About DRM protected music that you have purchased [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : About DRM protected music that you have purchased



Snoooop
11-20-2006, 06:16 AM
most of people that buy legally music on music sites as MusicMatch,Napster,Yahoomusic,MSNmusic etc. and haven't all right on it are disappointed)

I've found one interestnig sites that help's me to forget about DRM protection
______________________________________________
NO MORE DRM (http://www.nomoredrm.com)

Feanor
11-20-2006, 06:58 AM
most of people that buy legally music on music sites as MusicMatch,Napster,Yahoomusic,MSNmusic etc. and haven't all right on it are disappointed)

I've found one interestnig sites that help's me to forget about DRM protection
______________________________________________
NO MORE DRM (http://www.nomoredrm.com)

I don't have lot of DRM'd files, but I find the issue irksome anyway.

Is it legal in the US or elsewhere to subvert DRM protection? What is the current state of the law? I suspect it is against the law to defeat this protection -- at least in some jurisdictions. What are the consequences for a person breaking the law?

The ethical questions:

Should we care whether creators and producers of content are properly rewarded for their work? What is proper reward, for that matter?
Making a copy of a file for backup and other conceivable purposes isn't necessarily to deprive the creators/producers of their rightful due. Hence should we not defeat DRM just because it's against the law? Should citizens of a democracy always to obey the law regardless of whether it is seems wholely just or flawed?Remeber that in all countries, including democracies, the power and influential attempt to have laws to be passed that a biased in their favor. The more disproportionate the bias written into the laws, the less the laws are respected by the less rest of the population.

Snoooop
11-21-2006, 03:50 AM
Soundtaxi convert DRM protected music files legally. It just rerecord music file!

noddin0ff
11-21-2006, 05:33 AM
Soundtaxi not legal in the US. It is possibly legal in the Ukraine where Soundtaxi is sold. Anything that defeats DRM is not legal in the US.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=19363&highlight=soundtaxi

Snoooop
11-21-2006, 05:52 AM
Soundtaxi not legal in the US. It is possibly legal in the Ukraine where Soundtaxi is sold. Anything that defeats DRM is not legal in the US.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=19363&highlight=soundtaxi

Good,then tell me what program can make same that can soundtaxi and which is legal in America??? tunebite??? anything else

Feanor
11-21-2006, 08:05 AM
Good,then tell me what program can make same that can soundtaxi and which is legal in America??? tunebite??? anything else

It is illegal, State-side, to defeat or remove DRM by any means whatsoever, viz. you've got to live with DRM.

Snoooop
11-22-2006, 04:49 AM
Well,it is your personal position, there are people which use this program and it is a lot of them, believe. This program exists also it exists absolutely legally.I am assured that there will be people which will estimate to the full programs of the same type

SlumpBuster
11-22-2006, 06:19 AM
Well,it is your personal position

Actually, the illegality of programs used to defeat DRM is more than just a "personal position." It is also the position of the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, the FBI, the US Customs, the US Postmaster, and the US Attorney General.

Take your spam elsewhere.

SlumpBuster
11-22-2006, 06:24 AM
I just clicked the link. It says "DRM Removal Software" rflmao! Can you get more illegal?

Mike Anderson
11-22-2006, 01:05 PM
you've got to live with DRM.

Unless you simply refuse to buy it in the first place, which is precisely what I do.

I encourage everyone else to do the same.

nightflier
11-22-2006, 04:36 PM
Actually, the illegality of programs used to defeat DRM is more than just a "personal position." It is also the position of the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, the FBI, the US Customs, the US Postmaster, and the US Attorney General. Take your spam elsewhere.

If a law is unjust, isn't it our patriotic duty to disobbey it? Additionally, haven't "the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, and the FBI" broken quite a few laws in the last decade (from extarordinary rendition to illegal wiretaps to starting wars)? What makes that OK, but ripping a legally owned music track not OK? The laws that you refer to are only enforceable in this country because the RIAA had the money to buy off the votes to get the DMCA passed in the first place. This did not happen to the same degree in other countries. If the whole world is less beholden to the RIAA, why do we feel so self-righteous to claim that our laws trump theirs? Maybe the DMCA went too far.

