Hello!??

The fine print on VUDU is silimar to the fine print on a DVD or BD.

You aren’t allowed to copy, edit, distribute etc, any of those formats.

Yes indeed, AWT, but not the fine print on CDs, and also not the same warning for other movie download services that let you copy content for playing on other devices.

Funny, but this is one of the reasons why I’ve been avoiding purchasing online music. I actually experienced similar situation with MSN music (although MS is far from going under).

I purchased 2 albums online and recently they stoped playing and popped me a message that I need to aquire the license. Of course the link they provided to renew the DRM didn’t work

After very long, frustrating attempts to get in touch with MSN support and resolve the issue, I gave up.

As along-time advocate against DRM, I think the music industry is just digging itseld deeper and deeper in an old and obsolete business model that drives people away rather than lure them to buy more.

Eyal, Walmart is “far from going under” but when business models change as in their case, there can always be issues with DRM content

Hello,
The music industry is well within their rights to dictate what users can and cannot do with their product, and if a user loses product when a company goes down, it’s just too damn bad, and it’s the user’s problem, not the industry’s. Music should be pay-per-play and DRM-locked, and users should have to follow the rules set out by the music and movie publishers. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to buy. Why should the music, movie, software, or any other industry have to ‘be nice’ with users, most of whom are pirates, or would gladly give away copies for free if enabled to? Let the users pay, and if they have to pay again, so be it. The entertainment industries own the users NOTHING! It’s the users who owe the industry. after all, without the industry, no music WHATSOEVER would EVER be produced. Period!

noone, I couldn’t agree more. Content developers have the right to dictate the use of their products. But consumers can (and should) complain so that new business models will emerge to better serve us.

noone, you really have no clue do you?  Music was around long before a music industry was ever invented and even now there are many people making music without any kind of involvement with the music industry.

If you bought a song and then the next day you couldn’t play it, how would that make you feel?  Ripped off?  Now imagine what people feel like after they have dumped in a bucket load of money into music expect to be able to listen to it where ever and when ever they want, only to find out that they can no long listen to it just because a company has gone out of business.

You buy a toaster, the maker of the toaster goes out of business, do you expect the toaster to suddenly stop working? No.

You buy a watch, the maker of the watch goes out of business, do you expect the toaster to suddenly stop working?  No.

Why should you even think that the music or what ever you buy from a company should stop working just because it goes out of business?  You shouldn’t.

Hello again,
I couldn’t care less for your poor exause for being a pirate and a thief! I hope someone reports you to the RIAA/MPAA for theft of property. Why is it their concern, or even their problem, if your music/movies/games ‘go away’? And the same poor excuse of ‘Music was around long before a music industry was ever invented and even now there are many people making music without any kind of involvement with the music industry.’ is just that, an excuse. The music industry not only creates the music we listen to, but they SHOULD have total CONTROL over what music or art is ever created, released, or even performed live. again, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it! Stop being pirates and grow a set, and pay for what you consume!

I have little sympathy for people who buy DRM-encumbered music (or, more accurately, pay for a licence to listen to it) and then lose access to it. I’ve been warning people about this for years.

However - most of these companies selling digital downloads do not tell their customers that their computer has to ask permission for them to be allowed to use what they have purchased. They market it as if the product were free and unencumbered, and then treat those legitimate, paying customers, as potential criminals.

Once upon a time, music was simple. We paid our money and got a product that would still work 20 years down the line. Now we have to hand over money to some big corperate machine and hope that the company will still be in business and let me use what I have paid for next year. Maybe, just maybe, some of that money will make it to the actual creators of the music.

This is why you should always burn any DRM music to an audio CD and re-rip it to MP3 or AAC. The only safety is an open file format, and the slight (and, to most people, inaudible) loss in quality caused by re-encoding is worth it for the peace of mind.

noone, I would truely like to know what you are smoking/snorting, because it really mucks with your perception of reality. The “industry” does not create the music, the artists do. And what is with the “pay-per-play”? Music that is legally purchased by someone should be DRM-free and be able to be played at any time, with no paying involved. And really, with DRM, the industry is digging their own grave.

http://thepiratebay.org/

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

Right to copy, not copyright!

This is why you should always burn any DRM music to an audio CD and re-rip it to MP3 or AAC. The only safety is an open file format, and the slight (and, to most people, inaudible) loss in quality caused by re-encoding is worth it for the peace of mind.

And that’s the great irony: Kind of defeats the “convenience” of digital downloads.

