The Clicker: Digital content -- why the sense of entitlement?

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

There is something that I've never really understood when it comes to the digital entertainment debate. That is: where do people get their sense of entitlement with regard to content? Don't get me wrong -- I understand the hatred of DRM. I too have been bitten by incompatible formats and locked-down systems. I understand the digital claustrophobia one feels when in the bear hug warm embrace of DRM. DRM is often a nasty (if necessary) evil, and its existence nearly always degrades the user experience. I understand all that. What I don't get is the sense of entitlement people feel for the content itself. After all, it's not really our content. At the end of the day if that's how content owners choose to sell it, isn't that their right? Isn't ours simply a choice of to buy or not to buy?

Somewhere along the line people started to lose perspective in this whole DRM debate. Somewhere along the line people started to categorize music, movies, and other forms of entertainment as exempt from the normal rules of commerce. Well -- that's not quite true. It's not that people gave blanket exemptions to entertainment "theft." It's that for some odd reason, people determined that they were the ones who should choose what was right and wrong when it came to the buying and selling entertainment content. Instead of the all-too-familiar set of rules for selling goods (i.e. the seller and the buyer mutually agree on the terms of sale; if either of the parties doesn't agree, there is no transfer of goods) consumers felt perfectly justified in writing their own personal rules. Often times, merely because they could.

Law-abiding, moral people do things with entertainment content that they wouldn't dream of doing with physical goods. Can you imagine walking into a restaurant which you knew to be overpriced, eating, and then leaving without paying just because the you felt the place was a rip-off and not worth the prices they charged? Worse yet, can you imagine doing it the next day also? Of course not!

Yet people feel no such compunction about appropriating media content without paying anyone for it. Why is this the case?

The entertainment industries would have you believe that the dreaded "perfect copy" is responsible for people illegally acquiring and sharing content. That is to say, because this new digital world offers heretofore unprecedented levels of quality in bootlegs, people steal. Frankly, that's a load. It confuses the cause and the effect. Sure, the existence of perfect copies has made the piracy problem more wide-spread and tougher to "fix," but people's disrespect of "entertainment value" happened well before the internet was even a glimmer in Al Gore's eye.

We all did it when we were younger; we'd pay to watch one movie, and at its conclusion we'd scurry down the hall and pop into another. "Why not?" we thought. "It's not like we're actually going to pay to see Bio-Dome. Besides, the seat is empty." There is no arguing the logic. It's impeccable. It's clearly a case of no harm, no foul. There's only one problem: that's really not the rule. Believe it or not, there is no "I wasn't gonna pay for it anyway" clause in the commerce rulebook. Nor is there an "I disagree with your terms so instead I'll just take it" clause. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to entertainment -- and the goods become intangible -- these become perfectly acceptable arguments.

The obvious answer is that people have no respect for goods where the marginal cost of production is zero or close to it. It doesn't matter that work went into its production. It doesn't matter that the sales of current goods pay for development of future goods. It seems to only matter what production costs. And, of course, what the consumer's self-proclaimed set of rules are.

I'm always reticent to suggest that people are ever "stealing" entertainment. Despite the best efforts of the industries involved to paint them as such, few of these people are criminals. Yet, they each break the rules and feel very little remorse about it.

So today we'll try something different. Today I'm going to ask you some questions. Do you have different rules for content vs. tangibiles? If so, why do you consider entertainment to be different from say, groceries? What are your personal rules about personal use of copyrighted -- often DRMed -- digital content??

For instance, I have a friend who buys music via an online store and then immediately torrents "clean" copies. Does he have a right to do so? Absolutely not, but he's fine with it. I've spent the last couple days loading up my new 5.5G iPod with movies I've previously purchased. Did I lose sleep over it? Nope. However, at the same time I recognized that I was indeed breaking the rules and it would be perfectly within the copyright holder's rights to slap so much DRM on there that I couldn't do it in the future -- just like it would be perfectly within my rights to not buy the movies if they did so.

I know others who only torrent broadcast shows. Still others torrent shows their cable companies don't carry or carry with bundles they don't like. On the more extreme side, I know people who feel perfectly within their rights to download music because "the label is screwing the artist."

Share your rules with the world. What's the most interesting rationalization you've developed for bending the rules for entertainment content, and why is it ok? I want to know, and something tells me you've probably thought about this before.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns, drop me a line at [e-mail].

