Britons Frustrated by DRM 565
thesp writes "The BBC is reporting that UK music lovers are 'frustrated' with DRM restrictions and pricing of online music purchases. The confusion over file formats and player compatibility are being compounded with the desire to 'own' rather than 'license' an album or track, leading to widespread concern. This debate has recently been the province only of the technologists and the media companies, with the consumer being regarded as unaware and unwitting. Is this a sign that this picture is changing, with consumers begining to realise and leverage their own market power?"
it was bound to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:2)
Especially in the UK. Have you seen the prices of downloaded tracks?
For the iTunes Music Store, it's £0.79. According to current exchange rates, in US dollars that's $1.51...
I suppose at least they didn't do the more common $1 = £1.
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of you who don't know the EUs single market prohibits this, a person from one EU must be able to buy something from another EU state as if they were living there - no discrimination can be made on grounds of nationality - thereby ensuring the free movement of goods.
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:4, Interesting)
But, I think that is because Britons do not care about the price of things, when I come from a country where a $1 peso (like $.1 USD) rebate, is always welcomed!,
Darn, I have even seen people leaving
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a few, try not to spend them all at once:
£££££££
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you were to go to France, you couldn't use the French iTunes store, as it won't let you without a french registered bank account. Thats whats infringing.
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
The only time such behaviour is profitable is when the taxes are high enough to offset the cost of transportation; in particular alcohol and tobacco products.
Tell me about it... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot of snobbery here in the UK (not just England). If people drop their change on the ground, they often won't pick it up for fear of appearing cheap.
People here often go out of their way to buy the most expensive stuff they can because they think it must be better or to show everyone else just how rich and discerning they are.
Like you, I've often had many free snacks from vending machines because people have walked off and left their change. I've also almost managed to fund a night out from picking up the odd pund here and there off the floor...
I've had many useful computer parts from the local rubbish dump.
I'm not a miserable, stingy Scottish git for nothing :-)
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:4, Informative)
Apple are being taken to the European Court because they prevent UK downloaders from using the French and German iTunes sites and getting cheaper downloads.
Yeah, except that to do so would violate the law in each of those countries, or require Apple to raise prices to the highest countries royalty rates. Great deal, everyone pays more. The EU also directed the music licensing organizations of all European countries to agree to licensing across Europe, so far they have completely refused to comply.
a person from one EU must be able to buy something from another EU state as if they were living there - no discrimination can be made on grounds of nationality
So here is the problem. As the law stands in the EU, a license to music in France is not the same thing as a license to music in Britain. Both have different prices and restrictions. If this lawsuit wins against Apple they will have to charge people in France a higher price so that it is the same as the license cost in Britain. Tell me again how this is a win for anyone?
I've seen this same issue brought up here before. You have to remember Apple wants to charge the lowest possible price for music. They just use it as a way of selling ipods, and don't make any money off of it. Your argument makes it sound like Apple execs are sitting around and figuring out which countries they can gouge the most. In truth they just want to sell the music as cheaply as they can without losing money so that people will buy more ipods.
The standardization of licensing across Europe would be great, but there is not really anything Apple can do to make it happen. This lawsuit is completely misdirected.
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:3, Informative)
The EU is a single market; by law, there should be no restriction upon buying goods from different countries that are in the EU.
There is no restriction on buying goods. But this is not a material good it is a license to intellectual property. You can buy a license for a copy of music from France in England, unfortunately it is useless in England since in England the rights to the music are owned by a completely different person. The problem is consumers don't understand copyrights and the fact that copy
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
I can go to Paris, buy it for their price and take it here.
What they could NOT do is say: "but you are from London, so we will charge the London price".
It will be interesting to see how this works with electronic delivery.
Currently, I presume there is a single data center, with just different store fronts for different countries, which can easily be deemed il
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:2)
iPods have always cost several hundred pounds (GBP): the iPod generation have *always* had the wealth to make a difference.
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:3)
Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that it's good that people are listening, but without competition, somewhere else to go to to get the music that you want, why would the music industry do anything?
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. A recent judgement involving consumer watchdog associations said:
- companies have the right to put protections on their CDs
- consumers who experience problems reading these CDs are entitled a refund.
Now, circumventing encryption is still authorised in Europe. The problem would be a DMCA-like bill at the European level (such as EUCD).
