What is Digg?43 Comments
- gfw123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14A bit off topic, but I donated to EFF and t;he t-shirt they send you has a very cool looking anti-DRM logo on it.
I would suggest to everyone to donate as well.
I am not associated with them in any way except wearing their t-shirt now. - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14My favorite quote from this interview with DefectiveByDesign:
"If, as citizens of a society, we can see the advantages of allowing art and knowledge to flow without impediment, we as citizens will also have reason to find new ways to recompense the artists and knowledge purveyors. In fact, there are more artists working today than ever before, and more of their art is being enjoyed because of technology free from DRM and free of the Big Media gate keepers." - bonesaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I get your point, but it's usually not the "small" companies that are ruining it for all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Check out www.jamendo.com
You can pay the artist whatever you feel their work is worth, or nothing at all. Lots of services like this are popping up and they are getting more and more artists using them, that wouldn't happen if it didn't work. - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8But why use DRM in the first place? We all know that stripping DRM from a file isn't that difficult for the determined thief.. and those who wouldn't remove drm or try and share the file aren't thieves.. So, "protecting" a file with DRM is treating the honest user like a thief, but isn't actually keeping real thieves from stealing..
The only effective use for DRM is locking you to one platform.. i.e. Fairplay=iPod, PlaysforSure=Microsoft licensed player.. Notice that none of these DRM schemes are available for Linux? When everything is DRM "protected", how will you enjoy music or video on Linux legally? - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8There is a difference between DRM-free and free. Just because the music doesn't have DRM built into it doesn't mean that you will be able to legally get it anywhere. Sure, it makes it easier to pirate, but half of the people I know that pirate music do donate money directly to the artists instead of buying the music and the RIAA getting 65% of it.
- Zipko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I'm protesting small tobacco; "Filters are for pussies" and "smoke cubans or don't smoke at all" are my rules.
- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hell yeah Zipko your new slogan should be "You're going to die anyways"
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And DRM is a hint dystopian.
A huge strongarm convincing us to accept their highly locked-down products because they make sure you can't get a similar product without the lockdown... - bjkrautk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Big Media."
...just once, I'd love to see advocacy groups target any of the following:
- small media
- small tobacco
- small oil
- ineffective buzzwords, or
- little insurance - thesparrowband, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i think the recording industry is missing a main point. now that home studios, as we well know, are so afforable, many other private studios can reach the bar of quality that the average person is going to leave unnoticed.
i think the idea of free-ly downloaded music, fast, over the net is a great idea, but what i see as the future is music becoming a utility.
even now, they have pay per month services that are cheap and offer unlimited downloads. I think people will buy into this and just add it on to their other monthly bills. You will pay per song for the CD (the case and the backup disk are nice to have) and other higher quality audio.
a couple of years ago, a band needed a recording contract to get promoted and make it to the radio and popularity. I say not so now. Just look at the bands that pop out of MySpace. So many have gotten started there; they record with a local studio, and once words gets around, they shoot to the top. I don't think the recording industry has realized this yet.
and sony putting DMG protection on its CDs was just plain evil. I try not to buy from them.
also, suing people isn't going to stop the flood, so why not work with the people? they're bringing themselves down.
so i say farewell to that age, and i'm welcoming the new ideas.
anybody think they'll start recording alternative rock in 5.1 surround sound any time soon?
i hope so - JWood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4zybch:
I love Jamendo. You can almost get a whole music library from there. Though, it would be nice if there were some more US artists on there, but it's seems to be growing fast. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3WTF? Yeah, CD sales don't help pay the bills at all. A standard audio CD is NOT DRMed. You're confusing DRM with copyright. Yes, the article is anti-copyright (so is the FSF for that matter), and that radical element certainly reduces its influence. They should focus on killing off DRM first, THEN start promoting their more radical goal of a society where most or all information can be freely distributed. DRM is certainly DbD's focus, but at least in this interview it blurs with this broader social goal. Whether there are feasible alternatives to copyright I have no idea, but I do know that DRM is trash and eliminating it should have priority over more distant goals.
- kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3*cough* eMusic *cough*
*cough* Magnatune *cough* - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple is one of the worst offenders. They used DRM, which was designed to prevent unauthorized copying, and turned it into a tool to lock consumers into their iTMS/iPod model. Anyone can license and use plays for sure, which makes for a more competitve market, and gives consumers more flexibility.
Apple is the Lexmark of mp3 players. - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"price increases or subscription models" are also harmful to Apple's business plan.. So, their motives aren't as altruistic as one might be led to believe.
"Their protests, instead, should be aimed at the Microsoft DRM-based subscription services, which are often guilty of giving in to the desires of the RIAA"
Apple has 70% + of the mp3 player market. And a large chunk of the PMP market too. PlaysForSure is a threat, but it's a minor player compared to Apple's FairPlay. - badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I admire it. But it seems a bit Utopian.
- ylikone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I support this anti-drm movement. I just joined up and will be donating shortly.
- thesparrowband, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that could, unfortunately, make it incredibly easy for radio stations/other conglomorates/etc, to take advantage of them. If the band says the have to pay a fee to play their song on the radio, the radio station could say "says who?". what small band has money to pay for a good lawyer, or the time to appear in court in between touring?
great idea though, i hadn't heard it before - fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The anti-DRM movement will fail because sites like DefectiveByDesign.org fail to quickly and enthusiastically explain the issue to uninterested and uninformed common folk.
