[Louie]

Originally Posted by nato64 i didn't know what bittorrent was until a few months ago. yeah, i did napster and limwire way long ago, but iTunes is all i know. i wouldn't steal music if iTunes was DRM-free, but i could guess they're be a ton of people that would. but come on, you must have a hard time believing that if iTunes offered DRM-free content that there would be no more people stealing music than there already is. then again, that might outweigh the business that they'd receive from people that use other players, but i highly doubt it.

hmmm theres SOMEthing wrong here....
first off i would like to say, i dont like drms beacuse it locks itunes to the ipod
secondly, its a bad excuse to pirate music, why dont u just buy it off of itunes and take off the drms and play it on what ever device or player u want. that way at least you paid for the music

disclamair: i am not suggesting hacking, cracking, ect. i do not mess with drm's nor tamper with apples drms in anyway.

[ZachPruckowski]

Originally Posted by Brad You incorrectly assume everyone is a criminal just because you and the people you know are criminals. No offense.

Technically, the RIAA has said that CD->iPod ripping isn't fair use, so I bet that covers almost everyone here with a digital music player who rips songs off CDs. They didn't say that it was defacto illegal, just that it wasn't automatically legal. But how does that strike you? I mean, really, it's getting to the point that legally you have to buy the music multiple times if you want the song on your cell, computer, iPod, and CD. I don't think that I should have to pay more than once to use the song I got a license to wherever I want.

[johnny5w]

Originally Posted by Wrao 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.

I've had experience with both indie and major labels (though, like anyone else, I'm limited to just my own experience) and can't verify this theory of the indies being more artist-minded than the majors. In fact, I've found it to be almost the opposite.

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.

Well that's just it. Advances work nearly the same way as a credit card or a loan does where you actually have to pay back the money that was advanced to you. And when artists don't it can somewhat hurt the label. I can definitely believe that Reznor and Durst make more money in other avenues than from album sales, but if you work it right and don't go overboard you can actually make money from selling records.

I'm not trying to sound all pro-label and whatnot, but when they get the bad rap for artists' mistakes and stupidities it irritates me. After all the labels are the ones funding the whole thing and taking the risk. When an album really hits they stand to make a lot of money, but when an album flops they take it on the chin.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by johnny5w Well that's just it. Advances work nearly the same way as a credit card or a loan does where you actually have to pay back the money that was advanced to you. And when artists don't it can somewhat hurt the label. I can definitely believe that Reznor and Durst make more money in other avenues than from album sales, but if you work it right and don't go overboard you can actually make money from selling records.

If all you get is an advance, that means that the record company is not expressing any real confidence and is not investing in you - all it does is take a free, uncommitted gamble on your work. Flattery and beautiful words by an A&R company are meaningless if they're accompanied by nothing but a loan and a publisher contract.
Artists without successes yet who are spending their advances, are basically spending their egos.

[Franz Josef]

Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski Technically, the RIAA has said that CD->iPod ripping isn't fair use

Which, oddly, is a good thing as it helps people understand how far up their collective ass the RIAA have got their collective head [end of rant]

[Partial]

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.

Fuck the labels. They are the problem in todays world anyway. Many, many artists have encouraged the use of bit-torrent and alternative means of acquiring their music. Most indie artists couldn't care less, as they don't make music for the money anyway.

If the artists were being treated fairly and making the money rather than some big-wig driving a ferrari.

For example, Simon Fuller is one of the richest people in the world. He made billions upon billions of dollars PRODUCING records for artists. I can understand making a good living being a producer, maybe 100,000 to 200,000 a year, since you're really not doing too much work, but come on, making billions of dollars is flat out ridiculous and unfair to the artist and the consumer.

[Partial]

DRM is terrible.

Beyond music, I am pretty freaking ticked off that if I want to watch any HD content on my computer, I will need to buy a new graphics card and monitor that support HDCP. BS in my opinion.

Blu-Ray DVD and HD-DVD really show the problems with DRM much better than music. For starters, they have to be connected to the internet at all times.

