DRM removal

BillScarab

Aiadi wrote: »

Your analogy fails remarkably. Speeding can well be detrimental to self and others. Could you tell me how being able to play a song that I have PAID FOR on my OWN MP3 player be harmful to anyone???

No one condones piracy but a sweeping draconian action that treats everyone like a criminal should not be masqueraded as law....

It's hrmful tot he copyright holder as they won't earn as much money if you don't pay for it more than once!

The point is though you can legally download MP3's from places like Amazon that have no DRM on them and no restrictions on what devices you use them on. So if you don't buy from sites that embed DRM they will either go out of business or remove the DRM to compete.

Buying tracks with DRM embedded and then stripping it out to use on different devices is not going to get rid of DRM, buying non-DRM music just might.

The other point is that when you buy music you don't own the song, you just own a copy with a particular license i.e. you can use it on a particular device or devices. Even buying CD's there are restrictions on what you can do with them, you can't copy them, rip them to your MP3 player or play them to the general public.

Aiadi

BillScarab wrote: »

The point is though you can legally download MP3's from places like Amazon that have no DRM on them and no restrictions on what devices you use them on. So if you don't buy from sites that embed DRM they will either go out of business or remove the DRM to compete.

Well said...... It was the mass consumer rebellion that had led to places like Amazon to go through the non-DRM route and accept that the status quo was unsustainable. Complacency and doing nothing in the face of an unfair law shouldn't be an option.

I totally agree that consumers should be able to have the option and vote with their wallets to remove the bullies out of business but that option is only starting to become available due to people taking action and not being dictated to by some greedy media giants.

A.Jones

S0litaire wrote: »

Why pay for something like windows when there is a free 'legal' alternative like Linux?

Microsoft does not restrict what software you can run on their machines.

Why? Because of convenience / inertia / compatibility / availability of additional software.

You may as well ask why does anyone buy vegetables? They are easy (and legal) to grow for next to nothing.

A.Jones

Aiadi wrote: »

I totally agree that consumers should be able to have the option and vote with their wallets to remove the bullies out of business but that option is only starting to become available due to people taking action and not being dictated to by some greedy media giants.

I agree - the simplest thing for any consumer to do is know what they are buying and to decide whether they are willing to pay for that service / product. If it doesn't suit their requirements at the right price, don't buy it.

There will be certain bands, or their producers/agents, that do not want their songs to be available DRM free. If you need DRM free, and the band does not allow sites like amazon to sell their music digitally DRM free but only allows DRM versions sold through itunes or wherever, then either buy the CD and rip it, or stop listening to (and paying) that band.

Marty_J

Aiadi wrote: »

Well said...... It was the mass consumer rebellion that had led to places like Amazon to go through the non-DRM route and accept that the status quo was unsustainable.

Amazon had nothing whatsoever to do with deciding to sell DRM free music. For starters, retailers don't get to choose what format they sell music in. The record company they licence the music from do.

Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, wrote an open letter calling on the big four record companies to stop using DRM. This led to an agreement between Apple and EMI which saw their catalogue offered on iTunes without DRM. The iTunes Store was still wildly successful when Jobs lobbied for the removal of DRM, so I'm not sure a "mass consumer rebellion" can take all the credit. The reason Amazon have DRM free music is that record companies don't like to have all their eggs in one basket and don't want iTunes to become too dominant. So, some have refused to licence DRM free music to iTunes and licenced it to other retailers instead.

chunter

I think music protection is not practical.
The rise of external and large usb drives mean that people can move lots of music very quickly and very simply. I don't believe it's practical at this stage to protect it.

Whether it's right or wrong is a valid argument, but at the monent, a futile one.

As long as one person can buy the cd, rip it to electronic format removing the protection, it'll propgate through the internet.
Also, in 2 years time, we'll have 20mbps broadband which make it all far quicker.
You'll be able to email albums...

Maybe in the future (after cds are gone) it'll be possible to have proper protection.
But for now it's too easy. Far too easy.