Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DRM Content Drives Availability On P2P Networks

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the drm-p2p-mpaa-bbq dept.

Media 211

jgreco writes "The music industry once feared that going DRM-free would drive a massive explosion of copyright-infringing music availability on P2P networks. Now, a new study seems to suggest otherwise. The answer is obvious: if you can easily get inexpensive DRM-free content that works on your devices through legitimate channels, most people won't bother with the headache of P2P networks. It appears that users largely turn to P2P to acquire DRM-free versions of content that is distributed with DRM. The MPAA, of course, will not come away from this with the obvious conclusion."

cancel ×

211 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

and it's not just the music industry... (5, Insightful)

DarkSabreLord (1067044) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962816)

How many more years of this before other industries like software (SecuROM anyone?) come away with the obvious conclusion as well? DRM doesn't do anything but restrict legitimate purchasers of the product, people who illegally obtain things don't have to deal with such inane restrictions

Already For Operating Systems (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30962848)

I swear, I'm using Bittorrent just to download Linux ISO's! Over, and over, and over again. Because Debian isn't DRM'd like Windows is.

Re:Already For Operating Systems (2, Insightful)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963236)

I know you're joking (yeah, ok, most BT traffic probably is "piracy"), but my only recent use of the protocol was to download Knoppix; it seems they can't afford all the bandwidth to serve ISOs directly (unless you pay a small fee), so they've turned to Bittorrent... Precisely its intended use!

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (5, Insightful)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962992)

Perhaps restricting the legitimate purchasers is the new reason for adding DRM. I'm sure game publishers like wiping out second hand sales, making people buy the same game twice for different computers, forced obsoletion, etc etc. They probably just use piracy as a cover, write off the 'losses' from piracy, then make money from well and truly shafting the purchasers.

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (3, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963084)

That's the only good use case for DRM: it lowers the value of the content, so you can charge less for it.

Not that many content distributors seem to have embraced this though.

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (5, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963076)

How many more years of this before other industries like software (SecuROM anyone?) come away with the obvious conclusion as well?

Sorry to pick on your post in particular, but how many years will it be before Slashdotter's stop trusting the editors and reading the contents of the article. We're quick enough to pounce on poor logic when some poor creationist wanders in here, but things like this get waved through? For the benefit of those that are article-phobic, the methodology used is as follows: Count all the files available on a torrent network (not accounting for quantity of downloads at all, mind you, just whether they're available) and classify them according to type. Notice that music makes up 10% of the counted file types and movies and TV shows 46% of the file types. State that music can be purchased DRM free online and state that movies cannot be, and conclude that this is the reason why. There are various other throwaway misdirections such as "music used to be the only reason to use P2P". Well, we didn't used to have the bandwidth to download DVD rips, did we?

Does Slashdot have a maximum post size, or shall I list the reasons what's wrong with all this article? Any statisticians want to take some cheap shots? :)

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963114)

Sorry to pick on your post in particular, but how many years will it be before Slashdotter's stop trusting the editors and reading the contents of the article.

So that should be "start reading the article". Didn't mean to imply I was new here. ;)

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963254)

tl;dr ...

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963422)

tl;dr ...

I'm sorry. I don't get it. I'm new here...

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (3, Insightful)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963090)

We'll see what conclusion Ubisoft comes to.

The sad thing about this is that if you have a good quality product that meets the consumers needs and is at an affordable price, then people will buy them. People these days have many different media devices (desktop, laptop, portable media player, car stereo/player, netbook, ...). Most of these will have their music on their computer, synced to their portable media player and car, possibly backed up to an external drive.

With software, restrictive DRM will only push people away. For example, I have moved over to Linux, but still play games through Wine. I try out (and regularly buy) several casual games and some of the bigger ones as well (like StarCraft). DRM on this software will make it harder to run on this platform, and will drive me away from those companies. For example, I don't buy any Oberon Media games anymore, but look to Awem Studios and Big Fish Games for the casual games that I play/buy.

Re:and it's not just the music industry... (2, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963976)

The sad thing about this is that if you have a good quality product that meets the consumers needs and is at an affordable price, then people will buy them.

Actually, the sad thing is that this theory has been pretty much disproven in recent years by the iPhone phenomenon, in particular the way apps which cost $1 end up with 90% piracy rates (ie, rates comparable to desktop apps).

Pirates are, by definition, people who take something without paying for it. Whether an app costs $1 or $99 probably won't make much difference as long as piracy is equally convenient.

For example, I have moved over to Linux, but still play games through Wine. I try out (and regularly buy) several casual games and some of the bigger ones as well (like StarCraft). DRM on this software will make it harder to run on this platform, and will drive me away from those companies

Oddly enough, I used to work on Wine (have several hundred patches in there). So I've "examined" more than my fair share of copy protection schemes. There are two things you should know.

The first is that you're in a tiny minority and always will be. In my years of using Linux, its market share has never increased and shows no sign of doing so anytime soon.

The second thing is that fortunately, that probably won't matter in a few years. It seems likely that PC gaming DRM will move to internet binding rather than media binding in future, which is likely to not only make it far more robust but also make it a lot more compatible with emulators like Wine, because the game won't have any interest in poking around in kernel mode trying to distinguish fake DVD drives from real. So I wouldn't try and overgeneralize from the sort of DRM we have today to all DRM.

be lazy copyright today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963872)

yup be lazy make somehting and then sit back get fat like a big fat roman of days gone buy

think of your wealth when YOU gouge and can screw everyone. HAVE parties with drugs and whores on boats celebrating your operating systems that help in this endeavor. MAKE secret treaties and have your companies sit in and make the worlds policies. WHO needs democracy. CORPORATIONS DONT.

