DRM drains your battery by up to 25%

[Bob Russell]

There are a lot of reasons why DRM is hated. It enables content providers to control how and when the customer views the content. It means that the customer must repurchase the content if technology changes. It often prevents backups. You can't loan content. You can't even view content on multiple devices. You are tied to the viewers allowed by the provider, so in many cases it rules out Linux or mobile devices.

True, not all DRM implementations cause all these troubles, but these are not out of the norm. It's really a headache for the consumer. Why is it so prevalent? Especially, when it's generally agreed that mass piracy can't be stopped with DRM? The answer is that it sticks around because content providers are afraid of widespread copying, because content providers want a long ongoing stream of revenues from customers for a given song or movie or game, and because legislation currently supports it with a strong hand.

Well, as if that isn't enough, we now discover another problem with DRM that is very intuitive. "... according to tests conducted by CNET, they found that while many players met or exceeded their claims, one feature that has a drastic affect on battery life is the infamous DRM." There was a drop in one test from 16hrs battery playback to 12 hrs playback just changing from mp3 files to WMA 10 DRM files. True, the test doesn't seem to take into account the effects of non-DRM'd mp3 versus non-DRM'd WMA, but one would suspect that the extra processing required for DRM unencoding. And if you have purchased a particular content in a DRM'd form, you don't exactly have the option of switching to mp3 anyway, do you?

Before I sound like I think DRM is never a good idea, let me say that it does seem to make sense in some circumstances to implement DRM, and that DRM has the potential to allow more content owners to bring content to the market. However, in it's current forms, with little in the way of standards or consumer friendliness, I think it would be fair to say that it is more often called "pure evil" by users than "a helpful hand."

Via Digg and CD Freaks.

[MatYadabyte]

Hi Bob


I have toyed long and hard with the pros and cons of DRM. We have put sophisticated DRM in our products but at the same time I am very anti the kind of hard commercialised DRM that is evolving.

I believe fundamentally in two principles:


Unauthorised duplication is not theft.
People have a right to make a living from their work.


I would imagine that most of you would as well. But these two principles are at odds with each other and I am not sure of how they can be reconciled. This really is the problem of (not with) DRM.

I think that explains why you, and me and many other peoples uncertainty and insecurity of how to think about DRM.

It’s a fascinating subject, no doubt

Mat Ripley

[rmeister0]

"Unauthorised duplication is not theft."

This requires further discussion. Technically, unauthorised duplication *is* illegal. Whether or not it is theft, or some other crime can be debated, but copyright law is pretty clear here until fair use comes into the picture.

Can we change that to say "Unauthorized redistribution is theft"? As a blanket statement, no, because first-sale doctrine permits us to sell, give away or loan our CDs, DVD, books, et al.

But the key is the redistribution of unauthorized copies. I think you have to have those two things together to have theft, and I do believe that calling that act theft is vaild.

[MatYadabyte]

Hi There

I’m not saying for a moment that its legal or moral or good, just that it is not theft and that people who do it for the main shouldn’t be criminalised.

“Can we change that to say "Unauthorized redistribution is theft"?”

I don’t think we can. Unauthorised redistribution covers such a wide range, from the innocent to the extreme.

I don’t think my sister is a thief because in 1990 she gave me a cassette copy of Madonna’s album, but that is clearly a case of unauthorised redistribution.

You can’t be hypocritical about these issues, either you have a blanket definition that applies in all cases or you don’t.

Something happened with the digital that meant that information could be copied without error. This is a huge change, and our moral and legal and social attitudes haven’t kept up pace – our attitudes are in the past and our technology racing away into the future.

I think that the first place we need to address this schism is at the unauthorised duplication issues and not the issues about distribution.

Consider these facts about the proposition:

A steals X from B:
A no longer owns X
X is no longer owned by A.
B now owns X

Now consider the facts about the proposition: A copies X from B without A's consent.


