0488: "Steal This Comic"

[ZenKai]

To the people who don't mind DRM because it's easy to circumvent: you're missing the point. The providers don't know you circumvented it, so by (as far as they know) accepting it and putting up with it, you're telling them it's OK, you don't mind DRM. When everyone does that, they get the impression that DRM is not a big deal, and people are willing to put up with it. Then they make it harder to circumvent, to stop those pirates who are distributing the decrypted copies, and next time you download a song you find there's no way around the DRM this time. Besides, you shouldn't have to spend time and effort finding the workaround and using it (some take hours) to use something you bought. And with DMCA, as the comic states, either way makes you a criminal.

And here you've hit upon the problem at its core. I think the providers assuming we're okay with DRM is as unlikely as Bush thinking he's a popular president. When the internet as a whole has a problem with something, it's not the sort of thing you can miss. But this is where the catch-22 hits. Boycotting does nothing. Accepting it does nothing. Either way, we're looking at the same outcome. One of the primary laws of logic dictates that if neither argument can persuade, there's no point in changing your stance (see creation vs. evolution; prove God does or does not exist).

This leaves us with an untenable position. Something's gotta give. We can't force the cessation of DRM, nor can we afford to ignore it. Even if everyone in the country started pirating exclusively, we'd all simply be criminals, not vindicated. I categorically disagree that eventually they'll develop an "unbreakable" DRM (I work for a major motion picture studio. I'm two cubes away from our "anti-piracy" team). I speak with the authority of someone secure in knowledge that, no matter how much energy we put into developing encryption folks can break it. Hell, ReplayAV simply captures the audio stream (think of it sitting between your hard disc and your sound card), meaning that ALL SOUND being played is recorded to a blank file. Badabing. If you can play it, I can record it.

It's technologically impossible to totally prevent the ability for me to make a copy short of not allowing me to hear the music itself. I don't even need the file. If you're STREAMING it to me I can capture it. So what now? Providers won't change their stance on the legality, nor can they prevent me from bootlegging. What's needed, at the most fundamental level, is a policy change. Something that most people will be cool with. As I said in my earlier post, there will ALWAYS be some pirates. We need to focus on a compromise that minimizes the damage.

Facts:
1. DRM fucks people. For good or bad, the (repeated) collapses of DRM-protected music providers have given testament to this.
2. Piracy hurts providers by taking money out of their pocket.
3. There are two type of pirates: those that steal because they can't afford or simply don't want to pay for the music (thieves), and folks who feel that it is their unalienable right to use that which they paid for as they see fit (sensible individuals).

SO, since we've already reasoned that the thieves are going to steal no matter what, and that the rest are only pirating in the semantic definition of the word, we can conclude that the presence of DRM in fact increases the amount of piracy. Let's extend this conclusion: since most music piracy takes place in the "file-sharing" sector (be it peer-to-peer or swarm via torrent) it seems reasonable to minimize the number of people participating in those networks, thereby making the availability of the files more limited. DRM is having the opposite effect.

I totally agree that intellectual copyright should exist and even be enforced. I also feel that it should apply to thieves, not sensible individuals. Since I'd have to be deluded to think that if I pit my programming abilities against the collective minds of the "free data" hackers out there, some of whom just do it for fun (see DeCSS) I would be thoroughly trounced, I can only conclude that a software solution isn't the way to go. Hardware? Same problem. What we need is a way to make obtaining the material in question so inexpensive and easy to work with that there's no POINT to pirating. DRM has the opposite effect. It GIVES a reason to pirate. The MPAA and the RIAA would have a much easier time going after the big fish if all the small fish are out of the pond.

[Zk]

[Carcer]

All DRM manages to do is drive away consumers who are tech-savvy enough to know that DRM is just going to get on their tits. I simply cannot understand, however, how almost none of these big companies realise that DRM is pretty much completely ineffectual. Albums of music will still show up on torrent sites and other P2P applications because people will just rip them from CDs, regardless of how super-high-tech their digitally distributed copy protection gets. No matter how hard they try, the MPAA will not manage to stop people from ripping movies SOMEHOW. It only takes a few people with the know-how to crack the system for everyone else to get their hands on it. Spore - Spore was cracked and live on the internet several days before it was actually due to be released! So much for that great protection! Improving the quality of the copy protection does not make it any more difficult for normal users to get their hands on the pirate versions - it just, at best, makes it take slightly longer for the pirated version to appear. I'd imagine the guys who do the actual cracking thrive on the challenge and enjoy it immensely (I know I would if I had the know-how), otherwise they wouldn't be bothering to crack in the first place. Each new step forward for DRM technology just makes the general public less likely to waste their time with it.

People who are too poor to afford these products (or just naturally stingy) are going to gravitate to the cheapest option anyway - online piracy. Anarchists who want to fuck the system are going to pirate as much as they can, and that won't change either. The sales that DRM loses are people like me, who are reasonably wealthy but not willing to put up with much crap, so we gravitate towards the most CONVENIENT option. If getting a pirated version of something is more convenient than getting the legal version, then whoever is responsible for putting that legal version out is doing it very wrong. When I can get what I want (DRM-free and lossless) easily and legally, I do so, and I have large boxes packed with the games, DVDs, and CDs I've bought that can attest to this. The presence of restrictive DRM in these releases would not have made them any less difficult for me to pirate, and would only have made me more likely to do so.