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
>authorised in Europe. The problem would be a
>DMCA-like bill at the European level (such as >EUCD).
As far as I know and have read, the directive only deals with circumvention protection for copright related issues, which would primarilly be protection that prevent copying. Accessing is NOT a right for a copuright hodler, hence protection that simply deals with accessing a work is not covered by the directive. Encryption does not in anyway prevent copying, it is about access, and hence ccould be "circumvented". Of course, some countries have gone further and added in access into their copyright laws, but that is then not due to the directive.
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
>directive only deals with copyright related
>issues?
This is mostly from the text of the proposed copyright law changes in Sweden. It is a VERY large documnet (the pdf is split into two 250 page documents). Below is a link to a text version. I can post the link to the pdf tomorrow if needed. It is in Swedish of course. Also note that I mostly read the initial proposal from last year, there are some changes in this one. The relevant chaptr would be 11.3 I think, or perhaps all of 11.
http://rixlex.riksdagen.se/htbin/thw/?$%7BBASE%7D
I recall from the original proposition were this was discussed and detailed. The reasoning was that the whole directive is about copyright only. Circumvention can only be in regard to copyright related "rights" for the copyright holder. They specifically mentioned region coding as not applying since it had nothing to do with copyright.
Then they raised the question about protection mechanisms that protected both copyright related rights and non copyright related ones. To give such combined protection also protection for circumvention would be to give to much power to the copyright holder. They thus had the option to either make a protection only for copyright related issues and get protection versus circumvention, or to add more and lose the circumvention protection. As I said, I have not read if there is any changes to this in the current proposal. I would say it would be minor changes only.
The EU directive seems to be attached to this text version but from a quick look looks like a mix of swedish and english.Its name is if I am not mistake "2001/29/EG" It is not THAT easy to actually interpret the directive correctly though, hence why I have mostly relied on reading the swedish proposal for its implementation were they argue on how to interpret and apply the directive. After all, it is the actual law of my country that is relevant to me.
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
No one in the UK pays any attention to what happens in europe but eventually either the law in the UK is changed to bring it in line with European regulations or there is a european test case and Europe starts fining the UK goverment telling it that it should do what it is told or face the consequences.
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
That said, with France's recent decision, maybe people will wake up to what the EUCD will mean before it's too late.
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:2)
Mr.Orrin Hatch being the most high-profile example visible to a British eye, his proposals, for example, that filesharers PCs should be taken from them, and his backng of an attempt to write clauses about copyright protection into an American anti-terrorist bill are good examples of the sort of power the RIAA doesn't have over here.
Re:Finally, but will it do anything? (Score:3, Interesting)
Another think though , i would dearly love this to come up in the european court as they have a tendancy to rule in favour of the people , If it hapens that the european court rules that it is unlawfull then it will begin to spread over the member states
When it has spread to all the member states then the practice will extend beyond the member states
Hey Brits!! (Score:5, Funny)
You know about tea, right??
Re:Hey Brits!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey Brits!! (Score:2, Funny)
"My God, man! Do they want tea?"
"No, I think they're after something a bit more than that, sir. I don't know what it is, but they've brought a flag."
"Damn, that's dash cunning of them."
Re:Hey Brits!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hey Brits!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey Brits!! (Score:5, Funny)
It's worse than that - the Romans attempted to invade Britain several times, and were only successful when they hit on the idea of landing on a Friday at 4pm, during teatime. The Romans had plenty of time to establish fortifications on the shore before the British warriors returned on the following Monday.
Re:Utter Bull-dada (Score:3, Funny)
Is there a mod for "utter lack of a sense of humor"?
-Eric
Re:Utter Bull-dada (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hey Brits!! (Score:3, Funny)
A good thing, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good thing, too (Score:3, Informative)
The various record companies own the rights to the music: they made it a condition of allowing Apple to sell it online that it had to be DRM'd. Apple had a simple choice: DRM or no music.
Re:A good thing, too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A good thing, too (Score:3, Insightful)
1. "the fact of the matter is that Apple could have far, far reduced restrictions on its music and still satisfied the record companies."
Says you... if you have evidence, I'd like to see it.
2. "The fact of the matter is that Apple is purposefully using DRM as a tool to force people to buy an iPod to listen to their music downloaded through iTunes."
