4 ms·

Music is the perfect counterexample to what you're saying. It's the only remaining digital platform where it's still possible to buy legal, DRM-free copies of d

Music is the perfect counterexample to what you're saying. It's the only remaining digital platform where it's still possible to buy legal, DRM-free copies of digital files, which you can download to your own machine and thus ensure you retain access. Ebooks, audiobooks, movies, games all work like you say. (Less so with games, at least there are alternatives like GOG. But mainstream games are by and large not available without DRM.) Even podcasts are going that direction. But music, somehow, inexplicably, remains DRM-free even with all the mainstream labels.

mod50ack 3y ago
The explanation is that CDs came along before DRM was a thing. The industry could not break compatibility with over a 15 years' worth of CD players, especially since people had them in their cars, etc. The home playing software always had the ability to rip CDs; you could do that long before iTunes was a thing. It was only a matter of time before record labels gave up on DRM. Now, since CSS was cracked, DVDs are, in practice, no harder to rip. But a company like Apple can't ship a DVD ripper in iTunes.
- sspiff 3y ago
  > The industry could not break compatibility with over a 15 years' worth of CD players, especially since people had them in their cars, etc. Sure, not at first. But how long has it been since most people interacted with a CD player now? Most teenagers haven't, ever. Yet here we are, music is still being sold on CDs. Not that I want to put the music industry on some kind of pedestal as a paragon of virtue in the digital age, but it's certainly odd and noteworthy. > Now, since CSS was cracked, DVDs are, in practice, no harder to rip. But a company like Apple can't ship a DVD ripper in iTunes. DVD quality is not really of sufficient quality for most consumers today, though. Meanwhile, CD quality continues to match or exceed modern streaming services.
  - mod50ack 3y ago
    > Sure, not at first. But how long has it been since most people interacted with a CD player now? Most teenagers haven't, ever. Yeah, but it's a lot harder to switch from a DRM-less digital download format to a DRMed one. Who in their right mind would choose the DRM store, then? Oh, but this is also sort of what they did, because Spotify and Apple Music and whatnot have DRM. Not that it's unbreakable or anything. But they have it — for streaming. > DVD quality is not really of sufficient quality for most consumers today, though. Meanwhile, CD quality continues to match or exceed modern streaming services. Yes, but I was talking about 20 years ago. DeCSS had come out in 1999, but libdvdcss was released in 2004. It has been pretty easy to rip a DVD for someone in the know since then. Much like CDs, Blu-rays (especially 4K Blu-rays) are of better quality than you'll find on most streaming platforms. Blu-rays are pretty much rippable, too, but far fewer people have a Blu-ray drive, and most people don't care.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  There has been plenty of attempts at copy protection on CDs. Some more successful than others. Digital-only downloads of music was also one of the early adopters of DRM. But one of the problems is that music needed to be portable in a way that games and movies weren’t (yet). Then as smart phones, WiFi and mobile internet took off, digital downloads got replaced with services like Spotify. These days most music consumption is done via streaming services. What helps with music, though, is the core group of audiophiles who keep CD and vinyl. They aren’t going to be around forever though. I used to be one and even I’ve given into the convenience of Spotify in recent years. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I’ve played vinyl in the last 5 years. And I threw out almost all of my CDs when I last moved house.
  - mod50ack 3y ago
    > There has been plenty of attempts at copy protection on CDs. Some more successful than others. Yes, but they're fundamentally incompatible with the CD standard. I'm not denying that digital downloads for music were the first big use of DRM. But in that case, it was perhaps even more futile than in other applications.
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      > Yes, but they're fundamentally incompatible with the CD standard. Not really “incompatible”. More like hacks around the standard. If they were incompatible then CD players wouldn’t have been able to play those CDs. > I'm not denying that digital downloads for music were the first big use of DRM. But in that case, it was perhaps even more futile than in other applications. It’s easy to say that in hindsight but there was a point in time where it felt like DRM in music would eventually win out. Ironically it was the subscription model that saved us here. Because those that wanted convenience went with services like Spotify. And those that wanted to persistent copies stuck with CDs and vinyl.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    > I used to be one and even I’ve given into the convenience of Spotify in recent years. What convenience? Unless you're constantly going out to listen to new music, which most people aren't, Spotify is a raw deal indeed. You can easily stream the music you own through various means, and you don't have to pay a monthly sub to do it.
numpad0 3y ago
Steve Jobs' Apple fought for it. They leveraged iPod dominance to force the industry to swallow lawful ripping through iTunes, then 128kbps Internet download with infinite re-download rights and weak FairPlay DRM, then 256kbps without DRM few years later. The industry resisted with everything and lost, in the process road-killing Sony Walkman brand as well. The music world wasn't a paradise from the beginning and by itself.
joshspankit 3y ago
It may be DRM-free, but it is very much locked down from a legal perspective. - Cannot have licensed music in any public video without re-licensing it for that specific use. (This is almost transparent now but we had a time where a viral video would get huge legal problems for having even a song in the background. Not to mention Hollywood productions) - Cannot sample music and release new music from it without navigating dense legal relationships. Same with releasing mixes - Cannot play background music in your business without licensing it - Cannot legally do a performance where you lip-sync to someone else’s song (yes it happens esp at drag bars, but this is a “don’t get too famous and we’ll look the other way” situation) - Cannot even legally play popular music for a party if it’s considered a “public event” (two common “or” criteria are 1. Charging for admission 2. The party is out in the open.). This is extended to places like yoga studios, aerobic classes, dance classes, conferences, presentations, fundraisers, and wedding receptions.
joshspankit 3y ago
> But music, somehow, inexplicably, remains DRM-free even with all the mainstream labels Music cannot be as profitable without exposure, and exposure was not possible with DRM (people hated the experience of it)

mod50ack 3y ago

The explanation is that CDs came along before DRM was a thing. The industry could not break compatibility with over a 15 years' worth of CD players, especially since people had them in their cars, etc. The home playing software always had the ability to rip CDs; you could do that long before iTunes was a thing. It was only a matter of time before record labels gave up on DRM. Now, since CSS was cracked, DVDs are, in practice, no harder to rip. But a company like Apple can't ship a DVD ripper in iTunes.

