In Music, DRM Is Back While Ownership Is Going Away

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

With regard to DRM: If I can't own the media I pay for (be they physical or digital), then I'll not buy them.

A digital product has no medium to be owned - it's just data. When you buy a CD you're buying the physical product (the CD itself), but you're not buying ownership of the data on the CD; all you're getting is a very restricted set of rights to those data granted to you by the rights-holder. With a digital product all you have is the data, with its corresponding restricted grant of rights. There is no underlying medium to "own".

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A digital product has no medium to be owned - it's just data. When you buy a CD you're buying the physical product (the CD itself), but you're not buying ownership of the data on the CD; all you're getting is a very restricted set of rights to those data granted to you by the rights-holder. With a digital product all you have is the data, with its corresponding restricted grant of rights. There is no underlying medium to "own".

And one of those rights, for a CD, is resale. A rather important right to some people.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

And one of those rights, for a CD, is resale. A rather important right to some people.

But again it's the physical medium you're selling, not the data; you don't own the data, so you can't sell it. You could not, for example, transfer the data to a different physical medium and then sell it, but you'd be perfectly entitled to wipe the medium (assuming it's erasable) and then sell that. I.e., your property is the medium, not the data.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But again it's the physical medium you're selling, not the data; you don't own the data, so you can't sell it. You could not, for example, transfer the data to a different physical medium and then sell it, but you'd be perfectly entitled to wipe the medium (assuming it's erasable) and then sell that. I.e., your property is the medium, not the data.

It is more than "just the physical medium"; you are also transferring your rights: so the next person has the same rights. The next person could resell it, rent it, ...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

It is more than "just the physical medium"; you are also transferring your rights: so the next person has the same rights. The next person could resell it, rent it, ...

You're right. It's a question of whether those rights are transferable. Sometimes such rights are; sometimes not. For example if you buy something with a warranty, it's not uncommon for the rights associated with the warranty not to be transferable. You can sell the product, but the warranty rights don't transfer with the sale.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're right. It's a question of whether those rights are transferable. Sometimes such rights are; sometimes not. For example if you buy something with a warranty, it's not uncommon for the rights associated with the warranty not to be transferable. You can sell the product, but the warranty rights don't transfer with the sale.

I think you will find that the actual legalities of warranties aren't nearly as cut and dry as you think. Extended warranties are a totally separate product. In general, one can not refuse to honor the inherent warranty of a product as long as the owner can show they own it legally. If I buy a car that has a 5 year warranty, and I sell it after a year, the car is still under warranty for the new owner as long as they have the bill of sale and title.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A digital product has no medium to be owned - it's just data. When you buy a CD you're buying the physical product (the CD itself), but you're not buying ownership of the data on the CD; all you're getting is a very restricted set of rights to those data granted to you by the rights-holder. With a digital product all you have is the data, with its corresponding restricted grant of rights. There is no underlying medium to "own".

You're nitpicking... you know perfectly well what I mean

If I buy a CD from Store X, and that store goes belly up, I will be able to keep using that CD as long as I have a device that can play it.

If I buy a FLAC album with no DRM, and the seller disappears, I'll be able to use/reconvert the FLAC files as long as software exsists that can do so. I understand the file doesn't come on a medium such as a disc, but conceptually, the file itself is the medium.

If I buy something which has DRM and/or depends on the seller being 'alive' (subscription, or continuous internet connection/activation), then I won't have anything if the seller disappears.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If I buy something which has DRM and/or depends on the seller being 'alive' (subscription, or continuous internet connection/activation), then I won't have anything if the seller disappears.

But that's not entirely true, is it? A DVD has DRM, but it doesn't matter because all the manufacturers of DVD players have agreed on a single DRM standard. If one manufacturer of DVD players dies, you can buy one from someone else. The problem is caused by "single vendor" flavours of DRM.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's not entirely true, is it? A DVD has DRM, but it doesn't matter because all the manufacturers of DVD players have agreed on a single DRM standard. If one manufacturer of DVD players dies, you can buy one from someone else. The problem is caused by "single vendor" flavours of DRM.

Yes, but that legally prevents you from copying the data to a different media. For example, a person might want to load a number of DVDs onto a hard drive, rather that shuffling discs. then you just look at the library and select. . .

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's not entirely true, is it? A DVD has DRM, but it doesn't matter because all the manufacturers of DVD players have agreed on a single DRM standard. If one manufacturer of DVD players dies, you can buy one from someone else. The problem is caused by "single vendor" flavours of DRM.

DRM on any product that isn't on loan (like a subscription) is bad. Be it on a physical product like a CD/DVD/BR or on a digital product like ebooks or music.

It could be that the manufacturer of that DVD player is still here, but he simply cannot deliver the product I need, because my tablet doesn't have room for a DVD player. And I'd have loved to watch that movie on holiday.

I bought the right to watch that movie, but DRM is preventing me (I can't copy it to the SD card in my tablet). I don't see why the medium on which the product was delivered has anything to do with it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

DRM on any product that isn't on loan (like a subscription) is bad. Be it on a physical product like a CD/DVD/BR or on a digital product like ebooks or music.

