What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
88 Comments
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45"iTunes and iPod dominates the market - drm works."
iTunes is successful (as much as it is) despite DRM not because DRM... - mattym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27I actually enjoy listening to legally purchased CD's in my car.
I know first hand that theres a good deal of CD's that have been published
in the last 2-3 years that will not play on my car's cd player, due to
screwing with TOC and whatnot as a form of copy protection.
And don't tell me to get a new player. It came with the car. It has the Compact Disc
label on it. It should play Compact Discs. Its not my fault certain companies
purposefully screw with the CD's structure to prevent copying, and in my case,
prevent playing.
I'm not a pirate, but I'd say not being able to listen to my CD's constitutes being "bothered." - ts8lemonade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25@ mikecampbell
I could post valid points to refute your assertion that Linux is insecure, but really I'd rather just call you a ***** moron. - ts8lemonade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25How about an incentive to buy legally? For instance, I could either A: Sit in the comfort of my home and download a movie straight to my hard drive that isn't riddled with ads, all without leaving my chair, or B: Get up and drive to the store, get encumbered by traffic, have to wait in line at the store behind 18 soccer moms and their crying kids, buy the movie and go home only to be subjected to ads and anti-piracy propaganda that I cannot skip. The choice is clear.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@ godofpumpkins
Thats not the economics used by the MPAA RIAA and others. if people aren't buying your products at a given price, blame pirates, lobby policy makers for stricter copyright. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Yep, sell DVDs and music files without DRM, keep the price law to discourage piracy. People prefer to do things legally if they have good alternatives.
CDs were sold without DRM and it work pretty well till they started to charge $19 for CDs that contained 1-2 good songs and the rest crap. People are smarter than this. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25The point is that DRM causes piracy. Piracy has been rampantly increasing since DRM came about, look at the figures for it. Fact is piracy is a better deal in every way bar the legality at the moment. To undercut piracy they need to offer a better deal not a worse one. The fact that DRM can never actually work just makes the whole process insane.
Shuttleworth is right, eventually somebody will offer a better deal and that will lead to them quickly taking market share. - AngryBacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Yeah, because only a pirate would want to watch an encrypted DVD on Linux, or make backups in case their 4-year-old decides his DVD makes a good Frisbee.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22lets see them DRM all music in itunes, then lock all ipods to only use DRMed AAC files. then we'll see if DRM works.
- Mandeep, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26In my opinion, iTunes and the iPod were successful because Apple was able to make it a trend among teenagers and kids, because it is a legal way to download music without worrying about getting sued, and because of the technology used in the iPod to have it adopted by music listeners. If DRM didn't exist and the industry wasn't corrupt, I'm sure Apple would be seeing the same profits, if not more. The fact that the iTunes uses DRM is irrelevant to why it's successful.
- Amablue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"If you're not a pirate, you're not bothered by DRM."
That's a horrible train of thought. Just because it doesn't always affect me directly (which it does, by the way) I shouldn't worry about it?
I don't like being treated like a criminal even though I'm a paying customer. I don't want to have to buy the same material over and over again when I already own a copy of it. - mattym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@mikecampbell
Wait, so are you saying we're all pirates? Wait..I'm confused. Ok, so unless I'm a pirate I won't be bothered by DRM.
Check. But, wait, no, we are all inconvenienced by DRM at some point. Ok. So I AM a pirate. And so is everyone else?
Pheww, this is confusing.
Do you have any idea at all about foreign pirating and bootlegging? DRM has not once, in any iteration, prevented
major piracy. DRM would be wonderful if it didn't impact the lowly user, and only prevented massive and wide scale
piracy. But it doesn't. DRM ONLY impacts the lawful consumer, while the major Russian and Chinese piracy groups
laugh at the DRM. If I can break any DRM thats thrown at me, which I can right now with just about anything (itunes, Windows Media, DVD, HD-DVD, Bluray, etc) what makes you think some bootlegging operation in China doesn't have access to the same tools to strip DRM.
