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)
Some people just shouldn't hold public office.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Shrinks the market?
you must be new here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Shrinks the market?
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Shrinks the market?
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Shrinks the market?
I will never, ever, buy another product with DRM.
I reached this position for 2 reasons:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Let her know how you feel
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/mail.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DRM
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Shrinks the market?
Shut up, doofus
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
DRM is a fool'
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Shrinks the market?
Perhaps that's because you're stupid and ignorant.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Hey, who appointed this Tate bozo, anyway?
Musta been that goddamn fucking asshole in the White House.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
She doesn't hold a public office. She was appointed, not elected.
Yet another example of Bush's inability to select competent staff for important positions
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FCC is a dinosaur
The FCC stopped serving its intended purpose a long time ago. It should be abolished.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Unfortunately she wasn't ELECTED to her office!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 $$
Its more like if you rent someone your house or your car you have some right left to tell the person how to deal with it.
Try buying a hit song.... or even creating one :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Why not DRM
But when you buy a song, you only buy certain rights to that song, you don't own it. To buy a hit song would cost many thousands of $$
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
drm free - inexpensive mp3's..
mp3spy.ru/en
allofmp3.com
ahh mother land Russia
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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, you’re nothing but greasy hoochies slinging your caulk and riding your jackhammer for the home buying pimps of the world. That’s 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. That’s right; if y