PDA

View Full Version : Itunes or DRM for linux



Hg80
September 1st, 2006, 07:53 PM
i love listening to music and i have seen the light and no longer download ilegal songs i instead buy the cd and rip it or use itunes, but i really dislike the fact the Linux users are unable to play these songs with DRM.
I think its unfair that we have been kicked out of touch by these media companies and i'm sure there are lots of people here who wish not to break the law, but i understand if you download ilegal music as you are save in the knoweldge that it will play under Linux.

So i ask here who would like to see itunes or DRM software on Linux?

dabear
September 1st, 2006, 07:58 PM
I would, but most of those posting after me here would start to flame you for even asking the question.

hizaguchi
September 1st, 2006, 08:23 PM
The problem is that there is no open source DRM. If the media cartels released a form of DRM that could be openly monitored so that I could be sure that it only affected my ability to make copies of licensed content, then that would be fine with me. The problem is that I'm not going to install some software which has previously proven to be malicious and destructive just to listen to some songs or watch some movies unless I know EXACLTY what it does to my system. Licensed media just isn't that important to me.

Kernel Sanders
September 1st, 2006, 08:33 PM
DRM is bad. To purchase DRM'd music files is to support DRM.

Terracotta
September 1st, 2006, 08:51 PM
DRM is bad for several reasons, and not the least that you've got to install a different player for different drm'types: you want to have iTunes, WMP, realplayer... installed at once? and then you still need Amarok to have a decent music player. Supporting Magnatune, allofmp3 and others that don't put drm on their music files is a far better sign than buying songs from iTunes.

DRM is also flawed by design: it's like giving someone a key to a house but in the mean time the lock on the house is put in place to keep the one with the key out of the house.

.t.
September 1st, 2006, 08:52 PM
DRM is very bad. So bad I felt inclined to write this essay: http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/So why shouldn't I buy an iPod.xhtml

teet
September 1st, 2006, 08:54 PM
DRM is bad. To purchase DRM'd music files is to support DRM.

I agree. Too bad the 'average user' doesn't know that.

Buying CD's (without DRM of course) from an actual store is looking more and more like it's the best way to get music legally. At least the CD is actually mine...I can play it in my car or rip it to my computer and transfer the files to a music player. If I pay money for something, it better darn well be mine!

-teet

KiwiNZ
September 1st, 2006, 08:59 PM
Its not a big issue for me I have always purchased my music.
I agree with copyright etc.The creator should have the right to protect their work.

Kernel Sanders
September 1st, 2006, 09:22 PM
Its not a big issue for me I have always purchased my music.
I agree with copyright etc.The creator should have the right to protect their work.

Thats not the issue with DRM. The issue is the exact definition of "Fair Use". Well, thats MY issue anyway. :)

SoundMachine
September 1st, 2006, 09:38 PM
If various DRM schemes come into effect, then Linux will either be incapable of playing the media or implement the DRM code.

Anyone who compiled a recent kernel has seen the support for TPM.

.t.
September 1st, 2006, 09:50 PM
I compile the entire kernel tuned to my system. I don't have TPM. I will never include AACS or HDCP support in my kernel. No sir-ee.

givré
September 1st, 2006, 09:56 PM
What is the need of DRM.

SoundMachine
September 1st, 2006, 10:28 PM
I compile the entire kernel tuned to my system. I don't have TPM. I will never include AACS or HDCP support in my kernel. No sir-ee.

The entire kernel, eh? Good thing you don't compile 1/2 for your system and 1/2 for another system. ;)

It doesn't really matter much to me, all my HW isn't HDCP enabled so it's not like i could view it at full res anyway (even if everything is indeed capable of it x2.

Personally, i think they are biting themselves in the ****, i mean, who will pay for something to view it in a quality that they can download it in for free without the restrictions "stop paying and we'll remove your files".

Kvark
September 1st, 2006, 10:33 PM
No don't buy music from those who treat you like a criminal and spend development resources on making their products less useful and more annoying for you, there are better alternatives.

www.magnatune.com sells DRM free music and even encourages you to give a copy to a couple friends.

www.ccmixter.org has free "open source"-style music.

.t.
September 1st, 2006, 10:35 PM
The entire kernel, eh? Good thing you don't compile 1/2 for your system and 1/2 for another system.Well, I do use distcc...

And, you can always use allofmp3.com

SoundMachine
September 1st, 2006, 10:42 PM
Well, I do use distcc...

And, you can always use allofmp3.com

I both can and do use it. ;)

It has very little to do with drm or hdcp though. ;)

.t.
September 1st, 2006, 10:44 PM
Yeah it does. They supply music without.

Or were you talking about distcc?

bruce89
September 1st, 2006, 10:46 PM
Why iTunes, it is a vendor lock in device, as are iPods.

Stupid naming scheme.

.t.
September 1st, 2006, 11:02 PM
To what are you referring?

bruce89
September 1st, 2006, 11:04 PM
To what are you referring?

If you mean stupid naming scheme, I mean apple's iEverything scheme.

.t.
September 1st, 2006, 11:10 PM
Yeah, but they gotta think of a marketing scheme, and you can't blame them for trying.

hanzomon4
September 1st, 2006, 11:16 PM
I found and article discussing a compromise between linux and proprietary codecs(I assume this includes DRM as well)
Might have some revalence to the discussion you all are having. Open-Source Guru: Time for ‘Compromises’ (http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=18176&hed=Linux+Desktop+Window+Closing%3F+)

As to the thread topic, It would be nice to be able to play whatever media you have.
But all of the formats/DRM madness has to stop, If it is needed for artist(not record labels) to protect there work.. So be it, but keep it to one scheme that every OS/Media PLayer/even codec? can use..
A scheme thats doesn't force a user to use ten different apps just to hear a song..
And a scheme that is free to use and analysis to be sure that it only stops pirates and not force allegiance to company a or b

hizaguchi
September 1st, 2006, 11:47 PM
Ack, it's a link to ESR's recent bout with insanity! Cover the childrens' eyes!

