Cambridge-MIT researcher reveals how DRM fails in practice

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Cambridge-MIT researcher reveals how DRM fails in practice.

 It seems  like after several years of trying to fight piracy with DRM and proposing new  laws without any major success would give a hint that restricting paying  customers is not the correct...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11669-Cambridge-MIT-researcher-reveals-how-DRM-fails-in-practice.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11669-Cambridge-MIT-researcher-reveals-how-DRM-fails-in-practice.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Finaly “It’s the business models that need changing, not the technology”. The only reason for all this never ending BullShit about copy right is that some people (fat cats) or those making lots of money of others are feeling the heat. They know this can’t continu, but they don’t want to let it go. If they had spent more time and money on new ways of getting entertainment to people for a fair $$$ The majority of people would pay for this, but instead they go on as usual. They are only digging their own graves. The future is allwasy changing, if you don’t keep up you will fade away. But as allway there will be someone else to take there place. Thank god for iTunes, they had the “balls” to try something different and showed the way for others out there.


#3

Here here!


#4

I agree with you to a point. Itunes uses this DRM in their product. They are part of the DRM scheme. Of course, it is probably not their choice. The labels would only accept music being sold with DRM. I guess the reason they have “balls” is because they fought the labels on the pricing, because the labels wanted to charge more than 99 cents a song. But as far as any digital music store goes, I feel it is a complete rip off (probably not that stores fault - the labels are the ones that want the DRM). Why pay money for a lossy codec format that only lets you do certain things, when you can just go buy the cd and rip to your computer and do whatever you want with it. I mean jeez, you could even download better quality rips off p2p for free that let you do whatever you want with them. In all actuality, I feel DRM just encourages piracy. When people begin to see what it does, they will turn to other sources to get the same content. Nevermind the fact t


#5

Woops…heres the rest of my reaction… Nevermind the fact that these sources will probably be pirated sources.


#6

Your comments about iTunes are the opposite… iTunes uses DRM, but on the other hand it isn’t failing, erm isn’t that contradicting yourselves and the above article title…
[edited by Truman on 28.03.2006 09:59]


#7

There will be unprotected rlses floating around the net ages before they show up on itunes Thats why it “isn’t failing”, nobody with an iq above 70 cares about it
[edited by B110 on 28.03.2006 10:36]


#8

I think iTunes is starting to even back this up. It was a legal download service that no one noticed the DRM on because it was so nicely integrated with the iPod and so everyone flocked to it because they thought they could legally get the music they wanted without any hassles. People who are now trying to get players other than iPods now though are starting to notice the DRM and are starting to get pissed off that they cant use the music they have legally paid for. All these people who rushed to the legal option when it became available are all now becoming pissed off and bitter and moving back to the illegal ones to get what they want - music they can listen to on their mp3 players. DRM just pisses off the guys who are trying to go legal - everyone still using p2p never gets effected at all by DRM and doesn’t even notice it.


#9

Well even it iTunes is BAD or NOT, the fact is they showed the way for others. This is good since consumers want more online stuff to download in a legal way, P2P is good but we all know that if they make no money the mucis, movies, entertainment etc will go away. The main problem is that they are not willing to change from the old ways :confused:


#10

Actually, I believe you are both missing the point. While Itunes probably could not have gotten off the ground without DRM, Apple also saw it as a way to limit adopters of Itunes to only buying their prodcuts. Apple has, for years, not allowed anyone to clone their products, except for a short stint in the mid to late '90’s, which is why Apple’s greed has always gotten them a no better status than an also ran. Until Itunes. However, just like the early Apple computers, I predict that their proprietary DRM and lack of willingness to share it, will cause the Itunes/Ipod arrangement into a nostalgic also ran, unless they change their business model. I am glad the DOSIntel/Wintel computers became the standard computer because Apple would have been a whole lot worse of a Monopoly than M$ ever was.:d


#11

Kudos to the person who makes those DRM-stopper graphics for the page. :slight_smile: Build a better mousetrap and the mice will get smarter. That’s the real lesson industry is learning from relying on DRM.


#12

Now wait a minute, Apple has no choice to be the way they are, M$ makes there money off of software and it over priced and unreliable, Apple makes there money off of hardware and there software is low priced and stable. So if apple allowed hardware to be shared in the way you wanted, they would then go out of business and we would be stuck with buggy windows. If more poeple would be mac, and switch and give apple that 50% market share in computers, then apple could share and stay alive. It has nothing to do with greed with them, M$ is the greed problem not apple. Cause if anyone wants apple to share is me, but they have no choice, BUT with the new intel macs, this all could change soon!


#13

Applegodel8, Apple was the dominant computer in the marketplace until IBM created their standard computer and allowed cloning of it. At the time IBM was also a HW manufacturer and leased the SW from M$. By your statement, that would mean that, by allowing clones, IBM was committing suicide in the PC market. Obviously that did, in fact, happen, but LONG after IBM created their PC and it was mainly due to them not keeping up with the rapid changes that the cloners were able to do. Apple could have licensed out its “Mac compatible” and allowed cloners as well, (and be the MS in supplying the only MAC OS) and I believe had they done that they could have given the “PC’s” (i.e. dostel/wintel) a much harder run. Now Apple is again at a crossroad. They have a dominant HW (the IPOD) and dominant “SW” (if you will allow for argument’s sake that Itunes service can be described as “software”). If they license out the right to make IPOD compatibles by other manufacturers, they can still make money off of the ITunes service. It will also put them into a more competitive environment so that they will have to keep making people want to buy an IPod, like adding new features and/or reducing the price. Or they can continue as they are currently running and at some point another company will provide a new HW/SW solution that is more open to competition and the Ipod/Itune legacy will go the way of the Apple II and what was that PDA that they had called (i.e. the one noone bought) ?:B