By NICK WINGFIELD for the Wall Street Journal
August 16, 2004
The New Digital Media: You Might Have It, But Not Really Own It

Buying music used to be simple: You coughed up $14 or so for a CD, and as long as you didn't bootleg it or charge crowds of people to listen to it, the music was yours.

The Internet and other technologies are changing all that, opening up a slew of new options for purchasing entertainment, be it music or movies or games. That's a good thing. The no-so-good thing is that in the next few years, the sheer number and complexity of those new options are likely to bewilder many consumers. You may no longer be able to "own a movie" or "own a CD," at least in the sense those phrases have been used.

Instead, you will merely have "rights" to the content, enforced by technology. Those rights might change over time, even at the whim of the music or movie company you get them from.

The technology allowing all this is called digital rights management, or DRM. It's a kind of invisible software lock securely bolted onto a song or movie. Being software, it's a very flexible sort of lock. A music label, for example, might let you download a song free and then listen to it for a day, but then require you to pay up to keep on listening. For a taste of what DRM might bring, check out Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store, which sells songs for 99 cents.

iTunes comes with a DRM system that prevents customers from playing those songs on more than five computers, or burning more than seven identical lists of songs onto CDs. (Before you can play a song on a sixth computer, you need to use the DRM software to "deauthorize" it from one of the first five machines.)

Of course, no such technical limits exist on normal music CDs, though recording companies, especially in Europe, are experimenting with restrictions.

Some iTunes users are grumbling. In June, science-fiction writer Cory Doctorow gave a talk critical of DRM technology in which he related how he hit Apple's limit on the number of computers he could play his music onthree machines at the time.

One computer was in the shop, another was at his parents' house and a third was a defective machine he had returned to Apple without first remembering to deauthorize his music on it so he could play it on another machine. As a result, Mr. Doctorow said he was unable to listen to hundreds of dollars worth of music.

Apple says such problems aren't common, especially since the company upped its computer limit to five in April.

But that change itself was a lesson in the power of DRM: Apple's increase was retroactive, and applied to all songs, not just those pur chased after the change took effect.

In this case, Apple gave users more liberal rights. (It also curbed some types of CD burning, but the change didn't apply to previously purchased music.) However, there's nothing preventing Apple from making its DRM retroactively more restrictive though the company says that's unlikely.

Apple set up the iTunes DRM as a way of getting the big labels badly burned by the original Napster comfortable with music online. It deserves credit for helping legalize digital music: iTunes has had more than 100 million downloads.

And even with the restrictions, iTunes customers more or less "own" their music once they've bought it. By contrast, consumers only "rent" music at subscription services like RealNetworks's Rhapsody, which typically charge a $10 or so monthly fee for playing as much music as customers want.

The catch: Rhapsody subscribers can play their songs only on their PCs, not portable audio players, and only as long as they keep pay ing their monthly bills. That's the main reason these "rental" sites haven't done as well as iTunes. (By the end of this year, a new version of Microsoft's DRM will allow subscription users to transfer content to portable players.)

It's not just Internet music that's getting more complicated. Most of today's movie DVDs contain restrictions that prevent users from copying them, or playing them in a different geographic region from where they are bought.

But Hollywood studios, along with technology and consumer electronic companies, are work ing on a new generation of DVDs that will, in addition to holding more data for high-definition movies, also have a much more flexible DRM. As a result, different studios might end up imposing different DVD restrictions. You may, for instance, be able to make a copy of the "Toy Story 4" DVD for your laptop—but not do the same thing with "Charlie's Angels 5."

Those variations will likely require some form of labeling on DVDs so consumers will know what they're getting, according to companies involved in planning them. Alan Davidson, associate director of the civil liberties group Center for Democracy and Technology, says he isn't opposed to DRM, but worries consumers may not understand what rights come with content they purchase. "DRM under scores the point that consumers are going to have to become a lot more sophisticated about what they're buying," he says.

"Alan Davidson, associate director of the civil liberties group Center for Democracy and Technology, says he isn't opposed to DRM..."

--uh, Alan, how can you be "associate director" of a civil liberties group and say such a thing? Are you an oxi-moron?

Shmoo

I don't have a big problem with the kind of DRM that Apple's iTunes uses, since it is pretty liberal over-all. But there is a real issue with the possibility of different content holders imposing different standards. This makes for a very confusing marketplace for content.

Such widely variable DRM standards as described in the article above also makes it a lot more likely that consumers will resort to using DRM circumvention technologies, or get their content from sources which do the DRM circumvention for them.

I have a problem with all DRM schemes. They all blatantly violate copyright law. It is very simple either you (1) get to have the protection of copyright law; or (2) you get to have the protection of DRM, you cannot have both.