EDIT:
@The Guy Above Me:
Intellectual copyright should force attribution. It should stop people ripping off somebody else's work and claiming it as their own, and/or trying to profit off it in some way. What I would see develop is, instead of a system based on trying to enforce scarcity of supply, a system based on donations, as many independent artists have currently implemented, and as indeed is the case for an awfully large number of popular applications that don't actually restrict your usage in any way (such as WinRAR and mIRC) but ask that if you use the software and find it useful to consider purchasing a registration to support its development. Or, as Trent did for Ghosts, releasing samples freely in a lower quality format and charging for the higher quality version (although in this case the low quality was 320kbps MP3, which most people are going to consider high enough quality anyway), or The Slip, which is entirely free to get online, but can be purchased in limited edition physical copies for the people who want such things. Evidently this model must be working, since these people have not, in fact, starved to death yet.

[tricky77puzzle]

You know, I have an idea:

Sell the DRM-free copies of music at $1.25 a song, and giving away songs for free, but with extremely heavy DRM on them. (E.g. they will never work on any other device other than the one used to download, they can only be played 7 times after which you will need to download it again, etc.)

I guarantee you, one of two things will occur:

1. people will move to the DRM'd songs, or people will start buying the songs at $1.25 apiece and cashflow will be so big that companies will have no choice but to reduce the prices and invest in more bands to prevent overflow.

2. the piracy movement will increase. Hey, it's the best option for 70% of the population.

Am I crazy or just plain stupid?

[MysticalChicken]

2. Most brick-and-mortar stores won't let you listen to any CD so you can choose before buying (MusicWerks was a great exception). I don't count that rack of 8 CDs in the listening rack at some stores since they are prechosen by the store, not me.

This is exactly the reason that Everyday Music in Portland is my favorite CD store. Not only have they had nearly everything* I've ever been looking for, they'll open up ANYTHING and let you listen to it before you buy it. Although I am an advocate of the "blind CD purchase". I like living on the edge!

And I'm one of maybe three people in America who still almost exclusively buys CDs. I like a physical copy of my music.

*NOBODY has any Chameleons CDs. I've given up looking for them.

[TheAmazingRando]

I always buy physical copies of all my music. I like having the album art and the physical CD, and I just enjoy collecting it. I live near a good record store, but even if you don't, you can buy almost any CD off the internet for cheaper than in any store (unless it's used in store, and not online) and for about the same price as a digital download. Why would you pay for mp3s (especially with DRM) if you can get it for the same price, or maybe a few dollar more, sometimes even less, and have a physical copy that won't expire that you can legally rip to your computer without DRM?

Most people I know who download to "sample" music don't delete it if they don't intend to buy the album. This isn't sampling, people.

I don't have a big problem with pirating, honestly, especially if music is hard to find (in which case the label probably isn't a part of the RIAA anyway). But I don't think there's a good excuse for it, either. Just call it what it is and don't try to justify it.

[ZenKai]

@The Guy Above Me:
Intellectual copyright should force attribution. It should stop people ripping off somebody else's work and claiming it as their own, and/or trying to profit off it in some way. What I would see develop is, instead of a system based on trying to enforce scarcity of supply, a system based on donations, as many independent artists have currently implemented, and as indeed is the case for an awfully large number of popular applications that don't actually restrict your usage in any way (such as WinRAR and mIRC) but ask that if you use the software and find it useful to consider purchasing a registration to support its development. Or, as Trent did for Ghosts, releasing samples freely in a lower quality format and charging for the higher quality version (although in this case the low quality was 320kbps MP3, which most people are going to consider high enough quality anyway), or The Slip, which is entirely free to get online, but can be purchased in limited edition physical copies for the people who want such things. Evidently this model must be working, since these people have not, in fact, starved to death yet.

See, I disagree with the idea of a donation-based system. Just because we work in the digital landscape we don't deserve to set a price for our work? I've been programming for over a decade now. It take a lot of skill, hard work, training, and know-how. If I release an application that took me a thousand hours to code, I set my price based on the number of potential buyers in the demographic and factor. The idea of basically being "tipped" for my work, and not just tipped, but tipped however much you think it's worth, is ridiculous. Name another industry where that would be appropriate. If you were a doctor performing surgery, would you be cool with a "tip" when you were done stitching the patient? "Thanks for the bypass doc! Here's a ten-spot!"

Further, it doesn't change the fact that the files remain widely available. You're just sanctioning people to legally download the file for free. I'm not suggesting enforcement by scarcity, that's out of context. I''m saying that, should we eliminate the need for law-abiding citizens to pirate, the remainder are thieves. True, by reducing potential download nodes we make it more inconvenient to pirate, but it certainly won't stop it. Fact is, the goal is to MINIMIZE the need to pirate. Folks will. Period. No matter how many traps the corporations lay, some will squeak by and facilitate others. I think the first goal, the first step as it were, needs to be simplifying legal acquisitions so the only people pirating are those with the active intent of getting something for nothing.