A continues to own X
X is owned by A
X is owned by B
B continues to own X


This difference is fundamental at a very essential level. Theft involves depriving duplication doesn’t. Duplication in some sense adds to the world in a way that theft never could. (There are arguments about “depravation of sale” I think these are very week)

The attitudes and systems that worked for millennia with regards to physical things (steeling, selling, lending. Owning, giving…) simply do not apply to the digital. And there are deep reasons why this is so.

We have to change these attitudes as a social, legal, moral and economic system.

I would like it stated that I don’t endorse piracy in any of its varied forms. Our company has lost and continues (checks Shareaza… yep) to loose direct profit because of piracy.

But, whatever unauthorised copying is, it isn’t theft.

This concepts and exploitations (DRM…) by the MPA, RIAA, BPI will in a few decades be considered laughable.. Our grandchildren will look back and say “You mean you could go to jail for sharing something?”


Now I really should do some work!



Mat

[rmeister0]

I have to disagree with the idea that, just because both A and B are now in posession of item X that a theft has not occurred.

If A bought X from C and C got paid the royalties they are due, and then A copies X and gives it to B, and C does not get paid the royalties they are due, then yes: a theft has occurred.

The fact that nobody has been deprived of physical access to X is not the issue. The issue is that only C is allowed to redistribute X and thus gets to enjoy compensation for it, and in this scenario B is now enjoying the fruits of C's labor without C being compensated for it.

I do copies within the scope of fair use: copies of material I have bought and paid for for my own personal use. I do not give copies of things I have purchased to other people.

I do believe that the MPAA, the RIAA and the BSA vastly overstate losses due to piracy, but I also think it is wrong to wave the hand and state the problem does not exist. I also do not think that draconian DRM schemes are the solution because this is not, inherently, a technological problem.

[MatYadabyte]

Originally Posted by rmeister0

I have to disagree with the idea that, just because both A and B are now in posession of item X that a theft has not occurred.

If A bought X from C and C got paid the royalties they are due, and then A copies X and gives it to B, and C does not get paid the royalties they are due, then yes: a theft has occurred.

This is the “depravation of sale” argument I referred to above. I think its flawed at the logical level and also it is based on pre-digital assumptions about property and ownership. The problems lead to the absurdity of the claim that B has stolen from C.

It might be helpful to think about these things the other way round. Imagine I have a magic bag, you put in one apple and two come out. I go to a fruit shop, buy an apple and duplicate it with my magic bag. I give you the apple. According to your logic that would make you a thief? That’s absurd isn’t it?


Even if we accept the deprivation of sale argument, it still only applies to some of the cases, specifically: It only works in cases where B would have purchased X from C had she not copied it from A. (Its like standing in queue at a CD store woithd a laptop to copy the cds of people queuing)


[QUOTE=rmeister0]The fact that nobody has been deprived of physical access to X is not the issue. The issue is that only C is allowed to redistribute X and thus gets to enjoy compensation for it, and in this scenario B is now enjoying the fruits of C's labor without C being compensated for it.[QUOTE]

You are right here, 100% . If C wants reward for effort C is entitled to that. My argument isn’t about that issue.

My argument is that Unauthorised copying is not theft.

At the moment i am make no claim other than that

best wishes

Mat Ripley

[rmeister0]

This is the “depravation of sale” argument I referred to above. I think its flawed at the logical level and also it is based on pre-digital assumptions about property and ownership. The problems lead to the absurdity of the claim that B has stolen from C.

The point here is that two copies of X have been sold, and C has only been paid for one.

If that isn't theft, then what exactly is it?

It only works in cases where B would have purchased X from C had she not copied it from A.

I hear this argument a lot, and I think it is looking at it the wrong way. If B was not willing to purchase X from C, than B should go without X. Period. The argument implies that it is morally acceptable to take something that you would not be willing to pay for. If I walk out of the Best Buy with a CD under my arm, telling the judge "it isn't theft because I wasn't going to pay for it anyway" wouldn't hold water. There are still two copies existing where C has only been paid for one. Either I pay for the luxury of owning X, or I don't pay and I don't get to have the luxury of owning X.

