Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: DRM (Read 32241 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DRM

There has recently been some interesting exchange of views on DRM:

Buy music from iTunes Music Store without DRM, Using PyMusique

However since this was not really the subject of the original thread I'm starting this thread for further exchanging views on DRM.

Those against DRM have stated:
- DRM in any form is bad for the user
- Any DRM will eventually be broken
- The best strategy to fight DRM is not to buy + break the most popular DRM

Those for DRM have stated:
- Some DRM is OK
- DRM is getting harder to crack and the newest DRM will not be broken
- Watermarking as DRM would be preferable

Both sides agree that:
- DRM tying you to a specific manufacturer is a bad thing
- DRM will not prevent songs from becoming available on the DarkNet in some form

There is a good and entertaining read on the subject (Link thanks to bawjaws):
Mr. Cory Doctorow overview of DRM given to Microsoft personal

As for Apple's view on DRM here is a good read (Again link thanks to bawjaws):
Rolling Stone interview with Steve Jobs

DRM

Reply #1 –
I posted an additional article about the reasons why DRM, even if it would work, would result in the opposite of what the music industry would like it to achieve:

"If the music industry's dreams would become true - uncrackable DRM and CD-copyprotection"

- Lyx



Quote
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']What has been discussed and verified already in this thread:[/span]
(for detailed info about the why's, read this thread completely)

- the majority of artists currently make almost no money and create because of passion, not for material reward

- all copyprotection(including DRM) of media can and will be circumvented easily by techies and therefore the media will appear on filesharing-networks.

- copyright-breaches will not be detectable anymore in the next years because anonymous networks will become viable. Therefore, enforcement of copyright will become difficult if not impossible.

- globally sales of major labels have not fallen but instead have leveled steady(possible even risen), sales of indie-labels are booming

- combining the sales stats with the huge amount of downloaded files worldwide on filesharing networks, it seems that filesharers still buy music. In some EU-countries with high broadband-penetration, there are sharp major label sales declines and in some others sales are great. A general negative connection between filesharing and music sales can therefore NOT be detected.

- many small artists and labels are pro-filesharing because it is a cheap method for them to get exposure

- listener-behaviour has changed. The big artists are becoming less interesting and the smaller ones more interesting. Consumers want more variety.

- major labels only cover a tiny amount of the worldwide music variety(released albums) and have additionally axed about a quarter of their variety in recent years.

- enforcement of copyright (lawsuits) in the recent years only had short-term effects on filesharing and were ineffective in the long-term.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #2 –
How world the world look without DRM on music?

The artists would have to create income from other sources than CD and download sales. E.g. merchandise and concerts.

The record companies would make the music available on P2P networks free of charge as promotion of the artists.

Their cost in doing this would be deducted from the artists merchandise and concert income.

In countries like Denmark, you could even imagine that everybody with an internet connection would be charged an additional fee, just for having the possibility to download music. This tax would in turn be distributed to the artists according to how many of their songs where downloaded.

DRM

Reply #3 –
Quote
The artists would have to create income from other sources than CD and download sales. E.g. merchandise and concerts.

This is already the case for a long time. Non-top100 Artists make very little money with CD-Sales. They live from merchandise and concerts. This is because the middlemen swallow almost all of the profit and the artist gets almost nothing.

Here's a real-world experience. I know an artist on merck records (indie label) who's albums are also available on iTunes. He is the top-seller of that label on iTunes. Guess how much he saw of those sales? Less than 10$.

You're asuming that what the major labels say is true: that artists are making music because of the money. This is not true. 99% of all artists have normal jobs to make a living because they cannot make a living with music. They can barely pay the equipment costs with the concerts and sales. For your above argument, its irrelevant if this is a good thing or a bad thing - the point is: almost all artists currently make music because of passion - not because of material reward.