So if it does nothing to stop piracy, why burden me with it in the first place? Why should I have to rip my audio cd's to my computer,
and re-burn without the messed up TOC just to listen to the music in my car?
And no, I don't listen to Britney Spears. - Amablue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Linux is open source and therefore insecure by its very nature."
Peer review makes is much more secure. - godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17it's called economics. if people aren't buying your products at a given price, lower the price until the curves match up
- nukem996, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14hmm thats funny I'm not a pirate but I am bothers by all this DRM crap. I'm doing research with a PS3 and had a Dell 2007FP to work with the cell processor. I get it and hook it but, but it won't work with my monitor. Why? Because the PS3 needs HDCP(DRM for DVI) to display anything. I had to wait another week for them to buy a new monitor, the Dell 2007FPW. I am also a heavy Linux user and love my iRiver H340. I'm unable to buy music online from most stores because they only support Win and Mac. If I use wine to buy music I have to use wine to play the music(currently I just strip the DRM but your saying DRM shouldn't bother me right?). Finally if I want to put the DRM music on my iRiver H340 it won't play because its not an iPod for a PlaysForSure compatible device. I rarely buy music now(I don't download either) since most of it is crap and because its to much of a hassle.
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I stopped using iTunes (and the other legal download services that DRM their music) because of how my hands are tied when it comes to playing those songs.
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The industry is blind. What are they going to do when 1cm by 1cm holographic cubes which contain every song ever created are sold in gumball machines in indonesia? When storage technology comes of age and a keychain can store 10,000TB of data the RIAA & MPAA are DEAD. Imagine everymovie and song ever made on a keychain. Go ahead and laugh but it's coming, just do the research..
- julianrod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13***** the RIAA!
(someone had to say it) - estvir, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Rather than stating the obvious and jumping on the DRM-bashing bandwagon he offer some [real] suggestions ? I mean, words are excellent but time to step up.
- franksands, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9mirunit:
wakey, wakey! Apple will be releasing all EMI catalog DRM-free, and MS is promising to do the same thing. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9But still...the largest music provider is illegal downloading. No DRM there...
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sometimes you don't get a chance to tie up all the loose ends on your computer before you have to reformat
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10dont feed the troll, people
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Basically, what it boils down to is abundance where there was none before. DRM is an artificial scarcity that allows companies to retain their old business practices.
Remember: Pirating isn't stealing; it's sharing. Deläd gladje är dubbel gladje. - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7www.riaaradar.com does a pretty good job of letting you search to see what artist (or album) is under an RIAA label.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8***** THE RIAA
(Someone had to say it with caps) - mrsteveman1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7lukas, Perhaps you fail to realize that you cant burn subscription songs in the URGE store without paying more for them, which means you can't get around it without hacking. Thats why its called a subscription.
Plus, you don't seem to get the problem, it takes ONE person to crack the subscription DRM and release the song everywhere, which then makes every other effort to keep the song locked irrelevant and annoying.
It makes much more sense to individualize songs with a watermark, If they did this you could use your songs on any device in your house, but if they end up on the internet, you are the one responsible. This won't stop mass piracy, because nothing ever will, but it will accomplish what the record companies say they want right now, which is to stop people from taking purchased songs and just uploading them to millions of people, and it does this without annoying customers for no reason. - airmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@clickmyface
Shutting down illegal downloads websites, trackers, servers, etc... will not stop piracy. It might slow down their growth, but once a website is shutdown, another 10 replace it. The only option to make piracy go down is to offer a viable option. Right now, the illegal downloads are a much better option, but that doesnt mean it has to stay that way. People are much more confortable being on the right side of the law, but only if they get what they want. - daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"My favorite subscription, rhapsody, has less of a free trial (25 free songs), but it is probably the best option for usability and diversity of music."
Sounds great! Is there some quick and easy way I can put the music from my subscription on my iPod?
No? Ok fine, but is there at least some more cumbersome way I can do it without losing quality or filling up my iPod with massive sized files?
No?
I see...