Seriously. This is the guy that keeps the Halloween papers on the interwebs. He knows the "embrace, extend, extinguish" mantra better than anyone. Where did this idea that we should try to integrate ourselves into private marketing schemes come from?

hizaguchi
September 2nd, 2006, 12:28 AM
Well, I do use distcc...

And, you can always use allofmp3.com

Woah! How did I not know about this? Thank God for Russia!

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 12:52 AM
I don't really condone allofmp3.com. it's practically like piracy. or even worse, because it tries to excuse itself into being legal. Face it; with prices like that, the artists you're trying to support aren't really seeing any money. might as well save yourself a few cents and go straight to piracy.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 12:58 AM
I don't really condone allofmp3.com. it's practically like piracy. or even worse, because it tries to excuse itself into being legal. Face it; with prices like that, the artists you're trying to support aren't really seeing any money. might as well save yourself a few cents and go straight to piracy.

It's as legal as going into any shop and buying a music CD.

If i want to support an artist, i'll buy a ticket to their concert, that is where they make their money. Supporting record companies that want ownership of my choices isn't somthing i feel compelled to do.

jeffc313
September 2nd, 2006, 01:00 AM
I toatally disagree with DRM. What happened to the days when I buy something and actually OWN it. My uncle has used www.allofmp3.com and he was happy. I dont have a CC, and also dont really trust it.

BWF89
September 2nd, 2006, 01:07 AM
I would rather pirate music than buy a legal version with DRM. I pirate music even if the CD isn't DRM'd. It's my way of sticking it the record companies.

Alot of the smaller bands don't even care if you pirate their CD's. My science teacher is in a band (see "w00t" in sig) and he told the class that he'd feel honored if someone liked his bands music enough to pirate it for their friends. Then he made fun of Metallica for them coming out against piracy. He's hilarious, I have him 8th period I look forward of his class all day.

hanzomon4
September 2nd, 2006, 02:23 AM
I don't see how allomp3.com is illegal because the price is cheap.
I mean can someone dissect the price of a regular CD to see how much just the music/data cost with out the packaging, shipping, and CD?

At emusic.com ,Great music store by the way, you get 40 downloads DRM-free for 9 bucks, thats like what 0.04 cents a song?

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 02:35 AM
I would rather pirate music than buy a legal version with DRM. I pirate music even if the CD isn't DRM'd. It's my way of sticking it the record companies.

Alot of the smaller bands don't even care if you pirate their CD's. My science teacher is in a band (see "w00t" in sig) and he told the class that he'd feel honored if someone liked his bands music enough to pirate it for their friends. Then he made fun of Metallica for them coming out against piracy. He's hilarious, I have him 8th period I look forward of his class all day.

I'm sorry but that is horseshit, you are so cheap not even dog's will **** on your boots, just admit it.

Oh, and no they don't care, especially the small bands don't care because they get such high incomes from...?

Now i know that when i download a song that i like, i may not even be able to attend the show, but i'll buy a ticket to it. depending on the cost, i'll pirate 1-4 cd's, i have given my contribution to the artist.

Metallica is an old time band, they actually make money off of their sales, you stealing their works doesn't make you a common hero, it just makes you a thief.

Show some ******* courage, think for yourself for once and stop acting like it's all the fault of an authority figure, enough idiots blame everyone, else.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 02:36 AM
I don't see how allomp3.com is illegal because the price is cheap.
I mean can someone dissect the price of a regular CD to see how much just the music/data cost with out the packaging, shipping, and CD?

At emusic.com ,Great music store by the way, you get 40 downloads DRM-free for 9 bucks, thats like what 0.04 cents a song?

Allofmp3 is not illegal PERIOD! But i still say you should support the artist.

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 02:46 AM
i never said allofmp3 was illegal, but ethically speaking, i don't think its much better than piracy. I'm not saying to go out and buy DRM'd crap, because i am totally against that too, but shady workarounds like allofmp3 aren't the answer either. to whoever said they like to stick it to the record companies; that is the stupidest excuse for piracy i have every heard. true, they're not exactly the most ethical companies in the world, but cheating them out of money won't do the artists any good. in fact, it will be bad for them because the record companies will transfer part of the loss of sales from piracy over to the artists, and it will cost them in the long run. instead, use legal and beneficial methods like magnatune, cdbaby, etc.

as for my personal practices, i don't really pirate stuff that often. if i like what i download, i usually buy the cd too. its not that big a deal.

hanzomon4
September 2nd, 2006, 02:58 AM
I gotcha, Miss read your post.

BWF89
September 2nd, 2006, 02:58 AM
@SoundMachine: If a file can be copied and sent from Server A to Computer B instantaneously than I'm sorry but that isn't stealing. For thousands of years people have created music and plays without any sort of copyright law and still managed to live off their works.

Say I like a particular band and pirated all their CD's. But I like them so much that I go out and buy some shirts with their logo on it. They just made a profit.

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 03:05 AM
Say I like a particular band and pirated all their CD's. But I like them so much that I go out and buy some shirts with their logo on it. They just made a profit.

actually, they only made a little bit of money at the beginning when the people making the shirts took out a license to use the bands logo. after that, the shirt company can sell as many shirts as they want and keep all their profits.

edit: thats just an example of a common licensing contract. not all of them are like that, but the majority are.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 03:38 AM
i never said allofmp3 was illegal, but ethically speaking, i don't think its much better than piracy. I'm not saying to go out and buy DRM'd crap, because i am totally against that too, but shady workarounds like allofmp3 aren't the answer either. to whoever said they like to stick it to the record companies; that is the stupidest excuse for piracy i have every heard. true, they're not exactly the most ethical companies in the world, but cheating them out of money won't do the artists any good. in fact, it will be bad for them because the record companies will transfer part of the loss of sales from piracy over to the artists, and it will cost them in the long run. instead, use legal and beneficial methods like magnatune, cdbaby, etc.

as for my personal practices, i don't really pirate stuff that often. if i like what i download, i usually buy the cd too. its not that big a deal.

