DRM and the PRO-IP Act - Limited time opportunity? Shameless self-promotion?
When I left KC to serve in Kathmandu I lost my address near Gladstone. As such, I reverted to the congressional district where I grew up in Illinois. You guys probably cover four or five districts in MO and KS, though, so I figured I'd drop you a link to the open letter I just hammered out to mine. If Yahoo, MSN, WalMart, et al are going to pull the plug on their DRM servers right before the passage of the (still far from perfect) PRO-IP act, why not use the opportunity to get ammendments passed that allow consumers to bypass the DRM? If it's getting railroaded through anyway, let's turn it to good: The DMCA trust should go both ways, if it's to be retained at all: Consumers shouldn't get their shit turned off if they respect the DMCA's provision preventing them from unlocking their files. http://mrzaius.com/blog/?p=108 Sean Crago Kathmandu
Much as I might try to sympathize with these folks, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who bought into a system which basically told them "we don't want you to freely listen to music you buy from us" and now is being denied the ability to freely listen to the music they bought. Rather, a big "we told you so" needs to go out from the anti-DRM folks to all those people who thought that being denied the right to freely listen to their own music would /never/ result in them being denied the right to freely listen to their own music *at all*. People bought into DRM (and read their T&Cs, right?) and now are getting *exactly what they paid for*. Its the free market in action: an informed public read their T&C (thus the informed part) and still agreed to buy music which could be taken away from them at any moment without a refund of the purchase price. Caveat emptor and similar Latin warnings. Besides which, economists will rejoice in Yahoo, Wal-Mart, and others' tactics here: now customers are required to purchase their DRMed music *all over again*! What a shot in the arm for the drooping economy! --- On Sun, 9/28/08, Sean Crago <cragos@gmail.com> wrote:
When I left KC to serve in Kathmandu I lost my address near Gladstone. As such, I reverted to the congressional district where I grew up in Illinois. You guys probably cover four or five districts in MO and KS, though, so I figured I'd drop you a link to the open letter I just hammered out to mine. If Yahoo, MSN, WalMart, et al are going to pull the plug on their DRM servers right before the passage of the (still far from perfect) PRO-IP act, why not use the opportunity to get ammendments passed that allow consumers to bypass the DRM? If it's getting railroaded through anyway, let's turn it to good: The DMCA trust should go both ways, if it's to be retained at all: Consumers shouldn't get their shit turned off if they respect the DMCA's provision preventing them from unlocking their files.
Leo, you must be one of those bigot, racist, hateful, evil-rich Republicans. People taking personal responsibility? Bah! What horrible ideas you are presenting. Why, if they have to do that for their music then what's next? Actually pay their mortgages or suffer the consequences? I think we need a bailout for the disenfranchised music people. The government should buy new DRM-filled music for them with taxpayer's money. After all, isn't that the moral thing to do? At 10:22 AM 9/28/2008 -0700, you wrote:
Much as I might try to sympathize with these folks, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who bought into a system which basically told them "we don't want you to freely listen to music you buy from us" and now is being denied the ability to freely listen to the music they bought.
Rather, a big "we told you so" needs to go out from the anti-DRM folks to all those people who thought that being denied the right to freely listen to their own music would /never/ result in them being denied the right to freely listen to their own music *at all*.
People bought into DRM (and read their T&Cs, right?) and now are getting *exactly what they paid for*. Its the free market in action: an informed public read their T&C (thus the informed part) and still agreed to buy music which could be taken away from them at any moment without a refund of the purchase price. Caveat emptor and similar Latin warnings.
Besides which, economists will rejoice in Yahoo, Wal-Mart, and others' tactics here: now customers are required to purchase their DRMed music *all over again*! What a shot in the arm for the drooping economy!
--- On Sun, 9/28/08, James R. Sissel <JimSissel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Leo, you must be one of those bigot, racist, hateful, evil-rich Republicans.
You don't have to be a Republican to laugh at someone who signed a contract without reading the whole thing.
People taking personal responsibility? Bah! What horrible ideas you are presenting. Why, if they have to do that for their music then what's next? Actually pay their mortgages or suffer the consequences?
Yes, Wall Street should have to suffer the same consequences for their equally foolish expenditure of money. Seems the richer you get, the more fiscally-irresponsible you get because you know, deep down, that Daddy Government will step in to refill your bank account should your wasteful and foolish spending ever catch up with you. Joe Average has no such assurance. Someone who was a member of the 1980s S&L scandals' "Keating Five" (like JOHN MCCAIN, the only member of the "Keating Five" still in the U.S. Senate) shouldn't be put in charge of financial decisions like the Wall Street bailout. The remaining fox being put in charge of the financial henhouse.