For example, if you were arrested for charging a cover charge at the door to watch the pay-per-view Tyson fight on your new 60" plasma tv, should you serve the maximum US jail sentence or be made to just pay a small fine as they do in France? If it was the next decade of your life on the line, I'm sure you'd opt for the French solution, regardless of what you may think of their cheese. And this becomes pretty serious when your crime is equated to terrorism. Maybe we should interrogate you filthy bootleggers by waterboarding to see who else might be involved. Who knows, we could find out all kinds of other information like who was speeding on the way home last night, who "borrowed" a couple of pens from the office, and who was involved in the office pool before the big game last week. Pretty soon, we'll be arresting and waterboarding all you filthy criminals.

Oh, so you don't do that, huh? Well what if it was your 15 yr. old daughter who did? You'd still be on the hook for it. There is a reason why we value our civil liberties, fair use, and privacy in our homes. Sometimes it is to bend the law to make life a little more bearable. Just like we don't want to know what you do in your bedroom, we also don't want to know if it involves a little bootlegged music. If no one gets hurt, why do we equate such crimes with much more heinous ones?

Snoop was careful to refer specifically to "people that buy legal music." For most of us who abide by the law most of the time, DRM is a pain-in-the-a**, and only makes the enjoyment of music that much harder. To proclaim that one does not partake in crime as loosely defined as in the DMCA, is like mounting a slingshot on the porch of a glass house. To be satisfied that the DMCA is the law of the land is just a convenience of priviledge and wealth. If we're going to move the debate from a "personal issue" to a universal issue, then why stop at the borders of the US?

SlumpBuster
11-22-2006, 08:49 PM
If a law is unjust, isn't it our patriotic duty to disobbey it?
Um, no. We are a country of laws, not men.


Additionally, haven't "the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, and the FBI" broken quite a few laws in the last decade (from extarordinary rendition to illegal wiretaps to starting wars)?
Um, irrelevant. We're talking about music copyrights.


What makes that OK,
Um, never said it was.


but ripping a legally owned music track not OK?
Um, it's against the law to defeat DRM.


The laws that you refer to are only enforceable in this country because
the RIAA had the money to buy off the votes to get the DMCA passed in the first place.
Um, no, the DMCA was subjected to the legislative process.


This did not happen to the same degree in other countries. If the whole world is less beholden to the RIAA, why do we feel so self-righteous to claim that our laws trump theirs?
Um, I don't claim our laws trump theirs. However our laws do apply here.


Maybe the DMCA went too far.
Um, probably.


For example, if you were arrested for charging a cover charge at the door to watch the pay-per-view Tyson fight on your new 60" plasma tv, should you serve the maximum US jail sentence or be made to just pay a small fine as they do in France? If it was the next decade of your life on the line, I'm sure you'd opt for the French solution, regardless of what you may think of their cheese. And this becomes pretty serious when your crime is equated to terrorism. Maybe we should interrogate you filthy bootleggers by waterboarding to see who else might be involved. Who knows, we could find out all kinds of other information like who was speeding on the way home last night, who "borrowed" a couple of pens from the office, and who was involved in the office pool before the big game last week. Pretty soon, we'll be arresting and waterboarding all you filthy criminals.
Um, what?



Oh, so you don't do that, huh? Well what if it was your 15 yr. old daughter who did? You'd still be on the hook for it. There is a reason why we value our civil liberties, fair use, and privacy in our homes. Sometimes it is to bend the law to make life a little more bearable. Just like we don't want to know what you do in your bedroom, we also don't want to know if it involves a little bootlegged music. If no one gets hurt, why do we equate such crimes with much more heinous ones?
Um, intellectual property rights are a constitutional rights too.


