Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM Businesses Cloud Media Movies Music The Internet

How DRM Won 221

Posted by Soulskill
from the subliminal-messages-in-all-those-FBI-warnings dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "In 2009, when Apple dropped the Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions from songs sold through the iTunes Store, it seemed like a huge victory for consumers, one that would usher in a more customer-friendly economy for digital media. But four years later, DRM is still alive and well — it just lives in the cloud now. Streaming media services are the ultimate form of copy protection — you never actually control the media files, which are encrypted before delivery, and your ability to access the content can be revoked if you disagree with updated terms of service; you're also subject to arbitrary changes in subscription prices. This should be a nightmare scenario to lovers of music, film, and television, but it's somehow being hailed by many as a technical revolution. Unfortunately, what's often being lost in the hype over the admittedly remarkable convenience of streaming media services is the simple fact that meaningfully relating to the creative arts as a fan or consumer depends on being able to access the material in the first place. In other words, where your media collection is stored (and can be remotely disabled at a whim) is not something to be taken lightly. In this essay, developer Vijith Assar talks about how the popularity of streaming content could result in a future that isn't all that great. 'Ultimately, regardless of the delivery mechanism, the question is not one of streaming versus downloads,' he writes. 'It's about whether you want to have your own media library or request access to somebody else's. Be careful.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How DRM Won

Comments Filter:
  • XBMC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ganjadude (952775) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:22PM (#44243175) Homepage
    XBMC takes care of alot of that. it is a grey area of course but for the time being legal.
  • 1st (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Its not that bad if you think of the cloud streaming more as a service, like XM or your cable service you pay to have access to be entertained by there content for the duration of your subscription

  • by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:24PM (#44243209)

    There's hundreds of plug-ins, extensions, and rip programs to grab the content. It has to be de-coded to be played, moving to streams only turns the tide slightly.

    It seems we're coming to a middle ground though, as most streaming DRM does not significantly get in the way of most (read:Windows) users.

    • by Mitreya (579078)

      There's hundreds of plug-ins, extensions, and rip programs to grab the content.

      Indeed, but they all suck (ones I have tried anyway).

    • by thunderclap (972782) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @06:49PM (#44244909)

      True. Its one of the reasons that I still use Windows rather than abandon it totally for Chromium. The tools to fight the drm to download and archive content still exist for Windows. While Windows thinks its converting to tablet its actually committing suicide. However, that's neither here nor there on drm. Streaming and the cloud have not given DRM a victory by no means. In fact its a sign of desperation. The content distributors are so desperate to continue the distribution that they are willing to lose it entirely. Huh? you say.
      What happens if we suffer a terrorist attack? A nuclear 9/11 on silicon valley? Or an earthquake? That cloud will dissipate and with it goes all those songs, movies and games. You don't have it if it doesn't sit on a device in your possession. You rent it instead. Anyone remember those DVDs that lasted 3 days? I loved them. Why? because there had absolutely no encryption on them at all. All I had to do was rip the movie and I owned it. Still do in the original sleeve. of the new disc has a name in sharpie on it.
      DRM has never been about copyright infringement. DRM has always been about blocking alterations to the change in distribution. The big names like their money. They don't want it to go away. Short of having all their property seized and them arrested and put in jail, this wont change. (unless aforementioned event above happens)
      The cloud is meaningless extension of that interference hailed as progress so those who do it causally will quit. We need to be vigilant to remind that that ownership requires physical possession. If you don't have it so it can play anywhere at anytime, you don't have it.
      Will it ever change? Not until either aforementioned event or arrest is made.
      We are headed to the world of Continuum. (if you haven't watched this series, you should. Its excellent and very prophetic in a not overt way.)
      We must be the change in which we seek. We must continue to fight. DRM has not won. Its hasn't lost either.

  • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreyaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:25PM (#44243221)
    I hate streaming content because my home internet is too crappy to keep up. I'd much rather download the file and watch it off local storage.

    Forget TV shows, it is incredibly hard to find a downloadable high-def movie trailer, all websites seem to insist on streaming even that.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.

      • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreyaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:39PM (#44243381)

        Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.

        It's a use case regarding the "popularity" of streaming content. There are others -- I also tend to travel (watching things on a train is great). If these streaming clients had at least allowed a "local cache" option, they would be far more usable.