At this point, anything driving legitimate users away from legitimate purchases is causing more harm than good. Again, this is anti-DRM, not anti-anti-piracy. My entire point here is that the very companies whining about illegal downloads are in fact contributing to them. Prosecute criminals all you want. Just stop making normal folks into criminals.

[atrerus]

The really unfortunate thing is that we're wasting time talking about DRM, when we could be figuring out how to live on Mars, or develop new photovoltaic cells, or cure genetic diseases.

I think the industry as a whole needs to realize that their business model is fighting the fundamental nature of digital information - that it can be copied with almost no effort or cost. The virtue of a capitalistic economy is that in order to make money you have to provide something of value. Before the advent of the internet, record companies served a purpose in advertising and distribution of music. Now, we can get those things for free, but the record companies can't cope with the fact that they no longer provide value. This is why a combination of death and transformation will occur in the record industry in the coming years.

[tricky77puzzle]

@The Guy Above Me:
Intellectual copyright should force attribution. It should stop people ripping off somebody else's work and claiming it as their own, and/or trying to profit off it in some way. What I would see develop is, instead of a system based on trying to enforce scarcity of supply, a system based on donations, as many independent artists have currently implemented, and as indeed is the case for an awfully large number of popular applications that don't actually restrict your usage in any way (such as WinRAR and mIRC) but ask that if you use the software and find it useful to consider purchasing a registration to support its development. Or, as Trent did for Ghosts, releasing samples freely in a lower quality format and charging for the higher quality version (although in this case the low quality was 320kbps MP3, which most people are going to consider high enough quality anyway), or The Slip, which is entirely free to get online, but can be purchased in limited edition physical copies for the people who want such things. Evidently this model must be working, since these people have not, in fact, starved to death yet.

See, I disagree with the idea of a donation-based system. Just because we work in the digital landscape we don't deserve to set a price for our work? I'm been programming for over a decade now. It take a lot of skill, hard work, training, and know-how. If I release an application that took me a thousand hours to code, I set my price based on the number of potential buyers in the demographic and factor. The idea of basically being "tipped" for my work, and not just tipped, but tipped however much you think it's worth, is ridiculous. Name another industry where that would be appropriate. If you were a doctor performing surgery, would you be cool with a "tip" when you were done stitching the patient? "Thanks for the bypass doc! Here's a ten-spot!"

Further, it doesn't change the fact that the files remain widely available. You're just sanctioning people to legally download the file for free. I'm not suggesting enforcement by scarcity, that's out of context. I''m saying that, should we eliminate the need for law-abiding citizens to pirate, the remainder are thieves. True, by reducing potential download nodes we make it more inconvenient to pirate, but it certainly won't stop it. Fact is, the goal is to MINIMIZE the need to pirate. Folks will. Period. No matter how many traps the corporations lay, some will squeak by and facilitate others. I think the first goal, the first step as it were, needs to be simplifying legal acquisitions so the only people pirating are those with the active intent of getting something for nothing.

At this point, anything driving legitimate users away from legitimate purchases is causing more harm than good. Again, this is anti-DRM, not anti-antipiracy. My entire point here is that the very companies whining about illegal downloads are in fact contributing to them. Prosecute criminals all you want. Just stop making normal folks into criminals.

Of course you deserve to set a price for your work. But how does that help? Both pirates and open-source advocates will find ways of working around it. The open-source advocates won't do anything illegal, but considering that about 80% of the software I have on my computer is legally available for free, and 94% of the rest is OEM'd or was purchased as a physical, DRM-less copy (barely 1% is actually a crack, and most of it is games. I only have a crack of Flash 8 because there is no free/open-source alternative.)

Your points make the most sense out of anyone in this debate. But one step to minimizing the need to pirate is minimizing the hassle of online payments, since the Internet is where most piracy happens anyway. Well, at least that's my story. I have the money, but if you can't give me a trustworthy method of payment, I'm not about to go to HMV just to avoid some trivial charge that I have a 1-percent-of-a-basis-point chance of getting.

(BTW, I fixed "anti-piracy" in the quote. I believe you meant to say "anti-antipiracy". If not, just correct me.)

[SpringLoaded12]

I have tried using iTunes and I hate it. If you try save one of your purchased songs to your computer as a music file, it comes out in a weird file type, I think it was .m4p or something. Anyway, I call this the only-iTunes-can-play-it file type, because Windows Media can't play it, my mp3 player can't play it, etc. Only iTunes or an iPod. So every song I buy off iTunes is wasted because I can't play it on my mp3 player.

I JUST WANT SOME GOD DAMN MUSIC TO LISTEN TO ON LONG TRIPS.

Honestly, what the hell.

>:(

I just get my friend to get me songs for free off of Limewire, or I do Google searches for places that give it to me for free.

I don't think there is anything immoral or "wrong" in getting free music.

[tricky77puzzle]

I don't think there is anything immoral or "wrong" in getting free music.

You must not be 80% of the population.
Getting free music is at least questionably immoral, if they don't want you to hear it without buying it first. But what the hell, we do it anyway.

