RIAA Says "Don't Expect DRMed Music To Work Forever" 749
Oracle Goddess writes "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."
Forever? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
AS a proud owner of a Linux Box and DRM free MP3 player, I have no reason to ever support DRM media.
Market forces can kill it.
Re:Forever? (Score:4, Insightful)
As I pirate with over 50GB of pirated songs on CD (I had allot of free-time at one stage) I am not at all affected by these fraudsters. Piracy has also been morally justified to the highest possible level. In fact it seems unethical to pay for music because in doing so you are aiding and abetting fraud.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what he's basically saying is that there should be no expectation on the consumer's part that the product he's paying for should work at all (regardless of whether we're talking about "owning" said product, or acquiring a "license" to enjoy said product).
Um, maybe I'm being naive here, but isn't that, you know, against the law? They *could* have said, "we're selling you the _right_ to play this for X years, or until date Y", and that'd be fair if they just say this up front, I suppose, but this sounds like they want a free pass to sell you the illusion that you're buying the "right" to access certain content, when in reality they're just selling you a rental license -- one that expires at the sole discretion of the seller.
In essence, because a license is supposed to be a sort of contract, it's like saying they want to be able to not only dictate all the terms in said contract/license scheme (as they already do, one way or another), but they also want a couple of "open clauses" that they can fill in later on, essentially nullifying the other part's contractual rights, if, when and where they see fit.
This is exactly the kind of "fine print" bullshit that corps have been getting away with for far too long. Yeah, I know you're supposed to read every contract you sign, but when even a simple song purchase entails a multiple-page "Terms of Use" or whatever, which usually includes something along the lines of "this text is subject to change, new clauses can be added, rights terminated, changes are applied retroactively and there's no obligation to notify the user of any change, it's the user's obligation to consult the updated terms at link" -- it's time to tell these assholes to go fuck themselves, for crying out loud!
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but this is illegal in the UK. This is why EULAs are not enforcable over here (although I'm not sure if its been tested in court).
The seller/licensee cant dictate terms after the sale has been made.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Interesting)
It may not be induce criminal liability, but I'd think it's grounds for a lawsuit (probably a class-action in this case):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation [wikipedia.org] (probably fraudulent misrepresentation)
The misrepresentation in this case is that the product is sold as the legal right to listen to the electronic recording of a piece of music along with a copy of said electronic recording, and failed to properly represent the clause "until we decide to take it away without notice of any kind". Alternate legal arguments for damages might be a violation of the implied warranty of merchantability (that is that the product is at least approximately what the seller said it was).
Basically, the idea that party A can sell a widget to party B, and then take it away from party A at any time without notice either in the original purchase agreement or at the time of retaking, is pretty obviously something that should land you in legal hot water.
NYCL or the EFF could probably have a field day with this sort of thing. I, on the other hand, am not a lawyer, and this does not constitute legal advice.
Failed company (Score:5, Interesting)
But a class action lawsuit isn't going to do you much good if the company itself is going out of business, which would be one of the prime reasons for an authentication server to go out of business.
Personally, businesses pushing so much for this stuff tends to piss me off and start making rules like 'If you put DRM in it, and the DRM fails for whatever reason for a legitimate user, the user is entitled to a full refund'. And 'If the DRM requires a central server, and you shut it down, you have to provide a version that works without the server or refund everyone's money'.
Re:Failed company (Score:4, Insightful)
That might indeed be true if the company is bankrupt and going out of business, but so far as I know the only large scale failure of a DRM music supplier thus far has been Walmart's music service. They essentially got out of the business of online music and took their DRM servers with them. Given the way digital music is going it seems likely that any future failures will be along the same line... a large company will try and and fail with an online distribution model. In that case there is clearly someone to sue.
On the other hand, as is pointed out above, none of the major players in online music sales has DRM on their tunes anymore, so the issue may well be moot from an audio standpoint. Video remains DRMed in virtually every form that it get's released though, so take the Walmart music lesson and apply it to video maybe.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Forever? - inherently defective (Score:4, Interesting)
The song copy that I buy is *my* property. I am constrained by copyright to not infringe it by creating and redistributing more copies. Berne copyright, EULAs and DCMA are all corrupt, monopolistic doctrines that should ignored, fought if necessary.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't like it, your recourse is not to do business with them, and convince as many as you can to not do business with them
Yohoho and a bottle of rum!
But mandatory piracy reference aside, I've been quite happy with the Amazon store (and iTunes now that it's DRM free, as it's higher quality, though it requires a windows VM). You just click, pay, and download an mp3. No DRM, properly tagged, no hassle.
