Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

New DRM-Free Label Announced

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the seal-of-approval dept.

DRM 90

jrepin writes "Awareness has been spreading among individuals, businesses and other organizations that DRM is a completely unnecessary restriction of freedom, and it drives people away. As that awareness spreads, going 'DRM-Free' becomes more and more valuable for patrons. To really build upon that image and to provide a resource for people to learn about why being DRM-Free matters, a logo was created for suppliers to proudly advertise that their files all come unencumbered by restrictive technologies. Some among early adopters are O'Reilly Media, ClearBits, Momentum Books, and ccMixter."

cancel ×

90 comments

That will last about five minutes (1)

kriston (7886) | about 2 years ago | (#41004455)

Wow. That's gonna last about five minutes before they have to turn the lights off.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004561)

Naw, in the phreem-arc-it tradition of the United States, a multi-national corporation with major ties to the government will either sue in order to make it illegal to brand anything as DRM-free, or make sure it is legal to brand DRM contaminated crap as being DRM-free.

Re:That will last about five minutes (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41004919)

You mean like they made it illegal to brand "GM free" foods? Yeah. Lovely country we have here... the government sure does protect us from those bad companies selling tainted food. We might actually be better-off without the 3-letter agencies.

Here's another site I want to nominate for the DRM-free logo. They even hand-out free books for download:
http://www.baenebooks.com/ [baenebooks.com]
http://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx [baenebooks.com]

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41004975)

And another site that sells DRM-free eBooks: http://www.smashwords.com/ [smashwords.com]

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | about 2 years ago | (#41005963)

They have another way to get free DRM Free ebooks also, All the CDs that were included with the hard back books are available for download either as an ISO file or as individual titles at http://baencd.freedoors.org/ [freedoors.org] There are a lot of good books there!

Re:That will last about five minutes (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41006177)

I don't think this is similar enough to foods to where that comparison is apt. Corn is corn, if you're going to buy an ear of corn and notice it's GM, you can buy a different one that's not GM, and it will taste basically the same.

Buying music, however, not many consumers buy based on label. Songs are exclusive. I can't choose to buy "Gimmie Shelter" by the rolling stones from a DRM-free label, I could only buy it from the label that has the rights to that song. So there's no branding advantage to DRM free there.

"Organic" or "non GMO" are also labels people care about. I'm cynical that "DRM-free" has as much appeal. I could be wrong, I've done no surveys on that subject.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#41008367)

I can't speak for others, but this label (if applied correctly) is a dream come true for me. I've been pretty careful about buying anything these days because being careless will end you up having spent half your money on DRM'd crap that you'll lose access to for whatever silly reason at whatever time -someone else- thinks is okay. Or not, and some server just b0rks. Or your internet connection flakes out and you spend hours without half your media.

The DRM-free label will get me more interested and trusting in products that would otherwise be too mainstream (indie stuff isn't DRM'd as often nor as badly) and untrustworthy for me. That seems like a "mission accomplished" at least: if you get even one more customer by putting on a neat label, it's worth it, right?

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41009453)

Organic and non-GMO are labels people care about because they've been marketed to effectively. With the right marketing, DRM-free would have as much appeal. It should be even easier, because using DRMd products has actual negative consequences, whereas the organic label just means it costs more and you should be smug about it.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41013799)

History repeats itself. Back in the late '80s or early '90s, computer users rebelled against software (especialy games) that had DRM, for the same reasons people are rebelling against it now (the pirate version is superior to the paid-for version) and after a couple of companies that refused to remove DRM went bankrupt, the others folded and DRM was dead, only to come back in the late '90s when the industry had a new generation of suckers.

As to music, you notice that that's one place where DRM went away? You DO have a choice when you want "gimme shelter". You can buy it on iTunes, you can buy a CD, or you can download it from a pirate site for free and not have any of DRM's faults.

The DRM title's competition is the Pirate Bay. DRM never has worked, never will work, and cannot work.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41016013)

>>> if you're going to buy an ear of corn and notice it's GM, you can buy a different one that's not GM, and it will taste basically the same.