I have ethics which is what prevents me from buying **** fom a recording company that is already swimming deep in mone, as we all know, artists make money from concerts, if i want to supprt the artist i buy a ticket or two or 150 even if i know i have to work.

THAT my friend is my ethics, now you tell me why i should pay a record company money to restrict my freedoms.

croak77
September 2nd, 2006, 04:10 AM
I have ethics which is what prevents me from buying **** fom a recording company that is already swimming deep in mone, as we all know, artists make money from concerts, if i want to supprt the artist i buy a ticket or two or 150 even if i know i have to work.

THAT my friend is my ethics, now you tell me why i should pay a record company money to restrict my freedoms.

Yes, bands make money from concerts, but not all bands tour constantly. Not all bands come close enough for me to see them. If you want to support an artist by their work. When was the last time you bought 150 tickets to see an artist? :-s

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 04:13 AM
@soundmachine: i know most record labels are ****, but by stealing from them we also harm the artists. Now, most artists dont have that much money anyways, and they cant afford to be even more in debt to record labels. and secondly, record labels aren't as rich as you think. they rake in more profits than the artists to be sure, but they have a hell of a lot of expenses as well, especially the big corporate ones.

You would think that artists make money from concerts....it sounds logical enough. makes sense...but in truth, most of the money they make goes straight back to the record company anyways. When artists make a CD, they're allotted a certain amount of money to spend making it (this includes money for videos, promotion, traveling on tour). When sales start coming in from the album, the artist has to pay the label back while still trying to make a profit. this is really why corporate labels suck; they make a little bit of profit, artists make much less, and in the end, everyone's left hungry for more money.

I don't completely disagree with what you said; i don't feel good about corporate labels, the RIAA, stuff like that. it's excellent that you support bands by going to concerts, thats a really positive thing to do (especially if you're buying extra tickets just to support them). but what i said was just to raise concsciousness to the fact that everytime someone downloads a pirated cd, the record label will lose money, and they will transfer part of that loss over to the artist. none of us like the record companies, but there's better ways to protest than pirating stuff.

On the bright side, music revenue is up a lot in general thanks to the internet. A lot of musicians are discovering that the internet is a great marketing tool, and often times, it's a better solution than being tied down to a label. Most record labels are still wary as to the potential of the internet. They don't trust it, they dont really want to try it. Hopefully, that will be their downfall

Kvark
September 2nd, 2006, 12:56 PM
Not all record labels are bad. One exception is www.magnatune.com that I mentioned earlier. They give 50% of the price to the artist so if you pay $8 for an album the artist gets $4.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 02:37 PM
Yes, bands make money from concerts, but not all bands tour constantly. Not all bands come close enough for me to see them. If you want to support an artist by their work. When was the last time you bought 150 tickets to see an artist? :-s

This summer, local band, 150 kroner a ticket, it seemed like the right thing to do as they do not accept donations.

And i'll buy their nusic in any way i can without supporting anything but the artist, i will rather order enough t-shirts from their home page and download it from freemp3.

I don't mind paying the artist, but when a-holes implement drm rootkits and subscription based services that makes the songs useless once i stop paying their monthly fee, well i will just give them the finger.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 02:39 PM
@soundmachine: i know most record labels are ****, but by stealing from them we also harm the artists. Now, most artists dont have that much money anyways, and they cant afford to be even more in debt to record labels. and secondly, record labels aren't as rich as you think. they rake in more profits than the artists to be sure, but they have a hell of a lot of expenses as well, especially the big corporate ones.

You would think that artists make money from concerts....it sounds logical enough. makes sense...but in truth, most of the money they make goes straight back to the record company anyways. When artists make a CD, they're allotted a certain amount of money to spend making it (this includes money for videos, promotion, traveling on tour). When sales start coming in from the album, the artist has to pay the label back while still trying to make a profit. this is really why corporate labels suck; they make a little bit of profit, artists make much less, and in the end, everyone's left hungry for more money.

I don't completely disagree with what you said; i don't feel good about corporate labels, the RIAA, stuff like that. it's excellent that you support bands by going to concerts, thats a really positive thing to do (especially if you're buying extra tickets just to support them). but what i said was just to raise concsciousness to the fact that everytime someone downloads a pirated cd, the record label will lose money, and they will transfer part of that loss over to the artist. none of us like the record companies, but there's better ways to protest than pirating stuff.

On the bright side, music revenue is up a lot in general thanks to the internet. A lot of musicians are discovering that the internet is a great marketing tool, and often times, it's a better solution than being tied down to a label. Most record labels are still wary as to the potential of the internet. They don't trust it, they dont really want to try it. Hopefully, that will be their downfall

Look, i don't steal shiat, i make sure to buy enough crap off of the artists website to make up for the music that i download legally.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 02:41 PM
Not all record labels are bad. One exception is www.magnatune.com that I mentioned earlier. They give 50% of the price to the artist so if you pay $8 for an album the artist gets $4.

Nice, now if they had given 90% or so they would have been up to what the artists are getting from me for every song i download.

bruce89
September 2nd, 2006, 03:31 PM
I don't really condone allofmp3.com. it's practically like piracy. or even worse, because it tries to excuse itself into being legal. Face it; with prices like that, the artists you're trying to support aren't really seeing any money. might as well save yourself a few cents and go straight to piracy.