If you have DRM then you do not need copyright law. Copyright law was invented to provide protection for authors so that they would publish their works and not hide them. If they had DRM they never would have created the law inn the first place.

"Buying music used to be simple: You coughed up $14 or so for a CD, and as long as you didn't bootleg it or charge crowds of people to listen to it, the music was yours."

I've ranted on this before. How was the music "yours"? If something is really yours, you can sell it. You never owned "the music". The copyright owner always owned the music. On old albums, you could sell the vinyl media on which the sounds which conveyed the music resided so that someone else could now own that vinyl and enjoy the music, but you didn't own the music, only the medium, only the vehicle.

I also have continued to say that what the RIAA really says is that people who cough up the money to purchase a CD have, is an end use license agreement. They are offering to allow you, and you alone really, to listen to the music. They license you, under strict provisions, to listen to the content, and have grudgingly admittted that you have the right to make a backup copy of that physical medium. But, write Cary Sheman and ask him if purchase of an RIAA affiliated CD allows you to loan it to someone else for a week, or even legally, if anyone besides you is supposed to listen to it.

I think you will be surprised at what limitations on that license agreement that the RIAA asserts.

You buy a CD, and are "allowed" to listen to the music, but, in all reality, from the RIAA perspective, you never "own the music".

DRM is horrible. It needs to be opposed with all vigor!

Copyright was intended to serve the PUBLIC GOOD and NOT meant as a basis for the establishment of the mythical "intellectual property." For A LIMITED TIME a work is protected from being copied and sold without license from the creator as an incentive to create. Copyright is NOT a deed to any form of property. And fair use TRUMPS copyright. We need to repeal all copyright laws except for the intendend original that I have just paraphrased. (I just read a slashdot post that opined that even the "fair use clause" needs done away with, and I agree.)

If someone wants to lock up their work with DRM, I see no right we the public have (except the open marketplace) to keep them from attempting to do so, but on the other hand, the DMCA and similar laws on/attempting to be on the books do wrongfully go against fair use (which, remember, as originally envisioned by the Founders, always trumps copyright restrictions.)

And the beat goes on.

Shmoo

(I just read a slashdot post that opined that even the "fair use clause" needs done away with, and I agree.)

strike that part folks, I was too vague. There is a "fair use clause" from 1976 (?) that I was refering to that attempts to "define" and shows "examples" of what is supposedly fair use. I was not refering to real "fair use" itself.

Well Rhapsody sells songs for 79 cents, cheaper than iTunes. What they are talking about is the unlimited listening option.

I hate it when they paint one service as better than the others, and iTunes as the best thing since sliced bread. It's all the same unattractuve option, and still a drop in the ocean of P2P in term of size of the library and songs downloaded a day...

What most folks don't think of is the DRM isn't locked in stone as to the condiditions. We can expect that newer DRM might even have changing conditions, especially for a computer that connects to the internet and has songs on it with DRM content.

Typically, almost all ELUAs have fine print. Unless you are a lawyer hunting for reasons or someone who is really curious as to just what you are agreeing to, most never read the ELUA because it is so tedious. The majority figure they paid their money and it is theirs to use. It is theirs to use only the question is in what way and in what conditions.

In the past there are been articles here where even a hammer maker was trying out ELUA's on thier product. Basically, on the wrapper is a ELUA that says you agree not to loan this tool to a neighbor, that it is only for your personal use and that by removing it from the wrapper you agree to those terms.

If I agree to such terms, that hammer isn't mine, even if I paid money for it. It has restrictions on it and I have a choice of what maker I buy from. It certainly won't be that manufacturers product.

But after the wrapper is gone on the hammer, unlike the software, there is no trace on it that you have agreed to such. With software, as long as you reinstall at any time it is there for you to see again.

Now I have a problem with a lot of these folks. A portion want you to register your product for it to function. In otherwords go to some website, give your name, expose your computer to some sort of spyware, just for the go ahead to active the product.

I wonder at this point if the DRM might not be or might be in the future a new spyware. One you can't get rid of without loss of the product. That might even be today, we don't really know do we?

wet1, your name betrays you. You certainly are not a "wet one" behind the ears. You hit the nail on the head and your comparison of DRM to spyware is very apt. Fight on!

"The technology allowing all this is called digital rights management, or DRM. It's a kind of invisible software lock securely bolted onto a song or movie. Being software, it's a very flexible sort of lock."

uh.. yeah.. until you try to change formats, sample it, perform simple editing, or use any device but the ONE that is "allowed".

READ MY LIPS, MY DIGITAL RIGHTS DONT NEED "MANAGEMENT"

CodeWarrior wrote:

OK, so if the RIAA believes this, wouldn't it be OK for a GROUP of 100,000 to pool their money and buy CDs. And since this GROUP legally bought the music, they should be able to legally SHARE that music with each other. Heck, individuals buy Lottory tickets all the time, and share the winnings with the group who contributed the money to buy them in the first place!

