Your stance on drm?

[mamamia88]

I'm split 50/50 on one hand artists and movie companines want to protect themselves from pirates but on the other hand it drives people to piracy. I would love to build a rig with a huge hdd and rip all my movies onto it but copy protection is such a pain nowadays it's just easier to put the disc in the drive. but imagine a world where drm didn't exist and once you buy something from itunes you could put it on a flash drive and play it on any device that supports that format. how awesome would that be. but alas assholes who are too cheap to buy content have ruined it for all of us

[EarthMind]

Well, you can keep pointing your finger to certain people or start realising that DRM will always exist regardless of whether there are pirates or not. These companies even try to keep you from sharing your media with friends/family and if this was a communist-like regime they would even try to get you shot for sharing your game or movie with a friend too much.

[pwnst*r]

Well, you can keep pointing your finger to certain people or start realising that DRM will always exist regardless of whether there are pirates or not. These companies even try to keep you from sharing your media with friends/family and if this was a communist-like regime they would even try to get you shot for sharing your game or movie with a friend too much.

Communism.

Lol.

[beetleman64]

You can argue on either side of DRM. On the one hand, it's important to combat piracy and ensure that record/movie/game makers get their money, but then it's equally important that we respect people's freedom.

That said, it's important that DRM doesn't get out of hand, such as with the proposed BBC DRM.

[undecim]

DRM only affects paying customers. That's why I'm a pirate: everything I get is DRM-free.

Seriously, I pay every month for a torrent proxy. I would be giving that money to the music and movie companies if it weren't for their DRM and horrible business practices.

[sgosnell]

I have never bought anything with DRM, and never will. I don't mind paying for music, but I refuse to pay for music that I can play on only one device. Companies which incorporate DRM into their products can go pound sand, for all I care, because I will never buy any of their products. I refuse to buy any Apple product, and probably always will, because of the DRM in iTunes music. Just because they eventually took it out doesn't change my opinion, and I will not buy an iAnything.

[pwnst*r]

...because of the DRM in iTunes music. Just because they eventually took it out doesn't change my opinion

:confused:

[mamamia88]

amazon imo has higher quality music imo. how is ubuntu music store? i can save a whole 22 cents with each song

[babybean]

I don't think DRM is the solution, effectively they are decreasing the quality of service, and it doesn't really stop piracy. I think it would be better if the companies spent the time and effort ensuring that the content is some how better than the pirated stuff.
2 Examples, I got a bluray film, and assassins creed. The bluray came complete with DVD, extra content and even a free download of the film. I would have no problem buying another film like that (proprietary sony stuff I know I know :(.) Now some DLC came out for assassins creed, but it has DRM which only allows you to play if you are online. There is no way I will be paying for that. Especially when some pirate group have released it without the DRM.

And yeah, I want to try the ubuntu 1 music store out once my itunes voucher runs out:lolflag:.

[Madspyman]

DRM is an insult to paying consumers. It's a mark of distrust towards everyone, and is easily circumvented by the people who aren't to be trusted. DRM doesn't work.

[dragos240]

If there is a solution to piracy, I do not know it. But DRM is not the answer. People have found ways around DRM, and people will continue to figure out ways around it.

[jerenept]

where there's a will there's a way...

[Spike-X]

DRM has done absolutely nothing (Good God y'all!) to stop large-scale piracy. The only thing it does is prevent paying customers, the ones doing the right thing, from getting full fair use of the products they pay for, while treating them like a potential thief.

[jerenept]

Everybody is a potential thief... MAFIAA looks around in fear.... and tpb (http://www.thepiratebay.org) attacks their closed, controlled way of life! they scream in fear and call MPEG (http://www.mpeg.org) to help them!!

[Superkoop]

DRM has done absolutely nothing (Good God y'all!)
lol

Piracy is just as strong as ever, I know, I've pirated things and it's frigin easy. DRM is just obnoxious, and it's easy to circumvent, it's actually the primary reason I do not purchase mainstream music. I purchase music from bands I know, if I go to a concert, and I like the concert/musicians enough I will purchase an album from them.
I don't like to give all of my money to old guys who sit behind a desk, so I give it to the bands directly. And I don't feel like supporting bands that make a buttload of money anyways, they have enough, and I don't care enough to listen to their music.

DRM simply makes it obnoxious when I actually feel like purchasing things. I buy something, and I like to do what I want with what I bought. When I buy things from bands I know, I can listen to my music uninterrupted from silly DRM.

