Libraries Use DRM to Expire Audiobooks 524
Valleye writes "CNN is reporting that some US libraries are using Microsoft Media DRM to automatically 'return' audiobooks checked out of their catalog. A patron with a valid library card visits a library Web site to borrow a title for, say, three weeks. When the audiobook is due, the patron must renew it or find it automatically "returned" in a virtual sense: The file still sits on the patron's computer, but encryption makes it unplayable beyond the borrowing period."
I wish my library had this (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wish my library had this (Score:5, Funny)
I would think this is a major detraction from my libraries largest source of income, me and late fees.
It is a pack with the devil though (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would you rather have? Everybody forced to buy their own copies? Or being able to borrow them at the library?
I think it is only a matter of time before our libraries are targetted by the industry as unfair competition.
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
One question though: Does it run on linux?
Re:DRM (Score:2, Informative)
Not according to the article. It's WMA, and also won't run on iPods. Although this seems to be done through the library essentially outsourcing to another company, so perhaps some Linux-friendly companies will get into this...
Re:DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Linux support (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux support (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux support (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a former employee of a company (Zapmedia - no longer in business) that made a set top box for TVs that ran on Linux and had WMA/WMV with DRM, so it has happened. I'm not saying this guy is wrong, ju
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for many DRM raises the ugly incompatibility problem. It isn't an Audio CD or MP3. As such it simply won't work in my car during my commute.
On the flip side, stuff in public domain (there is lots) is most often downloadable in MP3 format, can be burnt on a CD as either Audio or MP3 and works fine with most MP3 players.
Fine, I won't listen to the latest Clancy novel, but I can listen to Abbot and Costello, Grocho Marx, Amos & Andy, Jack Benney, The Bickersons, Orson Wells, countless radio mystery shows, and etc.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the old joke is true. "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?"
Re:DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
I sure hope they get some more talented humans to do some reading. I'd much rather stare at a wall than listen to the computer read versions.
For all of you non-programmers looking for a way to 'give back' for all the software you make use of, this w
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah. It doesn't run Mac either.
The problem with this DRM doesn't have much to do with fairnes, but rather with lock-in. If you borrow from this library you better be sporting Windows.
This line from the article kind of sums it up: Just as the lack of a standard digital audio format has fragmented the music download market, it affects audiobooks.
In days past, you could buy, rent, borrow from just about anyone and be able to play it on the prevailing media player of the day. In the new digital millenium, you lock yourself out of a significant part of the media world based on your choice of player.
Yeah, you could point to Beta and VHS as an example of what happened in the past, but at least one of those choices was a choice for a variety of companies who make sorce material and media players. This is more like Beta vs. Beta; no matter what you choose, you choose lock-in to one company or another.
I happen to own a Windows SmartPhone, so I could borrow from this library, but I couldn't let my daughter use it on her iPod. If this happend ot be FairPlay instead of WMA, then she could have borrowed it and I'd be stuck. The only way for consumers to win with DRM will be for all the players to agree on one standard, but the weather forcast still looks quite hot in hades at the moment.
TW
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
This scheme actully looks very much like other DRM schemes (like the one where student books where destroyed after the semester). The difference is that in that case it was labeled as "buying". Of course no such thing as first sale [wikipedia.org] existed. I have yet to see a DRM scheme where you can resell the goods you own, and therefore I call all existing schemes as renting, and cheating on the consumer who thought they bought the goods.
I know there are some here who defend this with "you buy a licence to play the music", not a licence to own it. That may be true but it isn't in anyway expressed clear enough when you "buy" it.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason it's cheaper is when you rent a DVD or borrow a book from the library it goes back to be rented or borrowed by others, and so eventually initial costs are covered and profits are made.
This all breaks down with any digital format because items can be duplicated thousands of of times with almost a zero cost (bandwidth or media costs) after their original purchase. Not 'returning' the item won't lead to a loss for the library.