It might be helpful to think about these things the other way round. Imagine I have a magic bag, you put in one apple and two come out. I go to a fruit shop, buy an apple and duplicate it with my magic bag. I give you the apple. According to your logic that would make you a thief? That’s absurd isn’t it?

This analogy is highly flawed. The magic bag creates the apples by itself without any labor or raw materials required. Real life does not work that way; the items being duplicated still have to originate somewhere, somehow, with real labor done by real people. Music doesn't compose, perform, and record itself. Movies don't write, direct, act, edit, and post themselves. Books don't write themselves (unless you have Stephen King's PowerBook).

But again, if it isn't theft, than what is it?

[MatYadabyte]

Hi Rmeister

I am ejoying this

>>>This analogy is highly flawed. The magic bag creates the apples by itself without any labour or raw materials required. Real life does not work that way; the items being duplicated still have to originate somewhere, somehow, with real labor done by real people.

No! : )

Digital copying IS just like the magic bag. It is a magic bag I can give you the complete works of all the classic authors for free. Nobody looses (ignoring trivial energy senses)

In the case of unauthorised duplication there is close to zero cost. It is a magic bag


>>>> Music doesn't compose, perform, and record itself. Movies don't write, direct, act, edit, and post themselves. Books don't write themselves (unless you have Stephen King's PowerBook).


Absolutely. Again, my position is just "Unauthorised duplication is not theft" nothing more that that. I think artists should be rewarded. And programmers (who can be artists). And band managers and make up artists and the publishers tea-boy.


All we are talking here about is the distribution of media. It used to need hardware, now it doesn’t. Great.

So everyone can still make money, but unfortunately, the people who still make SO MUCH MONEY will start to make less money unless they can adapt in the right ways.

A band, for example, should be able to put their music on their website freely. Anyone can have a copy for free. But if other companies use their work in adverts or on radio shows or DJs etc etc there should be the possibility of payment back to the band .

It’s a kind of pure capitalism that is only possible when there are close to zero delivery costs for products people want. Its capitalism without geography.

Deeply, I feel this is how it should be and could be.

>>>>But again, if it isn't theft, than what is it?

The nearest moral and conceptual equivalent I can give it in my head is that its akin to gossiping. Its not good to do and you shouldn't do it. Maybe jaywalking.


Having fun

Mat

[volwrath]

RM-

If your idea of theft is correct, then what is it when I buy a DRMed digital piece of music and listen to it for a while and decide that I dont want it anymore, but want to sell it? Unfortuanately Apple & Microsoft have stolen my right to sell my "apple", not to mention my right to let others borrow my property. Same question for ebooks. Why can't I sell or let my friends borrow my ebook? Is this not theft?

[rmeister0]

There's no argument that digital technology is removing some of the cost of duplication. It does not eliminate all of them, and the costs of creating content in the first place - while cheaper - can still be high.

Clearly a major problem here is the fact that the major distributors in the business fear being disintermediated. I would have no problem with people creating copies of stuff and passing them along, if a) the creator (not the distributor, but the creator) was able to dictate the terms, and b) a reliable payment mechanism was available to compensate the creator for their work. Unfortunately the only way to implement "a" today is through DRM, and I have yet to see any mechanism for "b" that will work with re-selling content except to rely on the honor system.

There's nothing to stop bands from distributing their own stuff free unless they've signed a contract that states otherwise. But the existance of MP3.COM (before it got sold off) and now "GarageBand.com" shows that this works. Many creatives types are finding ways around the RIAA system, and I think that's great. I think writers have a golden opportunity too; but for things like Television and Movies it gets more problematic, because even a cheap movie can still be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and without serious sponsorship you just can't give away that kind of money.

Volwrath: No, not being able to re-sell your digital content is not theft because you know this is the case before you buy. You are accepting this limitation by participating in the system. No one is stopping you from going to a store and buying a CD instead of a digital download, and paper books are still available by the truckload. If you don't agree with DRM, don't buy DRM'd products. That what I do, and I don't fret about it.

