Quote of the Day

OK, if its a fallacy, then strip your DRM-d CDs Tim:)

OK, if its a fallacy, then strip your DRM-d CDs Tim:)

“The notion that Yahoo has a viable music business model under DRM is a fallacy. It’s all nonsense. If DRM does take over, the number one system is going to win everywhere, like VHS did, and anybody who tells you that is not being honest. Yes, you can put up speed bumps, but the people who really want to buy and release music under DRM are going to go with Apple or Microsoft. So pretending to have a DRM strategy is just making it hard for Yahoo people who want to do the right thing and get music they legitimately sell on the devices and services that they want.”

“The notion that Yahoo has a viable music business model under DRM is a fallacy. It’s all nonsense. If DRM does take over, the number one system is going to win everywhere, like VHS did, and anybody who tells you that is not being honest. Yes, you can put up speed bumps, but the people who really want to buy and release music under DRM are going to go with Apple or Microsoft. So pretending to have a DRM strategy is just making it hard for Yahoo people who want to do the right thing and get music they legitimately sell on the devices and services that they want.”

Don: sure, Yahoo’s being self-serving. But that doesn’t mean they’re not right.

Don: sure, Yahoo’s being self-serving. But that doesn’t mean they’re not right.

Tim, ou give no reason why Yahoo! is right. What is the argument?

And again, if DRM is a fallacy, why don’t you buy proteced music, and strip it of DRM? What is stopping this. You beg the question, now answer it.

Tim, ou give no reason why Yahoo! is right. What is the argument?

And again, if DRM is a fallacy, why don’t you buy proteced music, and strip it of DRM? What is stopping this. You beg the question, now answer it.

Noel: I’m not sure what you are arguing. Every mainstream DRM scheme for commercial music is easily stripped. Every track on every commercial music service is easily available on p2p networks. Many people I’m sure do strip their purchased music. Those seem like undeniable facts.

If DRM was effective in preventing piracy, then big content wouldn’t lobby for DMCA. Big content lobbies for the DMCA precisely because electronic fencing devices do not properly protect content.

Noel: I’m not sure what you are arguing. Every mainstream DRM scheme for commercial music is easily stripped. Every track on every commercial music service is easily available on p2p networks. Many people I’m sure do strip their purchased music. Those seem like undeniable facts.

If DRM was effective in preventing piracy, then big content wouldn’t lobby for DMCA. Big content lobbies for the DMCA precisely because electronic fencing devices do not properly protect content.

Yes, its technically easy to strip DRM, but its not done on a grand scale for a legal reason: the DMCA. Law Student has a great point that DRM and the DMCA have to be considered together.

My disagreement with Tim is that he argues DRM hurts interoperability and simply adds costs to consumers who legally purchased their music (I’ve reminded him that he’s purchased a copy of music, along with use restrictons). But then he argues that the DMCA supports this with threat of legal liability aimed at curbing piracy. In other words, Tim does not like DRM, and likes the DMCA less because the DMCA is doing what its supposed to. Tim’s solution is to get rid of DRM altogether, and either sidestep the DMCA or repeal it, but his business justifications are stretched b/c he does not incorporate the voluntary incentives of music labels (in fact, he wants to get ride of them too) into his planning.

Yes, its technically easy to strip DRM, but its not done on a grand scale for a legal reason: the DMCA.

It’s not done on a grand scale because there’s already an easier option available: download the music pre-stripped from a peer-to-peer site. DRM does absolutely nothing to stop online file sharing.

Yes, its technically easy to strip DRM, but its not done on a grand scale for a legal reason: the DMCA. Law Student has a great point that DRM and the DMCA have to be considered together.

My disagreement with Tim is that he argues DRM hurts interoperability and simply adds costs to consumers who legally purchased their music (I’ve reminded him that he’s purchased a copy of music, along with use restrictons). But then he argues that the DMCA supports this with threat of legal liability aimed at curbing piracy. In other words, Tim does not like DRM, and likes the DMCA less because the DMCA is doing what its supposed to. Tim’s solution is to get rid of DRM altogether, and either sidestep the DMCA or repeal it, but his business justifications are stretched b/c he does not incorporate the voluntary incentives of music labels (in fact, he wants to get ride of them too) into his planning.

Yes, its technically easy to strip DRM, but its not done on a grand scale for a legal reason: the DMCA.

It’s not done on a grand scale because there’s already an easier option available: download the music pre-stripped from a peer-to-peer site. DRM does absolutely nothing to stop online file sharing.

Again, DRM should be looked at alongside the DMCA. The writers of the DMCA knew DRM would only provide a limited curb to piracy. All these arguments that DRM should be eliminated, or does not serve useful purpose, only reiterate one of the central tenets of the DMCA.