If I borrow something from the library it's unlikely I'm going to want to borrow it again anyway (otherwise I would have bought it), the library isn't going to get anything more from me for that item, so why is expiring the audiobook necessary? Don't they trust me not to duplicate it and give it to others?
No, the reason they can't do this the authors/publishers of said items are after $$$ per reader. This is why IMO more authors should embrace the likes of the street performer protocol [google.com]
Yeah so it's a more favourable use of DRM, protects the borrowed items from damage or loss, reduces costs of recovery and administration and keeps the library's collection constant and available to all all the time. On the other hand it just shows up other debates often seen here on Slashdot.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because they're not bloody stupid. If you hand it around, that's less income for the authors and publishers, who are the people enforcing these rules.
For music, it makes some sense to have free downloads. Musicians traditionally make their money from gigs and not from CD sales, so more enlightened musicians say "go on, give your friends a copy" in the hope that said friends will be along to the next gig.
But that logic falls down with books. It's been a long time since authors would go on tours and have people pay to hear them read their books. Audio books are alive and well, but only on a recording basis, so the only way of getting money off them is to charge per recording.
The SPP and other systems are a nice idea. Trouble is that experience shows they don't work. Even Stephen King couldn't get enough people to pay for a story delivered by installments about 4 years ago - and if he couldn't make it work, you can forget about anyone else doing it.
Bottom line is that there's a range of prices people will pay for anything, with low and high limits. The low limit is usually "gratis" or close to. If charged, they'll willingly pay anywhere within that range (maybe a bit more unwillingly as you go towards the high limit, but they'll still pay). But if they're asked to donate, they'll typically donate the low limit amount - which often amounts to "gratis". If you get a physical item, people are more likely to put money in the pot, because they can see that the article has cost something to produce. But a file? It costs nothing to upload/download, so why pay for it unless you have to? Like it or not, that's the attitude you're dealing with, and that's why no author will use the SPP to make their living.
Grab.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't even think that the usual advice given ("simply don't buy the DRMed media") is realistic. This is my culture. I contribute to it, and I have a right to take part in it. My culture is disseminated (and knitted together) by its mass-media - its music, its TV shows, its films, its art.
If I refuse to partake of the mass-media, I inevitably divorce myself from the culture - I have proven this to myself by not owning a TV for two years. Although it started as simple economics (I was a student, a
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
1) By establishing an oligarchy and purchasing legislation to protect it, the *AA have s
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
What if we couldn't read Einsteins papers because our key is no longer valid? Or if all copies of 1984 suddenly have their keys revoked? DRM in libraries is a horrible thought. I don't care if the terms are fair so far, the concept is bad enough on its own to warrant boycott. You can't accept this stuff in your life if you want society to be an acceptable place in 20 years.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
We have a right to make a private copy as long as we do not BREAK a copy-protection.
Lucky us
Re:But... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:2)
Recently I was putting together a last-minute revue act and wanted to use sounds from Dr Who. I'd meant to download the files before leaving home, but had forgotten. Anyway - I had a rip of the Dr Who series on CD and was able to play the bits I wanted and then use this program to grab sound on loopback as the parent described. I managed to g
Some audio cards already allow it. (Score:5, Informative)
- Set the input to be the mixer or the "as you hear it" function
- Start the Sound Recorder (or other sound editing program)
- Open the audio file in another tool
- Start recording
- Start playing
- Done
Even then, how many of us have multiple computers? Here is a simple and effective DRM disabler:
Line out (PC 1) --> Line in (PC 2)
That's the thing that fervent, DRM supports just don't seem to understand. If you can hear it, you can record it.
Re:Some audio cards already allow it. (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's the thing that fervent, DRM supports just don't seem to understand. If you can hear it, you can record it."
I'm sure they understand this just fine. They understand that it is impossible to make something absolutely copy-proof, so they settle for "sufficiently difficult."