You were allowed to do this in the past because you were purchasing and reselling a physical artifact - a book, a LP, or whatever. You were not reselling the content, but the object the content was a part of. First sale doctrine protected your right to do that. In the digital arena, this does not apply beceause there is not manufactured artifact involved.

[MatYadabyte]

Hi rmeister and volwrath (and anyone else) before I go on I just listened to this and was about post to the thread and saw you ahd. So really, check this Bruce Sterling talk out if you haven’t already.

http://server1.sxsw.com/2006/coverag...ceSterling.mp3


OK….

>>>There's no argument that digital technology is removing some of the cost of duplication. It does not eliminate all of them, and the costs of creating content in the first place - while cheaper - can still be high.

I often wonder as I drive in my car with my Phone or PDA charging, how much does it cost to charge that from the car. Nothing is free, there will be a cost.

This is analogous to the case of duplicating data, its there as a cost but its tiny.

I just don’t think there is a significant or relevant cost to duplicating data, authorised or not.


>>> Clearly a major problem here is the fact that the major distributors in the business fear being disintermediated. I would have no problem with people creating copies of stuff and passing them along, if a) the creator (not the distributor, but the creator) was able to dictate the terms, and b) a reliable payment mechanism was available to compensate the creator for their work. Unfortunately the only way to implement "a" today is through DRM, and I have yet to see any mechanism for "b" that will work with re-selling content except to rely on the honor system.


I have nothing against DRM as a concept.

I believe that people should be able to take reward for their work and stake claim on their work

However if some Norwegian student publishes software that can crack the DRM and someone in Iowa uses the software, those people should not be criminalised. That’s my entire point, unauthorised copying is not theft.

I believe that it is up to the publishers of content to make their content as secure as they feel it needs to be.

I could stress my case the other way: The battle should be between the media companies and the hackers, not between the law (and the media companies) against the hackers and file sharers, et al.


>>>>There's nothing to stop bands from distributing their own stuff free unless they've signed a contract that states otherwise. But the existance of MP3.COM (before it got sold off) and now "GarageBand.com" shows that this works. Many creatives types are finding ways around the RIAA system, and I think that's great. I think writers have a golden opportunity too; but for things like Television and Movies it gets more problematic, because even a cheap movie can still be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and without serious sponsorship you just can't give away that kind of money.


Again, I agree with you. One of the guys in our office is this week going on tour with chart toppers the Ordinary Boys, thanks in part to MySpace.

It’s a wonderful exciting and intriguing time where no one really knows what will happen or what is happening now. It seems to me just wrong that we can criminalise people like we do.

[Snappy!]

It's probably mentioned either here or elsewhere, but most would have to contend with the question: "What do you really buy, when you buy a CD, software, book, pair of jeans, a car, or a house?"

A house is a house. You put four walls up, set a roof on top, its a house. But I believe that if you start coping the designs of a house and build one replica of it, you will get sued by the architect or firm who may own the rights to the design of that particular house. Even if you buy a house, I think you will get sued. So buying a house entails owning the materials that constitute the house, but not owning the rights to the design of it.

In the case of a car, I believe its the same. Just because you buy a Camry does not mean that you are entitled to replicate the car. Now we know that its not that easy to replicate a house or a car compared to a CD (with its content), but assuming that you can, its still illegal, since buying a car merely entitles you to ownership of the materials and functionality that constitutes a car. It does not entitles you to the ownership of the design of the car as well. Otherwise, why should company A spend time designing their own car? Why don't they just go out and buy a ferrari and reverse engineer it and start churning out replicas?

But wait, that's what folks in some countries do, except its for "lesser" items. They do it with designer bags, with clothings etc. And on that, buying a pair of jeans does not entitle you to the design itself, only the material and functionality of it.