Snoop was careful to refer specifically to "people that buy legal music." For most of us who abide by the law most of the time, DRM is a pain-in-the-a**, and only makes the enjoyment of music that much harder. To proclaim that one does not partake in crime as loosely defined as in the DMCA, is like mounting a slingshot on the porch of a glass house. If we're going to move the debate from a "personal issue" to a universal issue, then why stop at the borders of the US?
Um, Snoop is a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine to defeat DRM. I'm willing to bet Snoop is that antithesis of "careful" and I don't think he gives a crap if the music was bought legally or not. Whether or not the program is illegal is not just a matter of personal opinion. Any reasonable person would understand that is is designed to defeat DRM. That is illegal. The fact that you don't like that it is illegal does not change the fact that it is.


To be satisfied that the DMCA is the law of the land is just a convenience of priviledge and wealth.

Finally, um, no. Actually, picking and choosing which laws you will follow and which laws you won't premised upon what is most beneficial to you is "a convenience of priviledge and wealth."

nightflier
11-27-2006, 02:51 PM
Slump,

Um, with all due respect, laws that are unfair should be resisted. If our founding fathers had been as law-abiding as you, we would still be paying taxes to a queen in England.

And for the record, I have no idea whether Snoop is "a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine," but that is a harsh accusation.

Mike Anderson
11-27-2006, 04:43 PM
Um, intellectual property rights are a constitutional rights too.

Only as against takings by a state actor. This has nothing to do with private parties stealing intellectual property.

spasticteapot
11-27-2006, 08:37 PM
I say fvck the audio industry.

I've lived in nashville, and have seen big-shots in $50,000 SUVs cut off little old ladies with station wagons on the freeway who, coincidentally, had about six kids in the car with her.

I've met the people who benifit - the people who work for Sony/BMG, Virgin, and the RIAA. Slimy little creeplings, the lot of them.

And now, if you'll pardon me, I'll go off to the public library to rip their CD collection to FLAC on my laptop.

Mmmm.....lossless goodness!

SlumpBuster
11-27-2006, 08:44 PM
Slump,

Um, with all due respect, laws that are unfair should be resisted. If our founding fathers had been as law-abiding as you, we would still be paying taxes to a queen in England.

And for the record, I have no idea whether Snoop is "a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine," but that is a harsh accusation.

The founding fathers were railing against a monarchy and a parliment in which they had no representation. Your talking about disagreeing with properly enacted legislation. No revolution is necessary; just vote instead.

As for the OP Snoop being a spammer hawking a program out of Ukraine, click the link. It is quite clearly a program from ukraine. OP's first post was about said program. Smoke + Fire = Spam.

SlumpBuster
11-27-2006, 08:47 PM
Only as against takings by a state actor. This has nothing to do with private parties stealing intellectual property.

There is more to the Constitution then the Amendments. Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorized the legislature "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." That is the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act and by extention the DMCA.

Mike Anderson
11-27-2006, 10:00 PM
There is more to the Constitution then the Amendments. Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorized the legislature "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." That is the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act and by extention the DMCA.

All that does is give Congress the jurisdiction to legislate it; that does NOT elevate intellectual property rights to the status of a "constitutional right" held by individuals as against private parties. That's a critical distinction.

For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow completely rescinding the Copyright Act, or the DMCA. By contrast, it could NOT pass a law allowing for takings of property by a state actor in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because that would violate individuals' constitutional rights.

spasticteapot
11-27-2006, 11:50 PM
The DMCA has passed into the realm of horrendous commercial abuse. I bought the bleeping music; I want to play the bleeping music - on my iRiver, not a turntable.

Snoooop
11-28-2006, 04:37 AM
We've discussed the pitfalls of DRM and copy protection many times, generally from the angle of the problems it creates for businesses, and how it does nothing to stop piracy, but just creates hassles for users and ultimately harms content companies by holding down sales. Many of these issues are easily lost on a lot of consumers, who tend to not really care, as long as their stuff works. However, the mainstream media is starting to pay closer attention to these issues, and the New York Times today uses the launch of the Microsoft Zune to explain to the average person what DRM means to them: that music they've bought from one service that works with one device may not work if they get a different brand of device. This sort of lock-in ultimately holds back the market by distorting competition: if users can't switch brands of music players without losing access to music they've purchased, they're much less likely to switch. This is why iTunes as a loss leader works for Apple -- every song a user buys from the iTunes Music Store is another reason for them not to switch away from the iPod. This really isn't good for anybody other than Apple. It certainly doesn't do anything to help users, and it does little for record labels, either. Their continued insistence on using pointless, ineffective copy protection and DRM continues to shoot themselves in the foot by holding back the market. Perhaps as more members of the general public understand how copy protection impacts them, they'll begin voting with their wallets and affecting some change.

