Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Says "Don't Expect DRMed Music To Work Forever"

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-ask-what-and-whether-you're-buying-or-renting dept.

Media 749

Oracle Goddess writes "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."

cancel ×

749 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Forever? (5, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884889)

As a proud user of GStreamer-based media players, I didn't expect it to work at all.

Re:Forever? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28884941)

In other words, "We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to receive a consumers' money".

Re:Forever? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885059)

No one cares about Linux losers.

Just because we can't kill lawyers... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28884893)

...doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

that will keep your customers happy (2, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884899)

NOT!

you keep shooting yourself in the foot and pretty soon you wont have a leg to stand on, i already quit buying your products, this is a good way to get even more people to quit buying your products...

Re:that will keep your customers happy (5, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884919)

They don't care. Providing product isn't in their business model anyway.

Re:that will keep your customers happy (3, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885233)

We're discussing Record Megacorps not the Sopranos. They eanr their money by providing product, not extortion.

(somebody whispers in my ear)

What's that? RIAA sends out extortionate letters demanding $5000 or else? Really? Oh. Well then I retract my statement. They really are like the mafia.

iTunes makes this a non-issue (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885093)

iTunes music no longer has DRM, and several other music services also no longer have DRM, so I think this isn't as big an issue as the Slashdot readership will no doubt make it in the comments that follow. This is another story intended let everyone blame the RIAA for their piracy, I guess, as if that's a valid reason.

Re:iTunes makes this a non-issue (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885221)

Yes it is. The point is DRM in general, not just DRM for your particular music in your particular format, from your particular vendor. The decisions made now about DRM will set precident for Movies, Books, Software, and technologies we don't even consider now, possibly including virtual worlds, 3d models for 3d-printers, and who knows what else.

Re:iTunes makes this a non-issue (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885335)

First-off, I thought only *some* music was non-DRMed. So it would still be an issue if you bought a DRMed song.

Second we have to deal with the problems of existing DRM, like some of my older DVDs or VHS tapes that refuse to play properly because of embedded copy-protection. These videos worked fine on my old CRT, but not on the new flat-panel LCD. Watching videos color cycle and/or have blinking lines on them is not fun.

And of course if they die, there's no method for me to resurrect them from a backup, because even though the U.S. Supreme Court said backups are legal, I still haven't found a way to do that.

So yes DRM is still an issue in many aspects.

How do you respond to that? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884913)

I guess I won't be buying DRM'd music, much like how we all stopped buying DRM'd music, for that reason.

So... I guess... you lose Mr Metalitz? Is this your final answer?

Music as a service (1)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884927)

This is the "music as a service" model. Soon, they will try to take control even on my volume knob.

Re:Music as a service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28884997)

Yes, the RIAA announced back in the 1980s that they were aiming to move towards a "pay per play" model.

Re:Music as a service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885043)

Your volume knob will be replaced by a coin slot.

Re:Music as a service (1)

busman (136696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885051)

Re:Music as a service (2, Informative)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885261)

LOL. Of course, I'm sure you're trying to be funny, but don't forget, they did this because of a lawsuit (and French law), and for the non-French one, they don't control the volume, they allow you to set your own limits. To quote from your linked article:

Apple's worldwide vice-president of marketing for the iPod, Greg Joswiak, indicated that this patch is available for people who want "an easy-to-use option to set their own personal volume limit." It is available for free download.

That's funny (4, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884931)

... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?

People who buy DRM'ed media content are idiots. It's not as if the record companies have tried to hide their sense of entitlement, or their unethical beliefs and attitudes. It would be different if they had, but as things stand, there's nothing else to do but blame the "victims" who keep giving them their money.

Stop feeding the machine [riaaradar.com] , people.

Re:That's funny (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885129)

Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?

Re:That's funny (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885189)

no, they are perfectly able to buy a can of brasso and a rag, or burn another copy from the perfect digital copy they made of the content which they purchased.

Re:That's funny (2, Insightful)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885211)

That is the user's fault. DRM's inevitable downfall, on the other hand, is completely out of their control.

Re:That's funny (4, Interesting)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885249)

But this is more like a case of the retailer showing up at your door and breaking the disc in half. In that case, you bet I better get a replacement from that retailer.