Secondly, I know that once you play a pirated disc, it sends the data back to the MPAA, and that sends data back to the player, telling it not to play media released after the date of the pirated disc was played. So, say I watched a burned copy of spiderman 3 from my buddy the day before spiderman 4 was released on DVD. I sadly would have a worthless player from that point forth and would not be able to watch Spiderman 4. Lame!

In addition to this, Sony is changing their way with Blu-Ray, but HD-DVD is not. If you were an earlier adopter to the technology, you will not be able to watch an HD-DVD in full-resolution. It will be down-scaled to only slightly higher than DVD quality is today because it isn't a DRM protected port. Lame Lame Lame!!

Feel free to add to this list.

DRM is general is a terrible thing. If I buy something, I should be able to use it in anyway I see fit that isn't breaking any non-outrageous-RIAA-based-laws or causing damage to anyone or anything else.

[Partial]

from http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13193

Tests find DRM shortens player battery life by up to ~25% Posted by Seán Byrne on 16 March 2006 - 01:03 - Source: c|net News - MP3 Insider When users take the specifications of an MP3 player into consideration, one very important factor most take into account is the rated battery life. However, as many are aware, the battery life stated is generally the runtime from a full charge in ideal conditions, such as when the player is left playing without any sound enhancements (EQ, bass-boost, etc.), volume set to a moderate level, all music is 128kbps MP3, backlit display goes out within a few seconds and so on. However, according to tests conducted by CNET, they found that while many players met or exceeded their claims, one feature that has a drastic affect on battery life is the infamous DRM. When it comes to the Creative Zen Vision:M's 14-hour claim, CNET got about 16 hours of playback time with MP3s from a full charge, which was a nice surprise. However, when they tried playing WMA 10 DRM crippled subscription tracks on it, they only got just over 12 hours; a loss of almost 4 hours (~25%) of playback time due to the battery-hungry DRM. CNET found similar results with other players with WMA DRM drastically reducing battery life by up to around 20%. Apple's FairPlay DRM seems to have less of an effect with battery life being reduced by around 8% when compared with MP3 playback. Those who belong to subscription services such as Napster or Rhapsody have it worse. Music rented from these services arrive in the WMA DRM 10 format, and it takes extra processing power to ensure that the licenses making the tracks work are still valid and match up to the device itself. Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them. Take, for instance, the critically acclaimed Creative Zen Vision:M, with a rated battery life of up to 14 hours for audio and 4 hours for video. CNET tested it at nearly 16 hours, with MP3s--impressive indeed. Upon playing back only WMA subscription tracks, the Vision:M scored at just more than 12 hours. That's a loss of almost 4 hours, and you haven't even turned the backlight on yet. We found similar discrepancies with other PlaysForSure players. The Archos Gmini 402 Camcorder maxed out at 11 hours, but with DRM tracks, it played for less than 9 hours. The iRiver U10, with an astounding life of about 32 hours, came in at about 27 hours playing subscription tracks. Even the iPod, playing back only FairPlay AAC tracks, underperformed MP3s by about 8 percent. What I'm saying is that while battery life may not be a critical issue today, as it was when one of the original hard drive players--the Creative Nomad Jukebox--lasted a pathetic 4 hours running on four AA nickel-metal-hydride rechargeables (and much worse on alkalines), the industry needs to include battery specs for DRM audio tracks or the tracks we're buying or subscribing. Yet, here's another reason why we should still be ripping our music in MP3: better battery life, the most obvious reason being universal device compatibility. The full article can be read here. When it comes to maximising battery life in a portable MP3 player, this is a clear sign that one should avoid playing DRM protected music if at all possible and also another good reason to get the music converted into a more battery-friendly format. While 2 to 4 hours may not seem a lot to some people, this can be the difference between listening to music to the end of a lengthy journey or getting left in silence a couple of hours before the journey is complete. With the shorter battery life caused by DRM, this means that consumers have to recharge their battery more often, which in turn results in a shorter overall battery life before it needs replacement. Finally, while most MP3 players now have a rechargeable battery, for those who still use disposable AA/AAA type batteries and listen to copy-protected music, not only does DRM cut their listening time, but it also costs them more in replacing batteries, not to mention more battery waste building up in landfills (if not recycled).