I no longer pirate music, and I've deleted everything that I've pirated throughout the years (it was quite a bit). But I still disagree with copyright law, and I believe in copyleft. DRM can suck it, it's not making it anywhere. The pirates will win, resistance is futile. :guitar:

[ubunterooster]

how is ubuntu music store? i can save a whole 22 cents with each song
Still can't get it working :(

in B 4 lockdown

[sgosnell]

The songs are the same. Amazon has no better quality than any other music reseller. I like emusic.com, but it doesn't have the latest teen sensations.

[red_Marvin]

If it can be played, it can be copied. Making it difficult to copy is making it difficult to play and when I buy music it is because I want to play it, easily.

[Dormorn]

The downside to drm is that in some cases if you have to wipe your computer and lose the file it is gone. Recovering it is illegal then so why go though the trouble if the end result will be the same? So far all drm has done has helped the pirate community.

[cloyd]

I don't like DRM. When I buy it, it's mine. Granted, artists have a right to demand I not distribute, especially for profit, but still, generally not distribute at all. Still, it is mine, and I should be able to make backups, or change the format so that I can play on another type of player. My ability to copy for my own use should be uninfringed or made more complicated in any way.

I'm a baby boomer. Most of the music I really like I can get on emusic (well, not the Rolling Stones as yet). For my age group, emusic gets better all the time as more artists are added. Never any DRM. If only they would distribute in ogg . . . I know I can convert, but that is pain.

[ubunterooster]

The downside to drm is that in some cases if you have to wipe your computer and lose the file it is gone. Recovering it is illegal then so why go though the trouble if the end result will be the same? So far all drm has done has helped the pirate community.
Clonezilla beforehand is illegal??

[YuiDaoren]

DRM is a company's way of saying "You are guilty, even if proven innocent."

Pirates, from actual criminal sellers of mass infringing duplicates of disks to the 13 year olds upping torrents of their virus-ridden games, barely notice it.

It just gets in the way of normal use. To hades with DRM and those who insist on using it.

[formaldehyde_spoon]

You can argue on either side of DRM. On the one hand, it's important to combat piracy and ensure that record/movie/game makers get their money, but then it's equally important that we respect people's freedom.

That said, it's important that DRM doesn't get out of hand, such as with the proposed BBC DRM.
Their money? What money is that?

We (most of us) live in a capitalist society; does making music entitle you to money? Does making music that people listen to entitle you to money?
No, and no.

We used to pay the recording industry to deliver music to us on cassettes and CD's, but we don't need them anymore.

Economics 101: competition drives prices down to the per unit cost (WITHOUT including any global overheads like the price of your factory, or the cost of signing a band, for example - sorry about my nonstandard terminology there).

Because we now effectively have an infinite number of units, thanks to free and easy methods of copying, prices for digital copies of music will always fall towards zero.

We'll have DRM on music for years to come, but no DRM will ever exist without being cracked, and eventually recording industries will succumb to the realization that concerts are the new music industry.

EDIT: ignored movies/games there. Same applies: movie industry will shrink to cinema industry, gaming industry I don't know (but I write code for a living too) I guess people will pay for the opportunity to play online, or for hard to copy mediums like cartridges.

[betrunkenaffe]

Personal stance is that DRM is excellent at making a consumer into a pirate.

All the industries that utilize it are profitable and all experience losses due to it.

Recently, only buying software that does NOT come with DRM built into it (ignoring console gaming since I do NOT consider console = comp)

[JDShu]

I wonder if a scientific study could be conducted to figure out how and by how much DRM affects a company's profits.

[ssj6akshat]

How to make millions with DRM-

1)Use DRM so that it doesn't work
2)Make oversmart children download it through P2P
3)Sue them
4)Mission Successful

[lostinxlation]

EDIT: Never mind..

[bigseb]

Imagine going grocery shopping, going home and packing it all away. But now every time you wanna snack or feed the baby or whatever you need to undergo an identity check. Security guards come to your home and take their sweet time checking that all documents are in order. Occasionally the guards don't show though (ie: no/poor internet or servers busy) so you're stuck there... hungry... baby's crying for bread...

Lets face it. No-one would allow DRM in any other facet of their lives. Its intrusive and demeaning. If I purchase a product then it should be mine to use. Gosh, there are some things one can use BEFORE they're even paid off - think house, car, appliances, furniture, etc... and these items devalue heavily after use... what wear-and-tear is there on software?! NONE!

RMS got it right! All hail RMS!

[Barrucadu]

DRM is great for creating more pirates.

[Phrea]

DRM is limiting.
My stance is clear on DRM.