If they're shutting down their DRM server, then they need to release non-DRMd copies of the music to the end user... Well... Actually, I guess that depends on the EULA. Someone care to check it?

Re:That's funny (3, Insightful)

rkfig (1016920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885259)

No, they shouldn't, but they should have the right to keep the CD in a place where a suit from the RIAA can't intentionally scratch the CD to make sure that it will not play at any time they like. The industry has never been expected to make physical products that are indestructible, but they have never been capable of destroying the product at any moment with no notice. Important difference.

Re:That's funny (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885315)

I think the difference is that the user damanaged the CD themselves, where as they did nothing to "damage" the DRM music. The company which orginally sold the music to you broke your purchase, and there's nothing the consumer can do about it.

Re:That's funny (2, Insightful)

Indras (515472) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885331)

Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?

That argument doesn't work. If I buy a chair from you, and I do not properly take care of it, and eventually it becomes unusable, that is MY fault. If I buy a chair from you, use it properly and care for it, and one day the chair just suddenly falls apart, that is YOUR fault. See the difference?

Re:That's funny (4, Insightful)

jerep (794296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885183)

... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?

Very good point, the RIAA's purpose isnt to distribute music, they do not care about the music nor the customer, they only care about their money and controlling the market to get more money.

They say DRMed music isnt to work forever, I say the RIAA wont work forever either, they're getting desperate for attention and control, and they're losing bits of it everyday. Music existed long before the RIAA, and will live on long after.

Re:That's funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885253)

Nope, you paid for a non-guaranteed service, you don't have a right to demand a refund.

If you do want that right, talk to the people writing the laws, or sign better contracts.

Re:That's funny (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885263)

Stop feeding the machine, people.

Yes! Go ahead, and waste your vote. HAHAHAHAHA

Re:That's funny (5, Insightful)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885365)

The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?

Just start buying your CD's in bulk directly from the RIAA, with checks written in disappearing ink...

How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (4, Insightful)

bagboy (630125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884937)

If you don't want drm, buy the cd and rip.

Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (3, Insightful)

cabjf (710106) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885099)

Or buy from iTunes or Amazon. Neither one uses DRM for their music purchases anymore (I don't think Amazon ever did). How many major, non-subscription based music stores use DRM for music anymore?

Who's To Blame? YOU! (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885223)

If you don't want drm, buy the cd and rip.

This is the obvious solution. People still buying into the DRM Music Download deal really have no one to blame but themselves at this point. As long as those services keep raking in the cash-ola for these IP Trolls - I mean entertainment companies - they will keep pushing forward with this business. People keep saying they are "shooting themselves in the foot" but all I see is business as usual, people keep forking over money for DRM crippled downloaded music services.

Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (4, Funny)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885237)

Or borrow it from your friends, then rip and enjoy, then give it to your other friends. I just share all my content now and barely purchase anything. Never used P2P either. Just sneakernet. Gotta love those cheap 1TB drives! Eat me MPAA, I give away movies and you can't stop shit. Sue me! I'm a fucking pirate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm still here, and I'm still giving away movies, assholes. 80GB of MP3s and 100+ iPod ready movies and counting... my friends disks are so fucking full!!1! What's a Blue Rae?

Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885347)

Clearly you haven't read up on the fact that many CDs DO have DRM.

Re:How many times do we have to hear about DRM?? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885353)

That works, until they stop selling CDs. Didn't you read this same story when it ran yesterday?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/1558219/The-Downsides-to-Digital-Distribution [slashdot.org]

The interesting part is not the next model Play Station won't have an optical drive, it's that it won't have a hard drive.

All content will be streaming. If you stop paying, you stop playing.

Music is heading in the same direction. It's not that in some far away date in the future the DRM servers might go down and you won't be able to authenticate your files.

You won't have files--music, games, movies, books. All will be provided live as a service. Stop paying the monthly change, or can't connect/authenticate to the mother ship, then no content for you.

Dear Mr. Metalitz (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28884939)

... Fuck you.

Re:Dear Mr. Metalitz (1)

vintagepc (1388833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885009)

Amen to that. BTW, If this happened to me, and they took away content I'd legally paid for, I would immediately head over to our friends in sweden to get it back, minus the DRM.

