next »

[Catfish]

Ok, so I've downloaded a few things from iTunes recently and I feel as though I've bought music, gone to power pirate, gone back to buying and been uberdisappointed.

The new iTunes has DRM (digital rights management) so deeply embedded that you can't even use the stuff you buy in a fair manner (hence, fair use).  Example: I bought the Boise State / Oklahoma game with the intention of burning it to DVD.  However, it's in m4v format, which is MPEG-4 video with DRM.  Thus, it cannot be burned to DVD for the purpose of  "preventing copying".  Well, when I pay $3.23 for a football game and can't even watch it on my TV out front without ghetto-rigging something to connect my computer to it, you do what I did next.

I missed the AFC title game because I had been sentenced to work at Best Buy that night (ffs, whole company meeting, great scheduling).  So, I torrented the game, MPEG-2 format and burned it to DVD.  Would I have gladly bought it if it had no DRM and was available for purchase?  Yes.  It's ironic that their copy protection, intended to prevent copying of material for the purpose of saving profits has in turn cost them a sale in the first place and caused piracy.

Wasn't this crap defeated years ago when VCRs were ruled legal and that recording programming for private home use was "fair use"?  Yes, I understand their desire to prevent copying, but "fair use" has been infringed for the purpose of "copy protection"... at least there were no rootkits this time (gg Sony).

[Supermercado]

Kind of along this same lines, Chris and I were discussing this maybe a month ago, and were talking about how torrenting TV shows should be legal. Even if the ads are removed. In my case, I pay for cable TV and could tape anything on there with my VCR if I wanted to. So I could have a recording of it. That's no different than downloading a TV show, except that the torrent isn't going to have ads. Well, raise your hand if you watch something you've taped and don't fast forward through the commercials. Anyone? Anyone? Didn't think so. How is that different than downloading a show with the ads stripped out? It's not really any different at all, I don't think.

Now, there's an argument to be made for downloading stuff off cable if you don't pay for cable. But I pay for Sci-Fi with my cable package, therefore I should be allowed to download Battlestar Galactica. If I didn't pay for Sci-Fi, then I shouldn't be allowed to download it. I don't pay for HBO so I shouldn't be able to download the Sopranos. That all seems perfectly fair to me.

[Catfish]

Or, in my case, the AFC title game was a network broadcast.  I'm not reselling it, it was a free broadcast to begin with.  I see no problem.  Cable I can understand being different, but I don't see how network could be regulated at all.

Speaking of your HBO point, I'd be all for an online-cable store with, basically, a DVR in the house that could download "rebroadcasts" from a central office on demand where your access was based off your subscriptions.  TiVoRedo anyone?

[KnacK]

When the VCR issues hit the courts, the huge difference that we have now vs. then is that the media is digital. We can essentially take it anywhere and do anythign with it.  THAT is was scares big media companies.

btw - I'm on your side 10000%

[elmono311]

Media companies need to deal with it. There's far more people who will buy those things and know nothing about how to pirate than people who know how to pirate. The success of iTunes proves that. They make money despite the fact many people still download songs illegally.

BTW, I love when I say I watch TV shows I miss on my computer and the person I'm talking to says, for example, "Oh, you watch it on ABC.com?" That's when I give them a strange look, laugh, and say heck no.

[Catfish]

When the VCR issues hit the courts, the huge difference that we have now vs. then is that the media is digital.

True, but in that ruling, the courts determine something could not be ruled illegal just because it had illegal uses, this is provided it has a legal primary use (i.e. CD and DVD burners).  The question is where does DRM fit in, and there has to be a middle ground.  I'm sympathetic to them wanting to stop piracy, but rootkits and infringing on fair use isn't the solution, it only magnifies the problem.

Oh, and rgr that @ "ABC.com?".  I love it

[Zorchenhimer]

but rootkits and infringing on fair use isn't the solution, it only magnifies the problem.

I agree. It's like when i can't get past a boss in a game (like Wolfenstein) where do i go? Google to find codes for godmode. So when somebody gets mad at a company like apple (right?) because iTunes starts placing numerous limitations on the use of the fairly bought music, they head over to their favorite file-sharing site. It just makes the problem worse.

[elmono311]

And just now I found an article related to this

LINK

[Catfish]

And just now I found an article related to this

LINK

Exactly, elmono, that's one of the perfect points for where their DRM goes too far.  We're not even talking about media change (mp3 -> CD or mpeg2/4 -> DVD), we're, just talking about a different legal original use.  Time to go back to the drawing board.