        • by TyFoN (12980)

          Both spotify and youtube can cache files locally for travel. I'm pretty sure the apple stuff can too, but I'm not familiar with that eco system.

          The best of course would be no drm, but then you could just download the whole shebang and never pay again.

          If I at any point feel that the paid content offers less than the "free", I will chose the free one. And that happens quite often :)

      • AT&T always seems to be present in any story on corporate excess.
      • by Kjella (173770)

        Well my connection is finally fast enough to stream one BluRay quality stream, but with 4K around the corner that'll quadruple (maybe only double with H.265) again soon. It's not that hard to tell your computer the night before that hey, tomorrow I'd like to see movie X so you've got 24 hours to download - at least my torrent client understands that just fine. It also has the best offline mode I ever saw. I'm a paying HBO Nordic customer, but they must wonder... I still prefer getting Game of Thrones from m

        • by peragrin (659227)

          you can stream blurry? crap I am in Massachusetts and I can only sometimes stream 720P HD.

          Most of the time I am limited to SD. Which is generally fine as SD is cheaper and 90% of the stuff I watch SD is fine.

          I only switch to 720P HD when I want to. of course I have an older LCD TV so it's not like I can watch 1080P anyways.

        • by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @05:55PM (#44244303)

          4k isn't around the corner, unless you've got a theater around the corner. 4K has so many pixels that you would need a huge TV mere inches from your face in order to observe the difference between it and bluray.

          In practice, few Americans, Europeans or people in general have rooms large enough to house a TV that would permit one to appreciate the difference.

      • Sounds like every streaming video device should have enough local storage to hold at least one whole movie. Streaming isnt the problem, its the implementation that sucks. Every one of the streamers should have local caching ability.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's ridiculous. Of course he'd like things faster. He'd probably like a pony, too. But his home internet connection is almsot certainly already easily capable of handling the application, and plenty of people with that speed or slower, trivially use their connection for top-quality-bitrate video. For many decades we have had the tech for addressing the problem of n minutes of video taking n*i minutes to transfer: saving a file. If the movie people can't take advantage of the current tech for present

    • Our FTA broadcasters all have a streaming catch-up service. .

      The quality of broadcast is comprable to a VHS that has been re-dubbed a few times. If the stream fails/cut out then there is the issue of restarting and rebuffering and refinding the content.

      Then there are issues with Flash, meaning I can not watch it on all of my devices (without much messing around)

      And to think, I could get a torrented file much quicker, easier and with less compatibility issues. I can even use that on my devices when there is

  • we buy what we want to watch.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      we buy what we want to watch.

      Me too. This is why I have no movies. I cant find one where I actually own the content, I can only license it.

  • by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:31PM (#44243277)

    I use iTunes Match which means all my files are stored in the cloud. But, before the cries of "evil lock in!", iTunes lets me download all my cloud files at any time DRM free, so I can listen to them offline or even archive them.

    Am I upset I can't download rented media DRM free? No. Why would I be upset about that? It's the same deal I had with movie rental stores. If I buy it to own, I definitely want a download. But I haven't run into many services at all where I purchase something and I can't download it.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Many are upset because generally those services only work on OSX and Windows. I don't remember rental stores have DRM that failed to work on other operating systems, what sort of thing were you renting?

      • Many are upset because generally those services only work on OSX and Windows. I don't remember rental stores have DRM that failed to work on other operating systems, what sort of thing were you renting?

        I remember rental stores renting Super Nintendo games that didn't work on my Genesis, or DVDs that didn't work on my VHS. I never felt the need to start an online crusade about it.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          Those were not limitations of DRM.

          Comparing them makes no sense.

          • Those were not limitations of DRM.

            Comparing them makes no sense.

            How so? Linux (in theory) lacks the right player software, much like how my console didn't have the right components for playback.

            • by h4rr4r (612664)

              Because those carts and tapes could not be made compatible.

              Linux has many software players that could handle it. The software could be made in minutes quite likely. This is not a hardware limitation.

              • Because those carts and tapes could not be made compatible.

                Linux has many software players that could handle it. The software could be made in minutes quite likely. This is not a hardware limitation.

                That's not a great distinction. In theory, I could put an emulator on my Genesis to play SNES games. So there isn't a hardware limitation there either.

