The Pro-DRM argument
Finaly, after all this long, advocating against DRM, I finaly found out not only one but two Pro-DRM persons. Hey, calm down, I'm not talking about those who don't care, or those who "I would prefer not to have it, but it doesn't pisses me off". I'm not talking about companies that use them "because it's better for US". Even the content industry knows that DRM is bad: let me remind you of a statement from a Disney executive:
Now, what I found amazing on these two is that they really believe that DRM is good and needed. The arguments that were presented in favour of DRM were, basicly, these:
OK, take in consideration that these are just some of those arguments, and believe me (or, if you know how to read Portuguese, check for yourself) that all arguements were refuted. For these:
'If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed'
Now, what I found amazing on these two is that they really believe that DRM is good and needed. The arguments that were presented in favour of DRM were, basicly, these:
- Actual implementations of DRM suck but future ones can be better
- DRM isn't "copy restriction" technology
- DRM represents Author's Rights
- You might be able to buy a DRM-free version, for an extra cost
- We must have a way to protect authors from piracy
- Even if there are no perfect systems, DRM is getting better
- Bad DRM implementations get rejected by users
- This Internet Era is making piracy to reach really scary levels
OK, take in consideration that these are just some of those arguments, and believe me (or, if you know how to read Portuguese, check for yourself) that all arguements were refuted. For these:
- "Better" means "less annoying". I don't want to be annoyed, at all
- That doesn't mean anything, if DRM is an annoying piece of technology
- DRM does not represents the Author's Rights - laws do. DRM enforces a set of rights and restrictions
- I don't want to pay extra to get what I should in the first place. DRM takes me some freedoms, and then those who put there the DRM try to sell me those freedoms? No, thanks!
- As a consumer, I don't have to do nothing. As a consumer, I just don't want to be restricted from my freedoms. As an author, I don't feel vulnerable to piracy, like most authors. Don't call the intermediaries as "authors".
- Better is not enough. If DRM restricts me, an "almost perfect" DRM restricts me only a tiny bit. So, I'm still being restricted from my rights, just because some companies want DRM. That's no good - my freedom is not for sale.
- Bad DRM implementations flood the marked, and restrict consumers. I don't care what is their lifetime, if it restricts one person, one time, one little bit, it's bad.
- Piracy is getting bigger - so what? It's not a consumer problem, so the consumer must not suffer from it. If some companies in the industry have problems with that, well, they have to deal with it. They just can't do that by messing up with consumer's freedoms.
And so the discussion went off, until the veridict came: the final issue. Since the discussion came to an end, and not with a quit but with a conclusion, and since the pro-DRM part is still pro-DRM, and the same for the anti-DRM counterpart, then there must be a conflict of beliefs, right? Right.
The big philosophical argument:
The big philosophical argument:
- [Pro-DRM:] Às vezes deve pagar o justo pelo pecador - roughly translated to "sometimes those without sins must pay for the sins of others";
- [Anti-DRM:] I don't care about the sins of the others, I don't want to pay with my freedom because of them!
Can't we have some middle ground? Of course current implementations suck, big time. No question there. But tell me... are you against DRM as a principle or as they use it now?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the key to improve sales and decrease piracy (because come on, you cannot be against drm and pro piracy, can you?) is to just sell crystal clean mp3s of your songs? More has to be done. Lower prices, take advantage of news ways of distribution, make sure the user will not be barred from making a sensible usage of the items he bought.
But when I hear people revolting about Apple embedding your user name on drm-free files they sell on their store, it actually shows how much confusion there is on the topic. If you're against that, it's because your intentions weren't all that pure in the first place.
I believe we can all meet up in the middle. Not easy, but also no impossible. Let them lift the restrictive drms, lower prices overall, but if you distribute items you bought for personal usage, you have to suffer the consequences. No?
Anti-DRM and Anti-Piracy. I refuse to purchase, always will, any DRM infected content. The Mafia AA's can die for all I care. That said, anyone who downloads copyrighted content illegally, well, I wish you a malware infected existence.
ReplyDeleteI blogged what could actually be a solution for the content providers IF their goal is to reduce piracy. For the most part it isn't, it is about lock in and resale of content over and over again.
http://mostly-linux.blogspot.com/2007/06/music-and-movie-piracy-obvious-solution.html
@andre
ReplyDeleteNow I see that the discussion continues here... good!
