Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Thoughts on DRM
- Thread starter airkarol
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm aginnit.
1. Effectively it treats you as a criminal from the moment you buy something with DRM. Some (many) people are, but not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.
2. It's pretty ineffective as dedicated pirates will find ways around it, so it's useless against them. The ordinary person is the one who suffers - for example, someone who buys a lot of iTunes music IS pretty much limited to iPods (why they would want to change from an iPod is an entirely different question).
Why treat the people who are giving you money poorly?
3. I think intellectual property law has swung too far. When a corporation owns copyright, there is no chance of music EVER entering the public domain.
1. Effectively it treats you as a criminal from the moment you buy something with DRM. Some (many) people are, but not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.
2. It's pretty ineffective as dedicated pirates will find ways around it, so it's useless against them. The ordinary person is the one who suffers - for example, someone who buys a lot of iTunes music IS pretty much limited to iPods (why they would want to change from an iPod is an entirely different question).
Why treat the people who are giving you money poorly?
3. I think intellectual property law has swung too far. When a corporation owns copyright, there is no chance of music EVER entering the public domain.
well its all circumstantial imo.
for any subscription based service its going to be needed. absolutely.
but buying to own tracks i don't agree with it. i think the record companies need to learn how to trust their customers instead of making assumptions about them and thinking the worst-case scenario.
for any subscription based service its going to be needed. absolutely.
but buying to own tracks i don't agree with it. i think the record companies need to learn how to trust their customers instead of making assumptions about them and thinking the worst-case scenario.
I don't object to DRM philosophically. I view it as one inefficient method of dealing with the issue of piracy, which is real. I don't think it's the best solution. But I think it's legitimate that DRM can offset at least some piracy, and so DRM'd products can be sold at lower prices. As long as the DRM is not too intrusive, I do like the option of paying less for a product rather than paying additional costs that offset the diluted impact of piracy.
When DRM is intrusive, I think it is openly bad. When DRM uses covert mechanisms (e.g. Sony's rootkits), I think it should be illegal and should be punished far more severely than it was in that case.
When DRM is intrusive, I think it is openly bad. When DRM uses covert mechanisms (e.g. Sony's rootkits), I think it should be illegal and should be punished far more severely than it was in that case.
Drm
I voted against DRMs, but I am also against copyright infringement. Here is my reasoning: Artists are also business men and women. If they have created a product you want and like, they deserve to be paid for it.
Here is why I am against DRM: It may be somewhat effective for some people, but I believe it promotes piracy. Because of DRM protection, it becomes harder to use a file you purchased from an online store than to use one you stole from a peer to peer network. You cannot use iTunes music on a Windows mp3 player (or anything but an iPod). You can't use Windows DRM protected music on an iPod. So, the people who legitimately pay for their music are punished. Those who downloaded it for free can use their mp3 files wherever they want.
Those who were going to steal the music will find a way to do it anyway. Those who will pay for it are the ones who have a hard time. Rather than punish and their customers, music sellers need to provide a service that is better-- more fun, higher quality, easier to use-- than the pirated alternative.
I voted against DRMs, but I am also against copyright infringement. Here is my reasoning: Artists are also business men and women. If they have created a product you want and like, they deserve to be paid for it.
Here is why I am against DRM: It may be somewhat effective for some people, but I believe it promotes piracy. Because of DRM protection, it becomes harder to use a file you purchased from an online store than to use one you stole from a peer to peer network. You cannot use iTunes music on a Windows mp3 player (or anything but an iPod). You can't use Windows DRM protected music on an iPod. So, the people who legitimately pay for their music are punished. Those who downloaded it for free can use their mp3 files wherever they want.
Those who were going to steal the music will find a way to do it anyway. Those who will pay for it are the ones who have a hard time. Rather than punish and their customers, music sellers need to provide a service that is better-- more fun, higher quality, easier to use-- than the pirated alternative.
Sure you can. Burn it to CD and re-import it in whatever format you please, DRM-free. I have been doing this with iTMS from day one.
I am against DRM, it limits the people who legally buy things. Like DVDs for example, I can't legally make a copy of a DVD onto my computer so I can conserve battery life on the road by not having to use the DVD drive. DRMs push people who legally buy things to pirate things because they can't do whatever they want with what they legally own.
Yeah Im against it too. Buying music from itunes store shouldnt be any different from buying a cd, only difference being distributional and not the actual media.
If i buy from itunes but cant transfer the song around, even though its 'MINE' then its really pointless.
Part of having an ipod is to share music with friends and families etc to expand ur tastes, or discuss with friends for example.
DRM = VERY BAD
If i buy from itunes but cant transfer the song around, even though its 'MINE' then its really pointless.
Part of having an ipod is to share music with friends and families etc to expand ur tastes, or discuss with friends for example.
DRM = VERY BAD
Attempting to prevent piracy, record labels are using DRM (Digital Rights Management,) forcing their customers to suffer, ultimately hurting themselves. DRM is anything used to limit the use of digital media; an example being the iTunes Music Store, where restrictions only allow music to be played on Apple iPods, and five computers. DRM is everywhere, and affects every user of digital media, including you.