                I think the weakest part about this line of reasoning as that at that point it makes codecs DRM. If H.266 shipped tomorrow with Mac and Windows players, would you define H.266 movies as DRM encumbered?

                • by Sloppy (14984) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @07:20PM (#44245195) Homepage Journal

                  One way to look at these issues might be to phrase the question in legalese, particularly DMCAese: Is the inability to interact with iTunes cloud storage, using software other than iTunes, due to a "technical measure which limits access?" If someone were to reverse-engineer the protocol that the iTunes application uses to communicate with the backend, so that you could use the service without Apple's shockingly crappy software, and then if Apple sued 'em under 1201, would a fair judge (please, bear with me and pretend) strictly ruling by the letter of the law, say Apple is right or wrong?

                  If so, then at least it's DRM according to many governments.

                  I think Apple would do that (i.e. they would say it's DRM) if someone wrote an iTunes cloud client. And I suspect Apple would win, but I guess that depends on the details of the protocol. But history shows that the fact that nothing works with iTunes is on purpose, part of Apple's wishes, not merely due to laziness, lack of market demand, etc.

                  I do think that the "DRM" label gets overused and applied to things where it should not (e.g. watermarking to detect who leaked something -- that is not DRM!). But trade secret proprietary protocols cut much closer to the line, and when we're talking about a megacorp's proprietary trade secret for transferring media files .. c'mon. Of course you're going to find a "technical measure which limits access" there. Don't you think?

                  As for your codec example, if the codec were a trade secret (and there have been a few), then yes, it would probably count as DRM. When you get to non-secret things like a supposedly "industry standard H.whatever" where it's documented, I think calling it DRM might be a stretch. We would at least have to depart from the legalese way of looking at it. If the lack of a h.266 decoder were due to patent holders' prohibition, then in DMCA-speak that'd be a "dishonorable-lawyer-trick measure to limit access" rather than a "technical measure to limit access." ;-) At that point, when people refuse to take your money, you don't need to split hairs and argue about whether or not its strictly DRM. They've already gone to a lot of trouble to refuse the revenue, so leave it at that, and just go download the pirate copy which is encoded with the codec that you're allowed to decode. Then everyone wins.

                  • At that point, when people refuse to take your money, you don't need to split hairs and argue about whether or not its strictly DRM. They've already gone to a lot of trouble to refuse the revenue, so leave it at that, and just go download the pirate copy which is encoded with the codec that you're allowed to decode. Then everyone wins.

                    So why can't it be that way about DRM? How is it that a codec not being available for Linux means a shrug and moving on to Bittorrent, while DRM suddenly equates to some societal evil?

                    Earlier in this thread I mentioned VHS and a response was that VHS wasn't DRM'd. After thinking about it, I don't think that's true. A VHS tape is a device where having physical access to the tape is the decryption key. While there are a few possible holes in practice, a video store can in theory ensure that only one person ha

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > Many are upset because generally those services only work on OSX and Windows.

        Who uses a PC for those services anyways?

        The PC versions of those services are put together in such a way that you need unnecessarily overpriced hardware to deal with them versus a $200 HTPC or a $60 streamer.

  • by Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:32PM (#44243299) Homepage

    DRM is only an issue if it gets in the way of letting the user do what they want. Make a service that is convenient and easy to use, that works the way the user wants it to work and they won't care about DRM. e.g. Steam, Netflix, Hulu etc.
    Music streaming services have the nice feature of me not needing to worry about storing, tagging, organizing my music collection. If the service is good and people are willing to pay for it that's all that matters.

    Before responding about how much you personally care about and dislike DRM please note that you are not a part of the "they" I was talking about.

    • DRM is an issue, because it targets the paying customer. It can only get in the way, it has no other purpose.

      If they could make DRM that didn't get in the way, they wouldn't need DRM in the first place.

      • by Rockoon (1252108) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:56PM (#44243589)
        DRM on streaming services does not get in the way of the paying customer.

        For example, I subscribe to netflix. It uses DRM. I can still watch the movies in their collection, repeatedly.

        The thing is that I do not pretend to own any of the movies. I am paying for the service, not particular movies. I also subscribe to Pandora. I am paying for the service, not particular songs.

        In neither case does either party pretend to transfer ownership of any specific content.