Except that it has no label, because the corporations lobbied the government to outlaw "no GM" labels. The whole point of this thread is that corporations will likely lobby to outlaw "no DRM" labels too, in order to protect their business.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

NoseyNick (19946) | about 2 years ago | (#41117213)

I've got no problem forcing GM foods to be labelled "this food has been genetically modified", as long as organic food is forced to be labelled "this food was sprayed with organic shit" ;-)

Re:That will last about five minutes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41009927)

You mean like they made it illegal to brand "GM free" foods?

Who did? And please link to evidence of "them" having done so. I'm sure plenty of companies who make foods that have GMO-free branding on them would love to know that what they are doing is illegal.

Lovely country we have here... the government sure does protect us from those bad companies selling tainted food.

"Tainted"? LOL. You realize that all modern food crops are genetically modified, right? Yes, even before targeted genetic engineering happened. You don't really believe that any food crops from the last couple centuries are genetically identical to their wild ancestors, do you?

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#41012405)

"You don't really believe that any food crops from the last couple centuries are genetically identical to their wild ancestors, do you?"

Hi, I work in the industry of agriculture.

You're a moron. Good day.

Most nightshades (tomatoes, potatoes, peppers) are EXACTLY the same as they were two centuries ago.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

swx2 (2632091) | about 2 years ago | (#41013767)

Going to have to call bullshit on that. Potatoes arrived in Europe from the "New World", then planted in the US from plants brought over from Europe. Irish potato famine destroyed one breed, but not others. If they were genetically identical, no species would've been safe, but that's obviously not the case.

Re:That will last about five minutes (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41012431)

We might actually be better-off without the 3-letter agencies.

Like EPA, FDA? Nope, I can't agree. You like dirty air and lakes, and no labeling in food AT ALL? No mandated testing of new drugs?

Some 3 letter agencies I agree with; ATF, TSA, NSA, sure. Get rid of them. Let me get my pitchfork...

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41004981)

They probably already can... since technically the files being provided are restricted by the license and the DRM software only attempts to enforce those licenses, not apply additional restrictions.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41014705)

the DRM software only attempts to enforce those licenses, not apply additional restrictions.

Bullshit. In the first place, I don't "licence a movie," I buy it. The license is between the copyright holder and the distributor. I signed no contract, I traded cash for merchandise. Yet the DRM on a DVD forces me to watch unskippable piracy ads (despite the fact that pirates never see those ads and I PAID for the damned thing) and often trailers and other crap as well.

It's perfectly legal for me to copy a song off of an LP to a cassette as long as I'm not selling or otherwise publishing that cassette.. But DRM prevents (well, tries to) me from copying that movie to my hard drive so I'm not put out by having to watch those stupid antipiracy warnings or worse, ten minutes of unskippable ads for other movies.

DRM applies any damned restriction the publisher wants, your constitutional rights as a customer and any licensing agreements you agree to be damned.

Re:That will last about five minutes (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41017295)

If you don't want to watch unskippable anti-piracy warnings, watch a pirated copy.

Labels have DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004481)

I thought you meant there's a new music label...

Re:Labels have DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004631)

That's what I thought too... I thought some forward-thinking people had decided to produce music without all the bullshit.

Misleading title... (1)

dysco_dave (2548136) | about 2 years ago | (#41004763)

Great idea!

Re:Labels have DRM (1)

Sussurros (2457406) | about 2 years ago | (#41005881)

I thought the same too but this is even better, this is a fulcrum by which the world can be moved.

Re:Labels have DRM (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 2 years ago | (#41012017)

WTF are you talking about? I've been buying DRM-free music for decades. The only time I saw DRM was on one iffy CD about ten years ago, and even that one's DRM turned out to not really work right (i.e. the CD did work after all, it just didn't work in name-brand players). Don't buy any CDs published by Virgin between 2001 and 2004 and you'll probably miss the DRM fad.

Video is where the DRM problems still are. (And I hear lots of proprietary software has DRM too, though that's second-hand so take that rumor with a grain of salt.)

Re:Labels have DRM (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41009953)

Music hasn't had DRM on it for years now from either iTunes or Amazon. Maybe you need to buy your music from less shitty sellers?

Ugly (4, Insightful)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 2 years ago | (#41004541)

That logo is hideous. Who's going to be putting that on their packaging?

