If I hadn't already learned that one should never buy music crippled with digital rights management, the recent e-mail I received from the MSN Music Store was enough to convince me.
The form letter informed me that, because "MSN Music is constantly striving to provide you, our user, with the most compelling music experience that we can," I soon won't be able to transfer songs to a new computer.
Not that MSN is totally heartless. "License keys already obtained as of August 31, 2008 will continue to allow you to listen to songs on all the computers that you previously authorized for service."
Luckily, I bought only a few songs before I came to my senses, so this isn't a complete disaster. I'll either find a way to break the copy protection, or I'll buy the songs again--this time as .mp3s. I can assure you I won't be buying them from Zune.net.
It's easy to dismiss this as a typical Microsoft move, and there's a lot of truth to that. But the simple fact is that Napster, MusicMatch, and even the much-beloved Apple could pull the same stunt tomorrow.
As long as you can't play your music without permission from the store that sold it to you, you haven't bought that music; you're only renting it.
redofromstart Said,
Well, this must be the ultimate absurdity from the anti-DRM whackdoodles and wingnuts. Child pornography is sacrosant intellectual property, but artist-owned music isn't.
>> I guess what I am thinking about is the family photos that I have that are of my kids, nices and nephews, in toddler years. Would they consider bath time child ponography or just the barely legal stuff.
Some customs agent personal perception of child ponography could have a negative effect on a persons reputation and freedom, if what they have are their kids taking a bath (with out the tears) but, the agent just sees a naked child.
I don't know but, it could happen.
travis Hudson is covering another aspect of the DRM debacle - today ! http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006844.html
What does child porn have to do with this article? And what does "artist owned" mean. If I buy it, IT'S MINE. You obviously want to live in a world where no matter how much money you spend on something, what you buy can be taken from you because someone decides you need to pay again for the EXACT same thing you just bought from them. Hey, I bet when you buy a hammer, you ask the seller to double-charge your credit card to support the poor starving "artist" who designed it. That's not free enterprise, chief; we called it "indian giving" when we were kids, and it's no different from theft. But don't worry, after the rest of us get rid of this DRM crap that's used to steal from us paying customers because the "blessed" artists and their pimp master record labels can't figure out how to deal with the real thieves, we'll let you know what child porn is. The rest of us have already figured that out.
"If I buy it, IT'S MINE."
No, that's not how it works.
When you buy music, movies, games, or any other intellectual property, you are buying (1) a copy of the information, (2) a license which to use that information in certain, restricted ways.
If you buy a DVD, you are buying a copy of the movie and a license to watch that movie at home. You are *not* allowed to charge admission, sell copies, or rent copies (AMC/Blockbuster/etc. pay MUCH more for their licenses). If you buy a game, you can't install it on public computers and charge people to play it; your license doesn't allow that (LAN gaming centers pay a lot more for their licenses).
If you buy an MP3 of Umbrella, you can't sell it, rent it, or license it to production companies; you don't get paid royalties when it's played on the radio; because YOU DON'T OWN THE SONG -- Rihanna does -- you only own a license which grants you limited usage. That license can be as restrictive as the seller wants it to be.
The artist has the right to sell his or her music for profit, a consumer does not have the right to earn money from anothers work. Once a artist releases teh song or album for public consumption the end user who purchased the artists music has the rights to listen to taht owned music whereever and however he likes as long as he is not profiting in any way.
Most people who support DRM would have a world where you cannot buy a McDonalds cheeseburger and take it on a picnic, McDonalds demands you eat it there so that they have th chance to make more money.
It is bad enough that a person over 50 years in age has already purchased the same music in 8 track, album, tape, CD, and Mp3 formats over the years. Enough is enough!!!
I don't listen to enough music to steal or pay for it, but DRM is the reason why file sharing will never die. As long as people feel like they're getting cheated when they buy a song, they'll steal it instead.