Regards

Geoffcin
11-28-2006, 07:57 AM
All that does is give Congress the jurisdiction to legislate it; that does NOT elevate intellectual property rights to the status of a "constitutional right" held by individuals as against private parties. That's a critical distinction.

For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow completely rescinding the Copyright Act, or the DMCA. By contrast, it could NOT pass a law allowing for takings of property by a state actor in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because that would violate individuals' constitutional rights.

But it would have to be an amendment to the constitution recending the Fifth Amendment,
AND it would have to be ratified by a 38 state majority for it to become law. That being said, the sad fact is that lately the powers that be have walked all over the Constitution, some of them in our goverment even calling it "that damn piece of paper!" (it's actually on parchment)

noddin0ff
11-28-2006, 08:12 AM
Hmmm. Snoooop seems to have taken a crash course in grammar and spelling....

If you don't like DRM music DON'T BUY IT. How could this be made any simpler? You wanna overthrow the RIAA? Vote with your CA$$ not with your A$$.

It's not like anyone is pulling something over on you, the terms of the sale regarding DRM music are spelled out for you. It has, is and always will be buyer beware. You want more flexibility with your music, buy the CD. Buy it used even. Check it out from you local library and maybe even read a book while you're there. Your taxes likely paid for the library anyway, why not use it?

AND NOTE: It is not illegal to copy music. It is illegal to defeat DRM.

If you don't like the laws of your land you can either petition your representatives, move, or suck it up. I don't like having to wear a helmet when I ride my bike but it's the law. I can live with it. I don't like DRM, I think the DCMA is idiotic, but that's the law. Maybe everyone should go dump their iPods into the Boston harbor?

Mike Anderson
11-28-2006, 08:28 AM
Maybe everyone should go dump their iPods into the Boston harbor?

For the kajillionth time, you can use plain old MP3s on your iPods (as well as many other non-DRM formats) - you do NOT have to buy music from the Apple music store to use an iPod.

I have about 8,000 songs on my iPod and not one of them is DRM'd. Why people persist in equating the iPod with DRM is beyond me...

noddin0ff
11-28-2006, 08:45 AM
Well, I guess my sarcasm generator was miscallibrated...

I, like Mike, have an iPod and have never purchased music from the iStore.

Go throw your DRM protected music in the harbor. Or maybe even throw that new Zune in the Harbor since is will attach DRM to any non-DRM'd file that you share with your friends wirelessly...

nightflier
11-28-2006, 09:38 AM
...Or maybe even throw that new Zune in the Harbor since is will attach DRM to any non-DRM'd file that you share with your friends wirelessly...

So what you're saying is that if I have a file, even one I created myself specifically as an open source file, Microsnot will still infect it with a DRM virus? (yes, I'm intentionally using the analogy). Someone please explain how this is legal.

Mike Anderson
11-28-2006, 10:37 AM
Well, I guess my sarcasm generator was miscallibrated...

Sorry noddin0ff, but other people are constantly repeating this inaccuracy, in all sincerity. It's an extremely common misconception. Even "professional" journalists do it by way of criticizing the iPod, and I always find it highly irritating. If I didn't know better, I'd swear it was a conspiracy.

noddin0ff
11-28-2006, 12:04 PM
So what you're saying is that if I have a file, even one I created myself specifically as an open source file, Microsnot will still infect it with a DRM virus? (yes, I'm intentionally using the analogy). Someone please explain how this is legal.