        Seems like a lot of slashdotters dont seem to understand streaming services, equating them with iTunes purchases and other stuff that are not streaming services.

        I would gladly pay $50/month for a service that had everything on demand, and I wouldn't give a flying fuck about DRM that prevents me from copying the content, because I am paying for the service specifically so that I do not need a copy of the content.
        • by Joey Vegetables (686525) on Thursday July 11, 2013 @08:27AM (#44249025) Journal

          For example, I subscribe to netflix. It uses DRM. I can still watch the movies in their collection, repeatedly.

          For as long as they remain available via streaming. It is not uncommon for titles to drop out of the streaming catalog. It happened to me once while I was literally in the middle of watching a movie (watched part one day, hoping to watch the rest the next, and it was no longer available via streaming). That is another drawback of DRM. You are guaranteed to be able to watch your rented media today. There is no guarantee about next year or month or week, or even tomorrow.

    • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:55PM (#44243569) Journal
      The thing with the rising popularity of streaming is not DRM. The real problem is (as usual) the way they'll ruin it with advertisements, and then DRM will come into play, making sure you cannot edit out or skip ads. And thanks to technology, it's now super easy to inject all manner of interstitials and pop-ups and pop-overs and watermarks and other crap on top of the content.

      That is why I hate streaming, and it's why I will cling to media that I *own* for as long as I can. Until they start ruining that with ads too (like Disney and their infamous unskippable trailers).
      • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @06:43PM (#44244837)

        Until they start ruining that with ads too (like Disney and their infamous unskippable trailers).

        One of the many advantages to ripping my legally-purchased DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, then running them through HandBrake, is never again having to watch a "coming soon" trailer for a movie that was in the theaters a decade ago.

        • How long until the entertainment industry tries to claim that skipping a trailer on a DVD for a movie that was in theaters a decade ago somehow retroactively results in lost ticket sales?

          "Our movie did horrible because two years from now some guys will rip their Blu-Ray disc releases of an unrelated movie released by the same studio, removing the trailer for our movie. This future action will have already caused us to lose ticket sales!"

          Bonus: The Hollywood accountants can factor future ripping in when fi

  • by Serenissima (1210562) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:33PM (#44243305)
    And it depends on your tastes. I used to have a remote job traveling around the country. I have several hundred DVD's that I purchased and have since ripped onto a hard drive. I have instant access to hundreds of movies and dozens of TV shows that I legally paid for. But honestly, I watch Netflix and Hulu more than any of the giant library I have because...well, I've already seen my movies and TV Shows. At this point in my life, I don't have a burning desire to watch every video I have again. So, I have a giant video library that gets used rarely. Streaming content is significantly better in this area for me because I don't have time/want to watch video again after I see it once.

    Now music, on the other hand, is completely different. If there's music that I like, I go out and actually by the CD's and rip the music myself. Music IS something I consume repeatedly and it is very worth the money for me to have a big library of my own music. Pandora has its uses, I've found several artists I like through it!

    Streaming isn't destroying anything and as long as there are people somewhere who are willing to pay to watch or listen to something as many times as they want, other people will sell it that way. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. And demand is generated by your tastes. It's kind of silly to think of a future where EVERYTHING is ONLY streaming ALL THE TIME because that won't happen as long as there is money to be made!

  • by wbr1 (2538558) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:35PM (#44243327)
    For the same reason the NSA has a mic and camera up everyones bunghole. We are a nation of apathetic, vapid, content consumers whose primary concerns are trivial and shallow.
  • by davecb (6526) <davec-b@rogers.com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:36PM (#44243351) Homepage Journal

    The first DRM I saw was funny formats on Apple ][ floppies, followed by DOS format misfeatures, followed by dongles, followed by own-code in apps, followed by ... ite ad infinitum.

    Note that you don't see these forms of DRM any more. What you do see is that, each time a new format of anything comes out, some DRM vendor talks the publishers into "protecting" their work[1].

    As long as new publishers are suckers, the DRM vendors will suck them in, and make lots of money off a technology that motivates people to not buy the publications.

    The publishers lose two ways!

    --dave
    [1. One of my former employers almost got taken in by this scam, but the techies caught it. ]

    • by KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:38PM (#44243377)

      I agree, those whose business is DRM are the ones who benefit, not anyone else. My bet is that far more money is lost to DRM, than to piracy.

