Author Topic: Piracy: A general discussion (Read 7529 times)

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #60 on:** February 18, 2007, 01:13:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
You need to re-read that article.

What did you see with your RIAA corrected lenses? Do tell.

Mini D · « **Reply #61 on:** February 18, 2007, 03:18:13 PM »

I'm looking at what you said and what was in the article. The two don't match. To be honest, the article has very little to do with Vista. It has to do with relying on something like the iPod's proprietary licensing. "It woud be better if you could play an MP3 on any MP3 player" is not saying they want something like DRM removed. It's saying they wish there were a more versatile way to distribute software in a protected mannor.

Vulcan · « **Reply #62 on:** February 18, 2007, 05:29:34 PM »

MiniD, look at me, I'm a non-audiophile/videophile consumer.

Will I buy a modern DRM based product? No.

Why not? Because I'm aware from much literature about the restrictions this places on how and what I can watch. I've also had bad experiences with the lifetime of DVDs and CDs, especially having a 2 year old. I think that DVDs are also priced artificially high in New Zealand (new releas is ~US$30).

How will I access HD quality content should I wish too? Pirated material. I have ready access via the internet (non-p2p) sources which have a wealth of HD media. With the advent of R5 releases I can get decent quality content at the same time it is theatres here (sometimes earlier). Should I ever use a p2p application then I'd have even more at my fingertips. I also have access to masses of material via such simple non-geek sources as our courier who pops into the office who shares his episodes of Lost and Hereos around on a 80Gb ipod he uses as a removeable media.

What does this mean? It means consumers are saying no to DRM. DRM will force piracy to increase. The entertainment industry messed up with digital audio and digital audio delivery. It ignored it until piracy forced them to deliver what the market wanted. Now they're doing it all over again with movies.

Mini D · « **Reply #63 on:** February 18, 2007, 07:15:49 PM »

What else do you own that you can replace for free when a 2 year old destroys it?

Vulcan · « **Reply #64 on:** February 18, 2007, 07:26:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
What else do you own that you can replace for free when a 2 year old destroys it?

Video CD's, audio CD's, and video tapes. Previously I was allowed to back these up for legitimate personal purposes.

Next question?

Mini D · « **Reply #65 on:** February 18, 2007, 08:00:53 PM »

That's it? Digital/Audio content? Nothing else? What if your two year old breaks a vase? What if a two year old flushes your watch down the toilet?

How about this, since this seems to be the most adamant sticking point for the erm... "pro-backup" crowd:

What if they were introduce a means of backing up your digital content that would allow you to restore it, but you couldn't listen to the backup? What if you were only allowed to listen to the content on one device at a time... and the backup was totally non-functional?

One purchase on one device at a time. This seems to be the goal. Explain to me how that is unreasonable.

Bronk · « **Reply #66 on:** February 18, 2007, 08:34:38 PM »

OK so now I've purchased the CD and can use it my home stereo.
I also like to walk outside and listen to my MP3 player.
I've already purchased the music but now I'll have to do it again to get in an MP3 format?
Or the mp3 player in my car I don't like having 40 CDs in my car. Do i have to by the MP3 version again?

Just asking.

Bronk

Vulcan · « **Reply #67 on:** February 18, 2007, 09:00:04 PM »

Yup, same as bronk states.

When I paid for the license to listen to the music (if I understand the copyright mumbo jumbo from the riaa, I don't own the music) then why can I not listen to it on the medium I want - car cd stereo; home stereo; pc; mp3 player or otherwise.

As for the Vase. Interesting analogy but so far my son hasn't broken any of the DVD's. Most of the problems I've faced have come from wear and tear on the DVD from normal usage (in and out of the DVD player).

However, back to the Vase. If I had the capability to back it up I would. Instead I have home contents insurance for that.

The goal is not One purchase on one device at a time. The goal is buy and play on THEIR choice of hardware in THEIR choice of price. Monopolies hate competition, and in this case piracy is their only competition.

Mini D · « **Reply #68 on:** February 18, 2007, 09:59:21 PM »

Actually, I don't like the "this music can only be played on this product" aspect of DRM. This is the main effect of Apple's proprietary system right now.