Not to mention they use MP3 which is patented technology, and technically inferior to Vorbis.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 03:38 PM
Not to mention they use MP3 which is patented technology, and technically inferior to Vorbis.

Tell me which technological features vorbis has over mp3.

Kvark
September 2nd, 2006, 04:54 PM
Nice, now if they had given 90% or so they would have been up to what the artists are getting from me for every song i download.
Thats impossible since the costs take up more then 10% of the price. It's also illegal because 25% of the price goes to VAT-tax.

Ok 25% is the Swedish VAT-tax level and I don't know where that site is located but most countries have more then 10%. And ok it might be possible to sell something at 10x of the costs but thats not fair, way too overpriced.

Luggy
September 2nd, 2006, 05:21 PM
Its not a big issue for me I have always purchased my music.
I agree with copyright etc.The creator should have the right to protect their work.

You can respect the rights of the creators buy purchasing music either online or by buying the CD but YOU DON'T NEED DRM TO SUPPORT THE CREATORS AND THEIR COPYRIGHTS!

DRM is the music and movies industry's way of controlling how we listen to music and watch movies. Let's say there was DRM for Linux. You go out and buy a CD and rip it on your computer. A few months down the road you upgrade your computer or your harddrive dies and you need to rip the CD again. This normally wouldn't be a problem but the DRM enabled on the CD isn't going to allow you to do this because it thinks your are sharing the CD with a friend and thus being a dirty drity pirate. You have to go out and buy the CD again just for this new computer.

If you purchase any form of media, a song online or a movie from a store, you have the right to do whatever it is you want with it. You can rip it , burn it or make a mixed CD. The music and movie companies only want DRM enabled so that they can control how the legitimate users use their media.

DRM will not stop piracy because pirates will always find a way around it.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 05:25 PM
Thats impossible since the costs take up more then 10% of the price. It's also illegal because 25% of the price goes to VAT-tax.

Ok 25% is the Swedish VAT-tax level and I don't know where that site is located but most countries have more then 10%. And ok it might be possible to sell something at 10x of the costs but thats not fair, way too overpriced.


I make a good living only getting 10% of my creation. ;)

FISHERMAN
September 2nd, 2006, 05:47 PM
If I wanted DRM I would have bought a Mac.

Dr. C
September 2nd, 2006, 05:59 PM
If I wanted DRM I would have bought a Mac.

Well said. The other alternative if you want DRM is Microsoft Windows

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 06:05 PM
Thats impossible since the costs take up more then 10% of the price. It's also illegal because 25% of the price goes to VAT-tax.

Ok 25% is the Swedish VAT-tax level and I don't know where that site is located but most countries have more then 10%. And ok it might be possible to sell something at 10x of the costs but thats not fair, way too overpriced.

No it does not.

And the 25% tax **** is just that bulshit.

bruce89
September 2nd, 2006, 06:09 PM
Tell me which technological features vorbis has over mp3.

It is VBR be default, non-patented, free software, has quality settings as opposed to a specific bitrate.

Listening tests (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35438) concluded that a 80kbps Vorbis file had the same quality as an 128kbps MP3. It also concluded that Vorbis was the best for this particular sample.

Luggy
September 2nd, 2006, 06:18 PM
It is VBR be default, non-patented, free software, has quality settings as opposed to a specific bitrate.

Listening tests (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35438) concluded that a 80kbps Vorbis file had the same quality as an 128kbps MP3. It also concluded that Vorbis was the best for this particular sample.

Doesn't vorbis also have better compression than mp3?
Better quality at the same size / the same quality at a smaller size.

bruce89
September 2nd, 2006, 06:20 PM
Doesn't vorbis also have better compression than mp3?
Better quality at the same size / the same quality at a smaller size.
Yes, mostly due to the VBR and quality based encoding things.

Hg80
September 2nd, 2006, 06:22 PM
Allofmp3 is illegal as non of the money raised goes to the music companys (a quick google search will tell you this)it probly instead goes to the Russian Maffia.
I can see that many people here dislike DRM, but in a world inforced by law surely we should help to make it and not to break it?

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 06:35 PM
phew, is it just me, or is it getting hot in here?

@soundmachine: i wasnt calling you a pirate, i said it in a general sense. In fact, none of my posts were directed at you except that last one. So i don't understand what you're taking offense at. I actually respect you supoprting the artists by buying concert tickets.

you also said:

No it does not.

And the 25% tax **** is just that bulshit.

what do you actually know about the music industry? you're just going on what you heard about a few record companies using DRM, and you're all over them. They dont make as much money as you think. Like Kvark said, the costs of recording far exceed 10% of the revenue, and there is always a tax as well. 50 - 50 is more than fair. It is an equal relationship between the artist and the label. Artists go to label because they have better access to studios, and they can offer better advertisement and promotion. so 50-50 is a perfectly symbiotic relationship, and magnatune is great for doing it.

to everyone else, this is a good little debate, with many opinions from both sides.

@Hg80:I totally understand where you're coming from with that, but in my opinion DRM is restrictive. check out Magnatune's website; i think they're doing things right.

Iskra
September 2nd, 2006, 07:11 PM
I can see that many people here dislike DRM, but in a world inforced by law surely we should help to make it and not to break it?

Yes, we should work to change unjust laws, but at the same time there is nothing ethical about abiding by unethical laws. Ever heard of civil disobedience?

In regard to the thread topic, no, I never want to see DRM on GNU/Linux. It is exactly that kind of handcuffware that I am trying to avoid by using Ubuntu.

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 07:21 PM
hey Iskra,
thanks for the insightful post. I totally agree with you. Ubuntu is not just about being free money-wise, even though many people see it that way. for the kind of freedom i get with this OS, i'd gladly shell out some money, because we dont have DRM, WGA, proprietary formats, or anything like that.

