DRM: "I can't let you do that, Dave"... (1 Viewer)

[MattAlbie60]

I'm not saying you didn't have a point, I was just saying that what that guy said was, to the best of my knowledge, "correct." Only with DRM, "correct" almost always has an asterisk next to it

 

[Sam Posten]

Another major /facepalm:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/youtube-flags-democrats-convention-video-on-copyright-grounds/

 

[MattAlbie60]

You'd think after this had happened the other night, other companies would go "That's hilarious! But let's make damn sure it doesn't happen to us, okay?"

 

[Sam Posten]

5x5 says the Bruce story has been debunked, but doesn't provide details. 31 minutes in.
http://5by5.tv/amplified/23

 

[MattAlbie60]

The whole story seemed weird to me, as the concept of "Bruce Willis needs to use a computer for some reason" is one I totally can't wrap my head around.
And also the concept of "Bruce Willis is concerned enough with his own mortality to be thinking of this in the first place." Couldn't get behind it, turns out I was right

 

[Al.Anderson]

Guys I do not own anything Apple so I do not know first hand and only go by what I read , but didn't Apple removed all DRM restrictions from their music downloads back in 2009?

With the DRM removed it means you *can* transfer songs, it doesn't mean it's legal. I can rip other people's CDs, doesn't mean I own them. The licensing agreement still says only the original purchaser owns the songs.
But if I buy a CD, then I can give it to anyone I please, and they legally own the music.
On the legit side of things, Apple removing the DRM does allow the owner to more easily move his collection around, including to non-Apple devices. So that's good.

 

[Sam Posten]

Al, there was never any drm on tracks you ripped yourself. Appe famously dropped DRM from songs sold via iTunes.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Al, there was never any drm on tracks you ripped yourself. Appe famously dropped DRM from songs sold via iTunes.

Sam, I think I'm missing your point. My point was that Apple removing the DRM was nice, but doesn't change the fact that the licensing agreement is lousy, since you still can't legally transfer the files to another person (even though you can physically transfer them).
And Apples' removal of the DRM wasn't as big a deal as the press made it, as you could always just burn a CD from the DRM files and then re-import.

 

[Sam Posten]

As someone with over 2000 DRMed songs I assure you it was and remains a big deal. Those 2000 songs are still virtually held hostage for me. There is no way in hell I am going to burn 200 CDs and re-rip them from their lossy files. That is insanity.
And your first part misses the mark too. You are thinking about the legal side yet forgetting about the practical side. Besides being wrapped up in DRM those files are also tracked and measured. DRM free files are not. No user is going to ever worry about making their own untrackable rips but every DRM encumbered file is a tracer back to the purchaser.
There are LOTs of facets to consider with DRM.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Okay, I see your point, 2000 songs is a lot of burning and re-ripping. I only purchased a hundred or so tracks, so it wasn't as big a deal. (You might consider the approach I used to originally rip my CDs: find a 6 year old and pay a dime a CD. It supplemented my son's allowance for months. Although for burning and ripping you may need a higher skill set, and you're probably up to a quarter.)
Now while I'm annoyed at the potential tracking on principle, I don't understand the impact. If the DRM files are not shared, how would anyone see the tags?
Also, I don't think that's just a problem with DRM files, I think any electronically purchased music file is tagged. I'm pretty sure Amazon always embedded a code in their non-DRM'd files too. (I purchase flacs from HDTracks and I've never bothered looking at their files; now I'm curious.)

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten /t/323078/drm-i-cant-let-you-do-that-dave#post_3963284
he rambles a bit....

Me too...

 

[Sam Posten]

It is not illegal to remove tracking tags. It is illegal under the DMCA to remove copyright protecting DRM.

 

[Alfonso_M]

And Apples' removal of the DRM wasn't as big a deal as the press made it, as you could always just burn a CD from the DRM files and then re-import.

Ripping to CD and then converting or/and re-importing back to iTunes will yield an even more inferior audio file than the one you had to begin with.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Ripping to CD and then converting or/and re-importing back to iTunes will yield an even more inferior audio file than the one you had to begin with.

Why, does iTunes through away data when you write to CD? Ripping doesn't lose any data.

 

[Alfonso_M]

Why, does iTunes through away data when you write to CD? Ripping doesn't lose any data.

If you rip a lossy file (mp3) to Music CD (Wav/PCM) the audio quality is the same as your original lossy file, but if you then take that very same Music CD (Wav/PCM) and use ITUNES or any other Lossy converter to re-compress back to MP3/ACC (to defeat DRM as you noted before) the resulting Lossy file will be of lower quality than the original DRMed music file you downloaded from ITUNES originally.
But in all honesty, to be able to tell the difference largely depends on your audio playback equipment and/or how fussy you are about audio quality,

 

[Sam Posten]

I mentioned this in another thread but the biggest problem I have with DRM is that it is a virus on culture.
Culture? Yes, because EVERYTHING is a remix. Digital just makes it that much easier and accessible:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html
http://www.everythingisaremix.info/
See this as single example:
http://stevestreza.com/2012/09/08/so-i-made-a-mashup/

 

[Sam Posten]

This won't end well
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/six-strikes-internet-warning-system-really-truly-coming-to-us-this-year/

 

[MattAlbie60]

Well, make 'em count, I guess...

 

[MattAlbie60]

It begins:
http://consumerist.com/2012/10/16/that-amazon-video-you-bought-you-may-not-actually-be-able-to-watch-it/

 

[Jason Charlton]

Ha! I love this passage:

Availability of videos for purchase, re-download, or access from a backup copy is determined by the owners of the content. On very rare occasions, a video you previously purchased may become unavailable.

"the owners of the content" clearly does NOT refer to the streaming video purchaser. Imagine that - even Amazon acknowledges that you don't actually OWN the digital content you paid money for.