SPEAK LOUD OFTEN AND EVERYWHERE
12 YEAR MAX COPYRIGHTS WILL END ALL THIS PROBLEMS

Correlation != Causation... (5, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962828)

Basically, this is based on the correlation that "hey, most of the stuff through a trackerless BitTorrent setup is pirated movies/tv, porn, and software, almost no pirated music" and "you can get DRM-free music easily, but not movies/tv, porn, and software" as implying "its because of DRM that people pirate stuff".

Unfortunately, there are two problems here:

a) Music is not just DRM-free, its also SMALL. BitTorrent's strength is moving big files, while pirated songs are very small in comparison, you can just email em to your friends.

b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

Correlation does not mean causation.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30962868)

Additionally, it's not remotely reasonable to assume that people share what's in demand, as TFA suggests. More reasonable to assume people share what they have.

And I don't count an Ars Technica opinion piece as a "study" either.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962922)

And I don't count an Ars Technica opinion piece as a "study" either.

It's not like Ars did the research themselves [freedom-to-tinker.com] .

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963346)

It's not like Ars did the research themselves [freedom-to-tinker.com].

No, but read the article you linked. You'll find that it's a sampling of data with the sole conclusion being that copyright infringement appears to be "widespread" amongst bit torrent users. The big implication that DRM free music purchasable online has reduced the amount of music piracy appears to have been tacked on solely by the Ars Technica article and then blown up further by the Slashdot summary. The research itself is interesting. The conclusions Ars Technica added, their own invention. I'm not really familiar with Ars Technica though I know the name. Do they have a good reputation because this article and the logic therein isn't something I'd expect to see on a decent website.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

geegel (1587009) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962876)

You asked for it.
http://www.xkcd.com/552/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

aflag (941367) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962978)

correlation doesn't mean causation is one of the most annoying memes in slashdot. Quit it already. Saying "correlation doesn't mean causation" is no proof or reasoning that indeed it doesn't for the case studied.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (2, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963124)

Apparently you don't understand the idea of faulty arguments. By stating CDMC the person isn't dismissing the results out of hand. The person is stating that the argument is faulty and that the conclusion hasn't been proven (not necessarily wrong, but hasn't been proven right either).

Re:Correlation != Causation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963774)

Apparently you don't understand the idea of faulty arguments. By stating CDMC the person isn't dismissing the results out of hand.

That may be true with actual people discussing it in an actual argument, but here on Slashdot, after it turned out to be true once or twice, that HAS directly become a catchall dismiss-results-out-of-hand meme, giving Slashdot members carte blanch to ignore any results they don't like, no matter if it's in any way curious or interesting, not even for strong correlations implying some sort of connection.

And yes, it IS one of the most annoying memes on Slashdot, being hauled out for any subject with any research done on it, no matter what.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

norletsk (1567121) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963038)

Individual songs are small, but albums, especially if they are high-quality rips, can be several hundred MB. Entire band discographies are even larger and can be several(if not 10's) of GB in size. Bittorrent is much more useful for downloading music than you give it credit.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963434)

Bittorrent is much more useful for downloading music than you give it credit [for].

This is true. But unless the artist has given his permission for his work to be thus distributed, you are actually cheating him of the royalties to which he is *entitled*. Sure, lots of (or most) recording companies are predatory, but that is simply no excuse.

My personal preference, since I'm extremely picky about sound reproduction, is to simply buy the CDs and rip my own files for my iPod. That way, I get the music I want (the sound of Shirley Temple when I'm expecting Branford Marsalis is a nasty surprise), and I get the warm fuzzy feeling of having done the "Right Thing"(TM).

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963556)

This is true. But unless the artist has given his permission for his work to be thus distributed, you are actually cheating him of the royalties to which he is *entitled*. Sure, lots of (or most) recording companies are predatory, but that is simply no excuse.

That has nothing to do with the technical merits and faults of BitTorrent, the topic at hand.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963130)

Not to include that music has already played itself out (no pun intended).

Just as the RIAA get a spike in CD sales from the re-issue of back catalogs in the 90s, the P2P music wave is now largely over. People have most of the music they want today.

And just to be clear on this, I do understand that the CD re-issue rush of the 1990s made the RIAA feel entitled to increased music sales through the 2000s. Just because the decrease in sales are understandable from a consumer level doesn't mean that piracy isn't a problem in music today. I feel that artist support is extremely important and I do not think that an artist should be forced to tour to support their art.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (0)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963160)

a) Music is not just DRM-free, its also SMALL. BitTorrent's strength is moving big files, while pirated songs are very small in comparison, you can just email em to your friends.

Do people email mp3s to their friends? If my friends did that, I think I'd be annoyed. Large file attachments are bad etiquette under most circumstances.

b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

I can think of two reasons:

  1. People don't necessarily trust their credit card information to random porn sites
  2. People don't want porn showing up on their credit card bill

I agree that I'd like to see a more iron-clad case made. Like maybe offer a selection of movies for sale DRM-free, or maybe offer them on a site like Hulu (free, essentially DRM protected, ad supported). Control for variables and watch what happens to those movies' numbers in various pirate distribution channels.

I bet you'd find that in both cases, the illegitimate traffic drops significantly. It's not that "its because of DRM that people pirate stuff", but rather that people just want to watch a high-quality copy of a movie without any hassle, and if there's no way to do that, they'll turn to the method with the least amount of hassle. Paying any amount of money for content is a hassle, but for most people, it's less of a hassle than pirating. DRM is an even bigger hassle. For a certain percentage of people, paying+DRM is enough of a hassle to tip the scales.

