KJ's Profile

  • Dec 31, 1969
  • 2
  • 0

Latest comments made by: KJ

  • You wrote that DRM seriously inconveniences law-abiding consumers and you highlighted the 10 to 7 shift. I'm still trying to find the person inconvenienced by that, and I guess you're not it. The 3 computer limit was a real inconvenience and Apple changed it to 5 (which I admit could still be an inconvenience to a very few). And I admit the lack of resale is an inconvenience. I've been told that the change to more restrictive terms didn't apply retroactively; I haven't tried it myself. All the songs you bought with 10 burns still have 10 burns in a playlist. Only songs bought subsequent to the change have the 7 burn limit. So they did not change the rules on the songs you already owned. If you don't like the new rules, don't buy any more songs or don't upgrade your iTunes software. And yet for the more liberal rule, it did apply retroactively. Isn't that fair enough? And if they were to eliminate all burns on newly purchased songs, then you and most others would stop buying and the store is dead. That's what will stop them - no revenue. And if they were to reduce burns on already bought songs (and that could only be done with an iTunes upgrade), then I'd say, we should all blast Apple in public, AND not upgrade. But that's not what they did. Have you read the Art of War? Don't blast indiscriminately like you're doing. For when you do, you simply convey the attitude that no DRM is the only possibility. And unless they change the whole business model (i.e. broadband content tax), that will cause them to fight you with worse measures than Fairplay. If you think there should be a new business model that is fair to artists and consumers, then say what it is; you're being counterproductive by just repeating "No DRM". The labels and studios have resigned themselves to not stopping lower-quality burns and CD/DVD rips because it is too late. But they are trying to stop any "higher-quality" music/movies from being pirated. So DRM on AAC, WMA, etc is in place and unlikely to change. But draconian DRM (no copy) of Hi-Definition is coming; that's where the battle already is. Also, there are stores that sell songs with no DRM. I don't see any of them making lots of money. Your conclusion has yet to be validated.
    KJ had this to say on Aug 18, 2004 Posts: 2
    The Problem with the iTMS DRM
  • How to share your ITMS DRMed-song without hassle or quality loss? Lend her your iPod. Invite her over, and download it to the iPod you bought her :) How does limiting you to seven CD burns of the EXACT SAME playlist "seriously inconvenience" you? How often do you do that, especially since CDs are so Twentieth-Century!? But pirates would certainly like to automate the process and burn 1000s of CDs with little intervention. To combat piracy (widespread distribution to anyone), it certainly seems fair to limit "automated" copies of the exact same playlist. (Also, the new restriction was not retroactive to previously bought songs; only to subsequently bought songs.) Some DRMs are concerned about your freedoms. They are trying to balance the rights of artists (and the labels, whom the artists have agreed to use) against your rights as consumer. CSS on DVDs gave you no rights; so DeCSS may be justified. But Fairplay gives you plenty - the missing one is reselling your songs. Regarding DRM rule changes, I think we should be vigilant about opposing new going-forward restrictions that don't fight piracy, but I certainly would allow them to make going-forward changes to fight piracy. Not only do artists pay the price for piracy, the law-abiding citizen does too via higher prices, restrictions, etc. Note that I say this despite having no love for the greedy, dumb labels. SIMPLE TRUTH: If nobody pirated (widespread distribution) content, then there would be no DRM. FACT: There was no DRM until people started mass-producing pirated videotapes - which led to protection on DVDs. Sometime settling for good (Fairplay-style DRM) gets in the way of the best (completely unrestricted personal/home movement/use on any device, and resale). But in balancing rights, it may be necessary to do so until technology or people's attitudes allow further movement toward the best. If you fight even the most liberal DRM today with things like hymn, you will wind up with more broadcast flags, more INDUCE, more draconian measures, and non-copyable high-definition digital content. Pick your fight carefully.
    KJ had this to say on Aug 18, 2004 Posts: 2
    The Problem with the iTMS DRM