How DRM Won 221
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.'"
1st (Score:2, Insightful)
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
The Battle Continues (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Popularity of streaming content? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Popularity of streaming content? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.
Seems like an over generalization... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Just shows what we already knew (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It depends on the type of content (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:1st (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: 1st (Score:5, Insightful)
How is streaming online any different than streaming over The air?
Re:Just shows what we already knew (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:War on DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: 1st (Score:4, Insightful)
There are no ways to track what people are doing OTA. There are also no ways for people to interact with the content.
OTA is monodirectional communication. The two are totally different mediums.
Re:Popularity of streaming content? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:XBMC (Score:4, Insightful)
XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.
Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.
Re:Popularity of streaming content? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 presenting hte best experience, then some middleman will. Today, we call those middlemen "pirates." They're pirates because no one else wants the money, so people obtain this service (which isn't available at any price) for free.
And that's the real problem: there's a lot of "we don't want your money" going around. It's pathological to the point where it gets really difficult to respect copyright at all, because it's directly contrary to the whole "financial incentive" goal. Whatever happened to people doing business?! Business is where you tell a customer "Yes sir" AND TAKE THEIR FUCKING MONEY. "No, your network is too slow or you're doing too many things with it" is totally alien to some of us, especially when we already know there is no such thing as too slow, just degrees along the convenience-impatience spectrum.
These "we can't deliver video to 7 MBps users" luddite companies shouldn't be allowed to have government-granted copyright on video. If they're not going to use it, they should lose it, because he copyright isn't doing anyone any good, not creating incentive, etc.
Another thing I hate about this situation, is that I get so habituated to everyone saying they don't want my money, that I've nearly stopped looking to see if there are any serious businesses left. It's easier to just let sickbeard and couchpotato pirate everything for me, instead of merely sticking to the DRMed stuff. The rotten apples are making it harder for everyone by poisoning the market and telling everyone to just pirate things, if you want them to work worth a damn.
Not buying this argument (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:XBMC (Score:5, Insightful)
XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.
Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.
Odd; I use iTunes to control my own content. It's on my computer, and is not controlled by Apple (not even in their preferred "Library". The stuff in iTunes is also mirrored in the cloud.
"The Cloud" is a means of distribution; it's equivalent to making backup copies of your DVDs that you use all the time, keeping the originals stored away. Cloud services allow you to access select content from anywhere; I'd stay away from ANY cloud service that didn't allow you to have a local copy of your cloud contents as well (I'm looking at you, Facebook).
As such, this entire article is based on a false premise. While Cloud services could be moving in that direction, right now they are used (and advertised) as an alternate distribution system for content you own. Deleting all copies except what's in the cloud is silly, as you never know when cloud access will vanish.
The big issue with Cloud data is that you lose primary control of the data -- that's fine for disposable/consumable data (music, movies, etc) but for anything you don't want to also belong to other people, don't put it in the cloud.
All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.
Re:XBMC (Score:5, Insightful)
All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.
Steam is a good example of DRM.
It is fairly obvious though that it won simply because it works and the only restriction it places on you is not being able to sell games you bought second hand (which you agreed to when you bought the game from them anyway). It does however let you install games on loads of different machines, even at the same time unlike most DRM systems. They also release games on steam at the same time all over the world to my knowledge which is another reason why people pirate, to obtain something that is not yet available by legal means in the their country.
When DRM is invisible in this way to most users then they simply don't care about it. I am sure there are some people who refuse to buy all steam titles as part of some crusade to get them to drop the restriction on second hand sales, but they are so few in number that Valve just ignores them as acceptable losses.
This is probably made even easier by the same people piping up how bad Steam is on forums and saying they boycott it for restricting second hand sales through DRM while also having obviously played games only available on steam with this restriction. This means they played the game illegally anyway without paying so it is very easy for Valve to dismiss them as people who just want to play games without paying for them. If you are actually trying to boycott something effectively, you have to really boycott it or it dilutes the message you are trying to put across.
Sorry to disappoint you that this is not a troll, I just think that if I pay for every game I play then you damn well should too or do without playing it. I know that this might not result in any lost sales to the publisher, but if I pay for something and you don't that is not fair.
Re:Just shows what we already knew (Score:4, Insightful)
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.