[Jeremy @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:06PM]

This isn't about the sale, its about the aftermath. The fact that my song may not be playable in a week because of a decision the company makes is what sucks. The fact that my music player that I invested 300 dollars into may suddenly not be able to play the music I bought for it is what sucks. Completely missed the point.

[@ Sep 22nd 2006 12:20PM]

I think that is the point exactly. You have a choice as to what, where and how to download or rip your content. If you choose to download from a site that has severe restrictions on its use, then it's your fault. Go somewhere else. It's just like the restaurant scenario above. If you don�t like the food or service don�t go to the restaurant. BUT you don�t have the right to try the food and then say it was bad and walk out without paying. Caveat emptor.

[Arno @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:10PM]

I think the sense of entitlement comes from the CD days. You would buy a CD and you'd own those songs. You could rip them to CD, convert them to any format you wanted (and with that, put them on any device you want) or burn a copy and use that as to not get the original scratched. Now you buy the songs for the same price on iTunes and you can ONLY use them on an iPod. What if down the road iPods really start to suck, or someday Apple decides to retreat from the music player business. Then what? You "own" a song in AAC that you can't do shit with but play in iTunes.

That is why I would never buy any music that is DRM'd.

[Reid Sorenson @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:23PM]

You could make mix tapes from records and tapes long before you could from CDs, but it was never really covered by the license agreement. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you're authorized to do so.

And anyway, you can burn protected AAC tracks from iTunes to an audio CD if you want to, no problem.

[Darren Murph @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:12PM]

Remarks were spot-on; for some reason we just don't connect inherit value to things that are cheap to produce.

[Ryan @ Sep 22nd 2006 1:59PM]

That's interesting... how much 'inherent' value is there in something that is 'cheap to produce'. Doesn't the 'inherent' value of a good stem (at least in part) from the cost to produce it? And from limitations on it's supply? I'm not sure that digital content really is cheap to produce (rather than cheap to copy and distribute), but if we assume that it really is, and that there's no natural reason** for limitations on it's supply, then doesn't that mean that it has very little 'inherent' value?

I'm certainly not an economist, but it seems to me that the intangibility of the goods is one of the main keys to understanding how the digital content marketplace really works. And, distinct from other intangibles, such as a contract or financial instruments, digital content literally has to be experienced in order for the buyer to assign their relative value to the thing. If you buy a movie without having seen it first, you are doing so based on very incomplete information. Far more incomplete, it seems, than buying produce without tasting it. I'm not sure where these observations might lead, but they seem relevant if we're really trying to understand how and why parties behave the way that they do in this market.

** An un-natural reason would be if distributors offered only 1000 downloads of a song or movie, in order to great a sense of scarcity.

->R

[LOs @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:14PM]

I believe the sense of entitlement comes from the precedent that was set by the open source natures of formats of the past. With VHS, Cassette, and so on people grew accustomed to the fact that after they bought something they could do what they liked with it. When you buy a car can you not mod it and apply all sorts of styling changes to it, maybe even swap out an engine? Sure you'll probably void your warranty, but is any automaker going to sue you for it? When you buy a head of lettuce, it's "meant" for human consumtion, but what if you feed it to your rabbits.

You cannot apply the "normal rules of commerce" to something on the consumer end of things, when the producer side of the equation doesn't do the same.

Yes, I agree, we could just not consume these products to show our distaste for the methods being applied to them. But really one must ask, why did the system have to change? It was fine the way it was (or is in the case of most things).

[theattack @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:14PM]

why is it hard to admit that most people do not steal because of 1)fear of getting caught, 2)remorse for the victims. In most entertainment theft, there seems to be no victim, or at least not one we relate to, and there is little chance of getting caugth. We just dont care, and we dont even feel the need to rationalize it well if at all. people steal all the time, wether its candy froma coworkers desk or money found in the street. this is just avaliable to the public and the public does what it wants to do- take for free

[deldredge @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:15PM]

I don't understand the whole DRM debate. If people have such issues with DRM, then why not just buy cds? Who wants to pay near the price of a cd for shitty compressed audio anyway? This sense of entitlement is just bullshit that people use to try to justify not wanting to pay for something that they can get for free. I used to do the same thing.

[Brian @ Sep 22nd 2006 2:31PM]

People still buy CDs for some things. However, this gets into what's called the "long tail", or the idea that the Internet provides unlimited (or close enough for most cases) distribution ability. You don't need to worry about whether Wal-Mart has your favorite (obscure) band's new disk, you don't have to leave your house to get the music, and without DRM, you wouldn't have to spend time configuring and ripping the music for your digital device. We have the first two down with things like iTunes, but people are so used to the third (doing what they want with something they paid money for) that they want it back.