I know it's happened to me more than a couple times where I've searched for "watch [show name] online", hoping to find a legal distribution channel. I couldn't find a legal distribution channel, but a bunch of other sites came up instead. Guess what happened.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963166)

c) Piracy (in the sense of copying another's work that they did not want others to copied) has been going on long before DRM was ever invented or even called that name. It's older than the notion of copyright itself.

DRM might be the cause of some (minor, but not necessarily insignificant) amount of piracy today, but there's something far more fundamental as a real underlying cause.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963604)

c) Piracy (in the sense of copying another's work that they did not want others to copied) has been going on long before DRM was ever invented or even called that name. It's older than the notion of copyright itself.

And don't forget, unavoidable. I have yet to see a single 'work' that does not use someone else's 'work'. Not one. Not even this very post. One of the moral issues with copyright is that it is and always will be a case of "My shade of gray is better than your shade of gray".

Re:Correlation != Causation... (2, Insightful)

Thoreauly Nuts (1701246) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963804)

I have yet to see a single 'work' that does not use someone else's 'work'

Indeed. As a musician myself, I literally cringe when someone uses the word "create" in reference to writing music. It's so utterly arrogant and delusional. No one creates music. We build by accretion upon the works of past artists and within the influence of the culture and technology we grow up in and with.

Human beings have been playing music on instruments for about 40,000 years and much longer without. Funny how all these nonsense "rights" only sprung up in the last couple centuries and the lies that music wouldn't be written without them as well...

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963712)

How could copyright "piracy" have been occurring before the notion of copyright itself? Before copyright, it was simply legal to copy books.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963880)

Yes. Once upon a time, an island was taught how to read and suddenly they went: "Cool books. Let's collect a bunch a copy them all."

The idea spread and before you knew it there were these little pockets of "book pirate" everywhere.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963188)

b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

Where can I legally buy DRM-free porn?

(Sincere question.)

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963304)

Unless you see CSS as DRM most CD's and DVD's are free, even without that damned region coding.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963480)

Hold it, hold it... since when do you have to pay for porn? When did money start to tarnish that industry too? I thought the actors do it for ... well, ya know, to get laid.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

CrazeeCracker (641868) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963250)

Basically, this is based on the correlation that "hey, most of the stuff through a trackerless BitTorrent setup is pirated movies/tv, porn, and software, almost no pirated music" and "you can get DRM-free music easily, but not movies/tv, porn, and software" as implying "its because of DRM that people pirate stuff".

*sigh* Alright, let's look at the points you're making here:

Music is not just DRM-free, its also SMALL. BitTorrent's strength is moving big files, while pirated songs are very small in comparison, you can just email em to your friends.

Firstly, bittorrent's strength lies in distributing files efficiently when there is a high demand for them, regardless of size -- something which ordinary server-client scenarios aren't particularly good at. Even if what you're saying is directly and unambiguously true, it doesn't imply that therefore you shouldn't (or wouldn't) use it for small files. If you have a 100M connection, are you really just going to use it for movies^H^H^H^H^H^H Linux ISOs because everything else is "too small"?

A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

This one's easy. Consider the possible sources of porn on the 'net: you can either get crappy quality on flash video sites, or decent quality downloadable files on paysites or P2P networks. A lot of people will feel reluctant to pay for porn, due in part to paranoia ("what if someone sees my credit card statement?", etc.) and in part to shame (in the same way you would feel reluctant to pay someone for sex). The only option that has both quality and anonymity is P2P.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that your points aren't particularly well thought out.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963258)

b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

Well you got everyone under the age of 18/21 that are not allowed get porn in any legitimate way.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963358)

He, by international treaty al basic education should be free and unhindered!

Re:Correlation != Causation... (2, Insightful)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963298)

A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

People are embarrassed to be associated with porn -- they don't want it showing up on their credit card bill, or to be seen purchasing it -- whereas a subscription to Netflix or one of the music stores causes them no embarrassment at all.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963404)

ah, society, what can you not make people do...

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963440)

most of it is probably US tv shows that air months later in non-US nations that thanks to their education systems have a increasing number of people that can understand english when spoken.

so rather then wait for a month or more, and have to dodge all kinds of spoilers from US sites, they download and watch right after its been aired on US services.

heck, it would be interesting to compare this to say proxies that can handle video services from USA.

Re:Correlation != Causation... (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963854)

b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?

Because porn subscriptions are $30-40/mo.

......how I know this is irrelevant

A note about the study (5, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962844)

Lest anyone think that TFA is saying that BitTorrent is used almost exclusively (to a degree of 99%) for copyright infringement, remember that this study focused on DHT-based, trackerless torrents. Legit torrents, like Jamendo and Linux distributions, usually use their own trackers. There's no reason for them to use DHT. So the study will naturally underrepresent legal BitTorrent content.

Also, the bit about DRM doesn't surprise me one bit. Nobody likes DRM except rights holders. It causes many more problems than it solves (which are very few already), not the least of which is perpetual content control even after the copyright expires. Far from banning circumvention of it, we need to heavily discourage (or outright ban) the use of DRM as we know it.

Re:A note about the study (2, Interesting)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962878)

Even the artists themselves do not like DRM! Dave Matthews has spoken out against it from the git go.

Re:A note about the study (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30962908)

Legit torrents, like Jamendo and Linux distributions, usually use their own trackers. There's no reason for them to use DHT.

No reason? Bullshit. Maintaining a tracker is not trivial, particularly if you're a small project. It's extra work, extra server resources, and another avenue for potential security problems. Putting up a trackerless torrent (or using a public tracker) with a webseed takes almost zero effort.