I've paid for it, I want to be able to use it WHENEVER I WANT... NOT WHEN YOU DECIDE ITS CONVENIENT TO LET ME USE IT.

Re:Dear Mr. Metalitz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885185)

I was going to write a well thought out rebuttal, but the parent's comment is much more concise and to the point.

Illegal (5, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884953)

So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?

I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!

Re:Illegal (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885367)

So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?

I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!

They would, against the consumers for bitching about it.

I half agree with him (5, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884957)

We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.

Yes of course. But that's because the creative works should be public domain after a while. And I don't mean after 70+ years either.

Re:I half agree with him (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885169)

Since they are using copyright to sell works which will stop working, doesn't that break copyright?

Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?

Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public? After all, if copyright on existing works is extended, you're taking away from the public what was supposed to become theirs under the original deal when the work was created - and you're NOT increasing the incentive for the corpse of Ub Iwerks to create Mickey Mouse for Walt Disney 70 years previously when you extend the copyright...

So isn't it simply a land grab? Taking something away from others simply because you have the greed and the power to do so?

Can't the same be said for DRM? Taking the benefits of the copyright/public domain bargain while not holding up your end of the bargain?

And can't the same be said of breaking fair use?

Re:I half agree with him (4, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885333)

Sorry to repeat myself here but... the deal was that in getting copyright, they are providing society, the public domain, with perpetual access. So the official RIAA position is they are rejecting the purpose of and requirements of copyright law.

OK with me - the RIAA rejects their end of the bargain, I reject my end of it.

Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (1)

Pitr (33016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884961)

I mean... really? I don't even have a lame/wildly inaccurate car analogy to throw at this one, I'm just in awe of how dumb this is.

Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (4, Interesting)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885035)

From TFA:

mreposter
When GM went bankrupt they didn't come and take away everybody's car keys.

Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885045)

Its like buying a car that only works as long as the manufacturer is in business.

But hey, its not like anything will happen to the manufacturer. They'll be in business forever, right?

Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885171)

As an added bonus, once people buy into this we can start selling the next level: you have to pay extra for a "forever" license to drive (where forever is "as long as we are in business") or you can rent the car on a monthly/yearly basis. Oh and by the way, the car only works on our toll roads.

Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885179)

Screwyou Inc. sells cars made to run on Screwyou Inc. gasoline. They tell you ahead of time that they'll stop selling this kind of gas at some point in the future. But, they'll sue you if you put another company's gas in the car.

Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (0, Flamebait)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885193)

I mean... really? I don't even have a lame/wildly inaccurate car analogy to throw at this one, I'm just in awe of how dumb this is.

"If you put petrol in your car, do you expect it to last forever? So why would you expect the music in your Zune to last forever? Just as you need to fill up your car to keep it running, so do you need to fill up your mp3-player to keep listening to music."

Re:Brings "out of touch" to a whole new level... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885207)

If the consumer agrees to it, it's completely fine. That is what copyright grants the owner, after all, complete control of the content from a legal perspective.

Obligatory (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884967)

Car Analogy, I choose you!

I'd like to sell you a car, it's brand new and gets great gas mileage. Oh, but only you can drive it, no fair letting someone else borrow it without them paying us. And you can only drive it on roads that we say are ok. You also have to bring it in to the shop once a week, or it will stop working. If you're out of town and can't get it into the shop, it'll stop working until you do, and if the shop goes out of business or just doesn't want to work on your car anymore, well, that's just too bad; we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885065)

And if you choose to look under the hood to see why it stopped working, we will sue you. If you remove the MakeItNotWork-O-Meter so that the car runs, we will prosecute. If you publish your findings, we will have you branded a terrorist.

Terminology (4, Insightful)

chebucto (992517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884985)

So, according to him, noone ever 'buys' movies or music; they just rent them until they break.

I almost hope he wins; stupid restrictions like this only increase the incentive to avoid DRM.

Re:Terminology (1)

zeldor (180716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885247)

They are allowed to view any future sale of a DRM infested product as a rental/lease.
Im all for this. However my price point of renting vs buying something is 1/10th
the current asking price. I will always go for the unencumbered cd route
if I want to buy music. though if the band themselves offers .wav files I would
buy those as well.