If you're not sure what I mean, consider the auto security business or even the home security business. It's impossible to make a cost-effective auto security system that will thwart the thief who has sufficient training and who has sufficient desire to take your car. However, 99% of car thieves don't fall into this category, so a decent security system is usually good enough.
Slashdotters often think that because they have the motivation and the skills to jump through hoops to defeat DRM, then the public at large must also have this same motivation and skill. But, let's face it: when it comes to things technical, Slashdot readers are often up above the 90th percentile.
Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Insightful)
If digital audiobooks can have infinite copies made of them and distributed to the Library's members then is there actually a need to have them checked back in?
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Informative)
This is similiar to group licensing schemes, where software is licensed for a number of seats at a company but licensing is handled by a server. A limited number of users can use the software at any time. If someone needs to use it and the licenses are used up, someone else must stop using it for the time being (or more licenses must be purchased).
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to return a normal dead-tree book because there are only a few copies, and making more copies costs time, materials and money. Because of this, the product is scarce and thus market forces (supply/demand) apply.
Digital media, however, can be copied without any significant costs whatsoever, there is no longer a 'real' scarcity. The publishers are still trying to sell the work on a per-copy basis like they always did, combined with negligible reproduction costs this means lots-of-$$$. Unfortunately for the publishers, consumers are recognizing that there the products scarcity is purely fictional, and they don't accept this.
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately not reasonable. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it is not reasonable, because the world changes.
Some people write books to make money. Some people write books because
it satisfies them personally. Back when book copying was infeasibly
expensive, both of them had an incentive for continuing to write. Now
that copying has become feasibly cheap, those that write only for the
money have less of an incentive, and that is as should be (cue
Heinlein quote).
Establishing artificial restrictions on copying in order to prop up a
failed incentive is ultimately wasteful.
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:3, Interesting)
I work with creating digital goods. I think it is a horribly unreasonable stipulation.
A parallel is the attempt at blocking the use of robots for production (and there were attempts), on the basis that "All the people involved should be making the same amount of money."
The question isn't how we can keep the status quo. The question is "How
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Insightful)
The demand, then, is to have the item now. Most people don't want to wait 4 years to read the latest Harry Potter book. As such, sales of the book will be higher than simply people who want to collect the series. I suspect that if everyone could legally download the book for free, there would be a measurable impact on the sales. Oh, I'm sure JK would still be Rowling in the dough (ha ha) but ultimately, she would be making less money. As such, they want to limit this effect and -- funny thing -- as copyright holders, they get to do so.
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is *very* unreasonable. New technologies sometimes makes old services or technologies obsolete. This frequently leads to people who used to make money providing those services or technologies to loose money.
Claiming that it's "reasonable" that "all people involved" in the old bussiness of printing and distributing books should earn as much as they did before in the new technology of electronically distributing books is just as reasonable as demanding that the ice-man should keep his pay after the invention of the refridgerator, or that the buggy and whip manufacturers should have the right to hold back the progress of the automobile.
Some jobs remain. Digital books still need one or more authors, good editors, artwork, marketing, and (minimal) distribution. They don't need printing-presses, paper, ink, trucks to drag them around, large shelves for standing on and so on. Those services and technologies are simply, as far as ebooks are concerned, obsolete.
You don't find many monks earning a living by hand-writing bibles these days. Thats a result of the (according to you) "unreasonable" idea that some jobs become obsolete when new technologies solve the same problem simpler/cheaper/better.
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:5, Informative)
As such, it's reasonable to assume that no one in the supply chain for the creation of the work itself is going to purposefully take a pay cut just to give people a digital copy of the work.
Consider another point of view [baen.com], from author Eric Flint, who is the "First Librarian" of the Baen Free Library. The whole essay I linked to is interesting, but here's the conclusion:
Flint hit it right on the head, IMO. There is no reason that authors should be guaranteed their current level of income. But neither is there any reason for authors to get worried that their profession will go away. Freely redistributable digital media will change the model, and there will be some pain during the transition, but as long as people want to read, and as long as authors need to eat, there will be a way for people to get paid for writing.
