DRM-Free Doesn't Mean Copyright-Free
from the everybody's-doing-it dept
The death of audio DRM continues apace, as major book publishers begin following the lead of record labels and phasing out copy protection on audio versions of their books. It seems they're learning what we (and a lot of other folks) have been saying for years: DRM doesn't prevent piracy. All it does is annoy customers and limit the value of your products. One thing the New York Times gets wrong in the above story is the idea that these publishers are "abandoning copyright protections." The Guardian made a similar error, saying that Penguin's audiobooks would be "copyright-free." But of course, DRM isn't the same as copyright. Infringing copyright is just as illegal with DRM-free audio files as it is with copy protected files. This point may actually become a major headache for content companies. They've spent the last decade trying to conflate DRM with copyright. This was always misleading, but a lot of people bought it. Now that they're changing their minds and abandoning DRM, they're going to have to spend a lot of time explaining that DRM-free music is still copyrighted, and pirating it is still illegal.
The other interesting question is when content producers in other content industries will start paying attention to the no-DRM trend in the audio market and move towards phasing out DRM for themselves too. We're rapidly approaching the point where almost every major audio firm offers their content in downloadable, DRM-free formats. (Of course, they've always sold content in the DRM-free CD format) But at the same time, the Kindle was launched just last year with DRM restrictions, and Hollywood has stubbornly clung to DRM for its high-definition video products, despite the fact that that hasn't worked either. How bad do things have to get before these guys start paying attention?
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
Filed Under: audiobooks, copyright, drm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DRM in readers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually it is avaliable on steam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But why didn't Thq's site point to that?
Actually, Soulstorm isn't available tomorrow, which is kinda annoying since the game was supposedly released today. But whatever. I'll stop whining now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They also make fun games. That's important too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I bought something that was 'free' - because in my opinion, the hard copy of the book offered more VALUE than just reading it on the web. I can relax and read it anywhere, rather than staring at a screen.
These companies could gain a lot of ground by releasing lesser quality copies of the media/software for FREE themselves.
They could release a game that lacks in game music, scales down graphics, restricts online play, and on...
Giving people a taste of the game, yet leaving more to be desired by buying the full version. This would put a crimp in the 'hacker' market, as people wouldn't be looking for 'cracked' games - they could just download a more 'limited' version for free. If they choose to go with the 'lesser' product - so be it.
Kinda like the difference between radio and buying the music prior to the 'web'.
Sure - you could always listen to music for free on the radio, and much of it, you would never buy. But obviously a LOT of people do buy the full copy.
If radio is successful in bringing new content to the 'masses' how much more so could the internet.... If the companies quit being so anal about it.
I guess the saying is true: The tighter they clinch their fist, the more sand slips through their fingers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1421
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting contrast...
(found via boingboing)
When someone buys a book, they are also buying the right to resell that book, to loan it out, or to even give it away if they want. Everyone understands this.
Jeff Bezos, Open letter to Author’s Guild, 2002
You may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.
Amazon, Kindle Terms of Service, 2007
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I smell MONEY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not a good strategy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting contrast...
In this case, they are violating a customer's right to transfer ownership of their product via encryption. They try to hide it saying that they're only "licensing" a copy, and that you don't really own the material.
The sad part is, depending on the court that a case winds up in determines whether the terms of these garbage eulas are enforced. There have been too many decisions one way or the other to determine what's legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"by making, say, a game dependent on external resources you control (eg a game server, an online auth system ala Steam, etc) you make it much harder for people to play unauthorised."
My problem with that is that it kills the second hand market (part of the intention?). I also worry that its the first step of a move to 'pay-per-play'.
Plus if your ninja gaming machine isn't the one connected to the net its a pain, especially when amazon's page for a product doesn't mention that a web connection is essential (which is why I have a legit, retail copy of Half Life 2 that I've never been able to play).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a few years back i was excited to learn that the philadelphia library had put in place an audiobook download function from their website. i was all set to LEGALLY use their service. so....then i download one and find that the files can only (a) be played through some windows media player interface - thus NO ipod!!!, or (b) burned to CD.
well, since i had already spent the time to download a book, i burned 14 frigging disks so i could listen to it, then i promptly informed the library that they needed to switch to a vendor with a clue (um....if i burned it to disks, your scheme just made it piratable, you moron!!), and i then turned to the ILLEGAL but much more convenient methods of obtaining audiobooks. good job, jackasses
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conflate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ativioaudio
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ativioaudio
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hi,
Essay Help
[ link to this | view in thread ]
reply this topic
[ link to this | view in thread ]