And a big chunk of piracy takes place on private trackers, which explicitly ban DHT.

Re:A note about the study (2, Interesting)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962946)

No reason? Bullshit. Maintaining a tracker is not trivial, particularly if you're a small project. It's extra work, extra server resources, and another avenue for potential security problems. Putting up a trackerless torrent (or using a public tracker) with a webseed takes almost zero effort.

Yet according to TFA, one percent of files available in the sample were non-infringing. So I don't think this method is quite as popular as you imply.

Besides, if you really can't afford a tracker, there's always OpenBitTorrent. And since torrents with trackers are arguably more efficient than purely DHT-based torrents, why not use a tracker like OBT in the first place?

Re:A note about the study (2, Interesting)

CapnStank (1283176) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963338)

I'm going to tone in here for a second...

I had a temporary position at a MAJOR telecommunications company a few months ago where they asked me to construct, demonstrate and analyze a tracker. "can't afford" is poppy-cock as one can be set up for pennies. I was able to construct a tracker server from a run-of-the-mill HP computer (you know the kind that EVERY corporation uses for its employees). On top of that it only took about 2Mbit of upload bandwidth to support upwards of 20,000 connected peers. It also had zero maintenance to keep running under a Fedora 11 destro of Linux. Hell, I had a harder time keeping my network monitors running than I did the tracker.

I understand that the bandwidth goes up significantly if you're also using your tracker as an initial seed but that is also a trivial factor after the torrent has been circulated enough to let the swarm take over.

Re:A note about the study (0, Troll)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963672)

Legit torrents, like Jamendo and Linux distributions, usually use their own trackers. So the study will naturally underrepresent legal BitTorrent content.

Let's be realistic about this.

The geek may download the nightly build more often than he changes his boxers or briefs.

But you won't go far wrong in assuming that the DVD sized P2P download is a pirated game or a video.

 

Paying (4, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962850)

I do not necessarily mind paying for music. I do mind being told what type of device I can play my music on. That, my friends, is tyranny. This leads me to another gripe: The iPod and its ilk. We bought the device, therefore we own it and should have the right to modify it to work the way we want it. This is very much like purchasing a car, truck, or motocycle and customizing it. We purchase the vehicle so we own it and can modify it (legally) to ways we see fit. In this day and age, it looks like we purchase the license or right to use something which stifles innovation and puts us even further technologically behind other countries.

Re:Paying (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963200)

You bought the device, yes, but it may be more or less easily modifiable - researching the device beforehand is probably a good idea, and if the "iPod and its ilk" don;t suit you, then DON'T BUY ONE - instead buy something that CAN BE modified the way you want.

My car was partially built by robots on an assembly line, so as a result it's tricky to modify the chassis much from the stock configuration, compared to a different car I have worked on - a Cobra with a separate rolling chassis and body which is much more suited to home tinkering. Building my factory car with a single monocoque design has advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. If I was going to build a new kit car at home I wouldn't start with a chassis like that - why is it different for electronics?

My oven has a computer, albeit a simple one - should I complain that I can't install Linux on it and thus it's tyranny because my oven is closed source/hard to modify, or my DVR, or my sat nav?

Yes, you should have the right to do what you like with things you buy, but you should also consider what you are buying in the first place to determine if the thing you are buying will do what you want it to do. I would argue that if you want to buy an iPhone and install apps that aren't sourced on the app store then you shouldn't have bought an iPhone... you should have bought a Nexus One. (or you could just jailbreak it - Apple doesn't really care if you do, it just doesn't want to support that model)

Also consider that for all the moaning about how Apple locks things up, they have been a major force for online DRM free content: they were on record before the iTMS opened that they wanted it DRM free, plus the "Rip, Mix, Burn" adverts, and even with DRM tracks on the early store implementation including the ability in iTunes to burn them to CD, stripping all DRM off. They just have to do it for movies and TV shows now. I know they're not the only online music store, but they have made major strides in this area.

Sure, the iPhone and the iPad uses a closed developer "appliance device" model, but OS X does not. Their other hardware can be used as you describe - install OS X, install Windows, install Linux, have a blast.

Re:Paying (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963608)

Don't buy it seems the obvious answer, but it only works if you're representing the majority of users and your gripe with a tool is what most users' problem would be. Your example of your car and oven are exactly the reason why "don't buy it" won't work for appliances like the iPod or other locked down devices.

You don't care that you can't modify your oven or car because you don't want to. And the same applies to most users of iPods out there: They don't know about the locked nature of their device and don't care. There are a lot of car enthusiasts out there that lament the same problem geeks complain about in the iPod: The increasing inability to modify, to tune, to adjust to their liking.

"Don't buy it and it will change because they lose sales" also only works as long as there is an alternative. And that it does not work out in the content field has already been shown with DVDs and BluRays. Would you buy an unlocked BluRay player? I know you would. But there is none, despite a huge market for such players. Why doesn't anyone produce one? Because they wouldn't get the BluRay seal of approval. Ok, then why not build a player with a different, free, unlocked format? Because no content would be available for it. Vicious cycle, anyone?

And the same applies with iPod and "free" (not the beer kind) alternatives: Content will only be available for the iPod, so people will buy the iPod and whatever company provides a free alternative will go under.

Free market only works under a few unfulfillable premises. First of all the total market transparency, which simply does not exist. Nobody knows all alternatives and the difference between them. Then the free competition, meaning that every device would play on a level field. Which simply does not exist because any "free" device would be devoid of any commercial content. And the combination thereof means that "don't buy it, but this instead" will not work out. You, as the customer, do not get to fill your role in the free market system as the "decider" which system shall thrive and which shall perish. That decision is taken out of your hands, thus the free market system fails in this particular scenario.