Current implementations are a stupid and obnoxious thing.
I'm convicted, for the what I've seen in some projects and some standardizations efforts that I've taken part, that the state of this things are changing.
As I said before, current music business models are wrong, they are still stuck to what happened in the pre-digital era.
Off-course I would like to get everything for free, but, as someone said "there's no such thing as free lunches".
I don't believe that the music industry (or the content industry in general) will give up their businesses. They would need to adapt, supply better and enhanced content in different ways, at a different price tag.
One of the most commons critics is also against the intermediaries, claiming that the artist, receives a low compensation for it's work when compared to these intermediaries.
With these new technologies, I believe that the intermediaries role is less and less important. We will be seeing the flourishing of direct supply channels, between the artist and the final consumer. And for that to work, I don't see how you don't have to have kind of digital rights management technology.Marcos tried to push here an image of a person (me) that is a strong opposer to the consumer rights. He is wrong and that is a wrong misconception. This question as to settled once and for all, finding a balance between the copyright holders rights and the consumers rights. Meanwhile, I'll stick with a tiny part of the technical issues of rights management and try to make it better for all.
@tripleii
ReplyDeleteActually, what you are suggesting is already being done by some companies that were hired by RIAA, that are flooding the P2P networks with bad (misleading) content.
The problem is that, P2P services have a kind of "auto cleaning" feature, powered by users, that can identify the bad content and immediately mark is as bad - so anyone else will not download it.
Of course I imagine that this could grow exponentially making this feature useless. But I'm just thinking loud, here.
Thanks for the reply. I have no experience with downloading so don't know if mine was a good idea or not. No matter how much I hate the AA's, I won't do it.
ReplyDeleteTripleII
André:
ReplyDeleteBut when I hear people revolting about Apple embedding your user name on drm-free files they sell on their store, it actually shows how much confusion there is on the topic. If you're against that, it's because your intentions weren't all that pure in the first place.
I don't agree with you here. What about Apple's respect for the privacy and the rights of the consumer? What about the right he has to make a private copy of the file for his family or friends for no commercial purposes?
Privatunes remove dados pessoais de músicas sem DRM do iTunes
Privatunes: Stripping your Identity from iTunes
Also, once and for all: using words like "thief" and "piracy" to describe filesharing is very mischievous. You have to admit it: even if you did it just once, you have already copied a track from a Peer-to-Peer Network. It's not something to be ashamed of or embarrassed.
When we use our computers, we are constantly copying information. And that is the same thing that happens in BitTorrent, for instance. If it wasn't for P2P, many music fans wouldn't get to know even half the bands they discovered in the last few years, That means that there would be less people attending live shows, less people spending money on merchandising and summer festivals, etc. Besides the record labels who would still be in the position of gatekeepers, the whole industry would be in a very vapid state.
So, instead of hiding the truth in hypocrisy's mud, I say let's face the real problems that we are facing right know and forget all the technological tricks that only contribute to aggravate consumer's hostility.
Right now, there are already some businesses making huge amounts of cash because of P2P, namely ISPs - but let's not forget also the makers of storage devices like Apple. You may as well add up to the list some of the biggest BitTorrent trackers like Pirate Bay - monthly, the site receives something like 75.000 dollars in revenues from the ads.
The thing we have to do is to "monetize" P2P, to make it legal because there's no chance that all of a sudden you're going to convince hundreds of millions of users around the world that what they are doing is wrong, illegal and immoral. The only way out: a monthly fee that accrues to the bill yo pay every month to your ISP in order to benefit from a broadband connection.
Call it flate rate, blanket license, this amount could be something like 5-10 euros per month. That money would be allocated to the rights owner's according to the listening and viewing habits of the users. It's not something very revolutionary, because radio stations have already been paying a similar license to copyrights collective management society's like SPA in Portugal, ASCAP and BMI in the USA for decades.
So you see, in my opinion, talking about DRM is talking about bullshit, because in the end it doesn't matter - it's plainly useless - and it doesn't make any sense. If you want to defend creator's right to being compensated for their work you have to reach to the core of the issue. I leave with some articles that I wrote about blanket license in Remixtures:
A inutilidade das editoras discográficas e a morte da DRM
A licença global para a partilha de ficheiros e a privacidade do utilizador
Uma licença global para o “mercado” da música digital
Distribuir, partilhar, compensar
@André:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe a middle ground is possible here: DRM restricts users rights, and that's what I'm fighting against.