Wanna know what would really make artists rich and able to live from music? If there would be an infrastructure and established ettiquette where you can freely download as many albums from as many artists without any cost or restrictions - and where listeners could send the artist one buck with a mouseclick if they like an album. ONE BUCK transferable with a single mouseclick for a whole album directly to the artist would multiply the income of artists when it comes to sales.

Quote
The record companies would make the music available on P2P networks free of charge as promotion of the artists.

Independent labels already do that. I have even got the green light from some indie-label owners to spread their music on filesharing networks to promote them. Heck, some of them even share their entire label-catalogue on filesharing networks for the very same reasons. Most indie-labels are pro-filesharing because it is a way for them to make their music known - as a result, the sales of indie-labels have seen a dramatic rise since the approach of filesharing-networks.

This is about filesharing - not about DRM - because DRM is not gonna stop filesharing. The listening habbits of people have changed via filesharing: They now listen to more music, because they have an easy and cheap way to try out many different albums and therefore learn about more available music than before.

The misasumption you make here is that someone who downloads a song illegally will 1. keep this file..... and 2. would have bought the CD if filesharing didn't exist...... and 3. Will never buy the CD after he downloaded the file.

But statistics show that this asumption is false. Instead, CD-sales have risen, and sales of indie-labels are exploding. People now listen to more music and buy more CDs - because of filesharing. While this change in listening-habbits may hurt the sales of top100-artists, it overally makes people buy and listen to more music.

So, it is not the sales which are in danger - it is the old business-model, promotion-model and customer-behaviour which is in danger of becoming obsolete.

At least - on first sight: there is something which could become a danger for sales: DRM and copy-protection. Restrictions do not add value to a product - they devalue it. Meanwhile, music on filesharing networks does not suffer from those restrictions. DRM and copy-protection makes legal music less valuable than illegal music!

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #4 –
Quote
Wanna know what would really make artists rich and able to live from music? If there would be an infrastructure and established ettiquette where you can freely download as many albums from as many artists without any cost or restrictions - and where listeners could send the artist one buck with a mouseclick if they like an album. ONE BUCK transferable with a single mouseclick for a whole album directly to the artist would multiply the income of artists when it comes to sales.


There is a record label that functions in this manner called Magnatune.  One can listen to the album via streaming, and if you like it, you can choose how much to pay for a download (or CD) of the album, in any format you like (including FLAC and WAV).  Usually they recommend $6 or so, IIRC, but you can pay as little as $3, which is a sweet deal, in my opinion.  No DRM to speak of. And the artists keep all rights to the music, and get an entire half of the profit, which is a heck of a lot more than with a traditional record company.

DRM

Reply #5 –
I am sorry I just don't buy the argument that if there is no DRM (ie if iMS had no DRM) then it's sales would go down because everyone would be sharing for free on the internet. Three reasons for this:

1) When Napster was around sales went up, people would dl a mp3 from an artist they had not heard from, then go out and buy the album (reason might be 2 below, or the fact they wanted it in higher quality, or perhaps they wanted to own a tangible real item)

2) The majority of people are honest, they will buy if given the opportunity (and they feel the price is fair, having one price in one country and a different in another will cause bad feeling in the other) - even today you cannot get audio DRM free unless you: Rip it yourself, or visit allofmp3.com. People are not stupid, they know it costs less to make an audio cd than a cassette, audio cds sell many times the cassette, but the cassette is cheaper. Take iMS - delivery costs and production of the track for iMS costs practically nothing, so having a price set the same as a real CD, or sometimes more (at 99c a track) just does not wash.

3) The scare of the few P2P lawsuits brought will keep Joe Public away, not that Joe Public could be bothered to P2P, it is more of a geek thing. Those geeks possibly wouldn't have bought said items they had traded on P2P even if there was no P2P or blackmarket.

DRM

Reply #6 –
Quote
But statistics show that this asumption is false. Instead, CD-sales have risen, and sales of indie-labels are exploding. People now listen to more music and buy more CDs - because of filesharing. While this change in listening-habbits may hurt the sales of top100-artists, it overally makes people buy and listen to more music.