Yeah, iTunes sucks. But their hands are tied. If they were to suddenly remove the DRM, they'd get slapped with at least $10B of lawsuits.

[ZenKai]

Of course you deserve to set a price for your work. But how does that help? Both pirates and open-source advocates will find ways of working around it. The open-source advocates won't do anything illegal, but considering that about 80% of the software I have on my computer is legally available for free, and 94% of the rest is OEM'd or was purchased as a physical, DRM-less copy (barely 1% is actually a crack, and most of it is games. I only have a crack of Flash 8 because there is no free/open-source alternative.)

Your points make the most sense out of anyone in this debate. But one step to minimizing the need to pirate is minimizing the hassle of online payments, since the Internet is where most piracy happens anyway. Well, at least that's my story. I have the money, but if you can't give me a trustworthy method of payment, I'm not about to go to HMV just to avoid some trivial charge that I have a 1-percent-of-a-basis-point chance of getting.

(BTW, I fixed "anti-piracy" in the quote. I believe you meant to say "anti-antipiracy". If not, just correct me.)

First off, yeah, I meant anti-antipiracy. Thank you for not being a flame troll or grammar nazi. It's nice to see someone on a message board with manners.

Next: I work in the open-source community. I've donated my time and code to several projects and I have a regular account at sourceforge. Let me make this clear: open-sourcers != pirates. Most in open-source community believe less in the idea of free software, and more in the idea that many people collectively make a better product. All (most is probably more accurate) of us understand the difference and are pretty respectful when it comes to licensing.

How it helps is this: No, the true pirates are still going to rip off their media. What I'm driving at is the fact that normal, everyday people are being driven to piracy because of stupid policy. Let me repeat that: ordinary folks are getting fucked by stupid arbitrary rules and are forced to illegally download something they already paid for. After watching several DRM providers go down, I couldn't help but think, "damn, I wonder how many songs just dropped into the void." If the goal is to reduce piracy (not remove, reduce), then stop prosecuting the edge cases!

I'm NOT defending people who are selfish and believe they're entitled to everything for free. I AM saying that right now, there's a gray area that is being produced by the very organizations who want to cease piracy. Until there is a clear demarcation between thieves and folks backing up their own fucking CD's these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Excuse my swearing, but the whole idea pisses me off. As I said: I'm a COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPER and I think this shit is stupid. Do I protect my software? Yes. In the form of a freeware version that you purchase the full functionality for. What do I charge? Almost invariably less than 20 bucks if it's consumer-facing (more if it targets corporations). What I DON'T do is sell someone a copy of my software, then abruptly cause it to cease to function, and then, THEN, call them a criminal when they replace it.

Remove the need to pirate. Make it cheap. Make it safe. Make it easy. PEOPLE BUY THAT SHIT. If I sell you a license, it's yours. No, not to install on 100 computers, but to install it on your new desktop after you replace your old? To keep a backup copy? To run it on your laptop and your desktop? Hell yes! I do that shit too! If YOU buy a license, the only thing I expect, the only thing I have a RIGHT to expect, is that YOU are the one that uses it. If you have 5 comps that only you use, have at!

Same thing applies to music, dammit! I have an iPhone. I have 4 computers. I have a DMP in my car! I'M the only one that uses all of the above! So why is okay for me to listen to it on my iPhone and not in my car? The hell? It's still me! Yes, I can dock my iPhone. NOT THE POINT. These laws make people like me, who BUY the music then remove the DRM criminal!? BS. By that logic, if I have someone riding shotgun when I'm driving, they can't listen to my stereo if it's not radio? Then I'm distributing it, right? I mean, if I can't give it to mySELF to listen to, I CERTAINLY can't let you!

The laws generalize people who have no evil intent in with folks who say, "fuck you! Why would I pay when I can get it for free?" DRM does this! I'm clever enough to unprotect my music, but that makes me a lawbreaker. I paid for it. I use it. Only me. I don't sell it. I don't distribute it. Me. The idea behind DRM is to stop distribution of copyrighted materials, but the people that distribute it are the only ones who know how to get around it! That doesn't seem silly? Let's grab an extreme analogy: Let's stick everyone's hands in locked metal boxes so they can't pick locks. Never mind that the locksmiths and thieves (the folks who know how to pick locks) will be free after a moment of hassle. It's for the public good, right?

[Zk]

[tricky77puzzle]

I work in the open-source community. I've donated my time and code to several projects and I have a regular account at sourceforge. Let me make this clear: open-sourcers != pirates. Most in open-source community believe less in the idea of free software, and more in the idea that many people collectively make a better product. All (most is probably more accurate) of us understand the difference and are pretty respectful when it comes to licensing.

How it helps is this: No, the true pirates are still going to rip off their media. What I'm driving at is the fact that normal, everyday people are being driven to piracy because of stupid policy. Let me repeat that: ordinary folks are getting fucked by stupid arbitrary rules and are forced to illegally download something they already paid for. After watching several DRM providers go down, I couldn't help but think, "damn, I wonder how many songs just dropped into the void." If the goal is to reduce piracy (not remove, reduce), then stop prosecuting the edge cases!

