Oracle Goddess writes "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."
So, what he's basically saying is that there should be no expectation on the consumer's part that the product he's paying for should work at all (regardless of whether we're talking about "owning" said product, or acquiring a "license" to enjoy said product).
Um, maybe I'm being naive here, but isn't that, you know, against the law? They *could* have said, "we're selling you the _right_ to play this for X years, or until date Y", and that'd be fair if they just say this up front, I suppose, but this sounds like they want a free pass to sell you the illusion that you're buying the "right" to access certain content, when in reality they're just selling you a rental license -- one that expires at the sole discretion of the seller.
In essence, because a license is supposed to be a sort of contract, it's like saying they want to be able to not only dictate all the terms in said contract/license scheme (as they already do, one way or another), but they also want a couple of "open clauses" that they can fill in later on, essentially nullifying the other part's contractual rights, if, when and where they see fit.
This is exactly the kind of "fine print" bullshit that corps have been getting away with for far too long. Yeah, I know you're supposed to read every contract you sign, but when even a simple song purchase entails a multiple-page "Terms of Use" or whatever, which usually includes something along the lines of "this text is subject to change, new clauses can be added, rights terminated, changes are applied retroactively and there's no obligation to notify the user of any change, it's the user's obligation to consult the updated terms at link" -- it's time to tell these assholes to go fuck themselves, for crying out loud!
It's not illegal to do this as far as I know. If you don't like it, your recourse is not to do business with them, and convince as many as you can to not do business with them. I've been doing this (buying DRM-free) for as long as Amazon was offering MP3s.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 30, @01:49PM (#28885947)
IANAL but this is illegal in the UK. This is why EULAs are not enforcable over here (although I'm not sure if its been tested in court). The seller/licensee cant dictate terms after the sale has been made.
It is called a Deceptive Trade Practice and it is illegal.
If you represent a product is X and when you sell it is Y or does not have the capabilities as previously advertised, then it is actionable. Treble damages and attorney fees in Texas if you win.
It may not be induce criminal liability, but I'd think it's grounds for a lawsuit (probably a class-action in this case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation [wikipedia.org] (probably fraudulent misrepresentation)
The misrepresentation in this case is that the product is sold as the legal right to listen to the electronic recording of a piece of music along with a copy of said electronic recording, and failed to properly represent the clause "until we decide to take it away without notice of any kind". Alternate legal arguments for damages might be a violation of the implied warranty of merchantability (that is that the product is at least approximately what the seller said it was).
Basically, the idea that party A can sell a widget to party B, and then take it away from party A at any time without notice either in the original purchase agreement or at the time of retaking, is pretty obviously something that should land you in legal hot water.
NYCL or the EFF could probably have a field day with this sort of thing. I, on the other hand, am not a lawyer, and this does not constitute legal advice.
You are right on. As far as I'm concerned, this is a declaration of war against the people that pay them. This is the much touted 'free market' in action. They dictate the terms and if you don't like it, go without.
In other words, "We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to receive a consumers' money".
I'll bite.
I in favor of backing up a CD to my harddrive. I am also in favor of being able to watch and listen to media files in the software of my choice.
Yes, I am also in favor of copying a loaned CD and to share the occasional music file on the internet, even if that means not supporting Copyright Owners.
I am all in favor of supporting Artists however, and will gladly pay to see them live, I'll buy their merchandise (if its attractive and reasonably priced) and generally try to support them in a way that does not imply having to buy "a license" to listen to their work a finite number of times...
This is basically the reason why Image Comics [wikipedia.org] was formed. They (Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, and some others) decided they weren't gonna give up the rights to their own creations to Marvel, so they formed what is essentially only a publisher of comics, not the typical publisher-studio combo that DC and Marvel are. They then became one of the top 4 comic publishers in the US because they were only publishers.
So, why doesn't someone try following their lead in the music industry?
It's so weird.. i ran the phrase "RIAA says 'Don't expect DRMed music to work forever'" through Lost in Translation, and it came back "Please if you would bend over, rhinoceros."
