4 ms·

There is, but that distinction does not exist with internet distribution. It's arbitrarily enforced via DRM (which doesn't really work), which is in turn enforc

There is, but that distinction does not exist with internet distribution. It's arbitrarily enforced via DRM (which doesn't really work), which is in turn enforced by Section 1201 of the DMCA. > The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify. That depends on whether you want to support the record label/artist, and find CDs as/more convenient as/than streaming. The trouble is that CDs are really less convenient, and therefore less valuable. Copyright holders should react to the declining value of physical media by creating better distribution platforms. Unfortunately, they have failed miserably, and now resort to disproportional copyright enforcement and DRM, which pushes the value of their product even farther down.

thirdsun 9y ago
I can't seem to follow your argument. If you want DRM-free, lossless, digital music to download and own you can buy it from countless shops - from iTunes (well, not lossless) to platforms like Bandcamp to niche stores like Boomkat. I think the music industry, in contrast to its Hollywood sibling, has very much succeeded in offering DRM-free content from a wide range of stores, shops and platforms. Physical media like CDs aren't relevant to this development. Of course a subscription-based streaming service like Spotify can't operate without DRM. It's the whole point of the service: If you stop being a subscriber you lose access to the content.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I want the liberty to compete with Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, iTunes, etc. without fear of debilitating litigation. I want to enjoy music without ever sacrificing my security or privacy to DRM. Just because the music industry is in a significantly better position than others does not make it good enough.
  - thirdsun 9y ago
    > I want the liberty to compete with Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, iTunes, etc. without fear of debilitating litigation. Feel free to do so. Of course it will be an uphill battle and a very complicated process, but I guess that applies to competing with any kind of major service, regardless of its category. > I want to enjoy music without ever sacrificing my security or privacy to DRM. Again, you can. Buy music from the shop of your choice - it's yours. No DRM, no strings attached. > Just because the music industry is in a significantly better position than others does not make it good enough. I still don't understand what you're missing.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > Feel free to do so. I don't. That is entirely my point. Spotify started as a convenient P2P streaming service, then got the capital to pay rightsholders. If I were to do the exact same thing, I would almost definitely be stopped on the outset by litigation. > Again, you can Sometimes. A few specific services offer DRM-free tracks, but there isn't much competition in that space. Again, it is practically impossible to legally compete with incumbents. > from the shop of your choice CD's are still the gold standard for lossless DRM-free music distribution. That is not a good thing. That is not a reasonable thing. That is the status quo that we are all constrained to by a select few corporations. It's not as drastic a problem as in Movies/TV, but it is still a problem. > I still don't understand what you're missing. Maybe you can read my comments over again, and ask about specific points. I care an awful lot about the subject, and would be happy to clear things up.
pas 9y ago
For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. They won't "hack" the online radio to download (rip) the stream. Even if it's just a click away via countless stream downloading services found via any web search engine. DRM raises that technical bar by a few notches, but it doesn't really work for non-interactive content, because there are again countless sites that offer non-DRMed access. (So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.)
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.) It really doesn't. > For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. The significant majority of internet users have been carefully conditioned with propaganda to be afraid of file sharing and other more convenient options. The idea that it works just enough to be valuable is what these media corporations are constantly telling themselves, and each other. They have managed to cultivate a culture where that is almost true, so they continue to believe it. What they are too afraid to believe is that DRM devalues their product more than it controls customers' spending. If that isn't true now (I am quite certain it is), it will be soon.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    If the DRM on games takes a few weeks to get cracked it's done its job. Sales are really front-loaded for most games.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Do you really believe the same customers who buy a game the week it comes out would not pay for that game if they could pirate it soon enough? That's absurd.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        What's so absurd about it?
emodendroket 9y ago
If you take physical media out of the equation you get buying the CD on iTunes or something. It's hard to see what utility this gives you beyond playing the song on Spotify.
- pdpi 9y ago
  Given that iTunes provides DRM free tracks, the utility it provides is irrevocable offline reproduction
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I'd say that the majority of consumers don't really care about that, though.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      They certainly do. Not being able to burn a mix-CD for friends is something that bothers almost anyone.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  The utility Spotify provides is discoverability. Spotify is a large and diverse collection. > you get buying the CD on iTunes or something As far as iTunes goes, it does not provide lossless DRM-free content at a competitive price, and is especially worthless to me, since it does not even run in Linux, and is painful to use in Windows. There aren't many competitors either, because media corporations are holding back innovation and competition by demanding fees and DRM.

