Who is really for and against DRM

derf · 12-12-2009, 11:01 PM

We all hate the RIAA, and the MPAA is quickly following their example of how to be the most hated entity in the world.

But what happens when the artist, publisher and everyone involved want to sell their works DRM free? Apple says STFU you squiggly pimple!

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/apple...agreement.html

Quote:

Cory Doctorow is self-publishing a book and documenting the process for Publishers Weekly. His latest column is about selling audiobook versions of his past works, and how both Apple and Audible have refused to budge on their anti-consumer policies when it comes to digital rights management (DRM) and end user license agreements (EULAs). Even though both companies get paid the same either way, and even though both Doctorow and his publisher, Random House, want to sell the content without these restrictions, Apple and Audible have said no.

“
For my next book, Makers, we tried again. This time Audible agreed to carry the title without DRM. Hooray! Except now there was a new problem: Apple refused to allow DRM-free audiobooks in the Apple Store—yes, the same Apple that claims to hate DRM. Okay, we thought, we'll just sell direct through Audible, at least it's a relatively painless download process, right? Not quite. It turns out that buying an audiobook from Audible requires a long end-user license agreement (EULA) that bars users from moving their Audible books to any unauthorized device or converting them to other formats. Instead of DRM, they accomplish the lock-in with a contract.

I came up with what I thought was an elegant solution: a benediction to the audio file: “Random House Audio and Cory Doctorow, the copyright holders to this recording, grant you permission to use this book in any way consistent with your nation's copyright laws.” This is a good EULA, I thought, as it stands up for every word of copyright law. Random House was game, too. Audible wasn't.

”
The next time a retailer blames artists or their publishers for taking away consumer rights, you may want to ask for some proof. With Apple and Audible, at least, it's not the author taking an anti-consumer stance this time

Avatard · 12-12-2009, 11:10 PM

Wow.

DRM? Still?

I've been sitting quietly by since the mid nineties when I, among the first to play with computer-based digital audio editing, soon realized that the copyright model was about to go the way of the Dodo. I called it nearly 15 years ago, and long before p2p.

Blindsided, those caught unaware continue to flail foolishly, trying to make old models fit a new paradigm.

Idiots.

derf · 12-12-2009, 11:34 PM

Yeh i made the same realization around the time napster was really hitting its stride.

Avatard · 12-12-2009, 11:45 PM

Admittedly, I had a glimpse into the future as a sound professional. I realized it the first time I hit "save" in Sound Tools (which would later become known as ProTools). My studio at the time was one of the first on the East Coast to have digital editing.

I knew right then it was just a matter of file size (MPEG-2, Layer 3 [aka: MP3] took care of that), and bandwidth (and broadband took care of that), and music would be copied as easily as software.

Now we watch as Newspapers and Book Publishers all flounder in this new electronic world of distro.

Copy protection is NEVER the answer.

Ineffable · 12-13-2009, 06:07 PM

The MPAA has always been hated since it was first invented by the movie studios. As far as the RIAA they are losing a lot of credibility these days thanks to lawsuit happy lawyers, greedy execs and unhappy artists. Hell, they are being sued right now using the very same tactics they use to go after little people who download 1 or 2 songs a year. The current intellectual rights laws are so antiquated it is a joke. Studios and the powers that be need to learn they can't just squash something like P2P but rather have to adapt. Personally if the studios are going to remain so heavily involved I think they should take a page out of Google's book and turn it into an advertising model, yes they won't make nearly as much money but it is better to make 50% less than 100% of nothing. I don't really see a need for major firms to be involved anymore when artists are able to release directly online and hard copies of music are quickly going the way of the A-TRAK. It's not like the artist are going to be out anything as they only take home 10% or less of the profit.

12-12-2009, 11:10 PM	#2
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	Wow. DRM? Still? I've been sitting quietly by since the mid nineties when I, among the first to play with computer-based digital audio editing, soon realized that the copyright model was about to go the way of the Dodo. I called it nearly 15 years ago, and long before p2p. Blindsided, those caught unaware continue to flail foolishly, trying to make old models fit a new paradigm. Idiots. __________________ Insert free thought here.

12-12-2009, 11:34 PM	#3
derf token jewboy Join Date: Nov 2008 Moto: CBR 900, KLR ugly ass duckling, Gas Man Posts: 10,799	Yeh i made the same realization around the time napster was really hitting its stride. __________________

12-12-2009, 11:45 PM	#4
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	Admittedly, I had a glimpse into the future as a sound professional. I realized it the first time I hit "save" in Sound Tools (which would later become known as ProTools). My studio at the time was one of the first on the East Coast to have digital editing. I knew right then it was just a matter of file size (MPEG-2, Layer 3 [aka: MP3] took care of that), and bandwidth (and broadband took care of that), and music would be copied as easily as software. Now we watch as Newspapers and Book Publishers all flounder in this new electronic world of distro. Copy protection is NEVER the answer. __________________ Insert free thought here.

12-13-2009, 06:07 PM	#5
Ineffable Kneedragger Join Date: May 2008 Location: Boulder CO Moto: 2009 KTM RC8 Posts: 166	The MPAA has always been hated since it was first invented by the movie studios. As far as the RIAA they are losing a lot of credibility these days thanks to lawsuit happy lawyers, greedy execs and unhappy artists. Hell, they are being sued right now using the very same tactics they use to go after little people who download 1 or 2 songs a year. The current intellectual rights laws are so antiquated it is a joke. Studios and the powers that be need to learn they can't just squash something like P2P but rather have to adapt. Personally if the studios are going to remain so heavily involved I think they should take a page out of Google's book and turn it into an advertising model, yes they won't make nearly as much money but it is better to make 50% less than 100% of nothing. I don't really see a need for major firms to be involved anymore when artists are able to release directly online and hard copies of music are quickly going the way of the A-TRAK. It's not like the artist are going to be out anything as they only take home 10% or less of the profit.