You're not the only one using the viral analogy....
http://www.medialoper.com/hot-topics/music/zunes-big-innovation-viral-drm/

and a web link to the contrary...
http://gadgets.netscape.com/story/2006/09/20/zunes-drm-not-viral-after-all/

No offense taken, Mike. I know where you stand and have been annoyed about the same issue regarding the press (and had the same conspiracy theories).

nightflier
11-29-2006, 10:50 AM
It's not like anyone is pulling something over on you, the terms of the sale regarding DRM music are spelled out for you. It has, is and always will be buyer beware. You want more flexibility with your music, buy the CD.

Nod, Slump,

That's just the problem, CDs are going away. Pretty soon, the only way to buy music will be via a download (Tower Records ring a bell?). What so many of us are so fed up about is that the rights we had over our music with CDs (and LPs) are not the same rights we have with downloaded music.

The Zune DRM-attaching nonsense is a case in point. It's as if someone attached a tracker to your CDs and prevented them from playing more than three times outside of your own home. If you're not pi$$ed off about these changes, than you have the money to pay for the extra expense, and make the moguls richer. At what point will you care?

noddin0ff
11-29-2006, 12:13 PM
I don't think MP3's hurt Tower so much as Amazon.com and illegal file sharing. I didn't read the Tower thread but I know a lot of the big stores were near college markets. I know I taped a lot of music in college and bought a lot of CD's too. But 1000s of kids with computers could only spell the downfall of a CD megastore. I highly doubt that legal downloading killed Tower.

And as much as I like to be able to copy CD's, I'd still buy my music if it were only availably on a protected physical medium like SACD as long as it was high-res. I really don't want to see this lease-your-music-with-a-monthly-fee model catch on. I think that could kill music. But for me, I don't listen to too much in the mainstream, the only way I get to hear it when I want, how I want is to buy the CD. But I do think Apple's copy protection scheme is very reasonable. You can burn to CD several times. You can authorize multiple computers to play the file. You can copy the files from hard drive to hard drive to make unlimited backups. If the resolution was CD quality I'd be happy at that price.

But, as I've said before, you're claiming 'rights' you never had in the first place. People have a right to sell music for profit in whatever form other people will buy it in. No one is mis-representing the product at the time of sale. And I don't think anyone has a God given right to free music, nice though that would be.

CD's are still for sale. They may be phased out, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. If more people bought CD's less people would have worries.

SlumpBuster
11-29-2006, 12:31 PM
Sorry for the long response, but I got on a roll.


Nod, Slump,

That's just the problem, CDs are going away.
I don't know that that is necessarily going to happen, however, I might be wrong. Unlike cassettes, CD are a portable hi-rez format and thus likely to have much more staying power. Just as boomers still listen to their LPs and 45s, Gen-X (i.e. people like me) will be using and buying CDs for at least a couple more decades.


At what point will you care?

I don't think its that we don't care. Rather, I think both of us are proposing a market solution: if you don't like it, don't buy it and the market will respond. Frankly, I do care, so I stopped buying CDs and I stopped downloading music after Napster got shut down.

But, to be pissed about DRM is to miss the point about what you should really be concerned about, the Long Slow Death of Rock Music, or the fact that there is less and less good music to buy, rather than what you can and can't do with the music once you buy it.

Accordingly, these are the things I am pissed about before DRM:

1. 1996 Telecommunications Act - This is the granddaddy that started it all. This is the act that essentially deregulated ownership of broadcast outlets. Monopolies and Duopolies are the flavor of the day in many markets now. In 1989, 33 different singles topped the Bill Board Hot 100 in the 52 week year. In 2005, 9 different singles topped the Hot 100 in the 52 week year. More songs went to number one in 1989 than in 2003, 2004 and 2005 combined.


2. The Death of Rock Radio - Many markets no longer have a rock radio format thanks to the 1996 Telecom Act. This kills the chance for rock artists to develop. Regardless of anyones likes or dislikes of rock music, it undeniably forms the backbone of modern popular music. Rock music was the first genre that separated "what the kids were listenitng to" from what "the parents were listening to." Prior to the post-war rise of rock and roll, kids and parents listened to the same popular artists. Rock forms the "us" vs. "them" foundation of modern pop music. It guarentees that I will never like My Chemical Romance like my 15 year old niece does; and she will never like Oasis like I do; and I will never like the Beatles like my mother does. American Idol on the otherhand is premised upon all three age groupes liking something about Clay Aiken. I went to some top 40 concert last summer with like Nelly, Ciara, ect. and there were groups of 3 generations all over the place. On the other hand, nobody takes their grandma or their kids to a Tool concert.