Re:Ugly (1)

TheSilentNumber (1825928) | about 2 years ago | (#41004609)

Have you seen the fair trade and organic foods labels? Also uglp. Apparently they managed to get a list of first adopters that aren't all nobodies, which is pretty cool

Re:Ugly (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41004987)

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a circle with
DRM
FREE
in the middle at a ~30 degree angle. It's clean and effective, and I'd certainly buy a product like that vs. the copyprotected/DRM version.

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41005345)

No, that thing is not clean. It's awful.

Not that a lot of people were going to use it anyway.

Re:Ugly (0)

Ghaoth (1196241) | about 2 years ago | (#41006843)

If you are seriously arguing about the logo, you lot need to get a life. Who cares?

Re:Ugly (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41007189)

No, that thing is not clean. It's awful.

Pretty much like your face then.

Why don't you do a better one and submit to them. Oh wait, you can't because you are as useless as your comments.

Re:Ugly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41006211)

It's off-putting. It's a circle with a line through it like a no-smoking sign (or no pets, etc.). They are using a symbol we use to mean "don't" do something to get people to do something: buy their product.

Re:Ugly (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#41006797)

Actually it's not nearly as bad as what I first thought the logo was, namely [imagely?] the image at the top of the slashdot page, the white straightjacket...

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41021867)

The spacing of DRM and FREE in relation to the centre line is uneven, the surrounding text is misaligned, the font is retro-ugly and that whole slanted circle faux rubber stamp design is just passe.

I oppose DRM, but I wouldn't use their label, I'd make my own.

Re:Ugly (3, Funny)

EZLeeAmused (869996) | about 2 years ago | (#41005591)

Well, they had to do something to keep people from stealing those products.

Re:Ugly (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41005843)

We must be looking at different logos. This looks okay to me:

https://static.fsf.org/dbd/DRM-free/DRM-free.png [fsf.org]

Re:Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41022271)

It looks just awesome on a dark background because you can't even see it.

Honestly, the fact that they didn't consider something as fundamental as that is indicative of amateur design work. I don't think they've heard of antialiasing either.

Remember the source (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | about 2 years ago | (#41006625)

As far as FSF artwork goes, the logo is pretty good.

Re:Ugly (3, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | about 2 years ago | (#41006847)

Agreed, that's a pretty bad logo. Kudos to them for the idea. It needs to be promoted, but not with that. It'd too cluttered. Text is a bad thing. It should be optional, underneath, beside, etc, but not wrapped around as part of the logo. The idea of brand recognition is that the logo becomes instantly identifiable, which means it DOESN'T need to have a detailed explanation of what DRM-FREE means, in the long term. Put the text "with it" now somehow, but not as the actual logo. :\

Re:Ugly (1)

martin_dk (1368035) | about 2 years ago | (#41007213)

For a moment I thought that "Defective by design" refererred to the uglyness of their failed logo.

While a really nice initiative they should reconsider the visual identity of the campaign

Re:Ugly (1)

hcpxvi (773888) | about 2 years ago | (#41007915)

That logo is hideous. Who's going to be putting that on their packaging?
At least it doesn't look like two people performing an act unsuitable for discussion on a family website ( See here [guardian.co.uk] for the canonical example). You can pay graphic designers a LOT more money than was spent on the DRM Free logo and still get something that is astonishingly bad.

DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41004545)

People looking for ebooks in places like Amazon often have trouble figuring out which ebooks have DRM and which don't because Amazon does not advertise that information.

How can they NOT make that information easily available?
Why do people not return books more as soon as they run into an unadvertised DRM problem?

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

TheSilentNumber (1825928) | about 2 years ago | (#41004639)

They don't know any better. Hopefully this will help with that.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41004937)

People looking for ebooks in places like Amazon often have trouble figuring out which ebooks have DRM and which don't because Amazon does not advertise that information.

How can they NOT make that information easily available?
    Why do people not return books more as soon as they run into an unadvertised DRM problem?

Because when people who are not Slashdot readers buy a book at Amazon, and it works on their Kindle they are happy. Few ordinary users try to move eBooks between platforms, and if they do try and fail, they shrug their shoulders and stop trying.