It is fair (1)

R4nm4-kun (1302737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28884995)

I guess people who bend over and buy DRMed music deserve this.

Seriously? (5, Interesting)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885003)

Record sales are slowing down, and you are trying to cash in on the digital economy. How do you go about it? Well, if you're the RIAA, you publicly come out and announce to everyone that you are going to sell them a product that can arbitrarily stop working. Ugh, I really hope that the RIAA is not long for this world. Oh, and if they start getting bailout money I am leaving the country, mark my words. They have undermined their own business and they deserve to fail.

Re:Seriously? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885127)

And go where? There are idiots everywhere, they rule the planet.

Re:Seriously? (2, Interesting)

Mango Fett (1457557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885281)

I echo your "Seriously?" sentimonies. I am constantly giving my girlfriend shit for infringing copyrights, but this is insane. I read it to be "Just because you buy something from us doesn't give you the right to listen to it x time from now". Bullshit indeed!

While I have been sympathetic to their generic argument "You want to listen to this song, then you should buy it", I am starting to think they've taken a few hundred miles with the inch I gave them.

Perchance this is how pirates are born?

Thank you for your recent iTunes purchase! (1)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885017)

As a sidenote, this mp3 has DRM technology embedded in it, and will self destruct in 10...9...

Re:Thank you for your recent iTunes purchase! (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885109)

Erm, FWIW, iTunes has almost--if not completely--removed DRM. Additionally, Jobs was very public about not wanting DRM from the start, and it was the record companies that insisted. Jobs wanted to limit DRM to the admonition that came with every new iPod when it first came out, and maybe still does: "Don't steal music."

Re:Thank you for your recent iTunes purchase! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885205)

Erm, FWIW, iTunes has almost--if not completely--removed DRM. Additionally, Jobs was very public about not wanting DRM from the start, and it was the record companies that insisted. Jobs wanted to limit DRM to the admonition that came with every new iPod when it first came out, and maybe still does: "Don't steal music."

But remember that he has a completely different stance when it comes to movies. Especially ones made by Disney/Pixar.

Bang your head! (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885023)

Metalitz will drive you mad!

double dipping (4, Insightful)

rpillala (583965) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885031)

The only way right now to reasonably sell people the same, say, movie is to release it in a different format (dvd, now bluray) or to include some extras or a shiny box or whatever. Something different, no matter how small.

Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.

Re:double dipping (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885135)

Well it's a good thing that all my music is in the PlaysForSure format! I'm sure I'll never have a problem with that, after all, Microsoft and Yahoo both support it.

Wait... what's that you say?

Re:double dipping (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885291)

When you buy fruit, do you expect it to stay fresh forever?

Given that the RIAA has now publicly stated that they don't think they need to continue to support DRM, buyers can factor the likelihood of the files rotting into their purchasing decisions.

There is some room for consumers to claim it is confusing, but show me a guy who has been burned twice.

They are Goblins. (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885055)

Everyone knows that when a muggle or a wizard buys a goblin made object, it is not really sold. It is licensed to the user but eventually it should be returned to the maker.

"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."

"But if it was bought ---"

"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it [the Sword of Gryffindor] ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."

Re:They are Goblins. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885209)

What a great quote! Totally hilarious. And especially funny considering that JK Rowling has had at least one of her own IP lawsuits.

Re:They are Goblins. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885225)

Too bad for Metalitz the Confundus Charm doesn't work in real life.

Is he a goblin? (harry potter reference) (1, Redundant)

sckeener (137243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885063)

He sounds like a goblin from the Harry Potter books, the last book in fact. Goblins in that universe think that only the creator owns something and everyone else is renting the item. They strongly dislike the practice of humans passing heritage items down the family tree and think that when the 'renter' dies such items should be returned to their creator. (ok...I geeked out a bit there...and yeah, I've read the books too many times....)

In Regards... (4, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885067)

Dear RIAA,

In regards to your notice that you feel it is fair to arbitrarily remove something I have purchased from my possession (via disabling DRM'd music), I wish to inform you that you will never, ever, ever get another cent from me. I wish you good luck in maintaining your failing empire as it crumbles down around you for I am certain I am far from the only person who is disgusted at your activities and your outright contempt for me as a "customer." Thus I am certain others will also forgo purchasing your latest CD from Pop Star X and chose to instead invest that entertainment dollar in something - anything - that is of value. Your product no longer has value.

