Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

When Would You Accept DRM?

Cliff posted more than 9 years ago | from the bitter-pills-made-palatable dept.

Media 1288

twigles asks: "Following on the heels of Apple closing DVD Jon's end run around its DRM and a British TV station offering DRM'd downloads it seems fair to ask, what DRM would you accept as a consumer? Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine. On the other hand, if a particular piece of digital media is priced correctly (a la' rental fee) would that be satisfactory, or do you feel that DRM in any form is ridiculous?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Never (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023252)

Not as long as I have any alternative.

Re:Never (2, Insightful)

mankey wanker (673345) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023320)


The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another form.

This is all nonsense, of course. And we have let them build a business on the nonsense for far too long.

I have long since drawn my own line in the sand.

Re:Never (1)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023367)

Not as long as I have any alternative.

Right, however alternatives are what the big companies are trying to stop.

Yes (5, Insightful)

henrypijames (669281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023259)

I do feel "DRM in any form is ridiculous". It's that simple.

Re:Yes (0)

torchta (631416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023283)

I agree

I also agree. (1, Troll)

2names (531755) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023373)

Not to go all Roswell on everyone...

Now, let's just wait and see if the ubiquitous "THEY" start trying to apply some DRM-like techniques to books, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, speech, etc...

Re:Yes (2, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023412)

I accept no DRM. If it is locked, I don't buy it. I guess I'm going to have to brush up on my disassembly debugging for strategically placed jump routines.

Re:Yes (4, Insightful)

dopelogik (862715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023418)

Everyone just loves to hate DRM cause it's so controlling and limiting and 1984 and blah blah. What about the fact that DRM allows Napster to offer an excellent service like Napster-to-Go? Or how about DRM allows video producers to have a video be playable only from their web site and for a certain amount of time before it expires? Does anyone care about the valid and useful DRM applications before screaming human rights violations?

Re:Yes (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023462)

I do feel "DRM in any form is ridiculous". It's that simple.

But the owners love it!
So unless you're planning a glorious uprising of the working classes, then we'd better get used to it.

The DRM I'm willing to accept os the DRM that I won't even notice. Like the one on the iTMS seem to be. I never bought any of their wares, but from the list, I could burn any of my music, and move is to another computer without problems.

DRM that doesn't get in the way of fair use is acceptable.

I'll take DRM (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023467)

when it gives me rights to compensate me for the rights I have lost.

Alternatively, CRM protected works are not protected by copyrights. They can either use the quid-pro-quo that copyrights gives them or the all-or-nothing perpetual rights that DRM gives them. Not both.

FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023266)

Yeeee Harrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'll answer for slashdot (3, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023272)

- No DRM of any form is ever okay: I should be able to do anything with items I obtain, including sharing them with others;

- It's not right for content creators/originators/owners/licensors to expect to be able to protect their content; if their content needs protection, their business model is dying;

- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;

- DRM is fundamentally flawed and is only used as a tool of the rich and powerful to forcefeed commercial tripe to the masses;

- In the digital realm, ideas of "ownership" and "theft" are meaningless. The world has changed, and unlimited digital copies of all manner of content can be distributed nearly free and without any harm to or detraction from the original. Therefore, any old model based on physical manifestations (books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) is dead.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1)

govtcheez (524087) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023344)

"Therefore, any old model based on physical manifestations (books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) is dead."

I see this in every discussion like this, but I've never seen anyone present a viable model for companies to use. Is there a model that would allow us to share/copy/alter whatever we want and still make the companies money?

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023408)

Why are so many people convinced of the "right to make money" thing you're talking about?

Why should we care if they can't make money? Move on to something else, let those that love something nurture and raise it. Music isn't something most people do for big money (though they may dream of it, in the end, most of them only end up doing it for the passion) and in the end when we speak of large media corporations we're only talking about big money.

You need a change of perspective, it's no one's God given right to make money.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023491)

Some of us prefer not to live our life out in the gutter. FYI, in this society, it may not be your God given right to make money, but it is kindof a requirement to any quality of life.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023352)

Utter bollocks. You just want to continue pirating music and films.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (4, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023361)

- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;

I take it you aren't a fan of the GPL then. Take what you said to it's logical conclusion and the GPL becomes too restrictive even for you.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023411)

Anarchy is a great idea, but it never seems to pan out very well in practice;)

The problem with this argument is that our society is built on capitalism. Your argument, while arguable 'correct', just doesn't fly in our society. In our society, unfortunately, that argument makes you a thief. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

If you want the world to work that way, I'd suggest you get into politics and change things.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023420)

Dude, you're full of shit.

How do you earn your living?

Would you propose that we all spend 8 hours a day farming, then work on media for everyone to own after that?