Luggy
September 2nd, 2006, 08:11 PM
...I can see that many people here dislike DRM, but in a world inforced by law surely we should help to make it and not to break it?

See that sort of opens a whole new can of worms: how negatively does filesharing effect Musicians and Artists? Does filesharing have a positive effect? Could it be that anti-filesharing laws are in fact doing more harm then good?

Many would argue that filesharing helps out lots of bands by giving them another avenue to attract fans and that by allowing consumers to 'preview' a CD before they buy it allows them to make a more informed choice in how they spend their money.

( despite the issue with iTunes' DRM ) iTunes has done a fantastic job of selling music online, they have shown that it works and that people are willing to buy music one song at a time. These people who buy music online have a choice they could go out and download the songs quiet easily or they could pay for them. I think it just goes to show that people are willing to spend money for something they feel is good.


An advantage of having piracy as rampent as it is ( millions of torrents available online ) is that no one is going to get money for selling pirated music. If ( for example ) The Pirate Bay started charging $1 for every torrent, no one would use it anymore because there are hundereds of other torrent sites out there.

If there were no more torrent sites you wouldn't have release groups giving away the latest Hollywood blockbuster, you would have them selling them for $10 a pop in some dark alley. Anti-piracy crackdowns and DRM aren't going to stop people from stealing music and movies, you are just going to create a group that will profit from it instead.


All that I'm saying is that piracy has certain social benifits that can effect positively on the creators. People are willing to purchase things that they see as being good. The only thing that has changed as a result of filesharing is that people are now making smarter descisions about what they buy and that is scaring the record companies.

ago
September 2nd, 2006, 08:27 PM
The problem is that there is no open source DRM. If the media cartels released a form of DRM that could be openly monitored so that I could be sure that it only affected my ability to make copies of licensed content, then that would be fine with me.

Can there be an open source DRM? Couldn't you change the source code thus avoiding the restrictions?

I know about the Sun initiative so there are probably ways around it, but I never investigated the subject further.

I am with the more radical crowd on this one. No DRM for me.

maniacmusician
September 2nd, 2006, 08:34 PM
See that sort of opens a whole new can of worms: how negatively does filesharing effect Musicians and Artists? Does filesharing have a positive effect? Could it be that anti-filesharing laws are in fact doing more harm then good?

Many would argue that filesharing helps out lots of bands by giving them another avenue to attract fans and that by allowing consumers to 'preview' a CD before they buy it allows them to make a more informed choice in how they spend their money.

( despite the issue with iTunes' DRM ) iTunes has done a fantastic job of selling music online, they have shown that it works and that people are willing to buy music one song at a time. These people who buy music online have a choice they could go out and download the songs quiet easily or they could pay for them. I think it just goes to show that people are willing to spend money for something they feel is good.


An advantage of having piracy as rampent as it is ( millions of torrents available online ) is that no one is going to get money for selling pirated music. If ( for example ) The Pirate Bay started charging $1 for every torrent, no one would use it anymore because there are hundereds of other torrent sites out there.

If there were no more torrent sites you wouldn't have release groups giving away the latest Hollywood blockbuster, you would have them selling them for $10 a pop in some dark alley. Anti-piracy crackdowns and DRM aren't going to stop people from stealing music and movies, you are just going to create a group that will profit from it instead.


All that I'm saying is that piracy has certain social benifits that can effect positively on the creators. People are willing to purchase things that they see as being good. The only thing that has changed as a result of filesharing is that people are now making smarter descisions about what they buy and that is scaring the record companies.

awesome post! you made some excellent points, and they were all really true. all that remains is for people with content to start taking advantage of piracy; and then it wont really be piracy anymore.

MaximB
September 2nd, 2006, 08:37 PM
"DRM Is a compicated hardware and software mechanism that ties the music (videos, games, etc) you've bought and downloaded to a specific hardware" - right ?

so if I buy a new computer - I won't be able to play ?
who agrees to buy it without thinking ahead ?
I can't buy a new computer ?
that's absurd

Virogenesis
September 2nd, 2006, 08:48 PM
DRM, no thanks rather not..
DRM is for the idiots who trust corporations, if someone said trust me would I?
What reason do I have to trust them, sony made a root kit did they trust the people who brought the cds that contained the malware?
No they didn't.
DRM is just another term for lube up its going to hurt.

PryGuy
September 2nd, 2006, 08:53 PM
Let the rich guys make it! Let them make the client side software simple and open source if they really want to sell music and nothing more... I'm not against the Linux DRM as long as there's a way not to use it.:D If there's someone that would agree to use it - we can't stop him, it's a free OS!:wink:

Iskra
September 2nd, 2006, 08:56 PM
All that I'm saying is that piracy has certain social benifits that can effect positively on the creators. People are willing to purchase things that they see as being good. The only thing that has changed as a result of filesharing is that people are now making smarter descisions about what they buy and that is scaring the record companies.

No, I think the effects are (and will be) much more profound than that. P2P filesharing and other technologies fill the roles that record companies, distributors, and records stores used to fill. The whole economic model for music is on its way out and DRM, root-kits, RIAA litigation, etc are (unless they get their way) the dissonant swan-songs of the record companies.

Luggy
September 2nd, 2006, 08:57 PM
Can there be an open source DRM? Couldn't you change the source code thus avoiding the restrictions? ...

There are OpenSource encryption methods yet they are very hard to break so I would imagine that an OpenSource DRM scheme could also exist.

PryGuy
September 2nd, 2006, 09:36 PM
There are OpenSource encryption methods yet they are very hard to break so I would imagine that an OpenSource DRM scheme could also exist.Yeah, I'm sure that they (The fat guys) can do it also. The only question is, will they like it. I doubt...