I'm NOT defending people who are selfish and believe they're entitled to everything for free. I AM saying that right now, there's a gray area that is being produced by the very organizations who want to cease piracy. Until there is a clear demarcation between thieves and folks backing up their own fucking CD's these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Excuse my swearing, but the whole idea pisses me off. As I said: I'm a COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPER and I think this shit is stupid. Do I protect my software? Yes. In the form of a freeware version that you purchase the full functionality for. What do I charge? Almost invariably less than 20 bucks if it's consumer-facing (more if it targets corporations). What I DON'T do is sell someone a copy of my software, then abruptly cause it to cease to function, and then, THEN, call them a criminal when they replace it.

Remove the need to pirate. Make it cheap. Make it safe. Make it easy. PEOPLE BUY THAT SHIT. If I sell you a license, it's yours. No, not to install on 100 computers, but to install it on your new desktop after you replace your old? To keep a backup copy? To run it on your laptop and your desktop? Hell yes! I do that shit too! If YOU buy a license, the only thing I expect, the only thing I have a RIGHT to expect, is that YOU are the one that uses it. If you have 5 comps that only you use, have at!

Same thing applies to music, dammit! I have an iPhone. I have 4 computers. I have a DMP in my car! I'M the only one that uses all of the above! So why is okay for me to listen to it on my iPhone and not in my car? The hell? It's still me! Yes, I can dock my iPhone. NOT THE POINT. These laws make people like me, who BUY the music then remove the DRM criminal!? BS. By that logic, if I have someone riding shotgun when I'm driving, they can't listen to my stereo if it's not radio? Then I'm distributing it, right? I mean, if I can't give it to mySELF to listen to, I CERTAINLY can't let you!

The laws generalize people who have no evil intent in with folks who say, "fuck you! Why would I pay when I can get it for free?" DRM does this! I'm clever enough to unprotect my music, but that makes me a lawbreaker. I paid for it. I use it. Only me. I don't sell it. I don't distribute it. Me. The idea behind DRM is to stop distribution of copyrighted materials, but the people that distribute it are the only ones who know how to get around it! That doesn't seem silly? Let's grab an extreme analogy: Let's stick everyone's hands in locked metal boxes so they can't pick locks. Never mind that the locksmiths and thieves (the folks who know how to pick locks) will be free after a moment of hassle. It's for the public good, right?

[Zk]

Yeah, that happens to me too. The music I "pirate", I don't do anything else with. I just listen to it. I wouldn't do anything that DRM wouldn't allow, except maybe make backup copies, and even then, it's very little.

I'm not doing this piracy stuff because it's fun; it's because I can't pay for it online, and I don't have the willpower nor the patience to go to HMV and window-shop for a $40 physical album that only costs $10 online. If the $40 physical album were worth that much semantically, I'd buy it. Don't get me wrong. But, I can't pay for the stuff I really want, which isn't available at HMV anyway.

The true pirates will still rip off the media. I'm not a true pirate. Of course, I will download the songs I don't have the budget for, but I'll cover up for them as soon as I can. I don't really listen to a lot of music anyway (I have, what, 30 albums over 4 years? And I don't even listen to over 60% of them anymore, so they're good as gone.)

And no one's talked about movies yet. Of course, movies are really much of a non-issue. The way to pay for movies is to go watch them in a cinema. Buying DVD's is a waste of money, and frankly, I couldn't really care less if people ripped movies off a DVD. I'd buy them if they were just the movie itself for, say $5, but with all the extra features and CSS crap they put there to inflate the price to $20, they have almost the exact same problem.

First off, yeah, I meant anti-antipiracy. Thank you for not being a flame troll or grammar nazi. It's nice to see someone on a message board with manners.

You're welcome.

[softrider]

I haven't seen anyone mention a program called Total Recorder. It allows you to convert any audio your computer can play (including DRM-locked files) to any of several different (non-DRM) formats. The "pro" edition even has a batch mode.

You can still use the program to steal, but you can also use it to "unlock" legally acquired audio for personal use, so your options regarding sources are greater.

[tricky77puzzle]

I haven't seen anyone mention a program called Total Recorder. It allows you to convert any audio your computer can play (including DRM-locked files) to any of several different (non-DRM) formats. The "pro" edition even has a batch mode.

You can still use the program to steal, but you can also use it to "unlock" legally acquired audio for personal use, so your options regarding sources are greater.

Wow, blatant advertising.

Anywhere, that software still costs money, and so still has the problem of DRM.

[Tolchok]

You know, I have an idea:

Sell the DRM-free copies of music at $1.25 a song

They call that iTunes Plus and it's only $1.20

[ZenKai]

I haven't seen anyone mention a program called Total Recorder. It allows you to convert any audio your computer can play (including DRM-locked files) to any of several different (non-DRM) formats. The "pro" edition even has a batch mode.

You can still use the program to steal, but you can also use it to "unlock" legally acquired audio for personal use, so your options regarding sources are greater.

Several apps do this. Applain technology's ReplayMusic handles audio. ReplayAV handles both video and audio. ReplayConverter handles format mods. SoundTaxi will convert anything DRM'd into anything else. Goldwave will do so also if you have the right codecs installed.