You probably think I'm missing your point, which is that authors won't *choose* to take a pay cut just to provide us with digital media. I didn't miss it. But the fact is that there is demand for digital media, so some enterprising authors and publishers will begin to take advantage of it. Baen's Webscriptions model is a good example; it's both highly profitable and DRM-free. It won't work for every kind of creative work, and it may not work, as is, forever, but it's exactly the kind of creative thinking we need... people figuring out how to adapt to the new realities, rather than keep churning out the buggy whips.
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I think that media companies can put whatever restrictions they like on the media they publish. However I do not believe that copyright infringement should be a criminal offence (it's clearly not theft, rather a slight increase of supply outs
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:3, Insightful)
No author who is writing for a living is going to purposefully take a paycut in order to give you a digital copy. No editor is going to either, nor cover designers, etc. They will expect to make the same amount of money, hence my request. Describe a system where these people will make the same amount of money while allowing digital copies to exist. If no one can do this, it's unlikely that digital copies
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:3, Interesting)
In some places, like books, that's not that relevant, because many people just ignore the distribution system and publish their own books, aka, vanity printing.
This is also happening in the music industry, although as the music industry is a cartel that controls entire channels of distribution, it's happening a lot slower. (Whereas with books you can walk up to local bookstores and get them to carry your v
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:2)
1 - We all copy everything with impunity.
2 - Authors and publishers don't get paid
3 - No more new content
4 - NO profit. Everyone loses in the end.
This a perfectly valid and sensible use of DRM. As another poster said, EVERYONE wins. The consumer can stay on his butt at home, the publishers and authors still get royalty, libraries don't need shelf space and a big ol' public building... I'm sure there's more...
Re:Library Checkout System Outdated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, as we all know, the only resources that is used in the production of a book is cellulose. Book authors can live off thin air and public recognition.
Unfortunately for the publishers, consumers are recognizing that there the products scarcity is purely fictional, and they don't accept
Valid use for DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way to be able to force people to delete it on their computer except via DRM. People who use this content, AREN'T paying for it (at least in most public libraries), and while it's most likely very easy to break the DRM, the library isn't forced to enforce their DRM, their responsibility (and liability) stop at placing the DRM onto the content. Unlike commercial copyright distributors, they don't need to make it more convoluted with a harder system to stop people from breaking the DRM.
It's unfortunate that a Microsoft DRM is being used (as I assume it can only be played on Microsoft systems), but it's most likely the easiest and most well known DRM to the people that put the DRM on the content (and the library staff can most likely offer trouble-shooting help with it as a result).
Re:Valid use for DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Valid use for DRM (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with this (Score:2)
Also, I guess with certain material, libraries will have streaming servers.
Do they still have a virtual number of copies that can be loaned at any one time?
not valid to endorse a Microsoft only use (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's a valid use at all. It's a public library, paid for with public funds, but it distributes midia based on a Microsoft-only DRM plan. Users with Linux (or I expect Apple) who decide not to spend the money on a Microsoft version of the software that will support this DRM approach get less access to material than those who support Microsoft. I think that's an extremely dangerous trend to start with l
Library DRM goes against ALA and UNESCO (Score:3, Informative)
Except that it locks library patrons into MS' DRM schemes. MS has been found guilty (even after appeal) of illegally abusing its desktop monopoly to gain entrance to new markets and wipe out the competition. This has been in the courts in both the US and the EU. Libraries should not be hel
Workable DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of feature makes libraries more accessible, without lmiting the borrowers any more than the previous system. If this is the sort of thing DRM is going to be used for, then good for it. I doubt it though.