I DJ, so this is frustrating for me.  People should just listen to what the recording industry and commercial radio stations says is a "good song" and be happy and shut up.  Then they can go and buy their widely propagated commercial music, complete with DRM via a variety of business models, and all the corporations involved get their royalties and everyone is happy. 
That makes it easier for me, because I can then just put my monthly issued pop hits compilations CDs on and everyone will automatically dance.


(That was a joke, BTW)

Seriously though... If I hop to the other side of the fence for a moment:
I feel that DRM *may* have some positive applications in terms of advancing the music industry's willingness (out of sheer necessity) to embrace new technology and perhaps establish new business models for the distribution of music. (This applies equally to many other forms of intellectual property.)  As a DJ, I have long been frustrated by the legal gray area associated with MP3-DJing, and ripping promo CDs to my computer.  In the US, I believe, there is even less legal permission obtainable than there is here in Canada.

DRM could overcome all of that, and allow the ease and convenience of computer DJing with full compliance of legal rights and copyright law.  Promo Only Canada, which distributes DJ CDs, like my aforementioned monthly compilation discs, and general music collections is proposing an online system of digital music distribution using a codec (wrapper maybe?) called MPE. (or was it MPEE?).  This is very new, and all the legal framework has yet to be ironed out.  Basically, it's a DRM music format.

As frustrating as DRM is from a consumer standpoint, it will be very exciting as a DJ, or other commercial user of music, to be able to legally buy and use all the music I'd need with a convenient online distribution system.  When a song becomes hot, there is no waiting for my CD to be compiled, and mailed out to me.  It's just automatically uploaded to my DJ rig and I can use it.

It seems that systems like this would not ever take hold if it is not for DRM.  This is unfortunate, but c'est la vie, it seems.  I do believe that industries and wealthy record companies and their executives should be compensated for the sale and use of music, as they invested a lot of hard work and effort into providing the framework, infrastructure, and resources to make this music available and popularize it.  (oh yeah, the artists too, wherever THAT fits in    ).

DRM can ensure this, but it also can inhibit a lot of the end user's fair usage (i.e. legally allowed) of the material.  I feel that a better scheme for this, that doesn't tramp on the toes of the end user so much, would be a watermarking scheme.
With watermarking, a unique copy can be licensed to an individual for a certain use, and in theory, a license inspector could fairly efficiently verify that the license on the music that say, a DJ or radio station has, is valid.  Not only that, but if it's found that your music that you purchased legitimately was found on every computer in every one of your city's nightclubs, for example, then you ass is on the line for that.

This would encourage, but not force, users to share music responsibly and encourage greater legitimate use of music.  It would potentially slow down music piracy, and make music licensing enforceable.  And it would make it much easier for people like me to operate completely cleanly and be able to prove it.  (as it is now, I swear I can be DJing in the middle of nowhere, mobile, and have people ask me to download some song they want on Kazaa or whatever).

So that's the flipside of the situation, the way that I see it.  Comments are very much appreciated!

DRM

Reply #7 –
Quote
DRM could overcome all of that, and allow the ease and convenience of computer DJing with full compliance of legal rights and copyright law.  Promo Only Canada, which distributes DJ CDs, like my aforementioned monthly compilation discs, and general music collections is proposing an online system of digital music distribution using a codec (wrapper maybe?) called MPE. (or was it MPEE?).  This is very new, and all the legal framework has yet to be ironed out.  Basically, it's a DRM music format.

As frustrating as DRM is from a consumer standpoint, it will be very exciting as a DJ, or other commercial user of music, to be able to legally buy and use all the music I'd need with a convenient online distribution system.  When a song becomes hot, there is no waiting for my CD to be compiled, and mailed out to me.  It's just automatically uploaded to my DJ rig and I can use it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=283990"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are asking labels to cheat you? You - someone who is heavily responsible for the promotion of artists and labels - do a service for them which is worth more than the price of the music. There is a reason why major labels smear radio-stations to marginalize the competition - because exposure is worth pure cash. Making you pay for the material you promote sounds like a bad joke.