I’m just amazed that studios think their DRM schemes will be good for business in the long run.

re DRM and PKI… It really is really a straight forward concept EXCEPT when you “pierce the vail”, meaning when you go from one system to the next (or body to body).  In the distributed computing world it is the equivalent of crossing machine boundaries (machine A to machine B to Machine C).  that is what kerberos is all about re networking sessions.  Re DRM the PKI, the architecture for authentication, authorization and encruption exists to deal with this and that is independent of specific servers/platforms.  However it does become a challenge across form factors, clients and players.  that is what OMA DRM 2.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMA_DRM) and later are SUPPOSED to deal with but that is more “standard” and less an actual deliverable/product.  The fact is that people just don’t get PKI and that includes users, developers and IT support people.  I mean come on… I used PKI for email and files, but who else does?  So the problem is adoption, usage, education and WORST OF ALL, the VENDORS that are doing NON STANDARD DRM and sticking it to us all!  So caveat emptor.  This problem is 1. by design and 2. because of ignorance/lack of knowledge

“owning an old-fashioned disc may be the safest – if not the most convenient—investment”

Well, until the disc itself is scratched or just degrades over time.

The only reliable way to save music you’ve bought is to rip it and back it up on a second hard drive.

Of course, the crooks in the music industry call that “piracy” and would like to sue you for it - if governments let them.

Noone the music industry doesn’t create music, the musicians that write, record and perform the songs create the music.

the music industry signs the artists and backs their recording and touring efforts for the exclusive rights to distribute their recordings and to receive royalties on their properties.

If someone legally pays for a recording they should have the right to play it back in whatever manner they like.

at this point the music industry is probably get what it deserves for its decades of abuse of the artists that make the music and consumers.

the music industry in its greed was also blinded to the potential of the digital market and a business model that it was given by apple.

It’s hardball tactics have also forced the musician community to find new ways to reach consumers and they have done so by embracing the web and the gaming markets. these are two areas in which the music industry never invested in and now they are paying for it.

the riaa’s own data also indicates that downloads are up, which means that’s people are legally downloading music.

If the music industry was more creative maybe it could excite consumers to buy music instead of recycling britney spears and green day wannabe acts as something fresh.

Bob Archer is right on with his comments. With regard to “noone,” Obvious Troll Is Being Obvious.

Sadly, he’s right about the music industry’s perception that their customers are thieves and pirates. That adversarial attitude has alienated an entire generation of what would have been paying customers. Surcharges on blank media, DRM, and every other shackle they’ve dreamed up only encourage unauthorized duplication. If you’ve already been punished before you’ve even commited the crime, why wouldn’t you just go and do it anyways then?

Most of what motivates the traditional music labels is fear of change.  Digital technology, and the Internet mean that artists no longer need the record companies in order to distribute their work and reach new fans around the world. That means that labels have less leverage to sign artists to onerous contracts where the label earns the lion’s share of the money. Piracy is one thing, but losing control of the artists is worse.

I am no DRM expert for Media content but I know a good deal about PKI and DRM on documents, email and files, and all that u require is a certificate (public/private), a certificate server, a trusted 3rd party and client api’s/local store. It’s pretty straight forward and works across platforms, languages, clients, OS’s, etc… From what I just read if the DRM’d media content is using OMA DRM 2.0 then it should NOT be an issue related to the content provider, just as the case for standard DRM/PKI (But again, i am not an expert and just learned about OMA). there are newer standards, so I would think as long as players comply with the standards (even across platforms) this should be a non issue… Honestly, users and even IT people/developers are NOT very informed/aware as to PKI and DRM works. Most people simply see it as an inconvenience or complexity. This is NOT a technical issue nor one that should be hard coded to specific servers/services as long as they comply with “standards”

And re all talk about the music industry and content providers, look at companies like corbis.com and getty images.  These people have been distributing digital artifacts for YEARS.  there is NO REASON why the music/video industry cannot do the same while at the same time making sure everyone get’s their piece of the pie (consumer - product, content distributor- their cut and artist - their cut).  That is how it works today for companies like corbis.com (Oh, btw, it is all technology centric BTW)  AND making sure that technology is implemented to enforce usage/license/royality policies and agreements.  Look just find the money trail.  this is NOT about the end user or piracy, it’s about reducing cost/complexity for the content providers and maximizing their profits and controls.  This is NOT a problem with the artist or a problem with the technology.

