[Brad]

Originally Posted by Doxxic Apple DRM is a joke. [...] Apple DRM is no restriction, only a little inconvenience sometimes...

Your opinion is very subjective. What of people who buy lots of music on iTunes? People who have purchased hundreds if not thousands of songs? What if the user has no CD-Rs? Bypassing the DRM now becomes a far greater problem than mere inconvenience. You might as well suggest routing the speaker cable to the microphone input, but future analog hole legislation* will soon nullify even that option.

* The article mentions MPAA but, of course, it has broader implications than just videos.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans Here's an interesting analogy... what if Petco sold DRM'ed guinea pigs? When you bought the guinea pigs, you had to sign a lengthy license agreement in the store. You had to keep them in Petco-brand cages and feed them Petco-brand food. If your guinea pigs make babies, you cannot give them away or sell them to friends... that would be guinea pig piracy, since you'd be taking business away from Petco. Your guinea pig DRM says that guinea pig breeding is for personal use only; distributing the puppies would be a violation of your EULA. What kind of a crap deal would that be? You're pretty much getting the same thing with iTMS.

Some problems with analogy-

Breeders put significantly higher prices on animals that can breed; especially so for a purebred. Has been doing that for a long time, even before we knew of 33 1/3 rpms and 8 tracks.

Just because the animal is bought and paid for, doesn't give you a license to do with it as you see fit; there's still restrictions; from cruelty to being responsible for their misbehavior toward others.

So therefore, it can be argued that if you want a right to copy, you have to pay more for such right, and it's still *their* content.

Personally, I'd say that if they really, really, really don't want their content to be copied about, they can just simply opt not to make it available for download, sell only as CDs, and prosecute those who try to "share". Others who want to get their names, opt in for download, and accept the inherent risks/losses associated with the model.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana Some problems with analogy-

Analogies are meant to express a point. It you pick apart the analogous part, you're not really attacking the original argument. Well, not unless you like fallacies.

[ast3r3x]

DRM = Bad.

It's a bad move because it sets a bad precedent, it's limiting your rights because there is law (DCMA) protecting code (DRM) protecting law (copyright). This wouldn't be sooo ridiculous if it weren't for the fact that the DRM protects more than just the law, it hinders you in other ways.

The problem is nobody wants to look towards the future.

Originally Posted by Doxxic Yes I agree with that, but the quality of what you get is unrelated to the way you copy/convert your music. Not to having DRM protected songs on iTunes or not, or changing the French law or not, which is what this discussion is about.

However the discussion on the "uselessness" of Apples DRM directly relates to degrading the quality of lossy quality to begin with. So I think it's related.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Brad Analogies are meant to express a point. It you pick apart the analogous part, you're not really attacking the original argument. Well, not unless you like fallacies.

Erm... I explained how DRM would still stand because of the fact that breeding animals are valued more than spayed ones- maybe I didn't make the connection clear enough.

The most important thing, though, is knowing which is wrong argument to start with; and avoid them. Because if you presented that before a court, the RIAA would be wrangling their hands with glee and attack that analogy in same manner as I did.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Brad Your opinion is very subjective. What of people who buy lots of music on iTunes? People who have purchased hundreds if not thousands of songs? What if the user has no CD-Rs? Bypassing the DRM now becomes a far greater problem than mere inconvenience. You might as well suggest routing the speaker cable to the microphone input, but future analog hole legislation* will soon nullify even that option. * The article mentions MPAA but, of course, it has broader implications than just videos.

But that's a very theoretical situation you describe.

I don't see why backing up 2000 songs (which would be an exceptional lot to have bought, as your statistics show) would be harder than, say, buying them online. You don't have to do that all at once. When I buy an album online, I directly burn it on a cd. It's not the slightest problem.

I also think that the amount of people who buy songs online and are unable to burn cds are & will always be very close to zero...

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x However the discussion on the "uselessness" of Apples DRM directly relates to degrading the quality of lossy quality to begin with. So I think it's related.