3. The continued perpetuation of racial stereotypes by the Music Industry- This one's controversial. To paraphrase Ice-T "Rock and Roll is black music." Some people criticize rock and roll and jazz as having been misappropriated or stolen by white artists. Critics often cite Pat Boone's white bread Little Richard covers or Elvis's sanitized version of "Hound Dog" as examples. I disagree. I think rock and roll and jazz are universal art forms that are not secondary to someone's ethnicty.
However, hip-hop is an art form that the industry has generally denied to white artists. White hip-hop artists end up being exceptions (Emimem), sideshows (ICP), also rans (Rap Rock), or genre hoppers (Kid Rock).
It's a crying shame that "great hip-hop that could have been" has been denied to fans because the industry does not want to expand the definition of what a hip-hop artist looks like. Given that hip-hop has long ecliped rock as the dominant commercial genre, the industry owes it to the fans and itself to be more inclusive in its artist development and marketing. Good hip hop should not be denied simply because the artist is white, or Indian, or Chinese, or Latino.
One of the radio stations in my area (and I assume there's one in every market) has the tag line "All of today's best hits, without the rap." The disdain is apparent when the deejay says "rap." To which I respond, "Oops, you're racist." I don't hear Adult Contemp. satation adverting "Today's best hits, without all the crunchy guitars." No, the industry just has to keep reminding you that rap is for black artists only.

4. Music Industry Consolidtion: Around the time of the 1996 Telecom Act, the music industry went through a massive consolidation. Lables were closed down wholesale and the artist rosters were gutted without remorse. Gold records were no longer the goal, platinum records were required to keep the companies in the black. At the time, the music press was predicting that this was the worst thing to happen to pop music. I remember Kurt Loder going into seizures about how this would be death of music as we new it. I think he was right. Suits managing the music biz is a bad idea. Combine that with lack of radio outlets and you have records by Paris Hilton, K-Fed, and that chick from the Soprano's wasting space. Something rings hollow when I hear a radio dejay talk about how you would never catch them playing Hilton's record just before they go into the new Pussy Cat Dolls joint.

5. The Myth that Downloading Killed the Industry: The industry was on its way down before Napster. It has failed to adopt almost any workable model. You can't download without a credit card. Kids don't have credit cards. So, they go to Best Buy to buy a debit card with cash, and walk past a rack of CDs. How does that make sense?
Also, I've never been much for downloading since Napster got shut down and the RIAA started suing little girls. "F@ck that noise." Also, I can't get past the lack of a physical tangible thing.

So, did I pick up arms and revolt? or ignore the law and do as I please? No, I stopped buying major lable CDs. The last straw for me was Sony's Rootkit fiasco last year. http://businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051122_343542.htm
I got one of the disks with the rootkit on it. Thankfully the story blew up before I ripped it on any computer, but what if I had put it on a work computer? How am I supposed to explain that? "Yeah, the reason we've been shut down the last couple days is because I needed a DMB fix."

So what do I buy instead. LPs, independant lable CDs, CDs at the Merch Table at concerts, and only the occasional major lable. Its somewhat easy for me, because there is not alot that I want that is for sale at Target or BestBuy. But for most of my life I was a very good customer of the industry. Every friday afternoon since I was 15 was spent going to the record store for the new releases. Not so much these days. I still go every weekend, but I now I end up with a stack of LPs and used CDs rather than the hottest new releases.

The more people that stop buying the crap forced on them, the more quickly the industry will respond. K-fed can't tour if he only moves 3000 copies, and DRM can't survive if no one buys it. Don't believe me? Go try and buy a PSP movie at Target this weekend. You can't because they have been removed from the shelves for lack of sales. Artists have already begun to respond. I can still get all my favorite new releases, they are probably just on the bands new indie lable since they got dropped by the major for only moving 130,000 units of the last release.