Wow, blatant advertising.

Anywhere, that software still costs money, and so still has the problem of DRM.

Check my earlier posts for the torrent links to the aforementioned software. However, all are VERY inexpensive apps (~$20). If you use either, please buy it. 20 bones for unlimited conversions is a steal. SoundTaxi is a personal fav. It was able to batch-convert some 400 Audible AA files into MP3's in like a week (my car's DMP won't play audiobook files).

[tricky77puzzle]

You know, I have an idea:

Sell the DRM-free copies of music at $1.25 a song

They call that iTunes Plus and it's only $1.20

I believe iTunes Plus has a subscription fee, though... And it's $1.29.

Ah, there is no subscription fee.

[WeightedCompanionCube]

Nope. iTunes Plus USED to be more, but the premium pricing went away pretty quickly when Amazon started selling Non-DRM at $.99.

All it means is now is you get higher quality and no DRM. Some songs are plus, some aren't, but everything is the same price.
There IS a fee to redownload old pre-Plus purchases as Plus, and it's a few cents a track.

Seriously, fact check or you look silly.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1711

[scarletmanuka]

Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!

Yar, har, fiddle dee dee,
Being a pirate is all right to be!
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!
You are a pirate! (YEAH!)
[...]

I never, ever thought I'd see a Lazytown reference here. But I'm happy to find out I was wrong. (Not that I would have caught it if it hadn't been for my 7-year-old daughter loving that show...)

Nitpick: in regard to the comic, you're technically not a *criminal* if you do these things. I'm pretty sure that portion of the DMCA is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. And non-commercial piracy is certainly usually a matter of civil law.

As linguistic mentioned earlier:

I live in Australia. Our laws are quaint, especially with regards to music CDs and DVD video. For example, according to our law, we may not make any copies or rips of any of our own CDs or DVDs. At all. Even for backup purposes. Software is slightly different, as the license agreement usually explicitly grants the end user the right to make a copy for backup purposes. (You would imagine this would be a simple distinction. Our government suggests otherwise.)

But still - we're not allowed to rip our music from CD to play on our MP3/OGG players (unless we obtain permission from the author/publisher).

From the link he posted (though this is actually about software rather than music; I couldn't find an equivalent guide for music):

The Copyright Act provides that a person who infringes copyright may, in some cases, be committing a criminal offence (as well as being liable to the owner of the copyright). It is, for example, an offence to make an infringing copy of a program to sell. It is also an offence to advertise the supply of an infringing program. The penalties vary according to the type of infringement, and whether the offender is an individual or a company. A court also has the power to jail offenders for a first time conviction for an infringement of copyright in a cinematograph film, or in relation to second or further convictions. Also, a court has the power to order that equipment used to make infringing copies (such as a computer used to copy software onto diskettes) be confiscated.

I was interested to note that compiling source code is explicitly given as a protected act, so if you live in Australia and download source code for anything, you have to make sure you have the copyright owner's permission to compile it.

Other fun bits:

To work out whether you can sell a second-hand copy of a computer program or CD-ROM, you will need to look at the licensing agreement which accompanies that item. Generally, you will not be able to re-sell computer programs or CD-ROMs if the licence states, for example, that the item may not be re-sold, or states that the item may only be used by the purchaser. In each of these cases, the person purchasing the item from you is likely to be infringing copyright if they use it and you are likely also to be liable on the basis that you have authorised that infringement.

And on making backup copies of computer programs:

The owner of a legitimate copy of a computer program may make a back-up copy of a program[...] The provisions do not allow copies to be made [...] if the owner of copyright in the program has blocked the making of copies of the program (for example, by the use of 'locks' or other technological devices built into the program). [...]
Note, however, that this exception applies only to computer programs, and not to other copyright material (such as music, words, artistic works and sound recordings) that may be accessed by means of a computer program. Therefore, you would be entitled to make a backup copy of a disk or CD-ROM that only contained computer software, but not a disk or CD-ROM that included other copyright material, such as a computer game, music, text or images.

Because, of course, no computer program requires any additional files that are not directly executed and refuses to run if it can't find them. And games are not programs either. Nice to know that.

[random_name]

Since this thread has been mostly about DRM free music,I wanted to point out download services for PC Gaming that don't use DRM.

http://www.impulsedriven.com - By Stardock software
Stardocks been around for a while, and have been pretty anti-DRM the whole time, none of the games they developed use DRM. Impulse is their download/publishing service. You buy a game, download it, you can redownload it whenever you it, install it wherever you want and how many times you want, with no internet activation needed.

http://www.gog.com/en/beta - By CD Projekt
Pretty new, and currently in a semi closed 'beta'. Stands for Good Old Games, specialising in (obviously) old games. All games are either 5.99 or 9.99. Same deal as Impulse, no DRM, unlimited downloads.

Both the services have a limited selection of games at the moment, compared to Steam. I suspect publishers are a bit wary of letting their games be sold in a DRM free manner. Give them a try.

[SocialSceneRepairman]

...so sorry.

[nescalona]

I fall into the option below the box on this one.