Thank you and goodbye.

Re:In Regards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885273)

Dear Whisper Jeff, Thank you for your interest in the RIAA! Please find your summons below. We are suing you for defamation. We will get your money one way or another. Thanks! RIAA

Important things to note: (4, Insightful)

mejesster (813444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885069)

Yes, what Metalitz says is true, that rightsholders cannot be expected to provide copies that work in perpetuity, but never have rightsholders had the ability to REMOVE the legally purchased right to consume said product. Either rightsholders must accept the burden of maintaining availability, or they must not require DRM. Not a legal opinion, a moral one.

This is simple. (5, Insightful)

Static-MT (727400) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885071)

Let's stop making such a big deal about this. The solution is simple. DO NOT BUY DRMed MEDIA! There's plenty of quality media available outside the recording industry. Articles like these need to go away IMO.

Dear Recording Industry Execs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885091)

What part of "tongue my asshole after a nice greasy shit" did you not understand?

Open letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885095)

Mr. Metalitz also is a partner at Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP, specializing in intellectual property, privacy, e-commerce and information law and policy advocacy. As counsel to the Creative Incentive Coalition, he was instrumental in the drafting of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

Dear Mr Metalitz,

You are a complete cunt.

Regards,

The World

No problem (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885117)

"Forever" is exactly how long it will be before I buy it in the first place.

Turnabout is fair play (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885139)

This is why I, back when iTunes still had DRM on its offerings, considered it perfectly reasonable and ethical to run any purchases through JHymn (and later Requiem) as soon as I'd bought them. It's also why I've done exactly the same thing with the few digital movies I've purchased. Also I taught my daughter, wife, and several friends how to do it, and explained (often in tedious detail) why this was necessary to protect their purchases, what with music companies failing and shutting down their license servers....

The bottom line is: These guys have no interest in customer satisfaction at all. The business mantra used to be "The Customer is King"; but with groups like the RIAA/MPAA, the customer is perceived as only having value for as long as his/her wallet is open.

I support this fully. (1)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885149)

I support this fully... as I am purchasing everything with my new DRM'd money. He can't expect it to stay in his account forever now, can he?

cashing in on ignorance (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885151)

The only reason this works for the *AA is because most people don't know any better. They want music. They go buy music. End of story. Try to explain it to a technologically illiterate person and their eyes will glaze over before you've finished saying MP3.

In other words... (1)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885155)

They only license the copies, not sell them. Hmmm.

Last I read, a license is a form of a contract that defines who may legally do what, what each party is agreeing to, has liability for, etc. and has to be agreeable to both parties in advance. For example, when I apply for a driver's license, I agree to certain things, but the governments obligation is that they will [at least here in the US and most of the time] enforce them fairly.

How does, you bought a copy without signing and agreement but we unilaterally reserve the right to make it "not work" fit under copyright again? which governs copying and performance for profit, NOT ownership?

Hmmm.....

Cars are creations... (1)

Vrykoulakas (706735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885157)

And if they just stopped working for no reason you can be sure there'd be hell to pay... at least in a court somewhere... That's some pretty flawed logic...

The shot heard 'round the world (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885161)

'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works," writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer

This is why we have a second amendment.

If I buy a CD and I destroy it myself, fine, but if a corporation somehow uses DRM to deactivate it* then I consider that theft.

We don't tolerate thieves around these parts. Not that I would kill someone over one bricked CD, but if my whole 1000-disc collection stopped working, effectively stealing $1500 from me (which is 150 hours of my personal labor), somebody's gonna refund my money..... hopefully voluntarily.

*
* (Yes I know CDs don't have DRM. It's just an example.)

Corollary (0)

rlp (11898) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885163)

Don't expect me to buy DRM'ed music ever.

Then Stop Calling it "Intellectual Property" (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885173)

When we (Slashdot readers who are against this kind of Copyright abuse) talk in this debate from now on we should refuse to use to use the term "Intellectual Property."

It's obvious by this view that the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to buy a damn thing. When you sell "Property" you don't get the right for it to revert back to you.

So STFU and don't use that term. Come up with something else, RIAA greedhead.

