Help Stop DRM

[drascus]

A Danger to all computer users is DRM. with DRM music and media you never own the content you pay for and it is a constant headache to everyone who uses a computer. please join the fight against DRM at http://defectivebydesign.org/

[DeadSuperHero]

Hey, man. Most of us have seen this before.
Now, the real question is: What are you actually DOING to eliminate it?
I would recommend taking a look at my project, which is sloowly being developed (I'm still in the mockup design phase)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=577954

[Henaro]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:

[LookTJ]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:I don't blame the artists, but I blame the recording companies.

[n3tfury]

Hey, man. Most of us have seen this before.
Now, the real question is: What are you actually DOING to eliminate it?
I would recommend taking a look at my project, which is sloowly being developed (I'm still in the mockup design phase)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=577954

glad to hear you're still working on that

[Ireclan]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:

DRM isn't affecting the pirates that make a dent in artist's profit margin, just the average consumer.

[juxtaposed]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:

I can assure you, I'm a pirate and DRM has not affected me in any significant way :)

But by all means, go for it; you've got a right to make your product worse and more restrictive then wonder why people stop buying it ;)

[ericartman]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates.

I'm sorry as i understand it 99.99% of music out there that has DRM is music under a label and therefore is no longer the property of the artist. The artist sells the song to the record company and the company gets the profits. Thats why Michael Jackson owned most of the Beatles songbook and profited every time they were played or used. Radiohead is the only group to bypass both DRM and the music industry vampires that I know of other than a few indie artists selling their own music.

cart

[SunnyRabbiera]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:

No, piracy means NOTHING to artists, and EVERYTHING to greedy corporate organizations like the MPAA and the RIAA

[Spike-X]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:
DRM doesn't do jack to stop piracy; all it does is stop legitimate paying costumers from getting full fair use from the products they pay good money for, and makes them jump through all sorts of hoops in order to use those products at all.

[Henaro]

DRM doesn't do jack to stop piracy; all it does is stop legitimate paying costumers from getting full fair use from the products they pay good money for, and makes them jump through all sorts of hoops in order to use those products at all.

Then shouldn't the customers do something to try and stop piracy and not DRM? Start at the root of the problem, not the very tip.

[capturesteve]

I guess I just don't worry about these things, and let the dice fall where they will. Really the market economy will take care of everything, no need for this starting of organizations to fight it. If DRM is wrong their sales will fall and they will get rid of it. If DRM is right then they will keep it.

[RebounD11]

Anyone heard or Parazitii? A Romanian hip-hop band that sells their songs like anyone else only without DRM protection and if the song doesn't sell they give it away on the Internet...

I think it's a good strategy - if you're worth it people will buy your songs, if they don't like U they won't even download them for free...

[p_quarles]

Then shouldn't the customers do something to try and stop piracy and not DRM? Start at the root of the problem, not the very tip.
:confused:

Let me see if I get this right.

Whereas DRM annoys many legitimate customers because it restricts their usage of purchased media to certain devices or applications, and in some cases either presents a security risk (see Sony's rootkit) or prevents playback altogether (see recent Blu-Ray problems), and;

Whereas many people prefer pirated media not because they wish to steal, but because it is easier to use, and;

Whereas DRM is allegedly a solution to the problem of media piracy, and;

Whereas DRM has had no impact at all upon the rate of piracy, or upon the availability of pirated media;

Therefore we conclude that it is incumbent upon the consumer to attempt to prohibit piracy.

Okay. I think I understand. I must have missed the part about DRM being an effective countermeasure to piracy, though. Someone?

[macogw]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates.
DRM creates piracy. If you have to jump through hoops to use the music you legally bought from an online music store (say, because you can't afford your subscription next month and your music's all going to become unusable even though you paid for it), such as burning it and re-ripping it...why bother paying for the inconvenience? You're paying to be treated like a criminal. I only buy physical mediums (cd or vinyl) since issues like losing what you've bought when a hard drive fails (and having to re-buy it) or having the music expire or be non-transferable to your new mp3 player are non-existent. Oh, that's the other thing. Your iPod breaks, so you buy a new mp3 player and go with a Zen. Suddenly, the legally bought music is useless. Screw that.


Art is for hippys and gays.
Nothing wrong with them, but I guarantee you there are straight and non-hippy artists out there. How about AC/DC or Hank Williams Sr.?

[macogw]

Anyone heard or Parazitii? A Romanian hip-hop band that sells their songs like anyone else only without DRM protection and if the song doesn't sell they give it away on the Internet...

I think it's a good strategy - if you're worth it people will buy your songs, if they don't like U they won't even download them for free...

That's how Jamendo works. Check out the plugin in Rhythmbox. You can stream the songs, and then if you want the album, you can buy it digitally for $5-$18 and pay by how much you think it's worth

[3rdalbum]

I can't believe there are people in a Linux forum claiming that they've never been adversely affected by DRM.