True-ish, however the use of AAC isn't really a DRM issue, it's simply a case of a company selling music in a for
Re:A good thing, too (Score:3, Insightful)
NonAcceptance = Jail (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry no vaseline for you, we used it all up on ourselves.
Re:A good thing, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A good thing, too (Score:2)
In the case of Steam-purchased software, you can make as many backups of the GCF files as you like, however you like. It's even got features for sizing backup files for CDR or DVD [custhelp.com].
There is still the slight matter of the online authentication, but I suppose with all the datafiles not being encrypted [thewavelength.net] and not tied to any one machine, there had to be some way to lock things down...
Steam's quite interesting as a working implementa
Re:A good thing, too (Score:2)
>privileges (you can make backups,
In many countries, making backups is always allowed by law and can't be revoked through any contract.
Re:A good thing, too (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM not helping (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of my friends do download, but i can't think of any that download any drm'd music. They stick to sites such as audiolunchbox.com and alloffmp3.com and get drm-free mp3 files.
The only thing that bothers me is that if i want to listen to my flatmates cd, i will want to put it on my ipod for a while. He uses media player to rip his music, so it wont play on my ipod.
If music companies sat down and thought about what they are doing, they would realise that they are competing against the mp3 player market, because if they dont sell something that plays on most mp3 players, then people wont buy it!
Re:DRM not helping (Score:3, Interesting)
Then don't buy an ipod. I don't have an ipod, but I thought ipod did
Ownership (Score:4, Interesting)
D'uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:D'uh (Score:3, Insightful)
Great!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait....
Cost is the biggest issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Partly it's that we're being forced to pay much higher download costs than the US or Europe pay for tracks, but it's also that with real CDs we can import. If you want a whole album, you can order it from most online stores (or sometimes even buy in your local supermarket) for around £9. When it costs at least £8 to buy the tracks from iTunes, and usually around £14 from the WMA sites, you're paying a hell of a lot for music in lower quality and covered in DRM that stops you using it on some devices.
In theory, at least, BMG and Sony are trying to force you to pay the high costs by ruining the CD versions with stuff that is meant to kill your PC. But I've got a bunch of these discs (it's hard not to when ordering discs online and so not seeing in advance if it will have "protection"), and not one of them has caused iTunes to bat an eyelid.
Re:Cost is the biggest issue (Score:2)
So I went to Amazon and bought the physical CDs for GBP12.99.
So yes, I agree that the Apple store prices are a rip off: but the bulk of that fault lies with the record companies, who not only want a royalty on the sale but in Canada they want a tax
Re:Cost is the biggest issue (Score:2)
Yeah definitely. I had a 'copy protected' CD that I couldn't play on my computer - just some stupid little .exe file showed up which couldn't even play the music properly. THen I recently got a Mac Mini and I was busy copying all my CDs to the hard disk when I realised about an hour prior I had copied that protected CD without any issues.
w00t.
Wow, you mean they want to own what they pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
I figured once DRM got widespread enough to start causing problems with mainstream devices the average Joe (or whatever the name in the UK is) would start taking notice. I've been hearing "But WHY can't I tape my DVD like I do my other tapes?" for awhile now, so I figured it was only a matter of time. The broadcast flag will likely have the same effect. A couple months of nothing major and then suddenly rising complaints of not being able to do the things that were always just fine.
This is good news (Score:2, Insightful)
Once the sheeple slowly realise they are getting the shaft and bleat about it.
I was locked into a technology once... (Score:3, Funny)
I got tons of 'em
Re:I was locked into a technology once... (Score:2)
Hey, pal, I can solve your problem for you in a jiffy.
How'd you like t' buy an 8-track tape player?
DRM Alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM Alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a very high chance that i've totally destroyed the signature key by doing this.
Simon.
Re:DRM Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
With the current DRM system, the technically minded among us find ways around it, while other people put up with it. All you're really pointing out is that marking each track with an id tag has the same issues as DRMed tracks.
The positive side to a unique id inside the track is that it allows someone like me, who honestly just wants their music and isn't interested in putting in on P2P network, to download it and use it without being restricted in how I use it. I have no problem with being accountable for it, I just don't like being told where I can play it and with what software, etc.