- Lyx

edit: another thing: i bet that the reason why they are thinking about this DRM-scheme in your case is NOT because of cash, but because of control. With such a DRM-library they can limit what is in the library and what not - therefore deciding beforehand what you will play.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #8 –
Quote
I am sorry I just don't buy the argument that if there is no DRM (ie if iMS had no DRM) then it's sales would go down because everyone would be sharing for free on the internet. Three reasons for this:

1) When Napster was around sales went up, people would dl a mp3 from an artist they had not heard from, then go out and buy the album (reason might be 2 below, or the fact they wanted it in higher quality, or perhaps they wanted to own a tangible real item)

2) The majority of people are honest, they will buy if given the opportunity (and they feel the price is fair, having one price in one country and a different in another will cause bad feeling in the other) - even today you cannot get audio DRM free unless you: Rip it yourself, or visit allofmp3.com. People are not stupid, they know it costs less to make an audio cd than a cassette, audio cds sell many times the cassette, but the cassette is cheaper. Take iMS - delivery costs and production of the track for iMS costs practically nothing, so having a price set the same as a real CD, or sometimes more (at 99c a track) just does not wash.

3) The scare of the few P2P lawsuits brought will keep Joe Public away, not that Joe Public could be bothered to P2P, it is more of a geek thing. Those geeks possibly wouldn't have bought said items they had traded on P2P even if there was no P2P or blackmarket.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=283988"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've exhibited all three of these factors myself, and have recently decided to stop acquiring music by "other means" and only buy CDs from now on (except for music not available on CD).

But the bottom line is...for me and I'd bet for many other people...that there is a limited threshold of resistance that I'll tolerate before seeking alternatives, within an acceptable area of risk.  My habits as a consumer are like the tendencies of electricity:  I'll seek the route of least resistance.  I like ripping my CDs in order to control the encoding format, settings, tagging, etc.  But if CD copy protection stands in the way more than very rarely, then I'll stop buying CDs and go back to aqcuiring music by other methods.

I ultimately believe in the need to protect intellectual property.  But the recording industry should treat the buying public like electricity.  If they incite too much impedance to the fair and legal use of music, then a great number of people won't fulfill the industry's desires in the way music is acquired.  The industry has a fantastic opportunity to control their consumer base using DRM in encoded music and CD copy protection with physical media distribution.  But they had better remember that their customer base is fickle, intolerant to resistance and many are quite resourceful.  There are too many easy-to-use alternatives out there for them to screw around.
Sometimes you have to jump off the cliff and build your wings on the way down.

DRM

Reply #9 –
Quote
The artists would have to create income from other sources than CD and download sales. E.g. merchandise and concerts.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=283954"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That is a common, but lame, rationalization.  The folks rolling out counterfiet merchandise probaby say the artist should make his money off music and video sales.

What is your opinion on books.. should they all be free and the authors can only get paid by selling tickets for live readings?

DRM

Reply #10 –
Quote
I ultimately believe in the need to protect intellectual property.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284002"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Forgetting my opinion for a moment, that (copy-)protection of media and info in the information-age is not possible, which one's IP do you mean? The property of the labels or the property of the artists? I'm asking because artist do not own the rights to their works anymore when they sign to a label - instead, it becomes the property of the label(there are some rare exceptions with indie-labels where the artist keeps some of his rights).

What i am saying is that DRM is not about the property of the artists - it is about protecting the property of the labels.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #11 –
Quote
Quote
I ultimately believe in the need to protect intellectual property.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284002"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...which one's IP do you mean? The property of the labels or the property of the artists?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284004"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both.  If an artist signs the rights of their property over to a record label, then it's now the property of the label.  That's the choice of the artist.  (Whether artists "have" to make a deal with a major label in order to find financial success is a different matter.)

