DRM Crackers Make Yahoo And Napster's Music Services All The More Useful
from the how-many-times dept
There are many reasons locking files down with copy protection or DRM is short-sighted and pointless, but one of the biggest is that it simply doesn't work. Time and time again, various copy-protection schemes have been broken or circumvented, and all the DRM in the world hasn't stopped file-sharing networks from being filled with supposedly protected media. The real effect of DRM, though, is to hamper interoperability in a misguided attempt to lock consumers in to particular products -- when all it really does is lock consumers out and limit the market size of services and content. Now, Microsoft's PlaysForSure DRM is the latest to be cracked, with a small program promising to eliminate the restrictions from tracks downloaded from the likes of Yahoo and Napster. Some might think this dooms the subscription-based offerings of those companies, since people won't have to continue to pay them to access songs they downloaded. While undoubtedly some users will simply subscribe for a month, download everything they can, and then cancel, that shouldn't be a concern. These users don't have any interest in paying for music, and if they don't get it from Napster or Yahoo, they'll turn to a file-sharing network or another means where they're getting things for free. Similarly, this development doesn't mean those networks are going to be flooded with new and previously unavailable songs -- it's all already there.Instead, the overall effect on services like Napster and Yahoo could be quite positive, because stripping the DRM from their files makes them more useful and more valuable, and expands their potential audience beyond just Windows users with PlaysForSure-compatible music players. Users without such devices now have the opportunity to patronize these services, where as the only workarounds that existed before were even more convoluted. All this DRM has done is stop legitimate customers from having the chance to spend their money with these services; it's done nothing to stop piracy. But now, perhaps this software will help illustrate the value of not using DRM to Yahoo and Napster, though the lesson is likely to be lost on the record labels. Once again, for their benefit: copy protection doesn't stop piracy, it just pre-empts legitimate sales of music by forcing consumers to stick to products and services that support a particular scheme of restrictions. The labels decry Apple's power in the music download market, but it's their policies that created the current situation. If they want to grow the market and create competition among vendors -- a move that would benefit them, as well as consumers -- they need to drop their insistence on DRM. As long as they're more concerned with their pointless battle against online piracy than anything else, success in digital distribution will remain outside their grasp.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Finally...
So I basically have a perpetual license to play this music (as long as I do continue to pay).
Yet, I was excited when I came across this tool. Why? It allows me to use the files I've effectively licensed on the iPod that I own. It also means that I don't have to worry about issues streaming these to my xbox360. I've shelled out a lot of cash on players, on devices, on the music itself. This pulls out that barrier that has presented problems to me. I have a Toshiba Gigabeat S60 and Rio Carbon, and both players have run into issues where the music files time out, effectively locking me out of playback. Of course, I'm using a portable device when this happens so there's no way to relicense on the go.
So in summary, what does this mean to me (and others)?
1) Can use the iPod to play perpetually licensed music
2) No more hassles playing media that I have a perpetual license for on devices that are supposed to play them (xbox360, gigabeat, carbon)
Yahoo and Napster have nothing to worry about. But iTunes? Hell yes. Yahoo uses 192kbps files. Much better quality than iTunes ... and as long as this keeps working, more lockout.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sucker
How you became convinced that its a good idea to pay perpetually for the same content is beyond me (and likely beyond many posters yet to come). IMHO I prefer to buy something, pay once and then own it...otherwise it that Peter Frampton track can get awful expensive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What happens when your CD collection is stolen?
The money I spent on those discs could have bought me 50 or 60 years of use on Yahoo/Napster/Rhapsody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here it is!
http://mike.anselcomputers.com/upload/FairUse4WM.zip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What happens when your CD collection is stolen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sucker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here it is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'll assume then that you don't subscribe to c
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sweet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here it is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What happens when your CD collection is st
Besides, RIAA would say he bought a *license* for the music. All he needed to keep were the CD covers, and RIAA should provide him with new music, yeah?
Steal all you can grab. It's modern-day civil disobedience.
-C
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spell Check
Also being disobedient is something a child does to their parent(s) not to the law. Stealing is stealing, it is wrong, not saying that I don't do it myself, may be sin, but not disobedient.
-Aaron
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Spell Check
Why do you morons keep bringing this crap up? This is ***NOT STEALING*** big difference. All of you who this this have been brainwashed by the RIAA.
You cannot steal something if the owner still has it. Make an exact duplicate of your neighbor's car and drive away in it - pretty funny when he try's to explain to the police how you stole the car that's sitting in his driveway.
This is copyright infringment - yes it's illegal but that's isn't the point here - LEARN THE DIFFERENCE -- lord know's it's been talked about long enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nobody wants to rent music
If you see somebody posting how they just think it's peachy that they can pay so little monthly and still get the play the music that they pay for month after month, they are in some way connected to the music business.
