MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-06-05 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM is Theft: Disabling Information
|
From owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com Mon Jun 5 01:55:05 2006
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k555t38A030185
for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:55:05 -0400
Received: (from majordomo-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k555t3cB030184
for hangout-outgoings; Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:55:03 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: majordomo set sender to owner-hangout-at-nylxs.com using -f
Received: from flatbush.mrbrklyn.com (flatbush.mrbrklyn.com [10.0.0.62])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k555t1F8030178
for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:55:03 -0400
Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM is Theft: Disabling Information
From: Ruben Safir
To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:56:05 -0400
Message-Id: <1149486965.11712.35.camel-at-flatbush.mrbrklyn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 10532
Status: RO
Content-Length: 7531
Lines: 231
DRM shows its evil after provider plans disabling bought music
Posted by Seán Byrne on 02 June 2006 - 01:06 - Source: ZDNet - Blogs
Most consumers of DRM crippled music download services are well aware of
at least some of the restrictions in place, such as being limited to
listening to their music on certain PCs to what players one may transfer
their music to. However, what some may not realise is that these
restrictions are not fixed and may be freely changed depending on
the service provider. For example, imagine the record labels deciding
all the sudden to start taking CDs off consumers because they decided
they are no longer entitled to keep their legally purchased CDs, well
this seems to be exactly what is happening with a few Dutch OD2 based
providers in the Netherlands when it comes to music purchased as
downloads.
For example, one Dutch broadband provider which runs a music service by
LoudEye offers a choice of ways to listen to its music - Stream,
Download for PC playback, Download+ for PC & media player support and a
30 second fragment. Unfortunately, consumers who purchased music as
downloads using the service have only recently found out that the music
they purchased may no longer be playable after January 1st 2007 after
the record labels decided to no longer support the downloading of music
on the store's service.
This is not the first time content providers have decided to revoke
content from providers, for example, consumers with TiVo’s who recorded
a certain eiposide of the Simpsons or King of the Hill lost the right
the right to playback their recordings after the content provider
apparently decided to no longer allow the playback of these (despite the
Simpsons issue being called a “bugâ€). Thanks to mrdataNY for letting us
know about the following news:
One of the lesser discussed but equally troubling evils of digital
rights management technology is what I call the "DRM switcheroo." The
DRM switcheroo is where the person or company sitting at the DRM
controls over the content you've accumulated under one set of rules
switches to a new set of rules. What, you don't like the rules? Tough
noogies. Because such DRM controls exist, content licensors and
providers can pretty much decide to have their way with the content you
think you have a right to use.
(further down within an e-mail about the Dutch ISP)
I would say that they're making an absolute case for totally getting rid
of the DRM as they are actually taking away the possibility to listen to
the music you've legally bought. It might have been bought via a cheap
method, but legally, you where entitled to listen to it on your PC. The
only possible means to still listen to your [downloaded] music would
actually mean that you've got to disconnect your PC from the Net as then
they won't be able to update the licensed files (assuming that they have
not already done so).
The idiocy of course is that you've bought a product which the seller
than decides he doesn't want to support anymore and then revokes your
license using DRM.
The full article can be read here. C|net gives further examples of
various problems experienced with DRM in this article.
This is just another example of how badly DRM is going out of hand. For
example, in this case it is like the record labels coming to knock on
their customer’s doors to demand their CDs back saying that they have
decided that consumers no longer have the right to keep these CDs. With
DRM, this is straight forward to do, since the player needs to
authenticate with the content providers server to check the song’s
licensing, at least for the first playback.
mrdataNY added: This really high lights a major problem with DRM and
the draconian methods of the "powers that be". People work hard for the
money in which they receive and when they follow the rules... they are
punished by it. Where would that same person go the next time?.... hmmm
Send to friend!Print
Microsoft criticizes Sony for including Blu-ray in PS3
InterVideo WinDVD installations top 175 million
Reactions on this item
Freedom of speech is basically what Internet is all about. However, CD
Freaks maintains a policy regarding reactions. Please read our reaction
policy and privacy policy.
The reactions below are posted by the CD Freaks visitors and do not
reflect the views of CD Freaks.
Show reactions from level +2Show reactions from level +1Show reactions
from level 0Show reactions from level -1Show reactions from level -2
Reaction Posted by LastStand on 02 June 2006 - 03:01 | Moderated -at- 1 |
This is guess this is
the new business model,
pay, then pay and maybe
pay again. DRM makes
this all possible and if
you don't like it, soon
there will be no way to
get music from even the
radio. Guess you will
have to do without and
if you use p2p there
will be long stays in
jail or they will sue
you so that you don't
have the money to feed
yourself.
[edited by LastStand on
02.06.2006 03:04]
Reaction Posted by Hypnosis4U2NV on 02 June 2006 - 04:21 | Moderated -at- 1
|
A new acronym for DRM -
Doesnt Really Matter..
They will never get it..
Reaction Posted by CowboySlim on 02 June 2006 - 06:52 | Moderated -at- 1 |
Doesn't Really Matter to
me, either.
When I purchase a
download, I assume a
somewhat degraded final
product. So, while still
logged in, I burn it out
once as CD Audio and the
rip it back in as
160Kbps WMA or MP3 which
is no longer DRM'd. My
main use is in a $100
boombox primarily
outdorrs while camping
and the fidelity loss is
imperceptible. So it
Doesn't Really Matter
anyway.
Reaction Posted by yronnen on 02 June 2006 - 19:17 | Moderated -at- 1 |
What did you expect? The
purpose of DRM was never
to stop piracy (even if
that's what the media
provider said), but to
create a constant
revenue stream.
The best way to create a
revenue stream is by
selling a service, not a
product. They sell you
the songs as a service
(i.e. it will play for a
month), and if you want
to listen some more,
pull out this credit
card of yours.
Reaction Posted by rla on 02 June 2006 - 23:19 | Moderated -at- 1 |
...and just like the
greed mongers in the
industry, I'm betting
the dumb ass public will
just keep on spending
their money while they
get less and less.
It is a shame how easy
it is to manipulate a
modern society like they
are a bunch of
sheep...just incredible.
Reaction Posted by greg42 on 03 June 2006 - 22:59 | Moderated -at- 1 |
Oh and what about your
fair use rights ? And I
always believed DRM
stood for Draconian
Rights Mangled
Reaction Posted by maximumpayne on 04 June 2006 - 16:29 | Moderated -at- 1
|
No wonder P2P usage is
going up already. The
more they keep up their
path of tyranny, the
more they'll go down in
flames.
P.S.: In case you people
didn't know, there are
methods and/or
freeware/opensource
programs to remove DRM.
You can always do a
google search for those.
Reaction Posted by Nil Einne on 05 June 2006 - 04:06 | Moderated -at- 1 |
I'm surprised this isn't
againt Dutch consumers
laws. Or maybe it is and
the company is simply
hoping nothing will be
done about it...
|
|