I mean, dude, haven't you ever tried to play iTunes Music Store songs on Linux? Even if you're a Windows user hanging out in a Linux forum, surely you've tried putting one of your iTMS songs as the soundtrack to a video in Windows Movie Maker. I know a surprisingly large number of people who have tried to do that and not understood why it doesn't work.

[phrostbyte]

Then shouldn't the customers do something to try and stop piracy and not DRM? Start at the root of the problem, not the very tip.

The root of the problem is out of control copyright law.

[Robocoastie]

DRM isn't affecting the pirates that make a dent in artist's profit margin, just the average consumer.

exactly the point proven by several University studies that the PBS documentary "The day the music died" points out. It only hampers the consumer, revenue the RIAA claims to have lost had to do with people finally being done re-buying their Cassette's as CD's NOT "piracy". Worthwhile enlightening documentary if you can get your hands on it or catch a repeat.

[drascus]

first I am glad this post is developing such useful debate. First I would just ask that everyone refrain from name calling as it is not very constructive.
Hey, man. Most of us have seen this before.

yes but some people have not seen it. people are joining our community everyday and they should be made fully aware of the issues facing us.


I would recommend taking a look at my project, which is sloowly being developed (I'm still in the mockup design phase)

This is a really cool project you are working on keep it up. But people need to know why these projects are important beyond the fact that they exist. I am not a programmer or website designer so I can't make a contribution that way. All I can do is put my voice out there. So that is what I am doing. it may help it may annoy people but at least its generating response.


Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates

I find fault with this argument. Pirates can easily infiltrate and override DRM protection so it only creates the illusion of protection. The people who really loose out are the regular users. who can't say make back up copies of their media. Or when a company goes out of business loose the ability to use the media at all.

DRM treats its regular end users like Pirates before they have even done anything wrong. They restrict our ability to do what we want with the media we paid for. In essence they have restricted us from truly owning the media we pay for.

[phrostbyte]

Please stop using the term "pirate". Equating plundering on the high seas with sharing music with your neighbor is silly and ignorant.

[p_quarles]

Sources of US pirating? And I say US because the US is the only country that actually matters. Others are just communist or Nigerian.
Wow. Just, wow.


Sources?Any -- any --torrent tracker should satisfy this question. In any case, the burden of proof belongs to you, since you are asserting that DRM is an effective countermeasure to piracy. It's impossible to prove a negative statement, but entirely possible to prove an assertion.

[Spike-X]

Then shouldn't the customers do something to try and stop piracy...

Such as...?

[igknighted]

If you don't like DRM, don't buy it. And tell your buddies not to. But spamming a forum where everyone hates DRM isn't going to do anything about it. Vote with your wallet by buying from companies like amazon that sell DRM free music... thats the only language companies understand.

[-grubby]

Such as...?

not buying the DRM-riddled music?

[Spike-X]

not buying the DRM-riddled music?
How will that stop piracy?

[Sef]

Please stop using the term "pirate". Equating plundering on the high seas with sharing music with your neighbor is silly and ignorant.

Meriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy): Definition of piracy


1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery2: robbery on the high seas3 a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

Piracy and pirate are the proper words to use.

[juxtaposed]

I can't believe there are people in a Linux forum claiming that they've never been adversely affected by DRM.

I mean, dude, haven't you ever tried to play iTunes Music Store songs on Linux? Even if you're a Windows user hanging out in a Linux forum, surely you've tried putting one of your iTMS songs as the soundtrack to a video in Windows Movie Maker. I know a surprisingly large number of people who have tried to do that and not understood why it doesn't work.

Ha, no :P I'd never use iTunes. They want me to pay for a lossy hardly compatible format? No way!


Piracy and pirate are the proper words to use.

But using that word makes sharing seem like stealing.

I know it's the wrong word to use though, but I use it anyway; It's a fun word. Arrrr!

[DeadSuperHero]

Sure, DRM IS ridiculous, but think about benefits:
1. Everyone hates it, and it provides a common ground for us to unite against.
2. It helps develop the next generation of software-crackers, who usually go on to be developers.
3. Er, that's it really.
That post was in jest, actually. I hate how DRM works, and when Microsoft's own implementation doesn't even work right on their own music players, there's seriously something wrong.
Ever wondered why we don't have a gtkzune package?
I believe in choice, though. If you want people to ditch DRM, you have to give them incentive to do so.

[Bungo Pony]

For those who say piracy is ripping off the artist and not the record companies, please take note...

Neil Diamond is one of a small number of performers such as Paul Simon, Billy Joel, Pink Floyd from 1975's Wish You Were Here onward, Queen, Genesis (though under the members' individual names and/or the pseudonym Gelring Limited) and Johnny Rivers who have their name as the copyright owner on their recordings. (Most records have the recording company as the named owner of the recording.)

