Community weekly poll: What's your take on DRM technology?
- 3/15/06 4:21 PM
GREAT analysis!
by speleofool - 3/22/06 10:59 AM In reply to: DRM perpetuates the "old order" by tao51nycYou're 100% correct that DRM only considers the BIG players.
One of the most asinine arguments I've heard against "fair use" is that consumers have no real valid reasons for making backup copies of their media. Well, I have quite a significant amount of music from lesser-known artists that is out of print and not available anywhere. If/when my original pressed CDs go that music is GONE FOREVER, unless I'm lucky enough to find it on eBay or I resort to "illegal" backups.
Cheers!
Speleo.
Its several wolves in sheeps clothing.
by jskline - 3/17/06 3:49 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
I am still in a quandry about how this ever was even allowed to be put into practice.
The only people I see making any money off of this is the people pushing the DRM package; aka Microsoft, Apple, Real, etc., and the recording industry. The artist's still don't see much of anything out of it much like they don't see anything substansive from CD sales either. And given todays economy, the prices for CD's are completely out of line. Typical street prices for new music here in the Twin Cities is about $18 per disc, and we still have the realization of typical ''I like this'' yield from an average artist's CD of only 2 or 3 tracks max!
I'm watching this unfold as this. Apple's iTunes right now is probably one of the best, but you are locked to 6 burns for tracks you purchase. Napster is right behind it with what I understand is 3 burns. Microsoft's are so crummy sounding that you don't even want to go there at all. Rapsody is good, but your still locked to yet another DRM that is very restrictive. You need these burns to count since the quality of CDR media is getting to be ''dime store'' cheap and they don't hold up under the rigors of daily use.
Another side to this is the ''branding'' part. The music is in many instances being heavily branded and hyped similarly. There are many instances of artists songs and sometimes whole albums that are not available anywhere except iTunes, and others that are not available anywhere except Napster, etc.
I've encountered problems with all of these. One major thorn being if you have problems with your computer and either it has to have the OS reinstalled, or something else happens that is considered catastrophic, you loose all your music. The only service that survives this is iTunes. All others do not allow you to recover EVEN IF YOU HAD A BACKUP! You loose it all and have to repurchase again. Now with iTunes, this is also assuming that you've backed up your iTunes music folder and all it's contents. I had instances where the machine became infected with trojans and other malware and required reload. Napster failed twice in this regard. I could not recover the music I had purchased even though I had the files. Fortunately I had already burn't copies of the music to CDR's, but had I not been 100% burnt on all my purchased music from Napster, per their agreement and software model, you cannot redownload it again without repurchasing. In addition they are also using Microsoft's media formats for rendering and it's quality is nowhere near iTunes.
I have since taken to keeping only Napster around to audition music and keep iTunes for actual purchased downloads.
Big tech tip too all; When you burn the music to CDR's, be sure to use top quality media and burn it as slow as possible. Laws of physics apply and the disc's will burn better, last longer, and play in more equipment than had you burnt it at 52x! Also be sure to make a backup burn of the discs you make and put the backups in a cool dry place somewhere. Remember we can't trust the music industry and obviously we can't seriously trust DRM.
Incidentally; for those questioning my qualifying sound quality of these DRM's, I audition my CD's after burning on a hand-built 3.2ghz P4 system that is very optimized running Windows XP Professional, through a Midiman/M-Audio Delta-44 which goes into a Spirit Folio mixing board, and that feeds an Alesis RA-100 driving a pair of Alesis Monitor One's. I can tell the difference!
I am "chained" to my desk!
by fredrp - 3/17/06 4:25 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
When I download an ebook, I use PDF format. Why is it that Acrobat 7.0 prevents me printing some/all of it to read elsewhere than on my screen?
This means that no-one else in the family can read the ebook - and I can't lend it to anyone by emailing it as an attachment because it cannot be decrypted at the destination!
What's your take on DRM technology
by BroJohn - 3/17/06 4:26 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
Like many things in life, this is another group that wishes to control what other people do with what they think they own. I note that laws are obeyed by the law abiding, this is true for fair use and copyright as well. If you are a law abiding citizen with a sense of responsibility then you use the things you buy in a responsible way. You want the artist to have a fair pay for his/her work, and you want to be able to enjoy your purchase.
I find DRM to be very repressive, and make it a point to buy nothing that uses the technology. I download those artists that put their music on free sites, (free from DRM) and enjoy those things that I download. Either on my PDA or on a CD in my vehicle or on my PC. Like many others in our society I have come to see the fallacy of the term ownership, because when you buy something it should be yours to use as you see fit, instead, you are restricted in your use.