Anyway, there ya go.

Feanor
11-29-2006, 05:01 PM
...
I don't know that that is necessarily going to happen, however, I might be wrong. Unlike cassettes, CD are a portable hi-rez format and thus likely to have much more staying power. Just as boomers still listen to their LPs and 45s, Gen-X (i.e. people like me) will be using and buying CDs for at least a couple more decades.
...
Anyway, there ya go.

I've been reading Grammophone's Awards 2006 issue. You'd never suspect that classical music was dead, CDs were on their way out -- or SACDs a flash in the pan for that matter. And as for racism, well, you'd never guess that classical was "dead white men's" music either.

Griffinplay
11-30-2006, 07:37 AM
Not legal?
DRM's an assult on you as a consumer! :(

spasticteapot
11-30-2006, 10:14 PM
Not legal?
DRM's an assult on you as a consumer! :(

Yah.

I don't buy music, and laugh as I see the industry go down the tubes.

Except bands I really like - and they're usually indy, anyways.

noddin0ff
12-08-2006, 07:44 AM
It does seem unfair... you paid for those songs and now you can't play them outside of the special environment. tunebite is the same tool like Sound Taxi. If it is illegal, dvd ripper software should not be sold in US.

You were not able to play them outside of the 'special environment' when you purchased them. If you have half a brain you would know that when you purchased the music. When you purchase you agree to certain limitations, one being that you do not defeat the DRM. You purchased them fairly. It would be unfair to back out on your agreement.

FYI, DVD ripper software that defeats the DVD encryption is not legally sold in the US either.

Geoffcin
12-08-2006, 08:13 AM
Please don't jump all over newbies. he's allowed to post his opinion here no matter how much brain you think he has.

nightflier
12-10-2006, 11:28 AM
You were not able to play them outside of the 'special environment' when you purchased them. If you have half a brain you would know that when you purchased the music. When you purchase you agree to certain limitations, one being that you do not defeat the DRM. You purchased them fairly. It would be unfair to back out on your agreement.

FYI, DVD ripper software that defeats the DVD encryption is not legally sold in the US either.

This argument assumes that the rights one has over downloaded music are the same as the rights over CDs & LPs. This is simply false. Our rights over the music have changed, yet everybody is trying to convince us that they haven't. Bottom line, we're paying the same for a whole lot less.

And CDs are going away. Just look at how online stores are reducing their inventory and replacing it with video and other consumables. The price-point of a CD $16-20 (+tax & shipping) just isn't worth it for many consumers. What is galling is that a new medium, with no packaging, lowered quality, added restrictions to playability & distribution, and the need to purchase a blank CD and burn it just to get the same functionality, is somehow the replacement! Sorry if I'm upset that my "choice" to vote with my "CA$$" is going away.

And another point that everybody seems to be missing is that Napster and all the other P2P distribution mediums had one advantage specifically because the music was free: unlimmitted selection. That is what all the rage was about. The only you'll get that from iTunes or any of the others is if they become the sole distributor. Is that what everyone wants?

Sorry, but yes, I am pissed that my choices are going away. And I am also annoyed that people try to defend this as good business and the unstoppable evolution of market capitalism. If we all stand by and let this inequity continue because we just happen to be able to pay for it now, then I can garantee you that some day we won't. Eventually they will piss you off too.

Geoffcin
12-10-2006, 01:52 PM
This argument assumes that the rights one has over downloaded music are the same as the rights over CDs & LPs. This is simply false. Our rights over the music have changed, yet everybody is trying to convince us that they haven't. Bottom line, we're paying the same for a whole lot less.

If the powers that be get thier way, the only way you'll be listening to music is on a pay-per-use basis.

noddin0ff
12-10-2006, 06:57 PM
Please don't jump all over newbies. he's allowed to post his opinion here no matter how much brain you think he has.

Single post. Link to tunebite. Attempt to cloud the issue of legality. SPAM.