Strange.
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
People who buy DRM'ed media content are idiots. It's not as if the record companies have tried to hide their sense of entitlement, or their unethical beliefs and attitudes. It would be different if they had, but as things stand, there's nothing else to do but blame the "victims" who keep giving them their money.
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
Very good point, the RIAA's purpose isnt to distribute music, they do not care about the music nor the customer, they only care about their money and controlling the market to get more money.
They say DRMed music isnt to work forever, I say the RIAA wont work forever either, they're getting desperate for attention and control, and they're losing bits of it everyday. Music existed long before the RIAA, and will live on long after.
But this is more like a case of the retailer showing up at your door and breaking the disc in half. In that case, you bet I better get a replacement from that retailer.
If they're shutting down their DRM server, then they need to release non-DRMd copies of the music to the end user... Well... Actually, I guess that depends on the EULA. Someone care to check it?
Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?
This logic just does not follow -- in the case of the user's CD being damaged, it is the user's fault that the CD is no longer working, it is a completely unreasonable expectation that CDs ought to be indestructible, and steps can be taken to ensure that this is not an issue (ie, rip the CD as FLAC and keep the backup, or just burn the disc and keep the original in a safe place.). With DRM, however, the vendor is the one doing the breaking. They can break your music arbitrarily and without warning. For a serious (and stupid) music collector, this could put them out thousands of dollars worth of music instantly. This is like the store owner coming into your house, scratching all your CDs, taking a dump on your living room floor, then just giving you the finger and walking out the front door. Okay, the taking a dump on your floor part was for dramatic effect, but you get the point. These are totally different situations, you aren't even really comparing apples and oranges, its more like Apples and third-world dictators (which, come to think of it, are fairly similar).
Ah, but a chair only has a finite lifespan. So if it falls apart after 3 years of normal use I would probably not be responsible for fixing it. Although you may tell all your friends that I make crappy chairs.
On the other hand YOU can buy a screwdriver at any hardware (or most dollar stores even) to fix the chair.
The real issue is that I have persuaded congress to make it illegal for you to buy the screwdrivers that fix the chairs I sell. And now I am saying that I should not be expected to keep any of the screwdrivers around either. And even if no one has the right tools to fix the chair YOU still can't build one.
Or borrow it from your friends, then rip and enjoy, then give it to your other friends. I just share all my content now and barely purchase anything. Never used P2P either. Just sneakernet. Gotta love those cheap 1TB drives! Eat me MPAA, I give away movies and you can't stop shit. Sue me! I'm a fucking pirate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm still here, and I'm still giving away movies, assholes. 80GB of MP3s and 100+ iPod ready movies and counting... my friends disks are so fucking full!!1! What's a Blue Rae?
Send your money exclusively to the people who provide what you actually want.
Those that would rather draconian control for their own selfish gain at your expense will soon become extinct in the face of actual competition.
If they won't give you want you want don't settle for the best that you can get from them boycott them completely. If every person out there actually did this scum like this would go out of business overnight.
Since they are using copyright to sell works which will stop working, doesn't that break copyright?
Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?
Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public? After all, if copyright on existing works is extended, you're taking away from the public what was supposed to become theirs under the original deal when the work was created - and you're NOT increasing the incentive for the corpse of Ub Iwerks to create Mickey Mouse for Walt Disney 70 years previously when you extend the copyright...
So isn't it simply a land grab? Taking something away from others simply because you have the greed and the power to do so?
Can't the same be said for DRM? Taking the benefits of the copyright/public domain bargain while not holding up your end of the bargain?
Sorry to repeat myself here but... the deal was that in getting copyright, they are providing society, the public domain, with perpetual access. So the official RIAA position is they are rejecting the purpose of and requirements of copyright law.
OK with me - the RIAA rejects their end of the bargain, I reject my end of it.