Extending this to books, just because it is relatively easier to copy books than clothings, cars or houses does not mean anything has changed. It still applies that ownership is limited to the materials and functionality of the item you own, not its design. In the case of books, the design is the story itself. Sure, you can learn alphabets from it and learn to read and write, thereby "copying" verbally and physically, but to copy out the story in verbatim, its not the same. Copying verbally, or reading it aloud, means the copy is innately transient and cease to exist thereafter. Hence it goes to apply that doing a unauthorised translation would be unlawful as well, since it duplicates the design, or the story or content in the case of a book.

The same goes for a piece of software or a CD, or DVD. The design in all these cases is not owned by the buyer; the buyer only own the material and functionality to the item.

I must further clarify that ownership of functionality should be known as rights to its usage.

Having laid these grounds, most content / design owners would not start suing people over personal use. eg, I believe software companies will not sue if an owner duplicates a software and uses the duplicate CD to do installation while keeping the original retail CD as a "master copy". The line is actually crossed the moment duplication occurs. And its up to the software company to decide to sue or not (assuming they know you duplicated). But they won't sue in this case since the subsequent usage does not infringe on their interest. And I believe in some EULA, this is stated as a right, that users have the right to make duplicate copies for backup purposes. Some companies go to the extent to allow users to install the software on 1 or 2 more machines as long as the user owns those machines and they are the sole user of the software. Other companies state that the user can install on another machine as long as both machines are not in use simultaneously.

I believe most of these would also apply to CD and DVDs with audio or video content.
And this is where DRM comes in.

In the case of a house, car or bag or clothing, it is not a trivial matter to duplicate its material, much less its design. This inherently prevents us from churning out houses, cars and other items for our friends and families. This is DRM by physical material. In the electronic world, its a different ball game.

Analog tapes can be copied with varying fidelity in quality. But enter the digital realm, and suddenly we say hello to happy cloning. Because the copies are verbatim and the process of copy is not trivial, the traditional DRM by physical material is suddenly gone. Without this in place, who is to say that we will not copy our software and start distributing it because we feel its too pricy? Cars are pricy. Designer bags are pricy. But we don't go around duplicating cars or bags or houses because duplication requires too much efforts. And that's also why fake LV bags are available, because the effort to duplicate is low compared with the returns.

Digital Rights Management hence comes in to replace the DRM by physical material. Of cos we all know that its there to stop ppl from duplicating content. Understanding the comparison with how "DRM" is enforced for more brick-and-mortar items may help us better understand why DRM itself is here.

However, the pertinent question may become "Isn't it great that the digital world allows us to duplicate things at minimal cost? Why stem it?". Sure. Why stem it? Why not duplicate all the contents and share the love around? Well, in some parts of the world, that's called communism. Ok, don't laugh. But seriously think for awhile. It is, isn't it? Why, if digital duplication worked in the real world with houses and cars, communism would not have collapsed if you asked me. For that matter, if it worked, then capitalism itself may become irrelevant as well (which may not be a bad thing altogether).

If it were possible, then we could all open source and start fabbing cars and houses and all the stuffs that we all need. But wait, even if digital duplication works in the physical world, you still need the material to create the copy. Ok, so then we may need to really start creating new material items to form the copies.

But unfortunately, digital copying only works in the digital realm. And the truth is, if copying and giving or selling to others is not outlawed, what is the impetus for anyone to buy something they already own? Albeit a copy.

[MatYadabyte]

Hi Snappy and everyone

>>>It's probably mentioned either here or elsewhere, but most would have to contend with the question: "What do you really buy, when you buy a CD, software, book, pair of jeans, a car, or a house?"


When you buy something you by many aspects of that thing. The thing in itself. The use of the thing. The brand, the support, the lifestyle niche, the authenticity, the quality or the lack of quality.

In the case of digital the same applies, but what I believe is certain is that you are not buying the actual digits.




>>>…. The line is actually crossed the moment duplication occurs. And its up to the software company to decide to sue or not (assuming they know you duplicated). But they won't sue in this case since the subsequent usage does not infringe on their interest.