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 09:40 PM
There are OpenSource encryption methods yet they are very hard to break so I would imagine that an OpenSource DRM scheme could also exist.

Well one has nothing to do with the other and both have existed for decades by now.

DoctorMO
September 2nd, 2006, 09:52 PM
The thing about is current DRM, the ownership of the music is not yours. so you've bought a false product.

I'm suprised there arn't consumer laws against data encryption like this.

SoundMachine
September 2nd, 2006, 10:05 PM
The thing about is current DRM, the ownership of the music is not yours. so you've bought a false product.

I'm suprised there arn't consumer laws against data encryption like this.

Actually, you have always bought a licence, not the media itself.

But yes, current licencing is ridiculous and no, i don't see a moral obligation to follow it.

bruce89
September 2nd, 2006, 10:19 PM
The thing about is current DRM, the ownership of the music is not yours. so you've bought a false product.

Same with films, books, software etc.

Free software DRM couldn't work, because you could see how it is encoded, so the DRM could be removed.

PryGuy
September 3rd, 2006, 07:43 AM
The thing about is current DRM, the ownership of the music is not yours. so you've bought a false product.

I'm suprised there arn't consumer laws against data encryption like this.Look we are talking not about forcing all the users to start using the DRM stuff but about the ability to create it under Linux.You right though. But I'm sure none of the forum member will be using it. I've been thinking about it thanks to the post and I came to a conclusion that Linux has to be a DRM free zone and it gonna be treated as an advantage!!! Open source DRM or proprietary DRM it's DRM anyway! Hands off our Linux! No Pasaran! ...eee, I'll better stop here...:D

The Soundophiliac
September 3rd, 2006, 09:52 AM
With music, the fact is that as long as DRM'ed CDs can be played on Red Book standard CD players, users can quite easily rip the CDs.

Also, there has been a lot of software popping up recently that removes the DRM off files.

When it comes to HDCP (not sure about the terms), the encryption scheme has already been cracked, so it will only be a matter of time when hacks appear to the public.

It will be a long time before DRM will achieve its goals.

IMHO piracy might do a favour to music as an art. The big labels are producing so much crap that if they really begin to be in financial trouble, they would have to seek new ways to get people buying CDs like signing good artists. This is all of course very bad generalization.

Hg80
September 3rd, 2006, 11:21 AM
"DRM Is a compicated hardware and software mechanism that ties the music (videos, games, etc) you've bought and downloaded to a specific hardware" - right ?

so if I buy a new computer - I won't be able to play ?
who agrees to buy it without thinking ahead ?
I can't buy a new computer ?
that's absurd

Not quite right, here
In terms of Itunes The DRM is set up to the users account and gives you upto 5PCs to play/store the music on.
Also you can share playlists with people over the network so you dont have to use one of your five DRM thingys

But after reading ALL these posts i am begininng to see your point

Kvark
September 3rd, 2006, 11:22 AM
Look we are talking not about forcing all the users to start using the DRM stuff but about the ability to create it under Linux.You right though. But I'm sure none of the forum member will be using it. I've been thinking about it thanks to the post and I came to a conclusion that Linux has to be a DRM free zone and it gonna be treated as an advantage!!! Open source DRM or proprietary DRM it's DRM anyway! Hands off our Linux! No Pasaran! ...eee, I'll better stop here...:D
Yeah. I think the the only flaw in GPL 2 is that it allows DRM. Hopefully GPL 3 will fix this flaw. For example Tivo complied with GPL 2 by including the source code but made the source code useless and turned Linux into closed source by using DRM that refused to run modified versions that where not signed by Tivo.

A licence that says "This is free software that you can use for whatever you want and modify in whatever way you want." doesn't do much good if DRM restricts how you use the software and prevents you from running your modified versions.

PryGuy
September 3rd, 2006, 02:40 PM
Not quite right, here
In terms of Itunes The DRM is set up to the users account and gives you upto 5PCs to play/store the music on.
Also you can share playlists with people over the network so you dont have to use one of your five DRM thingys

But after reading ALL these posts i am begininng to see your pointOkay there's some guy who is a madman and he has tons of money and likes bying a new PC every month or he's just a computer freak and changes motherboards and other components very frequently that is more realistic. He also has a great iTunes collection. And it seems that all his collection will stop playing after 5 upgrades? Prohibition is a prohibition. DRM is crap!

.t.
September 3rd, 2006, 07:44 PM
Oh, about allofmp3.com. It's legal in Russia as they have used a loophole in the radio broadcasting licencing laws to get a licence. They then distribute the media, just like a radio station, and pay a fee to the agency. We, as "listeners" get the music perfectly legally: we are importing it, not distributing it. That would be, understandably, illegal.

Also, they will encode downloaded music in most any format you wish. Ogg, MP3, AAC, Flac, WAV; anything.

hanzomon4
September 3rd, 2006, 09:06 PM
Also, they will encode downloaded music in most any format you wish. Ogg, MP3, AAC, Flac, WAV; anything.

Thats what I like about it. It would be nice to see other music stores using similar setups.

Donshyoku
September 3rd, 2006, 09:15 PM
I do wish there was a good, DRM-based music download service for Linux. I would use it. Personally, people don't seem to like DRM, but I have been using it for years in Windows and haven't come across any problems. Original implementations and the current iTunes implementation is poor, but it has improved to allow music to be swapped on computers (though just not the entire world's computers). In fact, I don't have to burn my music to rid it of DRM when it works fine with it.

It may be one of those situations where its very existance is making people mad. Sure, it is not trusting of the user, but most users don't deserve to be trusted based on recent rating for users file-sharing. They complain that they don't want to use music stores, but in fact, are the ones purporting its DRM-ridden existance.

