And most recently, Google shut down its Movie Download service, thereby rendering useless all the DRM-protected files people paid for. "Don't Be Evil" my ass...SoundInMotionDJ wrote:It does appear that DRM is getting pushed back (iTunes is offering DRM-free songs for $1.29) and pushed forward (Vista incorporates more/better DRm controls) at the same time. Where the "final answer" will fall is to be determined.
No, those COMPANIES might not provide that particular service.SoundInMotionDJ wrote:DRM is not all bad. One of the ways that digital content will be made available for the PC is under the protections of DRM. Because there is DRM, I can watch full episodes of some of my favorite TV shows over the web - in case I miss an episode. That service would not exist without DRM.
In your example, if you had a friend record the show for you, you could go over to his house to watch it. DRM is designed to prevent that -- forcing you instead to use one of the media company's officially sanctioned avenues for distribution (meaning: "Pay us!")
A free market will find ways to provide consumers with the goods and services they desire, at a price they're willing to pay. DRM, on the other hand, legitimizes monopolies, and encourages price-fixing.
If our elected officials were truly representative of the people, they would uphold our rights, rather than pander to big business.SoundInMotionDJ wrote:It is not in the financial interests of the music industry to fully support your fair use rights.
Those rights were explicitly guaranteed for a reason -- because the original legislators who enacted those provisions KNEW that if left unchecked, corporate interests would favor restrictive control of information; "fair use" was the only weapon they could give the little guy.
If our lawmakers and judiciary HAD A PAIR, they would make sure the industry played by the rules. Yeah, it's inconvenient that the law requires consumers to be able to make backup copies of their CDs and DVDs, but it's also inconvenient that I have to stop for red lights. (If I had a nickel for every time a Police car put on its lights just to go through an intersection... I wonder how many RIAA and record company higher-ups actually pay for music, rather than simply "borrowing" it from their companies' vaults...)
They most certainly ARE playable! You might have to buy (or borrow) a new player, but the point is that you can use a player FROM ANY MANUFACTURER -- thus fostering competition in the marketplace.SoundInMotionDJ wrote:Keeping in mind that my extensive collection of "mix tapes" from college are now un-playable as I no longer have a working tape player.
Lawrence's MiniDisc problem is a more-fitting example, since he's "locked in" to buying from Sony exclusively.
In five years, like you say, when you want to listen to your "Swing Uber Mix" you'll have to purchase a license exclusively from Microsoft, who will say, "You sure do enjoy listening to that mix, don't you? It sure would be a shame if we suddenly doubled the license fee, wouldn't it?"
And with the big media companies taking more and more control away from the artists, what incentive will THEY have to create new works? Creativity will stagnate, new generations won't feel the need to learn music, and society as a whole will suffer. (Thankfully, when that happens, the music industry will have destroyed its own source of revenue, and will collapse under its own greed. Nature does have a way of thinning gluttonous herds...)
