DRM — It's Not Really About Piracy 360
shadowmage13 writes "Hollywood privately admits that DRM is not really about piracy. From the article: 'In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights so that they can sell them back to you... Like all lies, there comes a point when the gig is up; the ruse is busted. For the movie studios, it's the moment they have to admit that it's not the piracy that worries them, but business models which don't squeeze every last cent out of customers.' You can take action on Digital Restrictions Management at DefectiveByDesign of the Free Software Foundation, Digital Freedom, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
Like Region Coding, Then (Score:5, Interesting)
*Though having a decent TV that can handle PAL and NTSC helps, in the UK they're 6 bob a throw i can tell ye!
Re:Like Region Coding, Then (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if we get over the current mess (Trusted Computing, RIAA etc), it looks like as if the big media dinosaurs will never really learn to adapt. Each time a new technology pops up that threatens their stable position, they panic immediately and create a huge fuss in trying to maintain the staus quo.
If only they weren't so powerful already, they'd probably have died off by now; replaced by smarter, quicker companies that didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world.
Mirrors my views exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
Just look at iTunes; you can burn the music to CDs and rip to mp3. This is no copy protection - only a mild barrier to make it more likely that the average customer does _not_ buy another brand of mp3 player.
As others have pointed out, the article headline is misleading. Hollywood won't admit any such thing.
Re:Like Region Coding, Then (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if we get over the current mess (Trusted Computing, RIAA etc), it looks like as if the big media dinosaurs will never really learn to adapt.
True, since that's their last stand. We finally have the tools at our possession which enable us to promote and distribute digital content cheaper and more effectively than any corporation possibly could. Once they loose this battle, they are gone for good; they are aware of that, and so they are squeezing every penny out of the established customer base.
Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Like Region Coding, Then (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:mutiple sales (Score:3, Interesting)
[rant] Honestly, who wants to watch a movie more than once or twice? Get Netflix or Zip.ca or whatever, rent it once or twice, and you don't have to worry about buying it over and over again. It's also cheaper. I have a really hard time getting worked up about DRM for movies if that's all it's about. I'm not going to buy a movie more than once, period. If you own more than one copy of the Star Wars trilogy, get a life. Once you have a "life", you'll find it's useful for maintaining perspective on things like this. [/rant]
If DRM means that the movie execs feel comfortable digitally "renting" content to me for one-time viewing, and it's cheaper than Blockbuster, great. Without DRM, there's no market for digital rentals, because now you "own" it and can give it away. Thus, for the vast majority of us who just want to rent a movie to watch once, prices for digital content would end up in the range of DVD sales rather than DVD rentals.
Now, I'm aware of lots of DRM downsides. It's not interoperable, yada yada. Believe me, as a Mac user from long before the iTunes Music Store existed, I know how annoying it is when something isn't available for my OS of choice, and I feel for you Linux users who can't download the latest episodes of 24 from the iTMS. Of course, Season 6 was on bittorrent about a week before it even hit TV, and I don't think it's even on the iTMS yet, so it's not like the Linux users are really suffering. In short, DRM hasn't really hurt anyone too badly, because it's not too hard to circumvent. OTOH, it does keep Joe Consumer from committing copyright infringement, and it helps the studio execs feel good about releasing digital content. It's a compromise.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the article. Why even RTFA if the quality is this awful? What happened, did Digg [digg.com] buy up Slashdot last weekend? I'm just waiting for the first "DRM FTW" post. I especially like the briliant flashes of insight in TFA: Wow! What an awful new development! Except, oh right, creating scarcity to allow creators to profit was the original constitutional purpose of copyright. Ars may be up on the latest technology, but they seem to be a couple hundred years behind on the legal world.
Hmm... Maybe I should have put that [/rant] tag towards the end of my post...
Re:Bias (Score:5, Interesting)
Dan Glickman, Motion Picture Association of America [bbc.co.uk]
Re:IRTFALITFA (Score:1, Interesting)
Windows XP/Vista activation/DRM is not good.
Game protection root kits are not good. Also, steam is nice, until you realize that playing old games will be hard
if they go out of business (or release forced "updates", which HAS happened).
All DRM is bad.
Re:Consumers losing control (Score:3, Interesting)
Power to the artists??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine an idiot posts something he or she later regrets to the web. It's foreseable that some of them would wish to recall/revoke/delete what they posted to the Internet. Today there is no way to put the "genie" back inthe bottle. If there were a total artist control type of rights management this idiot could retrieve (forever extinghuish the existence) the now-regrettable work posted to the Internet.