I used AllofMP3 once. I like to support my artists, and buying on AllofMP3 does not allot any money to the artist. If you look into the service, they have CDs of the artists that are ripped and delivered to the user. The artist gets $15 for the CD and doesn't see a cent from the money that users are downloading. If 1 million people download the song, they still get $15. Great way to keep your music alive... ](*,)

.t.
September 3rd, 2006, 09:43 PM
The artist does in no way get "$15 for the CD", for the same reason they do not "see a cent from the money" that record labels get from download sales. DRM is bad. I'll repeat that: DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is VERY VERY BAD.

Got it?

READ MY ESSAY: http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/So why shouldn't I buy an iPod.xhtml

And then read this thread twice. I'm very, very sure you'll understand.

hanzomon4
September 4th, 2006, 01:56 AM
Stopping piracy is good and well, but DRM in its current state only hurts people who buy music legally.
I once got some music from the realplayer music store, and after not using the service for a few months I was told that I needed to update the license/keys? or something like that to listen to the songs. This failed and made my music worthless.
I guess I could have called them and make a fuss about it, but really buying music online shouldn't be that difficult.

With iTunes my music can only be played with itunes, point being if the goal is to stop piracy... why is my music locked to itunes?

If DRM is going to be in linux or anywhere it should be something thats not linked to some particular company, and doesn't hurt the person that bought the music.

I mean let's face it DRM sucks at doing what its suppose to do, stop piracy.

croak77
September 4th, 2006, 03:23 AM
Oh, about allofmp3.com. It's legal in Russia as they have used a loophole in the radio broadcasting licencing laws to get a licence. They then distribute the media, just like a radio station, and pay a fee to the agency. We, as "listeners" get the music perfectly legally: we are importing it, not distributing it. That would be, understandably, illegal.


Isn't that the problem with allofmp3. You are importing music. Shouldn't your country not the country of origin rules and regulations apply. I can't buy drugs over the internet even though they might be legal in country where the site is hosted.

Donshyoku
September 4th, 2006, 04:53 AM
I did not implicitly say that I agree with DRM. But I think too many people are overbuffing it for what it is. It is a simple control mechanism that keeps people, or at least makes it difficult for common users, to spread their music.

The music industry and many (but not all) artists are promoting this method of regulation. I am not a fan of DRM and rarely use music stores to buy my music (I buy physical CDs), but I don't think that DRM is running around pillaging the poor and burning churches. I think many people are giving it too much credit.

If this thread was called: "Is DRM affective?" I would say no.

However, this thread is asking if there were a music store on Linux that supported DRM. I would support that both in the fact that I don't believe anyone should have the power to restrict software programmers for doing what they want. If there were a store, I would probably use it, not because it is good efficiency against pirating, nor that I would "like" to have my music restricted. But it is a simple system to buy, download, and listen within about 30 seconds.

Having to deal with DRM, in my case, is a slight annoyance to a bigger problem. I don't like putting gas in my car... but I do it! I don't like having to pay for my cable TV... but I do it! There are lots of things in this world that you have to find happy mediums with or good alternatives to. Right now, the music download services are a happy medium with me getting my songs and the recording industry keeping themselves happy and, even if in a false sense, "secure."

Hanzomon, though I have yet to read your essay, I do believe you are false or hyberbolic in your statement that artists do not recieve money for online sales. While it is a pitiful sum, they seem to be making enough money... and if you disagree, I would like to see a reputable figure or quote supporting that position. I'll take that up another time, and honestely, after I read your essay to be sure I am not sticking my foot in my mouth too soon.

hanzomon4
September 4th, 2006, 05:22 AM
Hanzomon, though I have yet to read your essay, I do believe you are false or hyberbolic in your statement that artists do not recieve money for online sales. While it is a pitiful sum, they seem to be making enough money... and if you disagree, I would like to see a reputable figure or quote supporting that position. I'll take that up another time, and honestely, after I read your essay to be sure I am not sticking my foot in my mouth too soon.

Wait not my essay or post. Check the quote


The artist does in no way get "$15 for the CD", for the same reason they do not "see a cent from the money" that record labels get from download sales. DRM is bad. I'll repeat that: DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is bad. DRM is VERY VERY BAD.

Got it?

READ MY ESSAY: http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/So why shouldn't I buy an iPod.xhtml

And then read this thread twice. I'm very, very sure you'll understand.

Also I do encourage anyone out there to develop a better DRM, cause DRM and its stated purpose is not bad, just the way its used at the moment.

kkuzia
September 22nd, 2006, 03:53 AM
Isn't that the problem with allofmp3. You are importing music. Shouldn't your country not the country of origin rules and regulations apply. I can't buy drugs over the internet even though they might be legal in country where the site is hosted.

Exactly. I think people really want to believe that AllofMP3.com is legit, but it does matter what country you are using it in. The license is only for Russia, not for export out of Russia and into other countries. They throw up that Russian version of the site in an attempt to maintain an appearance of legality.

You're probably just better off using something like Tunebite with iTunes if you plan on just using the music for your own personal use.

newbie2
September 22nd, 2006, 06:54 AM
DRM out ...'watermark' in ?


A German company is offering MP3 files for download, unencumbered by digital rights management (DRM). Instead, Akuma discourages copying by adding a unique "watermark" to each download.

Major record labels have mostly chosen DRM to protect their copyrights, limiting the number of copies buyers can make of a downloaded track, and restricting the music players they can use to listen to it.

However, Akuma is taking a softer approach. The music store sells MP3 files that can be played on almost any digital music player, but adds a unique tag to each download using watermark technology from Germany’s renowned Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits, which helped create the MP3 audio compression algorithm.

The watermark technology makes slight changes to the data in sound files, such as a higher volume intensity in a tiny part of a song, that are undetectable by even the best trained ears, according to Fraunhofer researchers. However, if unauthorized copies of a download turn up on, for example, peer-to-peer (P-to-P) file-sharing networks, the watermark allows Akuma to identify the purchaser of a file and take action against them.