But maybe this label will help make more people aware of what they are giving up when they buy DRM infected content. The music studious seem to have learned their lesson since most (all?) music is available unencumbered.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41005061)

Amazon sells DRM-free books? How do I get them off my kindle (or amazon) and into another reader..... like Word. ;-)

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (2)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 2 years ago | (#41006295)

Calibre, which is FOSS and cross-platform btw.
And you can get a drm-stripping plugin for it too.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (2)

corsec67 (627446) | about 2 years ago | (#41006707)

Being able to strip the DRM is not the same as receiving a DRM free file from the vendor.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 2 years ago | (#41041613)

True. Calibre can do both, however: By default, convert unencrypted .azw's to your favorite format, and with a plugin, strip any DRM first.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

madsdyd (228464) | about 2 years ago | (#41008107)

Current state of affairs, unless you are willing to fiddle quite a bit, is that DRM free kindle files you have bought, potentially can be very hard to extract from your kindle application. (I do not know about dedicated readers).

For some versions of the kindle reader, it is as easy as getting the .prc file from the local storage. However, this is not a foolproof method. Recent versions of the android kindle reader stores the .prc files in app-private space (or whatever), making it only accesible if you root the device.

If you use the amazon/kindle offline reader, the content is actually stored unencrypted, but compressed in your browsers cache/database. It takes some javascript-foo to extract it, but it is possible. Google search/translate is your friend here, but be prepared to fiddle a bit.

IMHO you should seek alternatives to Kindle, if you are not prepared to read your books on a kindle device/app. Adobe DRM on epubs is trivial to remove, using wine and Adobe Digital Editions, and as such is a much more suitable format for cross-device ebook reading. Of course, just selling us books as files, without DRM would be much better. I assume I am not the only one waiting for tor.com to put their announced DRM free store online soon.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41008675)

Aren't the files readily available if you use the Kindle for PC app?

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

madsdyd (228464) | about 2 years ago | (#41009243)

Perhaps - I do not have access to Windows versions of the kindle reader. :-/

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41016735)

>>>IMHO you should seek alternatives to Kindle, if you are not prepared to read your books on a kindle device/app.

I am. I bought the kindle because of its e-ink design. I don't like looking at backlit screens, whereas the kindle is more like reading a paper, but it would ne nice to download the DRM-free books to my hard drive.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

madsdyd (228464) | about 2 years ago | (#41020311)

There is no question e-ink is superior to a backlit screen. However, the kindle is not the only e-ink device :-)

I personally like my Sony Reader Wifi a lot. I also own a nook and a no-name device. Not a kindle though, because I prefer not to be locked into a specific eco-system.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41008055)

I've not bought any ebooks with DRM in them, but when I rent a DVD that has some sort of copy protection that stops it playing with VLC then I send it back marked defective. The rental company then has to check or replace the disk. I also tick the 'don't send me this again' box, so the studio won't get any revenue. It probably makes little difference when it's just me, but if a lot of people do it then it will start costing them significantly more to carry encumbered DVDs than normal ones.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41009271)

My problem isn't really with DRM. Its with water marking, which tends to be much more obscure and much less talked about.

I'll take something with DRM (which I can break in all cases) any day over something which has a Water Mark containing some kind of personal identifier which I can never remove.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41011221)

Why would watermarking be a problem unless you plan to illegally share the files? Just so long as the watermarks aren't intrusive and don't degrade the product (this is important), I don't see the problem with it.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 2 years ago | (#41012121)

Watermarks aren't talked about, because almost no one cares. Lots of stuff on my fileserver has "personal identifiers" but you don't see me deleting my copy of my tax records. Ah.. but that's just it: you don't see me. That's why I don't care about whatever personal info is in the file.

If you're concerned about theft or something like that, look into dm-crypt, and don't run malware whenever you have that stuff mounted.

Re:DRM-free Should be the DEFAULT (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41009979)

Why do people not return books more as soon as they run into an unadvertised DRM problem?

Because most people don't run into problems? The vast majority of people only ever read their ebooks on the exact device the ebook was made for.

That's a decent list of first-adopters (2)

TheSilentNumber (1825928) | about 2 years ago | (#41004555)

With that list of first-adopters, it wauld be great if the label could actually become a recognizeable and valuable marker. That would be a promising development as major ebook publishers start dropping DRM. With DRM all but gone for music and, if ebooks meet a similar fate, how long can video, streaming servies, and games last?

Re:That's a decent list of first-adopters (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41005643)

how long can video, streaming servies, and games last?