[Spoom]

Avoiding the whole social argument (which I have also done to death), I avoid DRM for strictly practical reasons as well, because it's completely technically unenforceable. To quote Cory Doctorow:

In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*. It's not Alice and Bob and Carol, it's just Alice and Bob. Alice sells Bob a DVD. She sells Bob a DVD player. The DVD has a movie on it -- say, Pirates of the Caribbean -- and it's enciphered with an algorithm called CSS -- Content Scrambling System. The DVD player has a CSS un-scrambler.

Now, let's take stock of what's a secret here: the cipher is well-known. The ciphertext is most assuredly in enemy hands, arrr. So what? As long as the key is secret from the attacker, we're golden.

But there's the rub. Alice wants Bob to buy Pirates of the Caribbean from her. Bob will only buy Pirates of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. Otherwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attacker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.

Hilarity ensues.

Unless you get into Trusted Computing, but then you're already into a bizarro world of not actually owning your own computers.

DRM just means extra processing time to write a decrypted copy to disk.

[halcyon1234]

I like how the name is reminiscent of the SOAD album

Their album name was based off of the book Steal this Book. I believe that was the original.

Which, in turn, was based on the Neanderthal Records release "Steal This Funny Shaped Rock Point Point Grunt Grunt".

"Steal This Pre-Big Bang Singularity"

[Schupo]

I find it funny that Audible.com was mentioned in the same phrase as iTunes, as if the two are comparable. Largely, audiobooks are moving towards purely digital formats. Eventually - much sooner than music - all audiobooks will be sold as mp3s. If piracy grows rampant, audiobooks will cease to exist, as they will cease to be profitable. Unlike music, where the recording is just as much a product of it's own as it is an advertisement for a live performance, the audiobook stands alone. It isn't an advertisement for the printed book. It's a separate entity. I know Don Katz pretty well, and it disgusts me that people are encouraging piracy, instead of alternatives such as buying non-DRM music. As a semi-professional musician, I want you to recognize that by stealing music, you are hurting the music industry. In more ways than you might think.

Record producers don't get paid when you steal the music they worked on. I'd argue that in a lot of cases, they're just as much a part of the album as the artist is. Engineers don't get paid, who worked tirelessly to produce the album. There is no alternative to paying money for a CD or mp3. Sending money directly to the artist seemed to be popular in the early days of justifying theft, but it doesn't put money in everyone's pocket. And yes, the record labels deserve to get paid. Without them, the albums wouldn't get funded - recording a CD costs a ton of money, not to mention publicity. Don't pirate.

[DragonHawk]

Some people don't have the money to buy CD's and mp3s, so we do what we have to do to listen to music!

Do without? I think that's generally what you're expected to do when you cannot afford something. Sorry if that disrupts your sense of entitlement.

The problem is, no one can really "do without" music. ... You can "do without" CD's, obviously.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing out the falacy in your argument by doing it yourself. We were talking about CDs and MP3s, not the abstract concept of music . You're welcome to enjoy music the old fashioned way. Free CDs, not so much.

... recording a CD costs a ton of money, not to mention publicity. Don't pirate.

Recorded music is relatively recent phenomenon. Up until the late 19th century, it simply didn't exist. Maybe a little earlier, if you want to argue player pianos. Call it 150 years, to be generous. Music, however, pre-dates human history. 5000+ years. We had music before we had a recording industry. If the recording industry goes the way of the dinosaurs, we will still have music. I imagine this must be pretty scary if one happens to work in the recording industry. Sorry. To use the standard quotation...

There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just 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 guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

[crzftx]

Hey pirating should not be illegal. Whats wrong with sharing bits?

It's very similar to offering a book store of free "shared" books to anyone who wants a free copy. Whether or not it's "right", people have good cause to get pissed off.

[BlueNight]

Wow. This thread grew faster than the one about furries. There's still hope in the world.

I have a special folder called "Legally Downloaded". It is a place for me to keep all the files I have which were either distributed free of charge (such as "Rich Fantasy Lives" offered at Girl Genius) or which I have personally paid for (such as "True" by Spandau Ballet). It is the one folder I know for certain where each file originated... unlike my YTMND folder.

I have also bought, at a thrift store, the LP of Simon & Garfunkel's greatest hits album, so that my rip of my sister's CD of the album would be legal. True, neither the artists nor the publishers gain any monetary compensation for my listening pleasure, but they should have thought about that before selling a perpetual license. The "natural license" that accompanies the physical ownership of the LP is transferable, and I own it now.

I have, at various times, borrowed a book-on-CD from the library, and ripped it to my computer. I never kept the files; I listened to them once, then deleted them.

I have illegally used many bits, of various and sundry origins. I am starting to regret this, having read and admired Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. However, that guilt ends at a point. Now that I own Quake II and Doom, will I repay id Software for my earlier indiscretions? No.

[fiyarburst]

I like how the name is reminiscent of the SOAD album

Their album name was based off of the book Steal this Book. I believe that was the original.

Which, in turn, was based on the Neanderthal Records release "Steal This Funny Shaped Rock Point Point Grunt Grunt".