I think we need a bailout for the disenfranchised music people. The government should buy new DRM-filled music for them with taxpayer's money. After all, isn't that the moral thing to do?
Seems the "right and proper" thing to do, after watching the U.S. Government agree to pay off Wall Street's "American Excess Card" payments, would be for the U.S. government to buy all of the DRM-ed music from the consumers, without much more than a "slap on the wrist" penalty to the consumers, and let them continue to make DRM mistakes with their new money.
At 10:22 AM 9/28/2008 -0700, you wrote:
Much as I might try to sympathize with these folks, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who bought into a system which basically told them "we don't want you to freely listen to music you buy from us" and now is being denied the ability to freely listen to the music they bought.
Rather, a big "we told you so" needs to go out from the anti-DRM folks to all those people who thought that being denied the right to freely listen to their own music would /never/ result in them being denied the right to freely listen to their own music *at all*.
People bought into DRM (and read their T&Cs, right?) and now are getting *exactly what they paid for*. Its the free market in action: an informed public read their T&C (thus the informed part) and still agreed to buy music which could be taken away from them at any moment without a refund of the purchase price. Caveat emptor and similar Latin warnings.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Someone who was a member of the 1980s S&L scandals' "Keating Five" (like JOHN MCCAIN, the only member of the "Keating Five" still in the U.S. Senate) shouldn't be put in charge of financial decisions like the Wall Street bailout. The remaining fox being put in charge of the financial henhouse.
McCain and Glenn were found innocent of wrongdoing in that scandal. The Democrat counsel for the committee (later one of Bill Clinton's attorneys) wanted to drop them from the investigation due to the embarrassing lack of evidence, but the Democrat majority on the committee insisted on having a token Republican to investigate, and for Glenn to keep him company so the ploy wouldn't have been that transparent. Here I present the relevant Wikipedia summary, with the links to articles documenting the statements made. Initially the committee investigated in private. On September 10, 1990,
Bennett submitted a confidential report, which soon leaked, that recommended that the committee continue its investigation of Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle, but take no action against Glenn and McCain,[21]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#cite_note-wapo020891-20>as there was insufficient evidence to pursue the latter two. [32] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#cite_note-nyt092990-31>Bennett also recommended that public hearings be held. [20] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#cite_note-Bennett-19>
[21] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#cite_note-wapo020891-20> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081800... .[32] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five#cite_note-nyt092990-31> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DA133EF93AA1575AC0A9669...
--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Monty J. Harder <mjharder@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Someone who was a member of the 1980s S&L scandals' "Keating Five" (like JOHN MCCAIN, the only member of the "Keating Five" still in the U.S. Senate) shouldn't be put in charge of financial decisions like the Wall Street bailout. The remaining fox being put in charge of the financial henhouse.
McCain and Glenn were found innocent of wrongdoing in that scandal.
[43] # ^ a b Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton. "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk", The New York Times, February 21, 2008. Retrieved February 21, 2008. NYT Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/45zyhs
From the link:
===== "Mr. McCain agreed to join several senators, eventually known as the Keating Five, for two private meetings with regulators to urge them to ease up. 'Why didn’t I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?' Mr. McCain later lamented in his memoir." ===== "During Mr. McCain’s four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules" ===== Life imitates Art: ===== RICK: "How can you close me up? On what grounds?" JOHN MCCAIN... ...err... CAPTAIN RENAULT: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" [a croupier hands RENAULT a pile of money] CROUPIER: "Your winnings, sir. CAPTAIN RENAULT: [sotto voce] "Oh, thank you very much." CAPTAIN RENAULT: [aloud] "Everybody out at once!" ===== -- "Casablanca" (1942) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/quotes) =====
James, you forgot to make fun of Native Americans or rail against Mexicans when posting this reply. Jeffrey. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM, James R. Sissel <JimSissel@yahoo.com>wrote:
Leo, you must be one of those bigot, racist, hateful, evil-rich Republicans. People taking personal responsibility? Bah! What horrible ideas you are presenting. Why, if they have to do that for their music then what's next? Actually pay their mortgages or suffer the consequences? I think we need a bailout for the disenfranchised music people. The government should buy new DRM-filled music for them with taxpayer's money. After all, isn't that the moral thing to do?