Let's say that the audience never had ownership but simply could make micropayments (in the case of for profit works --not the stuff posted to the internet for free --that would still be free but still bound by the total rights management system) to listen or see content. That could be say for a one-off experience of for a bulk experience. What would be wrong with such a scenario? (that is if controlled by each artist themselves?) No industry to deride and loathe. Only artists with infinite control over their works. If the artist were to die then it could be had that all their content die too.
Would that be too much control in the artists' hands? It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits. Their fruits lived and died with them. the audience never had ownership of the artists' work. They only had the pleasure and priviledge to listen, see and enjoy in the moment.
I could further imagine that an artist could forgo their rights if they so desired. Or the rights to work not recalled/revoked could pass into public domain, etc. There could be a great number of permutations
an idea....A shining example to all Slashbots (Score:2, Interesting)
You can let your own agenda colour your thoughts as much as you like. I'll stick to seeing the argument from both sides, thanks.
PS Your comment about it just being the word order that's different is just icing on the cake!
Re:Power to the artists??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Art != Music (Whether or not music, especially contemporary music, is even a subset of art is a matter of opinion). Some of the greatest works of art in history were done 'for hire'.
Unless you want to see an end to persistent recordings, you're advocating the same sort of BS "have thier cake and eat it too" setup we have now, except instead of some industry suits reaping the cash, it's the artist himself. If I buy a painting, I expect the right to put it on my bathroom wall, wipe my mouth on it, or have my picture taken in front of it. Same for a recording. If I want to listen to it in my cd-less car stereo, on my Neuros, or on my GP2X, I'm going to. I expect to control my own purchase.
Re:Power to the artists??? (Score:2, Interesting)
While I fully acknowledge there is some shite music/art/performance work out there, I should note that EVERY single generation has hated the art that comes after them.
My parents don't listen to Green Day/Pumpkins/Oasis/etc, and I don't usually appreciate the "make a star diva" crap that seems to be more rampant than normal today (e.g. Kelly Clarkson can kiss my ass, stupid no talent digitally enhanced ass clown).
Doesn't mean it's not an art form, just means it's a departure from what you're used to and it's hard to identify with.
Personally, I apply at least one standard
1. If you're not purporting yourself as a DJ, learn to actually play/sing without digital filters and enhancements. That is, if you actually claim you can perform live, actually be able to do it.
The stupid boy/girl bands and American Idol "stars" are nothing more than people with HALF an ounce of talent and the rest is in the mixing. Then they claim it's all their talent and hard work
Tom
Re:Like Region Coding, Then (Score:5, Interesting)
Though it's true that wide distribution over the internet could theoretically drive movie theaters to show an idie film, the actual practice is that distribution is difficult, even if you assume theaters are open to talking with anyone (not likely). Even if an indie film made enough money in home distribution to give theaters reason to believe they'd have a good audience, proper negotiation channels just don't exist between an indie film maker and the massive number of theaters in the country, or world even. The indie film has to partner with someone big enough to ensure the film will get a wide release.
The internet doesn't help in this environment. With such an important distribution channel locked up tight by the big guys, the movie maker who decides to avoid the big companies will miss out on about half of his revenue stream. Considering how hard it is for movies to make money (most films are not "Star Wars"), this kind of a loss is a real problem.
Music is a little different because bands control performances and the internet is a perfect distribution channel that doesn't require a big label. But how will people know the band exists and that new music is available? How are people going to find out what this new band sounds like? Podcasts exist now, and internet radio over wireless is at least a possibility, but which ones are the big podcasts or internet radio stations that large numbers of people listen to?
If you want to reach an audience larger than the neighborhood bars, you need your music to be heard by large numbers of people. Although that can happen virally, viral word of mouth only works for a small number of bands and songs at a time and only really works at all for people who have buddies who like to pester them about music. If you want to get the word out about your band, you have to go to an outlet that's popular enough that lots of people will listen to it. Whatever outlet becomes becomes most popular becomes a bottleneck. Whenever a bottleneck exists, large companies are going to try to, and will usually succeed in controlling it, just like they do with radio stations now.