I will buy a product over pirating it if the price is reasonable and it's equal quality (IE, no DRM). After all, most of the online deliveries I've found lately sport no DRM and can charge & download before I can fire up bittorrent.
Maybe DRM did spur innovation after all, if not the kind these cronies are bleating about.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the average yob, who knows nothing about "DRM" or "RIAA" or any of the rest, is somehow supposed to just know that the deal that's been in effect for the past hundred or so years has some new set of rules -- without being told? While, in fact, the companies peddling the wares are doing their best to perpetuate the myth that the music WILL be accessible for a lifetime like every other music purchase he's made?
No, I believe it is illegal, and likely falls into the category of consumer fraud.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, not doing business with a company is not recourse if they are a monopoly or just ridiculously and unavoidably large.
You would have a point here if we were talking about Microsoft, but we're not. DRMed music, despite the hysteria, seems to be on the way out. Last I heard, the songs on iTunes didn't have DRM any more (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an iTunes customer), and Amazon.com sells MP3s. On top of that, regular CDs are still available, usually cheaper than buying all the songs online.
Who st
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you expect the law to apply to corporate entities that posses huge lobbying power -then I'd say there's no 'maybe' about it.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right on. As far as I'm concerned, this is a declaration of war against the people that pay them. This is the much touted 'free market' in action. They dictate the terms and if you don't like it, go without.
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like buying a scratched DVD in a second-hand shop.
Except that it's *not* scratched, and it's bought *new* from the original "manufacturer" (or agent thereof.) And you can't physically examine it to check for "scratches" before you buy it, and the "scratching" is being deliberately done by the manufacturer after you get it home.
So, basically it's like buying a scratched DVD from a second-hand shop only if you define "like" as "completely unrelated and in no way similar in any way, shape, or form".
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, "We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to receive a consumers' money".
I'll bite.
I in favor of backing up a CD to my harddrive. I am also in favor of being able to watch and listen to media files in the software of my choice.
Yes, I am also in favor of copying a loaned CD and to share the occasional music file on the internet, even if that means not supporting Copyright Owners.
I am all in favor of supporting Artists however, and will gladly pay to see them live, I'll buy their merchandise (if its attractive and reasonably priced) and generally try to support them in a way that does not imply having to buy "a license" to listen to their work a finite number of times...
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is basically the reason why Image Comics [wikipedia.org] was formed. They (Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, and some others) decided they weren't gonna give up the rights to their own creations to Marvel, so they formed what is essentially only a publisher of comics, not the typical publisher-studio combo that DC and Marvel are. They then became one of the top 4 comic publishers in the US because they were only publishers.
So, why doesn't someone try following their lead in the music industry?
Re:Forever? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or "We reject your reality, and substitute our own"
Just because we can't kill lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
...doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Re:Just because we can't kill lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just because we can't kill lawyers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please spare NYCL, Lawrence Lessig, and any others fighting the good fight, please.
that will keep your customers happy (Score:3, Insightful)
you keep shooting yourself in the foot and pretty soon you wont have a leg to stand on, i already quit buying your products, this is a good way to get even more people to quit buying your products...
Re:that will keep your customers happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that will keep your customers happy (Score:4, Funny)
We're discussing Record Megacorps not the Sopranos. They eanr their money by providing product, not extortion.
(somebody whispers in my ear)
What's that? RIAA sends out extortionate letters demanding $5000 or else? Really? Oh. Well then I retract my statement. They really are like the mafia.
Is that.... (Score:3, Funny)
Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean worse. The RIAA is legally sanctioned to pretty well do as they please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the issue. It's been proven many times already that the RIAA has acted well outside of "good faith" and continue to do so.
Re:keep your customers coming back (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't care about keeping customers happy. They care about maintaining the "introduce a new format and require everyone to re-purchase their entire collection" model that they've had for the last century. With digital music, that's difficult to do unless they literally introduce a new and far superior digital format. Since they're not likely to do that -- or at least to the extent that the same number of people would switch from current mp3 or ogg that would switch from cassette to compact disc, they ha
semi-obligatory quote (Score:5, Funny)
"The more you tighten your grip, Metalitz, more songs will slip through your fingers"
(What kind of name is "Metalitz", anyway?? Sounds like an evil android)
Re:that will keep your customers happy (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine buying a great book, a classic even, that you'd like to have a copy of to reread over the years and maybe introduce your kids to later on.