While some people will break the unique ids, and create software that does it for you, etc - those same people are cracking DRMed tracks anyway, so the manufacturers wouldn't lose or gain any more than they do with DRM, but the consumer would gain a lot of freedom to use their purchased tracks. I would definitely support this as an alternative to crippled music tracks (which are the reason I don't download any music from anyone).
The negative side (from the RIAA standpoint) of the unique id tag is that it turns the protection from active protection where the companies prevent it from being released or copied to passive protection where they have to chase you down after the track is released. Again, however, they're running into the same problems with the current system.
Overall, I find this a log less objectionable than DRM tracks, and I'd actually be in favor of something like this.
-Jay
Re:DRM Alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
You could even build the ability to have this wartermarking removed automatically by P2P software (even without having to transfer the entire file to a given user at any point, e.g. just by comparing info of various random segments of the fil
"Inaudible" watermarks (Score:3, Interesting)
you might get rid of the watermark but you will make so much nasty "twinkle" in the resulting mp3 that nobody will care you are sharing it.
And who's to say that the watermarking process itself won't create a nasty "twinkle" in golden ears?
Re:DRM Alternative (Score:2)
>inaudible signature key inside a waveform. You
>can use the files as you see fit, however if
>they are found on a P2P network you will get
>busted because they will have your details from
>when you purchased the track.
So? That does not mean I would be the one offering it on the net, nor the one that copied it. Could for example be someone else in my home, or a friend using my computer or listeing to my music and so on, perhaps I even gave it as a g
Who would have thought (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16999
When you piss off your customers with draconian measures designed to suck money out of their wallets at your whim, they stop buying. Duh. The correct answer to this dillema is not to turn the knob up to 11, but to turn it down, or better yet off. The music industry can't seem to grasp this concept.
Maybe it is me, am I missing something? Has the whole strategy of 'make them hate us more than the Nazis' ever lead to greater profits?
-Charlie
Cory Doctorow was right (Score:5, Interesting)
Bleep.com (Score:5, Informative)
They have no DRM controls and have always had top quality mp3s. They are now starting to implement FLAC as well. If you like the type of music they provide, indie electronica / rock / hip hop etc, then I thoroughly recommend them.
Re:Bleep.com (Score:3, Informative)
Another record label's website gets it right:
Chemikal Underground's online store [simbioticstore.com]
MP3, FLAC and OGG ;) and you can also listen to tracks first.
Nyeah, Told You So (Score:4, Interesting)
So people are annoyed that they can't transfer the files they've paid for, the sound quality isn't that good and sometimes they've paid for something that didn't download properly so they paid to download it again?
More fool them: the consumers and the companies.
I'll stick to buying CDs (but not the Copy Protected ones) by bands I like and going to live shows.
The fundamental problem here is that the music industry wants to get rich off of simplistic, mass-produced music, i.e. the stuff that appeals to young kids with no money.
If they want a healthy, sustainable and profitable business they need to downsize and focus on producing a quality product.
Re:Nyeah, Told You So (Score:3, Insightful)
If you only rant and whine on slashdot, how are they supposed to hear you?
Major Rant (Score:4, Interesting)
I won't be buying a significant amount of new music anytime soon. $15 for a CD is simply too much, and with high-speed Internet access there's no need to do so. Why should I pay for a $15 CD if I only want a song or two off it? There was (is?) a store that offered custom-burned CDs, but that was likely stopped by the music industry.
The music industry simply won't change in response to Internet piracy. They still act as it's 1990 and there is no alternate way to get music.
The simplest way to fight piracy is to lower the prices on downloadable music, to say 25 cents per song. This would replace the music industy's model of high priced / low sales with a low priced / high sales model. This would cause most of the downloaders of free music to switch to online stores, but it won't move everyone over.
The second step, which is required to get the advanced users into it, would be to stop using "Digital Restrictions Management." Fortunately, at such a low price per song, the volume would cover any loses to piracy while allowing any song to work with any device. I can't imagine the same numbers of these advanced users sharing music when it would be easier to download them at the low price of 25 cents.
Download sites should also increase the bitrate (quality) of the legal tracks online. Offering lossy formats doesn't provide a superior product. When I have the choice of two files online, I download the higher-quality one.