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (4, Interesting)

Coocha (114826) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023439)

dave, you seem a little bitter about last night's thread, but I won't hold it against you ;) You made some good points last night.

I could live with DRM'ed content if, as the article mentions, it is priced comparatively to a rental fee. However, if physical media were to go the way of the dodo and consumers were expected to accept DRM'ed downloads in lieu of owning physical media they could (by right) copy and manipulate for personal use, I don't think that would be an acceptable outcome. Several people mentioned last night that purchasing media give the purchaser rights to resell, copy, etc. Now if an EULA explicitly restricts you from doing these things and you still accept it, that's your problem. But if the day comes that consumers are given no choice (i.e. their rights to copy for personal use are negated by the fact that the only available format for purchase removes these rights), that's when DRM will start to smell funny to me.

Just my 2cents, and FWIW it seems like I fall somewhere in between daveschroeder's opinion, and the opinion of many other slashdotters who commented on the 'DVD Jon' story last night. But like you suggested dave, I do not patronize iTMS for the specific reason that DRM is not worth circumventing if the same media can be purchased on formats that don't restrict my personal choices.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1)

TomorrowPlusX (571956) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023452)

Good luck trying to make a living, then.

Oh, wait, perhaps you feel that a musician, artist, programmer, etc has no right to make money off his or her labor. Perhaps we should all be janitors by day, and make the stuff you want to not pay for at night.

Good luck, buddy.

Viva la digital revolution (1)

bluewolfcv (833537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023474)

DRM is a last ditch effort by those clinging to a dying business model. Those who have never been accustomed to working for their money (MPAA, RIAA) are the ones running terrified to DRMs and the like.

Don't answer for me, Argentina (2, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023477)

- It's not right for content creators/originators/owners/licensors to expect to be able to protect their content; if their content needs protection, their business model is dying;

- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;

A question... with these two statements, are you offering government or societal subsidy for content creators? Authors, artists, musicians, innovators, programmers, designers, etc., who deal in information and ideas would get paid for their labors by society in general?
Or are you not proposing that?

In which case, what incentive would any content provider have to provide content? I mean, personal enjoyment comes into it - I like to write, I like to create and play music - but I still have to pay bills. And for any form of content creation that requires capital investment (say, Pixar's render farm), with no return on their investment, do you think any of that would survive?


Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023478)


I assume that you are 'joking for slashdot'. In case you're not...

You already live in the world you describe. You are free to make a voluntary choice to be a content producer that releases content under the terms you are describing here. As a content consumer I am free to voluntarily choose to only consume content released under the terms you describe.

Of course, as a content producer you are also free to make a voluntary choice to release your content to those who pay money and agree to your restrictive DRM terms. As a content consumer, I usually find that the DRM'ed content is of a higher entertainment value and I voluntarily agree to the terms.

The free marketplace of ideas is deciding these issues. All this nonsense about evil corporations is immature silliness.

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023485)

"Protect" is marketing-speak. What are you protecting it from? Alien invasion?

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (4, Insightful)

jdreed1024 (443938) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023492)

No DRM of any form is ever okay: I should be able to do anything with items I obtain, including sharing them with others;

I agree. I shelled out $5 for Debian on CD. I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including redistribute only the binaries to people, without any source code. Or modify the source code, build binaries, and ship only those binaries to people. Why not? I paid for it. Who the hell is this Stallman guy who thinks he can tell me what I get to do with something I bought? Sounds like another Jack Valenti to me.

Seriously, the "It's mine I paid for it, fuck you" attitude doesn't work in civilized society. There is a concept of "fair use" - sure, it's gone out the window in recent years, but it was called "fair use" for a reason. It wasn't called "fuck you, mr. artist".

Re:I'll answer for slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023493)

I'm aware that DRMs aren't generally matters of compromise between consumers and producers, but consumers and industry bottom-line watchers. Still, the wide-open Stallmanesque idea of non-ownership for all IP eliminates any chance of someone with an appreciable level of talent in, say, music, to be able to quit their day job and be able to provide for themselves and/or families by making music. (Thomas Dolby Masterson spoke about this in a debate with John Gilmore at my university, in the fall.)

I agree with you that the current business model is broken, but such a no-compromise tack, while sticking it to "The Man," I think deprives at least some reasonable and talented people of a chance at livelihood.

Do you trust your customer based? (4, Interesting)

jarich (733129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023276)

That's the bottom line... do you think your customers are trying to steal from you or do you trust them?

The Pragmatic Progammers sell the PDFs of their books with no DRM and they seem to be doing okay. That is to say, the books aren't all over Google.

http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/starter_kit/faq s/pdf_faq.html [pragmaticprogrammer.com]

Bottom Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023277)

DRM is bad, m'kay?