Once again, a band certainly could go it alone, and I applaud those that do, but not being able to get that large listening audience is going to keep most small bands small. It will mean that labels will be able to continue to offer a very compelling service, for a very steep price, if a band wants to hit it big.
As long as you have scarcity and revenue, you'll have big companies trying, and largely succeeding, in controlling the two. I think indies can become much larger than they are now thanks to the internet, but it's highly unlikely they'll become the dominant source of entertainment.
TW
Correction: Spin, It was about piracy by the .... (Score:4, Interesting)
OK more spin for US, EU, UN them; All megalomania persons in industry, government, and religion demand a semiliterate servile exploitable public or at least an oppressed fearful culture of hostages suffering with mass-hysteria Stockholm syndrome (identifying with the oppressors as good, fair, and reasonable).
Re:Power to the artists??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine an idiot posts something he or she later regrets to the web. It's foreseable that some of them would wish to recall/revoke/delete what they posted to the Internet. Today there is no way to put the "genie" back inthe bottle. If there were a total artist control type of rights management this idiot could retrieve (forever extinghuish the existence) the now-regrettable work posted to the Internet.
Imagine that you as a consumer PAID for a copy of that work, and then a week later found that you can no longer access the content you PAID for. I would bet that you would be a little miffed.
Furthermore, you still haven't put the genie back in the bottle, it's still out, but you have deactivated private digital copies of the genie. For example: if you posted an anti-semitic video message on YouTube, the people who saw it will still remember it, and their comments talking about it will still exist. Don't forget that the analog hole still exists too - I can point a camera at my screen and record your video therefore bypassing your restrictions.
IMHO, the lack of the ability for people to delete what they wrote (like on
Let's say that the audience never had ownership but simply could make micropayments
Good luck finding the suckers willing to use such a system. Have you never dated a teen girl? They tend to listen to the same song 34,995,897 times. Your micropayments would have to be very Very VERY small to handle teen girls... You are better off selling your music on your own web site for $0.25 - $0.50 / song and keep 95% of sales instead of 2% like you do with the labels.
It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits. Their fruits lived and died with them.
Um, no. We still can read the writings of people who wrote books 1000 years ago, or painted pictures, etc. While we can't enjoy original performances of Shakespeare plays, we have the manuscripts to enable modern performances. Your "idea" is worse than no technology at all. If Shakespeare's works were in time-bombed e-book form only, they would be lost to the world.
Re:Power to the artists??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hint - there is no perfect photographic copy that can be made with film.... it's inherently lossy.
DRMed content: Purchasing a license to use? (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe some tax laws need to be explored to answer this. IANAL, but I question who owns the DVD or and DRMed content when purchased from a store. I've always thought that ownership changed hands when the taxes were paid. In the case of purchases from a store, or for that matter any purchase that included sales tax.
If you are only purchasing a license and not ownership, why would you be paying taxes on the item. Do DVDs and/or other DRMed items tell you that you are only purchasing a license to view and/or use the material it contains?
When I purchase an item and pay the taxes on said item, I consider myself the owner of that item unless I am told prior to the purchase that I'm only getting a license to view and/or use that item rather than gaining ownership of said item. When I buy a book or magazine, I own that book or magazine when I pay it and that includes the sales tax at which time the ownership of the physical item changes hands. I also understand copyright laws and fair rights. Why do electronic formats, which have the same copyright protections as written material, have the ability to take my fair use rights away from me? The only answer I can come up with is that when purchasing electronic formats that are DRMed, I'm purchasing a license to use and not ownership.
But if I don't have ownership rights to the item, then someone else still retains ownership rights to that item. Since the item in question is only a copy, then that person that retains ownership of many copies of the item. Those items are an asset to the owner and taxes must be paid at sometime on those assets. If I'm only paying a sales tax on a license, then owner must be paying taxes on the ownership of all the copies he/she makes. Are the people that are selling licenses of DRMed material paying the taxes for ownership of those assets? Or did they pay the taxes on the materials needed to make the copies before the copies were made?
The point is, if someone else retains ownership of items they sell you, and you pay the taxes on the items, that someone is retaining ownership of assets and getting others to pay their taxes for them.
Re:Power to the artists??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:YET ANOTHER MISLEADING HEADLINE (Score:1, Interesting)
Your source for this assertion, please? A brief check on Google doesn't bring up anything pertinent (except for Wikipedia, which singles out the Guardian as an example of one of the few left-wing sources that criticised Stalin.)