Band Puts All Its Music (Plus More) Into A $3 iPhone App

from the more-experiments dept

The pop band The Presidents of the United States of America have released a special iPhone app that contains all of the music from all of their albums, as well as additional rare and unreleased music and images. The whole thing costs $3 -- which certainly blows the old $1/song model out of the water. It's worth noting that one of the band members is now VP of the software company that made the app... and the band actually owns all the rights to its own music -- so that made all of this much easier. Also, it's a bit unclear how the app works exactly, but it certainly looks like the music is locked (hello, DRM!) inside the app. That's annoying.

There have been a few other bands that have experimented with similar "album in an app" type models before, and it's certainly an experiment worth watching. However, by itself, I'm not sure how scalable the model really is. If other bands do this using different apps, then you have to run each one separately and you lose out on the benefit of a central control system for all your music. And, if it really does involve DRM, then bands may just jump on this and alienate fans yet again. Still, if a "standard" and open way of doing this was established, such that bands could have their own apps easily interoperate, and the music wasn't locked down, you could see some interesting models emerge. For example, imagine getting an app that actually kept you updated on a band? Every time they release a new song or add new artwork, it automatically is added to your collection across different devices. That would be a useful application. Unfortunately, this particular app only seems to be a tiny step in that direction (and due to DRM, perhaps a step in the wrong direction).

Filed Under: drm, interoperability, iphone, music, presidents of the united states of america

Hollywood Takes Another Crack At Getting Permission To Break Your DVR

from the they-just-won't-stop dept

The movie studios and the MPAA have been pushing hard over the last year to get the FCC to let them use "selectable output control" to basically block DVRs from recording certain broadcasts of movies. Their somewhat creative (but totally ridiculous) argument is that this would allow more consumer choice. Now, you might ask how limiting what consumers can do with products they already purchased can possibly allow more consumer choice, but this is where the MPAA tries to play a bit of a jedi mind trick. It claims that if it's allowed to block recording of movies, then it would add another window to its windowed release program of movies (i.e., theater -> special locations (airplanes/hotels) -> DVD -> cable TV -> network TV). If they can break your DVR, they claim that they'll also release it to TV before it's even out on DVD.

Now, it doesn't take much thought to see the logical flaw in the MPAA's plan, but since some politicians are a bit slow, we'll spell it out for them. You don't need to block recording to release the movies early. There's absolutely nothing stopping the MPAA from offering this "consumer choice" right now. The MPAA is simply trying to confuse politicians into thinking that they can't possibly add this other way to get paid for the same content without this DVR-breaking DRM. The simple fact is that (a) selectable output control won't stop the movies from being recorded by some and (b) it won't stop the movies from being offered in unauthorized format online. It won't do a damn thing to stop "piracy." But it will annoy an awful lot of people who bought a DVR to record what they see on TV and are seriously pissed off at why they can't actually make the product they bought work legally.

In other words, it's not at all about "expanded consumer choice." It's about giving the MPAA another way to block legitimate watchers from doing perfectly legal time shifting of the content on their TV.

The good news was that when Kevin Martin ran the FCC, he turned down the MPAA. Though we heard mixed reasons on why (one story is that he tried to do some "horse trading" whereby he would give the MPAA what it wanted if they would side with him on things like a la carte cable), it at least kept the MPAA down. Of course, with Martin gone, it hasn't taken long at all for the movie studios to rush right back up to the new FCC yammering on and on about "expanded consumer choices." Hopefully Michael Copps (the temporary FCC boss) and the rest of the FCC are smart enough to recognize that you don't expand consumer choice by breaking their DVRs.

Filed Under: blocking, business models, drm, dvrs, fcc, mpaa, soc

Norway Drops Complaint Against Apple Now That Apple Dropped DRM In iTunes

from the no-problem-with-movies-then? dept

We never quite understood Norway's legal attack on Apple for its use of DRM in iTunes. Sure, using DRM was annoying and bad, but users had the choice to buy from iTunes or not, and it didn't make any sense for a government to get involved. That said, it's nice to see the government now drop the complaints after Apple announced it was dropping DRM on music files in iTunes. Still, if Norway is so upset about DRM, why isn't it still pissed off about Apple using DRM in many other areas?