Re:Workable DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Workable DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
It may be, as you imply with your analogy, that the old way is passing away, and soon we'll all enjoy infinitely redistributable content. But I wouldn't bet on it. Schemes to artificially limit demand (which is essentially what DRM, copyright, and all that jazz is) are generally successful and sustainable for the ones implementing it - that's why there are anti-trust laws against some instances of it. If it was something that would intrinsically fail, it wouldn't need to be regulated. I'm afraid the current model of licensing and artificial scarcity is going to be with us for a while.
Re:Workable DRM (Score:2)
As I said in another reply to my comment, perhaps a better why of phrasing it is no additional restrictions, rather than no artificial restrictions. These digital objects are no more restricted than their physical counterparts.
All in all, a library with this offering
What is the problem.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, this would seem to be an appropriate use of DRM technology. Of course I would imagine that with an audiobook the quality of the sounds is not as important as with music so someone really bent on keeping a copy would either burn it to cd if their system could do that and otherwise simply record from the audio output of their pc...
I wouldn't but then again, I would never get an audiobook... I prefer to read.
Re:What is the problem.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the problem.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can give you several reasons:
Re:What is the problem.. (Score:3, Funny)
It's hard to see on-coming traffic while doing it.
Re:What is the problem.. (Score:2)
THINK before you post!
Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not cracked yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure software methods always get cracked. Even hardware, as Bruce Schneier mentions, gets cracked, routinely. It really is just a question of how much time, and how much resources it takes to break it. The problem with digital stuff is that once you do it, you've cracked it for everyone.
The town of "Fucking" (that really is the name) in Austria had a problem with people stealing [ananova.com] the signs. They recently moved to a new system, where the signs are really hard to steal. But as the mayor said -- "it would take all night to steal". Not, "you can't steal it" -- but it will take so long that someone will/may come along and arrest you before you make off with it.
With DRM, the guy gets to take the "sign" home for a few weeks at a time, until he can manage to crack it -- and once he does, you don't have any clue that he's done it.
Re:Not cracked yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Always can theoretically get cracked. This doesn't mean that they always HAVE been cracked.
With DRM, the guy gets to take the "sign" home for a few weeks at a time, until he can manage to crack it -- and once he does, you don't have any clue that he's done it.
Which is why we should expect two tier DRM to become a standard pretty soon, first level to "protect", second level to "inform", so sure you can crack the protection, but it then sends a message to inform. Of c
Re:Not cracked yet? (Score:2)
Anybody offended by it shouldn't be allowed on the internet or let out of the house IMHO.
Re:Not cracked yet? (Score:2)
There is a fundamental difference between the 'real' and the digital world - in the real world, copies are bounded by resources and costs. In the digital world, only information (= ideas, abstract concepts) is copied around, which costs about zero.
DRM for libraries its probably more legitimate, but nevertheless an artificial limitation.
Re:Not cracked yet? (Score:3, Informative)
How is the library going to replace the revenue (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I can see, Libraries make a fair bit of income from fees for overdue books. This helps to pay for new books, repairs, etc.
Also books in electronic format tend to cost more than the paperback alternatives for the amount of lending licenses necessary.
So who is going to pay for this? Is there going to be a charge for loaning the books?
The whole system will crumble (Score:5, Insightful)
In the internet age where someone wants to claim ownership to various bitflows, it just simply doesn't work. The whole definition of storing and copying bitflows invalidates the entire system of intellectual property because of it's given nature. In this environment IP and Copyright is an outdated system blocking innovation.
Sooner or later the pressure will be too high as the internet gets into more and more areas of our life, it will force the rethinking of the information restricting laws.
This library attempt to introducte DRM is especially a bad case since libraries should be storehouses of information, not restricters of them.
Someone will surely try to point me to the positive sides of IP and Copyright. There are some, but as of today the benefits are far outweighted by the negative effect it creates, even on innovation. Without patent protection, people would still create, or even create much more freely. In the age of internet, it is even concivable that those people would cooperate strengthening innovation. It is the human nature to create, just look at the F/OSS movement.