Neil Diamond was also a victim of Sony's Rootkit debacle.

Rubin (producer) claims that he and Diamond were not aware of XCP, and both were infuriated about it.

By December 2005, Sony BMG had remastered and repressed 12 Songs and all other albums released with the XCP software as standard, non-copy-protected CDs.

[igknighted]

For those who say piracy is ripping off the artist and not the record companies, please take note...

Neil Diamond is one of a small number of performers such as Paul Simon, Billy Joel, Pink Floyd from 1975's Wish You Were Here onward, Queen, Genesis (though under the members' individual names and/or the pseudonym Gelring Limited) and Johnny Rivers who have their name as the copyright owner on their recordings. (Most records have the recording company as the named owner of the recording.)

And when that band whose CD you stole doesn't get resigned because album sales sucked, you were only hurting the label, correct?

Look, the current situation is deplorable. There's no denying that. But stealing is still stealing. I believe the expression is "two wrongs don't make a right". Support (yes, that means BUY) music from non-DRMed sources and non major label bands. Trust me, you can still enjoy music without listening to what MTV or VH1 tries to cram down your throat. But stealing music just strengthens their hold, because they still have what you need. Also, it puts you on shaky moral ground when the time comes to sort out who is in the wrong. If you can say "look, I did what I could but got hosed" then they can't justify screwing you... but if you screw them, it becomes a chicken/egg scenario, and nothing will ever change.

[phrostbyte]

And when that band whose CD you stole doesn't get resigned because album sales sucked, you were only hurting the label, correct?

Look, the current situation is deplorable. There's no denying that. But stealing is still stealing. I believe the expression is "two wrongs don't make a right". Support (yes, that means BUY) music from non-DRMed sources and non major label bands. Trust me, you can still enjoy music without listening to what MTV or VH1 tries to cram down your throat. But stealing music just strengthens their hold, because they still have what you need. Also, it puts you on shaky moral ground when the time comes to sort out who is in the wrong. If you can say "look, I did what I could but got hosed" then they can't justify screwing you... but if you screw them, it becomes a chicken/egg scenario, and nothing will ever change.

What you call "stealing", I call sharing. What you call "wrong", I call "right".

We need to come up with something that respects common people's personal freedom and also allows authors to generate revenue from their works. It's not the people who share music who are wrong, it is copyright itself that is wrong. Copyright in an a world where everyone is a publisher will inevitably lead to fascism and censorship.

[juxtaposed]

But stealing is still stealing.

Right, but sharing isn't stealing.

[Dimitriid]

We need to come up which respects common people's personal freedom and also allows authors to generate revenue from their works.

Thats the main issue here, you can't really measure the "work" of a person working on a creative field. Art should be state managed socialized resource of the people like health is on many parts of the world.

[phrostbyte]

Thats the main issue here, you can't really measure the "work" of a person working on a creative field. Art should be state managed socialized resource of the people like health is on many parts of the world.

There are ways to centrally manage works which do not involve socialism in the typical sense. We live in a world of algorithms which a public algorithm be the "authority" of how funds be distributed, and not a person or organization which can easily be corrupted. But even a human manned organization would be a better option then what we have today.

[igknighted]

What you call "stealing", I call sharing. What you call "wrong", I call "right".

We need to come up with something that respects common people's personal freedom and also allows authors to generate revenue from their works. It's not the people who share music who are wrong, it is copyright itself that is wrong. Copyright in an a world where everyone is a publisher will inevitably lead to fascism and censorship.

See, thats the problem. Someone WILLFULLY paid for a license to that music. A LICENSE. And treated that as ownership. This is wrong. That's like me tapping cable off my neighbor and offering to share it with you. Same thing.

I agree with your sentiments on copyrights. But the answer isn't to steal and share, it's to make new terms where sharing is OK. And stealing and sharing only hurts that end result, which we all want.

[Dimitriid]

There are ways to centrally manage works which do not involve socialism in the typical sense. We live in a world of algorithms which a public algorithm be the "authority" of how funds be distributed, and not a person or organization which can easily be corrupted. But even a human manned organization would be a better option then what we have today.

You are implying that I, or Socialism, condone a single centralized authority figure, which I do not. Just because I believe there should be a method to achieve an Utopia doesn't means that I want a definitive authority figure or figures as opposed to self governed communities.

[Anessen]

The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition for Pirate:

verb 1 dated rob or plunder (a ship). 2 reproduce (a film, recording, etc.) for profit without permission.

So you are only a "pirate" if you profit from it.

[phrostbyte]

See, thats the problem. Someone WILLFULLY paid for a license to that music. A LICENSE. And treated that as ownership. This is wrong. That's like me tapping cable off my neighbor and offering to share it with you. Same thing.