"Steal This Pre-Big Bang Singularity"

Definitely ripped off of "Steal this non-linear time continuum"

I haven't seen anyone mention a program called Total Recorder. It allows you to convert any audio your computer can play (including DRM-locked files) to any of several different (non-DRM) formats. The "pro" edition even has a batch mode.

You can still use the program to steal, but you can also use it to "unlock" legally acquired audio for personal use, so your options regarding sources are greater.

I've used it, it's a bit of a hassle, actually. I had to pirate the pro version I mean you may as well just hook a 1/8" headphone cable into the line in and speaker ports.

I tend to use piracy as an extended trial. If Pandora plays a song that catches my interest, I will see if BitTorrent has anything to the tune of that band's entire discography. Then, I buy the albums I like from Amazon.

The best part is that I happen to enjoy a genre of music that has the best record label ever for the legal option: Nuclear Blast, which has an amazing roster and is completely free and independent of the RIAA.

I thought nobody else knew.

[SocialSceneRepairman]

It's very similar to offering a book store of free "shared" books to anyone who wants a free copy. Whether or not it's "right", people have good cause to get pissed off.

...on the grounds that 90% of those who have read this post are thinking the same thing I am, I'm not going to say it.

[hotaru]

I never, ever thought I'd see a Lazytown reference here. But I'm happy to find out I was wrong. (Not that I would have caught it if it hadn't been for my 7-year-old daughter loving that show...)

yeah, i'm sure that's the real reason you know about it... (VERY NSFW)

[Mighty Jalapeno]

What? She's hot.

...

What's the age of consent in Iceland?

[Nihiltres]

Fortunately, here in Canada, we can still vote against idiotic copyright bullshit.

I've long had a philosophy in what pirating I've done: I only pirate something that I wouldn't buy if that was the only option.

As a side note: I love Spore, and I'll buy it once I have a computer that can run it. In the meantime, let's all bug EA about DRM and how we want to be able to transfer our games, say, if our computer suddenly dies on us. I'm thinking of calling them up and asking in all good faith what an end-user should do to deal with such problems—an issue that will matter to me as I switch computers often.

[JonRock]

Does it happen to be true that amazon will only let you download mp3s if you live in the USA? I just wanted to give it a try and was suprised to really find every band I would search for but it seems I have to enter a US billing address or it wont let me buy it ...

[brandom]

I love http://magnatune.com because I get to downloads tons of eclectic music in any format I like and share it with friends. All legal.

Course nobody has ever heard of these awesome artists. But that's ok because now I'm a source of much fresh music. Shizzam.

[arctan]

As a semi-professional musician, I want you to recognize that by stealing music, you are hurting the music industry. In more ways than you might think.

Good. I want to hurt it. I hate what the music industry has done to music and the place of music in our culture.

The fact that people like you use "music" and "the music industry" synonymously is all the more reason those who are working to kill the industry need to accelerate their efforts.

And yes, the record labels deserve to get paid. Without them, the albums wouldn't get funded - recording a CD costs a ton of money, not to mention publicity. Don't pirate.

That's how the system works now, yes. A lot of us -- the people being referred to as "anarchists" or "hardcore pirates" or whatever -- would like to see this system cease to exist.

The economic realities of pressing a CD are entirely a function of the giant cultural and economic monopolies the record companies built up in the first place in order to enjoy truly monstrous profits. Defending them as victims because they end up bankrolling most records is like saying we shouldn't rise up against the king because he owns all the land in the first place so we're lucky he allows us to harvest any wheat at all.

[Carnildo]

You do realise that

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

i definitely wouldn't say that DRM as weak as what's currently being used "effectively controls access" to the content...

In this context, "effective" is a legal term meaning "has an effect".

[hotaru]

You do realise that

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

i definitely wouldn't say that DRM as weak as what's currently being used "effectively controls access" to the content...

In this context, "effective" is a legal term meaning "has an effect".

the word is not defined in the legislation, so the normal meaning of the word applies, which is in fact "has an effect." it's not a special legal term.
and like i said before, current DRM does not have any effect to control access.

[sunami]

One thing which I alluded to in my first post on page 1 but didn't seem to get any recognition in the next 4.5 pages is that, by purchasing from iTunes (or whatever DRM-encrusted music store) you are saying to The Music Industry that you are okay with not owning the music you "purchase" and are supporting DRMd music. By taking your purchases to a no-strings-attached music store, you are supporting non-DRMd music. Sure, you're just one person, and while one person can't make a difference (like in voting!), enough people can.

There really is no reason to support DRM, but by paying money for it that's exactly what each purchase is doing.

[mattflaschen]

Phasma Felis:

I totally agree with the comic, except that ITUNES HAS BEEN SELLING DRM-FREE MUSIC FOR A YEAR AND A HALF JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE.

That's a bogus argument. The labels refuse to sell to iTunes because of iTunes' monopsonist conditions. iTunes refuses to pay variable prices. It's like a grocery store that insists on selling every item at the 99 cents then complaining "We want to offer caviar but Big Fishfood isn't letting us sell caviar and fishsticks for the same price."

iTunes isn't willing to negotiate. In the meantime, I'm more than happy to give my money to AmazonMP3.