Wake me up when the music industry is interoperable. - mrsteveman1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Jesus, are you guys retarded? Can you not load a torrent application and download every song on that is available on Itunes?
Does that mean DRM works?
And if you still say yes, you need to seriously redefine what the original goal was, and perhaps the definition of "works" as well. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Price is not the only factor. Legal is a quality piracy can never have naturally. OTOH legal and piracy can both compete on the points of quality and ease of use.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He's absolutely right: DRM doesn't work. It's been field tested for 30 years, and, let's face it, repeated failure is no guarantee for eventual success.
Streamed content works, though.
Maybe that is why RIAA is so opposed to web broadcasting services like Pandora? Just a thought. - Tippis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If you're not a pirate, you're not bothered by DRM."
Not quite. In fact, that's the exact *opposite* of the truth.
If you are a pirate, then, almost by definition, you are dealing with non-DRMed content, so DRM won't bother you. If you are not a pirate, then chances are that you will run into DRMed content, which means that, sooner or later, you will run into the limits DRM put on your use of that content. Those limits will bother you.
The only "dishonest" ones who might posibly be considered inconvenienced or bothered by DRM are the people who have to crack the latest protection scheme, but seeing as how this presents them with their favourite kind of intellectual challenge, it's not bothersome in the slightest. Quite the opposite: DRM is *fun* for them; it's recreation and entertainment.
All DRM has done so far is to create disincentives among non-pirates, and utterly and completely failed to bother pirates in any way whatsoever. Honest people are being punished and inconvenienced; pirates just go on with business as usual. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The ***** hasn't hit the fan wrt iTunes yet. I know of a few advocates who said 'I don't care about DRM as long as it works.' who are now running into the limitations of DRM like the restricted number of players and the fact they can't put them on that other MP3 player they bought. Slowly more and more people are running into this and suddenly realising what the ***** we are all talking about.
It's beyond dispute that DRM works short term. However it is a time bomb. iTunes just hasn't been running long enough to really expose people yet. Also the largest distributor of music has seen a great increase in usage since DRM came out. Having some migrate to iTunes when the bulk migrates to Pirate Bay is not a successful business model whatever figure you choose to throw out. 2B downloads, that's a week on BT surely. - magical1492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, it does affect us who are not pirates. Lets say we open up iTunes and buy an album. Too bad I can't play it on my Creative Zen Vision. Lets say I go somewhere else without iTunes. I have to download iTunes, authorize that computer, and THEN be able to listen to it. Besides, do you honestly think DRM makes it any harder to pirate music? If you can hear it, you can grab the sound and reconvert it to mp3.
I don't know about you, but it seems like the pirates are the only one not affected. - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7 franksands,
I thought they were offering both DRM'ed and non-DRM tracks? The consumer will have the option to pay more (and get better quality), or pay the going rate and get DRM. At this point the companies are not so much getting rid of DRM, as testing the waters to see if offering a different solution can be as (or more) profitable.
mirunit is partially right, their interests in maintaining control of the copyright for their works is going to lead to some form of rights management, because that management is seen as part of their business model. There are uses for DRM (digital signatures, protecting sensitive data, maintaining privacy) that go beyond the perception of abuses that some groups have put it to. As long as those other uses remain valid, DRM will still be a useful tool.
But just like any other technological tool, DRM does work (to some degree) when it is used in a limited
fashion such as the examples I gave above. Where DRM fails is when the content holders try to use it as an unlimited solution; like a hammer where every possible loss of copy control is seen as a nail.
Right now it looks like some of the media companies are getting clued in that DRM is not a magic bullet that they should apply to every situation, but the tech companies they are working with do understand that sometimes DRM is necessary. Hopefully they are moving to a better understanding of when it is neccessary, but that will take companies like EMI seeing a much greater profit from their non-DRMed efforts as an example of a better way of maintaining their business. - HungSquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"In the case of movies, a big driver of DRM adoption was the unwillingness of the industry to get out of the analog era. Movies are typically distributed to theaters on celluloid film, great big reels of it. It costs a lot to print and distribute those films to the cinemas who will display it."
