About DRM protected music that you have purchased

[Mike Anderson]

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]

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...ion-viral-drm/

and a web link to the contrary...
http://gadgets.netscape.com/story/20...ral-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]

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]

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]

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/c...122_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]

...
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]

Not legal?
DRM's an assult on you as a consumer!

[spasticteapot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

kneqo...where are you?

[noddin0ff]

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]

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!