Copyright shmoppyright. DRM is a joke, all it does is anger paying customers. I do not need to be an evil genius hacker to have my friend pay $1 for a song, burn it to a disc so that i can rip it and use it on my PC and then pass it to my neighbor.

But.. the reality is that i don’t borrow or share music with people. Paying customers are to busy with their lives to play pirate. Paying customers will always be paying customers. Those who are going to steal.. will steal. They will never be paying customers.

I suggest that the music industry invest their time & money into making music easier to obtain and use for their paying customers. Stop wasting money on people who were not and will never be paying customers.

Its like a shoe store with 300 security guards and 1 cashier.

I owned 3 CD’s before itunes showed up for PC. That’s because i don’t have time/interest in collecting CD’s. I have over 3000 songs, movies, tv shows now. I purchased them all thru itunes. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to listen or watch with whatever device i choose? Wouldnt it be nice to not have to worry about passwords & licenses & rights?

The whole thing is ridiculous. DRM has caused me to slow down my purchases. Im afraid of ending up with an expensive and worthless collection of music and movies. Im worried that if i get a blackberry i wont be able to watch movies on the plane. What is wrong with these morons? Its 2009!

When you see a movie in the theater
or go to a live performance you purchased a ticket for a the right to see that single, analog persistant event. When you buy a book, Painting, cd or dvd you buy the right to perpetually access the content. DRM and CSS are technological extortion.

That’s why we sell all original CDs and DVDs, in any format, no DRM and fully legal, loaded to the server of your choice. If you have a crash, a format changes or the original company goes out of business, you still own the orignal and all of your fair use rights are still in tact.

@Joel - I am an advocate for fair usage rights, but I think you statement about “Technological extortion” is divisive and lacking fact.  DRM is not different than having an ATM card and PIN.  IT baffles me as to why this is such an issue and why it is made an “IT issue”.  When people argue with NON SEQUITORS and Fallacies ad hominen, it is clear that the cause is either 1. a dark agenda, 2. ignorance (read that as fear) or 3. BOTH.

Downloaded digital media should have a unique finger print to identify the most important piece of meta data WHO OWNS IT.  then you should ha4ve other importnat meta data will be usage rights/terms and who can/cannot watch this (right down to content rating…)

NOw, back to the ATM card and PIN.  That is the exact same thing, so at the risk of getting caught in my own logic error (though i do not see it that way, others can decide that for me).  U suggesting that DRM is a “technology extortion” is no different than suggesting the use of an ATM card (Unique ID, like a PKI/DRM scenario)is “Financial Extortion”.  That is silly.  Personally I would like to be able to use an ATM card and PIN to retriece ALL my digital assets at anytime, and place and on any device so that I could puruse, watch, read, listen to or share (assuming usage allowed it) AND i am willing to wait for that to come down through the cloud so that I can 1. “get it now” or 2. “Have it for later”, with or without the cloud.  If you that vision is “Technological extortion” then I think you need to re evaluate your perspective. It is NOT the technolgoy that is “bad” it is how it is used/implemented/or NOT used.  Oppenhimer and Einstein both knew that…  If you are looking for the bad guys, follow the profits and money trail and/or the naysayers and trouble makers.  DRM is NOT bad.  It is how people use/misuse it that is the problem.  As a matter of fact DRM is a great technology implementation for giving us access to what we own… period.  i agree usage/implementation is a challenge,  but do not agree with the conspiracy ideas.  the content providers and ce folks (or people making PETROLEUM based DISCS) are the problems.  Not the softare developers or “Digital visionaries”  Oh, and take a moment to blame yourself also, as we contiue to allow this abuse….

@Ray: I actually disagree with your analogy to ATM because of several reasons:
1. The security in the ATM is meant to protect me, the user - not the company who printed the money.
2. ATM is a public device, used by many users to access financial information and perform financial transactions. nothing of this scenario applies for music downloads. If anything, it would be the shopping cart that can be compared to the ATM scenario.

I think this conversation goes beyond the technology and how it is implemented. It is a philosophical discussion on whether you own the content (assuming you legally obtained it) and what kind of ownership you get.

The music industry tried for years to implement DRM-like technology in music CD’s and abandoned the idea for several reasons.

When you buy a CD, you can rip it, convert it to MP3 and play it on any of your devices. The same should be with digital downloads. There should be no difference in the security or restrictions between physical media and digital download.

One of the problems with DRM is, that someone is monitoring your music playing activity and I, personally, don’t feel comfortable with this at all. I buy the media, I pay for the media and THAT’S IT!!! I don’t want any further connection with the vendor, unless I need to purchase more music.