Before someone brings up the example of drugs, let me try to answer it: those companies researching would still research, but they would also need to compete on manufacturing those drugs the best possible way and no such situation could arise where they try to sell AIDS medicine to poor african countries at the price of 20 times of the manufacturing costs only because of someone's intellectual property.
Let me put it this way: IP stiffles teamwork and derivative works. In today's age that is a huge loss, instead of the whole internet community working on something, only a selected few can, which makes it slow and expensive. Would huge corporations still rake wild profits from selling a drug? No. Would they make a decent profit from manufacturing them? Absolutely.
Let's get back to a world where we stick to physical reality, not imaginary intellectual property.
Re:The whole system will crumble (Score:2)
I heard they have something up their sleeve against it. I think it was called IPv6?
Hear hear! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe people here fall for DRM as soon as they can get something for free..
What we need is people thinking on the whole system, not just wether they themselves can get something by giving less for it. When everyone does that, it stops the flow of money.
I have a solid income, yet I vote for those parties here in Norway that favours schools, libraries, human values and strengthening the local community. This will certainly take mo
Whew... (Score:5, Funny)
Libraries should rethink DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not a bookstore or cd/video rental shop. Patrons do not pay money each time they take a book out. They may be charged late fees due to scarcity issues, but the main idea is to enable the person to read the content.
The person can come back many times to take the book out again if he needs more time. But there is no point physically going to the library if it is a digital item on his drive.
In other words, even if the liscense required only a fixed number of people being able to view a title at a given time, it STILL would not make sense, because the DRM does not know if there are enough other copies to go around. It might be that nobody else is in fact interested in the file.
Therefore, the idea of a DRM "period" is bogus. At the very least, the user should be able to add another period if there are enough copies left in the stacks. It should not require an Internet line either, and it should be able to run on free software not some attackware that executes on my computer in a manner contrary to my wishes.
I have another point that may be unpopular with big business. It would be much better in my book if the library was able to purchase more items on a sliding scale as things got more popular, but not be bound to micromanage every copy on a user's hard drive.
You see, the point of the library is to ensure that everyone can get access to information, not just people with a lot of disposable income. You don't have to go buy the book or cd/dvd if your library has it. A library is not intended to be a marketing mechanism that makes you want to go buy the title. It is not intended to respond to the marketplace due to its competition with a bookstore/rental shop.
Considering that most people don't check the same book out of their library over and over again, a library normally wouldn't care if the user had a way to keep copies after returning them. The library has no responsibility for making sure that the user does not keep a copy on his drive even after the first time the user has read the copy, because it is there to promote access, not control access (except adult content maybe). If there is a good library nearby, you should never have to go to a store to get what you want.
Therefore, it stands to reason that:
Try READING the article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Libraries should rethink DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read it, they can.
It should not require an Internet line either,
How else would you suggest they check whether there are copies available? I suppose you could go into the library, but then how would they get the license onto your computer?
and it should be able to run on free software not some attackware that executes on my computer in a mann
The Only Problem (Score:2)
Other people have commented that this DRM will be cracked. And that, once the protections are removed, the content will be made available in an unrestricted format. This is true. However, that would probably happen even if
Re:The Only Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
>commented on how this is a perfectly valid use
>of DRM. I completely agree with that. I actually
>think that _any_ instance where the copyright
>holder puts DRM on something is perfectly valid;
>after all, they _are_ the copyright holder. So
>far so good.
However, most of the DRM part has NOTHING to do with copyright. Restricting how long you can view or read something has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright holder has no exclusive right for that. The copyright holder can control a few things such as copying and public performance due to being exclusive to them, nothing else. DRM however, add completely new control over things that has nothing to do with copyright.