I don't really care about "how to improve sales" or "how to decrease piracy": even if it would be great to see more art being consumed (btw, for intance the music consumption is getting higher and higher, did you know?), those things are not my problem. When those that claim they're fighting against those issues restrict my rights, now that's my problem.
I am against DRM, I am not pro piracy.
I didn't say anything here about names tagged in DRM-free files, this discussion is about DRM.
I have no problem with author's rights, I am not against them. I'm against technologies that take away rights, not those who grant them. Nowadays I see my rights, as a consumer, being violated.
I'll reply to the rest of the comments when I find the time to do so...
@tripleII:
ReplyDeleteBoth me and Carlos replied to you about that - it won't work in some user-reviewed p2p networks. But that's not the only problem - you have, for instance, reputation networks (where those who would inject the corrupted files would have no reputation, so that injection would be useless), and the concept behind your solution is not only awfully similar to how spyware works, but also is, er, unethical. Looking to "flooding a p2p network" as a solution is trying to kill that p2p network, and not piracy. I hope you're not one of those people that say that p2p is tecnology made for piracy reasons - p2p is an awsome technology that is used (and its networks) for lots of legal and useful purposes.
@Carlos:
ReplyDeleteYou said that "for us to see the flourishing of direct supply channels, between the artist and the final consumer, working, you have to have kind of digital rights management".
I surely do not agree with that, and can give you some examples of that not being the case. Just yesterday the sixth band to release an album using fans money by using the SellABand iniciative. Oh, and everything without any kind of DRM. But lots and lots of examples can be given... Even EMI reports that non-DRM tracks sell better.
I'm sorry if the preception was that you were "a strong opposer to the consumer rights", what I said is what you said: that while there are issues with the consumer rights that must be solved, the fight against piracy justifies that sometimes consumers will suffer because others do piracy. Once again, I disagree with that vision, and I'm not willing to give some of my rights in order to let others "fight piracy".
The balance between the copyright holders rights and the consumers rights has been found years ago, and there are laws that implement that balance. Consumers are not interested in "finding another balance" where their rights diminish.
As for your take on the DRM world, and your effort to "make it better for all", I'm just sad that you don't agree with me that the best for everyone's rights is just to ditch DRM (even if not the best scenario for those who want to make a profit out of other's rights). But, well, everyone has the right to have their opinion...
@Miguel:
ReplyDeleteMore that the right of the private copy, there's an example even more shocking: the right to give something. I have the right to go to a physical store, buy a phisical album and give it to you. I can't do that with a "DRM-free" iTunes track.
I'll try to reply to everything I read here...
ReplyDeleteWell, they're not violating users privacy by sticking a tag with the username who bought the track! They would be violating if they went to their music collection and collected data. Traceability is very different than abuse of privacy.
If you lent the songs to your family, Apple would never know. They could know, though, if some of your family members ended up publishing them into a p2p network illegaly.
IMO, the only problem with this is if this tag can be faked or not. (I'm sure they have a way to know if it has been tampered with... they MUST know about checksums/hashes. :P)
--
Also, of course most people I know who are averagely computer savvy have downloaded pirated contents... the problem is, not everyone knows they've commited a crime. Because, in the end, it is a crime.
Of course I can see the advantages of how easy it is to check out new music nowadays and how this all comes back to artists through live shows. It's just like the guys from the International Noise Conspiracy said on stage a few years ago: "if you're the business, do live shows to earn some money! don't rely solely on royalties." (or something like that)
--
And I totally agree with the fact that middle-men have to go! If I could, I'd buy the music straight from the artists website. But they don't sell it there.. nor is there a way to build trust in selling these things on "personal" websites.. would you give your credit card info to an emerging band?