It's got to be terrifying... (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885181)

...to realize you've reached the end game.

Everybody even remotely involved with movies or music from the beginning probably assumed that new formats would come along with new opportunities for both creativity, as well as profit; companies could be angry that the phonograph was stealing money away from their piano roll business, until they jumped into the phonograph business themselves.

Now with music and movies, and everything, being nothing more than a pile of bits, there's simply nowhere to go. Digital is the perfect medium insofar as there's nothing that anyone can conceive of coming after; people could imagine smaller records, color movies, etc., no one has even hinted at the possibility of something to replace a digital file.

So more than anything, they realize that an mp3 will be available forever and ever; it's even *more* perfect because it can be changed to fit the need (burning to a cd, etc.). The problem is that they see the problem from a purely infrastructure point of view: "we have to keep these drm servers running forever? No freaking way!" On top of that, it's only going to go further downhill; the tunes that are DRM'ed today will likely be un-DRM'ed later today, and will eventually get out onto the wider market, so not only are they spending a lot of money keeping up a bunch of servers, the servers become more expensive over time for all the work they're *not* doing as people eventually find the non-DRM version.

Lose now, lose more later.

Fax me: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885187)

202-355-7899 tell steve I said hi. Distribute to 4chan, adios.

Warning/Disclaimer? (4, Interesting)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885199)

What if there was a warning/disclaimer before every purchase of DRM'd media (music, books, etc) that said something to the effect of:
"This content contains digital protections to prevent copyright infringement. Part of these protections mean that if we decide to stop supporting this content or go out of business then you will never be able to legally access this content."

Just so people know what they're getting into. After all, it would only be a fair full disclosure of what they're buying and it might make people think twice about buying DRM'd media, but then again, I doubt the warnings on cigarettes really make people think twice about smoking.

Ouch. (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885217)

That's gotta hurt. How long before a retraction/denial/sacking?

It doesn't matter. Most consumers learned long ago that this is the basic way of thinking with large music-related corporations. That's *why* piracy is so high. And the music industry still makes money (I have NO idea how, but it does... vast amounts).

All this will do is increase piracy by another tiny percentage. That's it. The people who were borderline will think "That's enough" and everyone else will carry on as normal. And then there'll be another stupid announcemnt/technology/law/restriction and the borderline will shift again and again and again until, actually, *nobody* cares at all.

Please, please, RIAA... consider what would have happened if you went back in the time to all the previous stupid announcements you've made and proclaimed the OPPOSITE. Consider what people would be using now instead of torrent'd MP3's - cheap non-DRM music from YOUR store (and now from Amazon nearly 10 YEARS too late). The next generation are being taught to ignore you, whether accidentally or not, and you won't exist to them - they have iPod's loaded up with MP3's and copy and share them indiscriminately, in the same way that schoolkids are basically taught to copy/paste images from Google Images into their coursework. The laws that *do* protect your business will become more like guidelines, until eventually they are never enforced at all.

You're digging your own grave, and everyone is watching you, but you're the only one not to see it.

He's categorically wrong. (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885231)

This statement is completely wrong.

"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

Computers and other products might wear out, but they do not have a "kill switch" that will stop them from working after a specific date, or at the request of the vendor. If you take care of computer hardware, automobiles, other physical objects, they can last a lifetime. The same is true for music, books, and other physical media. DRMed content contains such a "kill switch"... once the server goes down, it's gone.

People used to joke about "having to buy the White Album again", but they didn't actually have to do it, they could keep playing the vinyl copy when CDs came along, and even iTunes didn't make the forty year old LP turn into dust. DRM gives the music industry a new capability, the ability to force EVERYONE to "buy the White Album again" by taking down a single server.

If that's what was agreed ... (0, Flamebait)

CyberLife (63954) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885241)

I see nothing wrong with the RIAA's stance here ... assuming of course one was aware of this at the time of sale. If not, if there was some expectation of perpetual access to the work, then there's a problem.

Don't expect my $$ in your company's hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28885265)

Well if I can't expect the music to work forever, then don't expect my money to find it sway into your hands forever. it's that simple...

That's OK! (2, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885277)

'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.'