Impossible DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023279)

The only DRM I would like would be impossible to implement at the moment. i.e. a system that lets me do what I want with my purchases as long as it's legal. Simple. As soon as I'm losing rights then I don't want DRM and I don't think anybody can build a system that can do this without major headaches on my part.

I'll accept it when... (5, Insightful)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023281)

I have no other choice, because the lemming-like "masses" have already been duped into buying all DRMed stuff, and buying/selling non-DRMed hardware is illegal, and comes with a 30 year jail sentence, and I've become nothing but a hollow shell of an old man/corporate consumer.


No (1)

Brain_Recall (868040) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023286)

Accepting DRM in any form is a win for the corporations. Just like the tale of the boiling frog, once we become use to mild DRM, the strict stuff will be right around the corner, of course, when we all forget about the no-DRM days.

Re:No (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023335)

Just like the tale of the boiling frog, once we become use to mild DRM, the strict stuff will be right around the corner, of course, when we all forget about the no-DRM days.

I think you should continue to repeat buzzwords and slogans. If you say them enough, they become true, just like a wish.

My rights (5, Insightful)

fuct_onion (870134) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023291)

I'm fine with any 'Digital Rights Management' that doesn't, in the course of said management, infringe on _my_ management of _my_ digital rights.

Basically, never... (5, Interesting)

tquinlan (868483) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023296)

...if a company wants to sell me something, yet wants to put restrictions on that thing, then I am not likely to buy. If you want to sell me a subscription, then do that, but don't make it so that I can't move the content from place to place in my domain (ie, living room, portable devices, computer, etc.).

As it is, most content is unbuyable now, anyway, so I don't even buy that much. (I haven't bought a CD in years, and a DVD in months.) Media companies need to start making intelligent music and shows, and then let me do what I want with it. If they want income streams, fine - sell me a subscription. But if you're going to do that, and I'm willing to buy, then don't restrict how I use it.

I would accept DRM when (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023297)

...it doesn't interfere with my privacy or ability to do whatever I want with the product. Be that copy, play, or backup.

When i don't have to pay for it (1)

recursiv (324497) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023301)

and there is no reasonable alternative.

iTMS (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023303)

I have already accepted iTMS (for the time being at least)

Re:iTMS (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023368)

Do you use jHymn?

Re:iTMS (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023483)

My ultimate plan is to fill a few rather large external hard drives with all my decompressed digital audio for DJing [ableton.com] purposes. At that point, I will probably require jHymn for the few things I have purchased that would work well in such an environment.

The problem is hardware... (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023306)

If I know I can take it to every new Windows/Mac/linux computer I use and I can play it on just about any digital music player I buy then DRM wouldn't be much of a problem. Sharing it with my friends and family would be a plus, but not a requirement.


It may be a viable business requirement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023307)

If used smartly, DRM can be an asset for media-distributing groups. Online video feeds, online books, sales reports, white papers, etc. All those can be converted into revenue-generating services that would benefit both the consumer and the supplier.

The consumer would now have a choice of where to get content such as video, audio, or text files. These items may not typically available because of the fear that the theft of these materials will reduce the income for the content provider.

I for one see Internet-based content services replacing cable TV, books, and even radio where users have a cornucopia of choice but yet have to adhere to the laws of fair use.

Which is nice.

Never Give Up. Never Surrender! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023309)

I paid for it.. it's mine.

Or, more likely, i downloaded it from bt... it's still mine.

Duh (4, Insightful)

puke76 (775195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023311)

I'd accept DRM when it wouldn't restrict my fair use. That will never happen, so long as manufacturers and content providers are using DRM to lock people into their proprietary platforms and distribution networks (whilst claiming to use it to combat piracy).

not a pain (1)

mschoolbus (627182) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023313)

Only if it allowed me to *easily* transfer the media to other devices I own. Basically if it didn't get in the way as much.

Of course I don't think that could happen without actually removing the DRM.

Purchase or rent (5, Interesting)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023314)

If I am purchasing music, paying per song or album, then it is MY music. I don't accept that at some date in the future my music will no longer be playable because some company went out of business or no longer supports my hardware/operating system, or because I moved all my files over to a new computer and can't get the DRM to work.

If I am renting music, for example paying $20/month for all I can listen to, then I can accept pretty much any DRM because I don't expect the music to be "mine". If something goes wrong with my DRM I would just switch to a different service and for $20/month have unlimited listening rights again.

Note that, for me, it's not worth $20/month to listen to music on my computer. I already have plenty of music I own on my computer, and there are free alternatives for radio-style listening.
But I get that it's a worthwhile proposition for some people.