Now imagine the ink disappearing or turning to gibberish after an allowable reading period (5 years? 1 year? 1 month?). I wonder what your average reader's reaction would be if they pulled their copy of their favourite novel off their bookshelf, opened it, and found it to be completely empty (actually, it would be amusing if the pages could just disintegrate in a puff of smoke!)
And now imagine that you don't even know what this allowable reading period could be. Every time you open that novel, it could be for the last time.
Honestly, I'm amazed we still have public libraries. I mean, they let people read FOR FREE for crying out loud. People are gaining knowledge, cultures are being distributed, ideas are being thought... and it's not being monetized?! This madness has to stop!
But, never fear, this can be easily solved by applying lessons we've learned from the music and movie industries. We can have reader licensing fees, or perhaps usage-based models where we can charge by the book or by the page. We can offer incentives to keep people reading too, pay for 10 pages, read the 11th free! (This offer not applicable where the current literary work ends in 10 or less pages. Page credits not applicable to other works.)
Re:that will keep your customers happy (Score:4, Informative)
I keep thinking how these approaches would work when applied to books.
You don't have to imagine it -- that's exactly what just happened, when Amazon's Ministry of DRM unpublished '1984' on the Kindle!
Re:iTunes makes this a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
Damn, my $100 collector edition of Fallout 3 won't work anymore! I still have a vintage XBOX 360. And the game disc. But damn, for some reason every time I try to play the game, I just get a "you are not authorized to play this title" on the screen followed by an advertisement for a bunch of current generation videogames that they suggest I buy and play instead!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
iTunes music no longer has DRM, ...
iTunes music that was bought with DRM still has DRM. I can pay to upgrade it to be DRM-free, but I am not willing to do that (right now) because everything I want to do with the music can be done with DRM.
Fortunately you can easily remove DRM from iTunes music without any loss in quality (burn onto CD, then import back in a lossless format) at the cost of one CD and about 20 MB per song wasted. But since I can actually still play records that I got almost forty years ago, I find the thought that forty ye
Re:Since your sig is not that off-topic... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there were no copyrights, there would be no need for GPL
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does the absence of copyright translate to the availability of source code? If Windows suddenly goes out of copyright, do I then magically gain the source code to it?
That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
People who buy DRM'ed media content are idiots. It's not as if the record companies have tried to hide their sense of entitlement, or their unethical beliefs and attitudes. It would be different if they had, but as things stand, there's nothing else to do but blame the "victims" who keep giving them their money.
Stop feeding the machine [riaaradar.com], people.
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
Very good point, the RIAA's purpose isnt to distribute music, they do not care about the music nor the customer, they only care about their money and controlling the market to get more money.
They say DRMed music isnt to work forever, I say the RIAA wont work forever either, they're getting desperate for attention and control, and they're losing bits of it everyday. Music existed long before the RIAA, and will live on long after.
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
Just start buying your CD's in bulk directly from the RIAA, with checks written in disappearing ink...
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod parent up, absolutely right. The only people who should be surprised when their DRMed media stop working should be the people who have no clue the media has DRM on it in the first place. And we should be educating those people and warning them not to buy DRM encumbered media.
Really, laws should have been passed several years back requiring much more explicit notification of restrictions. It's no OK to market DRM-encumbered music as a normal permanent copy of the media, when in fact it's being treated as a temporary single-device license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Interesting)
But this is more like a case of the retailer showing up at your door and breaking the disc in half. In that case, you bet I better get a replacement from that retailer.
If they're shutting down their DRM server, then they need to release non-DRMd copies of the music to the end user... Well... Actually, I guess that depends on the EULA. Someone care to check it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?
That argument doesn't work. If I buy a chair from you, and I do not properly take care of it, and eventually it becomes unusable, that is MY fault. If I buy a chair from you, use it properly and care for it, and one day the chair just suddenly falls apart, that is YOUR fault. See the difference?
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but a chair only has a finite lifespan. So if it falls apart after 3 years of normal use I would probably not be responsible for fixing it. Although you may tell all your friends that I make crappy chairs.
On the other hand YOU can buy a screwdriver at any hardware (or most dollar stores even) to fix the chair.
The real issue is that I have persuaded congress to make it illegal for you to buy the screwdrivers that fix the chairs I sell. And now I am saying that I should not be expected to keep any of the screwdrivers around either. And even if no one has the right tools to fix the chair YOU still can't build one.
