What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
81 Comments
- geneticlone, on 05/08/2008, -2/+72***** THE RIAA!
- EntropyFan, on 05/08/2008, -1/+66In a subscription model, where you don't actually own the content, DRM has a place.
On something you purchase, it does not. - dsmx, on 05/08/2008, -0/+52Until someone can explain how DRM improves the user experience it will always be a reason to pirate.
- aaaleman, on 05/08/2008, -1/+44The RIAA will soon die off. I'm just waiting patiently.
- cbittle, on 05/08/2008, -1/+38"(Recently) I made a list of the 22 ways to sell music and 20 of them still require DRM," RIAA technology unit head David Hughes said during a panel discussion, according to CNet. "Any form of subscription service or limited play-per-view or advertising offer still requires DRM. So DRM is not dead."
Translation: "Recently I was threatened with losing my job unless I came up with biased statistics on why DRM is still very much alive. I also enjoy killing baby sea lions." - sh4d0w4lk3r, on 05/08/2008, -2/+31If I buy a song...I ***** OWN THAT SONG.
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -0/+28more and more consumers equate ownership with accessibility in that if you can access it lawfully, you should be able to control how you use it (a la timeshifting and placeshifting). thus, kids see no problem in downloading what's on the radio or TV (after all, the content owners already got paid). in other words, consumers see a per-item system. however, the content holders don't want a per-item system -- they want a per-usage system, so they get paid every time their content is used, which is not enforceable without DRM. it's nice that per-usage systems allow different pricing schemes, but every time a service provider is given such control, they find ways to nickel and dime consumers left and right, packing on fees here and fees there.
for anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, buying DRM infested content is renting, not owning. - terryfunk4life, on 05/08/2008, -0/+22 Excuse me mr.riaa I do ***** care about drm!
- kd420, on 05/08/2008, -0/+20"It didnt work the first time, so lets try the exact same thing again!"
Now thats progress! - waterdrop, on 05/08/2008, -1/+20***** THE RIAA!
- celkin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+19***** THE RIAA!
- greeniemeani, on 05/08/2008, -1/+18***** THE RIAA!
- Ocelot13, on 05/08/2008, -0/+17you mean µTorrent?
- muslax27, on 05/08/2008, -1/+18...well then ***** the RIAA
- feliks2, on 05/09/2008, -1/+17***** THE RIAA!
- sporad1c, on 05/08/2008, -3/+19***** the RIAA! Long live UTorrent!
- jivatmanx, on 05/09/2008, -1/+13***** THE RIAA!
- theright, on 05/08/2008, -1/+13***** DRM!
- Jambi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+12We've yet to see DRM that hackers can't bypass. Dear music industry, understand this: there's a whole class of people for whom screwing up your attempts to control your media files is actually fun. It's their hobby; and they're not exactly dumb either. So basically, you're pissing off the paying customer, who has to deal with your poorly implemented *****. And since Bittorrent is easy as hell to figure out, more than half of them will just say "the hell with it" and pirate your stuff too! Find a new strategy, this one won't work.
- theiss, on 05/08/2008, -0/+11I looked at my iTunes collection a month ago and realized I had over 6000 DRM'ed songs (after I could no longer JHymn). I use iVolume to equalize the volumes of all my songs so I'm not constantly getting ready to grab the volume knob each time a song changes. Problem is, you can't use it on DRM'd songs. 6000 songs. About a third of my library.
So now I'm gradually replacing all of those songs with DRM-free bittorrented ones. Just so I can freaking set the correct volume level.
I still buy albums and have no problem supporting the artist and an online music model. I just bought Mercenary's new album today, from the iTMS... but I made sure it was iTunes Plus (drm-free) first.
The whole DRM thing has gotten so out of hand - from music to software. EVERYTHING gets cracked or bypassed. People are going to pirate. But people are also going to buy, unless you make that buying experience so distasteful they refuse to be your bitch anymore. Every day I get closer to that point.
Keep on pushing DRM further. Right now, I have the option of purchasing DRM-free music (and that's all I purchase now). It seems trivial, but I can't tell you how much it pisses me off to be on edge about a the next song being crazy loud when the song changes. Make it so I can't buy DRM-free music anymore and that'll be the last straw. Congratulations, then YOU will have just created another pirate. I feel like I've put up with this BS way too long as it is. - TheThirdLevel, on 05/08/2008, -4/+15I would just say "***** the RIAA", but it's been said above and I don't really have anything else ot say on topics about the Recording Industry ***** of America.
