Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

You're telling me it is technologically impossible to have a file that deletes another file when that file is tampered with? You can't have coding that deletes files? Cause I'm pretty sure I've had virus (viri) programs do that.

You have to put it in the operating system itself. And then people will just use a different operating system (say, Linux) to crack the files before returning them to the original system. So yes, it is completely and utterly impossible, unless you somehow manage to eradicate all operating systems other than RIIA-approved ones. And if you get that far into violating civil rights, you may as well just send death squads to pirates' homes.

[Truean]

Or, we could do Hulu.com for songs without the fee but with ads....

It works for them. People love that site and would even more without the "Hulu Plus." $8 fee. People are watching whole TV shows and movies there. It isn't impossible. They keep the stuff and you watch it/listen to it whenever. Yes there are ads, like 3 per TV show. People don't seem to mind....

TV show >30 minutes = 3 ads. Do the same ratio for music
Song 3 minutes? = 3 ads that are 1/10th the length of a TV commercial

[MonkeyHead]

At least you have the right to access those services, provided by your society, which is why you have taxes to pay. You may not feel you have a debt or obligation to it, but it is there, making sure that you arent enslaved or eaten by bears.

[DJ]

The big music industry is obsolete and it's death is inevitable.

[GlyphGryph]

Truean, just to make sure I understand - how is what you're proposing any different from what youTube/VEVO does, right now? Because really, the youtube/pandora model, with streaming+commercials, is honestly the closest you'll probably get. (And copying those streams is pretty common, so even that's mostly a result of people just not bothering to get rid of the ads rather than being unable to)

Because you know what would happen if people started adding that sort of crap to songs? Oh, look at that, someone removed it and now everyone is pirating it from another source instead of getting the legitimate version because they don't want to have to listen to an ad every two and a half minutes.

So yes, it is completely and utterly impossible, unless you somehow manage to eradicate all operating systems other than RIIA-approved ones.

Basically, this - an application could do it, perhaps, but an audio file? No. And the application can only do it if it's RUNNING, and anyone editing a file like this wouldn't be running it. You'd have to have some sort of "security application" constantly running on the computer insuring the file wasn't tampered with, and there are quite a few users who will know how to turn it off sooner or later. And once that's been done, they will distribute the unlocked version and you're back at square one, except now people have additional incentives to avoid the official one. This has been attempted dozens of times, and it all ends the exact same way. And the fact is, this stuff is dangerous - it's usually full of security holes, won't work one one or more OSes, and provides negligible protection - studies have shown the only people willing to buy into it are those ALREADY willing to buy the music anyways.

You're much better off coming up with a reason for people to pay for the official version, or otherwise people will just do what they want. (See: Steam, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix) If you're not adding value, people will bypass whatever protections you put in place. If you ARE adding value, they might put up with it, but most studies have shown the "protections" are provided by the added value, not the crappy DRM.

One reason it hasn't taken off for music is in part because some of the music companies don't want it to. They think it would make people stop buying CDs or some crap. Remember, these are the same companies that were officially opposed to the iTunes model for a whole bunch of years before basically being forced into it.

[Pnx]

Truean.

The trouble is that you're trying to set up an information toll booth of some form, and in order to do that you have to have a wall to block all passage except through toll booths... This wall has to cover the entire circumference of the country. You know how you were saying that trying to stick a wall between Texas and Mexico was pointless and just caused problems? Same deal here.

The best you can do is set up a toll booth on a nice clean interstate, and hope that not too many people decide to skirt around it through some sleazy back roads.

[Andir]

Also, there are music streaming services that provide free music with commercials... and people still prefer to listen to music on their terms.

http://grooveshark.com/
http://last.fm/

[ChairmanPoo]

People *are* willing to pay for products in the net - provided the price is reasonable-. Initiatives such as the HiB, iTunes, or the Android Market prove it. People are also willing to undergo a few minutes of publicity to keep watching (eg: megavideo). Like DJ said, what is needed is for the industry to stop grasping at an obsolete model of production, and move with the times.


(There's even a book analogue of spotify - the only reason I don't use it very much right now is because it's of a pretty modest size right now)

[scriver]

Truean, look up Spotify. I believe it's availiable in the states nowadays. Used to be their "free" mode was just the basic service with commercials interrupting, but now they only have a free (what can only be described as a suppoaed) try-out period with commercials (although it isn't really limited by time but by use), then it's either pay time or live with the awful restrictions they put on it.

But it's still just a streaming service. You don't have an actual copy of the music files on you computer.

