Posted 11/30/2008 at 10:53:16am

The music folks have already gotten into trouble on this one. They want to shut down their DRM sites, and the courts make them remain up (at least for a while).

Will the Spore site still be up in 3, 5, or 8 years? Do I have the right to continue running the product in that time frame (or is there something on the box that says "Good for two years")? Or is there an assumption that I will lose interest in a few months, and the game itself will fall off the charts in a year? I still pull out the old games once in a while. Is that not allowed here?

I've installed cracked versions of games, even though I had the legit game in my hand, just because the Anti-Piracy Process was so onerous. Amazing that legit owners/users want cracked copies, just to avoid the APP.

I've never bought a DRMed item (that I know of - obviously, all sorts of things can be imbedded on CDs). So, the music companies can say their numbers are down. And they'd be right. Ditto the game companies. I simply don't buy items that require these ridiculous authentication schemes - if I can avoid it.

The question I have to ask is "Which has cost the vendors (game/music/etc.) more? Piracy or Anti-piracy?"

I can say with certainty, as far as I, and my wallet, are concerned, "Anti-piracy" has cost them far more.

 ---------------

I will add that record/game/etc. companies could learn a lot by understanding why/how piracy works. For example, I've talked to many people who believe that paying for their peer-to-peer programs means that they are not pirating things acquired via that software. That's lilke saying "they bought and paid for their computer, the internet should be free", or "they pay for their internet connection, everything acquired via their connection should be free" or "I paid for the canvas and frame, the painting should be free..." or "I paid for the lumber, building the house should be free..." or "I paid for cable, why is there pay-per-view?"

I don't know why people believe that $5 or $10 for the peer-to-peer software conveys _any_ portion to the artist. If a user downloads 50 songs, how much of that $5 or $10 could actually go to the artist?  Make a difference - be sure people _understand_ piracy: how, when, where, etc. it happens.

I am sure a lot of piracy is willful and deliberate. I believe that a lot is simple misunderstanding. That part's much easier to address. For example, you don't have to inhibit peer-to-peer exchange. It's a great way of exchanging family pictures. But it would be wise to remind people that the P2P software is independent of the material exchanged. 

Education first, heavy handed enforcement second.  Cheers!

Posted 11/26/2008 at 08:08:38pm

But DRMed tracks are already "expiring". Some DRM support sites are now open only by court order, and those for not too much longer. I bought music, but, due to arbitrary policies, those purchases turn into "rentals" (not the original agreement), and expire. Money gone.

 Thank you, I'll buy unencumbered CDs, thank you.

But wait, most of the CDs I've bought lately have one (count it, one) listenable track. $20/track seems a bit steep, don't you think?

So, I think the music companies dug themselves into two holes - I can't trust that my material will still work next week/month/year, and frankly, they're not selling much worth buying.