You got my point though right. I asked you to explain why DRM is a fallacy, and then pointed out that your dislike for DRM leads you argue for repealing a law, doing away with an industry sector, entirely changing the business model for artists/musicians and making proposals you know would increase piracy. Tim, THIS IS A LOT!!!

Again, DRM should be looked at alongside the DMCA. The writers of the DMCA knew DRM would only provide a limited curb to piracy. All these arguments that DRM should be eliminated, or does not serve useful purpose, only reiterate one of the central tenets of the DMCA.

You got my point though right. I asked you to explain why DRM is a fallacy, and then pointed out that your dislike for DRM leads you argue for repealing a law, doing away with an industry sector, entirely changing the business model for artists/musicians and making proposals you know would increase piracy. Tim, THIS IS A LOT!!!

The argument that we need DRM to combat “piracy” is a red herring to hoodwink the masses into believing that the poor corporations are being pillaged. The unspoken truth (at least from my viewpoint) is DRM is being promoted to coerce customers into being total dependent on obtaining content from one provider. For example, if you buy music from Sony/BMG then you must also use the Sony/BMG player. Any music that you obtained from another source won’t play.

Second DRM is being used to allow the content vendor to have total control over content. You decide to switch content vendors, your computer crashes, the vendor goes out of business; too bad. Your investment in the content vaporizes. Content vendors are also attempting to frustrate consumer value by trying to limit watching content on a time-shifted basis and inserting commercials onto DVDs.

Third, the content vendors have been given a (illegal) right to trespass onto your private property (computer) to do anything that they want without having to justify their actions. If the software used by the content vendors “breaks” your computer, too bad for you. By way of analogy, if you believe that someone stole something from you, you don’t have a unilateral right to break into their house, search their bank accounts, etc. to find whatever they supposedly stole. I am somewhat surprised that law student in his/her posting did not seem to be aware of this aspect.

Laws passed at the behest of corporations for their sole benefit are an anathema to a free market system. Rather than lobbying for laws that reduce freedom and create barriers to entry, corporations need to revise their business models instead.

The argument that we need DRM to combat “piracy” is a red herring to hoodwink the masses into believing that the poor corporations are being pillaged. The unspoken truth (at least from my viewpoint) is DRM is being promoted to coerce customers into being total dependent on obtaining content from one provider. For example, if you buy music from Sony/BMG then you must also use the Sony/BMG player. Any music that you obtained from another source won’t play.

Second DRM is being used to allow the content vendor to have total control over content. You decide to switch content vendors, your computer crashes, the vendor goes out of business; too bad. Your investment in the content vaporizes. Content vendors are also attempting to frustrate consumer value by trying to limit watching content on a time-shifted basis and inserting commercials onto DVDs.

Third, the content vendors have been given a (illegal) right to trespass onto your private property (computer) to do anything that they want without having to justify their actions. If the software used by the content vendors “breaks” your computer, too bad for you. By way of analogy, if you believe that someone stole something from you, you don’t have a unilateral right to break into their house, search their bank accounts, etc. to find whatever they supposedly stole. I am somewhat surprised that law student in his/her posting did not seem to be aware of this aspect.

Laws passed at the behest of corporations for their sole benefit are an anathema to a free market system. Rather than lobbying for laws that reduce freedom and create barriers to entry, corporations need to revise their business models instead.

Most music is still sold on CD, which for the most part has no DRM. Most music on iPods or any other portable player is not purchased from DRM-infected online sources, either. More downloads are being sold in DRM-free formats.

Therefore, most of the so-called piracy (or simple copying, in the case of ripping one’s own CDs to his iPod) is completely ouside the sphere of DRM or the DMCA (as I understand it, and IANAL). I don’t know if this makes DRM a fallacy, but it is certainly less relevant than this discussion would suggest.

For the most part, the unauthorized copying of music on p2p and other places is originally from CDs, not from DRM’d downloads stripped of DRM. Is this not correct? Once again, this leans toward the “fallacy” interpretation.

Most music is still sold on CD, which for the most part has no DRM. Most music on iPods or any other portable player is not purchased from DRM-infected online sources, either. More downloads are being sold in DRM-free formats.

Therefore, most of the so-called piracy (or simple copying, in the case of ripping one’s own CDs to his iPod) is completely ouside the sphere of DRM or the DMCA (as I understand it, and IANAL). I don’t know if this makes DRM a fallacy, but it is certainly less relevant than this discussion would suggest.

For the most part, the unauthorized copying of music on p2p and other places is originally from CDs, not from DRM’d downloads stripped of DRM. Is this not correct? Once again, this leans toward the “fallacy” interpretation.

81e31de21f46 Good work tramadol tramadol

81e31de21f46 Good work tramadol tramadol