Until they shut off the DRM servers?

Re:That's a decent list of first-adopters (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#41005747)

They need this on games too. People demand DRM free on audio, and now on books, but for some reason they look the other way when games are locked down the same way.

Re:That's a decent list of first-adopters (2)

TheSilentNumber (1825928) | about 2 years ago | (#41007317)

I think that's the beauty of this logo. Defective by Design is an FSF campaign, so they can't endorse non-free games, but this logo specifically says it is not an endorsement, so games can use it too!

Nicwe Logo, but... (3, Interesting)

flogger (524072) | about 2 years ago | (#41004643)

That's a nice clear logo, but there are may people who will still prefer THIS [goo.gl] as their DRM free logo of choice.

Re:Nicwe Logo, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41005357)

Too true, too true.

Re:Nicwe Logo, but... (1)

brit74 (831798) | about 2 years ago | (#41005619)

People who prefer to support creators, rather than run around like everyone owes them free stuff don't use the Pirate Bay.

Re:Nice Logo, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41021005)

People who prefer to support creators, rather than run around like everyone owes them free stuff don't use the Pirate Bay.

Yep, people are owed. It's the copyright maximalists like yourself, who think artificial scarcity is a good thing and can't seem to cope with the idea that most pirates would not have paid for a copy at any price and thus cause no harm at all (in fact create value for every copy made), who need to educate themselves. Most people share stuff quite happily, particularly in the third world, whatever the bought law says. They've been doing it since the dawn of time. No reason to stop now. So, when you stop implicitly equating sharing with lost sales then people might start start taking you seriously.

Re:Nicwe Logo, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41007901)

Unfortunately so.

Hmm, I dunno. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41004775)

That "DRM Free" label looks suspiciously similar to the Free DRM! label -- or it will soon enough.

Re:Hmm, I dunno. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41015509)

I expect they have trademarked the logo which means if someone created a "Free DRM" logo that was similar enough to cause confusion with their "DRM Free" logo, then the FSF could sue for trademark infringement.

Awareness is Spreading? No Logo Please (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 2 years ago | (#41004849)

Look, I provide my shit for free, and even have some of my behind the scenes work available DRM free, but I'm not sticking that label on any of it. I'd rather just serve up the raw stuff without costing me too much, which means there are already tons of labels, branding, and even ads around YouTube, or Google Docs. I can't completely get rid of it, but I'm also trying to do lovecraft/cthulhu/erotica on no budget so I don't expect to be able to get rid of it. I'll have to run ads most likely on the main site, which means more clutter. So thanks for the logo conceptually, but no thanks from a very independent producer. Maybe I'll throw it on my http://www.hex.xxx/wtfaq/hex/ [hex.xxx] page or something with the more general site info. - HEX

Re:Awareness is Spreading? No Logo Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41008035)

this!
If companies what to sell stuff that IS DRM then they should forced to show it not the other way around.
Remember, its not sugar free cordial but "no added sugar"

A submission about a new Logo without the Damn Log (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41005067)

I know there is a link, but give me break, I initially thought the asshole straightjacket logo in the corner was the one being discussed.
I don't know if that was the original submitters intent, or just the usual SlashDot bullshit!

A new Label is finr but (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41005461)

What artists/Bands do they have signed up?

No Thanks (-1, Troll)

brit74 (831798) | about 2 years ago | (#41005717)

I offer my software without DRM, but I certainly won't be using any labels like that because: (1) It's ugly, and (2) I completely disagree with the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation (who is behind the DefectiveByDesign website) who thinks that everyone should be allowed to pirate everything. If you don't believe me, then look it up - the "software user rights" should include the "freedom to share". The free software foundation claims it's about free as in "freedom", but mostly it's about "free as in beer" (since most people only care about the price and lack any ability or desire to modify the software anyway).

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

It's unfortunate that the world has offered him a free living by lavishing him with monetary awards [mit.edu] for his so-called contributions to free software. The rest of us have to live in the real world where organizations are NOT throwing money at our feet. In other words: Richard Stallman can blow me because he doesn't live in the real world.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41006027)

WRONG. Yes they do believe all software should be free and encourage developers and media producers to use copyleft licenses, but by no means do they encourage pirating anything that is not "free". They respect others' copyrights and other licenses as they should. Stop spreading lies. No one at the FSF opening encourages pirating.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41006149)

Sure, RMS is a little over the top, but the world needs people who espouse a fringe view to bring the center closer to where it should be.