If an artist wants to keep the rights to the property they created, then protection of it is just as much in their interest as it is in the interest of record labels to protect property they've acquired.
Sometimes you have to jump off the cliff and build your wings on the way down.

DRM

Reply #12 –
Quote
i bet that the reason why they are thinking about this DRM-scheme in your case is NOT because of cash, but because of control. With such a DRM-library they can limit what is in the library and what not - therefore deciding beforehand what you will play.


Whoa!  I thought *I* Was a conspiracy nut!  My little joke before about homogenizing people's music tastes wasn't based on such a theory... 
Companies like Promo Only are just a third-party music distributor, and they have no say in what music is good or what people should listen to.  They just supply whatever music is or was popular to their clients, and to stay in business, they must give their clients what they want or need.  I suppose that, say, if they didn't like gangsta rap, because they feel it isn't good for public mental health, then they could choose not to supply certain songs.
(In fact, certain songs are NOT supplied, but that is only because the record label would not give them permission for reasons that I can't remember now).

As for these artists, who include Garth Brooks and Janet Jackson, for example; Are we prohibited from hearing them?  Is "Friends In Low Places" on some corporate blacklist, and thus censored?  Hell no... I have full rights and abilities to buy the CD and rip it onto the computer (however I *may* need to have another, different type of license for this.)

While this MAY be a pain in the ass, it's a long way from being a corporate conspiracy to prevent dissemination of "harmful" information, or some such thing.  It's just a licensing issue.  I'd suspect that the record companies feel that they'd make more money by having DJs buy all the CDs of the artist than by recieving licensing royalties for the handful of popular songs that the artists have produced.



Quote
That is a common, but lame, rationalization.  The folks rolling out counterfiet merchandise probaby say the artist should make his money off music and video sales.

What is your opinion on books.. should they all be free and the authors can only get paid by selling tickets for live readings?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284003"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good Arguments!  It does seem that some new kind of business model is needed... but what?  Selling t-shirts, or panhandling when busking and the like can only go so far, right?  You won't likely become a millionaire doing either.  Almost all profit on music/books, etc. comes from intellectual property licensing.  Our current laws are structured around that.  Yet technology can completely nullify any of the security that existed to ensure that much of this model worked.  So what now?  Rely entirely on the goodness of man, and the abundance of honesty and willingness to obey laws that exists in the general public?

I think that really, people who understand the long-term implicitions that their actions have on society might consider a model where they could donate to musicians they like with hopes that the musician will thus be able to make more music, etc. (This reminds me of beliefs that I have about open source software).

Speaking of that... even though in my previous post, I've stuck up for DRM, I really think that the future, and that progress in humanity will only occur as we shed encumbering copyright laws and restrictions, and embrace a more open model of intellectual property licensing and distribution.  It will take time, indeed, but it seems to be coming, and nothing can stop it.  The problem is that it seems inherently incompatibly with capitalism.  Perhaps that too will change dramatically in the future... who knows?

DRM

Reply #13 –
@Lyx:
Oh yeah... about the notion that because I am promoting music, I should get it for free, and not have to pay for it...  I used to think that myself.  (Well, I still do, to a point!).  In the context that I play, I don't know if I'm functionally doing that though... people never want to hear music that they don't hear on the radio (or in their personal collections) over and over and over again.  So, although I could break out my crazy new indie punk CD and play it, it's not going to help my dance floor, even if there is the chance that somebody might like it.

But yeh... DJs have to buy their music just like everyone else.  Granted, if you are somewhat well known, and you talk to the right people, some times small bands or record companies *will* give you free stuff.  There was a fellow in the Netherlands that gave me about six CDs from a label he started.  (I've never played his ambient-chillout at parties however, but it was really nice of him!)