This is true for everything from Music to Property. You think you own your property and your homeZ? Think again, the government owns them. Try not paying your property tax, (rent to the gov't). DRM is just another way to take your ownership away and give control over your use of the music back to the record company. Even the artists don't gain anything, in fact they lose since more money is poured into the technology, chipping away at the profits. No one wins in this but the software makers and the labels.
even property taxes have their uses (presumably)
by ackmondual - 3/23/06 2:55 PM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology by BroJohnwhen you pay taxes, that $$ is supposed to go towards you and the ppl in a greater way. Gov't is required to spend some of that $$ for public good like maintaining roads, responding to crisis, and protecting their citizens from foreign and domestic threats.
DRMs on the otherhand..... AFAIK, if there is anything good to come of it for the consumer, the majority of it ain't good
What is DRM (Digital Rights Management)
by entrecon - 3/17/06 4:57 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
For those that does not understand English:
===========================================
''La Gestión de derechos digitales o gestión de restricciones digitales (abreviado en inglés DRM Digital Rights Management) es un término que aglomera todas las tecnologías orientadas a ejercer restricciones sobre los usuarios de un sistema o forzar los derechos digitales permitidos, por comisión de los poseedores de derechos de autor e independientemente de la voluntad de uso del usuario del sistema.
Generalmente estos dispositivos son instalados como condición previa a la distribución de software no libre, obras musicales, libros electrónicos o cualquier tipo de archivo sujeto a derechos de autor.
Pero en algunos casos, las restricciones aplicadas se extienden más allá de los archivos que debían proteger, agregando restricciones sobre el uso de otros documentos o aplicaciones presentes en el computador. Este es un efecto no deseado y pernicioso''
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For those taht does not understand Spanish:
===========================================
''DRM Digital Rights Management is a definition that covers all technologies oriented to apply restrictions to a system's user or force digital rigths permited by the copyright authors, and it is independent of the volunter of need to use of system user.
In general, these devices are installed as a prerequisite in distribution of not-free software, music files, electronic books or any other filetypes that are subjected to copyrights.
But In some cases, restrictions applied extend further than legaly to files that in real terms they should protect, so adding restrictions to the use of other applications or documents that are presently in the PC that does not have to be protected or affected by copyrights. This is a real handicap.''
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regards,
Antonio.
What's DRM management?
by jaysmama - 3/17/06 5:23 AM In reply to: What is DRM (Digital Rights Management) by entreconApparently - English is not Antonio's first language - I'm sure his explanation of DRM was crystal clear in Spanish - but I'm lost..
What is DRM?
Language
by liraar - 3/17/06 7:09 AM In reply to: What's DRM management? by jaysmamaHi:
Well I'm both fluent in Engl and Span. Antonio's definition is pretty good in both languages eventough you can say that English is not his first language. Try to google DRM to get a simpler definition that you may understand since If I gave you one it would probably run along Antonio's line.
Thanks
Neska
DRM has its place, but it takes time
by adviceinc - 3/17/06 5:45 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
I've read a number of responses complaining about DRM. While I can totally understand the frustration (and share some of the same thoughts), I do believe some sort of rights management is appropriate. Regardless of whether you like or hate the "record industry," an artist and their associates have the right to protect their copyrighted material. You can argue all you like about how far they should go or how much money they should make, but the fact of the matter is: 1) consumers are, in effect, renters of the material, 2) artists and the record companies that represent them only make money off of music that's sold LOTS and 3) when the concept of "fair use" was developed, it was meant to provide some amount of limited distribution to a small network of associates linked to the original licensor of the material (sharing a song with 1MM of your friends over Kazaa is *not* fair use).
Ultimately, all of these inconveniences will be worked out. For example, Napster now provides a "to go" subscription where you can download music to your PC and distribute it amongst a couple of portal players for no additional fee. If you want to burn a copy, you pay the relatively small fee and then you can download it to any number of players you'd like. If you have more than one PC, Napster allows you to distribute the tracks to up to 3 PCs without penalty (each PC can be associated with two portal players). And, in the event you bought a new computer, but already downloaded your tracks three times, a quick e-mail to customer service unlocked the songs so that I could redownload my purchases tracks to my new computer (although if I had actually burned them to CD like I should have, it would not have been an issue). Again, some of this is inconvenient, but managage -- even tracks purchased through Walmart.COM (who seems to have a very restrictive set of policies), can be resolve through a quick call.
Now, if you don't like any of the commericial options, then start signing up music artists to your own label, pay for the studio time and distribute the music yourself. Then, figure out how to keep people from ripping you off after you discover the sales of your band's latest album are flat. Why are they flat? It turns out a few people legally licensed the material, but then uploaded the songs (or the album) to a peer-to-peer network (or other mass distribution means). Millions of people picked up the songs and were freely able to listen to the music because you didn't want to control the distribution of your band's music using some sort of digital rights management.