Record labels sell music containing DRM as an anti-piracy measure, but, to appease honest users, sell it at a low price. Media providers would have us believe that buying digital media with DRM ultimately helps us as less trucks will carry CDs, *leading to less gas used, decreased pollution and an improvement to the environment;*this is up for debate.
DRM violates the rights of the consumer. Buyers have stringent control over usage of purchased products, *and access to media can be cut off at anytime. DRM takes away functionality and limits the consumers right to enjoy what they paid for. DRM, used as a solution to piracy, actually punishes buyers by assuming they will wrong before they do.*It has come to the point where legally purchased content is inferior to that of illegally obtained content. *In a survey given, *82% of people were against DRM. In actuality, DRM can be easily circumvented, and doesn’t stop piracy. Artists are punished by lower sales on media because of DRM, even though music can be sold without it. DRM-free CDs are still being sold, so why should paying people be given less freedom for buying online?
Attempts to prevent piracy with DRM have ultimately damaged labels, along with the customer’s experience. Even Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple is openly against DRM. DRM should give users more control and create a better experience for the user, or else come to an end.
Record labels sell music containing DRM as an anti-piracy measure, but, to appease honest users, sell it at a low price. Media providers would have us believe that buying digital media with DRM ultimately helps us as less trucks will carry CDs, *leading to less gas used, decreased pollution and an improvement to the environment;*this is up for debate.
DRM violates the rights of the consumer. Buyers have stringent control over usage of purchased products, *and access to media can be cut off at anytime. DRM takes away functionality and limits the consumers right to enjoy what they paid for. DRM, used as a solution to piracy, actually punishes buyers by assuming they will wrong before they do.*It has come to the point where legally purchased content is inferior to that of illegally obtained content. *In a survey given, *82% of people were against DRM. In actuality, DRM can be easily circumvented, and doesn’t stop piracy. Artists are punished by lower sales on media because of DRM, even though music can be sold without it. DRM-free CDs are still being sold, so why should paying people be given less freedom for buying online?
Attempts to prevent piracy with DRM have ultimately damaged labels, along with the customer’s experience. Even Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple is openly against DRM. DRM should give users more control and create a better experience for the user, or else come to an end.
DRM is evil....down to the very soul of it!
It does nothing but screw over people buying their music legally online. I do understand Record Company want to protect the music from pirates and what not, but DRM simply isn't effective. Its just a pain in the arse.
That goes for Vidoes too....if i buy a vidoe I think I should be alloewed to editing, and using for what I wish, as long as I don't sell it/give it away.
It does nothing but screw over people buying their music legally online. I do understand Record Company want to protect the music from pirates and what not, but DRM simply isn't effective. Its just a pain in the arse.
That goes for Vidoes too....if i buy a vidoe I think I should be alloewed to editing, and using for what I wish, as long as I don't sell it/give it away.
Mmm...it seems pretty effective at stopping videogame copying, as not many people are willing to modify their brand new machine...
True, it does stop most of the public from pirating their console games and it isn't as obstructive as DRM'd music: You can play the a PS2 game on any PS2 you want, for example. You can't make backups of your games, though, and region coding is very, VERY annoying, but for the most part, it's okay.
DRM on some computer games has gone way too far, though. Having to connect to the internet to be allowed to play the game (steam) or having to install a rootkit that might wreck your CD/DVD-drive (starforce) can be a pain in the ass.
The thing is, though, that music and games are quite different and while I can easily accept a little bit of DRM in my games, I simply can't tolerate DRM in my music. Console games are supposed to be played on a single platform (like PS2), but I don't want my music to be restricted in the same way (like being restricted to using an iPod).
When it comes to music, I consider DRM to be evil.
This is only partially true, video game systems are only as safe as how advanced they are in terms of technology. In the current generation the Xbox360, Wii, PSP, and DS have all been hacked to be able to play copied games. Some of these hacks are very difficult (360) and involve cracking open your console, therefore voiding the warranty, and even copying the games themselves is difficult. But some systems are easy to hack (PSP), to be able to play .iso files on a PSP all one needs to do is install a custom firmware and play away.
Admittedly the percent of people who hack their consoles is small compared to the total population, which is why the DRM for video games works. But when you get into things like music and video DRM is not going to stop the trend, movement really, of getting it for free.
When people don't think your price is fair and you refuse to lower it they stop buying it. A CD is not worth $15 and a DVD is not worth $25.
If I was to make a console, I'd allow people to back up their games. I'd include a DVD-R drive in the console, and when the game is copied the resulting DVD-R would be serialised with the console's unique ID, so that you can't then go and give the copy to others.
There would need to be a few other tricks (eg. require the original DVD the first time a game is played to stop people from downloading ISOs then serialising them on their PC) as well as having "rental editions" that don't allow copying, but you get the general idea. It wouldn't stop the dedicated pirates but shouldn't annoy the consumers either
So what do you do if your console breaks? Or your console gets stolen, insurance pays for the stolen console, but all your games stopped working with your new console? Do you think the insurance should pay for them?
Get the originals out of the cupboard and run off a new set. Alternatively, there could be some sort of username/password system where you could give your new console the same serial number as the old one (which, for obvious reasons, could only be changed say once every six months).
The biggest flaw that I see with this system is that you could still lend your originals to friends and let them run off their own copies. I have no idea which form of piracy is most rampant (copying originals or downloading ISOs).