DRM

Reply #14 –
Quote
While this MAY be a pain in the ass, it's a long way from being a corporate conspiracy to prevent dissemination of "harmful" information, or some such thing.  It's just a licensing issue.  I'd suspect that the record companies feel that they'd make more money by having DJs buy all the CDs of the artist than by recieving licensing royalties for the handful of popular songs that the artists have produced.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284008"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hmm, i meant it a little bit different. Absolute censorship isn't necessary to create almost the same effect. What i mean is this: You said yourself that it would be more comfortable for you if you could just download the needed tracks to your rig. Humans are lazy - so, if they would offer this service, but marginalize labels which are not in connection with a major label, then some DJs would forward this marginalization, because they would prefer getting tracks from that DRMed library and be more hesistant to rip something manually which isn't available in the DRMed library. Because its easier and faster. It's a kind of soft censorship, not an absolute one.

However, i agree that in your case this may not be a threat. But if such services would be offered in a more wide scale, then i'm quite sure that the major labels would take this opportunity to bring payola to the DJs - just with the difference that this time they dont pay the DJs for the dirty job but instead make the DJs pay for it

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #15 –
Quote
Speaking of that... even though in my previous post, I've stuck up for DRM, I really think that the future, and that progress in humanity will only occur as we shed encumbering copyright laws and restrictions, and embrace a more open model of intellectual property licensing and distribution.  It will take time, indeed, but it seems to be coming, and nothing can stop it.  The problem is that it seems inherently incompatibly with capitalism.  Perhaps that too will change dramatically in the future... who knows?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284008"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Slightly off-topic: I don't think that capitalism itself is the problem... that things have a value and people trade things. This has always been so even if sometimes not in such a visible manner. The problem IMHO is how capitalism is currently practiced - how the values are affected, distributed and for what. Notice also that a different trade-model is not incompatible with capitalism. That being said, i do think that in the far future the way capitalism is implemented will dramatically change, because:
1. The current models are inefficient (and to some extend incompatible) with the information-age
2. The current models are a self-destruct mechanism - it automatically results in a downward-spiral towards total plutocracy. The core ideas of those models are an oxymoron.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #16 –
I cant get around an image of musicians condemning their audiences for showing an interest in them without paying them. (They would not be civil playing in the street, hatting every passerby who acknowledges them.)
It is not like the artists have to put in extra nights work to perform for the virtual freeloaders personaly.
I think some artistic imaginations have been too easily convinced like It is.

Regardless - encrypting and tracking commercial sources combined with prosecuting possession or sharing of copies will keep freeloaders who won't pay away from precious media property. The freeloading fans and collectors - presumably poor or dishonest, are no trouble to bother for a world of more acurate accounting.

Unfortunately criminal pirates will crack any and every DRM technology by the time served method of re-Recording. Bootlegs will be produced and distributed as always except their market does even better than the majors, when underground fileshare is killed off.....

The artists plight will then make a new type of criminal - 'unsoliciting computer collector', and redivide the media distribution market between the old ones.

Now in Eire and UK - landlords are loosing the 'rights' to let people play music in their establisments - without an expensive new license.

Will the tourist trade be granted a pardon to allow unlicensed fiddling?

I cant say 
no conscience > no custom

DRM

Reply #17 –
Quote
I cant get around an image of musicians condemning their audiences for showing an interest in them without paying them. (They would not be civil playing in the street, hatting every passerby who acknowledges them.)
It is not like the artists have to put in extra nights work to perform for the virtual freeloaders personaly.
I think some artistic imaginations have been too easily convinced like It is.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284029"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because i do know many artists personally, how they earn money and what their intentions are, i know that your above scenario is out-of-this-world. Do yourself a favor and get in contact with some artists and ask them directly about their views, instead of repeating the propaganda of the music industry(which is not representing their artists but themselves).

Also, please do some research on CD-sales(numbers are freely available on the web) before writing uninformed statements like that filesharing would lower CD-sales.

