 
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
September 25th, @07:03PM
| DRM makes paying for something worthless. If I buy a tape, it doesn't tell me what kind of VCR I can use, or wheather or not I can copy it. Same with a DVD. And you pay for these things.
Why would you pay for DRMed, low bitrate, low quality stuff when you can get it for free without copy protection, in higher quality?
The RIAA combatted recording off the radio with a tape with CDs, which, once recording/mix/mastering engineers got the hang of, beat the crap out of recording off the radio. Radio is dynamically compressed as it is so it's IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME IF YOU DIDN'T NOTICE WITH POPULAR MUSIC, and consumer level tape recording quality didn't make it better.
That's what should be done now. Take a step forward and make people want to buy your product. Beat the new thing, with a newer and better thing.If you hear the normal Pink Floyd DSOTM CD on a nice hifi, then the SACD, the difference is amazing. Same for the DVD-A of Joe Satriani - Engines of Creation.
But no, they're taking a step back. They'd rather restrict the new thing and put their worse service in place. You're paying the same amount of money to get a limited, restricted, low quality copy of the original.
Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people"  It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|  | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless. Thasp, maybe I'm not following very well, but your whole post is criticizing DRM-based services, and this article has the BT chief saying he's against DRM and wants to go ad-supported instead.
I agree most of the pay-for-download services are bad, but what Ashwin Navin describes is different. BT handles big files well so there's no reason they can't be good quality, and with no DRM on them, and good prices, I might subscribe.
The question in this case is whether the copyright owners will get a clue and admit that potential customers dislike DRM, and license the TV shows or whatever to the service. | |
| | 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs: | Actually, even with VHS, Macrovision's exploit of autogain makes copying pretty difficult.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal | |
| | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| said by thender  :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people" It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights.
Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes.
If they could charge you for the image reflected on your corneas, then they would. The day is coming if more consumers don't wake up and vote with their wallets instead of bending over and taking everything these corps buy off the politicians to ensure the fleecing.
--
Choose Net Neutrality or Lose It
21st C TechnoBarons.
Why Care About Media?
IANYL:TINLA | |
| | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless. said by major marco :said by thender :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people" It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights. Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes. Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. | |
| | | | 
Fronkman
Macs Do It Better
Premium
join:2003-06-23
Columbus, OH
| Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless. said by BF69 :Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too... that isn't really the point being argued. i would certainly not expect the record company to give me MP3 versions of albums i owned in CD or cassette format.
what is being argued is that music you buy TODAY is severely restricted in what you can do with it. to use your analogy: say in the '80s you bought the latest bon jovi cassette tape. if there was the same kind of DRM back then as we have now, you would have to buy one tape for the car, one tape for the walkman, one tape for the hifi, one for the boombox...etc.
the record companies want to tell me that i cant burn an MP3 I just paid for to a CD so that i can listen to it in my car. (i know itunes allows this, but the restrictions keep getting tighter and I am sure the record companies want to completely remove that burn button) they want all music platforms to be constantly connected to the internet and sending data back to their computers to make sure i am not doing something fishy with the file.
in other words, the record company assumes that any song you burn to play outside of their "monitored media player" is going to be copied and distributed to as many people as possible (ie pirated). talk about an anti-consumer attitude. this is further exemplified by the movie studios that put that "stealing movies is a crime" bit at the begining of the DVD. I just PAID $15 for the stinking movie, why do i have to be accused of a piracy when I obviously just bought the disc?
in regard to those who say "vote with your wallet," this is very hard. unless you are totally dedicated to only supporting truly independent bands (those without a recording contract) or you don't mind pirating every single piece of media you consume, you will soon be stuck only listening to public domain recordings of sousa marches and reading shakespeare.
--
Everyone should own a G4 cube or an iBook or the Mac mini! | |
| | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| said by BF69 :Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. Fronkman underscored my argument effectively but I wanted to add that you're comparing apples to oranges with yours. Most consumers don't expect freebie music for vinyl, tape cassette, DAT, mp3, etc. That is a specious argument and you aren't playing Devil's Advocate. You're just being ridiculously argumentative. I'd be careful if I were you because you might be mistaken for a RIAA shill.
--
Choose Net Neutrality or Lose It
21st C TechnoBarons.
Why Care About Media?
IANYL:TINLA | |
| | | |
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| said by BF69 :said by major marco :said by thender :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people" It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights. Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes. Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. a) The medium itself costs money.
b) Records vs tape vs CDs, they all took steps forward in certain areas of quality, you paid for that too.
If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless. said by thender :If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement. Fair enough and not to sound like a RIAA shill as someone else accuses me of, when Itunes only sells songs that can only be played on Ipods unless you do a bunch of other onerous crap first, well that's not the RIAA's fault that's totally on Apple. I can buy a song from Napster or Yahoo Music and it will in fact work on MANY MANY various MP3 players. Not Ipods, but that's Apples fault again.
The problem is the record companies wants DRM because of all the idiots that download the stuff illegally on the net. And I can see the point where people don't want DRM on thier stuff. I don't want it. If illegal downloading was never a problem I'm sure DRM wouldn't even exist.
So the record companies aren't going to stop DRM until people stop illegally downloading songs and pay for music and people aren't going to pay for music until the record companies abandon DRM. Both sides have thier heads up their butts and both deserve to burn in hell for making life hard for the rest of us who are honest hard working people.