So i'll just repeat it, for emphasis.
***** THE RIAA. - secrity, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11The RIAA is trying to confuse the use of DRM on rented music with the use of DRM on purchased tracks.
- inactive, on 05/08/2008, -1/+91. Buy the disc legally? Good, but you will probably try to pirate it so it is DRM protected
2. Download it for free? You are a pirate and you will be promptly sued and put in PITA prison
Seems to me that DRM is basically just a way of saying that you either are a criminal, or thinking about it so they must protect themselves from you. If I am a criminal either way, Ill get it for free then. - nc60659, on 05/08/2008, -4/+12HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
***** THE RIAA - rbk303, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7looks like the MPAA and the RIAA are back in full force. they're expecting we're tired. it's prime time for them to sneak new precedents passed us... while we're busy looking the other way...
maybe it's time to go on the offensive instead of playing d all the time? - greystill, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8***** THE R!AAI
- ElSnuggles, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9I'm not sure I agree with your statement. While DRM certainly gave Apple a competitive advantage in the digital music and player markets, both the ipod and itunes were vastly superior to its competitors. I haven't kept up with other music services (back in the day I did), I can honestly say that no other music player I've come across can compare to the ipod. Sure, DRM helped. But did DRM make? No, I don't think so.
Awesome design, more freedom than other services, ease of use, and reliability made ipod and itunes.
RIAA demanded DRM, so Apple implemented it in such a way that it gleaned an advantage over its competitors and kept the control in house so it could ensure its customer experience. Look at what is happening to all the "Play for Sure" buyers right now, they are about to get hosed. - Infidelcastr0, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Well said. Labels are getting to damn greedy, I understand the need for copyrights (I wouldn't want someone else profiting of of my hard work) but it's ridiculous that they are trying to define everything as a rental, When I buy a CD I own it as far as I'm concerned, digital downloads should be no different, before p2p came around I owned like 5 albums, now I own hundreds, Sure, not everybody is as honest as I am, but enough people are for them to make a reasonable amount of money.
- themusicalduck, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Technically it's impossible for DRM to be unhackable, since anyone can plug their speaker output to their line-in and hit record with a cheap cable and free recording software.
- thedrue, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Quite honestly I would never waste my money on any type of subscription service. What if you amass a large music library and after 4 years of paying per month you decide you don't want to pay anymore, you have probably paid for the music outright anyway but suddenly it all disappears. This is no fun! I want to listen to my music for the rest of my life and I would never waste my money on a subscription, imagine how much you would pay over the period of a lifetime just to listen to YOUR music.
- siZors, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Yes, DRM is beneficial in that case, and if that were the only case then I would support DRM. What about the more common case of people buying, not renting music? Here, DRM only benefits the RIAA (does it? or does it encourage file sharing?), not the customer.
- mithrasinvictus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5It is not meant to. They WANT to hinder the customer experience.
They would like people to keep buying CD's so they can keep their gatekeeper position.
The REAL danger to the RIAA is not copying, it's artists getting access to the market without signing a 'record' deal. - EntropyFan, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Instead of supporting DRM and iTunes (the biggest pusher of DRM) why not look at Amazon. Wider selection, all DRM free.
- asforme, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Steam has evolved into much more than DRM. If I could have my music collection stored on someone else's server so I could access it anywhere anytime I want in high quality with the only catch being that I can't be logged into multiple places at once, I'd sign up for it.
- triont, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6***** THE MPAA!
- zbeast, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4it's all about trying to squeeze revenue from a stone and trying to make content all transitory.
That why you have to buy the same content again and again. Its just a way to stretch out the long tail. - DonnyW, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4There is only one way to take care of something as evil as the RIAA, allowing rabid monkeys to rape them.
- mrmacky, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5*sigh*
So long as music can be listened to on a computer, DRM will prove worthless...
Seeing as any decent free recording app could be used to record Stereo Mix, or some similar channel included on almost every sound-card to date, and get a decent copy of the song, without the DRM restrictions, DRM holds to be entirely pointless.