The last step is to offer "bootlegs" and "unreleased" tracks, which is an issue seldom addressed. There's a great version of Led Zeppelin's "No Quarter" that runs more than 10 minutes, but due to a very minor analog distortion that I didn't notice until a trained musician pointed it out to me, is not available for purchase anywhere. I'm a Zep fan and I would gladly pay for a CD of live and unreleased Zeppelin songs even if they weren't perfect in the ears of Jimmy Page. I imagine there's countless other examples of songs that aren't available any other way than "illegal" downloading.
The copyright system needs to be reformed, since copyright is:
" To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - US Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a rticle01/)
I can't say music is a "useful art", nor is it a science. Copyright isn't for securing a permanant income stream for the author and his descentdants and corporations. (paraphrased from another
For example, Disney's Steamboat Willy (a percursor to Mickey Mouse) is from the 1920s, and will never be "publick domain" in my lifetime thanks to the amazing power of corporations in our government. If one was a lawmaker and wanted to reform these laws, I'm sure ABC's (owned by Disney) stations and reports would take a bit more of a negative view of that lawmaker.
The movie industry is also worried about piracy, and since many movie studios are in corporations that also own music labels, they're not taking this issue lightly. It shouldn't be as big of an issue, as not nearly as many people expect to download free movies online.
The movie/tv industry needs to move now to take advantage of the Internet rather than viewing it as inherently evil. Don't wait until the masses discover downloading movies!
A full movie usually fits on a single DVD, and is between 2-4GB. If a site offered movies for 10 a piece I'd download some of them, provided there is no DRM involved.
Let's take any TV show, say "South Park" for example which is already out on DVD. There's countless ways to get it illegally online, which I prefer to do rather than watch it on TV and it's constant commercial interuptions.
There's no reason why a movie or show can't be released online after it's original primary airing. This woul
Sadly... (Score:3, Funny)
If that were the case, consumers would be able to program their VCRs (because only usable VCRs would be sold), Windows would be a lot safer, spyware would be non-existant, etc, etc.
And even if consumers were aware of their market power, they'd need a vendor that would provide what they want.
Celine (Score:3, Insightful)
Put one of hers into an iMac and you could kiss your machine goodbye.
I find that the most excellent example of how DRM is bad for the industry ánd the consumer.
I, for one, still lament the day this monsterous entity winded up in my disc drive. I should have returned it to Sony strapped to several kilo's of semtex...
Re:Celine (Score:3, Funny)
Quality was also an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quality was also an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)
Listeners don't want to 'rent' song, they want to 'own' it.
I guess it will be all the time.
Re:Dilemma (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have rights to listen/copy/play in your cd unless I give you such rights.
Copyright covers copying, not listening or playing.
Should have been called "copyprivilege" (Score:3, Insightful)
When I own something - in this case copyright on certain work of art - my song - I have all rights with me. I can't take away something you don't have.
"All rights"? Try "all privileges". I don't know about the basic justification for copyright in the United Kingdom, but at least the Constitution of the United States treats copyright as a privilege, not a basic human right on par with freedom of speech. The Constitution authorizes Congress to grant copyrights (up to the limit of a constitutional protecti
Cory Doctorow (Speaking to MSFT about DRM) (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had been a less good customer for Apple's hardware, I would have been fine. If I had been a less enthusiastic evangelist for Apple's products -- if I hadn't shown my mom how iTunes Music Store worked -- I would have been fine. If I hadn't bought so much iTunes music that burning it to CD and re-ripping it and re-keying all my metadata was too daunting a task to consider, I would have been fine.
As it was Apple rewarded my trust, evangelism and out-of-control spending by treating me like a crook and locking me out of my own music, at a time when my Powerbook was in the shop -- i.e., at a time when I was hardly disposed to feel charitable to Apple.
I'm an edge case here, but I'm a *leading edge* case. If Apple succeeds in its business plans, it will only be a matter of time until even average customers have upgraded enough hardware and bought enough music to end up where I am.
Re:Cory Doctorow (Speaking to MSFT about DRM) (Score:4, Informative)
My iPod manual explicitly stated that I want to deregister any old machine that I won't be using when I move to the new one. You can only use protected AACs on 5 machines, but that's 5 machines at any time. There's a specific iTunes menu option to deregister the machine so your files will work on the new one.