Ultracheap (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023315)

If music and video with DRM was ultracheap, say 1 penny per song and 10 cents a movie, and I could keep them as long as I wanted and watch/listen to them with open-source software on any platform, then I'd accept DRM.

In other words, never.

Never give in (0)

Olie (668744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023317)

The current message at the bottom of the Slashdot screen does seem appropriate:

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Not ridiculous (1)

szlevente (705483) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023319)

...but people will always find ways to circumvent protection. From things as easy as burning songs to CD-s and the grabbing them back, to cracking encryption etc. Companies selling DRM-ed material may lose in the end more than they earn.

Olds again (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023321)

Jon patched it to work again already [theregister.co.uk]

The arms race continues, Apple oblivious to the poor LUsers.

Re:Olds again (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023447)

We know, thanks. [slashdot.org]

DRM has no value add for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023328)

The only DRM I'll accept is the kind where I am the one doling out the rights... and even then I'd only use that in circumstances where extra security is required... at my work, we have encryption that does that, so DRM is redundant...

Fsck DRM!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023330)

when will people understand that DRM is just another stupid kludge designed to further our denial of the fact that ALL INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE?


When properly priced... (4, Insightful)

scsirob (246572) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023336)

When the content is properly priced, what's the need for DRM anyway? If the download offers value for money then anyone should be willing to pay for that. If it's overpriced then DRM is a way to force the high price down the customer's throat.

Yes and no (1)

ares284 (782465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023340)

I'd accept DRM in rentals, such as movies - but I will not accept it in anything I bought for keeps (eg. movie rentals vs. buying music). -Ares

Ridiculous! (1)

Starluck (814092) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023342)

If something is being "sold" to me under the presumption that I own said purchase, than I will not accept DRM under any circumstances. If I am rented something and paying a fraction of the cost of what it would cost to purchase, then I will accept DRM to some extent. The Problem I have is people confusing, or blurring the line between owning and renting....

wtf?! (2, Insightful)

Xepherys2 (174396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023346)

Alright, this is ridiculous. DRM is no different, in principle, than copyright. Does everyone here feel that copyrights are unacceptable? Most people (myself included) that have problems with DRM aren't or shouldn't be with DRM itself, but how it's implemented. If DRM exists, to show a digital copyright, so to speak, but it does not infringe on my fair use, the ability to copy a song or video to media for my personal use, or use it in ANY of my personal audio/video devices, than I think DRM is wonderful.

Want what I pay for (3, Insightful)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023347)

If I buy something, it is not acceptable for it to be encumbered by DRM.

However, if it's used to enforce a rental or temporary use of something, and that's what I'm agreeing to pay for, no problem.

But again, if you are trying to sell me something that is broken, I won't be buying. FYI: If everybody made their purchases this way, there would be no such thing as DRM. In my opinion, iTMS users have done serious damage by undermining expected fair use by accepting these purchases.

My opinion (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023348)

I would only accept DRM if was for renting something, or a sample (say a free song that would play once).

If i was to rent songs, i wouldn't pay much at all, no more than 15p for one song for a week because i can go to my local library and rent a whole cd for a pound for 3 weeks.

Music is valued far too highly because of the current price tag. I currently refuse to buy music because there is no way that 12 songs (8 of which are usually filler) is worth £10 (£2.50 per song).

Plus most of the decent bands have either sold out (best example is metallica) or split up long ago.

None. (5, Insightful)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023350)

The problem is not that when you buy some DRMed media that you do not really own the song, the movie, or whatever. The problem is that when you take part in a DRM system, you do not really own you computer any longer. I will not buy into a system that has my computer acting against me on behalf of others - not at any price, nor for any benefit.

Computers are not like cable boxes or satellite receivers, or even DVD players. They are our most fundamental and important devices of communication. To surrender control over those devices to others is a mistake we should pay for dearly...

Re:None. (1)

Xepherys2 (174396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023402)

I disagree... Technically an EULA or other device by which a software manufacturer tries to hold their rights to the software is your "computer acting against me on behalf of others". Let me guess, if it's not GNU, it's not for you?

Re:None. (3, Insightful)

DavidpFitz (136265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023484)

Computers are not like cable boxes or satellite receivers, or even DVD players. They are our most fundamental and important devices of communication. To surrender control over those devices to others is a mistake we should pay for dearly...
I don't know about you, but I have a life and I consider my mouth to be my most fundemental device of communication. My computer is waaaaay down the list!

DVD Jon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023351)

Just wanted to point something out about DVD Jon - he is not the hero boy genius that he is being made out to be. He obviously has some talent however, just as with the DeCSS mess he's not the true brains behind the whole deal. He's is fronting a group of people and is young and certainly cocky enough (especially after winning the first law suit) to risk the wrath of the **AAs and at the same time getting kudos for beating Apple's DRM single handed.