Re:Paying (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963946)

The problem with the ipod versus car analogy is that people VERY MUCH CARE
if their car is more "hackable" than an ipod. Cars are expensive things that
people are willing to repair and maintain. The cost of that maintenance is
directly related to whether or not cars are "hackable". While most people
would never futz with their own car, they certainly want one that any random
mechanic could service.

The ipod creates it's own little vendor lock bubble with it's DRM formats. Any
one that buys any of that stuff is suddenly locked in to Apple products. It's
highly disengenuous to say "just don't buy". Apple (just like Microsoft) seeks
to make buying something else impossible.

Make the users dumber and make it harder if not impossible to use your "software"
on other devices or to use 3rd party "software" on Apple devices.

Ipod (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963386)

I do not necessarily mind paying for music. I do mind being told what type of device I can play my music on. That, my friends, is tyranny. This leads me to another gripe: The iPod and its ilk. We bought the device, therefore we own it and should have the right to modify it to work the way we want it. This is very much like purchasing a car, truck, or motocycle and customizing it. We purchase the vehicle so we own it and can modify it (legally) to ways we see fit. In this day and age, it looks like we purchase the license or right to use something which stifles innovation and puts us even further technologically behind other countries.

Ok, so write your own firmware on the device and do what you want.. No one is stopping you.

Re:Ipod (1)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963506)

They make a relatively strong effort to prevent you from doing that. Specifically the firmware has to be signed. Now, we can fake it these days (Since you can put Linux on your iPod), but it was quite a reverse engineering feat to do this, IIRC.

Re:Ipod (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963820)

Never said it was easy, all i meant is that it CAN be done. If you can write the firmware, i don't think getting past the 'prevention' is that big of a deal.

In the old days with non flashed soldered BIOS ROMs, i didn't see complaints then....

Re:Ipod (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963960)

If you can write the firmware, i don't think getting past the 'prevention' is that big of a deal.

Say I have developed a video game designed for multiple game controllers and a large monitor. The market for those on the PC doesn't look viable because I've read statistics that the home theater PC market is two orders of magnitude smaller than the video game console market. All major video game consoles are DRM-locked, and manufacturing and selling a device to install custom firmware to play my game would probably be an anti-circumvention violation in any developed market to which I can affordably move my operations, especially after ACTA becomes law, not to mention that it would likely disable playing major-label video games. What do you recommend that I do next?

Re:Ipod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963564)

There's no reason whatsoever why an ipod should exclusively be locked to itunes for data transfers. Twats like you only reinforce apple's outrageous obsession with control.

Re:Ipod (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963714)

There's no reason whatsoever why an ipod should exclusively be locked to itunes for data transfers.

It's not. I use Rockbox now, but when I used Apple's firmware on my 2G Nano, I transferred my files with gtkpod on Linux. Other programs can add and remove music from your iPod just as well as iTunes.

Re:Ipod (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963864)

Odd, i was never locked in. I used 3rd party apps all the time.

Tho i agree i wasn't able to get past the initial registration without itunes, but actually USING it wasn't a problem. ( there might have been a way, but it wasn't that big of a deal to me )

Not only that, but you are not forced to buy one. We aren't talking a monopoly over basic human needs. Aside from being optional entertainment, there are plenty of other choices.

Re:Paying (1)

kainewynd2 (821530) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963474)

It's not a car, truck or even a motorcycle. An iPod/iPhone is an appliance much like a toaster (a really really advanced toaster).

For people who can put *nix on a toaster, doing the same to an iProduct is the same.

HINT: Most people don't modify their toasters...

Re:Paying (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963580)

This leads me to another gripe: The iPod and its ilk.

How about iPodLinux [ipodlinux.org] ? Or gtkpod [gtkpod.org] if you don't want to go the whole hog. You have plenty of choices. The hardware's cool, and there are OSS options to use it. What's your problem?

Re:Paying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963660)

"We purchase the vehicle so we own it and can modify it *(legally)* to ways we see fit."

You just answered your own remark.

*Legally* is the magic word.
You modify your car all you want, it's up to the state whether that vehicle is fit to drive on the road and whether it is legal or not.
You can modify your car all you want in your garage, just don't try to drive it on the road or sell it to somebody else as something that is legal.

Re:Paying (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963956)

That, my friends, is tyranny. The iPod and its ilk. We bought the device, therefore we own it and should have the right to modify it to work the way we want it.

Apple makes high tech appliances for the consumer market.

The iPod works just fine if you don't want to make hacking the machine your hobby.

In this day and age, it looks like we purchase the license or right to use something which stifles innovation and puts us even further technologically behind other countries.

The most advanced consumer tech tends to become inaccessible to anyone but the pro. You wife won't be agreeable to cracking open the case of the $6000 Samsung HDTV that maxed out your credit line just before the big game.

You probably won't be invited to muck around with the batteries of your next-generation electric car, either.

Interesting for BBC HD Freeview and Canvas Lessons (4, Interesting)

lkcl (517947) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962872)

so it's clear - unequivocably clear - that all music that people want ends up on P2P networks, for anyone to get hold of. thus it is up to the music providers to realise this, take realistic stock, take advantage of the opportunity, and make some money by providing people what they want!

it is only by NOT selling people what they want (DRM-free music) that they are hurting their profits!

so this is something that the BBC Trust could learn from, and also the HD video data providers. it's quite simple: there's not really that much difference between music and video. programmes _will_ end up on P2P networks, period. thus there is absolutely no point in driving up the cost of set top boxes by adding in DRM that's going to be bypassed, regardless.