DRM doesn't have a place
by RolliePJ - 3/17/06 9:39 AM In reply to: DRM has its place, but it takes time by adviceincThis sounds like it is coming from someone connected to the recording industry. Go after the law breakers who upload the songs to the P2P sites not the ones who use the music for their own use. You want to complain about how much it costs to produce the music, how about the consumer who gets ripped off everytime they buy a CD legally and they only contain maybe two good songs and the rest are fillers. The recording industry knows they are fillers and so do the artists. The artists are told to have approx. ten songs for a CD to be produced and they have to come up with something to fill it with. That is outright fraud to the consumer. Until Congress passes a law allowing free use for your own, this kind of thing (P2P) will go on. Go after the pirates and uploaders not the people who use it for their own use.
Faulty premise
by spicetrader - 3/17/06 10:59 PM In reply to: DRM has its place, but it takes time by adviceincIn my opinion, your premises are faulty, and this debases the rest of your argument.
Artists and their associates do not properly have a right to own all copies of their songs.
You might argue that they do have a right under constitutional and copyright law, but this is a legalistic argument that I reject. It resembles Alberto Gonzales's argument that if the prisoner didn't die, then he wasn't tortured.
I would grant that artists and associates have reason to expect they will be paid a wage, a salary, or a fee for service for the performance. But asserting that they own my reproduction of the song is a piratical assault upon me and upon society.
Real-life counter-example....
by speleofool - 3/22/06 11:27 AM In reply to: DRM has its place, but it takes time by adviceincI'm sure they're not to everyone's taste, but the band Ween is highly successful and has been signed to major labels in the past. They now run their own web site, which includes their own internet radio station and a tool to find and download live songs from hundreds on concerts on P2P networks. They have an audio page where they occasionally post free studio MP3s for download. In addition, there's a store front where you can purchase their CDs, DVDs and LPs at reasonable prices. Finally, they have done some internet-only CD sales that have become sought-after collector's items.
This is a band that is doing everything right, treating their fans with respect and enjoying success as a result. If more bands followed their example instead of whining about how much income they think they're entitled to receiving but are not then we wouldn't have oppressive DRM.
Cheers!
Speleo.
DRM-Annoying for everyone, and doesn't stop piracy
by Raino - 3/17/06 5:53 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
DRM is a complete waste of time, and causes a lot of grief for everyone, because it causes a variety of problems. If it truly stopped piracy, it might be a worthwhile inconvenience. But it doesn't stop the bulk of the problem--mass produced bogus software CDs produced ostensibly outside the US. These fakes are produced by the millions.
In particular, it is at it's worst with Digital Television. It is virtually impossible to time shift HDTV programs more than what you can fit on a hard drive. Digital VHS is capable, but the DRM Nazis have crippled it so you can't record HD Digital signals onto it without a lot of hassles. No Component video inputs, only Firewire for downloading your camcorder. Absolutely ridiculous. And, once again, people pay for services thay can't use, and the pirated DVDs are being made by the millions offshore.
A hopeless solution
by LawrenceHare - 3/17/06 7:20 AM In reply to: What's your take on DRM technology? by Marc Bennett
Which DRM is the weak response to a typical problem - the bad guy is always there and to bring everyone down to the same level is unimaginative and self-defeating. Many people use wireless sound systems like Sonos, Olive, and - at least as far as my experience shows - there is no DRM protected music that works on such systems. My Zen Touch cannot play them and neither can my computer. My wife and I would spend a fortune on download services if the tunes we purchased could be used at all, which they cannot. (Note that I do not like to use illegal download servers - fair's fair it seems to me - a fair value exchange for music received). So, the bottom line, I buy nothing with DRM protection. We ALL lose it seems to me!
Lawrence
DRM, just dont buy it
by itseasy - 3/21/06 10:35 PM In reply to: A hopeless solution by LawrenceHareI have to agree with Lawrence, Message # 25.
I quit buying any drm music. I don't download any illigal music. I agree it is not honest. I have bought A big bunch of cds over the years but ill buy no more untill they remove this drm mess. I will never buy another Sony product even if they do remove the drm.
I quit BMG when they got involved in this mess.
The big music sellers think they are loseing sales because of piracy and they are wrong. Sure some folks pirate music but i say the sales are dropping because us honest people are refuseing or too confused over this drm mess and simply are not buying their crap(DRM). The drm does not prevent anyone from copying music. A short wire to a recorder from any good player
bypasses any drm. The drm only creates a hassel for the honest people who are tired enough of it to stop buying. I tried to play a song on my computer that had been there for several years and Win Media player said it was copywrited and would not play it. It was one of the first cds i had bought. Needless to say i deleted Win Media player an installed Winamp. Its a loose loose situation, they got me looking at Lenox now.
Gates needs to spend some of his billions talking to these drm folks an get on with doing away with it.
Just say no! Don't buy.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