That's OK, many of us personally reject the view that the copy rights you hold should last as long as they do. So you keep selling stuff with the intention of breaking it a few years down the road so you can sell it again, and we'll keep not buying it.

Amazon called. (2, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885295)

They want their idea back.
(I admit, that's not really fair to them. It wasn't their fault.)

like the old days? (2, Informative)

bb5ch39t (786551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885307)

OK, for us oldies who used to buy "vinyl" records. The more you played the record, the faster it degraded in quality. If you really liked the record, you ended up buying it multiple times. This was before it was easy to record it onto tape. The RIAA wants to return to the days of yesteryear when they could sell a song, the same song by the same artist, multiple times. That appears to be their mindset. After all, in the days of records, you couldn't return a damaged record for a new one. So they had a limited life. And so, in their mind, should all "creative works". I imagine a number of book publishers hate me. I have books that I have reread many times over the years. All for a single "license fee". But, as with records, books "wear out" (paper ages and degrades). I now have a number of books in PDF form. They will never wear out.

False analogy. (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885309)

No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

False analogy. If Sony sells me a computer that must connect to Sony's servers for some reason or it stops working, you bet I would expect them to keep the servers up in perpetuity. And as soon as the servers went down, I would be hacking the shit out of that hardware. And you know what? No reasonable judge/jury would condemn me for doing it.

Copyright owners are free to demand things like DRM in exchange for a license to use their work. But a license is merely a contract, and ALL contracts come with an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and certain equitable defenses such as "frustration of purpose". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration_of_purpose [wikipedia.org]

By shutting down the DRM servers, Walmart has clearly not held up its end of the bargain. And any reasonable judge/jury would refuse to find copyright infringement.

A better analogy would be:

You sell me a horse, and the contract of sale states that I have to buy all the horse's food from you. Later, you stop selling horse food. You claim that I must honor the contract and let the horse die. But any reasonable person would see that there is no reason for the horse to die - that is stupid and wasteful. Instead, a reasonable judge/jury would let me out of the contract.

Conspiracy to encourage customers to break the law (2, Insightful)

Wardish (699865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885311)

One could make a good argument that DRM is proof of a conspiracy to steal music as well as encouraging or even insisting that customers break the DMCA.

They absolutely know that DRM encourages such behavior so that legal owners of the music must do so in order to retain the ability to play the music they have purchased.

Last I heard we had the right to make a backup copy but the DMCA trumps that. So a legal right is made impossible which encourages customers to commit crimes. Now I'm not saying that they aren't breaking the law. But rioting does not excuse inciting a riot.

Falsly getting my hopes up... (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885313)

I thought the headline was implying the RIAA was admitting DRM on music won't work forever as an anti-piracy measure and they're advocating for content producers to stop using it.

On a side note, I completely agree with him that content producers should not be required to perpetually provide access to the content. Once they decide to stop supporting the content, it can be claimed by the public domain and no longer be the responsiblity of the corporations. Now we just need some sort of law that guides the process of content being moved to the public domain in a reasonable time.

I love it! (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885319)

Ever been to a car dealership where all the car engines come equipped with a remote-controlled bomb designed to render them useless after an undefined amount of time, regardless that you're still paying full price for a full purchase, not a rental? That's what the RIAA is advertizing right now.

Books aren't perpetual either (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885327)

Cheaper paperbacks are printed on a high acid wood pulp paper. After a while (depending mostly on temperature) they fall apart. I have some novels that are only 15 years old and they are pretty much unreadable, with pages cracking apart and the cheap binding losing pages.

If you shell out the money for a hard cover those are supposed to be printed on acid-free paper, and are suitable for a library's collection. And if treated kindly should last 50-75 years or more.

That's fine, but what does it lead to? (1)

sircastor (1051070) | more than 5 years ago | (#28885357)

I recognize and accept that technologies change and become obsolete. There are millions of 8-track cassettes floating around doing nothing. Eventually the same thing with happen to tapes, CDs, and DVDs. That's natural. What I don't find acceptable, is that this sort of argument (if passed into rule or law) would give the RIAA precendent to essentially flip the switch when they found a situation to be not in their favor. If the music won't work forever, how long will it work? Do we get any kind of assurance that if we buy a song we'll be able to listen to it once it's finished transferring?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?