      • by davecb (6526)
        The price of a DRM package for a 286 DOS application was approximately the size of our profit margin, and would have pushed the total cost into a whole different bracket (:-))
        • The cost to develop the copy protection in the original Atari ST Notator app -- the predecessor to Apple Logic -- was as much as the cost to develop the entire rest of the program. It is still uncracked today, despite there being intense cracker interest (Notator is still in use by pro and amateur musicians).

          Enough people have purchased Notator who would otherwise have pirated it, to make that cost worthwhile.

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      That's not really DRM, that's copy protection. Nothing on those floppies was designed to control when and where you used the files or how many were looking over your shoulder.

      People should not make the mistake of just confusing DRM with anti piracy. That's sort of like confusing NSA spying with crime prevention.

  • With CDs and DVDs / blu-ray discs I can rip my own formats, I get to keep it and between UV and amazon I can get "free" streaming versions of most of my films and music anyway.

    It shouldn't be a case that the new way is worse than the old way of doing things but that's the case, imo.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:52PM (#44243529)

    The old system: I pay 10 dollars for an album (lets call it $1 per song, to make the math easier), and if I ever lose the album, I lose it forever. I can make a copy of it to back it up, but if I lose all copies, it's gone forever.

    The first DRM system: I pay $1 for a song, I can only play it on one (or 5) devices, and if I ever accidentally delete it, it's gone forever and I never get it back. This is the DRM system that sucked, and everybody hated.

    The "new" DRM system: I pay $1 for a song, and I can play it on anything that supports the DRM mode (not everything, granted, but all of my devices, so it's cool with me). If I lose the file, I just download it again. If I want to listen to it on my second device, I just download it again. When I'm connected to the internet (most of the time for me) I can access and download every song I've ever bought in seconds. This is a good deal. I am willing to pay the same amount I used to pay for a song and accept the risk that apple might someday disappear in exchange for this convenience.

    It all comes down to a trade off, but this "new" deal seems fair enough for me. It is more convenient than either of the old systems, and this way I don't have to carry around a 50GB external hard drive to have access to all of my songs on my 8GB iPhone. It costs more long term, but it is a better system.

    • by EdZ (755139)
      I prefer the no-DRM system: I pay £1 for a song, and I can download it on anything that can handle http, and play it on anything that can handle a standard audio format. I can convert it to anything that can't. I can play it on as many devices as I want simultaneously. I can play it whenever and wherever I want. I can filter it, EQ it, upmix it, downmix it, or chop it into samples and annoy people with it on a keyboard as a soundfont. I can upload it, download it, back it up ad infinitum (online and o
  • I'm not looking to get the same functionality/features from a streaming service than I am from purchasing digital copies of media. I go in knowing that terms/prices can change at will, but I accept that for an "all I can eat" service.

  • by timmyf2371 (586051) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @05:18PM (#44243841)

    I subscribe to Spotify and I'm well aware of the consequences of its DRM; if I stop paying the monthly fee, I don't get access to any music I may have listened to during my time as a customer.

    My question is - what is the alternative to DRM for services like Spotify? It seems to me that for such a service to exist, DRM must exist unless you choose to rely on an honour system.

    As long as I pay them £10 per month, I get unlimited access to a massive library of tunes on my PC, as well as my phone. I can be on the train home and decide I want to listen to song x by artist y, and within seconds it is streaming to me. Best of all, it doesn't cost me whatever the going rate for an MP3 is these days.

    If we lose the DRM, the proposition changes quite significantly. It becomes £10 for unlimited music with no DRM - why would I do anything other than subscribe for one month and download their entire library onto a massive hard drive, for later playback at my leisure?

    For me, it's a trade off between cost and no DRM. Let's say I listen to 50 new tracks each month using Spotify Radio. At the iTunes price of 99p per track, this will cost me just short of £50. It's great that these tracks come without DRM, but for that same £50, I can get a return flight to Europe with a low cost airline. Or feed myself for a week.

  • Streaming doesn't replace ownership. Streaming replaces radio.
  • From the submission: "meaningfully relating to the creative arts as a fan or consumer depends on being able to access the material in the first place. "

    But you can.