Re:Interesting for BBC HD Freeview and Canvas Less (3, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963216)

I don't think rights holders implement DRM to curb piracy (which it doesn't). I think rights holders implement DRM to make customers pay for the same media multiple times, and/or to tie them to specific devices, software or services. Why else would they be pushing it despite the fact that all DRM is cracked sooner or later? "Piracy" is just a convenient excuse.

Re:Interesting for BBC HD Freeview and Canvas Less (1)

lkcl (517947) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963814)

yah, good point. except... P2P levels the playing field, there, too...

Re:Interesting for BBC HD Freeview and Canvas Less (4, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963230)

Agreed. It basically comes down to these choices:

  1. Pay for crippled copy of media, and accept that you won't be able to play it on all your devices.
  2. Pay for crippled copy of media, then have to seek out uncrippled one on P2P network in order to play it on all your devices, and be considered a pirate anyway.
  3. Get uncrippled copy from P2P that will play on everything.

Re:Interesting for BBC HD Freeview and Canvas Less (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963982)

Choice 4: Learn to like Free media [freedomdefined.org] and choose it over non-free media. If Free operating systems are viable, why aren't Free works other than computer programs viable?

Re:Interesting for BBC HD Freeview and Canvas Less (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963676)

so it's clear - unequivocably clear - that all music that people want ends up on P2P networks, for anyone to get hold of. thus it is up to the music providers to realise this, take realistic stock, take advantage of the opportunity, and make some money by providing people what they want!

it is only by NOT selling people what they want (DRM-free music) that they are hurting their profits!

That doesn't solve the piracy problem though. Plenty of DRM-free stuff is being peddled and it gets pirated too simply to dodge the price tag.

There are two solutions:

1. Big brother internet, where DRM becomes (theoretically) enforceable because everything is monitored. Darknets will then inevitable become and we'll all be living in some cyberpunk dystopia.

2. Compete with free. Legalize noncommercial copyright infringement and force businesses to derive all their revenue from advertising, voluntary payments (donations), and value-added services.

One of these two things will happen. It's inevitable. Let's all hope it's not #1.

Surprisingly enough, it's true! (5, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962894)

Since I discovered that I can "sample" most games and movies on 'torrent, I've downloaded quite a few of them. However, relatively recently I learned about gog.com, and over the 1.5 years since I signed up, I bought 3 of the games (all DRM-free) available there. This is surprising even to me, as games and movies are a luxury for me, at the moment (wife doesn't have a job, so I'm a sugar daddy, even though I'm just a grad student/researcher). Yet gog.com makes it all really convenient: easy to purchase and download, great titles at very affordable prices, already packaged to run on Windows 2000/XP, and I will always have those titles in my online collection, so I can download them on any computer I like. All in all, I think companies that follow their example can make a decent buck.

Re:Surprisingly enough, it's true! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963162)

It's definitely true for games, especially these days when you have to pay for a demo. If more companies offered free demos so I could know what it is I'm buying before I buy it, I'd probably buy more games. Same goes for invasive DRM - if your game has to install SecuROM or another hard-to-delete DRM scheme, I'm not buying it.

Re:Surprisingly enough, it's true! (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963418)

Paying for a demo is just ridiculous. Requiring each player to have his own copy for LAN play is less absurd, but still not good for anyone. Remember how Starcraft -- the first one -- was demoed? There was a free demo which offered a one or two mission Terran campaign (IIRC), and Battle.net play against other demo players(!). And the full version allowed you to install a "multiplayer spawn" version on other machines, whose almost sole purpose was LAN parties. And you know what? People bought the game! In droves!

Oh, the good old days...

Re:Surprisingly enough, it's true! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963828)

The multiplayer spawn idea was nice, (Total Annihilation had it too) but I think Command and Conquer had the best idea. Two disks, one with the Nod and one with the GDI campaign. For multiplayer, either worked, so you could play with one friend. You could lend one of your disks to someone else while you were playing the other campaign, and often they would then end up buying it because they wanted to play it in multiplayer against someone else (or in a 3 or 4 player game with you). The game was specifically packaged in a way that encouraged you to lend part of it, but not all of it, so they got a lot of viral marketing.

Re:Surprisingly enough, it's true! (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963816)

I've downloaded quite a few of them. However, relatively recently I learned about gog.com, and over the 1.5 years since I signed up, I bought 3 of the games (all DRM-free) available there.

I stumbled upon gog.com awhile back and thought they were pretty nifty too. I especially like that not only do they not have DRM, but it's one of their advertised features! Usually, I hate ads and don't ever see them online, but somehow I caught one for gog.com, and had to smile when I saw in nice big lettering that they were DRM free. It's kind of like how Oroweat advertises on some of their bread products that they have no high fructose corn syrup. It's especially cogent in the face of what the companies peddling DRM and HFCS say: "oh, it's not bad for you", yet here are companies spending advertising money to distinguish themselves as NOT having these "ingredients" in their products. It's not like some car company has advertising that brags that their cars don't have seatbelts or airbags; people know that DRM and HFCS are shit, and they don't want them, and smart businesses can capitalize on this fact.

DRM = loss (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962912)

The RIAA / MPAA force through laws via easily bought politicians that benefit the dinosaur music / film industries. They will therefore not benefit from using the argument that stripping DRM dives more sales.