Quote
Now in Eire and UK - landlords are loosing the 'rights' to let people play music in their establisments - without an expensive new license.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284029"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is already like this in germany. There is a lobby which prohibits anyone to play or perform music in a public environment without paying taxes. Public environment means every case where people can join in without being invited (yes, this also private meetings). It is also irrelevant if there is money involved or not(so, it even includes meetings and parties which are free). This means that a large amount of underground parties and meetings are blocked already in their beginnings, because they cannot pay the taxes. Bands also cannot just perform for free somewhere and say that they don't want to benefit from the collected taxes - the prosecutors of the lobby will just tell them "well, you can just join us and then you will get your share". Yeah, sure - except that minor artists will only see pennies from it.

In other words - a band just picking out their acoustic guitar at a campfire and the vocalist singing to it for free - is outlawed in germany. However, this lobby and the tax were established in an era before filesharing, the internet and computers did exist.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #18 –
Quote
Quote
It is not like the artists have to put in extra nights work to perform for the virtual freeloaders personaly. I think some artistic imaginations have been too easily convinced like It is.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284029"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because i do know many artists personally, how they earn money and what their intentions are, i know that your above scenario is out-of-this-world.

I have seen an unhealthy amount of telly - enough to catch Chris Martin of Coldplay telling kids downloading music for free was wrong. The only big artist I can recall defending it was Thom Yorke in a magaizine interview after Hail the Thief was snatched during production and prereleased.
Quote
Quote
Now in Eire and UK - landlords are loosing the 'rights' to let people play music in their establisments - without an expensive new license.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284029"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

- a band just picking out their acoustic guitar at a campfire and the vocalist singing to it for free - is outlawed in germany. However, this lobby and the tax were established in an era before filesharing, the internet and computers did exist.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284031"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Romes defense against the Troubadours or sumthin'
I cant say Germany has it easy
no conscience > no custom

DRM

Reply #19 –
Quote
I have seen an unhealthy amount of telly - enough to catch Chris Martin of Coldplay telling kids downloading music for free was wrong. The only big artist I can recall defending it was Thom Yorke in a magaizine interview after Hail the Thief was snatched during production and prereleased.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284033"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try asking non-top100 artists.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #20 –
You require a license to play (as in perform) music at all in Germany?  That seems absolutely ridiculous.  But then again, I remember a night where I sat down with a guy who was involved in the songwriting business for a period of time, and debated this kind of licensing for hours.

See, here in Canada, AFAIK, we don't need any licenses to perform music.  BUT, there is an organization called "The Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada" (SOCAN) that handles licensing the *venue* for the performance and use of intellectual property.  i.e., as a DJ, I don't have to care about this, but whoever is hiring me must ensure that the hall I'm DJing their wedding in has a SoCAN license, or the organization that runs the hall could get fined.

Bars need it, perhaps even outdoor parks need it, but I'm not 100% sure of that.  The idea is that if a band comes in and performs well known songs by commercial artists, the original songwriters will get their compensation for use of their property. (The guy I mentioned before has written two songs, and hasn't recieved a cent for them, so I'm not sure why he thinks it's so fair).  BUT - even if an indie band comes in and plays all their own material - still gotta have a license.  If music is performed by songwriters who are not a member of SOCAN, then you pay for your damned license and the money goes to all the rich dudes who have popular songs.

It seems kind of silly, but I suppose in general, they monitor the music performed and played and assign a percentage of the license fees based on how often songs are performed and such.  For the small guys though, it is not likely too helpful.

Is this at all similar to the legislation in Germany?