But, I can understand the concerns of those that own the rights to the music. As you've so inadvertantly admitted, the "backup" feature is second to the ability to load it on all of your hardware (not any of it... all of it). Having it play on only one device at a time is the crux. Backing it up is not. The backup becomes exactly what you pretend it is not... a copy of the music that can be played on another device by anyone else.

I would imagine the ultimate goal of the RIAA or any digital content centric companies will be allowing flexibility with some level of control. Not caring if it plays on your car stereo, your computer and your home stereo... but rather insuring that it isn't made openly available to everyone elses. Without some kind of DRM, this will not be possible. As it's implimented right now, it's not even close to ideal, but the groundwork for this needs to be explored.

I'd really like to hear skuzzy's "I could do it, but I'm not going to tell anyone how" solution.

Vulcan · « **Reply #69 on:** February 18, 2007, 10:17:47 PM »

mini-d at the end of the day it boils down to entertainment industry greed.

Consumers have had enough. 3 years ago when it was just us geeks ripping stuff was different. Now I see the noob courier/delivery driver sharing Lost episodes and movies with our receptionist.

DRM will not stop piracy, and the path ahead only serves to encourage piracy as consumers perceive themselves pushed further and further from fair use. You can argue the logic and merits and rights and laws all you want. But this is what is happening right now.

Mini D · « **Reply #70 on:** February 18, 2007, 11:50:51 PM »

I can argue "rights and merits and laws" all I want? Gee... thanks.

I see alot of piracy myself these days. Don't try and pin that on the "industry". There's nothing driving it right now other than simple accessability and availability. Netflix combined with DvD Shrink and you've got an instant DvD factory. Throw in bittorent and it get's a bit easier.

There's really two options: Either you like what is being offered enough to buy it or you don't buy it. Stealing it establishes a value on the product. This is why the studios have the upper hand. Nobody drove someone to steal. It is just so damn easy... why not?

I guess it just gets to me when someone tries to pass this off as corperate greed as if consumer greed playes no part in this. That's what I've seen repeatedly in this thread. That's what I see when people start using "back up" instead of "play on multiple systems" as if the two are interchangeable.

Rhetoric has clouded the real issues and real solutions.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #71 on:** February 19, 2007, 01:06:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I'm looking at what you said and what was in the article. The two don't match. To be honest, the article has very little to do with Vista. It has to do with relying on something like the iPod's proprietary licensing. "It woud be better if you could play an MP3 on any MP3 player" is not saying they want something like DRM removed. It's saying they wish there were a more versatile way to distribute software in a protected mannor.

Direct quote from the article:

Quote

Also, 62% believed that dropping DRM and releasing music files that can be enjoyed on any MP3 player would boost the take-up of digital music generally.

Any mp3 player means NO DRM.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #72 on:** February 19, 2007, 01:09:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Actually, I don't like the "this music can only be played on this product" aspect of DRM. This is the main effect of Apple's proprietary system right now.

But, I can understand the concerns of those that own the rights to the music. As you've so inadvertantly admitted, the "backup" feature is second to the ability to load it on all of your hardware (not any of it... all of it). Having it play on only one device at a time is the crux. Backing it up is not. The backup becomes exactly what you pretend it is not... a copy of the music that can be played on another device by anyone else.

I would imagine the ultimate goal of the RIAA or any digital content centric companies will be allowing flexibility with some level of control. Not caring if it plays on your car stereo, your computer and your home stereo... but rather insuring that it isn't made openly available to everyone elses. Without some kind of DRM, this will not be possible. As it's implimented right now, it's not even close to ideal, but the groundwork for this needs to be explored.

I'd really like to hear skuzzy's "I could do it, but I'm not going to tell anyone how" solution.

*COUGH* BS ALERT!

Tell me which DRM 'protected' item is not freely available on the internet as we speak, cracked and hacked.

Thanks in advance.

Vulcan · « **Reply #73 on:** February 19, 2007, 01:54:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
There's nothing driving it right now other than simple accessability and availability.

and why are we saying drm is bad and will drive more piracy?

Mini D · « **Reply #74 on:** February 19, 2007, 02:38:34 AM »

That's a bit of a silly argument: "It's obviously not effective, so they shouldn't even try."

Honestly guys... get over the rhetoric.