thirdsun 9y ago

I can't seem to follow your argument. If you want DRM-free, lossless, digital music to download and own you can buy it from countless shops - from iTunes (well, not lossless) to platforms like Bandcamp to niche stores like Boomkat. I think the music industry, in contrast to its Hollywood sibling, has very much succeeded in offering DRM-free content from a wide range of stores, shops and platforms. Physical media like CDs aren't relevant to this development. Of course a subscription-based streaming service like Spotify can't operate without DRM. It's the whole point of the service: If you stop being a subscriber you lose access to the content.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
I want the liberty to compete with Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, iTunes, etc. without fear of debilitating litigation. I want to enjoy music without ever sacrificing my security or privacy to DRM. Just because the music industry is in a significantly better position than others does not make it good enough.
- thirdsun 9y ago
  > I want the liberty to compete with Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, iTunes, etc. without fear of debilitating litigation. Feel free to do so. Of course it will be an uphill battle and a very complicated process, but I guess that applies to competing with any kind of major service, regardless of its category. > I want to enjoy music without ever sacrificing my security or privacy to DRM. Again, you can. Buy music from the shop of your choice - it's yours. No DRM, no strings attached. > Just because the music industry is in a significantly better position than others does not make it good enough. I still don't understand what you're missing.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > Feel free to do so. I don't. That is entirely my point. Spotify started as a convenient P2P streaming service, then got the capital to pay rightsholders. If I were to do the exact same thing, I would almost definitely be stopped on the outset by litigation. > Again, you can Sometimes. A few specific services offer DRM-free tracks, but there isn't much competition in that space. Again, it is practically impossible to legally compete with incumbents. > from the shop of your choice CD's are still the gold standard for lossless DRM-free music distribution. That is not a good thing. That is not a reasonable thing. That is the status quo that we are all constrained to by a select few corporations. It's not as drastic a problem as in Movies/TV, but it is still a problem. > I still don't understand what you're missing. Maybe you can read my comments over again, and ask about specific points. I care an awful lot about the subject, and would be happy to clear things up.

pas 9y ago

For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. They won't "hack" the online radio to download (rip) the stream. Even if it's just a click away via countless stream downloading services found via any web search engine. DRM raises that technical bar by a few notches, but it doesn't really work for non-interactive content, because there are again countless sites that offer non-DRMed access. (So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.)

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.) It really doesn't. > For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. The significant majority of internet users have been carefully conditioned with propaganda to be afraid of file sharing and other more convenient options. The idea that it works just enough to be valuable is what these media corporations are constantly telling themselves, and each other. They have managed to cultivate a culture where that is almost true, so they continue to believe it. What they are too afraid to believe is that DRM devalues their product more than it controls customers' spending. If that isn't true now (I am quite certain it is), it will be soon.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  If the DRM on games takes a few weeks to get cracked it's done its job. Sales are really front-loaded for most games.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Do you really believe the same customers who buy a game the week it comes out would not pay for that game if they could pirate it soon enough? That's absurd.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      What's so absurd about it?

emodendroket 9y ago

If you take physical media out of the equation you get buying the CD on iTunes or something. It's hard to see what utility this gives you beyond playing the song on Spotify.

pdpi 9y ago
Given that iTunes provides DRM free tracks, the utility it provides is irrevocable offline reproduction
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I'd say that the majority of consumers don't really care about that, though.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    They certainly do. Not being able to burn a mix-CD for friends is something that bothers almost anyone.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
The utility Spotify provides is discoverability. Spotify is a large and diverse collection. > you get buying the CD on iTunes or something As far as iTunes goes, it does not provide lossless DRM-free content at a competitive price, and is especially worthless to me, since it does not even run in Linux, and is painful to use in Windows. There aren't many competitors either, because media corporations are holding back innovation and competition by demanding fees and DRM.