indie labels make up 40% of the market.
I also don't think the majors throughout history have been rubbing their hands in anticipation of the next format change. you could look at it like that but you could just as easily look at it as they made vinyl when vinyl was around and they made cd when cd was around. They didn't design vinyl to be obsolete (and to some its not) or cd, that's just progress, cd is a step in the direction of more convenient audio, as is mp3 to some extent. its not a conspiracy plan to get 2 times the money for the same item, that's just how its worked out, and why we haven't seen any law suits suing people who transferred their vinyl to cd and mp3. has anyone been prosecuted for transfering their cds to mp3 yet? its legal isn't it? -
why we haven't seen any law suits suing people who transferred their vinyl to cd and mp3. has anyone been prosecuted for transfering their cds to mp3 yet? its legal isn't it?
Only since the most recent Copyright Amendment Bill finally blessed format-shifting -- until this year it was illegal copying. But a record company can, in circumstances that remain unclear, still opt out. And you can only do it for yourself or a family member. You can only make a single copy in each format..
And you can't breach a technical protection measure to do it: in that case you have to write to the record company seeking relief from the TPM, then, if you don't get it, you can take your CD to a librarian or other "qualified person", and she will do it for you, probably on a cost-recovery basis.
Apart from all that; totally legit.
-
that is speculation though simon. When I make a music recording and sell it to someone on cd i'm not doing it cos I think I'm going to sell it to them again when the next audio format comes out, and remember indie labels make up 40% of the market.
I also don't think the majors throughout history have been rubbing their hands in anticipation of the next format change.Hardly speculation, go and read Walter Yetnikov's book, read dozens of industry histories written from the inside and out. The development of the compact disc was driven by the philosophy of replacement. It's been a cornerstone of the industry for decades.
And indies are only about 30% but rising. It was far far less than that before the digital era.
Selling people the things they thought they already owned is a cornerstone of the industry and, like DRM, no matter how well you argue it (and you do) a reason why people feel ripped off.
I myself bought a Kraftwerk album a couple of years back. I play much of my music on my computer while I work...the fucking thing had copyright protection on it and wouldn't play on that or my car. I was furious, I had been ripped off, so I stole a copy online.
I'm tech savvy and record industry savvy and I was angry...just imagine how my cousin or brother or the guy next door who are none of those things feel.
I bought a Carl Craig collection on iTunes....legally. I legally burnt a CD of it. The only place the CD plays is in my bloody iTunes....nowhere else. I feel ripped off again as I'd quite like to play it in the car..legally...but I can't.
People hate the music industry but love the music. They feel conned, ripped off, screwed and DRM, regardless of how well it's tuned or developed, adds to that and plays a huge part in the downturn of the recording industry. It's a contributing factor in piracy, not a solution.
-
whoops: copyright protection, should read= copy protection
Post your response…
This topic is closed.