
DRM is Dead, RIAA Says - rms
http://www.torrentfreak.com/drm-is-dead-riaa-says-090719/
======
TomOfTTB
I hate to say it but all this means is that DRM now registers as a bad thing
to the general public. So they're cutting ties.

But if the music industry feels they need to bring DRM back they'll surely do
it. They'll just bring it back dubbed with a new, media friendly name.

~~~
xel02
But if it quacks like a duck...

They may bring it back but DRM has a fundamental HCI problem, it annoyed
legitimate users, and got in the way of whatever goals they want (i.e. Hey
lets take this song by toddler likes to dance to and make a music video etc.)

~~~
TomOfTTB
That's certainly why DRM has become a bad word. All I'm saying is the article
seems to imply this is somehow an admission that they were wrong. When in fact
it's just the opposite. It's setting the stage for it's eventual return under
a new name if they should ever feel the need to bring it back.

Because if they do bring it back part of the push will be "we realize DRM was
bad but this new thing fixes the problems." In order to make that statement
they need to disown DRM now.

------
po
What the RIAA is really saying is, "DRM (for digital downloads) is dead."

DRM for subscription, streaming, etc… is and will be alive and well. I think
the consumers of these kinds of service understand and accept that the content
isn't really theirs; they never bought it for keeps.

------
dlevine
I think that DRM for music is only maligned because the major players weren't
able to come up with a single unified scheme (either for encryption or for
encoding). As a result, it becomes a distraction, because not every song plays
on any player. There are many incompatible formats that play on a subset of
available players.

In the case of DVDs, everyone standardized on one scheme, and any DVD plays in
any (region appropriate) DVD player. The encryption itself isn't really a
problem, and no one complains about it (except for people who want to pirate
DVDs).

~~~
warfangle
"and no one complains about it"

Except the folks who want to legally play DVDs on their linux box without
paying for a commercial (and thus, licensed) piece of DVD software ;)

Disclaimer: I haven't looked into this portion of the issue for quite some
time. It might be a moot point, now.

------
gamble
I wish someone would tell the movie and publishing industries.

------
javanix
I think the music industry finally realized that the only thing that DRM was
cutting down on was their profits.

The set of all people that are going to purchase is (and will be for the
foreseeable future until/unless it becomes much harder than it is now) much
larger than the set of people who do purchase their music. All that DRM was
causing was piracy on the part of a few unhappy consumers who otherwise would
have bought their music.

After all, every single DRM-protected music file is floating around and
available elsewhere in an unencrypted format.

------
jmtame
perfectly summed up in the last part: all DRM does is annoy people who legally
buy the music in the first place. pirates will be pirates (or whatever you
want to call them.. "felons").

------
novum
As one commenter noted, this really cuts down on the already-small number of
reasons I have to justify pirating music.

~~~
koepked
This may sound absolutely absurd, but why does copying music have to be
justified?

------
dexen
DRM per se is far from being dead.

The specific DRM on music was killed by necessity of backward compatibility.
CD-Audio, mp3 etc. did not contain any DRM provisions and market demand for
compatible products precluded DRM.

On the other hand, standards that include DRM from the beginning (DVD,
BlueRay, HDMI etc) will continue using it. New standards will also come with
DRM until customers successfully pressure the vendors to dropping it.

DRM is not dead, it just couldn't find the parking spot in front of the music
store. Otherwise, business as usual.

------
Tichy
"Most importantly Apple announced in early 2009 that all music sold via the
iTunes store would be free of DRM."

I don't think that is true, strictly speaking. Isn't the name of the buyer
still encoded in the audio files? I think that still counts as DRM, it's only
less intrusive.

~~~
bad_user
> _I don't think that is true, strictly speaking. Isn't the name of the buyer
> still encoded in the audio files? I think that still counts as DRM, it's
> only less intrusive._

No, this is patently false. The name of the buyer encoded in audio files is
nothing like DRM.

DRM is a technological solution designed to limit your possible actions. And
under the DMCA, you are not allowed to circumvent encryption techniques
designed to protect copyright even if for the right reasons (like when you own
the copyright of the file you're trying to decrypt).

The name of the buyer is just a "watermark" used to trace the original source.
Watermark or not, legally you are still not allowed to distribute copyrighted
works without having the permissions to do so. But you still have a choice to
bend the rules, at your own risk ... i.e. there's no technology guarding your
immediate actions.

From a social p.o.v., it's the difference between "innocent until proven
guilty" and "guilty by default, tracking device attached".

~~~
Tichy
Still with the "just a watermark", your "rights" to the audio file are burned
into the audio file. If your file leaks into the internet, the RIAA will be at
your door in no time.

------
sili
RIAA started to feel that they are being marginalized. They kept insisting on
DRM and the industry has moved on leaving them in the past.