[chucker]

Unfortunately, that test is full of shit, as it compares a 15-year old codec with much newer, more complex codecs. It would be much more useful to compare the battery life of unencrypted (DRM-free) AAC and WMA to that of encrypted (DRM) AAC and WMA.

[chucker]

You did read the post above, right?

(The post I'm responding to has since been deleted.)

[Partial]

chucker, in my defense I didn't actually read the post; I did think it was humorous that I dugg that immediately after reading this thread.

I just really hate DRM. Today it isn't too bad in my opinion, but the future of it certainly doesn't seem pretty.

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by chucker You did read the post above, right?

Whoopss...

I guess got a little too excited that I had something to contribute to this topic xD I'd been reading it, and everybody posting was so more more knowledgable on the subject, I was thrilled when I stumbled across that on digg

*deletes post* ... Maybe I was reading the other page when I posted it? I almost always read topics before I post...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 chucker, in my defense I didn't actually read the post

I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to a post of rollercoaster375's that has since been deleted.

Never mind.

[johnny5w]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Fuck the labels. They are the problem in todays world anyway. Many, many artists have encouraged the use of bit-torrent and alternative means of acquiring their music. Most indie artists couldn't care less, as they don't make music for the money anyway. If the artists were being treated fairly and making the money rather than some big-wig driving a ferrari. For example, Simon Fuller is one of the richest people in the world. He made billions upon billions of dollars PRODUCING records for artists. I can understand making a good living being a producer, maybe 100,000 to 200,000 a year, since you're really not doing too much work, but come on, making billions of dollars is flat out ridiculous and unfair to the artist and the consumer.

That's all I could muster.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski I mean, really, it's getting to the point that legally you have to buy the music multiple times if you want the song on your cell, computer, iPod, and CD.

What most of us don't have to experience is paying an artist or label for every performance of their song at any time in any place.

Technically, and this has been this way since before CD's, a store or restaurant cannot legally play the radio as background music. The radio station itself (or its ownership, whatever) has paid its license to "perform" the song over the airwaves; playing it over the stereo at a restaurant is another "performance". Muzak, that background music company, makes the arrangement with musicians & labels to pay a nominal "performance" fee, and the restaurant pays Muzak for background noise.

TGI Friday's, and other establishments loaded with "flair", cannot legally sing the actual Happy Birthday song without paying a performance fee. Sure, now they have a sort of unique birthday song, but the legality of the performance is another reason.

(the following link is NOT something I agree with, but it does illustrate the point I'm clarifying)
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
Also at Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
and howstuffworks.com:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...licensing5.htm

In concept, other copies of music -- CD's, tapes, file downloads -- are "performances" of music. You've paid the artist/label to perform in your home or car or whatever at your whim. However, you have not paid for the right to play that "performance" for other people in a public setting as a concert.

(I'm still looking for licensing as it relates to DJs... but I've so far learned that it is illegal for a DJ company to duplicate materials and distribute them among its DJs)

Disclaimer: I don't really like how music licensing works or the hassle it creates. I'm just trying to clarify the background & reasons behind DRM.

[World Leader Pretend]

What about a program like Audio Hijack Pro that makes a "recording" of any song on iTunes or anywhere else and saves them however you want it?

This would effectively let you buy high-quality songs from iTunes, but be able to make a copy that could be used for editing in GarageBand or making into an MP3 for a ringtone. Programs like AHP are legal (as far as I know..) and seem to be the best option for those people like me who want the best of both worlds.

I like iTunes songs because they are a lot better quality than what you can normally find on a program like Limewire, and Apples DRM isn't nearly as restrictive. (Plus I like being a law-abiding citizen)

As much as I dislike DRM, there are many legal workarounds for those who want to enjoy their music however they want.

[Ebby]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi What most of us don't have to experience is paying an artist or label for every performance of their song at any time in any place.

Except for internet radio. Those "Royalties" for internet radio are per-song and per-listener I believe which sums up to your quote. This is the only time you'll hear it from me, but thanks advertisers.