Nothing wrong with this of course, he has balls and I like that.

I'll except it when... (1)

kevinx (790831) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023353)

a good universal cracker comes out....

A switch. (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023355)

Put a switch on my box, where "Turbo" used to be - "DRM mode". Use it as signature of authenticity, as proof of safety. When "on", untrusted software won't run, spam-originated media won't display. When "off", I'm free to use any media/software I want.

There's a porn forum, where a "sponsor" offered "50 free movies to download". Actually what it meant there was 1 movie, DRM'd and 50 free views of that movie.
As you can imagine, people who downloaded the file after the 50-shot license expired, weren't impressed.

Between the 2 (1)

parawing742 (646604) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023356)

Consumers have accepted the idea of rentals which they also don't own. I think DRM material can find it's own place somewhere between the idea of completely owning a physical disc and renting material that they will have to return.

I personally use iTunes and have never been bothered by the DRM. It works fine on my computer, my iPod, and my truck's CD player (when burned).

What seems to be the problem?

Never (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023359)

Either it's mine or it's not. End of story.

My books aren't DRMed, but it's cheaper and easier to buy a new copy of a modern book than to duplicate it, so I buy them instead of making copies of my friends' books. When it's easier to buy non-DRMed music and video than to scour the net looking for a ripped version, I'll gladly pay for it. Until then, I'm abstaining from getting any new digital media altogether - I'll just rip my own CDs and call it good.

Note to the industry: if you had allowed iTunes Music Store to sell non-restricted music, I probably wouldn't have bought a bought a Satellite radio.

Would you accept DRM? (1, Funny)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023360)

I do not like DRM
in a house.
I do not like DRM
with a mouse.
I do not like DRM
here or there.
I do not like DRM
I do not like
D-R and M.
I do not like DRM,

Quick answer: no (2, Insightful)

LegendOfLink (574790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023362)

I don't like to buy anything that would somehow cripple my functionality. Pirating aside, there are a lot of legitimate purposes for making a CD into an MP3. I do it at work all the time, I bring it in, rip it to MP3, and then take the CD home with me.

But I don't think we'll really have a choice in the future. If there's one thing companies hate, it's lawsuits, and they'll do anything to avoid them, including implementing DRM.

You probably already do... (2, Insightful)

tommertron (640180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023363)

Do you own any DVDs? They're DRM'd, in that you can't copy them (unless you use widely available cracking software.) Same with console games. Digital rights management is everywhere, and most of us accept it out of necessity. But there will always be ways of getting around it for those people (like us) willing to put in the extra work.

Personally, I don't really care that much about DRM, as long as it's designed well, like the iTMS. I don't know if I "own" the songs or not, but I don't really care - it's never really restricted what I've wanted to do with my music. And if they do make it hard, I'll just find a crack to get around it.

Re:You probably already do... (1)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023481)

I put in the extra work to get around it so that i am not at their control. Libdvdcss? Check. Modded XBOX? check. Burn CDs of itunes songs and rip into mp3/ogg/whatever i feel like? Check. Now, if i could get an open source/non drm couch, id be happy :)

Never (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023364)

What you said. It's not mine if it's DRM'd. I tried it once with audible.com (I didn't realize they used DRM). It was a pain in the ass to remove the DRM so I could use it on my portable mp3 and the audio quality sucked. It was easier to just rip the free realplayer streams of the show I wanted, and the audio quality was better. I got a refund and donated the money I would have spent at audible directly to the NPR show. (using Total Recorder to rip the Realplayer streams BTW) Never again.

Circumstantial (1)

LunarOne (91127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023365)

I'd accept DRM only if I can have truly fair use of the materials purchased.

For example, I buy a song on iTunes. I should be able to put it on an MP3 player, burn it to a CD, whatever I want for personal use, including sharing it with close personal friends. I don't expect to be allowed to share it on the internet or sell it or anything not considered fair use.

It is NOT acceptable when my rights for personal use are heavily restricted.

An acceptable DRM (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023374)

Would simply remind the user when the appear to have exceeded their license, and do nothing more to get in their way.

price is the point (1)

zal (553) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023382)

Would i oike un DRMd music, sure i would, and a regular audio CD is about 15, i can rip it to mp3/ogg/whatever and im fine.
Of course, to actually get it for 15 ill have to go to el big music store and stand in line for 30mins.