A reason that BluRay has not taken off in the way they hoped is the attempt to stop the discs playing on non-authorised drives (didn't pay the bribes), region locking / cartel protection etc. etc, and you can't back up the content to a different device (in theory, and not easily). The record industry sells fake audio CD's, taking off the CDDA logo and putting in "copy protection", breaking the Red-Book standard.

Consumers have had enough of being shafted.

Re:DRM = loss (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963020)

You see, the problem with DRM is that they keep using these customer-unfriendly methods that people hate - pumping millions and millions of dollars into the hands of technology providers that are just there to rake in their investment for technologies that the providers knew were doomed to fail from the start. What they need to do instead is to employ my patented customer-friendly DRM mechanism for a few measly tens of millions, that will also be doomed to fail from the start, but will at least enrich me rather than those other bastards.

Re:DRM = loss (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963102)

Consumers have had enough of being shafted.

While I agree with what you're saying, I really dont think most of them care. I think most consumers really dont think about DRM that much.
Console games that require the disc is no change from the old cartridges. Ripping CDs or getting mp3s from friends is so easily done that
most people would never notice DRM. Things like WGA still only affect a very small percentage of people.

I agree that consumers should be sick of it but the DRM we get today is usually easily bypassed or makes no difference.

Wait until TPM is standard in all PCs, Win8 or 9 verifies your license daily or locks up and limits you to 1 browser tab, no file saving,
no printing and constant popups. Unauthorised software (anything that can be used to violate the DMCA/ACTA) wont run so removing DRM will
be much harder. Most PC hardware will require TPM or you'll pay a lot more and it'll have reduced functionality and be stuck with rubbish
older parts. That is when consumers will be sick of DRM.

Re:DRM = loss (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963336)

You are describing the precise reason people get behind open source software. I'm not a Linux zealot, but if, or better when, things get to that point, I'm fairly confident there will be options.

Extra! Extra! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30962934)

New study tells us what we already know! ... idiots

What do GNU/Linux users choose? (4, Insightful)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962984)

DRM does not work on some operating systems such as the one I (ab)use. It is so very strange that those who can not use legally purchased DRM content, and in most cases can't even do the legal purchase, look elsewhere.. isn't it?

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (2, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963116)

As an Ubuntu/Debian user I just stay away from any and all DRM. It gets between me and my content, and is illegal to break. I don't need to put up with that hassle, not with the existence of freely licensed alternatives (part of why I run Linux).

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963120)

Yes, look elsewhere for an operating system that does DRM if you want to access all that content.

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963262)

Basically, get only mp3s. They don't include any drm, and just about everything that plays music supports them.

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963366)

Basically, get only mp3s. They don't include any drm, and just about everything that plays music supports them.

One, I was under the impression that .mp3s could be DRMd. Am I mistaken in this?

Two, if we're talking about Linux, it's technically better to just go with .ogg or another free/open file format. .mp3 requires, in the case of Ubuntu, ubuntu-restricted-extras to work. Ubuntu plays .ogg files right out of the box with Totem and Rhythmbox, but you have to install the restricted-extras package to be able to play .mp3s. (Or just use VLC, which includes .mp3 support by default, but again, this is just talking about a freshly installed system.)

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963548)

Let me teach you how to fish...

Surely if mp3s can be DRMed, it would be mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 ? Go there, search for "DRM", and you find one hit which reads "lack of DRM restrictions".

How do you "just go with .ogg" on the Amazon music store? If you meant "just buy CDs and encode them in ogg" then say so.

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963668)

Okay, looks like .mp3s cannot, in fact, be DRMd. But the argument about .ogg being natively supported still stands- .mp3 is a patented format, after all, and they can't include support for it in Ubuntu by default due to licensing issues.

And as for using .ogg, get them however you can. Rip CDs to .ogg. Buy .mp3s and then get .ogg or FLAC from BitTorrent. Use sites that allow direct download of .ogg tracks, like Jamendo. Hell, even convert your .mp3s to .ogg. I personally prefer .ogg whenever I can get it because I don't like the fact that .mp3 is patent-encumbered.

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963478)

Call me old fashioned, but I buy CDs. That works on Linux! You get lossless, DRM-free music, and physical media which, unlike CDRs, do not degrade.

Re: CDs, eh? Real CDs are quite hard to find.. (1)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963584)

Call me old fashioned, but I buy CDs

Where do you get those CDs? I haven't seen those being sold anywhere since the 90s. Stores do offer something which has the same size and shape and look very similar. Too similar. I thought the last "CD" I bought was a real CD, I didn't realize it was not until I did a close-up inspection after being devastated by the fact that my CD-player refused to play the brand new "CD".

Re: CDs, eh? Real CDs are quite hard to find.. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963980)

I've ripped recent releases with no problems.

Admittedly, the whole "lets sue the customer" thing with the music industry has reduced my once
very much thriving music media habit to a mere trickle of mostly used disks. Still, I get the
occasional newer disk.

Bluray and (Disney) DVD is much more of a Spy vs. Spy thing when it comes to DRM and "defective disk copy protection".

Re:What do GNU/Linux users choose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963598)

I go for convenience, and currently, the most convenient way to get movies is from cheap, DRM-free sites like Movieberry and similar which will saturate my connection, fast enough to stream multiple H.264 1080p streams at once. Bittorrent speeds are painfully slow for me, (throttled too), and I use it if there are no legitimate DRM-free outlets.
If every user was like me, DRM would die very fast, but unfortunately that will probably never be the case.

Irrational (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 3 years ago | (#30962998)

I get the sneaking suspicion the content industry will backwardly interpret the results of this study as proof that they need even *more* DRM.