[Jerry @ Sep 22nd 2006 3:44PM]

I think the reason people aren't inclined the buy the CD is that the "buffet" nature of online downloading is too hard to resist. The logic is that if I only want 3 songs from a CD why should I pay $10 when I only have to pay $3?

[Dmnkly @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:15PM]

Glad somebody's saying it.

Jeremy... then do what I do. Don't download DRM music. Buy CDs. Apple and the record label could both go completely belly up, and I'll still be able to play my music as long as the battery in my iPod holds out. Oh, wait...

[Jonathan Moore @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:16PM]

"At the end of the day if that's how content owners choose to sell it, isn't that their right?"

I think this comment is where the heart of the debate is. The real debate is if you can own content and under what terms. Some feal content can't not be owned at all; while others feal they should be able to control it in every way they can imagen.

Owner ship is the core of the debate.

[JAC @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:16PM]

They were raping us with music CD prices and software prices before, now we have them by the balls, theyll still make loads of money, just not as much as before.

I say screw them, the only time I(gladly) pay for legit software is when I buy my Nintendo games :p .

[EdZ @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:17PM]

"the seller and the buyer mutually agree on the terms of sale; if either of the parties doesn't agree, there is no transfer of goods"
Here is the crux of the issue. Here on the interwebs, almost everyone is likely to know about DRM, why it is bad, and refuse to succumb to it. In the wider world, people don't. They don't know they're paying the same as a CD for a file that may or may not play the next day, or at someone else's house, or on their portable player. But they'll pay anyway, because they don't know, and the seller isn't going to tell them. The buyer is agreeing to terms of which they are unaware of.

[Samuel McConnell @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:19PM]

I only torrent network shows or shows that I do indeed receive on my cable, but can't watch because I only have a single-tuner TiVo. Recent example being last night, my girlfriend was watching the Grey's Anatomy recap show while The Office and My Name is Earl played at the same time.

I have no problems with content migration - ripping DVDs I own for my iPod, or CDs to MP3s, and I wouldn't strip the DRM if I didn't have to to do so.

[awhite @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:21PM]

Yeah sure people have always stolen creative works, but what I think is different is that both sides, the music/movie industries and consumers, have become more polarized. When the record companies and movie studios treat consumers like criminals, then consumers will revel in being pirates.

How do we get away from the polarization. Put the copyright laws back the way the founding fathers of this country wrote them. Treat the consumer with respect. Target the true criminals, and not the student that copies a CD from a guy down the hall. That'd be a start.

[Adam-Ondi @ Sep 22nd 2006 3:34PM]

That's just it. There WERE no copyright laws written or intended by the Founding Fathers. So by the time any actual copyright legislation was written and enforced in this country, it was written under the influence of copyright holders and therefore was tailored to suit their wishes rather than those of the consumer. The whole problem has only become more unfair since then. Example A: The DMCA.

[@ Sep 22nd 2006 12:21PM]

I think that is the point exactly. You have a choice as to what, where and how to download or rip your content. If you choose to download from a site that has severe restrictions on its use, then it's your fault. Go somewhere else. It's just like the restaurant scenario above. If you don�t like the food or service don�t go to the restaurant. BUT you don�t have the right to try the food and then say it was bad and walk out without paying. Caveat emptor.

[John @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:22PM]

No sense of entitlement, just want lower quality, digital downloads to not restrict me more than if I just bought the disc/physical form of an item, which can be had for a few dollars more. The article mentions both sides agreeing or no transfer is made. The problem is no one in entertainment does offer what consumers really want, so eventually you have to give in and just pick one. Doesn't mean you don't have the right to bitch about it if you want to. Article calls it entitlement; I just call it bitching about services rendered.

[Alexi @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:23PM]

Re: DRM.
Imagine Ford, Toyota, Honda, and GM decided to start putting large pointy spikes squarly on the drivers seat (umm. for whatever reason :-). You could simply choose not to buy those brands, but then you'd be relegated mostly to Citroens (read: weird indy distributors). It seems to me that when large stakeholders in the market decide to screw up that market, consumers voicing their opposition aren't without merit. Point being, if I can't buy the music I want because it's going to install trojans on my computer, I won't buy it, but I'll also might start yelling in frustration.