I'd like to sell you a car, it's brand new and gets great gas mileage. Oh, but only you can drive it, no fair letting someone else borrow it without them paying us. And you can only drive it on roads that we say are ok. You also have to bring it in to the shop once a week, or it will stop working. If you're out of town and can't get it into the shop, it'll stop working until you do, and if the shop goes out of business or just doesn't want to work on your car anymore, well, that's just too bad; we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.
And if you choose to look under the hood to see why it stopped working, we will sue you. If you remove the MakeItNotWork-O-Meter so that the car runs, we will prosecute. If you publish your findings, we will have you branded a terrorist.
Record sales are slowing down, and you are trying to cash in on the digital economy. How do you go about it? Well, if you're the RIAA, you publicly come out and announce to everyone that you are going to sell them a product that can arbitrarily stop working. Ugh, I really hope that the RIAA is not long for this world. Oh, and if they start getting bailout money I am leaving the country, mark my words. They have undermined their own business and they deserve to fail.
The only way right now to reasonably sell people the same, say, movie is to release it in a different format (dvd, now bluray) or to include some extras or a shiny box or whatever. Something different, no matter how small.
Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.
Everyone knows that when a muggle or a wizard buys a goblin made object, it is not really sold. It is licensed to the user but eventually it should be returned to the maker.
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it [the Sword of Gryffindor] ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
In regards to your notice that you feel it is fair to arbitrarily remove something I have purchased from my possession (via disabling DRM'd music), I wish to inform you that you will never, ever, ever get another cent from me. I wish you good luck in maintaining your failing empire as it crumbles down around you for I am certain I am far from the only person who is disgusted at your activities and your outright contempt for me as a "customer." Thus I am certain others will also forgo purchasing your latest CD from Pop Star X and chose to instead invest that entertainment dollar in something - anything - that is of value. Your product no longer has value.
Yes, what Metalitz says is true, that rightsholders cannot be expected to provide copies that work in perpetuity, but never have rightsholders had the ability to REMOVE the legally purchased right to consume said product. Either rightsholders must accept the burden of maintaining availability, or they must not require DRM. Not a legal opinion, a moral one.
Let's stop making such a big deal about this. The solution is simple. DO NOT BUY DRMed MEDIA! There's plenty of quality media available outside the recording industry. Articles like these need to go away IMO.
What if there was a warning/disclaimer before every purchase of DRM'd media (music, books, etc) that said something to the effect of: "This content contains digital protections to prevent copyright infringement. Part of these protections mean that if we decide to stop supporting this content or go out of business then you will never be able to legally access this content."
Just so people know what they're getting into. After all, it would only be a fair full disclosure of what they're buying and it might make people think twice about buying DRM'd media, but then again, I doubt the warnings on cigarettes really make people think twice about smoking.
That's gotta hurt. How long before a retraction/denial/sacking?
It doesn't matter. Most consumers learned long ago that this is the basic way of thinking with large music-related corporations. That's *why* piracy is so high. And the music industry still makes money (I have NO idea how, but it does... vast amounts).
All this will do is increase piracy by another tiny percentage. That's it. The people who were borderline will think "That's enough" and everyone else will carry on as normal. And then there'll be another stupid announcemnt/technology/law/restriction and the borderline will shift again and again and again until, actually, *nobody* cares at all.
Please, please, RIAA... consider what would have happened if you went back in the time to all the previous stupid announcements you've made and proclaimed the OPPOSITE. Consider what people would be using now instead of torrent'd MP3's - cheap non-DRM music from YOUR store (and now from Amazon nearly 10 YEARS too late). The next generation are being taught to ignore you, whether accidentally or not, and you won't exist to them - they have iPod's loaded up with MP3's and copy and share them indiscriminately, in the same way that schoolkids are basically taught to copy/paste images from Google Images into their coursework. The laws that *do* protect your business will become more like guidelines, until eventually they are never enforced at all.
You're digging your own grave, and everyone is watching you, but you're the only one not to see it.
"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."