Ah yes I suppose you mean that there is a quality loss when you convert the burned cd to AAC again, which you don't get when you simply hack the protected AAC file.

I didn't think of that.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Doxxic Ah yes I suppose you mean that there is a quality loss when you convert the burned cd to AAC again, which you don't get when you simply hack the protected AAC file.

Do keep in mind that hacking the DRM off is currently illegal under the DMCA.

[johnny5w]

Originally Posted by Brad 1. The customer is guaranteed a reliable catalog and download service. 2. The products are consistent in quality. 3. The products are available in a variety of formats. 4. The customer is not breaking the law. 5. The prices are reasonable.

You forgot 6. They give no money to the artists or labels.

You might as well use bittorent in that case. Your conscience will feel the same.

[Bancho]

I'm not a big fan of even Apple's somewhat friendly DRM.

I am a big fan of purchasing used CDs on eBay (often for much less than even iTunes will sell the music for). Then you always have the option to resell the used CDs and recoup some of your money or put it toward more music.

That Russian site mentioned elsewhere on this thread seems to have the best deal going (though I can't quite bellieve it's 100% legal). They make you pay per MB and let you decide what quality you want your music at. That, to me, seems ideal.

edit - that Russian site includes music which is simply unobtainable in the US at all in many cases or if it is available the prices are too crazy for a sane person to pay.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by johnny5w You forgot 6. They give no money to the artists or labels. You might as well use bittorent in that case. Your conscience will feel the same.

You failed to understand the point of that entire post. Go re-read it and don't selectively quote out parts.

[ast3r3x]

Except from independent labels, any music I buy is from that Russian site. Anything else is bittorrent for albums and acquisition for individual songs.

[Wrao]

About the Russian sites not giving money to artists/labels. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, labels don't give money to the artists to begin with*. But on the other hand, the way things operate today, if the label loses money, artists will still get screwed.


*it's pretty perverse who thoroughly artists are duped out of their money. There is a lot of revenue, but almost no profit at all, many artists actually end up being in debt to the record labels after disappointing album sales. Most artists make all their money off of touring and merchandise where the profit margin is higher and profit goes to them, not their label. Otherwise, artists make money off of owning their own label, which can sometimes be kind of a joke anyway.

[Bill M]

Although I do share some of the concerns regarding DRM as a whole, I must admit my music purchases have greatly increased thanks to Apple's iTMS. I have never been a die hard fan of music bands or artists in general, so whenever I used to purchase an album (LP or CD) from a brick and mortar store, I would almost always end up paying for lots of songs I would never listen to. The iTMS and its annoying-to-some™ DRM has allowed me to choose and pay just for the songs I actually like and enjoy. With the added convenience of not having to drive anywhere to get them. None of the DRM restrictions have (yet - if ever) caused me any problems at all. I am not trying to imply I am 100% for Apple and its current iTMS DRM scheme but, IMHO, its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Wrao *it's pretty perverse who thoroughly artists are duped out of their money. There is a lot of revenue, but almost no profit at all, many artists actually end up being in debt to the record labels after disappointing album sales. Most artists make all their money off of touring and merchandise where the profit margin is higher and profit goes to them, not their label. Otherwise, artists make money off of owning their own label, which can sometimes be kind of a joke anyway.

Exactly. In today's picture, the record label and distributors are ranking up expenses and taking nearly all of the revenue. That's why I said the business model as a whole needs to change. The process of getting from an artist's idea to a product in the consumer's hands (hard drive, ears, whatever) needs to adopt to the changing world of advanced media technology.

[Wrao]

It is true, and ultimately, we are in a transitional phase. Things could go either way. I don't think that supporting itunes now will necessarily have a huge effect on the music landscape 5 years from now. The record labels are going to learn sooner or later that they have lost the control and influence they once had. Also, itunes supports hundreds of indie labels including the ever capable CDbaby.com. iTunes, imo, is a fine business model for the future, it might not be the best, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Kind of like Hybrid cars.