This place is seeded with whores and flacks, painted up to look like real people. I know because I've scratched the paint on a few.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Here it is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say it Loud Brother!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DRM Sucks, but paying $12 a month for 5,000 songs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Here it is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone have a mic ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pretty much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
welp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Anyone have a mic ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What happens when your CD collection is st
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What happens when your CD collection is stolen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sweet
What if there was a different music distribution model, where artists made their music publicly available for download on the Internet, for free. The government put a small artist tax on all non propriety (like the Ipod) recording media, such as CDs, DVDs, MP3 recorders, Hard Drives etc. Then based of the Internet logged artist downloads, the collected tax was doled out to the artists in relative proportion to the downloads of their material.
There is such a scheme in Canada, but it only applies to removable media, and local artists. Because of the global nature of music, this scheme would need to be internationalized, in that it would not matter where the artists reside, just which country received what number of downloads, to determine the tax dole out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Spell Check
"The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
This decision was based on established law with a long appellate history. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under which the RIAA gets its policing powers, is not and is largely untested in the courts. Paul Dowling was convicted of copyright infringement (a misdemeanor at the time) but was vindicated on the more serious crime of theft.
From http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=11662
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hear hear!
I'm not going to buy music. I'm going to download it, in massive amounts, and pick through the results, knowing that most of what I download, I'll dislike. If I paid for music, I'd feel awful at the waste of money.
DRM bites so badly. I want it to bite the companies who put it in stuff though, not to bite me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We already pay for a subscription to our music, ev
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DRM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Spell Check
You're such an idiot. It's stealing in the sense that you, by downloading content, did so in such a way that you get a product that the creator did not get fairly compensated for. therefore, stealing.
And its illegal either way. not that I dont do it myself, but I dont go around bitching and complaining over what the exact wording of the crime is. Be a fucking man for christ sake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Spell Check
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Spell Check
Hmm. Funny, but the Supreme Court agrees that it's not stealing, but this guy is "such an idiot" for making the point of what the Supreme Court says?
It's stealing in the sense that you, by downloading content, did so in such a way that you get a product that the creator did not get fairly compensated for. therefore, stealing.
It's copyright infringement. It's not stealing. While you may not think so, the distinction is important in determining what to do about it, what the "damage" is and what the remedy should be. The fact that no one is missing anything makes a huge difference.
And its illegal either way. not that I dont do it myself, but I dont go around bitching and complaining over what the exact wording of the crime is.
Interesting. Well, that's where we're different. I won't download because it IS illegal. However, I will point out why this is a stupid policy and why the industry would be much better off embracing file sharing as promotion.
So, you think it's stealing and yet you still do it. I don't think it's stealing but won't engage with it because I understand the law.
Who looks worse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yeah, uhm...
Let's look at a quick hypothetical.
Average Joe Schmoe makes about 30 g's a year, right? Music Industry execs make how much more? Now I understand paying the artists for their work, but the price of CD's is INANE!
Including all the bills and what not the average CD probably costs about $1.50 maybe $2.00 to make. Stop paying the artists $50 mil a freakin pop. Pay them maybe $1.00 per CD sold.
Now, look at the total bill, 1 CD costs about 5 dollars to make and ship to the store. That's Including the artist's cut.
Now, it's at the store, and the store needs to make a profit to, so we'll say in our little hypothetical that they charge 2 dollars on top of the companies bill, thus now the price of the cd is about 7 dollars.
There are a LOT fewer artists out there than there are CD's so, each artist is makin literally thousands of dollars off of daily cd sales. Your big music franchise stores are making thousands of dollars a day, and the record industry stays in business.
Thus ends the hypothetical, I know it's a little off topic but bear with me a moment longer.
This is what the Record industry is doing. Firstly they RAISE prices on the cd's in order to make up "Lost profit" from piracy. (Thus piracy increases). Then, they come up with, as the article says, brighter and flashier DRM which fewer and fewer players are compatible with, thus raising the cost of music again, and you guessed it INCREASING PIRACY! The industry has created the ammo for the average cracker, and the more and more they increase price and DRM the more and more piracy you are going to see. It's a vicous cycle that only hurts EVERYONE in the end. Anyway, there is my two cents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re:yeah, uhm
The only artists I have a problem with are: madonna, Metallica, etc. the ones that have tried to send their 'fans' to jail for not buying their albums. Any one of these artists I will never purchase anything to do with them ever. As a matter of fact, anyone I hear about trying this BS, I download the best discography of them and start seeding at my full 150KB/s.
That's my 2 cents worth.
BW
*Please keep the downloading going, and one day the industry will sell what the people want. Lossless quality recordings that most of the money goes to the artist, not the label.*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sucker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DRM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's sue AT&T (Yahoo) and (MicroSoft) for violati
I have just started buying DRM free songs from Amazon.
There has got to be some way to protect consumers from greedy companies who stop at nothing to either force users to be on the internet to play music, or block other non drm songs from playing.
Eveyone who has paid for this should be reimbursed for each and every song!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DRM Crackers Make Yahoo And Napster's Music Services All The More Useful
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Instant Approval Article Directory
[ link to this | view in thread ]