I agree with your sentiments on copyrights. But the answer isn't to steal and share, it's to make new terms where sharing is OK. And stealing and sharing only hurts that end result, which we all want.

All copyright law is paper, it is worthless if no one follows it. The more people that violate copyright law the weaker it will become. The more people who stand up and say they will not let government and big business run their lives for them, and back their words up with actions, the farther they will retreat. We do not need people to pander to copyright law. All of the RIAA actions in suing and threating tens of thousands of people is backed by law. If you back the law, you are backing their actions. We need courage to fight for what we believe in or everything that we know and love will be taken away from us. The government and business only have as much power as the people allow them to have.

[drascus]

There has been some talk on the list as to whether or not sharing of the music is OK. In my opinion when you buy music you enter into an agreement with the record company or musicians if they have control of the rights. You say I will use this for my own personal use and will not share it. Now whether you agree with copyright law is neither here or there. If you enter into an agreement you should honour it because it is right to do so. You can avoid this by buying music which is not copyrighted and free to share. DRM is the problem not copyright. Copyright doesn't prohibit people from the regular exclusive of his/her media it encourages that we use it. DRM places restrictions on that use. I don't want to have to buy a CD and then copy it onto my computer in order to avoid DRM. I don't want to have the artists I can buy from restricted because their labels choose a DRM format for their online sales. And to close I want to buy their music because I believe in supporting the music industry because I like music. I also am a capitalist and believe in the ideas of capitalism. If others do not that is fine I have no gripe. But as a capitalist I want the best there is and I want to have a choice. DRM restricts both of these.

[-grubby]

How will that stop piracy?

Did you read the title? It says "help stop DRM" not "help stop piracy"

[Dimitriid]

There has been some talk on the list as to whether or not sharing of the music is OK. In my opinion when you buy music you enter into an agreement with the record company or musicians if they have control of the rights.

You do no such thing: The only way you can enter an agreement is by signing a contract, no CD comes with contracts. Copyright laws need to serve the only purpose that can actually be proven to damage profits, which is that you profit yourself without consent.

There is no justification, legal or moral, to extend copyright law to cover anything other than that. Potential profits are just that: a huge ******* 'if' I get to sell this. A potential loss is just utter BS and should NEVER be penalized, for the simple fact that establishing damages for it gets completely irrational: You have to make assumptions on potential loss to establish a fine or sentence, so you are exceptionally punished for something that did not happened and let whatever crazy criteria a record company wants to impose of you as the basis to claim said damages, who is to say what is a sensible amount for damages when we are already building assumptions upon assumptions?

A potential theft cannot be punished or persecuted as actual theft, and so far NOBODY and I really need to make the letters bigger here, NOBODY can prove how many copies a record will sell, not without a time machine. So the only thing that leaves is that when you buy a cd, you but THAT, a piece of plastic with sound waves printed on it by a laser and a piece of paper with ink. If I wanted to buy a license, id get a damn license for something more useful like the rights to use the song for profit. Other than that making and sharing and mp3 is no different than putting a speaker outside my window and let everybody on the street listen.

So lets either move on to DRM and why is irrefutably flawed ( reaching a third level of assumption: assuming a customer would be interested in a product enough to buy it, assuming that he will attempt to obtain it without paying and assuming he will go on and make personal profits from it. Not to mention assuming DRM will stop him without hurting legitimate customers so thats 4)

[runningwithscissors]

Yeah because artists shouldn't have the right to protect their content from pirates. :rolleyes:
They can protect it all they want. No way am I buying their stuff under those DRM terms.

[igknighted]

This recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Using Internet services to distribute copyrighted music, giving away illegal copies of discs to others for them to copy is illegal and does not support those involved in making this piece of music - including the artist.

This is pretty much the same as a EULA. You may use the software (or in this case music) if you agree to the specified terms. Otherwise, don't buy it. Period.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for people... by acting like a bunch of juveniles you might get the law changed, but lets grow up and do it the right way. I mean, what's next... movie companies charge too much for movies, and my goodness, its so much easier to just "share" cableTV across the neighborhood. Those companies have far too restrictive terms tho, so it's OK.

[Dimitriid]

This is pretty much the same as a EULA. You may use the software (or in this case music) if you agree to the specified terms. Otherwise, don't buy it. Period.

If your cds contain an EULA you have to sign before they are playable then they are very different from the ones Ive seen. As for the rest of your comments if you don't like opposition to copyright laws why would you choose to swim upstream on a Linux community from a distro that openly promotes and supports open software?

[Spike-X]

Did you read the title? It says "help stop DRM" not "help stop piracy"
Yes, I did.

Unlike you, I also read the posts to which I was responding.