Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[supermop]

Have a buthcers at this little video. Explains DRM (aka C.R.A.P) very nicely.

http://news.zdnet.com/2036-2_22-6035707.html

Tell your friends - moral  is, dont buy anything made by Apple, Microsoft or Sony.

Want a decent MP3/multimedia player? Go buy from Creative. Better products, and no CRAP.

[TheBoy]

DRM has its place, though not convinced the current implementation is robust enough, also, like Vista's DRM implementation (from what I can see at API level) reliant on the vendor not making mistakes and some point down the line...

[MaxV6]

While there are any number of fairly piss poor DRm implementations  the concept is one I heartily applaud.

Why.


Coz guys like me only get paid when people actually BUY their music..


Downloading unprotected IP material, be it Video or Music or Software , is THEFT pure and simple.

and I will gladly take anyone out back and explain this principle with a baseball bat.


DRM technologies are designed to try and prevent this, it sadly is poorly done, and rarely foolproof....  and in SOME circumstances, overly intrusive to the user experience... BUT

it's better than simply letting complete self-abusers steal one's hard work and mortgage payments.

yea yea, as a by-product it means a higher faceless corporate entity profits... but in the creative industry,a large proportion of  that is highly likely to end up more spread around in the development of new product.

Musicians , Writers, Camera men, Developers, Producers, Audio Engineers , Graphic Artists, Directors and all their supporting Cats have as much right to get paid for the fruit of their labours as , for example , Mechanical Engineers working for Manufacturing corporations./\]


and that simply doesn't happen when people use P2P networks for file sharing of IP materials , and so on.... and it's a demonstrable fact....   not paranoia...

It's a subject close to my Wallet, and therefore dear to my Heart.

[TheBoy]

While there are any number of fairly piss poor DRm implementations  the concept is one I heartily applaud.

Why.


Coz guys like me only get paid when people actually BUY their music..


Downloading unprotected IP material, be it Video or Music or Software , is THEFT pure and simple.

and I will gladly take anyone out back and explain this principle with a baseball bat.


DRM technologies are designed to try and prevent this, it sadly is poorly done, and rarely foolproof....  and in SOME circumstances, overly intrusive to the user experience... BUT

it's better than simply letting complete self-abusers steal one's hard work and mortgage payments.

yea yea, as a by-product it means a higher faceless corporate entity profits... but in the creative industry,a large proportion of  that is highly likely to end up more spread around in the development of new product.

Musicians , Writers, Camera men, Developers, Producers, Audio Engineers , Graphic Artists, Directors and all their supporting Cats have as much right to get paid for the fruit of their labours as , for example , Mechanical Engineers working for Manufacturing corporations./\]


and that simply doesn't happen when people use P2P networks for file sharing of IP materials , and so on.... and it's a demonstrable fact....   not paranoia...

It's a subject close to my Wallet, and therefore dear to my Heart.

Agreed, though until the systems work better, there will always be resentment from honest joe public (there will obviously always be resentment from the pirates).

[theolodian]

I have never downloaded pirate music or movies.  However, as a consumer I refuse to deal with DRM if I can at all avoid it so I have never downloaded any legitimate music either.  I buy CD's and put them on my iPod.  Of course that means that I am a copyright busting evil criminal enemy to mankind even though I pay the artists et al.

DRM is against fair use, and a royal PITA.  If the sellers can't respect fair use, then I am not surprised that a lot of users don't either.  It looks like Vista doesn't give the consumer much over XP, it just adds DRM, so I guess I will be staying with Mac's and XP thank you very much.

[TheBoy]

I think there was either a test case or BPI have stated that copying bought music for own use is OK, so I think you're covered...

I certainly copy my own CDs - I don't like originals in car (damage and theft) and mp3 them for MCE and mp3 player...

[theolodian]

I think there was either a test case or BPI have stated that copying bought music for own use is OK, so I think you're covered...

I certainly copy my own CDs - I don't like originals in car (damage and theft) and mp3 them for MCE and mp3 player...

They're supposed to change the law soon, but it is explicitly illegal to copy CD's in the UK, to a computer, iPod, whatever.  In an unusual act, the record companies have just said that they will not prosecute anybody for it because they know if everyone with an iPod felt like a criminal already then there would be no motivation to buy the music that is put on it.

[TheBoy]

I think there was either a test case or BPI have stated that copying bought music for own use is OK, so I think you're covered...

I certainly copy my own CDs - I don't like originals in car (damage and theft) and mp3 them for MCE and mp3 player...

They're supposed to change the law soon, but it is explicitly illegal to copy CD's in the UK, to a computer, iPod, whatever.  In an unusual act, the record companies have just said that they will not prosecute anybody for it because they know if everyone with an iPod felt like a criminal already then there would be no motivation to buy the music that is put on it.

Couldn't remember which it was, but it seems then that BPI say its OK, even though illegal to the letter of law then...?

[theolodian]

I think there was either a test case or BPI have stated that copying bought music for own use is OK, so I think you're covered...

I certainly copy my own CDs - I don't like originals in car (damage and theft) and mp3 them for MCE and mp3 player...

They're supposed to change the law soon, but it is explicitly illegal to copy CD's in the UK, to a computer, iPod, whatever.  In an unusual act, the record companies have just said that they will not prosecute anybody for it because they know if everyone with an iPod felt like a criminal already then there would be no motivation to buy the music that is put on it.

Couldn't remember which it was, but it seems then that BPI say its OK, even though illegal to the letter of law then...?