The very fact they can sue is where this problem begins.

>>>This is DRM by physical material. In the electronic world, its a different ball game.

That’s an interesting take


>>>However, the pertinent question may become "Isn't it great that the digital world allows us to duplicate things at minimal cost?

Yes it is great!!!! Its not just great its awesome!


>>>Why stem it?". Sure. Why stem it? Why not duplicate all the contents and share the love around? Well, in some parts of the world, that's called communism.

I’ m not sure which parts of the world or which version of communism you are talking about :P

>>Ok, don't laugh.

Couldn’t help it!

>>>If it were possible, then we could all open source and start fabbing cars and houses and all the stuffs that we all need.

I think there are pretty fundamental laws of the universe, like the special theory of relativity, the uncertainty principle that mean that the duplication of objects is going to be either impossible or very expensive in energy costs alone.


>>>But unfortunately, digital copying only works in the digital realm. And the truth is, if copying and giving or selling to others is not outlawed, what is the impetus for anyone to buy something they already own? Albeit a copy.

In much the same way as when some proto cell billions of years ago changed the world when it went and divided, the world changed when we could duplicate information indefinitely with insignificant cost. Things changed. The world is different.

I’m not sure exactly what the impetus is to buy something which you could have a free copy of. Should anyone really be expected to know this so soon into the game?

But, for the sake of getting it down on paper (these thoughts have been in my head for a while) I’ll say how I think it should be using music as an example.


*A band makes music.
*Their music is sold on their website at a price that most fans are willing to pay.
** Fans like to support their band and also fans like a sense of belonging etc
*When the bands music is played on TV or Radio etc the band should/could get a cut from this.
*The band make money from concerts and merchandise etc
Pirates Ahoy!
*Pirates have hacked the DRM and release the music on the P2P nets.
**The band are cool with that, unless they are Metalica. They loose perhaps some revenue but they get free publicity etc etc
*** the band or (if they have one) the publishing company might decide that they want to crack down on piracy, so they change DRM etc etc. They engage in this to and fro with the hackers.
*Nobody goes to jail or gets sued.

(Incidentally, I think it’s a different issue to profiteer from the unauthorised duplication)


As I said in a post a few pages up, people and companies should still be able to make money from their content. But those involved in physical distribution will have to take a hit, just like the coopers and the thatchers and the black smiths.


What fun!



Mat

[StuBear]

DRM is not about "Rights" it is about RESTRICTIONS!

All DRM does is restrict what you can do with what you purchase. If you buy a regular CD there is nothing from stopping you from playing it in your house, car, office or lending it to your friend and letting them play it too. (NOTE: I'm not going into the moral or legal arguements about copying this CD, this is about where I can use this product I paid for)

The exact same is true for a book, there is no restriction on where I can read this book or what I can do with it after I finish reading it - I can lend to others, re-sell it or even give it away if I wish.

Enter DRM, I no longer have any of these rights, instead the content distributors (this is very rarely the authors/artists themselves) now place restrictions on what I can do with my music or ebooks. They tell me where I can play it, sometimes even how many times I can play it, and if you look at how Apple has changes ITunes, they also usually have ways in place to add further restrictions without you consent!

When ITunes first came out, I could stream music to 10 other computers, this was changed to 5 after I had purchased music from ITunes - the "contract" I agreed to when I purchased the music has been changed without my consent!

Also look at DVDs, can you honestly tell me that region locking - a from of DRM - has anything to do with preventing me from copying a DVD? I'm currently living in Japan and have quite a collection of DVDs that are region 2, if I return to Australia to live nd buy a new DVD player (Japan is NTSC and 110V, Australia PAL and 240V) I can no longer play the DVDs because Australia is region 4. This has nothing to do with pirating DVDs, in fact the only way I can watch them is to use quasi-legal software to copy these DVDs and remove the region locking.