Actually, most 'film' used nowadays is so-called "safety film"--essentially, very thin strips of polyester. Before that, it was nitrocellulose film (which had a nasty habit of combusting...hence the switch to polyester). It is no longer considered safe to run nitrocellulose film in projection booths, so the film labs don't distribute it anymore. Kind of hard to make a profit if fire marshals prohibit screening your product. :)
But yes, silly history lesson aside, distributing polyester prints is still ridiculously expensive and silly. Even sillier is the fact that equipping a booth to screen digital is _more_ expensive than paying for polyester prints. Sillier still is the fact that the assclowns at the MPAA feared satellite/digital distribution of their prints like the plague. Thanks to artificially inflated costs of screening digital, most people still see their films on polyester. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You're riled up over DRM because you can't pirate? Because that is the alleged function of DRM. To stop piracy. It doesn't work in the sense that it doesn't achieve the elimination of piracy. If it achieved that, RIAA wouldn't be suing kids, grannies and single moms all over the place.
Well, on second thought, they probably would, as that's part of their business model. But I digress.
Anyway, that's not why I don't like DRM. I'm perfectly able to pirate, have been since the very first floppy with a read error.
No, I dislike DRM because it penalizes me, as a legitimate customer, to the point that I buy stuff and _then_ pirate it to get an uncrippled version. Even music.
The question you need to ask yourself is this: How are World of Warcraft and Guild Wars protected from piracy? Piracy of those games is zero, even though PC game piracy is rampant, they've been out for three years, and are hugely popular?
*That's* the solution to piracy. Not DRM or gratuitous lawsuits.
And yes, I'm suggesting that that streaming the content should be extended also to movies and music. Yes, I realize there are problems to reaching this goal, but unlike using DRM to kill piracy, this goal can be achieved.
The RIAA wants services like Pandora shut down because they threaten RIAA's business model. Streaming content like Pandora does, you see, could actually completely eliminate piracy, and make sure that the artist gets paid for their songs. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Thanks for sharing that, I really care that you don't care.
- schind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I will admit that I am a pirate and that DRM is a non-factor for me. However, if I see a CD that I want in a store for 11$ as opposed to $19, i will buy it. the point is that people who want to buy music will do so and those that will pirate, will do so. DRM costs money , more money than it saves (Especially with all these recent legal battles). If the artists want a better return on their CD's, they need to get their record labels to lower the prices and follow the basic rules of economics.
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If DRM doesn't work, why is Macrovision worth 2.2BN? They've been doing copy protection longer than we've all been debating it, and it seems quite successfully.
DRM does work; you just have to understand the goal. It's not supposed to stop piracy but to limit it enough to be worth the investment. It's kind of like illegal counterfeiting of currency. The government cannot stop counterfeiting completely, but they do enough that the dollar is still worth something. They use special papers, printing presses, gold ribbons, etc to make the dollar harder to copy. People still do it, but not as bad as they would if you could simply hit print on a xerox machine.
DRM will never be 100% effective but that doesn't matter. It just needs to be good enough. As long as it's worth the cost of investment they'll keep making it. - radio1mike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am for one tired of DRM and restrictions.
A few months back, I downloaded Total Immersion Spanish from my library's website. The disclaimer said I could legally make one copy for use. I had planned to listen to this on the way to work. (My player does MP3 and WMA) Well, the WMAs were DRMed. Luckily, that DRM stripper for WMAs had just came out. So, I ripped, stripped and burned...
That's ironic, I have a legal copy and I have a car CD player that plays wma... And I can't do it... Howcomewhy?
So, I have to use an 'illegal' app? Wha?
Howcomewhy? - Flendon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@lukas88
You are missing the point. With DRM I have to buy a $200 player that plays one particular type of DRM. How is that cheaper than burning MP3s to a CD? And if I want to purchase from more than one company I have to buy a second player. If I buy an Ipod and when it wears out I decide I like the Zune better I have to buy all my music again! How is that cheaper?