[samalex]

Here's my take... I don't mind DRM per say as long as it's transparent. Even if it uses a proprietary client, as long as there's a version for my operating system then I can live with that.

My thought is there needs to be a law or act of some sort where if a company creates digital media for all consumers or the general public, it must:
1) If DRM is enabled, a decoding/playback method must be available for any OS with 1% Market Share or more. Also if the playback method is free of charge to one OS, it must be the same for all.
2) For DRM Content the decoding codec or playback software must be released under the same terms for all operating systems with over 1% of the market. So for example Netflix couldn't say the client is free for OSX and Windows but charge for Linux if they have to invest more manpower into creating a Linux player.
2) If no DRM is enabled and no native playback method exists for an OS with 1% Market Share or more, the producer of the media has no recourse if the public creates an open source player or converter to allow the playback of media that skirts any proprietary codecs or recording methods. DMCA then wouldn't apply for people who want to play content that is released for the general public even though the content provider hasn't written software for an OS with 1% market share or more.
3) The only exception is for content providers who's target audience is specific to one system. For example if Apple decided to release videos showing how to use XCode which is only available for OSX or companies like AppDev who create training videos for Windows development tools. The target audience is specific to each operating system, so I can see these guys using DRM codecs that are specific to one OS or another.

According to Hitslink.com (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8) the operating systems with 1% market share or more are Windows, OSX, and Linux, so if such a law or act was put into place, this would put the burden on content providers to use DRM codecs/methods that are available for Win, OSX, and Linux. And for content that may not have DRM enabled per say but no codec available for Linux, it would give indemnification to anyone who can create a playback method for the content on an 'unsupported' system.

Just my thoughts. If such an act were put into place, it would open the door to SO much content for Linux and hopefully require companies like Microsoft to create native clients for Linux since so many companies go with them to DRM their content (like Netflix).

Sam

[m4tic]

DRM only affects paying customers. That's why I'm a pirate: everything I get is DRM-free.

Seriously, I pay every month for a torrent proxy. I would be giving that money to the music and movie companies if it weren't for their DRM and horrible business practices.

WE GOT A CONFESSION! Lock him up boys

[donkyhotay]

I hate DRM and consider it a dangerous threat to civil liberties. The right of first sale (that if you buy something you actually own it) is a pretty fundamental part of copyright but is slowly being eroded away. I have bought movies from europe that aren't available in the USA on DVD. Because of region encoding I of course can't play them on my regular DVD player however they play just fine on my linux box. I can then also rip them and re-encode them so I can play them on my regular DVD player (violating the good old DMCA of course). It seems ridiculous though that I need to do this to play my legally purchased DVD's. I can't think of any reason for region encoding, except of course so that companies can charge more in some parts of the world rather then others. Artists and distributers need to be paid, I completely understand that. However if I buy something it should be mine, sure maybe some things I can do may invalidate warranty but it shouldn't be illegal.

[mihai.ile]

Here's my take... I don't mind DRM per say as long as it's transparent. Even if it uses a proprietary client, as long as there's a version for my operating system then I can live with that.

My thought is there needs to be a law or act of some sort where if a company creates digital media for all consumers or the general public, it must:
1) If DRM is enabled, a decoding/playback method must be available for any OS with 1% Market Share or more. Also if the playback method is free of charge to one OS, it must be the same for all.
2) For DRM Content the decoding codec or playback software must be released under the same terms for all operating systems with over 1% of the market. So for example Netflix couldn't say the client is free for OSX and Windows but charge for Linux if they have to invest more manpower into creating a Linux player.
2) If no DRM is enabled and no native playback method exists for an OS with 1% Market Share or more, the producer of the media has no recourse if the public creates an open source player or converter to allow the playback of media that skirts any proprietary codecs or recording methods. DMCA then wouldn't apply for people who want to play content that is released for the general public even though the content provider hasn't written software for an OS with 1% market share or more.
3) The only exception is for content providers who's target audience is specific to one system. For example if Apple decided to release videos showing how to use XCode which is only available for OSX or companies like AppDev who create training videos for Windows development tools. The target audience is specific to each operating system, so I can see these guys using DRM codecs that are specific to one OS or another.

According to Hitslink.com (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8) the operating systems with 1% market share or more are Windows, OSX, and Linux, so if such a law or act was put into place, this would put the burden on content providers to use DRM codecs/methods that are available for Win, OSX, and Linux. And for content that may not have DRM enabled per say but no codec available for Linux, it would give indemnification to anyone who can create a playback method for the content on an 'unsupported' system.