Now, if i buy th same album in iTMS i only pay 9.99, dont have to stand in line and can listen to it a couple of minutes later.
In exchange i can only burn the hole album 7 times, big deal, i dont even KNOW 7 people who like the same music as me.
I can Burn it to audio CD an rerip it if i want to, and seriously, neither you nor me is gonna able to notice the sound degradation because we dont really have the equipment to listen to it at that degree of fidelity.

So, for 1/3rd off the price i might (or might not) have to jump through some little hoops. I for one can deal with that.

DRMs MUST be banned. (5, Insightful)

Quebec (35169) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023383)

The first DRM I was aware of was Macrovision.

I remember a call from a friend of mine who remembered that I was knowledgeable in video editing and she contacted me to help her with a problem they had with a student project. (that was back in 1994)

They were student who selected very short extracts of scenes for their project for the last 20 sleepless hours and they wondered why they couldn't make copies of many of their extracts. When I finally arrived all I could do is explaining what was happenning and tell them to find some other scenes (Macrovision had a cyclic effect in which a few seconds would be copied all right) I didn't have any video filter at that time to go around it and it was too late to go and find/build one.

It's simple, DRM prevented those kids to express themselves correctly, it was damaging their possibility to create.

Now, with DRMs much more insinous than Macrovision nowadays just try to imagine the artists who have been prevented to express themselves, imagine also the art forms that have been crushed before their own existences by these DRMs.

DRM is bad, it is evil, it MUST be banned for the sake of the human spirit.

( it's the second time I put this story in /. comments but i figure most didn't see it the first time)

All You Can Eat (1)

nightsweat (604367) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023385)

DRM is acceptable to me in a situation with cheap all you can eat services like Rhapsody, though I don't think Rhapsody is cheap enough to be attractive/acceptable.

A large part of the value of a piece of digital media is the ability to faithfully reproduce it for backups, repurposing, mixing, media shifting, etc... as the consumer sees fit.

You're going to have to make that 99 cent song 5-10 cents per year rental or $5/month to make me happy with losing those abilities, and I'll still only rent the most ephemeral items.

My wife bugs me because I have an extensive DVD collection that includes a lot of black and white classics she has no interest in. I look at it as a library, much like books. If the DVD format goes away (which it will, eventually), I don't want to have to repurchase my library on the next format. I want my kids to be able to enjoy Casablanca or Citizen Kane or Bringing Up Baby without having to poop out another $20 per title to the MPAA and the studios who did nothing to earn the additional payment other than point a recording device at a strip of celluloid and hit record.

Never. (4, Insightful)

Catiline (186878) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023387)

I will never accept Digital Rights Manglement.

The problem isn't really the restrictions now -- I will gladly grand the copyright holder the right to control the (re-)distrobution of their product. Copyright doesn't, and shouldn't, control or limit use, which a lot of DRM/copy protection does, and that I do object to. But having iTMS want to limit P2P reproduction -- to me, that's fair.

To me, the issue is instead what happens 150 years from now -- they copyright has expired, but Rights Manglement never dies....

Let me tell you why I am okay with it (3, Insightful)

Performaman (735106) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023396)

I have no problem with DRM because there will always be people like DVD Jon who will crack it. That way, everybody wins: the companies get money from people that legimately download songs, and the people who don't like DRM will be able to get rid of it. I've run several songs that I've downloaded from iTunes through JHymn [hymn-project.org] and produced MP3 files without DRM. So, let companies feel secure and buy DRM music. Then, remove the DRM portion of it.

RMS short story (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023397)

Richard M. Stallman has written a fiction story called "The Right to Read" [gnu.org] , which is very relevant to the current subject.

Not mine? (2, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023399)

I download music from iTunes all the time and burn it to audio CD's. How isn't it mine?

Might be a moot point (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023404)

As long as PC architecture is open, and PC programs are available that play the DRM'ed audio, there will always be a way to make a digital copy of the audio. Ideally, write an audio output driver that captures everything passed to it in non-DRM format. If nothing else, create a PCI-based sound card that does this same thing in hardware, capturing the signal before it passes to the DAC.

The problem is philosophical to a point (4, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023409)

The real issue is that the media giants aren't willing to work within the new marketplace. It's like going to another planet where humans have already discovered they can breath without a space suit, and they come along and want you to wear one anyway. I think if they would release a lot of their old libraries, cut those prices, they'd have a market willing to buy new songs at decent prices. So much DRM today restricts moving songs from one place to another to prevent piracy at the expense of convenience. People have grown accustomed to taking a CD from car to home to friend's homes etc. now you want to lock them down. I understand the need for DRM I just think they need to rethink their methodology. I don't know the answer, but I am uneasy with a technology that is basically attempting to make an outdated business model fit into this new marketplace. This shows an amazingly naive understanding of the digital landscape. They need to change with the times and they just can't see it. That doesn't mean give away their music, but it does mean understanding your market.