IF s/he is a newbie with a well intentioned first post. I await a second post stating as such. In the event of such post, I will humbly apologize. I like and welcome well intentioned newbies. Apology is waiting.

noddin0ff
12-10-2006, 07:09 PM
This argument assumes that the rights one has over downloaded music are the same as the rights over CDs & LPs. This is simply false.
Yes. It is false. Absolutely false. The rights are most certainly different. When you buy DRM music you agree to restrict your rights as per a clearly stated terms of purchase.


What is galling is that a new medium, with no packaging, lowered quality, added restrictions to playability & distribution, and the need to purchase a blank CD and burn it just to get the same functionality, is somehow the replacement! Sorry if I'm upset that my "choice" to vote with my "CA$$" is going away.
Um, its your right NOT to buy it. But yes, I hope CD's don't go away. I don't like the download options. That's why I don't buy them.


And another point that everybody seems to be missing is that Napster and all the other P2P distribution mediums had one advantage specifically because the music was free: unlimmitted selection. That is what all the rage was about. The only you'll get that from iTunes or any of the others is if they become the sole distributor. Is that what everyone wants?The advantage was that it was unlimited free pirated music (much of which was low quality).


Sorry, but yes, I am pissed that my choices are going away. And I am also annoyed that people try to defend this as good business and the unstoppable evolution of market capitalism. If we all stand by and let this inequity continue because we just happen to be able to pay for it now, then I can garantee you that some day we won't. Eventually they will piss you off too.I don't like the direction it's going either but I don't think this creates a right to steal music or defeat DRM.

nightflier
12-12-2006, 01:04 PM
I don't like the direction it's going either but I don't think this creates a right to steal music or defeat DRM.

It does give one the impetus to protest. Napster was a form of protest. In hindsight, perhaps not the best one, but it made a point about selection that the music industry and the home electronics industry just can't address. The only option is for one company (iTunes?) to own and distribute it all. I'm not comfortable with that.

Yes, the music was free on Napster, but I think the unlimmitted selection was what made it most attractive.

noddin0ff
12-13-2006, 06:47 AM
kneqo...where are you?

noddin0ff
12-13-2006, 10:18 AM
It does give one the impetus to protest. Napster was a form of protest. In hindsight, perhaps not the best one, but it made a point about selection that the music industry and the home electronics industry just can't address. The only option is for one company (iTunes?) to own and distribute it all. I'm not comfortable with that.

Yes, the music was free on Napster, but I think the unlimmitted selection was what made it most attractive.

I guess that's the source of our longstanding philosophical disagreement. I just don't buy the argument that Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ou la mort! is what’s driving music piracy. It’s not protest that makes people download.

Sure, I can see developing a free filesharing platform as a political statement--decentralization; the people own the info, no central authority. But, the utopian use for this technology is to promote access and distribution of information and ideas for social progress. It is not to create free unrestricted access to licensed, copyrighted, or protected works so everyone can download something of commercial value without paying for it.

Technology certainly leapfrogged the media peddlers. If the streets were filled with $1 bills, I think most people would pick them up even if they knew deep down inside they probably belonged to someone else. After all, how bad could it be to pick up $1 if there are so many out there and everyone else is doing it…no one’s going to get in trouble for picking up a $1 bill. That’s what technology did to music and that’s what most people are thinking when they download.

In the digital age, unless all musicians want to work for free, get all their income from touring, or never produce albums, DRM is going to be necessary in order to collect the revenues to maintain the infrastructure to promote music. If everyone had kept buying CD’s we wouldn’t have had to go there.

My personal utopian vision is for every band to adopt a model of open source DRM so they can all control their music however they want. Let the web promote them, skip ‘The Man’ entirely. Sell downloads direct to the people who want them.

either that or go back to putting everything on vinyl....

basite
12-13-2006, 12:28 PM
just play it and record it again (record the wave output on your pc), then your music is drm-less, and i don't think they can call that illegal,
but,

why buy drm music?
get out of your chair, go to your door, now open it, what you see now is the open real world, and then go to a music shop, and buy an actual cd, see, it wasn't too difficult. now repeat that progress for all your other cd's that you want.

STOP BUYING MP3's!