[wolff000 @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:24PM]

If I buy a song I should be able to play it on any device I like not just the ones the provider of the content likes. It's like buying a car you can only drive on certain roads. The other side is most people feel ripped off paying 30 bucks for a new album. It simply cost too much for most. My reason for always pirating is the most common I'm cheap and i don't care about ripping off an industry that makes billions anyway. I do buy music and other digital content from the small indie firms they actually do need the support.

[juicemouse @ Sep 22nd 2006 4:04PM]

@ wolff000:

Would you rip off a hamburger (or whatever they call them) from McDonalds? I hear they make billions.

I don't have enough money to justify owning a car right now (college student). Is it alright for me to just steal one? If so, should I steal a Ford or a Citro�n?

[Ralph Anseus @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:25PM]

"Yet people feel no such compunction about appropriating media content without paying anyone for it. Why is this the case?"

You tell me. Did you pay to use the Pirate Bay logo?

[Erik Hanson @ Sep 25th 2006 11:51AM]

Well played, although news reporting is an explicit defense to infringement under US copyright law. So reporters are normally covered, depending on some other factors. On a related note, I wonder if the Pirate Bay guys would consider this a compliment or not to visually associate _all_ copyright infringement under their logo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law

[Alex @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:26PM]

I think a lot of people recognize that stealing music doesn't directly hurt the musicians, but the evil record companies. That's part of why they're ok with illegal downloading. Yes, the band spent months writing and recording the album, but if you went to a store and bought the CD, the band would see hardly any of that money. You support the band by catching them on tour.

I do agree, though, that people have lost sight of the fact that digital content is property like any other tangible good. Including myself. I missed the season premiere of 'The Office' yesterday, and I'll probably just torrent it. No ads, no support for the network, nothing.

Hmmm

[eric @ Sep 22nd 2006 1:54PM]

Yeah, but musicians need album sales to recoup the cost of recording and marketing via the label. If we don't buy the albums we put them on the fast track to being dropped. Just becuase someone only sees 8 cents and album doesn't mean the rest of the money isn't helping them stay afload through their label. Of course this is all under the current systems bands are forced to live by if they want to reach the mass market. The system would need to change for your argment to have more validity.

[Jerryg @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:27PM]

The problem is that if I pay for content (music, movie, whatever) I should be able to play it, in my car, house, portable anywhere I want. I should be able to take my movie over to a friends house and watch it or take my music with me to a party and play it. If I get a new portable regardless of who makes the player, it should work it that to. Untill these things are adressed a merry pirate i shall be!

[John Mufarrige @ Sep 22nd 2006 1:58PM]

Not so, your choice of a new player should be based on whether it will play your existing content. If you have a library of VHS tapes and you bought a Betamax player, your library is worthless. If you had a large cache of gasoline and then you buy a new diesel truck, you're equally out of luck. If you have a bunch of Playstation games and you bring them to your friend's house who only has a Nintendo, what are you going to do?

[Pedro @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:28PM]

A quick note: DRM more explicitly exposes the fact that you are not, as you correctly state, the *owner* of the music directly, but the owner of the *license* to that music. DRM is a way of enforcing that license.

Basically, because the Audio Home Recording act of 1992 allows consumers to make private and personal copies of their music, the only legal way around this is to wrap a digital file in some sort of DRM. The genius of that is that the recording industry THEN made it illegal to break digial copyright protections of any kind!

So you have a direct conflict in law. People can make copies of whatever they want, so long as they don't break the copyright control while doing so.

I agree, that its our job as consumers to NOT purchase DRM on whose terms we disagree with. I think thats the reason the iTunes music store has been so successful: It strikes a balance between purchaser and producer that most people find acceptable.

[Andrew Harden @ Sep 23rd 2006 7:19PM]

The only issue I take with this is the fact that the choices are being removed. I can buy a copy restricted DVD, or I can buy the copy restricted iTunes version, or the copy restricted Amazon version, or the copy restricted Guba version, or the copy restricted CinemaNow version. That's not really much of a choice. Of course I could simply stop buying movies all together, or stop watching movies all together, but isn't that the wrong message for the industry to send consumers? I mean, don't they and-by proxy-the artists they represent, need us?

My biggest problem with DRM is that it doesn't stop piracy, it simply "keeps honest users honest." Perhaps I'm being selfish, but I don't need to be kept honest. I buy music because I want the music, and I buy movies because I want the movies and, thanks to DVD, the features that come with them. I make a decision to exchange money for a good that I perceive has a value that is somehow equal to the amount of money I'm exchanging. Yet I'm the one that has to be kept honest. That seems strange to me, like writing tickets for everyone who drives a car capable of breaking the speed limit (which is every car on the road today) since they could theoretically break the speed limit.