sspiff 3y ago
> The industry could not break compatibility with over a 15 years' worth of CD players, especially since people had them in their cars, etc. Sure, not at first. But how long has it been since most people interacted with a CD player now? Most teenagers haven't, ever. Yet here we are, music is still being sold on CDs. Not that I want to put the music industry on some kind of pedestal as a paragon of virtue in the digital age, but it's certainly odd and noteworthy. > Now, since CSS was cracked, DVDs are, in practice, no harder to rip. But a company like Apple can't ship a DVD ripper in iTunes. DVD quality is not really of sufficient quality for most consumers today, though. Meanwhile, CD quality continues to match or exceed modern streaming services.
- mod50ack 3y ago
  > Sure, not at first. But how long has it been since most people interacted with a CD player now? Most teenagers haven't, ever. Yeah, but it's a lot harder to switch from a DRM-less digital download format to a DRMed one. Who in their right mind would choose the DRM store, then? Oh, but this is also sort of what they did, because Spotify and Apple Music and whatnot have DRM. Not that it's unbreakable or anything. But they have it — for streaming. > DVD quality is not really of sufficient quality for most consumers today, though. Meanwhile, CD quality continues to match or exceed modern streaming services. Yes, but I was talking about 20 years ago. DeCSS had come out in 1999, but libdvdcss was released in 2004. It has been pretty easy to rip a DVD for someone in the know since then. Much like CDs, Blu-rays (especially 4K Blu-rays) are of better quality than you'll find on most streaming platforms. Blu-rays are pretty much rippable, too, but far fewer people have a Blu-ray drive, and most people don't care.
hnlmorg 3y ago
There has been plenty of attempts at copy protection on CDs. Some more successful than others. Digital-only downloads of music was also one of the early adopters of DRM. But one of the problems is that music needed to be portable in a way that games and movies weren’t (yet). Then as smart phones, WiFi and mobile internet took off, digital downloads got replaced with services like Spotify. These days most music consumption is done via streaming services. What helps with music, though, is the core group of audiophiles who keep CD and vinyl. They aren’t going to be around forever though. I used to be one and even I’ve given into the convenience of Spotify in recent years. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I’ve played vinyl in the last 5 years. And I threw out almost all of my CDs when I last moved house.
- mod50ack 3y ago
  > There has been plenty of attempts at copy protection on CDs. Some more successful than others. Yes, but they're fundamentally incompatible with the CD standard. I'm not denying that digital downloads for music were the first big use of DRM. But in that case, it was perhaps even more futile than in other applications.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > Yes, but they're fundamentally incompatible with the CD standard. Not really “incompatible”. More like hacks around the standard. If they were incompatible then CD players wouldn’t have been able to play those CDs. > I'm not denying that digital downloads for music were the first big use of DRM. But in that case, it was perhaps even more futile than in other applications. It’s easy to say that in hindsight but there was a point in time where it felt like DRM in music would eventually win out. Ironically it was the subscription model that saved us here. Because those that wanted convenience went with services like Spotify. And those that wanted to persistent copies stuck with CDs and vinyl.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  > I used to be one and even I’ve given into the convenience of Spotify in recent years. What convenience? Unless you're constantly going out to listen to new music, which most people aren't, Spotify is a raw deal indeed. You can easily stream the music you own through various means, and you don't have to pay a monthly sub to do it.

numpad0 3y ago

Steve Jobs' Apple fought for it. They leveraged iPod dominance to force the industry to swallow lawful ripping through iTunes, then 128kbps Internet download with infinite re-download rights and weak FairPlay DRM, then 256kbps without DRM few years later. The industry resisted with everything and lost, in the process road-killing Sony Walkman brand as well. The music world wasn't a paradise from the beginning and by itself.

joshspankit 3y ago

It may be DRM-free, but it is very much locked down from a legal perspective. - Cannot have licensed music in any public video without re-licensing it for that specific use. (This is almost transparent now but we had a time where a viral video would get huge legal problems for having even a song in the background. Not to mention Hollywood productions) - Cannot sample music and release new music from it without navigating dense legal relationships. Same with releasing mixes - Cannot play background music in your business without licensing it - Cannot legally do a performance where you lip-sync to someone else’s song (yes it happens esp at drag bars, but this is a “don’t get too famous and we’ll look the other way” situation) - Cannot even legally play popular music for a party if it’s considered a “public event” (two common “or” criteria are 1. Charging for admission 2. The party is out in the open.). This is extended to places like yoga studios, aerobic classes, dance classes, conferences, presentations, fundraisers, and wedding receptions.

joshspankit 3y ago

> But music, somehow, inexplicably, remains DRM-free even with all the mainstream labels Music cannot be as profitable without exposure, and exposure was not possible with DRM (people hated the experience of it)