The enemy is how DRM is implemented by retailers. Stupid moves by online retailers like Apple to use DRM as a way to try to force people to use their ipod is the real problem. As usual the corporate meglomaniacs like Jobs and Gates are the ones who are screwing it up for the consumers just like they always have. Putting intentional incompatibilities in place to prevent us from using a competitive product has been these two guys game since the advent of the personal computer.

Just execute the two of them, and the problems will probably slowly disappear…

I have no problem ponying up .99 for songs on iTunes. What I do have an issue with is being a hostage to their software DRM constraints. So, I simply rerecord the m4p file by playing it thru my soundcard, using an Encoder to convert it to wmv, then using another conversion program to convert wmv to mp3. Problem solved, takes about 2 minutes.

……

“if you don’t like the conditions that the artists/labels give you for the privilege to listen their music, then you don’t have to buy from them. simple.”

We, the listeners are the ones that privilege them, not the other way around. Do you really think that they’d get all that money to buy multiple houses and cars if none of us listened to them?

Your thinking is similar to the music industries, backwards.

I have never downloaded music for free using p2p networks. And I haven’t bought music online from any service either, until AllOfMp3 came around. Once I found them I quickly spent well over $500 with them, but not because it was cheaper than anywhere else, but because it didn’t have DRM. More people would buy music if it didn’t come with restrictions. It is quite simple. Yes, you may have some people share it, but the amount of people that pay for music will increase and outweigh the ones ho give it away for free.

There are two things that I read in above posts that I really agree with. The first thing that I saw that I agree with was the creation of a tiered service. First tier with DRM, the second without (priced higher). I would be on the second tier in a heartbeat.

The second thing that I read was the introduction of of a marker embedded into the file. If they created a file format, or found a way to modify the mp3 format to include markers, it would be ideal. You can transfer the file anywhere you want, but if it ever gets out in the wild, they’d be able to track you down. That thought alone would prevent most people from sharing it.

Also, just for clarification, all the music that I purchased from AllOfMp3, where did it go? On my IPod, CDs (for in the car) and my computer. I have never shared it with anyone. Why would I want to contribute to stealing?

-Joel

Most of the iTunes music no longer has DRM…

It’s not rocket science if you know what you are doing.

Perhaps the message on these largely exaggerated stories should change from “DRM is evil” to “here’s how to route around it.”

Just like we did with DVD.

While I can understand the position of concern for innocent little consumers who don’t know better, I take the attitude that if it affects you enough to need the DRM removed, it’s possible. If it doesn’t, you don’t. For me, the continual beat-up is little more than a way to sell advertising space on blogs or news sites.

Surely there are other, more serious problems affecting quality of life than whether paying 99c for something you can’t immediately email to a friend is the end of liberty in the free world?

i fully understand your pain. and i actually think you understand the interesting delima the artists/producers find themselves in.

if you create ip/material, you want to be able to get paid for it. you don’t want someone ripping you off.

the issue is how to accomplish this.

i’ve argued for quite sometime that the way to do this is to allow a person to purchase a digital copy of the item (song/video/whatever) but to incorporate watermarking information within the content. i argue that some of the watermarking should be upfront/visible (audio/video) to all, with some also embedded within the content..

i argue that the watermarking information should be uniquely tied to the user, consisting of personal information (ssn, credit card, drivers license, etc…) this kind of approach will prevent the user from giving the content to 10,000 of his closest friends… this approach also allows for the user to be able to ‘move’ the content to various devices…

however, some people will scream, as there are people who pretty much believe that it’s their right to download/steal whatever they damn well please. to these people, i’m right there with them, as long as they don’t complain when i have friends come by to take their cars/tvs/atm cards/etc…

peace

“But you know full well before purchasing music from iTunes that you wont be able to transfer it over to a none Apple authorized device.”

@Stephen
Actually, it’s really not that clear. I’d argue that most people discover this only after the attempt to transfer.

I’m presently more concerned with video (Movies, TV, clips, etc.) heading down the same god forsaken path. At least I can burn/rip my .m4ps, I don’t have the capability to do that for any video that I purchase from iTunes.

For the folks that say DRM is here to stay…you think studios can do the same thing as the labels, now that consumers have been punked by the latter?

I’d say that one cannot stop the demise of DRM *in its current incarnation*. You can line up thousands of lawyers and technologists, but the synergistic wisdom of millions of consumers (many of whom happen to be lawyers and technologists) will find a way to trump that.

That does not, however, prevent anyone from redefining/reshaping DRM….because “DRM in its current state” most definitely does NOT mean “artists not getting paid”. If the “content owners” focused more on giving the *reasonable* consumer what they want, instead of devising plans to thwart those desires, then we might get somewhere…instead, they are content to keep bleeding the current system for all its worth.

Indeed, adaptation and evolution, not restriction, are the means to meaningful growth.

But you know full well before purchasing music from iTunes that you wont be able to transfer it over to a none Apple authorized device. That is part of the deal. If that’s not acceptable then you are free not to purchase from them. Portability is a convenience, not a right.

if you were to have bought a vinyl record, (as some of us actually still own!) then you aslo had to buy the cd when it came around…

that’s the reason you have to potentially rebuy the song. just because you own a digital copy of a song, may not necessarily give you the ability to play it on any digitial device you own, whether it’s now or in the future…

peace..

Of course users would prefer to copy their tracks without hinderance but that would undermine the profits of the music industry and they would simply stop selling digital products.

The reason why Bill Gates and Sony are against DRM is very simple. They are late to the party! Apple has a near monopoly on digital music and has very successful agreements with the music industry.

If DRM ceased to exist it would undermine Apple and allow microsoft and others to get back into the game.

Why would the music industry support a non-DRM store like Amazon - everyone would just download the tunes and share it amoungst their friends. Very good for new and upcoming bands - terrible for established artists. They would lose the profits from iTunes as well as CDs - sounds like a terrible idea to me.

In order for DRM to work you have to have both a proprietary distribution network (i.e. itunes) and a compatible player that is widespread in the market (i.e. iPod). None of the companies predicting the death of DRM have this so they have nothing to lose by trying to bury DRM technology.

Chris