Right On (1)

gspeare (470147) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023414)

Watermarking = OK, DRR = !OK.

I accept DRM when it is easily bypassed*. ;)

* but even then it's wrong because you are legitimizing the loss of your fair use rights, etc. etc.

You can find music without it (1)

AWHITEMAN (784936) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023415)

DRM is utter sheite, it has saved me alot of money though. I refuse to buy any media which uses it and since it's so hard to keep track of what does... Anyway thanks to allofmp3.com I don't need to deal with it in music.

Well, DRM *is* ridiculous (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023416)

Because, simply put - it's a distracting chimera. It can never work. Say it with me - It Can Never Work.

Any DRM scenario I've seen put forward to date is broken. Either the user holds the keys, or there is an untrusted link in the transmission of the key, or *something*. There is always something missing.

The only DRM that would have a chance of working would be to put the media behind a plate glass window and allow the users to peek through the glass at it. But you'd still have people inside the building to social engineer info from...

Unacceptable in any form (2, Insightful)

Mr Pippin (659094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023417)

DRM is unacceptable to me in any form. It's basic premise is that consumers are untrustworthy and/or criminals.
In effect, it states I don't have control of my property, and logically means to me I don't own it.
I DO have products that are DRM'd, today (Apple iTunes). The only saving grace of which is that I can burn them to CD and be rid of the DRM.

I purchased almost 2000 CD's in my youth. (2, Insightful)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023424)

For the past 4-5 years, however, I've been limiting my CD purchases to used CD's on HALF.COM and elsewhere, and I've been totally avoiding the online digital music scene (preferring instead to concentrate on slowly ripping my collection and burning it in MP3 form to data CD's).

Why should I continue to support an industry which (a) treats me like a crook and (b) won't give me what I want?

What do I want? Digital music files that I can play, store, and convert however the hell I want to. I paid for the right to use the music -- GIVE ME THAT RIGHT.

DRM by any other name (2, Interesting)

thewiz (24994) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023434)

is still just as stupid. When I purchase an item I expect that it is mine to do with as I please, not to still be at the whim of whatever company made it. I certainly don't expect http://www.ragold.com/ [ragold.com] to come by and tell me what to do with the Dilbert (tm) mints I purchased from them. I also don't expect Honda to dictate to me what to do with my Accord. Why should I let the RIAA/MPAA/Apple/etc tell me under what terms and conditions I can enjoy the music/movies I purchase?

As for Jon's end run around Apple's DRM (twice), I applaud his efforts. It certainly shows that DRM can't stand up to people who want to control the things they buy. I no more want my music to be limited to a single computer or iPod in my house than I want to be limited to what TV I can watch movies on or which DVD player I can play a DVD on.

Re:DRM by any other name (1)

Xepherys2 (174396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023461)

What about non-transfer clauses in EULAs where companies explicitly state you cannot resell their software? What about any license or purchased item that you are not allowed to resell? How is it any different?

DRM is okay in some situations and not in others (1)

mzkhadir (693946) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023438)

DRM is okay in some situations. If I buy a cd, drm is not okay on cd. If I download it online, I would accept DRM in small cases. If I buy a dvd, DRM is not okay. Downloading a movie from a pay site, DRM is okay in some instances. I think that people who pay for music at best buy, circuit city and other location do not share their music as much as a person who gets their music from P2P.

maybe I'm just simplistic (1)

Clear2Go (683042) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023440)

I would accept DRM when once I purchase something with DRM encoded I can: 1) Play it as many times as I want 2) Play it on any technology regardless of whether or not it is 'supported' or 'approved' by anyone or not. 3) Copy it for my personal use as many times as I want, without having to check with or tell anyone. At the end of the day if they want to use DRM to 'mark' their copyright, so that they can claim it is theres great. However, I do not expect any restrictions. If they want to go through the process of getting a court order, and tracing where something originated from to sue or otherwise get justice then that is fine. Attempting to use technology to stop me from copying etc. is not acceptable. Who are they to tell me what I can and can not do. Besides, this is a useless battle. It has been proven again and again with copy protection remember C64 days, Nintendo games, Xbox, satellite cards .... it will always be there and it never works. /Mike.

Let me check my hard drive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023445)

Hmm... Nope, not a single file with DRM restrictions, furthermore - not a single file which ever had or was meant to have such restrictions.

I accept in some cases, but with reservations (1)

mcwop (31034) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023454)

Apple's DRM for iTunes has worked well for me. It has not hindered the way I listen to, and share music (which is the legal way). Of course, I prefer no DRM.

There were some previous DRM schemes that were unacceptible. Example, CD's that would not play in PC/Mac CD drives, or that could not be ripped. Those are situations that hinder the way I legally listen to and share music.