[GlyphGryph]

And to be honest? The "music industry" (by which I mean the RIAA groups) can die for all I care. The movie industry (by which I mean the MPAA), too. The bastards have dug their own graves and filled them with shit, they shouldn't seem so surprised when people want a go at pushing them into it. I think I can say without a hint of dishonesty, I could not see us being any worse as a country or a planet if both organizations and their member corporations poofed into the air tomorrow.

[Pnx]

One thing I've reflected on is that the pay for a copy method is actually pretty silly as a way to produce artwork (and hush about the games are art thing, as a commodity they're art).

But there doesn't really seem to be any good way to guarantee money for the distribution, do you get artists paid for commissions instead? That would take away a degree of their freedom.

Musicians get around it by performances, most of them make most of their money by being paid to perform at venues. But you can't really get a game developer, or a movie producer, or a book writer to do the same thing (there's such a thing as book signings, but honestly, how much do they make from that?).

I suppose movies can get by based on merchandise and movie showings of course... but where does that leave books?

[Bauglir]

Well, you necessarily do have the song on your computer, in some capacity. It's just likely in a mildly annoying format, and the only reason it isn't used for piracy significantly is that most things people would want to pirate from it are likelier available in less frustrating forms. For obvious reasons, this is not an acceptable strategy for overcoming piracy, because it just offloads that piracy to something easier to deal with.

As far as I can tell, the only type of media that can be significantly protected in this way is games, where the actual code is relevant and the output is only superficial. With music and video, the output is what the consumer wants, so streaming accomplishes (at best) a degradation of quality.

[Nadaka]

Truean:
1: The problem with the streaming model is that the media cartels HATE it, and are actively attempting to destroy it.

2: internet isn't actually as pervasive as you would think.

3: you can always record off the stream anyway.

Intellectual property law is a prime example of what happens when an industry is allowed to buy laws for their own profit. America used to be a pirate nation. And when we began to produce media of our own, copyright was reasonable at 14 years. Now copyright is used as a weapon to stifle free speech, criminalize kindness, extort royalties that are never paid to the artist, and extort royalties on IP that does not actually belong to the cartel.

People *are* willing to pay for products in the net - provided the price is reasonable-. Initiatives such as the HiB, iTunes, or the Android Market prove it. People are also willing to undergo a few minutes of publicity to keep watching (eg: megavideo). Like DJ said, what is needed is for the industry to stop grasping at an obsolete model of production, and move with the times.


(There's even a book analogue of spotify - the only reason I don't use it very much right now is because it's of a pretty modest size right now)

People accept steam, not because it is an acceptable form of DRM, but because it is an incredibly awesome platform for finding and managing a collection of games.

[G-Flex]

It seems that I must be more precise that my meaning is not distorted. Yes, I owe my parents. Beyond them, I have no debts to the rest of society, as G-Flex has stated. Owing a pair of people does not leave me indebted to society as a whole.

You seem to think that you haven't benefited from being part of a society whatsoever except for what your parents have done for you. I suppose, then, that you've never made any personal relationships or benefited from any social or economic infrastructure whatsoever in a way that you did not directly pay for yourself. Tell me, did you and your parents live in the woods or something? If you really can't see why the human society around you, and the fruits of its labors (over the course of millennia, no less) have benefited you in any way, I have no idea what to say to you. That is just such a ridiculous concept that I don't know how to describe how ridiculous it is. Even the very ideas and culture you've internalized into your brain contain a lot that your parents don't even know, much less have invented out of whole cloth themselves.

You're telling me it is technologically impossible to have a file that deletes another file when that file is tampered with? You can't have coding that deletes files? Cause I'm pretty sure I've had virus (viri) programs do that.

You have to put it in the operating system itself. And then people will just use a different operating system (say, Linux) to crack the files before returning them to the original system. So yes, it is completely and utterly impossible, unless you somehow manage to eradicate all operating systems other than RIIA-approved ones. And if you get that far into violating civil rights, you may as well just send death squads to pirates' homes.

This honestly doesn't even matter much. If you can play a song, you can record it, and if you can record it, you can record it to whatever non-DRM media you want, and there's not much getting around that, ever, unless you encode the DRM scheme into the audio waveform itself or something crazy like that (some sort of audio watermark), in which case there would be tools to remove it.

[Darvi]

unless you encode the DRM scheme into the audio waveform itself or something crazy like that (some sort of audio watermark), in which case there would be tools to remove it.

It's probably be easier to put some subliminal messages into the sound saying "do not pirate".


Probably more efficient too.