4 ms·
I think you're stretching the definition of DRM a bit. In my comment, I was referring to the set of technologies used to make it harder to copy a legally purcha
by esonderegger 14y ago
I think you're stretching the definition of DRM a bit. In my comment, I was referring to the set of technologies used to make it harder to copy a legally purchased file.
Wikipedia's definition is quite good, but is a little too long to repost here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
In any event, we're talking about technical solutions to licensing problems.
I haven't read any reports of Google or Amazon's cloud music players adding DRM to files after they've been uploaded. Has anyone heard differently? I thought the whole reason they were legally in the clear is because they're basically file lockers with playback functionality.
The "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media" amendment to the AHRA may be an example of the Recording Industry's lobbying efforts being rewarded more than we'd like, but DRM it is not.
As for your warning letter from the RIAA: did they have reason to believe you wouldn't be paying your publishing royalties? I imagine your record label probably works with the Harry Fox Agency all the time. Was there something that was unusual about your case?
- r0s 14y agoIt's true I'm overloading the term. Originally we were talking about DRM as an excuse for piracy; my point was that the inconvenience and restriction is all over the market, not just on an album. That particular case was years ago, and the only time we've brushed with the RIAA. We're a very small operation and didn't bother to get lawyers involved. Paying royalties wasn't something we'd consider as the work is only superficially related to the original (by my reckoning), riding the line between parody and fundamental re-interpretation. I feel the IP test for such works is unethically restrictive and greedy.