Re:That's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
If I buy a chair from you, and I do not properly take care of it, and eventually it becomes unusable, that is MY fault. If I buy a chair from you, use it properly and care for it, and one day the chair just suddenly falls apart, that is YOUR fault. See the difference?
I would have gone with:
If I buy a chair from you, use it properly and care for it, then one day the chair disappears because you pressed the 'vanish chair' button on your remote, that is YOUR fault.
Re:That's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
This logic just does not follow -- in the case of the user's CD being damaged, it is the user's fault that the CD is no longer working, it is a completely unreasonable expectation that CDs ought to be indestructible, and steps can be taken to ensure that this is not an issue (ie, rip the CD as FLAC and keep the backup, or just burn the disc and keep the original in a safe place.). With DRM, however, the vendor is the one doing the breaking. They can break your music arbitrarily and without warning. For a serious (and stupid) music collector, this could put them out thousands of dollars worth of music instantly. This is like the store owner coming into your house, scratching all your CDs, taking a dump on your living room floor, then just giving you the finger and walking out the front door. Okay, the taking a dump on your floor part was for dramatic effect, but you get the point. These are totally different situations, you aren't even really comparing apples and oranges, its more like Apples and third-world dictators (which, come to think of it, are fairly similar).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say a conditional 'No'.
If the customer is allowed to make 'back up' copies legally on their own without the risk of going to jail for breaking something stupid like the DMCA then I'd say no. It's their responsibility to back their CD's up.
If the customer is NOT allowed to make 'back up' copies legally then I would say that yes it is the Record Label's responsibility to provide them with free replacements in perpetuity because otherwise the customer would have made their own back up copies if they co
How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazon doesn't sell music files outside of the four countries they currently support
iTunes doesn't work in my computer.
Back to ripping CDs I go...
Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how you do it.
Send your money exclusively to the people who provide what you actually want.
Those that would rather draconian control for their own selfish gain at your expense will soon become extinct in the face of actual competition.
If they won't give you want you want don't settle for the best that you can get from them boycott them completely. If every person out there actually did this scum like this would go out of business overnight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
iTunes lets you upgrade your old DRM'd tracks to non-DRM'd versions, or at least most of them because not all iTunes tracks are available in non-DRM'd versions yet. The bastards do charge a fee of course - US$0.30 per track - even though the new non-DRM'd tracks are the same price as the old DRM'd ones.
Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (Score:5, Funny)
Or borrow it from your friends, then rip and enjoy, then give it to your other friends. I just share all my content now and barely purchase anything. Never used P2P either. Just sneakernet. Gotta love those cheap 1TB drives! Eat me MPAA, I give away movies and you can't stop shit. Sue me! I'm a fucking pirate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm still here, and I'm still giving away movies, assholes. 80GB of MP3s and 100+ iPod ready movies and counting... my friends disks are so fucking full!!1! What's a Blue Rae?
Dear Mr. Metalitz (Score:5, Insightful)
... Fuck you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be so harsh. He isn't responsible for his mother being a hamster, and his father smelling of elderberries. It's a common mixup in cross-species relationships like this, to raise the placenta instead of the actual child.
P.S.: Now I'm reminded of that South Park episode with Bono. ^^
Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?
I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!
I half agree with him (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes of course. But that's because the creative works should be public domain after a while. And I don't mean after 70+ years either.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Violation of the U.S. Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
...
Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?
Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public?...
Right you are. The growing abuse of copyright that has been underway for four decades is in opposition of the express purpose and practice that is spelled out in no less a document than the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress):
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;
The whole notion of extending copyrights held by parties other than the originators indefinitely after the fact (and often after the originator is dead), clearly defies the constitutional basis of copyright in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Car Analogy, I choose you!
I'd like to sell you a car, it's brand new and gets great gas mileage. Oh, but only you can drive it, no fair letting someone else borrow it without them paying us. And you can only drive it on roads that we say are ok. You also have to bring it in to the shop once a week, or it will stop working. If you're out of town and can't get it into the shop, it'll stop working until you do, and if the shop goes out of business or just doesn't want to work on your car anymore, well, that's just too bad; we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
So, according to him, noone ever 'buys' movies or music; they just rent them until they break.
I almost hope he wins; stupid restrictions like this only increase the incentive to avoid DRM.
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
double dipping (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way right now to reasonably sell people the same, say, movie is to release it in a different format (dvd, now bluray) or to include some extras or a shiny box or whatever. Something different, no matter how small.
Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.