The record companies also need a different price model since a song from the 70's shouldn't cost the same as a new release. A new song probally could be priced slighly higher and older songs be priced lower. There are probally hundreds of thousands of songs that hardly ever get bought because people deem 99¢ too much for a 30 year old song, but people would be more than willing to pay say 29¢-49¢ for it. 10,000 X 29¢ is more than 1000 X 99¢, but what do I know? | |
| | | | | |
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless. Judging music price by age is bullcrap. 50 Cent's latest shit vs Jeff Beck's Diamond Dust/Led Zeppelin's Achilles Last Stand/Pink Floyd's Dogs, and 50 cent would be worth more?
How about selling FLAC files that are lossless, without DRM, that can be converted to a format your player can play? This way, instead of downgrading from CD quality to compressed to CD quality, we can be back where we started 20 years ago - with CD quality and fair use rights relatively intact. And we're not even at that.
DRM doesn't stop stuff from going online. Why would I want to download someone's 128k WMA shit(assuming the DRM were cracked) when I can download an --alt-preset standard MP3 that'll sound better and work on more devices, or a FLAC/APE lossless copy?
It's not even like they're "protecting" something worth downloading.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Navin sees no profit in a product only for illegal downloads Not all bittorrent is synonymous with illegal file sharing. The official Bittorrent company is all about going legit now. This is not a proposal to support illegal downloads with ads; instead he wants to persuade the movie/music/TV companies to licence shows, etc. to the service, but convince them that without DRM it will be more popular.
It's a good idea. I just wonder how they propose to support it with advertising. Interruptions at intervals like on TV? Ads at beginning and end like on DVDs? I wouldn't mind either of those, if it's cheap.
On the other hand if they're talking about some proprietary player that shows ads on a computer, that's just about as offensive as DRM.
I hope they get it right. This could be the beginning of the industry making peace instead of war with consumers. | |
| 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Edge caching One thought on the caching that BT is encouraging.
For ISPs, the cost of bandwidth is mostly in the last mile network, NOT the connections to upstream/core Internet resources. So, caching has little benefit, as the bandwidth use at the edge to the end user via the ATM, DSL or cable plant cannot be reduced. As a result, I don't think is any sort of a solution to the "problem" of bandwidth use, but many in the media seem to think it will solve this issue.
-Dane | |
| karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Bittorrent is the future of media I haven't seen a commercial in over a year. I download all my tv shows from bittorrent sites, and they are incredible quality, commercial free. The reason I download, is because it's the product I WANT. Period. What I want is high speed, high quality, commercial free, TV shows. Bittorrent provides me with that, at speeds that exceed 700KB/sec via comcast. The MPAA can kiss my ass if they think I, or anyone else, will ever stop using technology to get what we want. I've even setup my relatives with mythtv boxes, with RSS feeds for their favorite shows, and they love it. The concept of DRM doesn't enter their minds, as they PAY for the show to be transmitted to their home, they just choose to download it in a different format. | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Bittorrent is the future of media They pay for it? Please elaborate on how your money flows out of your pocket and into the pockets of the TV networks -- you know, the ones paying the production costs for the shows you watch... | |
| | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Bittorrent is the future of media Hmm.. Lets see. I pay comcast 104.92 each month. Comcast then pays the networks about 44.00 per month. Disney gets almost 3,000,000,000.00 per year from comcast alone. That's 3 BILLION dollars, and that is what pays for the tv shows. So, that's money flowing directly from me to the networks, in exchange for the networks entertaining me. | |
| | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Bittorrent is the future of media said by karlmarx :Hmm.. Lets see. I pay comcast 104.92 each month. Comcast then pays the networks about 44.00 per month. Disney gets almost 3,000,000,000.00 per year from comcast alone. That's 3 BILLION dollars, and that is what pays for the tv shows. So, that's money flowing directly from me to the networks, in exchange for the networks entertaining me. That's for CABLE TV that has ZERO to do with internet you nimrod. If you really had things your way no one would make all these shows you downlaod for FREE because ther isn't any money in it. Think about that, idiot. say you go to worl tomoorow and you boss says form now on you work for free. how much longer do you work for that company?
You sound like these idiots I hear that think because they pay for an internet connection that everything on the net should be free. | |
| | | 
nipseyrussel
Nipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA | perhaps he subscribes to cable? | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Bittorrent is the future of media but above he stated he downloads all this TV shows via Bit Torrent sites. After that he said he pays for cable to Comcast. I would wonder what he does as well. Maybe the people who he set up with myth boxes actually pay for the cable TV but if they did that then why would they need RSS feeds to tell them when they can download their shows and watch them. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| bittorent isnt the future unless upload rates are raised. when i have used BT i allways have to cap its upload at about15-20k as to prevent it from soaking up my full upstream pipe and lagging out my gaming.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | 
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
| said by karlmarx :I haven't seen a commercial in over a year... ...The MPAA can kiss my ass... Bless you! | |
| 
Rob A
Jets 19 - Steelers 16
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Disagree Nothing wrong with DRM, and it will always be around. | |
| | | | | 
X_Digit
Binary Enhanced
Premium
join:2003-06-12
Mansfield, TX
| Re: Disagree I would even be willing to pay $20-$30 more EVERY MONTH to my ISP, for dues which could be divided among content providers (MPAA and RIAA), so that I could use my connection as I wish, without the threat of any legal consequences. This, is probably where it all WILL eventually come down to anyhow...
--
Respectfully, X_Digit | |
| | | degauss1
join:2001-07-02
Hillsboro, OR
 ·Axvoice
·Comcast
·ViaTalk
| Re: torrents can work I'd subscribe if I could get my 'shows' and good movies etc. that way. I'd certainly dump cable for that kind of choice and flexability. DL what you want, format it your way and watch it whenever/wherever. Heck, a subcription model like that would work much better than ad's IMO. | |
| | | |
|
|
Bit Torrent President: 'DRM Bad'
Navin sees no profit in a product only for illegal downloads
·