    This was the Giant Fucking Issue that the RIAA/MPAA have still only dimly figured out. People were perfectly willing to pay for convenience. "How do you compete with free?" You make paying more convenient than not-paying. So in 2000, could you listen to music digitally? Not legally -- not easily -- so people pirated. Then iTunes came along, and

    • by Dins (2538550)

      ...pirating a copy when you don't know what you'll get or if a threatening letter will arrive six weeks later.

      You're doing it wrong...

      • by Dins (2538550)
        Excellent point overall, though. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted.
  • You're basically calling streaming services a replacement for owning a digital copy, but they're not the same thing. As everything, distribution of content especially has move online, streaming services are replacing Blockbuster and other video rental services. For the amount of content you can consume they are considerably cheaper than buying the content.

    There are plenty of services, iTunes and Amazon particularly, that sell you digital media and can't revoke your access one you've purchased it. You can do

  • by jetkust (596906) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @05:39PM (#44244127)
    I don't see DRM as the issue here. If you purchase something and the terms of the purchase are that you can access it "as long as the company allows you to access it", this is different from a legal agreement that requires the company to provide access to it indefinitely. Something like Netflix has nothing to do with DRM because you are not purchasing content, you are buying access to it. The idea that companies can just on a whim take content away that you purchased, no they can't, unless you agreed to this when you purchased it, or if you never actually purchased it in the first place. And why would companies go away from "selling" content and move completely to a subscription model. Last time I checked, they make a lot of money off sales. Why would they want to stop doing it? A lot of people claim they want to own physical or digital copies of everything locally. That's fine. But I think more and more people are moving towards just wanting "access" to things, and not having to worry about managing files and discs themselves. And if a digital purchase is guaranteed to be permanent, it may be even more valuable to some than a local copy (which can be broken or lost).
  • The basic objection to DRM is that when you buy something and it's DRMed, you don't really own it. If the DRM servers shut down, you can't move your purchased product to another device. (And this isn't just tinfoil-hat fantasy, it has happened more than once.)

    A streaming media service is more like renting the content. I don't really care about the DRM because I don't own the content.

    I buy music as CDs and I rip them. It's sort of silly that I take possession of a physical CD since I want a set of FLAC-e

  • I'm currently subscribed to (big name streaming service) and going through all the albums that have placed on the yearly Pazz and Jop album poll. (I'm up to the 1980's now.) That's about 2 - 3 albums every day I'm at my desk, listening to each album twice. For ten dollars a month, that ain't exactly tragic.

    .
  • It's called bittorrent.

    No terms, no conditions, irrevokable.

  • Convenience won.
  • Nonsense like this is just another reason not to trust The Cloud, aka, Some Other Guys Computer.

    Data isn't really yours until you have it on hardware that YOU control. Until then you just have access to it at someone else's good grace.

  • by shentino (1139071)

    DRM is not inherently bad per se as much as the companies that opportunistically use it to turn media purchases into EaaS just because DRM allows them to get away with it.

    DRM stops you from infringing copyright, and ostensibly that is all it is used for so the feds won't put a leash on it.

    Since DRM is basically a control tool to rob you of power and put it in the hands of the vendor, and makes you subject to their whims, it also gives them power over the market.

    DRM abuse should be attacked on a consumer pro

  • My eMule is alive and kickin'!
  • by Skynyrd (25155) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @07:06PM (#44245071) Homepage

    20 years ago we all watched TV, went to the movies, and had no problem not owning the content. Currently, I subscribe to Netflix and have Amazon Prime - just like TV, but on demand. I simply do not care about the DRM.I am renting content from them. It's easy, and it follows me wherever I go (TV at home, iPad when I travel). It's just like it has always been, but with added convenience. I also rent music from Pandora. I listen to music on BART, while driving, traveling. Again, no problem.

    I generally don't buy video, but I do buy music. I buy used CDs or "new" MP3s from Amazon, Google or Apple - with no DRM. I own that music. If it's a physical disk when it arrives, I made a digital copy and put it on a hard drive, iPhone and/or USB stick in the car stereo. Then I make a backup. Some of it goes to the cloud, for playback while traveling. Even if Apple, Amazon and/or Google go out of business in my lifetime (not gonna happen) I still have my DRM free music.

    I fail to see a problem here.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...