They are Goblins. (Score:5, Interesting)
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it [the Sword of Gryffindor] ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
Re:They are Goblins. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they're not the maker, they just licensed it first.
is jk rowling making social commentary? (Score:4, Interesting)
that quote is hilarious
considering the formidable army of ip lawyers team jk rowling has assembled, and their frequent aggressive efforts at maintaining hegemony, jk rowling certainly is no stranger to intellectual property law. if this wasn't conscious parody on her part, then it had to be unconscious. because by the time a goblin appears in the harry potter books, she was firmly entrenched in cultural superstar status and all the ip lawyering that involves
In Regards... (Score:5, Interesting)
In regards to your notice that you feel it is fair to arbitrarily remove something I have purchased from my possession (via disabling DRM'd music), I wish to inform you that you will never, ever, ever get another cent from me. I wish you good luck in maintaining your failing empire as it crumbles down around you for I am certain I am far from the only person who is disgusted at your activities and your outright contempt for me as a "customer." Thus I am certain others will also forgo purchasing your latest CD from Pop Star X and chose to instead invest that entertainment dollar in something - anything - that is of value. Your product no longer has value.
Thank you and goodbye.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
tl;dr version - Dear RIAA,
FUCK YOU!
Best Regards
The World.
Important things to note: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning/Disclaimer? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if there was a warning/disclaimer before every purchase of DRM'd media (music, books, etc) that said something to the effect of:
"This content contains digital protections to prevent copyright infringement. Part of these protections mean that if we decide to stop supporting this content or go out of business then you will never be able to legally access this content."
Just so people know what they're getting into. After all, it would only be a fair full disclosure of what they're buying and it might make people think twice about buying DRM'd media, but then again, I doubt the warnings on cigarettes really make people think twice about smoking.
Ouch. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's gotta hurt. How long before a retraction/denial/sacking?
It doesn't matter. Most consumers learned long ago that this is the basic way of thinking with large music-related corporations. That's *why* piracy is so high. And the music industry still makes money (I have NO idea how, but it does... vast amounts).
All this will do is increase piracy by another tiny percentage. That's it. The people who were borderline will think "That's enough" and everyone else will carry on as normal. And then there'll be another stupid announcemnt/technology/law/restriction and the borderline will shift again and again and again until, actually, *nobody* cares at all.
Please, please, RIAA... consider what would have happened if you went back in the time to all the previous stupid announcements you've made and proclaimed the OPPOSITE. Consider what people would be using now instead of torrent'd MP3's - cheap non-DRM music from YOUR store (and now from Amazon nearly 10 YEARS too late). The next generation are being taught to ignore you, whether accidentally or not, and you won't exist to them - they have iPod's loaded up with MP3's and copy and share them indiscriminately, in the same way that schoolkids are basically taught to copy/paste images from Google Images into their coursework. The laws that *do* protect your business will become more like guidelines, until eventually they are never enforced at all.
You're digging your own grave, and everyone is watching you, but you're the only one not to see it.
He's categorically wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement is completely wrong.
"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."
Computers and other products might wear out, but they do not have a "kill switch" that will stop them from working after a specific date, or at the request of the vendor. If you take care of computer hardware, automobiles, other physical objects, they can last a lifetime. The same is true for music, books, and other physical media. DRMed content contains such a "kill switch"... once the server goes down, it's gone.
People used to joke about "having to buy the White Album again", but they didn't actually have to do it, they could keep playing the vinyl copy when CDs came along, and even iTunes didn't make the forty year old LP turn into dust. DRM gives the music industry a new capability, the ability to force EVERYONE to "buy the White Album again" by taking down a single server.
That's OK! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's OK, many of us personally reject the view that the copy rights you hold should last as long as they do. So you keep selling stuff with the intention of breaking it a few years down the road so you can sell it again, and we'll keep not buying it.
like the old days? (Score:3, Informative)
OK, for us oldies who used to buy "vinyl" records. The more you played the record, the faster it degraded in quality. If you really liked the record, you ended up buying it multiple times. This was before it was easy to record it onto tape. The RIAA wants to return to the days of yesteryear when they could sell a song, the same song by the same artist, multiple times. That appears to be their mindset. After all, in the days of records, you couldn't return a damaged record for a new one. So they had a limited life. And so, in their mind, should all "creative works". I imagine a number of book publishers hate me. I have books that I have reread many times over the years. All for a single "license fee". But, as with records, books "wear out" (paper ages and degrades). I now have a number of books in PDF form. They will never wear out.