It could be that the manufacturer of that DVD player is still here, but he simply cannot deliver the product I need, because my tablet doesn't have room for a DVD player. And I'd have loved to watch that movie on holiday.

I bought the right to watch that movie, but DRM is preventing me (I can't copy it to the SD card in my tablet). I don't see why the medium on which the product was delivered has anything to do with it.

In the US, format shifting is considered fair use according to the courts. DVD ripping programs are widely available and while breaking DRM is technically against the DCMA, I don't think it's ever been tested in the courts.

I agree with you, medium has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Some people like to throw out the red herring that if you buy digital media, then you aren't actually buying it, but rather licensing it. As far as I know, that particular theory has as much validity in the courts as the various signs one sees claiming no responsibility in parking lots. Just because one party asserts such things, doesn't make it true.

It's unlikely that one can successfully sue a company if they shutdown their media platform and you suddenly no longer can access your media. On the other hand, it's also pretty unlikely that you can successfully be sued for breaking DRM as long as it's something like backup or format shifting, something that has been held by the courts as fair use.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I bought the right to watch that movie, but DRM is preventing me (I can't copy it to the SD card in my tablet). I don't see why the medium on which the product was delivered has anything to do with it.

But you didn't "buy the right to watch that movie". You bought a DVD which comes with a specific set of rights which do not include the right to watch it anywhere on any device.

What you have in some jurisdictions is a defence against copyright infringement if you make a copy for personal use. The default position still is that you only have the right to make copies as laid out in the license terms.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some people like to throw out the red herring that if you buy digital media, then you aren't actually buying it, but rather licensing it. As far as I know, that particular theory has as much validity in the courts as the various signs one sees claiming no responsibility in parking lots. Just because one party asserts such things, doesn't make it true.

It's not a red herring. When you say "you aren't actually buying it" what is the "it" in that sentence? Because what you actually do is click a few buttons on a website and download a file. But a file is not a fixed thing. And there can be multiple copies of that file. Some can be ones you validly copied, e.g different devices, others not, e.g. you make a copy for a friend.

As far as I know there's only a couple of types of thing you could be buying - a tangible object, or the rights to something. Since there is no tangible object then it must be rights. But you're not buying the copyright rights outright - you don't now control the rights to "The Shining" or whatever. So you must be buying a limited set of those rights. Which we call licensing.

Truth is there'd be no "buying" at all without copyright. If there were no copyright you'd just copy when and where you liked and give money only if you felt like it. And copyright is, at root, fairly simple: the copyright owner controls the right to make copies and can license others to do so if they wish, subject to whatever terms they wish.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by latepaul

It's not a red herring. When you say "you aren't actually buying it" what is the "it" in that sentence? Because what you actually do is click a few buttons on a website and download a file. But a file is not a fixed thing. And there can be multiple copies of that file. Some can be ones you validly copied, e.g different devices, others not, e.g. you make a copy for a friend.

As far as I know there's only a couple of types of thing you could be buying - a tangible object, or the rights to something. Since there is no tangible object then it must be rights. But you're not buying the copyright rights outright - you don't now control the rights to "The Shining" or whatever. So you must be buying a limited set of those rights. Which we call licensing.

Truth is there'd be no "buying" at all without copyright. If there were no copyright you'd just copy when and where you liked and give money only if you felt like it. And copyright is, at root, fairly simple: the copyright owner controls the right to make copies and can license others to do so if they wish, subject to whatever terms they wish.

Yes, it's a red herring. You are trying to argue philosophy, but for the most part, in real life, everyone knows exactly what you are buying. To use your example, a digital copy of The Shining. You have the right to watch that digital copy whenever you feel like it. There is no difference between that and a copy that's on a VHS tape. The vendor can't restrict you to watching it only from 5 pm to 10 pm on a Saturday or Sunday, regardless of what their assertion is, unless of course, the only way to watch it is to stream it from their site. Once again, a company can assert all they want. Doesn't mean it will be upheld by a jury.

There is a reason that in iTunes you have a choice between renting (i.e. your licensing) and buying. Buying is more expensive, but you get to keep the movie.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's not entirely true, is it? A DVD has DRM, but it doesn't matter because all the manufacturers of DVD players have agreed on a single DRM standard. If one manufacturer of DVD players dies, you can buy one from someone else. The problem is caused by "single vendor" flavours of DRM.

If you put it like that, yes. A DVD has DRM (which has long been cracked), but because every DVD-player has to implement it to be able to play the DVD's, it's effectively not there, except when you try to copy a DVD using a standard CD/DVD burning application.

As long as you have a DVD-player and a TV/monitor to connect it to, you'll basically be able to watch the material.

EPUB e-readers mostly implement Adobe DRM, but to be able to switch from one to the other, you'll have to use ADE, and register stuff, and get the books into ADE itself, and so on; there DRM is much more intrusive. (FairPlay, a DRM-standard for music, was comparable. Does it even see any use today?)