Just my thoughts. If such an act were put into place, it would open the door to SO much content for Linux and hopefully require companies like Microsoft to create native clients for Linux since so many companies go with them to DRM their content (like Netflix).

Sam

I actually completely disagree...
As a software programmer I rapidly see the problems of 1%. Why 1? why not more or less? What if I want to make my arduino wake me up in the morning with the songs I own? DRM this way simply does not work.
Why don't you make a open source project that decodes/encodes the content using a asymmetric key so that anyone can decode them as long as you have the key.. the one you brought... Simple. easy. works for everyone. The problem is that they want to control everything, they want to limit even how many times a day you are able to listen to the song and pay more if you listen more than X times...

[Frogs Hair]

I found out after buying my Pioneer DVD/DVR that it has regional settings , that if changed 4 times render the device useless even if put in a different computer. DRM applied to hardware.

[dE_logics]

Actually it's not possible to stop video and audio piracy...no matter what they do.

If you can view/hear audio from a medium, you know you can always extract it.

A solution to this problem might be a video/audio format which will never release license to be developed or worked on further, thus any computer program will not support it.

However the transmission from the cables of the DVD player and to the screen will stream audio/video in some standard (like HDMI, DP, YUV -- component video) etc... So you can always steal. If the output is though HDMI or DP or the audio is from an S/PDIF, then you can record full quality video/audio. No losses.

So it's impossible to stop piracy unless you use very aggressive ways like the European union has done.

[NCLI]

Well, you can keep pointing your finger to certain people or start realising that DRM will always exist regardless of whether there are pirates or not. These companies even try to keep you from sharing your media with friends/family and if this was a communist-like regime they would even try to get you shot for sharing your game or movie with a friend too much.
That has nothing to do with communism. Communism is about empowering the little guy, all of them. What you're talking about sounds more like a fascist-capitalist society, where rich corporations can pay politicians to make them do whatever they want. Thank god that's not how it is today in the US...

Their money? What money is that?

We (most of us) live in a capitalist society; does making music entitle you to money? Does making music that people listen to entitle you to money?
No, and no.
I think you need to read up on copyright and right of ownership. You know, basic capitalist/liberal rights.

We used to pay the recording industry to deliver music to us on cassettes and CD's, but we don't need them anymore.

Economics 101: competition drives prices down to the per unit cost (WITHOUT including any global overheads like the price of your factory, or the cost of signing a band, for example - sorry about my nonstandard terminology there).
Real economics 101: There is no competition. The big companies agree with each other on what per unit prices should be, pay politicians not to care unless it's brought up publicly, ban the things that make it impossible to maintain the price(fx P2P), and buy smaller firms who try to change the game.

Solution: Convert to a better system(not capitalism), or make the politicians do something by making DRM so unpopular that it will be banned.

[eriktheblu]

I'm not opposed to DRM, I just think it's silly.

With software, I can understand it a bit more. Activation codes seem to be a bit more effective than encryption. Online activation makes a bit of sense and is probably more effective. Subscription services such as MMO games, VOIP service, data storage are probably the best model available.

If a media producer wishes to do it with music or video, that's ok with me. I think it's silly, but whatever. Colgate can put combination locks on toothpaste for all I care; it's their product.

Anyone who provides digital content knows by now that copy protection measures can be circumvented. The only way they can function is through laws like the U.S. DMCA. These laws completely undermines the rights of the consumer.

I have no right to redistribute or sell copyrighted works, but if properly acquired, I do have the right to use it as I see fit.

[oldos2er]

Touch of irony: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100937-Warner-Bros-Sued-for-Pirating-Anti-Piracy-Technology

[samalex]

I actually completely disagree...
As a software programmer I rapidly see the problems of 1%. Why 1? why not more or less? What if I want to make my arduino wake me up in the morning with the songs I own? DRM this way simply does not work.
Why don't you make a open source project that decodes/encodes the content using a asymmetric key so that anyone can decode them as long as you have the key.. the one you brought... Simple. easy. works for everyone. The problem is that they want to control everything, they want to limit even how many times a day you are able to listen to the song and pay more if you listen more than X times...

In an ideal world yes I would say DRM shouldn't exist, but unfortunately in the world we live in it's not going anyplace. Whether we like it or not DRM is here to stay, so I was trying to be as much of a realist as I could with a suggestion that would at least help us as Linux users. Using Linux I'll continue stripping DRM from the media I buy legally or choose DRM-free options to legally buy content whenever possible.