What happens if your internet connection is down? you wouldn’t be able to listen to your music either. I see this as a weak link in the DRM architecture and in-fact I see this as a violation of my right to enjoy a product for which I paid for.

The issue the article is trying to address is not whether you can illegally copy the music or distribute it but rather, innocent people who paid lots of $$$ and who are deprived from enjoying their purchase. From this aspect, I totally see why some would see DRM as an extortion and abuse of technology.

Someone already mentioned this earlier. Those who are buying music will always buy music. And those who are getting the music for free will continue to get it for free.
The interesting fact is, that the music industry alienated almost an entire generation of people who may have paid for the music. Whether it is the overpriced CD’s @ $15, whether it is the DRM etc…
It is the first time that the music industry - and I’m referring to the corporations, not the artists - that the public is gaining more power and is able to say no.

Rather than change their old business model into more creative revenue-generating models, they continued with the same old methods… more restrictions, more enforcement, higher price… etc etc…

At the end of the day, artists will continue to create music and we will continue to enjoy it. In todays technology and the quick and easy reach artists can get on their own, whether the middle men will be out of the game… time will tell…

Ron,

Yes, it is devisive, but rest assured I believe with copyright there is copy-responsibility too.

With a Bank, you have the key or pin.

You can go to any bank, regardless of branch, town city and even many countries.

With CSS, the playback device has the key,
and forget about traveling to a different region.

These are serious differences.

Agreed on Digital downloads in general, including some sort of digitl registering too.

I am nervous about the price of an average DVD skyrocketting when they can no longer force you to buy it in additional formats.

Agreed- Tech is not bad. To this end, the only reason I can’t take a DVD I allready own and legally transfer it to my iPod is because the Industry doesn’t want me to. They want to force me to buy it again, in as many formats as they can.

To your point about follow the money, agreed-
see above. 

About my perspective-

I can get a liscence to buy a gun easier than I can get a liscence to decrypt and load a movie to my iPod.

JD

@Eyal Shalom!  r u in israel?  UP until now i thought that we were reading from the same score (or on the same note:), but on this topic I think we are very much at odds.  Since we are using litany for our point, here is my response

1. I am talking about the technology and how it is implemented (Challenge, response, public key and private key, authorization, authentication and encryption). 
2. It is irrelevant whether you are online or offline when accessing your content, DRM gives u choice
3.  My point about DRM was NOT about philosophy or about the industry, it was that the technology is NOT the problem, and that the article (commentary and publisher) expresses an illogical conclusion and that this is more about emotions, opinions, “a position”, passions and agitprop vs. facts and reason.
4. That the analogy holds it own based on its attributes vs. usage.  see point 1 and I am simply talking about how a widely used technology could be used effectively without extortion (like being charged a fee for using your card a different bank, or charged for roaming on a different towwwe
5. That Joel’s response it right on
6. That the internet was created by the DOD and H E L L O, everything we do is tracked/recorded anyway.  Besides, same is true for netflix, or Comcast, or Verizon Vcast or whatever.  The privacy statement is the only thing that can tell you what they are doing with info
7. That I want an ATM card, or Chip, or Guid or MAc ADDRESS or whatever that I can use to get that copy of “dark side of the moon” that i purchased once in 1984 and want to download from a gas pump or airport kiosk in 2010 when I am in costa rica and swamped my iphone on a rafting trip and don’t have the inet bandwidth to access me personal NAS with all my music at home (I have bought that damn CD like 5 times… and trust me, that is annoying!)

So now I am getting silly, but the point is that DRM is NOT the problem.  Just like Nuclear fission/fussion is NOT a problem.  It is 1. hot it is implemented and 2. how it is used…  DRM works fine and it is good to both protect and serve, online or offline, for consumers or manufacturers.

I completely disagree with Ray’s point of view but IMO his atm pin number analogy is valid and a pretty good one at that.

Eyal Kattan said….
“1. The security in the ATM is meant to protect me, the user - not the company who printed the money. “

DRM is the ‘pin number’ for the recording industries account/property. They have as much right to protect their property as you do.

Keep in mind that the recording industry does in fact own the music we listen to. It says so in their contract so arguing this point is a waste of time. I wont get into them not playing fair or how much the artists make and how they screwed them, they negotiated a deal and signed the contract, done.

I agree that they have the right to use DRM but i think its ridiculous and yet another example of them being clueless about today’s technology, the music industry and their customers.