Computers and other products might wear out, but they do not have a "kill switch" that will stop them from working after a specific date, or at the request of the vendor. If you take care of computer hardware, automobiles, other physical objects, they can last a lifetime. The same is true for music, books, and other physical media. DRMed content contains such a "kill switch"... once the server goes down, it's gone.
People used to joke about "having to buy the White Album again", but they didn't actually have to do it, they could keep playing the vinyl copy when CDs came along, and even iTunes didn't make the forty year old LP turn into dust. DRM gives the music industry a new capability, the ability to force EVERYONE to "buy the White Album again" by taking down a single server.
Was to encourage artists to create and then have the work released into the public domain to give the country perpetual access to the work. Copyright was never intended to give the artist perpetual access to income from a single work!
Copyright needs to be put back to the original 14 years and signing your copyright over to a third party should also not be allowed.
This addresses a larger moral issue completely missing from modern discussion about the subject.
In the past, charging interest rates above 5%, if at all, was considered immoral and known as usury. It was so frowned upon because people recognized that making money without working is immoral and unethical in and of itself. Likewise, Adam Smith recognized that a high interest rate would cause capital to flood out of every industry into finance, since you can't hope to build a factory and have the same return as you would simply lending the same money for 10%.
The problem is that distribution of goods is now virtually free and worldwide compared to even a hundred years ago. Digital content even more so. It's understandable that patents and copyrights emerged as mechanisms to reward people for work, but the expiration of these rights is central to progress and promoting competition. Otherwise huge corporations will simply grow larger as they acquire the rights to human knowledge and creativity, and stifle any competition with their largesse and legal abuse.
Yes it is. The point is DRM in general, not just DRM for your particular music in your particular format, from your particular vendor. The decisions made now about DRM will set precident for Movies, Books, Software, and technologies we don't even consider now, possibly including virtual worlds, 3d models for 3d-printers, and who knows what else.
If there were no copyrights, there would be no need for GPL
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does the absence of copyright translate to the availability of source code? If Windows suddenly goes out of copyright, do I then magically gain the source code to it?
Forever? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what he's basically saying is that there should be no expectation on the consumer's part that the product he's paying for should work at all (regardless of whether we're talking about "owning" said product, or acquiring a "license" to enjoy said product).
Um, maybe I'm being naive here, but isn't that, you know, against the law? They *could* have said, "we're selling you the _right_ to play this for X years, or until date Y", and that'd be fair if they just say this up front, I suppose, but this sounds like they want a free pass to sell you the illusion that you're buying the "right" to access certain content, when in reality they're just selling you a rental license -- one that expires at the sole discretion of the seller.
In essence, because a license is supposed to be a sort of contract, it's like saying they want to be able to not only dictate all the terms in said contract/license scheme (as they already do, one way or another), but they also want a couple of "open clauses" that they can fill in later on, essentially nullifying the other part's contractual rights, if, when and where they see fit.
This is exactly the kind of "fine print" bullshit that corps have been getting away with for far too long. Yeah, I know you're supposed to read every contract you sign, but when even a simple song purchase entails a multiple-page "Terms of Use" or whatever, which usually includes something along the lines of "this text is subject to change, new clauses can be added, rights terminated, changes are applied retroactively and there's no obligation to notify the user of any change, it's the user's obligation to consult the updated terms at link" -- it's time to tell these assholes to go fuck themselves, for crying out loud!
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but this is illegal in the UK. This is why EULAs are not enforcable over here (although I'm not sure if its been tested in court).
The seller/licensee cant dictate terms after the sale has been made.
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Interesting)
It may not be induce criminal liability, but I'd think it's grounds for a lawsuit (probably a class-action in this case):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation [wikipedia.org] (probably fraudulent misrepresentation)
The misrepresentation in this case is that the product is sold as the legal right to listen to the electronic recording of a piece of music along with a copy of said electronic recording, and failed to properly represent the clause "until we decide to take it away without notice of any kind". Alternate legal arguments for damages might be a violation of the implied warranty of merchantability (that is that the product is at least approximately what the seller said it was).