Personally, I'm pretty curious about the development of Myspace in regards to the music landscape, already a handful of 'myspace bands' have found halcyon from increased myspace exposure, myspace is starting to experiment with being a label of their own, making compilations of stand-out myspace artists. I think that it will have a growing effect on things.

A friend of mine believes that the future of media won't be in who has what, instead it will be who has access to what, and what that access entails. He thinks that eventually, just about every form of media will be on servers somewhere and people won't exactly pay to 'own' things as much as they'll pay for access to things(where restrictions will be variable and/or transparent). Google seems to share this vision too, except google is committed to making as much of the internet free as possible.

To get into the intricacies of the distribution of money and profits for artists, I started a thread about that in AO a couple months ago.

[dfiler]

Whenever this topic comes up I like to jump in with this comment:
In all future conversations, refer "DRM" as "Digital Restrictions Management".

I am fundamentally opposed to the current "copyright" system(s). I think the world would be better off with no copy restrictions rather than the legal system we are saddled with today.

Copy restriction laws were originally intended to promote the public good, motivate people to create, and allow people to profit from their creations. Today they accomplish the exact opposite of these goals. Copy restrictions do more to increase the disparity of wealth. Meanwhile, they also discourage people from creating things for fear of being sued. All they really accomplish now is give huge corporations easy battlefields to slaughter their competitors.

Copy restrictions and digital restrictions management is headed for cultural backlash in many places around the globe. Not everyone is so ready to shift the balance of power into the hands of lawyer wielding billionaires.

Even without restrictions, knowledge/content producers make enough money. We don't need to shift the balance of power further in favor of organizations profiting from others.

You might be surprised, but I don't consider my position in the least bit socialist. I'm simply not in favor of society creating such a slanted playing field. Don't forget, this stuff is enforced at the point of a gun.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by Brad 1. DRM restricts how users and play/read/listen/access what they've purchased. Users are limited to using "approved" devices and software. Thus, DRM completely kills competition and technological advancement unless the product makers kneel to the demands of the DRM owners. 2. DRM restricts what users could previously do freely with what they've purchased, thereby trampling all over existing Fair Use laws. DRM prevents users from making modifications, samples, etc. even for personal, noncommercial, private use. 3. DRM enables big media corporations to require the user to pay multiple times for the same content by making data "expire" at the DRM owners' whim. 4. DRM sets a dangerous precedence for even more restrictive control on existing and future content. Need I go on?

Not to mention, if there is an error on their end (like happened to me) you're the one who pays the consequences, not them. DRM is nice until it bites you in the rear.

[Franz Josef]

Originally Posted by dfiler I am fundamentally opposed to the current "copyright" system(s). I think the world would be better off with no copy restrictions rather than the legal system we are saddled with today.

You probaby know Larry Lessig already: if not a good read.

[Brad]

Actually, where's ast3r3x with his Lessig lecture video? That would fit very well in this discussion.

[Ebby]

Ahh! I'm late to the party!
The #1 reason I hate DRM is because the original copyright laws DO NOT give artists control over the end use of their work. In my mind the artist gives up possession and control in exchange for money or goods. Copyright is designed to protect the artist if the buyer turns around and uses that work to make money, claim it as his own, or hurt the original artist. Our current copyright lays add all sorts of one-sided privileges that piddles on copyright's respectability. (What's left of it.) DRM represents a technology and mindset that end users only have privileges that copyright holders give them. This is horrifically unfair and that, I assume, it the basis of so much hostility towards the *AA's. For free media that makes sense, but is I give someone money, I get possession of that work (or copy) and will do as I please for my own personal use.

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans If your guinea pigs make babies, you cannot give them away or sell them to friends... that would be guinea pig piracy

That gives me an interesting idea. What if a DRM'ed file could export a compressed non-DRM'ed filelet that you could give to friends. Word of mouth advertising. Might work.

Originally Posted by nato64 I guess my MAIN point is this: could you think of a better solution?

Watermarking. Watermark the darn media and if it shows up on the net you know where it came from. It is used all the time and you don't know about it because it does not limit your use.