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
In a better vanished world? The concept of a person retaining ability to use what had been paid for in a good faith transaction was not questionable. Now with these cases it has become so questionable that DRM itself may be rendered unmarketable. IF the consumer base having that click or not freedom on DRM locked "IP" has a bad enough association for DRM? Uh- wait- This "DRM" ain't that how youknowwho lost $$$ on all the stuff he and his family "bought" ??? And while much of the "Soccer Mom" or "Family Man" adult world may not YET equate the term "DRM" with all this at the moment, we can bet safely on a major screamfest Real Soon Now.... Hell- if they time this they can have it be breaking news close enough before the "Black Friday" sales as to tank those too! SO all the plans for selling DRM required devices and content as a major $$ this "Black Friday" will be competing with horror stories. Like: "I lost ALL my downloaded stuff- $$$ worth and it says I have no recourse for my money" Those types of articles and news stories might not be to enticing a sales pitch for more DRM locked stuff eh?? Sounds grim for the DRM cheerleaders. Their "Hail Mary" play might HAVE been a pre-planned and clearly explained contingency plan for what is becoming a plague. The fumble on not having done so earlier may be viewed in history as an industrial strength suicide. I can close the crematory oven hatch on "Server Based DRM" with one flat fact. The logistics of basing one's future on greed as opposed to need always lose in the end. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Much as I might try to sympathize with these folks, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who bought into a system which basically told them "we don't want you to freely listen to music you buy from us" and now is being denied the ability to freely listen to the music they bought.
Rather, a big "we told you so" needs to go out from the anti-DRM folks to all those people who thought that being denied the right to freely listen to their own music would /never/ result in them being denied the right to freely listen to their own music *at all*.
People bought into DRM (and read their T&Cs, right?) and now are getting *exactly what they paid for*. Its the free market in action: an informed public read their T&C (thus the informed part) and still agreed to buy music which could be taken away from them at any moment without a refund of the purchase price. Caveat emptor and similar Latin warnings.
Besides which, economists will rejoice in Yahoo, Wal-Mart, and others' tactics here: now customers are required to purchase their DRMed music *all over again*! What a shot in the arm for the drooping economy!
--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Sean Crago <cragos@gmail.com> wrote:
When I left KC to serve in Kathmandu I lost my address near Gladstone. As such, I reverted to the congressional district where I grew up in Illinois. You guys probably cover four or five districts in MO and KS, though, so I figured I'd drop you a link to the open letter I just hammered out to mine. If Yahoo, MSN, WalMart, et al are going to pull the plug on their DRM servers right before the passage of the (still far from perfect) PRO-IP act, why not use the opportunity to get ammendments passed that allow consumers to bypass the DRM? If it's getting railroaded through anyway, let's turn it to good: The DMCA trust should go both ways, if it's to be retained at all: Consumers shouldn't get their shit turned off if they respect the DMCA's provision preventing them from unlocking their files.
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- Oren Beck 816.729.3645
--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Oren Beck <orenbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
In a better vanished world? The concept of a person retaining ability to use what had been paid for in a good faith transaction was not questionable. Now with these cases it has become so questionable that DRM itself may be rendered unmarketable.
IF the consumer base having that click or not freedom on DRM locked "IP" has a bad enough association for DRM? Uh-wait- This "DRM" ain't that how youknowwho lost $$$ on all the stuff he and his family "bought" ??? And while much of the "Soccer Mom" or "Family Man" adult world may not YET equate the term "DRM" with all this at the moment, we can bet safely on a major screamfest Real Soon Now.... Hell- if they time this they can have it be breaking news close enough before the "Black Friday" sales as to tank those too! SO all the plans for selling DRM required devices and content as a major $$ this "Black Friday" will be competing with horror stories. Like:
"I lost ALL my downloaded stuff- $$$ worth and it says I have no recourse for my money"
Those types of articles and news stories might not be to enticing a sales pitch for more DRM locked stuff eh??
Exactly. Let the consumers find out exactly what DRM means so there will be millions of people who shout down DRMed music and video later on.