Conspiracy to encourage customers to break the law (Score:3, Insightful)
One could make a good argument that DRM is proof of a conspiracy to steal music as well as encouraging or even insisting that customers break the DMCA.
They absolutely know that DRM encourages such behavior so that legal owners of the music must do so in order to retain the ability to play the music they have purchased.
Last I heard we had the right to make a backup copy but the DMCA trumps that. So a legal right is made impossible which encourages customers to commit crimes. Now I'm not saying that they aren't breaking the law. But rioting does not excuse inciting a riot.
Boycott DRM'ed products (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy DRM'ed music, I only buy music that does not have DRM to it. Most of my music tastes are 1980's and 1990's music which are available in CD form via used CD stores and Pawn Shops for like really cheap.
I listen to AM and FM radio for free, while I cannot choose the music they play I can change the channel until I find a song I like to hear.
I still own a Sony Walkman and a lot of cassette tape music I bought. My wife still has a stereo system that uses LPs.
I don't own an iPod or iPhone, but I do have a cheap MP3 player by jWin that uses SD cards and my songs in MP3 format barely fill the 512M SD card.
I am on disability since 2002 and been out of work because I have been too sick to work. I cannot afford to buy too many songs or media players like the iPod or iPhone. I have to work with what I can afford to buy, and keep my "legacy music" technology working until it breaks and needs replacements.
Owning DRM music that "expires" is stupid, if you bought something you should be able to own it until you get tired of it and sell it. With the audio CDs people would just sell their old CDs at garage sales or sell them to used CD shops or Pawn shops. But with a DRM music file, not only does it expire, but if you don't want it anymore you cannot sell it to someone else. Capitalism works with a "used market" as well for people to buy stuff cheaper because it is used. Shut off that "used market" and you shut off part of the economy. Thus the economy will suffer for it.
The Original Design of Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright needs to be put back to the original 14 years and signing your copyright over to a third party should also not be allowed.
Moral Work Ethic (Score:5, Interesting)
This addresses a larger moral issue completely missing from modern discussion about the subject.
In the past, charging interest rates above 5%, if at all, was considered immoral and known as usury. It was so frowned upon because people recognized that making money without working is immoral and unethical in and of itself. Likewise, Adam Smith recognized that a high interest rate would cause capital to flood out of every industry into finance, since you can't hope to build a factory and have the same return as you would simply lending the same money for 10%.
The problem is that distribution of goods is now virtually free and worldwide compared to even a hundred years ago. Digital content even more so. It's understandable that patents and copyrights emerged as mechanisms to reward people for work, but the expiration of these rights is central to progress and promoting competition. Otherwise huge corporations will simply grow larger as they acquire the rights to human knowledge and creativity, and stifle any competition with their largesse and legal abuse.
Thanks RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.'
In that case I reject the idea that the RIAA has a right to restrict my access to content once their DRM stops working...as far as I'm concerned that now represents out of print and unable to be obtained legally so I shall steal it. Treat me like a criminal and I shall become one. Great model RIAA...thanks for allowing me to self-justify my actions.
RIAA: Thats Ok... (Score:4, Funny)
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
They think it is fair to have perpetual, virtually "forever" copyrights while it is fair that the buyer does not get to own it "forever"?
I think we are far beyond any sense of reasonable and it is just about time we have them committed to a psychiatric institution.
Rejecting copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
I reject the view that your works have been published in a medium where copyright is applicable if the medium is specifically designed to have its own safeguards against copying. Such safeguards are their own form of copy prevention and, if used, should be considered a replacement, not augmentation, of the copyright protections afforded by law.
Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (Score:5, Interesting)
mreposter
When GM went bankrupt they didn't come and take away everybody's car keys.
Re:Music as a Product (Score:3, Informative)
You might think so but Metalitz in TFA says otherwise:
This not only muddies the (logical) waters, but is dead wrong: The first computer I bought new (in 1990), an Acer laptop, 386-20Hz, still works. It will not run Windows Vista, but it runs DOS just fine -- still. It does
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple's worldwide vice-president of marketing for the iPod, Greg Joswiak, indicated that this patch is available for people who want "an easy-to-use option to set their own personal volume limit." It is available for free download.
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, just wow. This reply of yours was made one minute after another [slashdot.org] referencing goblins from Harry Potter.
I swear, you Harry Potter fans are starting to creep me out. :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr. Stallman is way ahead of you (Score:4, Insightful)
from now on we should refuse to use to use the term "Intellectual Property."
Mr. Stallman is way ahead of you [gnu.org]. As I understand it, his points are as follows: