5 ms·

>those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd This is patently false. From 2003 to 2009 music sold on the most popular o

>those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd This is patently false. From 2003 to 2009 music sold on the most popular online store, iTunes, contained DRM. Due to competitive pressure from Amazon's DRM-free store, Apple also dropped their DRM. It once seemed impossible that the major labels' digital music would be sold without DRM, but now that is the norm. Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to.

Silhouette 11y ago
Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to. However, it's also worth noting that the music industry is the only major content industry where this has been achieved. If anything, things are going the other way with video content. There have been stories this week about Netflix cracking down on those who are circumventing region locking using VPNs. It seems big name shows are increasingly being offered via proprietary pay-per-view systems run by their production organisations, and centralised libraries like Netflix are either not carrying the material or dropping content they used to offer. We still have different release dates for movies in theatres in different countries, and for films and TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray. A recent trend seems to be for US TV shows not to release new seasons on Blu-ray at all here in the UK, so you can buy the lower quality version on DVD or you have to sign up for yet another online service to watch in HD, assuming you even have access to such a service from where you live. All of these measures are overtly consumer-hostile, but there is little the consumer who enjoys TV and movies can do if the entire industry moves that way (short of resorting to illegal channels and risking the consequences, which obviously is what a lot of people do in practice). The software industry is similarly screwed up. We've gone from buying a copy of something and being able to use it, to buying a copy but needing remote activation, to buying a copy but needing varying degrees of ongoing online access to continue using it, to not even being able to buy a copy and merely renting. Personally I draw the line before I get that far, and refuse to pay for any important software unless I can reasonably expect it to continue working indefinitely. Even then, my businesses have been screwed repeatedly by varying degrees of ongoing online access or cutting off support, and slightly surprisingly, the most expensive professional software is by far the worst for this and for fixing the mess is something goes wrong. I really hope that before too long the law starts to reflect the real relationships with modern technologies, where the original vendor who would traditionally be the main second party in a purchase contract is effectively just providing an introduction to the real other party, which is the organisation that makes the software/service and is (or isn't) going to provide ongoing support and/or retain ongoing control over it. I also hope that smaller, disruptive software businesses who are starting to take on industry heavyweights can demonstrate that money talks and enough customers are willing to vote with their wallets for less one-sided arrangements. But for now, the possibility that industry heavyweights like Microsoft, Adobe and Autodesk are going to give up their vice-like grips built on DRM and related technologies seems more remote than ever, and all of them are pushing hard in the opposite direction.
- Zikes 11y ago
  gog.com is an example of the software industry (or video games, at least) eschewing DRM on an ethical/consumer rights basis. They're highly successful, and may well pressure Steam and other similar markets to follow suit if their upward trend continues.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    Good point, GOG is another modest success story for DRM-free content. That said, success is a relative scale here: even a hit like Witcher 3, where there is an obvious commercial association between GOG and the developers, only sold slightly more copies on GOG than on Steam, while most big name titles either aren't released on GOG at all or sell many times more through other channels like Steam. If we saw the likes of EA and Ubisoft backing off DRM for their new AAA titles instead of doubling down on it even in the face of some very obvious problems, it would mean a lot more in terms of industry direction.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Apple and Amazon managed to change the practices of the music industry because they had enough power. Netflix has started down the path of building more power, by having their own content. Perhaps when Netflix has enough power they can push back on the video industry. At least in public, Netflix has claimed that they don't want DRM themselves, and would remove it if they could, but that their content providers require it.
  - derekp7 11y ago
    Actually, I think the main reason that music went DRM free was to circumvent Apple's dominance. Since they had by far the most popular portable digital music platform, and wouldn't allow third party DRM on it, the music industry had a choice -- either deal with Apple, or forego DRM altogether.
    - tjl 11y ago
      That's basically what happened. Apple wanted to go DRM-free (see Steve Job's Thoughts on Music letter) and did so as soon as they were able according to their contracts. But before they did, the publishers offered DRM-free music to Amazon first allowing them a head start on Apple.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Except that the music industry has gone back to DRM. Most people I know consume their music using streaming services these days and I'm under the impression that e.g. Spotify are forced to use DRM by the content owners.
tjl 11y ago
Apple didn't drop their DRM because of Amazon. They wanted to drop it before then, but the publishers in order to promote an alternative to iTunes made DRM-free music available to Amazon first. Apple dropped it as soon as they were allowed by the publishers. It was written into their contract that DRM was required. Steve Jobs talked about this in his "Thoughts on Music" post. It doesn't appear to be on Apple's site now (it was written in 2007), but you can read the whole thing at, http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/ http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_post... The relevant part is: "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

Silhouette 11y ago

Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to. However, it's also worth noting that the music industry is the only major content industry where this has been achieved. If anything, things are going the other way with video content. There have been stories this week about Netflix cracking down on those who are circumventing region locking using VPNs. It seems big name shows are increasingly being offered via proprietary pay-per-view systems run by their production organisations, and centralised libraries like Netflix are either not carrying the material or dropping content they used to offer. We still have different release dates for movies in theatres in different countries, and for films and TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray. A recent trend seems to be for US TV shows not to release new seasons on Blu-ray at all here in the UK, so you can buy the lower quality version on DVD or you have to sign up for yet another online service to watch in HD, assuming you even have access to such a service from where you live. All of these measures are overtly consumer-hostile, but there is little the consumer who enjoys TV and movies can do if the entire industry moves that way (short of resorting to illegal channels and risking the consequences, which obviously is what a lot of people do in practice). The software industry is similarly screwed up. We've gone from buying a copy of something and being able to use it, to buying a copy but needing remote activation, to buying a copy but needing varying degrees of ongoing online access to continue using it, to not even being able to buy a copy and merely renting. Personally I draw the line before I get that far, and refuse to pay for any important software unless I can reasonably expect it to continue working indefinitely. Even then, my businesses have been screwed repeatedly by varying degrees of ongoing online access or cutting off support, and slightly surprisingly, the most expensive professional software is by far the worst for this and for fixing the mess is something goes wrong. I really hope that before too long the law starts to reflect the real relationships with modern technologies, where the original vendor who would traditionally be the main second party in a purchase contract is effectively just providing an introduction to the real other party, which is the organisation that makes the software/service and is (or isn't) going to provide ongoing support and/or retain ongoing control over it. I also hope that smaller, disruptive software businesses who are starting to take on industry heavyweights can demonstrate that money talks and enough customers are willing to vote with their wallets for less one-sided arrangements. But for now, the possibility that industry heavyweights like Microsoft, Adobe and Autodesk are going to give up their vice-like grips built on DRM and related technologies seems more remote than ever, and all of them are pushing hard in the opposite direction.

Zikes 11y ago
gog.com is an example of the software industry (or video games, at least) eschewing DRM on an ethical/consumer rights basis. They're highly successful, and may well pressure Steam and other similar markets to follow suit if their upward trend continues.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Good point, GOG is another modest success story for DRM-free content. That said, success is a relative scale here: even a hit like Witcher 3, where there is an obvious commercial association between GOG and the developers, only sold slightly more copies on GOG than on Steam, while most big name titles either aren't released on GOG at all or sell many times more through other channels like Steam. If we saw the likes of EA and Ubisoft backing off DRM for their new AAA titles instead of doubling down on it even in the face of some very obvious problems, it would mean a lot more in terms of industry direction.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Apple and Amazon managed to change the practices of the music industry because they had enough power. Netflix has started down the path of building more power, by having their own content. Perhaps when Netflix has enough power they can push back on the video industry. At least in public, Netflix has claimed that they don't want DRM themselves, and would remove it if they could, but that their content providers require it.
- derekp7 11y ago
  Actually, I think the main reason that music went DRM free was to circumvent Apple's dominance. Since they had by far the most popular portable digital music platform, and wouldn't allow third party DRM on it, the music industry had a choice -- either deal with Apple, or forego DRM altogether.
  - tjl 11y ago
    That's basically what happened. Apple wanted to go DRM-free (see Steve Job's Thoughts on Music letter) and did so as soon as they were able according to their contracts. But before they did, the publishers offered DRM-free music to Amazon first allowing them a head start on Apple.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Except that the music industry has gone back to DRM. Most people I know consume their music using streaming services these days and I'm under the impression that e.g. Spotify are forced to use DRM by the content owners.

tjl 11y ago

Apple didn't drop their DRM because of Amazon. They wanted to drop it before then, but the publishers in order to promote an alternative to iTunes made DRM-free music available to Amazon first. Apple dropped it as soon as they were allowed by the publishers. It was written into their contract that DRM was required. Steve Jobs talked about this in his "Thoughts on Music" post. It doesn't appear to be on Apple's site now (it was written in 2007), but you can read the whole thing at, http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/ http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_post... The relevant part is: "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."