DRM

Reply #21 –
Yes, it is very similiar to SOCAN. But there are some differences: the organization monitors venues(live-performances) as well as plain simple playback in any "public environment"(see description in earlier post for what qualifies a public environment). Artists of course do not have to pay for performing, but the organizators of the "venue"(remember, this can also be a small circle of 10 people) have to. The organization monitors events and playback in all "public environments", collects taxes and then redistributes it to the artists(however, only major artists really profit from it - and of course the org keeps a good margin of the taxes for themselves). The thing is that it is almost impossible for a band perform and say "we don't want taxes for this event, you dont have to pay". Which in turn means that it is illegal to perform for free - this in turn means that it is impossible for newcomer-bands and artists to get exposure on tiny events to get known. It is the death-ticket to garage-parties and the like.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #22 –
DRM is wrong. It's that simple.
Even popular artists tend to get the majority of their money from touring.

Personally, I think our IP laws need to just be scrapped and recreated. The creator should have the right to keep others from making money off of a product with none coming to him/her. However, it typically does not work that way.

The artists get near nothing from album sales, often having trouble making money even touring, and then if they want to try and strike out big, they are looking at the possiblity of massive debts, and more touring to pay them off if things aren't really successful.

Then, if they get successful, they'll probably have to sign away the rights to much of their work. It's the oldest grudge matter in music...security vs. selling out. This becomes especially true if the artists do want to be successful, as this will often mean quitting 'real' jobs.

So what happens? Management gets too much money, producers typically do pretty well, while the artists and technicians barely get by.

The corporations are supposed to be serving us and the content creators. Their place is as middlemen to get from them to us, and nothing more. Instead, they are serving themselves, and leaving the people that really matter out in the dust.

If the artists aren't going to be making money on album sales, then the costs should set to feed the necessary infrastructure for distribution, and the technicians involved, and nothing more. DRM added is only a means of keeping control for those middlemen who currently have it; it serves us in no way at all, nor the artists.

DRM

Reply #23 –
Quote
The corporations are supposed to be serving us and the content creators. Their place is as middlemen to get from them to us, and nothing more. Instead, they are serving themselves, and leaving the people that really matter out in the dust.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284085"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great post. One addition: Theoretically - at least for small to medium artists - these middlemen are now obsolete because of the internet. The internet and filesharing could give artists a cheap promotion platform - and all they need else for distribution is a corp which presses their CDs and mails them to buyers. The whole distribution- and promotion-bloat of big labels theoretically is now unnecessary. BUT because the established big labels have so much power to marginalize everyone else - to control information - large parts of the potential audience are stuck in the grip of major lablels. Because the same who act as the middlemen, are now also the ones who control the majority of all printed media, tv and radio(via payola).

The middleman is now keeping a position which we don't need anymore - blocking higher profits for artists, lower prices for consumers and better & more varried music for the world, by abusing a degree of power which they never deserved. The matching term for they current role is a big fat parasite.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

DRM

Reply #24 –
Quote
Unfortunately criminal pirates will crack any and every DRM technology by the time served method of re-Recording. Bootlegs will be produced and distributed as always except their market does even better than the majors, when underground fileshare is killed off.....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284029"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a good point!

Today organised crime make bootleg copies of DVD, CD, software etc. You only have to visit a market in Russia, Ukraine, Singapore, China, etc. to see the extend of bootleg copies.

They are fulfilling the customer demand for CD's at prices people can afford in those countries.

Now if the preferred distribution channel for music changes from CD to internet, the organised pirates would shift their resources to making music available on the internet for a fraction of the price.

It is therefore safe to assume that there will always exist a well organised alternative sales channel for download of music via the internet that no DRM will ever be able to stop.

Already today we have allofmp3, that do not pay the artists, as Russian copyright laws only deal with tangible items and not stuff on the internet.

Actually the prices on allofmp3 are increadible expensive compared to the price you pay for a CD in the local market. It is designed for Russians with money and foreigners.

The record companies will have to make Russia change their legislation before allofmp3 becomes illegal. Something that will not happen anytime soon.. 

In order for the record companies to sell music on-line they would then have to:
- provide a more attractive solution
- appeal to the better of men, making it a moral issue not to buy bootlegs