It's not the DRM that is wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41006065)

...but how it's (ab)used by the media corporations. Actually, if I made and sold a digital good then I would want it protected by DRM against illegal copying.

Re:It's not the DRM that is wrong... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 2 years ago | (#41007969)

-Your comment is a digital good.(not sold).
-It is not protected by DRM.
-your comment lacks details HOW it is abused by media corporation, so i cannot comment what you want to say.

============

By the way, If there is no DRM that is not to say that there is no watermarking. They could watermark all sales, and if they consistently see that the good bought by "proudDemonoidUser" are always finding their way into the torrent community, it will not take them very long to present a bill to proudDemonoidUser for redistributing the digital goods.

This is still a thing? (1)

DL117 (2138600) | about 2 years ago | (#41006105)

The whole 'DRM war' thing is over. Ever since the Sony fiasco way back, they haven't even tried putting it on physical media, and I haven't encountered DRM'd digital media in ages.

XKCD: http://xkcd.com/546/ [xkcd.com]

Re:This is still a thing? (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 years ago | (#41006203)

There's a whole world of content outside of music, and nearly all of it is still heavily locked down with DRM. Most ebooks and virtually all video content spring to mind.

Re:This is still a thing? (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 2 years ago | (#41006361)

I'm going to assume you're referring to music CDs only. Otherwise I guess you haven't looked too closely at DVD or Blu Ray media.

uh ohhhhhhh (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41006439)

Now I don't want to freak the RIAA out or anything but ALL music coming out of my speaker port has no DRM at that point. I think maybe they may have overlooked that. I don't think they know how music or sound works.

Re:uh ohhhhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41008897)

DON'T give them ideas!
Very soon DRM enabled cyber brains will be necessary to listen to their music... (And the noise coming out of the speaker will be digitally encrypted.)

a german band has already a better logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41006661)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopierschutz
See that wikipedia article about the IFPI logo for copy-protection (for CDs) and the logo used by the german band "die Ärzte" which gives them the finger.

Can't find book explicitly without DRM = pirate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41008205)

When I have aquired ebooks recently, I have made it a rule to always check whether I could buy them without DRM first. If they are for sale without DRM I buy them, or if they are too expensive I don't get them.

If they are only for sale with DRM, or if the stores don't advertise the DRM status, I pirate them. And I have been able to find all the books I wanted in pirate downloads, which also illustrates how ineffective the DRM is.

I hope that this kind of behavior send the publishers the right message.

Re:Can't find book explicitly without DRM = pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41009757)

It will if your message is "I'm not a customer ignore me and make your DRM stronger"

Re:Can't find book explicitly without DRM = pirate (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41010065)

The only message you send is one saying that they need more effective DRM. The way you get them to stop using DRM isn't to go "They aren't giving it to me how I want so I'm just gonna take it anyway!!!".

Re:Can't find book explicitly without DRM = pirate (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41012049)

The only message you send is one saying that they need more effective DRM. The way you get them to stop using DRM isn't to go "They aren't giving it to me how I want so I'm just gonna take it anyway!!!".

Exactly. Espcially since there's a DRM-free way to get it in the first place - in print! Deadtree is a perfect way to express your opinion on the matter - it's DRM-free (any scanner or photocopier can read it too), you can give it away/resell it/etc.

Oh, and what I do is I buy the deadtree, then pirate the ebook. Amazon etc. won't give a crap about DRM-free because they're selling more ebooks than deadtrees. Reverse that trend and it says something. (Plus, if there are OCR errors in the pirated ebook, you can reference the deadtree to figure out what it's supposed to be).

AND the author (and everyone else involved from editors to cover art) gets their cut.

It's right now a perfect way to show your displeasure for DRM and make a meaningful stand because the metrics people are using are comparing print sales to ebook sales.

Ummm what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41008261)

Do we really need to state up front on a product.... WE DIDN'T SHIT THIS UP! look theres a logo. and nobody ever lied on a product.

Is that really what we've come to?

I guess it's true. We get the world we deserve.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...