"Around 40 percent of the labels we offer are embedded with watermarks," said Sascha Hottes, a managing director of H2 Media Factory, which launched Akuma. "This is the compromise we’ve reached with labels that are willing to release their titles in the MP3 format and not in Microsoft’s Windows Media Audio format with its DRM technology."

As part of its service, Akuma monitors songs embedded with a watermark against illegal distribution on P-to-P services, according to Hottes. "We monitor P-to-P networks on a random basis," he said.

About 350,000 songs, mostly from independent labels, are available on the Akuma portal, with 700,000 planned by the end of the year. The roster includes artists such as Katie Melua, Toni Braxton, Simply Red and Deep Purple.

A single song title costs 0.89 euros, (US$1.13) and an album goes for 4.49 euros. Customers have various payment options: online, direct debit, telephone invoice and PayPal.

Akuma offers MP3 files in a quality similar to CDs, with bit rates (a measure of sound quality) from 192Kbps at the low end to 320Kbps at the high end.
http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=24845
:rolleyes:

Carrots171
September 22nd, 2006, 10:08 AM
DRM and iTunes are bad but I'd like to see it on Linux anyway. I wouldn't use it, but there are a lot of people who do - and I'm willing to bet that some people aren't adopting Linux because they do.

weatherman
September 22nd, 2006, 10:52 AM
I think it would be a good compromise if there was a company distributing software for linux which implements drm licensed under the gpl v3.The average user would probably stick with it and have restrictions on its music, but it would still live the choice to not be affected by drm.

bastiegast
September 22nd, 2006, 11:29 AM
OK everyones saying DRM is so bad, but nnobady tells me why, can some1 state clearly whats so bad about DRM and why it should die?
Btw. voted yes, a lot of my friends complain they cant live without iTunes so if i want to get them using linux....

Slychilde
September 22nd, 2006, 12:26 PM
I will never use DRM, nor should it ever be on Linux. DRM is the anti-thesis of the GPL...it directly contradicts it. Bastiegast, did you not read this thread? There are many stated reasons why DRM is bad.

If you buy a song from iTunes, you can ONLY play it in iTunes or on an iPod. If you want to play it in amaroK? Can't. WMP? Can't. Winamp? Nope. XMMS, Listen? Nope, nope. Creative Zen mp3 player? Nope, sorry.

Now, what if someone has two PC's, which they put a song from iTunes on, and they get infected with spyware. They manage to recover the song and re-install. They must now activate both PC's again, meaning they've used 4 of 5 liscenses. If it happens again - that music is now 100% worthless. If you upgrade your PC semi-annually, it would take 2.5 years for that song to become useless. That is a horrible product life, especially compared to what it can be. I have CD's from when I was a kid that still work just fine; that was over 12 years ago. Quite the contrast, no? Why are we going backwards instead of forwards?

kkuzia
September 22nd, 2006, 12:46 PM
OK everyones saying DRM is so bad, but nnobady tells me why, can some1 state clearly whats so bad about DRM and why it should die?
Btw. voted yes, a lot of my friends complain they cant live without iTunes so if i want to get them using linux....

The issue with DRM is that it is essentially treating you as a criminal first and consumer second. DRMs are only in place based on the idea that record companies are convinced that you are going to take that song and share it with all of humanity so that they will lose money.

What makes so little sense about the whole thing is that these big media companies refuse to do anything to embrace digital music and instead seek more ways to limit it. Think of it this way: big media companies fought against tape recorders... and then FINALLY they figured out a way to use them to their advantage. Then they did the same thing with VCRs... and then with recordable CD's, etc. etc.

They are afraid of changing around their business models to accommodate the changes in technology and are instead seeking to fight it, which never works. They are fighting a completely losing battle and doing little but alienating their customer base.

The one thing I will say is that I do somewhat understand why iTunes and other music services use DRM - without it, they would not even exist since the major labels would never provide them the music without it.:(

hanzomon4
September 22nd, 2006, 03:52 PM
DRM seems to be set up to stop people from sharing(stealing) music with p2p softwere. Most people started using p2p because that was the only way to get music online, but now that you can buy it I doubt most people would use p2p softwere... This reduces the chance that someone would share(steal, bootleg, whatever)their music.

Erik Trybom
September 22nd, 2006, 08:01 PM
Linux is all about choice. If someone wants to implement DRM on Linux, I say go ahead.

I'm not going to use it though. DRM is utterly and completely useless to me as a consumer.

.t.
September 22nd, 2006, 09:24 PM
No. I think the kernel should move to GPL v3, preventing the evil DRM (http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/So why shouldn't I buy an iPod.php) from tainting the system. We already have TPM support to contend with. I don't want this, and I'd probably move to BSD (or even, if it's ever "finished"), the HURD.

weatherman
September 22nd, 2006, 09:47 PM
No. I think the kernel should move to GPL v3, preventing the evil DRM (http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/So why shouldn't I buy an iPod.php) from tainting the system. We already have TPM support to contend with. I don't want this, and I'd probably move to BSD (or even, if it's ever "finished"), the HURD.

as far as I understand it (correct me if wrong) the gpl v3 actually does allow you to distribute software with drm functionalities, it just says that you must than be able to change and use the software without drm functionalities. Sadly Linus doesn't seem to want the kernel under the gpl v3, which would be very sad. Personally I really hope there will be a wide adoption of the gpl v3.

hanzomon4
September 23rd, 2006, 04:42 AM
Although I dislike DRM, I must say I agree with others who want DRM in linux on the basis of choice.

UltraMathMan
September 23rd, 2006, 05:04 AM
Blast! Voted yes, but meant to vote no.
<.<
>.>
...recount?

10snoopy1
February 15th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Itunes