Music Execs Criticise DRM

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
I find it amazing that with two people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates stating their distaste for DRM that all of the sudden it appears people are coming coming out in droves to support the idea. When I said this morning I was hoping for something positive, I had no idea things would get rolling so quickly. :eek:

Almost two-thirds of music industry executives think removing digital locks from downloadable music would make more people buy the tracks, finds a survey.
Click to expand...
 
I concur with this finding. The reason I don't buy ANY music online is because of DRM.
(and the fact that I want 320Kbps mp3 or Flac)

But i'd buy 99 cent one hit wonders @ 128Kbps if they were "unlimited"
 
And to think, Jobs was just trying to get attention away from the anti-competition complaints, lol.

When it comes down to it, Jobs and Gates represent essentially the entire home PC and nearly the entire portable music player market. If they call for the end of DRM it makes it a safe stance for others to take.
 
That sound you hear is one of RIAA's heads popping out of it's collective ass.

I purchase my music legally, but it pisses me off that when I purchase a track on-line (off Napster or whatever) that if I want to play it in a normal non-DRM capable device (my home or car CD player), I have to 'crack' it with FU4WM or go through the hoops of burning to CD and re-encoding back to WMA or MP3. I'm absolutely AMAZED that this is catching on in the industry.
 
I refuse to buy any music unless I can get it in a lossless format. I'll stick with CDs I can rip myself to FLAC until there is a better alternative without DRM online.
 
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit.
Click to expand...
Robert A. Heinlein - Lifeline (written in 1939)
 
I'll beleive it when i see it,I own two Ipods and have allot of MP3's and no Itunes purchased music.

Why?


DRM.... get rid of it,and I will buy in,if the format is MP3 or FLAC,or Ogg,and high bit rate....
 
I stopped purchasing music because legitimate customers are being treated just as criminal as the actual criminals. Lawsuits galore and hardly any of them even confirmed? That right there is a load of crap. But as far as what kind of criminal I'm talking about, I'm not talking about the 14 year old hopping on Limewire to get the latest cut off of the latest recycled garbage of some teen sensation's album. To me, that's just so smalltime and insignificant that it's retarded. You can't throw a rock on the internet without hitting a site containing unauthorized distributions of music. I'm talking about the people who actually make a profit off of illegitimate sales and distrobution of music. The people who sit and make some serious bank. That kind of criminal.

For me, if I'm going to be treated like dirt and I haven't even done anything to warrant it, then I flat out have no reason to spend my money on whatever you're peddling, whether it's legit or not, whether it's good or not, and whether or not I actually want it in the first place. This is what DRM has come down to. From what I've been keeping track of on it, it's become more of a hinderance to customers than a way to protect copyright owners.

Telling people what to do with stuff they get from you is not a good way to have a relationship. Doing that is only going to give you the appearance of one telling another where they can stick it. We already have a day every year where we get told where we can stick it - April 15th.

That and, I find to my taste most music today, just flat out sucks. But that's a different topic entirely. Concerning DRM, I refuse to support it. That little rootkit fiasco that Sony did awhile back? That up and killed it for me just when I considered on buying CDs again. I have bought maybe 4 CDs since then. And the only reason why I did was because I really really REALLY like the artists and ALL the songs on the albums.

I want the ability to download music onto my computer without hassle, and without DRM. The only requirements for me is a high quality bitrate, and the ability to throw it on any mp3 player out there, or if I burn it to CD, it'll play on any CD player that supports burned media. I could care less if it's a lossless format or not, because I simply just can't tell the difference. Would I pay money for it? If the price was a dollar or less per mp3, AND the MAJORITY of that money was going directly into the artists' pockets, yes. By artist, I mean the person, or people, who have to go up on stage and shake their ass and sing the songs on their tours. Not those execs in the suits who basically collect a check on someone else's hard work. Those people own yachts and mansions and live many times better than the artists they sign onto their labels, some of whom live pretty ridiculously good themselves. The suits can learn to skip a $30,000 lunch once a week. The artists are the ones putting forth the effort.

But I can't do these things, because of DRM it seems. But the people who get their stuff for free can do it. So what option am I left, then, really? One that isn't legal. If the record companies did find a way to fulfill this and still get their cut, I can almost guarantee that the freeloading would at the very least, slow down. One thing I do know about people in general, is that they're lazy, and will pay money to not have to sit and dick around with stuff. Not having to search all day for high quality DRM-free downloads of music is a convenience people would pay money to have. We live in a day where we want things NOW. If the record labels could deliver this high quality DRM free music NOW, people wouldn't even give the free option a second thought, because the music would be so relatively cheap, it wouldn't be worth the effort or the time to look.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
I concur with this finding. The reason I don't buy ANY music online is because of DRM.
(and the fact that I want 320Kbps mp3 or Flac)

But i'd buy 99 cent one hit wonders @ 128Kbps if they were "unlimited"
Click to expand...

QFT..... the biggest part of DRM that I HATE is it takes the ease out of buying music...... in the tape/cd era, you pretty much KNEW that the tape/cd you were buying was going to work on ALL of your tape/cd players...........
 
Its time to knock off the bullshit and put the 25 year PERIOD timelimit back on copyrights.

The founding fathers came up with the best compromise and we should stick with it. The in perpetuity copyright crap needs to end.

Again, MUSIC ( and now video) was a SERVICE for thousands of years, and was made a PRODUCT by the invention of recording technology only a ~130 years ago with the invention of the player piano.

Time to go back to SERVICE where it belongs.
 
Thats funny, two of the biggest people against DRM... anyone find that ironic?

Bill Gates = Leader of the most locked down software, refuses to share code, and proprietor of all, refuses to allow competition
Steve Jobs = Leader of locked in media sales, locked in hardware, refuses to allow competition
 
What is this going to mean for Vista's built-in DRM features? Since DRM was the only feature left in Vista after the long and diverse list of "promised features" was cut, erased, stomped on, and then burned, if we take away the DRM, we pretty much have Windows XP in a shiny new wrapper.

All kidding aside, how does Vista's DRM restrict the downloading of copyrighted material? Is it harder to crack the copy protection on CDs now? Is there a requirement for a license to be present for each Mp3 or M4p file on the computer? I think there is no way to stop determined people who are downloading music. It may take them longer to crack, but eventually the DRM is going to be defeated. If Gates himself has taken a stand against Nazi-style DRM oppression, how can his company legitimately restrict your (fair and legal) use of your own music by making you jump through hoops and not come under fire for serious hypocrisy. (Not that they really seem to care about hypocrisy, it's not the first time. :rolleyes: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top