What right do you have to play your legally purchased ITunes music on an IRiver should your IPod get broken? None - DRM takes away your rights and makes media temporary, so unless they keep the prices really low so that people don't mind throwing it away when they get a new player/reader, all DRM does is press people into looking for shady ways to keep what they paid for.

Stu

P.S Do you know how long it takes for an DRM free verison of the latest ITunes hit to become available after it's release via ITunes?

180 seconds on average

[rmeister0]

Snappy: As a side note, the clothing industry does not have any intellectual property protections aside from brand trademarks. So...actually, you can copy a pair of designer jeans and make your own. This is why knock-off brands are perfectly legal, and why clothing products have the shelf-life of skim milk.

Software is a different critter, because it is licensed rather than sold. We make duplicates of our software installation media at the office all the time; one copy up to a shared network drive to make installation easier, and another copy goes into an off-site vault for disaster recovery purposes. But we are also extremely careful to ensure that the number of seats installed complies with the licenses we have purchased. This doesn't quite apply to DVDs, CDs and books as you don't typically "install" them (badly-done Sony CDs excepted).

To call digital data sharing communism is not quite an accurate term, as it refers to an economic model of state ownership. However the point is taken, that most economic systems are dependant on the definition and protection of property rights, and capitalism probably the most so. But here's the rub: to some degree, capitalism is all about managing scarcity of resources, and what MatYadabyte keeps coming back to is that in the digital domain this scarcity does not exist, or at least is substantially reduced.

In some ways, Snappy, you are asking the same question that Bill Gates did in his infamous "Open Letter", which is if people keep trading software free, what will be the incentive for programmers to write it? The open source community provides some answers to that, but the question can be applied on a broader term. Sure, musicians could get paid for live performances, but what's the incentive for a movie studio to bankrole the next Lord of the Rings movie if their cost is $300 million and their gross receipts are $0?

When you buy something you by many aspects of that thing. The thing in itself. The use of the thing. The brand, the support, the lifestyle niche, the authenticity, the quality or the lack of quality.

I'm not being snarky about this, but my curmudgeon brain has to pipe up. You get the artifact. Nothing else. Just because I own an iMac doesn't make me an artist, even if I get a pony tail, drive a Mini Cooper, and wear little round glasses. The lifestyle piece is a purely artificial conciet created by marketing types to make you feel good about spending money on their product that is in many ways just like all the cheaper alternatives.

(In case that sounds too negative, I will point out that I am typing this on my Apple Wireless keyboard, using my Apple Wireless mouse, on my 17" iMac, with an iPod with Video sitting next to me on the desk, wondering when Apple will sell me a PDA!)

The reason most bands don't have a problem with digital piracy is because it really doesn't effect them. It is bad for record labels, but not for them because they don't make much money from album royalties anyway. The ASCAP/BMI payments they get is likewise a pittance.

StuBear: Region codes are widely misunderstood; they exist to preserve a distribution model that had been in place for a very long time. Most studio had legal agreements with third parties in smaller markets to re-distribute their titles to those markets. The incentive to do so goes away if people in those markets just import the R1 discs on release date.

There are perfectly legal ways around region coding. I could buy a DVD player from the UK and use a voltage transformer. Then I could pipe the signal into an outboard standards convertor that I bought years ago for watching overseas tapes. The region code system is not subverted, and I have broken no laws. It's a pain in the ass and I shouldn't have to do it - my purchasing a legal, authorized DVD should be sufficient.

(It should also be pointed out that, contrary to the way it is usually reported, CSS encryption is not a copy-protection scheme. It is a patent-protection scheme, ensuring that any device capable of playing a CSS-encrypted disc has paid royalties to the DVD Consortium to get the decryption key. That royalty is what prevented open-source DVD players for a long time.)

Re: iTunes, for me the problems is not to much the DRM, which is pretty innocuous except for the hardware limitation you mention; it is the use of an audio codec that, while not proprietary, is not widely used. I've gone back to buying physical CDs in most cases. That, and the quantity of titles available on those durable little discs far exceeds what any on-line store has to offer.