- niiru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is this comment DRM protected? :P
- niiru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There should also be campaigns about using proprietary codecs. Its all too frequent that media on the internet is MP3 or ACC or WMA or WMV (none of this stuff is open so its much harder to work with legally)
Xvid is blurry legality, but at least anyone can use that with free software and theora shouold be progressing nicely after some time. Audio is already sorted with things like OGG and FLAC.
This might be for a differrent article, but its a related freedom which I feel strongly about. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Look at Apple's OS licensing system...ever had a problem with that?"
You mean the one that ties in with the trusted computing DRM chips?
yeah... I do have a problem with that - teacherG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ bjkrautk
is your comment just sarcasm? or did you mean to make a point? the problem IS "big whatever" because "they" set the rules the prices. That's why you hear people complaining about them all the time. "They have the muscle to destroy "small whatever". And they do. Advocates that target "small whatever" do exist; their called lobbyist (for big business). - o0joshua0o, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wouldn't be protesting Apple, at least, not at first. iTunes does offer DRMed music, to be sure, but at least they are an example to the rest of the music industry that is still sceptical that people are willing to pay to legally obtain downloadable music.
- flash200, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1zybch: Check out www.jamendo.com
I think this is exactly what's needed: No RIAA, no major labels, no DRM, and a mechanism for donating money to the artists.
I'd like to see this model--contribute what you can--used more often, as a replacement to the traditional revenue models of purchases, subscriptions, or advertisements (especially ads, which I find almost as bothersome as DRM). - lidflipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am all for ARTIST CONTROLLED DRM (like weed files). This would be the end of labels. Bands could charge whatever they like and get compensated for it. If they price it too high, they will not get anyone to by it. It would be FREE MARKET instead of just FREE.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2█
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, they are not hard to work with *legally* because they are proprietary (ie, not open). They are hard to work with *technically* because they are prioprietary since no public documentation is provided by the creator. Public documentation can be created, but only via reverse-engineering.
They're hard to work with legally because of software patents. Patents are currently the only mechanism capable of preventing free implementations of codecs or other software to be created legally. MP3 is a well-understood format; the technical barrier has been surpassed. The remaining barrier is the patents of its creator, Fraunhofer. This problem can only be solved by outlawing patents on software, or at patents on file formats and algorithms to encode/decode them. - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@fulldecent: I tend to agree. I actually asked DbD for 2 - 3 effective examples "even my mother could understand". What I got were the three points in that interview. They're great points, very well thought out and written.. but my mother would go glassy eyed and stop paying attention in seconds.
Cory Doctrow did a reasonable job in InformationWeek recently (see: http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191000408 ) but, it's still not the "Drop dead simple DRM death nail" sort of presentation. - JWood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1geekee:
Most of the independent artists on Jamendo I'm sure do everything on their own...from making the music, editing it, all the way to designing the cover art for the cd. - milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A nice song saying why drm is wrong
- RandomEngy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, Microsoft (unlike Apple) will gladly license its PlaysForSure DRM to other hardware manufacturers or online music stores. In this sense it is less restrictive than Apple's DRM. In addition, stores selling PlaysForSure music often have lower prices than iTunes, such as Wal-Mart's 88-cent tracks.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I think this is exactly what's needed: No RIAA, no major labels, no DRM, and a mechanism for donating money to the artists."
Compensating the artists along is still theft. That's whats wrong with allofmp3.com How would you IT people like it if you didn't get paid because you weren't directly involved in whatever product your company makes. So the IT guys in the music industry shouldn't get paid, just the artists? Theres more to a business than just the team that produces the product, and everyone deserves to be paid, not just the people you as a consumer feel like paying. - lightningrod220, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's obnoxious that these people are protesting against Apple. Apple is the one that pushes back every time the RIAA pushes for price increases or subscription models, both of which are harmful to the consumer. Their protests, instead, should be aimed at the Microsoft DRM-based subscription services, which are often guilty of giving in to the desires of the RIAA.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"If, as citizens of a society, we can see the advantages of allowing art and knowledge to flow without impediment, we as citizens will also have reason to find new ways to recompense the artists and knowledge purveyors."
I already have the technology to move evrything I want out of Fry's and into my living room. That would be good for me, but if I don't pay for it, it's not good for Fry's and it's not good for society. All the schemes I've seen in music to compensate artists while letting people download freely basically are socialist schemes that put the burden of paying on anyone whether they listen to the music or not, just so the few leeches who complain can get music relatively cheap to free. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As for jamendo, now that it finally has loaded, although it's legal, I'll bet anything those artists would dump that site in a second if offered a recording contract from a label.
- tdhurst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. Since when was it Apple's stipulation that iTunes Store music be DRMed? Last I checked it was the music industry that dictated that...
Look at Apple's OS licensing system...ever had a problem with that? - slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1digg for wackos who protest at the apple stores
- surfing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Does it have a copyright symbol on it?
- dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5DRM free stuff doesn't exactly pay the bills.
- tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I wondered why Jason Calacanis dugg this...then I looked at the submitters prior submitted stories. He obviously works for AOL/Weblogs/Netscape. Dun Dun Dun.
I'm sure it's still a great article. Now if only Jcal could get his people to submit these stories to Netscape instead of Digg.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is