Sure it holds to say that recording a song won't produce an exact copy, and it'll be going lossy-to-lossy and get encoded at a lower bitrate, but you're already purchasing ~128-192kbps songs, so it really doesn't make that large of a difference.
Point being, there is always around DRM, some are advanced and get perfect rips, others are a bit more analog and take more time, but stealing DRM'd content will always be possible... so why bother implementing a dead and broken system that only aggravates the end user?
I can see its place in a subscription model, but even there it still maintains a reputation for being nearly useless... outside of that model it either is useless or is very close to useless.
When will the RIAA learn, if it can be sold, it can be stolen.
Edit: Forgot obligatory "***** THE RIAA!" - liquisoft, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5DRM isn't dead. Anyone who says it is, is an idiot. Simple as that.
DRM, on the contrary, is only _dying_. It's on it's way out as much as possible, but as another digger said it's relevant in a subscription model where one doesn't actually own the music. But much like DRM, the market is showing that most people want to own the music they pay for. You'll note that companies like Napster and Rhapsody (among others) are losing more and more market share to companies they deliver own-able music.
Oh, and ***** the RIAA. - mrsteveman1, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5The iPod dominated the MP3 player market before the iTunes store ever existed, meaning no, DRM isn't what pushed the iPod ahead of its competition, the fact that it worked and worked well for normal people did that all by itself, even though they had absolutely no monopoly to take advantage of to advance into the mp3 player market.
And i would guess that until fairly recently, most music put on iPods came from CDs, not DRM downloads. - chonuts, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I agree, but the problem is that the line between what you subscribe to and what you purchase online is getting blurry. People feel if they pay a service for music downloads (whether monthly or per song), they should be able to do what they want with their purchase, like put it on any MP3 player or burn it to a CD. If you restrict that freedom, people will gravitate towards piracy rather than paying for a system that doesn't allow them to do what they want. Grant them that same freedom, and people will be much more inclined to buy the music legally, provided it's GOOD -- which is a separate reason why record labels are losing money. I think DRM is doing much more damage to the music business rather than saving it.
- SexyPopMachine, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Keep on lying to yourself RIAA. You can't hide from the truth. You KNOW DRM is dead. Lying only hurts yourself!
- mrsteveman1, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4They're technically right, but most music distribution takes place in CD form, or at least it did until recently. All those numerous ways to distribute music that require DRM make up a tiny percentage of sales and revenue.
They are just pissed that people want to own music, and they want to own it not rent it with a loaded gun pointed at their purchases. - mithrasinvictus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3DRM infected files can be restricted from being burned on a CD.
After burning and ripping, your files are probably as illegal as when you would have downloaded them through p2p. Might as well save yourself the trouble and p2p directly. - Kennerk, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3audacity does it even easier....
- 80hd, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The cat's on the moon and they want it back in the bag.
- pigfister, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Name, shame and boycott anti consumer ppl don't let sony dictate their DRM lockins to us.
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
secuROM = sony DRM and what is coming to blu-ray very soon!
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52547
FTA: Spore, Mass Effect PC to Require Online Validation Every Ten Days to Function
BioWare technical producer Derek French has said that the PC versions of both Mass Effect and Spore will make use of copy protection that will require online validation every ten days in order for the games to continue working.
"After the first activation, SecuROM requires that [Mass Effect PC] re-check with the server within ten days (in case the CD Key has become public/warez'd and gets banned)," said French in a post on the BioWare forums.
If customers do not come online after ten days, the game will cease to function.
"After 10 days a re-check is required before the game can run," added French. "..An internet connection is not required to install, just to activate the first time, and every 10 days after."
The check is run when users activate the game's executable file, with the first re-check coming within "5 days remaining in the 10 day window." - quarby, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2ditto
- inactive, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Precisely - if I purchase a CD, I'm not entitled to the benefit of a limitless selection of music, but yet, with DRM, I'm expected to obey the same rules as someone who does.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2You are free to do that if you want, but you aren't hurting Apple. Amazon MP3s work on iPods just like they work everywhere else. Apple makes money on hardware, if you don't like the iPod you can buy something else because MP3s work anywhere.
If you don't like the iTunes store, use amazon like you said. This is competition and its good for everyone. If you don't like the iPod buy something else :D -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is