Originally Posted by nato64 i see your point, but the fact is we are criminals. who here hasn't downloaded something illegally?

"Well who in the dang 'verse ain't" -Malcolm Reynolds

Technically I am a criminal, but pre-1998 I was not. The DMCA criminalized activity that was not considered wrong earlier. Now even unauthorized use under the DMCA is totally illegal, where before it was just that; unauthorized. In 1998 I could rip a CD to my computer no problem, but now even that is technically illegal. I believe the only reason iTunes has this "feature" is because Ripping was once entirely legal and drawing attention to this enlightened time reminds people of what life used to be versus now.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by Brad Actually, where's ast3r3x with his Lessig lecture video? That would fit very well in this discussion.

http://www.swigg.net/files/lessig.mp4

[alcimedes]

Yeah, I'm late to the game too. And I didn't read the whole thread 'cause it was long.

My only question is, what does DRM give me as a consumer that a product with no DRM lacks? Is that worth the price I pay for the DRM. To me, the current answer is DRM gives nothing, and takes a lot. That's why I hate it.

Go allofmp3.com

And if you feel bad about buying your music from there, go order a t-shirt from the group you just downloaded.

In the end you get your music the way you wanted it, in digital format, and the artist got paid a hell of a lot more money than if you'd bought the CD. You pay about the same price in the end, and you get a T-shirt to boot. The RIAA can go fuck themselves.

[Wrao]

Well, looking around allofmp3.com for a while and their selection is much poorer than iTunes. Many of the bands I have been buying music from recently on itunes have only a couple of albums instead of their whole catalogue. Also, the preview system isn't working for me. Not that I can't just goto itunes to listen to a preview then buy something off allofmp3.com, but that starts to create more of a hassle, the whole appeal of iTMS is that it is virtually hassle free, except for the rare occasion when the DRM actually gets in the way.

[alcimedes]

Audio at 128k instead of 256k or higher is like regular broadcast TV vs. HD. You don't really think there's that big of a difference as long as all you do is look at/listen to the low end stuff.

Throw it next the the full version and the regular falls apart. I have no idea how people can listen to 128kbit music. Whatever.

I'd rather have worse selection of high/perfect quality music than huge selection of mediocre quality music.

[johnny5w]

Originally Posted by Wrao About the Russian sites not giving money to artists/labels. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, labels don't give money to the artists to begin with*. But on the other hand, the way things operate today, if the label loses money, artists will still get screwed. *it's pretty perverse who thoroughly artists are duped out of their money. There is a lot of revenue, but almost no profit at all, many artists actually end up being in debt to the record labels after disappointing album sales. Most artists make all their money off of touring and merchandise where the profit margin is higher and profit goes to them, not their label. Otherwise, artists make money off of owning their own label, which can sometimes be kind of a joke anyway.

I don't know where you're getting your information. I've been in bands on these "evil" record labels and have never been in this position. How some bands get there is the same how a regular person gets in debt, by getting over their head and living beyond their means. It is a symbiotic relationship.

[Wrao]

I dunno, I think that's pretty dubious. Over most consumer audio systems, the sound is garbled up so much that even uncompressed music doesn't sound amazing. To tell the minute differences between 128kbps and 256kbps is more placebo than anything, ime. Even through my HD280 Pro headphones I don't suffer the 128kbps music that I listen to, and am really only bothered if I spend time in a controlled setting A/Bing them and tricking myself into being bothered. My ears can hear a difference just fine if I want to, but what's the point? Why would I want to ruin my music enjoyment, or make it more exclusive?

Heck, EQ has more perceivable effect on the music you listen to than 128 vs. 256 compressed music. On top of that, if you're already settling for compressed music, you're not really in a great position to nitpick over the subtle differences between formats.

What's more, different music compresses differently, some stuff will always sound pretty harsh under any compressed circumstances, some stuff, will hold out quite well and even the top ears in the world wouldn't be especially bothered by it.