DIVX anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa062
This disc format allowed the consumer to make an intitial movie purchase for as low as $4.49, which allowed one to watch the movie as many times as they wanted within a 48 viewing period. In order to watch the film again after that time, the viewer had to reactivate the viewing period with the DIVX computer. In other words, the player was tied in to the phone line and the consumer had to punch in his credit card number to a main-frame computer in Virginia in order to view his movie.
it's basically DRM with another renting schema that fell through. i thought it was actually pretty neat, but i guess because of the physical disc barrier, it wasn't well received. if they can make home theater pcs download these DRMed movies and give them an expiration of 48hours or 1 week or something, I think that'll be totally awesome!
We all look down on DRM, but... (Score:2)
My favorite DRM exploit. . . (Score:3, Funny)
This was just a minor blip in Mile's day (to paraphrase); "What? But I absolutely need to read that file. Can't you just send it to me?" (This is over a telecom system. He was phoning from deep space or somewhere to a buddy in mission control.)
"Sorry, Miles. There's just no way. This file will simply not leave this terminal."
"Well. .
"Hm. Okay."
Done and done. He earned a commendation for that one. The security chiefs in sci-fi books aren't very bright, it seems.
-FL
uhh... (Score:3, Informative)
Going to the library and borrowing a book that belongs to the library does not transfer you ownership of that book. This is why they call it BORROW. That doesn't change if it's a book on cassette, or a book on CD, or a book on any other kind of media.
Unless you (collective) can suggest a better alternative than "per unit ownership", which I highly doubt you (collective) will be able to do, that's the way it is going to work. You don't go to a library to permanently take their book. And it's not the scarcity of it that makes it need to be returned. They own one, they can loan one. The library could make a zillion copies on their copier, but they DON'T because they've only paid for the number that are in the library. And what do you pay to get a book from your local library? or a magazine? or a CD? or whatever?
Everywhere I've been the use of the library was free for city residents, and a once a year minimal charge for non-city residents. In fact, where I'm at now, the entire resources of the library are free, including internet access (though they do give you a fifteen minute time limit if there are other people waiting to use the machines). The only thing I've had to pay for there is paper for the copier/printer.
So, who's got a better idea for how to sell a book, a CD, a movie, a whatever, than on a per-unit basis?
Hate to see it fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doctrine of First Sale still exists, despite M$ (Score:3, Insightful)
My Library Does This (Score:3, Informative)
Right to read (Score:3)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]
DRM is bad, period. (Score:3, Interesting)
When you go to the library to do some research, they have publicly available copying machines. You can make your own copy of anything they have there for a small fee. Typically the fee is whatever it costs for paper, ink, and maintaining the copier. That copy is then yours, it never expires, and you can do whatever you need to with it provided that you're not profiting from the work. This is FAIR USE.
If libraries actually needed to control documents, they would've been loading their copiers with dissapearing inks since the invention of the copier!! What has changed between now and then? Nothing! There is not, and never has been an actual need for DRM. It's just some bullshit scheme by the DRM manufacturers that's been cleverly sold to the library system, which will be shoved down the throats of every day users.
DRM is bad, period. Do not ever accept it as fair, because it is not.
Re:Clearly Nessisary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clearly Nessisary (Score:2)
Re:Clearly Nessisary (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Clearly Nessisary (Score:5, Informative)
This has been a public service announcement.
Re:Missing The Point? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's exactly what I thought when I saw this. Due dates are a way of managing scarcity: the library only has so many copies in stock, so they insist that copies only be out for a certain amount of time. The fine they levy for not bringing it back in time is not so much a revenue stream as an incentive for patrons to bring the media back in time.
Digital copies mean that given a single original, one can create any number of identical duplicates. It should herald an end to information scarcity. The problem is that too many businesses, content producers, etc. are totally incapable of crafting a business model based on abundance. In their defense, it may not be possible to do so.