Filed Under: drm, itunes, norway, open
Companies: apple

Gears Of War DRM Makes It Unplayable As Of Yesterday

from the drm-in-effect dept

It's almost getting silly to post these examples, but it's yet another reminder of how much damage DRM can do to legitimate customers. The latest victims? Purchasers of the PC version of Gears of War. Paul Brinker points us to the news that due to a digital certificate expiring, PC players of the game have discovered that it no longer works. The only solution? Set your PC clock back to a date prior to January 29th, 2009. Once again, it's a scenario where the DRM did nothing, at all, to stop piracy -- but did plenty to annoy legitimate customers.

Filed Under: drm, gears of war

Details On The FTC's DRM Workshop

from the don't-miss-it dept

At the beginning of January we noted -- with some amount of surprise -- that it appeared that the FTC was preparing a workshop on DRM. When I was in Washington, DC recently, I had the chance to meet some of the folks putting that workshop together, and now they've sent over a more detailed list of topics up for discussion at the session, and it does seem like a pretty good list -- covering pretty much the entire range of questions concerning DRM, specifically from a consumer perspective. It's definitely an encouraging sign that folks at the FTC are recognizing that DRM can be used to do harm, rather than just (as the industry would have you believe) to "open up new business models."

Filed Under: drm, ftc, protection
Companies: ftc

Is DRM In Retreat?

from the perhaps,-but-it's-not-dead-yet dept

Ed Felten has a post up noting that it appears DRM is in retreat, at least in certain areas, such as music. Of course, he points to Apple's agreement to get rid of DRM as a key factor -- but also notes that the former "DRM Watch" blog, from one of DRM's biggest supporters, is now called Copyright and Technology. Still, while it does appear that some are realizing the pointlessness of DRM, it's still not really dead yet. We noted that Apple still uses DRM in many areas and Microsoft just brought back DRM in its mobile music offering. Of course, that will backfire too, but it shows that there are still people out there who seem to believe that DRM actually has some kind of benefit.

Filed Under: drm

Learning How To Benefit From Piracy Is Not The Same As Endorsing Piracy

from the basic-logic-101 dept

John Gunn, the General Manager of a DRM company, alerted us to a blog post he wrote taking me to task for the post I wrote last week concerning a software developer who didn't freak out when his app was cracked, but used the experience to learn what the market wanted from his app. Gunn's post is slightly odd, and a bit troubling to me, in that he says that, by showing how this developer learned to use the piracy to his advantage, I "crossed the line" I have always avoided, and "actively promoted the criminal act of software piracy."

This is both wrong and misleading at the same time. First, my position is nothing new. I have always said that content creators need to learn how to take advantage of unauthorized access. In fact, that's been a common theme throughout this site from the beginning. Saying that content creators can and should learn to take advantage of such things (and then highlighting those who do so successfully) is, in no way, condoning the actions of those who partake in unauthorized file sharing. My position has always been directed to the content creator, and both recognizes the reality that unauthorized file sharing exists and will not go away, and then looks at ways to use that to your advantage, knowing it's there.

Gunn's second point is to claim that there are "far more efficient and reliable methods" for a developer to get feedback from the market. That may be true (though, actually, I doubt it), but again it doesn't change the fact that unauthorized access will occur. And, given that, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of it? Nothing about using piracy for market lessons is mutually exclusive from those mythological more efficient and reliable methods. Then, Gunn goes back to the old, disproved claim of DRM defenders: that the only real message from pirates is people want stuff for free. Considering just how often we've shown examples of people happily paying for things they can get for free when given a reason to buy, rather than being treated as a criminal by DRM providers, it's simply a myth.

Finally, Gunn, posts a series of questions for me:

Why use the denigrating term "freaking out" to describe software publishers who act to protect their assets and revenues by using an effective DRM solution or by pursuing action against people that steal from them? Wouldn't you do the same?

The term "freaking out" was descriptive and, I believe, accurate. Many software developers get so focused on unauthorized access and file sharing of their software that they miss out on the fact that there are business models they could adopt where that issue goes away. They miss out on the fact that throughout history, so called "piracy" has almost always opened up new, and much larger, markets. So, "freaking out" is proper. It shows a response that is out of proportion with what would be a reasonable solution, such as figuring out a way to take that activity and use it to their own advantage.