Lastly, the enjoyment of music isn't always analogous to the quality of the medium. Vinyl is far less fidelity than a CD, yet I enjoy listening to vinyl *A LOT* more than any CD or Digital music. Whenever possible I will opt for my turntable over my CD deck, even if the cartridge is dirty. I get just as much enjoyment or more.

Shrug, I mean, obviously if you're really bothered by 128 kbps music, that's your thing, who knows, maybe you have hyper sensitive ears or very high quality equipment. I think that for the majority of people, and the majority of situations, 128kbps music is perfectly acceptabl.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by johnny5w I don't know where you're getting your information. I've been in bands on these "evil" record labels and have never been in this position. How some bands get there is the same how a regular person gets in debt, by getting over their head and living beyond their means. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Ya, that's right. The bands I've known that have been hurt by major labels, or the stories I've heard of bands that have been burned have usually been a byproduct of the band members living lavishly or out of their means. But I'm curious, you've worked with bands that were signed onto major labels? Indie labels typically operate with the artist in mind and promote that synergy you speak of, Where the artist AND the label share actual profit. But the major labels... less so.

Would you believe that Trent Reznor makes most of his money from owning a T-shirt company and makes barely anything from NIN? Fred Durst makes *nothing* from limp bizkit directly and makes his living off being a producer/label owner/merchandizer. Many artists in the past have had to file for bankruptcy, due to not being able to pay back the label's advances.

I'm sure there are many situations of course and things aren't always a big clusterfuck against the artist, A friend of mine has worked with trent reznor and another friend of mine dated fred durst, I've also read many articles about the subject that have all said similar things. It does happen, to bands/people that might deserve it(for wasting their money and being dumb) and to bands/people that probably don't(for being naive and unbusiness like).

[atomicbartbeans]

If i recall correctly, johnny5w is the bass player in Relient K.

ast3r3x, that video is awesome. I just spent the last hour watching it and I learned loads more than I ever would doing my stupid history essay that's due tomorrow. That guy really knows what he's talking about, and makes a great case for Creative Commons licensing (without even bringing up the term 'DRM').

While on the topic of free culture, CC licensing, and "some rights reserved"... a couple weeks ago, somebody contacted me from the University of Zurich (in Switzerland), wanting to use one of my Flickr photos on the cover of their annual report. Not wanting to be a greedy asshole, I said he was welcome to. Really, an email to get my permission wasn't necessary (although nice to know I'm appreciated)... the CC logo next to all my photos on Flickr shows my views as a content producer (not just a consumer) about copyright and free usage.

I only wish that the music & movie industries would follow suit.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Audio at 128k instead of 256k or higher is like regular broadcast TV vs. HD.

This comparison is off the mark in my opinion. Although not everyone would be able to tell the difference between SD and HD TV at a normal viewing distance, most people would, and would appreciate the benefit (which isn't the same as saying they'd appreciate it so much they'd be willing to pay $40 for a Blu-ray Disc of course). But the difference between 128 kbps AAC professionally encoded from a high sample rate source and 256 kbps MP3 encoded at home from a CD is so slight that for most music one would need a $2k hi-fi and trained ears to tell the difference. The majority of people could not A/B 128 kbps AAC and 256 kbps MP3 if you offered a prize.

I'd rather have worse selection of high/perfect quality music than huge selection of mediocre quality music.

If by quality you mean technical audio quality, then you are quite frankly missing the point of music. I have a live recording made in Berlin in the winter of 1944, of Wilhelm Furtwängler conducting the Berliner Philharmoniker playing Beethoven's violin concerto (opus 61), and it makes the hairs stand on the back of my neck every time I listen to it (I make sure I don't more than thrice a year). The technical quality is rubbish by modern standards, but that doesn't preclude my intense enjoyment of the music.

Music is about so much more than technical quality, and in any case, Apple's iTunes files are technically quite good in most scenarios. I've never bought a track from the iTMS either, but that's mostly for price and DRM reasons: the attraction of paying more for music with DRM is beyond my powers of reasoning.