Basically, the idea that party A can sell a widget to party B, and then take it away from party A at any time without notice either in the original purchase agreement or at the time of retaking, is pretty obviously something that should land you in legal hot water.
NYCL or the EFF could probably have a field day with this sort of thing. I, on the other hand, am not a lawyer, and this does not constitute legal advice.
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you expect the law to apply to corporate entities that posses huge lobbying power -then I'd say there's no 'maybe' about it.
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right on. As far as I'm concerned, this is a declaration of war against the people that pay them. This is the much touted 'free market' in action. They dictate the terms and if you don't like it, go without.
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, "We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to receive a consumers' money".
I'll bite.
I in favor of backing up a CD to my harddrive. I am also in favor of being able to watch and listen to media files in the software of my choice.
Yes, I am also in favor of copying a loaned CD and to share the occasional music file on the internet, even if that means not supporting Copyright Owners.
I am all in favor of supporting Artists however, and will gladly pay to see them live, I'll buy their merchandise (if its attractive and reasonably priced) and generally try to support them in a way that does not imply having to buy "a license" to listen to their work a finite number of times...
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is basically the reason why Image Comics [wikipedia.org] was formed. They (Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, and some others) decided they weren't gonna give up the rights to their own creations to Marvel, so they formed what is essentially only a publisher of comics, not the typical publisher-studio combo that DC and Marvel are. They then became one of the top 4 comic publishers in the US because they were only publishers.
So, why doesn't someone try following their lead in the music industry?
Parent
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or "We reject your reality, and substitute our own"
Parent
Just because we can't kill lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
...doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Re:Just because we can't kill lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
People who buy DRM'ed media content are idiots. It's not as if the record companies have tried to hide their sense of entitlement, or their unethical beliefs and attitudes. It would be different if they had, but as things stand, there's nothing else to do but blame the "victims" who keep giving them their money.
Stop feeding the machine [riaaradar.com], people.
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
Very good point, the RIAA's purpose isnt to distribute music, they do not care about the music nor the customer, they only care about their money and controlling the market to get more money.
They say DRMed music isnt to work forever, I say the RIAA wont work forever either, they're getting desperate for attention and control, and they're losing bits of it everyday. Music existed long before the RIAA, and will live on long after.
Parent
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
Just start buying your CD's in bulk directly from the RIAA, with checks written in disappearing ink...
Parent
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Interesting)
But this is more like a case of the retailer showing up at your door and breaking the disc in half. In that case, you bet I better get a replacement from that retailer.
If they're shutting down their DRM server, then they need to release non-DRMd copies of the music to the end user... Well... Actually, I guess that depends on the EULA. Someone care to check it?
Parent
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
This logic just does not follow -- in the case of the user's CD being damaged, it is the user's fault that the CD is no longer working, it is a completely unreasonable expectation that CDs ought to be indestructible, and steps can be taken to ensure that this is not an issue (ie, rip the CD as FLAC and keep the backup, or just burn the disc and keep the original in a safe place.). With DRM, however, the vendor is the one doing the breaking. They can break your music arbitrarily and without warning. For a serious (and stupid) music collector, this could put them out thousands of dollars worth of music instantly. This is like the store owner coming into your house, scratching all your CDs, taking a dump on your living room floor, then just giving you the finger and walking out the front door. Okay, the taking a dump on your floor part was for dramatic effect, but you get the point. These are totally different situations, you aren't even really comparing apples and oranges, its more like Apples and third-world dictators (which, come to think of it, are fairly similar).
Parent
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but a chair only has a finite lifespan. So if it falls apart after 3 years of normal use I would probably not be responsible for fixing it. Although you may tell all your friends that I make crappy chairs.
On the other hand YOU can buy a screwdriver at any hardware (or most dollar stores even) to fix the chair.