As for the issue about "protecting assets" using "an effective DRM solution... against people that steal from them?" Well, the answer should be obvious. First, it's not about protecting assets. It's about limiting activity of customers. Limiting activity of customers is the same thing as limiting your market and making your product less valuable. If you're in business, your goal should always be making your customers more satisfied and more interested in doing business with you, rather than "protecting" or limiting. As for an "effective DRM solution" well, such a thing has never existed, so I don't know what he's talking about. Finally, as someone who claims to be a regular reader of Techdirt, it's odd that he would call unauthorized access "stealing." It's not. Claiming it is doesn't change things at all. In fact, claiming it is stealing makes it nearly impossible to figure out a way to respond reasonably and leads to, yes, freaking out.

And, finally, to the question "wouldn't I do the same?" The answer is no. I wouldn't (and don't) limit my customers. I'd put together a business model where it doesn't make sense to do so. I would put together a business model where I get benefits the more my content is spread widely -- rather than taking an adversarial stance against my customers. Plenty of folks are doing so today, and are finding stronger and better relationships with their customers and bigger and bigger businesses. And, when my customers do something new and unique with my content, I'd learn from it and encourage it in order to make my future work that much more valuable.

Filed Under: drm, john gunn, market feedback, piracy

iTunes Songs Don't Have DRM, But They Contain Your Email Address

from the two-steps-forward-one-step-back dept

Apple got a lot of press last week when it announced that it was going to remove the DRM from songs it sold through the iTunes Music Store. That's a great thing in itself, since it removes the barriers legitimate customers faced in playing back music they purchased on the device of their choice. But details are coming out, and it's not all good news: the songs are watermarked (via Slashdot) with the email address of the iTunes account used to purchase them. This is certainly better than DRM, but it's still not great. The biggest issue is that it links files to a particular consumer -- which will likely lead to the RIAA using the watermarks to attempt to "prove" that people actively shared songs and sue them. It seems inevitable that the label cartel will attempt to use the marks to inflict liability on users if music bearing their email address appears online. Which is great, until a person's iPod gets stolen and the music ripped from it, or a friend grabs music off of somebody's hard drive without their knowledge. The RIAA's legal strategy has been based on flimsy evidence; removing the DRM but adding watermarks simply gives them another way to "prove" people shared music they purchased online, even though the marks won't actually prove anything.

Filed Under: drm, email address, itunes
Companies: apple

Friendly DRM Is An Oxymoron

from the nothing-friendly-about-it dept

While the era of DRM on music may finally be ending, it appears that some other industries still haven't quite come to terms with the three simple facts that a few industries are finally realizing: (1) DRM does not work (2) DRM diminishes the value of your product (3) DRM pisses off your users. Despite these universal truths, every digital industry seems to go through this phase where they think that they can figure out how to do DRM right. A bunch of consumer electronics makers and movie studios are apparently working together on yet another DRM standard that they swear (this time, for real!!) will actually work and will be "friendly." We've heard it before, and the end result is the same (see numbers 1 through 3 above). As per usual, they're claiming that this system will be even better than non-DRM'd content, but fail to explain how that's actually true. At best, they say it'll be more convenient, but it's difficult to see how any limitation adds convenience rather than takes it away.

Filed Under: drm, friendly drm, movies

DRM Screws Users Again: eBooks About To Disappear Due To DRM Provider Shut Down

from the don't-buy-anything-with-DRM dept

Around here, it's basically preaching to the choir, so most of you probably recognize this already, but buying anything with DRM on it is basically asking for trouble down the road. The latest example? An eBook seller named Fictionwise has realized that one of the companies that provides DRM for some of its books has announced that its shutting down at the end of the month. Because that DRM has to check in with an authentication server that's no longer going to be there, everyone who "bought" (really: incorrectly thought they bought) eBooks that used this DRM will discover that the books they paid for no longer work (Update: as noted in the comments, this DRM doesn't authenticate every time -- just any time you try to move the content to a new device. Also, Fictionwise is working to get replacements and has done so for many of the eBooks impacted already). It's as if a publisher could retroactively erase the text from within a physical book that you bought. Since Fictionwise is just passing on the eBooks from third party aggregators, it has no means of replacing the "disappeared" eBooks. Has anyone found any thing that DRM is actually good for yet?

Filed Under: drm, ebooks
Companies: fictionwise