What if I just prefer to use a CD? I work in the IT field where secure offices are common. I'm like to listen to music while I code. If I'm caught with a flash drive (Ipod), which can be sued to steal files, they have to scan the whole thing in detail and they would likely fire me to make an example. A burn once CD-R is no issue, but I guess I'm just not with the 21st century.
"Even with these systems, it is not hard to bypass the DRM. You can burn these songs onto CDs and keep them forever, long past your subscription."
The DMCA makes the act of bypassing the DRM illegal. So, since the RIAA has made it illegal either way, why not just use the cheapest method with the most convenient format? Hence why people are saying that DRM promotes piracy. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are some who pirate and always will of course but you don't think that many are attracted by the convenience of piracy that could be brought back to legal distribution if the quality and ease are increased. I find that hard to believe, convenience is more important in today's world. The key constraint is not the need to be cheap but the need to have *high quality* and have it *now*. If the RIAA idiots can achieve this without DRM then they will attract more customers.
- concertina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@EntropyFan
The problem with the owning versus renting analogy is illustrated by the record industries' treatment of CD sales. They claim they're only licensing the content to you (even if it's physically distributed), so you're not legally entitled to make copies or modify the content in any way. Yet if your CD is scratched or damaged in any way, and you try to get them to replace it (which you should be legally entitled to if you're just licensing it, right?), they'll either laugh in your face or claim that it's the vendor's problem. Of course the vendor, whose profit margins are obscenely slim (see tower records) has no legal responsibility to provide you with a new cd, so good luck with that.
My point? The record companies want it both ways. They want to license the music to you, and control every aspect of its existence. BUT they don't want to give you the freedom that should naturally come with licensing - replacement and transferability. They want you to double or triple pay if you want the same music in different file formats or on different devices, assuming their extra-special drm will even run on your machine. Note, these are uses that any reasonable person would see as legitimate. This is not pirating, or theft. This is fair use, and the big media companies hate it, because they can't sustain their expensive ways of life (ignoring their drastically lowered distribution costs for the moment) if they can't nickel and dime folks.
They treat their customers like children, and act surprised when they find their customer have ceased to purchase from them. They do not understand that trust has to enter the equation at some point, that customers have already engaged in this trust, and expect the same in return from them. Piracy is a social problem, not a technological problem.
There has to be a middle ground. Here's hoping EMI's non-drmed music sales point the industry in the right direction. - ghostlywind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The only thing i don't like about buying music off itunes is you can only authorize the songs 5 times even if it's on the same computer you bought it off of. Because of this i had to use qtfairuse to be able to play my nin songs. I wish they would make it so i can have unlimited authorization on my computer but only 5 on other computers.
- daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If you're not a pirate, you're not bothered by DRM."
LMFAO!
Man you crack me up. I'm assuming that you work for the RIAA or that you're trolling, because no sane person would say such an obviously stupid thing unless they had a vested interest or wanted to wind people up. - EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@mrsteveman1
When you rent a car, are you allowed to strip out the seats and put ones you like in it? how about get it painted?
No, your renting, and therefore restrictions apply. Same with the subscription services. It's not your music, and therefore you don't have the same rights with it that you would have if you owned it.
Secondly, subscription and ownership are not mutually exclusive. If you like a song, you can buy it (I'm old fashioned, I buy the CD)
One of the biggest problems with DRM is it treats stuff you own like stuff you rent.
Another is the willful ignorance of people. They will understand the car example above, then not understand that when they borrow someone else's property (from a library, from a subscription service, ect) they can't treat it like it was their own. - jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I once bought a CD, but I couldnt rip it to put in my mp3 player. So I downloaded it off bittorrent preripped.
I could have then brought the cd back, but I didnt. - daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3""Even sillier is the fact that equipping a booth to screen digital is _more_ expensive than paying for polyester prints"
Why. Any old PC has the power to handle it."
Um. No. Maybe you're confusing the resolution needed to watch a movie in the cinema with that of watching a movie on your home projector. It's Not The Same. -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is