The real issue is that I have persuaded congress to make it illegal for you to buy the screwdrivers that fix the chairs I sell. And now I am saying that I should not be expected to keep any of the screwdrivers around either. And even if no one has the right tools to fix the chair YOU still can't build one.
Parent
How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:5, Funny)
Or borrow it from your friends, then rip and enjoy, then give it to your other friends. I just share all my content now and barely purchase anything. Never used P2P either. Just sneakernet. Gotta love those cheap 1TB drives! Eat me MPAA, I give away movies and you can't stop shit. Sue me! I'm a fucking pirate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm still here, and I'm still giving away movies, assholes. 80GB of MP3s and 100+ iPod ready movies and counting... my friends disks are so fucking full!!1! What's a Blue Rae?
Parent
Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how you do it.
Send your money exclusively to the people who provide what you actually want.
Those that would rather draconian control for their own selfish gain at your expense will soon become extinct in the face of actual competition.
If they won't give you want you want don't settle for the best that you can get from them boycott them completely. If every person out there actually did this scum like this would go out of business overnight.
Parent
Dear Mr. Metalitz (Score:5, Insightful)
... Fuck you.
Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?
I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!
I half agree with him (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes of course. But that's because the creative works should be public domain after a while. And I don't mean after 70+ years either.
Re:I half agree with him (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they are using copyright to sell works which will stop working, doesn't that break copyright?
Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?
Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public? After all, if copyright on existing works is extended, you're taking away from the public what was supposed to become theirs under the original deal when the work was created - and you're NOT increasing the incentive for the corpse of Ub Iwerks to create Mickey Mouse for Walt Disney 70 years previously when you extend the copyright...
So isn't it simply a land grab? Taking something away from others simply because you have the greed and the power to do so?
Can't the same be said for DRM? Taking the benefits of the copyright/public domain bargain while not holding up your end of the bargain?
And can't the same be said of breaking fair use?
Parent
Re:I half agree with him (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry to repeat myself here but... the deal was that in getting copyright, they are providing society, the public domain, with perpetual access. So the official RIAA position is they are rejecting the purpose of and requirements of copyright law.
OK with me - the RIAA rejects their end of the bargain, I reject my end of it.
Parent
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Car Analogy, I choose you!
I'd like to sell you a car, it's brand new and gets great gas mileage. Oh, but only you can drive it, no fair letting someone else borrow it without them paying us. And you can only drive it on roads that we say are ok. You also have to bring it in to the shop once a week, or it will stop working. If you're out of town and can't get it into the shop, it'll stop working until you do, and if the shop goes out of business or just doesn't want to work on your car anymore, well, that's just too bad; we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
So, according to him, noone ever 'buys' movies or music; they just rent them until they break.
I almost hope he wins; stupid restrictions like this only increase the incentive to avoid DRM.
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
double dipping (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way right now to reasonably sell people the same, say, movie is to release it in a different format (dvd, now bluray) or to include some extras or a shiny box or whatever. Something different, no matter how small.
Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.
They are Goblins. (Score:5, Interesting)
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it [the Sword of Gryffindor] ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
Re:They are Goblins. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they're not the maker, they just licensed it first.
Parent
In Regards... (Score:5, Interesting)
In regards to your notice that you feel it is fair to arbitrarily remove something I have purchased from my possession (via disabling DRM'd music), I wish to inform you that you will never, ever, ever get another cent from me. I wish you good luck in maintaining your failing empire as it crumbles down around you for I am certain I am far from the only person who is disgusted at your activities and your outright contempt for me as a "customer." Thus I am certain others will also forgo purchasing your latest CD from Pop Star X and chose to instead invest that entertainment dollar in something - anything - that is of value. Your product no longer has value.
Thank you and goodbye.
Important things to note: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning/Disclaimer? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if there was a warning/disclaimer before every purchase of DRM'd media (music, books, etc) that said something to the effect of:
"This content contains digital protections to prevent copyright infringement. Part of these protections mean that if we decide to stop supporting this content or go out of business then you will never be able to legally access this content."