That's my understanding of the situation.  I am all about protecting rights, but if one side has perfect protection then the other side loses out.  You can't DRM or legislate total equality on large issues, and the harder you try the more you make a mess of it.  Then you can also make a mess of it at any level.  It is really easy to feel that the rules are unjust when they are this badly implemented.

[Markjay]

On the issue of Intellectual property…

Firstly, I am against software theft (or music etc), for many reasons not the least of which the fact that I am in the IT trade…

But I would like to point out that the issue is not that simple – there’s more to it than meets the eye.

The reason that there are specific laws covering software theft, CD copying etc, is because it can’t be effectively dealt-with using the usual copyright laws.

With regards to any type of copyrighted material OTHER than software, it is customary that it only constitutes an offence if the copying is done for commercial use, but not for private use.

Examples:

Recording a program from television.

Recoding a vinyl record to an audio cassette

Photocopying a page from a book

All of these were historically considered acceptable even though strictly speaking they infringed on copyright laws.

What’s more, every university library had photocopiers conveniently located to allow students to make copy of pages from books. If anyone ever goes on trial for copyright issues, you could try reminding the Judge and the Prosecutor that as law students they would have photocopied pages from books (actually, better not bring this up in a a trial...lol). This is not different to making a copy of a friend's CD – you could very well argue that law students should buy their own books, and that by photocopying pages in the library they rob the author and publisher of their rightful income.

There is no fundamental difference between the issues – the only difference is in the fact that copyright infringement for personal non-commercial use has always been accepted, and as such new laws were needed in order to be able to deal differently with computer software.

There is a mixture of reason why software is treated differently than other legacy types of media. The first is purely historical – just like tobacco and alcohol being legal drugs, while cannabis and coke aren’t – simply because that’s where the status que stands. Software is new, so you can impose on it all that you would have wanted to impose on the established media types but really can’t because the public won’t have it.

Another reason is more practical, and it is scale – photocopying and video/cassette recording cost money and take time, while software copying costs nothing and can be done in an instant. So an infringement that was tolerable before now became a real problem for the industry.

So next time you see someone copying software or downloading music for personal use, you need to know that it is both wrong and illegal, but also keep things in proportion before demonising anyone.

The story is of course completely different when it comes to commercial use. This has never been tolerated and rightfully so. It is one thing to photocopy a page in the library, and quite another to photocopy the whole book and try to sell it on. The relationship between private use and commercial use is the same as it is between someone who is smoking cannabis and a drug dealer. Both are illegal and wrong, but they are very different matters altogether and the offenders should de treated differently.

Again, I do not condone any sort of intellectual property theft, new or old. My point is however that, like everything else in life, things need to be taken in perspective and within context.

[TheBoy]

Reading your post MJ, it seems you think its fine for me (in a non commercial capacity) to copy software/music to use as long as I don't use commercially or sell it?

Sorry, I have to disagree...

[theolodian]

I think we agree markjay, you are just expounding upon what I was covering with the catch-all 'fair use'.  A reasonable attitude, like what you suggest, and more education would go a long way to lessening the issue.  Digital theft is theft, but people don't want speed cameras every 100m either so aggressive enforcement will always be resented.

Copying/cracking for commercial gain is, like you say, a much more serious issue.  It is surprisingly hard to enforce despite all of the publicity about private illegal use?!  Fundamentally your legal rights as a creator of IPR come down to how much money you have to spend chasing people.  It can easily be more destructive to your business to pursue people than the copying itself.  Even legitimate patents often aren't worth the paper they're printed on when you see how expensive they are to enforce.

[Markjay]

Reading your post MJ, it seems you think its fine for me (in a non commercial capacity) to copy software/music to use as long as I don't use commercially or sell it?

Sorry, I have to disagree...

No I don’t say that. What I am saying is that software theft is not morally different than photocopying a book in the library or recording a TV program to a VCR. You are making copies of copyrighted material without the consent of the owner. Can anyone dispute that?

However software theft is specifically illegal and as such should NOT be practiced.

The reason I would never cross a junction when the light is red is not because I am afraid to get caught (you can tell if there’s a camera), nor because I fear for my life (some junctions are vast and empty and could be crossed safely), but because I respect the law and I appreciate that it is vital that everyone does that if he want to have a civilized society.

[MaxV6]

MJ

you're wrong, they are ALL Specifically Illegal.

some have been considered "socially acceptable" in the same way as smoking hash, but have always been still illegal... simple./

iPod use with owned CD's is NOW legal as of January along with  some other modifications allowing a certain amount of fair use ,

(and about bloody time)

Universities and LEA's  have blanket "permission granted"  deals with publishing houses for SOME specific needs, more often, Students are REQUIRED to purchase the texts published on the book list for their courses... either new or Secondhand...  

Audio wise, Licence fees for PRS and MCPS and their associated performance fees cover public use of IP audio...  such as music, talikjg books and the like.

specific use for samples to be reproduced outside of a paid performance or replay,  must be cleared on a case by case basis...  


Licensing these things is an industry in itself....    

Morally they have ALL been the same because they ARE all the same.

Aska record compnay about cassette taping in the 70's and you'll get the whole "Home taping is killing music " screaming match... except that it wasn;t that bad..because it was in comparison in limited numbers...  at least one guy in 10 must have bought the record for him and his mates to be able to tape it.


with Downloading it's one guy in 20 million.

seriously... this was part of the central cause of the Anti Napster cases...   a test track was "released" into the wilds of Napster and in one month, 375,000 separate individuals had downloaded it illegally.

IN THE USA ALONE