Quote from Code disappeared, "I also have continued to say that what the RIAA really says is that people who cough up the money to purchase a CD have, is an end use license agreement. They are offering to allow you, and you alone really, to listen to the music."

Charlie's Angels 5 in any format is kind of a frightening thought, DRM or not.

"OK, so if the RIAA believes this, wouldn't it be OK for a GROUP of 100,000 to pool their money and buy CDs. And since this GROUP legally bought the music, they should be able to legally SHARE that music with each other."

Isn't that called a public library?

Fortunately they haven't tried to attack libraries. Yet.

this idea was brought up along time ago on the audiogalaxy gold board. start a company and sell stock in it for say 50 bucks a share . half that money goes to buying a cd and the other half goes to servers. you build a huge library of music and being a owner in the company you have access to all the music you can dream of , imagine 1 million owners of the company having the right to use the companys assets . we never did find out the legality of this but maybe leflaw has some thoughts on it

that's a really cool idea!

oh please thats like say in oh i bought it then soo n theyll be able to come to my house and say oh we wantit back now
fuck that if i pay 14 to 18 bucks a cd
im buying all of it
not borrowing it
and ill share what i pay for when eevr and how ever i want
fuck that shit
thats why i will never buy anothe cd from any store or shelf ever again

it has beed 5 years since i bought a cd
i stopped when metallica sold out to litigation for profit after napster shut down
ever since then ive dled my music or copied it off of dmx
from a friends house who has a digiotal audio capture device

no matter what laws they pass
the majority of the public will still fileshare
fuck the riaa
they are publically announcing that they are greedy and ive talked to people on the street and not one person even conservative old people wont buy cds because
theya re afraid that fascism will be financed by their purchase
i havent seen any normal cds anywere in my neighbor hood for years
oh and yea i hope our fuilesharing puts the riaa out of buisness

if theya re litigating for profit
i dont give a shit if they lose theyre jobs
at least they can find another job
and not be in millions in debit from lawsuits

fuck thema and anyone who supports them
i hope they get aids and die

Well I admit I have downloaded mp3's before, but I have also bought the music if I like it. I for one like the artwork and the cd for one, I'm supporting the music I like. If you don't buy their albums why even listen to them?
Personally I don't listen to huge popular bands, so downloading is only more difficult for me, I don't even go there. Any band that doesn't have a good enough reputation puts sound clips on their site, and you can hear it that way. Some people say $18 for a cd in canada is too much. Half of the stuff I get is imported or some shit and it is $30 a regular cd. I don't mind. Its not like I am getting paid pennies in the society I live in. I personally think purchasing mp3's is a good idea... I never knew that songs were selling at 99cents though, that is unbelievable! If you can't afford this... you got to be a pussy ass bitch. But then again dubbsakk would rather me get aids and die because I find music worthwhile...

A friend of mine does find music worthwhile, to the tune of 1500+ legally purchased CDs. There are not very many people who can lay down that much money, or store that many CD cases. Prices are still too high, silly land lubbers.

I got tired already of the RIAA and MPAA schemes about mediums. Copyright is a tool enabling a mafia which extorts general public into a scheme that could be made million times more easier, practical, and so that everyone gets paid if record execs weren´t so greedy. I´m now boycotting all RIAA-made mediums and all MPAA mediums too. I will only go to live performances for th bands I like and to the movies to see the films I like.

I actually go to the movies twice a month or so, and go to live performances once a month. I own about 500 legally purchased original CDs, AND IM NOT BUYING ANY MORE OF THEM EVER. Haven´t done it in about two years.

RIAA, MPAA, U lost a customer.
U´re not irreplaceable, u know? Someone always come to fill the void if u go broke.

From Raoulduke1's post:

"I have a problem with all DRM schemes. They all blatantly violate copyright law. It is very simple either you (1) get to have the protection of copyright law; or (2) you get to have the protection of DRM, you cannot have both. If you have DRM then you do not need copyright law."

I must admit, this is a very good point.

I suppose a champion of DRM might argue that, if properly designed, DRM would allow for fair use while acting as "double protection" in cases where it is difficult to enforce copyright law. But such an argument would not be without its weaknesses. For one thing, how does one decide to what extent DRM prevents 'fair use'?

Under the first sale doctrine you own the CD. Let them take you to court. You just can not profit from that CD. Music is not software the DRM is. Back when radio started playing over the air. The record companies put on their records you can not play it over the air. They lost the court case. Under the first sale doctrine. They are now trying to get around it by putting DRM in to the CD.