Renting music - I just hate the whole idea. Once you are in, they can raise the rent.

It depends... (1)

orb_fan (677056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023460)

... on whether I'm buying the item or renting it.

If I'm renting, then DRM is fine as it ensures that I hold to the rental agreement - however, the price for renting must be significantly lower than that of buying.

If I'm buying, then no DRM (some record companies do this, for example Warp Records [bleep.com] ). Since I purchased the music, I should be able to do what I want with it under fair use rights.

I think we've got it wrong.. (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023464)

I accept DRM as it is today.

Why? Because I don't *have* to subscribe to it. If the content owners want to sell their crap with DRM on it, then I don't want it.

It's when it's forced on me that I begin to revolt. Fuck you all if you think I'm going to sit idly by about the broadcast flag ( aimed at "them" ).

Other than that, go right ahead: DRM your crap into obscurity. By all means.

Put it in our taxes (1)

SuperJason (726019) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023471)

I ALMOST think that we should just pay a rental fee in our taxes.

Wouldn't it be great if you had free access to all media (songs, video, etc)? When you download something, that could count as a popularity vote for that piece of media. The government could then distribute the money accordingly.

Obviously there are people who wouldn't like that, but I'm all for it.

If everyone paid it yearly, I can't imagine it would cost much. No DRM would be needed. Everyone could use the media however they want. No one would be wasting money on DRM or lawsuits. For the same amount that most people are paying now, they could listen to any music they want, watch any movie, or read any book. Wouldn't that be great?

Digital Finger Prints - Yes. DRM - Never (1)

Jaxim (858185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023475)

I'll never get anything that is DRM'd, which would restrict how I use my own property. However, if they start selling media that includes digital fingerprints (and it's priced appropriately), then I would have no gripes at making a purchase. I think the only people that would be opposed to digital watermarks where your personal information is placed on the media (e.g. name, IP address, date of purchase, etc) would be people who want to illegally share/sell their media. The only problem I see with this compromise is when it comes time when I don't want the media anymore and I want to legally sell my property to someone. (Like selling a used book/record/CD that you no longer want in a garage sale.) In that case, how do you get the new person's info onto the digital fingerprint of the digital media? That's the only problem I see with this solution. But it's a MUCH better solution than the one that the labels and studios are trying to brainwash us in thinking is the only solution.

Only on Rentals (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12023488)

The only time I tolerate DRM is on media downloaded for rental. E.g. if blockbuster allowed you you to download a movie and watch it for 7 days. The DRM would be used to disable to movie after the rental period was up. That seems reasonable.

For purchases no amount of DRM is reasonable. DRM on software and games is especially annoying e.g. the newly released Silent Hunter 3 uses StarForce for DRM. StarForce disables cd burning applications on your computer, intercepts IDE calls, causes system instability and sinks it's teeth into the registry, in some cases requiring a complete reformat to remove it from the system. It is borderline malware and forced me to avoid this game. Another annoying memory is HL2 and Steam, where the pirate community did a better job of delivering a working product to their customers than Valve did.

DRM punishes paying customers.

Grew up with CD's and LaserDiscs, can't accept DRM (4, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 9 years ago | (#12023490)

Prior to 1980, it was expected that when you went to a movie you might not be able to ever see it again. And it was expected that your records would get more and more scratchy and skippy with age, and maybe even break.

Not me. My teenage years were in the 1980's, where I was able to purchase -- legally -- "perfect" quality CDs and high quality (for NTSC, anyway) LaserDiscs, both free of copy protection. Both CDs and LaserDiscs were touted to last a lifetime, and even though that's not true, the lack of copy protection enabled lifetime chain copying to preserve the recording for personal use.

I grew up accustomed to, after hearing or seeing something I liked, purchasing it, and playing it back at any time for one of two purposes: a) reflecting upon its content, b) recalling the time and place where I originally heard or saw the recording, for the purposes of sentimentality.

I've said it many times, and almost always get modded down, but I'll say it again. I consider it a form of mind control for a publisher to present something for my consumption, and then be able to at a later date forbid me from reviewing that material in the time, place, and manner of my choosing.

As I said, I believe this attitude of mine is due in part to my Gen X demographic. Baby boomers and older -- those presumably running XXAA -- grew up not expecting reviewing capability. Baby boomlets grew up expecting stuff for free via P2P. Gen X'ers are in the position of expecting lifetime reviewing capability, and expecting to pay a reasonable one-time fee for it.

But demographically, there aren't as many Gen X'ers as baby boomers and baby boomlets. And no one seems to care that books after 1924 are rotting away. So DRM and short memories it will be from now on.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?