That's the reason for the DRM in this case: rather than buy all the audio books themselves, the libraries pay a small fee, get a number of licenses, and can lease those out for a limited time. It's not so much the library that's using the DRM to check books back, it's that the company making the audiobooks available to them will only let them offer books for a limited time.
Congratulations to the libraries on finding a way to make audiobooks available cheaply to its patrons and eliminating the need to bring the books back, but deep down I'm still fuming. It won't end until someone finds a way to DRM money and jams it down the industry's throat... and actually, that gives me a wicked idea. But how to pull it off...?
Re:Missing The Point? (Score:3, Interesting)
(2) Spend money
(3) Sue companies for copyright infringement
(4) Profit!
Re:Missing The Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am having a Morpheus (from The Matrix) moment: Do you think that's gold in your pockets?
Any time they wish to devalue the money in your pockets they can print more of it. It has no intrinsic value of its own. We believe in money the same way we believe in God - it's all faith based until the music ends and you get stuck holding a wallet or checkbook notations of worthless paper.
Our whole economy is based on this idea - attenuated barter based on the exchange of items having no intrinsic value of their own (paper money and non-precious metal coins). It is because of the very elastic (inflationary) nature of the money that they can steal from you.
Gold is only better than paper money in one way - it is not very elastic and there is real scarcity. As gold is an element, unless you can solve the question confounding alchemists through the centuries you will find that the supply is indeed finite. You can discover more, but you can't just make more (via printing), and that's why it makes a better means of exchange. And interestingly, gold really does have many unique and interesting properties that make it valuable in itself - intrinsically.
Now what's better than gold? Real estate. That's how smart people "store" their money for safe keeping unless they are using it in other types of investments. Sadly, even the value of real estate is largely theoretical because they have ways to appropriate that too - they call it property taxes but it has the effect of converting the real property that you might own into something that you "lease" via continual payment of a property tax. When you fail to pay the tax, they just come and take your very real property away from you. Remarkable! And so few complain...
So I don't know about your "wicked idea" but I think they already thought of it before you, then they built up a way to continually set up the marks for the big con - we call it "government." They sold it to us via Art. I, sect. 10 of the Constitution - but they played bait and switch on us too. It's not gold, it's paper - and it's worthless. And it's not really real estate if they are just treating you like a serf on the land belonging to the banks/fedual lords.
Okay, I am done with playing Morpheus and trying to tell you how the world really works.
Re:clock? (Score:3, Insightful)
Under this scheme, the only thing you could do would be to set
Re:Pointless and wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as a library may not buy a book, make copies of it and then give away copies of said book with out the copyright holders permission, a library may not make copies of audiobook and then give them away.
Copyright law has it's place, and thought it may be abused, it still protects the rights of the creators of works or those that pay for the work to be created.
Authors rely on sales for their livelyhood. How many of your favorite books would not have been written if the author had to wait tables or work construction to put food on the table and a roof over their head? Would you do your job for free?
You think that because an audiobook can be cheaply copied, that it right to do so. I wish people such as yourself would remember that just because something can be done does not make it right or fair to do it.
Re:Pointless and wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably about all of them would have been written, given that pretty much every author has to do that. The number of authors who do not have to hold down a day job in order to finance their writing career is infinitesimal, and even the big names take years before they're making enough money to be abl
DReaM? (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears your angle is not against DRM, but rather against Microsoft DRM. Ie., DReaM [slashdot.org] Sun's open DRM initiative should be okay from your point of view.
As a sincere, open question I'd like to ask you: do you believe Open Source can (or cannot) coexist or even cooperate with DRMed media?
Re:My main concern... (Score:3, Insightful)
But the public library is funded by taxpayers and has an obligation to serve the interests of the general taxpayer.
It seems to me this was chosen for the convenience of the library and not for the taxpayers who have overwhelmingly chosen the iPod.
As for your comment that "DRM is needed to not break the law", I've never heard that before! In fact, I borrrow books on tape, music CD's, and all sorts of stuff from my local library and none of them has DR