And don't forget that "we", computer people, are but a slice of the music market. I don't see, for example, people who don't use a computer stop buying CDs ... classical music, opera, etc. The market is very, very big. And not everyone who buys music has an email account. Do you get my drift? ;)
--
A flat rate service seems really, really nice. But who would have the cojones to do it? Maybe Apple could set the example. :)
--
You guys... DRM means management of rights. It includes a hipothetical "-right to do whatever you want with it, just don't re-distribute it". How's that? Of course that's not the reality, or how corporate business men think.. but don't blame it on the priciple, blame it on the thugs.
At least that's how I see it.
--
As for the Sellaband argument... come on, are you serious? Out of a whole universe of bands, only 6 bands have made it/recorded something in what? 6 months? How long has the site been online? Do you see the whooooooole industry working in a model like this? I do believe it's a great way to support new artists, don't get me wrong, but I don't see Rolling Stones asking for support of the fans to record an album. Do you?
--
To conclude... don't be so drastic. It's impossible to please everyone, so try to see beyond the usual arguments. Of course DRM is bad. If I could, I'd get all my music for free. But what if EVERYONE did that? Would there be an industry to begin with?
Let's just focus on leading them towards a solution when we can get our music without restrictive policies, to be able to listen to it whenever we want, where we want. But let's not ask them to give us free stuff.
To me, the solution Apple and Emi have found seems pretty good. They give what we want, but if we distribute it, they have a way to find out who leaked it. Fair and simple.
As for the Sellaband argument... come on, are you serious? Out of a whole universe of bands, only 6 bands have made it/recorded something in what? 6 months? How long has the site been online?
ReplyDeleteDo you know of any record label that had such a good start as SellABand is having?
I think you're mistaking "recording albums" with success... They can record albums, but that doesn't mean they've made it to the commercial circuit.. does it?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was genuinely asking... how long has the site been online?
I'm not really mistaking releases with success: if you take only in consideration SellABand's wealth to measure success, then they're sucessfull. They raised more funds, their crew was hugely expanded, and their revenue stream from publicity is huge. They're doing preety well - really - but what I'm really interested in this kind of services is to know if it works for artists and believers. And there's where you take the number of releases into account: in less than one year (they started at the 16th of August 2006) they got two bands that already released their CD's, five bands that are working on their release, and 4403 more wanting to follow those steps.
ReplyDelete"Even EMI reports that non-DRM tracks sell better."
ReplyDeleteIt would be a "shot on their own foot" if they didn't said that.
Off-course it sells better... no one in counter-arguing that, here. They sell better, at an higher price. This model is neither good for the authors (because they continue to receive exactly the same - although there may be a small rise in the number of sales - but I would need accurate figures to make any comment), and not so good for consumers as well, because they have to pay an higher price.
This model is perfect for EMI, again...
Btw, why does DRM-PT still advises consumers not to consider EMI, after EMI as gone DRM-free (as I saw it on the web-page)?
It would be a "shot on their own foot" if they didn't said that.
ReplyDeleteStill, it would be too risky to say it if it wasn't true, so I guess that it is, in fact, happening.
This model is neither good for the authors (because they continue to receive exactly the same - although there may be a small rise in the number of sales - but I would need accurate figures to make any comment), and not so good for consumers as well, because they have to pay an higher price.
Agreed: as you know, since I used that argument several times, I don't believe it is a good idea to make people pay for not having DRM.
This model is perfect for EMI
I don't think so, but I'm not completely sure if your sentence doesn't have a typo there, and that you meant "isn't".
why does DRM-PT still advises consumers not to consider EMI, after EMI as gone DRM-free (as I saw it on the web-page)
Thanks for pointing it out, Unfortunately DRM-PT still lacks tons of information, but that was something needed, so I've just created a small page explaining it. Basicly, EMI is still pro-DRM: they still think that some markets must have DRM-only files, they still release CD's with DRM and so on. If you're still interested in my personal oppinions about EMI, you might as well take a look on what I've been writing about them.
For those spouting off about anti-drm...take a look at the operating system you are using. If you're using Windows then you're a hypocrite becuase Microsoft supports DRM. If you're using Linux or Apple (they recently went DRM free) then you're part of the solution and not part of the problem). No matter how hard people try to implement these restricitve technologies they will get cracked, reverse engineered and, for lack of a better word, pwned.
ReplyDeleteApple didn't "went DRM free", they ditched DRM in music but are pretty much into DRM in every other aspect (like movies in iTunes). And yes, I use Linux.
ReplyDelete