Lesseee... (3, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963074)

I pay for music - because typically I look for specific artists or songs. It's easier for me to find it on Amazon rather than wade through piles of junk.

I would also like for the music industry to clean up its licensing. Let me buy music that I can play anywhere, in public, to any group of people smaller than, say, 100.

No strings, no fear, no stupid RIAA tricks. Come on RIAA, make it easy for us to be legal. You make it as hard as possible, with impossible convoluted licensing (you need a separate license for public performance and for copying a CD) so that it's nearly impossible to remain within the licensing restrictions and play the music I like.

Heck, I could make a strong argument that the music industry licensing is so convoluted that it is impossible to play music and be legal.

So clean up your act.

case in point (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963152)

I can confirm this (anecdotally, of course) with my own behaviors. If a PC game comes out that I want, and it incorporates some form of DRM, I will wait until I can get a NoCD patch (or some other mechanism) that removes the DRM from the game. I've had SecuROM screw with my system one too many times to mess with it again. I still buy the game, but I make sure there's a way I'll be able to play it without the headaches before I get it.

A Perfect Example: (5, Informative)

nuclearpenguins (907128) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963222)

So I went out and bought the ultra Blu-Ray edition of the newest Star Trek movie. On the cover it was advertised that it contained a digital copy for me to use. Cool, I thought that I would just put the digital copy on my media server that streams to the various viewing centers of the house.

No dice.

The digital copy is DRM'ed up the wazoo, (and the quality is severely lacking) and will only allow itself to be played from certain devices and no streaming allowed. You must also register with the home servers before you're allowed to take the copy of the file off of the disc and it is limited to being on that one hard drive. You cannot reinstall it if you lose your data somehow.

So what did I do? I "acquired" a Blu-Ray rip .mkv file of the movie. Plays perfectly on everything I want it to.

Eat me, movie industry. Offer me something that fits my needs, not yours.

Re:A Perfect Example: (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963376)

I do the same with music. I pay for monthly access to DRM'd music, but I just recently replaced my mp3 player with a new smart phone. Incidentally, the phone isn't supported.

So, to use the content I pay to use, I have to spend hours torrenting the stuff. DRM is fail.

Re:A Perfect Example: (2, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963498)

I have several blu-ray discs, PowerDVD, a computer with the guts to play the format, and I've never played one on my PC. Every time I try to play a BR disc, PDVD always spends several minutes trying to download new "updates" (generally >48MB), and then usually fails with some error. Now, this is on a machine that has only a remote control, so doing anything mouse-centric or requiring KB input requires marching into a different room and plugging in a keyboard. If I download an mkv of the same movie from us...et (first rule and all that), the worst I have to do is run it through MKVtoolnix to get the english track as the default, since W7MC still doesn't quite understand the container can have multiple audio tracks. Half the time, I download the movie first, and if it's a "keeper," I buy it when it becomes available. I have the slysoft software to rip myself, but it's more work and the files are quite a bit larger. I own over 300 movies, and probably have 20 or so I haven't bought - most of those I haven't watched yet (just too busy). Getting a disc with the movie "in the clear" so I can load it onlo the media PC, and a pre-compressed version for the car/ipod would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the "digital copy" - I haven't even tried it. From the description on the front, it looks like you can just copy the file to your device. From the back you realize that it's practically useless unless you don't mind installing something from Macrovision (never to be trusted) and only to very specific devices. No thanks - that's way to much F***ing with my well-honed, efficient system.

Why it Works (5, Interesting)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963270)

The reason why this works is rather simple: It's not a competition between something that costs and something that is free. That is only on the surface. I'll give my own rational: I hear a track I like on the (satellite) radio. Now, I can either spend the next 10 to 15 minutes wading through broken links, abandoned torrents, and spam sites to end up with something that has a high likelihood of not even being the remix or the quality I wanted. I could also run the off chance someone I know already has it and mentions it at some point, then spend a similar amount of time trying to exchange the media. Or, I can go to a central website, spend 5 minutes listening to previews and spend a buck for the track using a low hassle micro-payment system.

As the saying goes, time is money. If your customers have the disposable income that accumulates at a rate higher than the rate of benefit, they will often choose to spend that income rather than work for a benefit at a lower rate of return. And, then they have the luxury of spending their time on something more beneficial.

Someone mentioned porn? Pay for porn does not work because:
- It is typically a significant monetary cost, two to three orders of magnitude. It goes from being petty cash to being a discretionary budget item.
- In the digital form, requires a month to month commitment. Human sexual desire typically involves a lot of spontaneity. You don't marry porn.
- Shyster websites will often not have the level of content implied and will keep charging customers long after they have terminated your subscription.
- The catalog is limited from site to site, and people are typically not going to pay the full fee just to see one spread.
- The record of your purchase is basically public (corporate) information that anyone can purchase.
- ...which brings me to the public humiliation that is involved in acknowledging one's own sexuality, for IRL or online purchases.

you FAIL it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963362)

At my freelance I read the 7atest look at th3 bombshell hit

Fp spo8g3. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30963520)

insisted that the mundane chores please moderate o7 programming fucking confirmed:

Those BLOODY PIRATES! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963558)

Quick! We must add more obnoxious and expensive DRM to our content to prevent this rampant theft!

Let's Not Forget Study Bias (2, Insightful)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#30963732)

Obviously RIAA and MPAA will commission a study of their own that will find that the reason people pirate is that they are evil and want to steal the property of their poor, starving artists. But of course the bias of the study is in favor of the rights holders because they foot the bill for the study.

OTOH, this study suggests that people just want to own what they purchase and use whatever means available to make the ownership permanent. But of course the bias of the study is

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?