Just so people know what they're getting into. After all, it would only be a fair full disclosure of what they're buying and it might make people think twice about buying DRM'd media, but then again, I doubt the warnings on cigarettes really make people think twice about smoking.
Ouch. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's gotta hurt. How long before a retraction/denial/sacking?
It doesn't matter. Most consumers learned long ago that this is the basic way of thinking with large music-related corporations. That's *why* piracy is so high. And the music industry still makes money (I have NO idea how, but it does... vast amounts).
All this will do is increase piracy by another tiny percentage. That's it. The people who were borderline will think "That's enough" and everyone else will carry on as normal. And then there'll be another stupid announcemnt/technology/law/restriction and the borderline will shift again and again and again until, actually, *nobody* cares at all.
Please, please, RIAA... consider what would have happened if you went back in the time to all the previous stupid announcements you've made and proclaimed the OPPOSITE. Consider what people would be using now instead of torrent'd MP3's - cheap non-DRM music from YOUR store (and now from Amazon nearly 10 YEARS too late). The next generation are being taught to ignore you, whether accidentally or not, and you won't exist to them - they have iPod's loaded up with MP3's and copy and share them indiscriminately, in the same way that schoolkids are basically taught to copy/paste images from Google Images into their coursework. The laws that *do* protect your business will become more like guidelines, until eventually they are never enforced at all.
You're digging your own grave, and everyone is watching you, but you're the only one not to see it.
He's categorically wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement is completely wrong.
"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."
Computers and other products might wear out, but they do not have a "kill switch" that will stop them from working after a specific date, or at the request of the vendor. If you take care of computer hardware, automobiles, other physical objects, they can last a lifetime. The same is true for music, books, and other physical media. DRMed content contains such a "kill switch"... once the server goes down, it's gone.
People used to joke about "having to buy the White Album again", but they didn't actually have to do it, they could keep playing the vinyl copy when CDs came along, and even iTunes didn't make the forty year old LP turn into dust. DRM gives the music industry a new capability, the ability to force EVERYONE to "buy the White Album again" by taking down a single server.
The Original Design of Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright needs to be put back to the original 14 years and signing your copyright over to a third party should also not be allowed.
Moral Work Ethic (Score:5, Interesting)
This addresses a larger moral issue completely missing from modern discussion about the subject.
In the past, charging interest rates above 5%, if at all, was considered immoral and known as usury. It was so frowned upon because people recognized that making money without working is immoral and unethical in and of itself. Likewise, Adam Smith recognized that a high interest rate would cause capital to flood out of every industry into finance, since you can't hope to build a factory and have the same return as you would simply lending the same money for 10%.
The problem is that distribution of goods is now virtually free and worldwide compared to even a hundred years ago. Digital content even more so. It's understandable that patents and copyrights emerged as mechanisms to reward people for work, but the expiration of these rights is central to progress and promoting competition. Otherwise huge corporations will simply grow larger as they acquire the rights to human knowledge and creativity, and stifle any competition with their largesse and legal abuse.
Parent
Re:that will keep your customers happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean worse. The RIAA is legally sanctioned to pretty well do as they please.
Parent
semi-obligatory quote (Score:5, Funny)
"The more you tighten your grip, Metalitz, more songs will slip through your fingers"
(What kind of name is "Metalitz", anyway?? Sounds like an evil android)
Parent
Re:iTunes makes this a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Since your sig is not that off-topic... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there were no copyrights, there would be no need for GPL
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does the absence of copyright translate to the availability of source code? If Windows suddenly goes out of copyright, do I then magically gain the source code to it?
Parent
Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (Score:5, Interesting)
mreposter
When GM went bankrupt they didn't come and take away everybody's car keys.
Parent
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, just wow. This reply of yours was made one minute after another [slashdot.org] referencing goblins from Harry Potter.
I swear, you Harry Potter fans are starting to creep me out. :(
Parent