In my 1% theory, the 1% was off the cuff, but according to Internet World Stats (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) there are 1,802,330,457 computer users in the world, with 234,372,000 in the US alone. With much DRM being region based even in the US 1% is still 2,343,720 users which is a large chunk of people to exclude by not releasing a Linux-based client for DRM content.

By forcing companies to at least offer solutions for operating systems with 1% of the market or more that will exclude some of the non-mainstream operating systems ... but it will include Linux which by proxy would hopefully include Android phones and other Linux based devices.

I like your idea of a key to unlock songs, but I don't see anything that simplistic ever happening because it'd be too easy to crack, which the suits don't like. Software has used keys for years, and I've seen very few that couldn't be cracked.

Sam

[jrothwell97]

In principle, I'm opposed to DRM - in practice, however, I don't mind it as long as it doesn't go out of its way to inconvenience me.

Steam is arguably the best example to date, simply because its licensing rules are somewhat liberal (as opposed to some others cough Ubisoft) and Valve know not to treat their paying customers like tripe.

The tendency of a lot of DRM systems is that they tend to ignore the consumer's wishes and needs - I don't care about the creator's rights, I don't care about DRM being evil. I just want the damned thing to work - it's my content, I want to access it.

Too often, I can't, due to a combination of brainless design and anal, penny-pinching licensing. (So what if I don't have a HDCP enabled TV? I don't expect to have to replace my sodding television so that I can watch this film, which I could've got on DVD or Blu-Ray for quite a bit less, on a reasonably large screen!)

[yester64]

I personally don't care much about DRM.
To an extent at least.

I hate that i am as a Linux user are left out of everything that is entertainment.
Hulu allows you to watch movies over their website. Netflix doesn't. If it were for netflix, i am pretty sure they would do it. But its contract from licenses that prevents that.

Same with music where you get penalized for buying (sometimes) new cd's that already have pretty strong DRM and record what you do.
Games on PC that was another thing i gave up because of it.
I don't like to have anti copy protection apps on my computer doing something i can not even tell.

Business companies are going further and further in your computer that it is hard to tell how much control they actually really have.
Of course i can understand that they like to protect their investment, but at what cost.
That i am seen as a criminal and get criminalized because i make a private copy.

In the old days vhs manufactures had to put in chips to prevent people to make a 1:1 copy of movies. Now its even easier. Just an update and you are out of luck.
So in the end i don't have much choice and can only hope that the companies have a good day and understanding.

Like i said, i try to see both sides, but it appears that the business side has an advantage over me.

Used CD/DVD/Game DVD might be numbered too. I would not be surprised that in the future everyone has to buy a copy, since used will plainly not work. This could be happen that every medium has a serial number which will be bind to a particular player. Locked and done.

[yester64]

In principle, I'm opposed to DRM - in practice, however, I don't mind it as long as it doesn't go out of its way to inconvenience me.

Steam is arguably the best example to date, simply because its licensing rules are somewhat liberal (as opposed to some others cough Ubisoft) and Valve know not to treat their paying customers like tripe.

The tendency of a lot of DRM systems is that they tend to ignore the consumer's wishes and needs - I don't care about the creator's rights, I don't care about DRM being evil. I just want the damned thing to work - it's my content, I want to access it.

Too often, I can't, due to a combination of brainless design and anal, penny-pinching licensing. (So what if I don't have a HDCP enabled TV? I don't expect to have to replace my sodding television so that I can watch this film, which I could've got on DVD or Blu-Ray for quite a bit less, on a reasonably large screen!)

Steam does have authentication which is DRM.
Its just more convenient than others.

[aysiu]

but imagine a world where drm didn't exist and once you buy something from itunes you could put it on a flash drive and play it on any device that supports that format. how awesome would that be. I don't have to imagine that world. I live in it. I just buy music off the Amazon MP3 store. No DRM. Works on any number of devices. There is an Amazon MP3 Store client for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

My understanding is that recently Apple stopped DRM'ing songs in the iTunes Music Store, but a lot of my friends had previously bought DRM'ed music, so they get frustrated when they get new devices, new computers, or newly reformatted computers and then see error messages from iTunes about how some device is already synced to another computer or some music isn't authorized for such-and-such device. It's really annoying to have legally paid for music and then not be able to use it on a device you also purchased.

[jrothwell97]

Steam does have authentication which is DRM.
Its just more convenient than others.

Indeed it is DRM: however, as I said above, it's probably the best DRM system out there.

[Guitar John]

<snip> It's really annoying to have legally paid for music and then not be able to use it on a device you also purchased.


+1
My stance as well. This example is not piracy, but DRM treats it like piracy.