I was catching up on XKCD cartoons, and found this little gem relating back to the DRM discussion. http://xkcd.com/488/ The point: if your only online choices for getting a particular song are (a) pirate download of non-DRMed MP3, or (b) buying a DRMed music file, you might as well pirate download the file, because eventually you will become a criminal anyway when "things change" and your DRM music becomes impossible to open...unless you break the law (DMCA 1201) by breaking the DRM. Either way you're a criminal, and with the pirate download you will always be able to easily use the music file in any way you choose. The music industry will fight tooth and nail to keep illegal any way of removing the DRM from a DRMed music file. If a method ever becomes legal then someone has a precedent for making legal backdoors into future versions of DRM. It is thus extremely unlikely that any law will ever be passed allowing consumers unfettered access to their DRMed music files, even if "things change." People who don't like losing money on DRM music shouldn't buy DRM music, they should demand non-DRM music. The DMCA is a one-way trust issue: companies can be trusted (Sony rootkit springs to mind), consumers cannot be trusted. That kind of contract shouldn't be allowed in the first place. The author of XKCD would like to point out that Amazon.com's online MP3 store sells non-DRMed MP3 files, so strictly speaking you probably do have a choice other than the instant-criminal pirate download or the delayed-criminal DRM option. --- On Sun, 9/28/08, Sean Crago <cragos@gmail.com> wrote:
If Yahoo, MSN, WalMart, et al are going to pull the plug on their DRM servers right before the passage of the (still far from perfect) PRO-IP act, why not use the opportunity to get ammendments passed that allow consumers to bypass the DRM? If it's getting railroaded through anyway, let's turn it to good: The DMCA trust should go both ways, if it's to be retained at all: Consumers shouldn't get their shit turned off if they respect the DMCA's provision preventing them from unlocking their files.
Of course, Apple offers DRM-free files for those who actually look for them. It's up to the labels to put them on there, but the option for no DRM on iTunes purchases is there. That's one reason I get annoyed at some who write about DRM and bash it's use in iTunes. It's not up to Apple to add the DRM, it's a label decision. Apple just has the ability to handle both types of files and leave the choice to those who put the content in the store. I don't think Apple/Audible/others are particularly to blame, so much as the recording labels. Jon. On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
The author of XKCD would like to point out that Amazon.com's online MP3 store sells non-DRMed MP3 files, so strictly speaking you probably do have a choice other than the instant-criminal pirate download or the delayed-criminal DRM option.
I forgot to add that Apple also allows one to burn an audio CD of purchased content, which can then be re-imported as a DRM-free file. It's a simple loophole, and it makes decent use of the fair-use backups provision. Jon. On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, Apple offers DRM-free files for those who actually look for them. It's up to the labels to put them on there, but the option for no DRM on iTunes purchases is there. That's one reason I get annoyed at some who write about DRM and bash it's use in iTunes. It's not up to Apple to add the DRM, it's a label decision. Apple just has the ability to handle both types of files and leave the choice to those who put the content in the store. I don't think Apple/Audible/others are particularly to blame, so much as the recording labels.
Jon.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
The author of XKCD would like to point out that Amazon.com's online MP3 store sells non-DRMed MP3 files, so strictly speaking you probably do have a choice other than the instant-criminal pirate download or the delayed-criminal DRM option.
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
I forgot to add that Apple also allows one to burn an audio CD of purchased content, which can then be re-imported as a DRM-free file. It's a simple loophole, and it makes decent use of the fair-use backups provision.
<SARCASM>And there's no loss of quality whatsoever when you convert a music file from one format to another, and all of the music file tags (title, artist, album, etc.) are kept intact by converting the files to audio CD and then ripping the CD. No time consuming tag editing on each and every purchased music file!</SARCASM> If you don't have to convert the file at all to get a non-DRM format, the quality remains unchanged and the music file tags remain unchanged.
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
The author of XKCD would like to point out that Amazon.com's online MP3 store sells non-DRMed MP3 files, so strictly speaking you probably do have a choice other than the instant-criminal pirate download or the delayed-criminal DRM option.
Of course, Apple offers DRM-free files for those who actually look for them. It's up to the labels to put them on there, but the option for no DRM on iTunes purchases is there. That's one reason I get annoyed at some who write about DRM and bash it's use in iTunes. It's not up to Apple to add the DRM, it's a label decision. Apple just has the ability to handle both types of files and leave the choice to those who put the content in the store. I don't think Apple/Audible/others are particularly to blame, so much as the recording labels.
So "Apple" isn't to blame for *allowing* razorblade-spiked Halloween apples among their other Halloween apples because "Apple" didn't put the razorblades in the spiked Halloween apples? iTunes is an enabler of DRM, if nothing else, and the complaints about iTunes are thus valid and should be there, if for no other reason but to poison DRM in the minds of Apple execs. Whether or not the label chooses to put the DRM content into iTunes or not, its still up to Apple whether to *sell* the DRM content or not. With any luck the extreme hatred EA Games is getting from gamers over the draconian DRM in "Spore" should have a chilling effect on DRM in general, but DRM needs to be opposed on all fronts: both the content creators and the content distributors need to be told just how much people want to be able to control content they buy.
participants (7)
-
James R. Sissel -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jon Pruente -
Leo Mauler -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck -
Sean Crago