Quelle suprise... (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's DRM crippled I'm simply not buying it. If it's region code crippled I'm not buying it. If I can't use it the way I want to I'm not interested. Ner nerny ner ner.
Sadly however most people couldn't care less, don't actually understand the issues, and will just buy whatever crap's dangled in front of their noses. "ooh look at it, it's so SHINY". Then I get to say "told you so" and laugh at them whilst they curse loudly and smash their shiny new toys to bits after it's lost their entire music/photo collection
Ho hum c'est la vie.
Replacing media (Score:4, Interesting)
quit buying music! (Score:4, Insightful)
We are not consumers. We're customers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why have we let ourselves be redefined in this way?
Fool me once, shame on you... (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought and downloaded some
Oh, and yes, I can burn the files to CD... as data. But I can't do a damn thing with them. I still need to be at my internet enabled PC so it can check for authorization any time I want to watch them.
I figured I'd give iTunes a try having read that their DRM isn't nearly as draconian. Well, it's basically the same issues though not to the same extent. And the sound quality sucks.
Fooled me twice... shame on me.
I hope the media companies hear this loud and clear... I will GLADLY buy high-quality un-DRM'd content. Let me repeat that... GLADLY. That means lossless compression for audio and DVD quality for video. They need to figure out their distribution model. I find it hard to believe that manufacturing discs and paying for shipping and retail overhead is a better cost model than allowing download. But for now, I will continue to buy CDs and DVDs because I can then rip the content and have the high-quality un-DRM'd files that I'm looking for. OR, they could increase their profit margin by allowing the same thing as a data transfer.
-S
My opinion on Limited Use (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not stopped hard in it's tracks, one day you'll go out and buy a CD, and after so many times listening to it it'll stop playing. Reading the fine print you really only licensed the music to play it 50 times. If you would like to listen to it some more, pay some more.
People need to wake up (Score:3, Interesting)
the real point here is that music has to belong to individual people, not big corporations. The RIAA isn't doing anybody any favors; most of the new artists that get signed by labels get screwed by contract terms that whittle all their sales earnings down to less than 1/100th of a percent of the gross, while the record companies take the rest. The only way to fix this situation is for artists to remain independent and market/distribute their music on their own. Anybody can set up a web site and put up copies of their music for sale/download. With the Internet today, you don't need the RIAA.
The case of the disappearing music (Score:3, Interesting)
If you remember to back up your licenses (provided your DRM lets you do that in the first place), you can take your music and ebooks with you to your new computer. But you can't do that indefinitely. Microsoft, for example, only lets you do it twice. After that, all your paid-for content is simply gone.
I wrote about this in some detail on my blog [blogspot.com] last week.
My wife noticed this a while ago. (Score:3, Interesting)
About a month later she joined one of the music sites available in Canada. Try as she might, she couldn't copy the songs she downloaded onto her mp3 player and get them to play, even after talking to the site's tech support. She closed her account and tried to get her money back.
Then she said "Fuck that then. I'm going to steal the music instead. At least I know it will work."
(Of course, stealing the music in Canada is legal thanks to our current tax on such things as MP3 players and blank CDs and DVDs)
Re:consumers voicing their opinion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:consumers voicing their opinion? (Score:5, Funny)
We're British; we like to moan about things; that's what we do.
Hell, we've been moaning about the weather here for centuries but nobody does anything about it, what makes you think this will be any different?
We find something to moan about, we complain that "somebody" should Do Something about it, and then we get on with our lives.
We never actually intend for Something to be Done - we'd lose something to moan about!
Re:consumers voicing their opinion? (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't tried to purchase any music online yet but i will not buy any less than CD quality DRM files at high prices.
I mean if i can buy a full album cd package for a couple of bucks more than the DRM download version i would not even consider it a worthwile effort. It works for single tracks, but for people who want the whole album it doesn't make sense.
Re:Obscure music and ridiculous prices (Score:3, Insightful)
1. the product you want is available for purchase
2. the price is more than you're willing to pay
Therefore: You're going to get it illegally.
That violates the core terms of a free market, the ability of either party to decline to engage in a transaction. If you think the price is too high, you're free not to buy. You're not free to unilaterally change the terms of the contract and set whatever price you deem reasonable, without the consent of the other party.
When presented