DRM and anticircumvention don't stop piracy, in fact it seems to drive people towards piracy. When sheet music publishers wanted to ban the piano roll they failed, and piano roll publishers had to pay a license fee that sheet music publishers had to accept. When broadcasters wanted to ban cable they failed, and cable companies had to pay a license that broadcasters had to accept. Why can't the same thing happen with content on the Internet?

[spaten @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:29PM]

I think the DRM issue usually gets confused into the entitlement issue. You could rip songs from a CD, but guess what, you bought the CD and are making copies for yourself. DRM stopping you from using it on certain devices is just a pain, certainly you could just buy the CD and rip it to the formats you like.

Personally I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it is intangible. Most people have no issue buying that $300 ipod because it does something and I can "use" it, while the music or video is just there. There is also no arguing that people want to stick it to the labels for the years of overpriced cds as well.

[bob lement @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:30PM]

I think that it boils down to the fact that digital content, most times doesn't come in a solid, real form. A commentor above mentioned CD's, which you can buy and hold and trade, and borrow. When you download a file it is just a file, it is virtual, not in the real world at this point, so what is it worth? I don't have to buy blank media to make a copy, it costs me nothing to email to a friend or post it to a site or otherwise send it around the internet.

This has been happening for years with software, games and the like, why do you think Nintendo makes cartridges instead of just downloading a file, media has now entered the realm, what the heck did they expect. DRM doesn't equal value to the customer, it takes away some the value. When the consumer sees the value of the product then the trading will subside.

[Dignan17 @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:30PM]

I've made justifications in the past (I've stopped downloading videos now, though - never really downloaded music). For a while I downloaded TV shows that I was already to get off of cable, but just so I could catch up on shows I wanted to start watching live. I know it's against "the rules" as you say, but I felt it was dumb to keep me from watching their show just because I hadn't seen the earlier episodes, and I wasn't going to jump into it.

The event that made me the most indignant towards the movie studios is for the last TV show episode that I downloaded (before being sent a warning from my ISP and the production studio). It was for some TV show which I was watching live, and my incompetent local TV network cut off the end of the show. I took the risk of downloading it, after sitting through the commercials, and look where it got me. I don't enjoy that show much anymore, and I stay away from that network/studio.

I think I have a negative reaction to copyright holders because they have unreasonable expectations. I don't care that they want money. I go out and buy all my music and movies and TV shows on physical media. I do that because I think the price is reasonable. But if we move into this world of digital media as everyone expects, and I'm still being charged the same amount for something of less value (a DRM'd barebones digital movie vs a full DVD with special features and packaging), then I'm going to think seriously about "breaking the rules."

[techlife @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:30PM]

Well written article! It is chock full of kindling to spark comment and conversation, so I shall.

Artists are often tied to companies. Many times the two have very different agendas. And only when an artist reaches cult status can they "try" and change the rules.

I look at Prince and The Grateful Dead as prime examples. But of course they had "status".

Can artists survive on concerts, t-shirt sales, and other material goods? Does someone who loves their work "sell-out" so they can achieve cult status, or never sell-out and stay true? You ask many questions about the reader's use of DRM but maybe the root cause is earlier in the process.

[syadasti @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:32PM]

Because Fair Use is our well established historical LEGAL right. IMHO the DCMA was in acted to erode a well established legal rights due to lobby from greedy executives. Big industries (Oil, Recording, Software, whatever) shouldn't have trump card over well established laws simply because they have the money to lobby our government more effectively with their dirty money. They are in business because of the consumer TO serve the customer, not to trample their rights or the environment.

EFF:
4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

* Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
* Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

[Brian Hogg @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:34PM]

I would liken the sense of entitlement to cable television. I pay for my chosen channels, and no matter what shows appear on those channels, I need not pay more for them. In other words, I have already paid my entry fee, and feel completely within my rights (because, with television, I am), to watch whatever my receiver shows me.

The corollary here is that I pay for my internet access, and feel that said payment should allow me to freely browse any content my browser has access to. While there are vastly different legal and ethical arguments at work, in some cases, it's perceptually the same: I have paid my entry fee, I'm in the club, and I want to be able to walk around.

[SupaMink @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:34PM]

The comparison to walking out of a restaurant to bittorenting music (and other media) is completely wrong. It's more like someone setting out free sodas on a sidewalk and putting a sign "don't take." Of course there are people that wouldn't take them but most of us wouldn't even think twice and for people to get upset when people choose the free product is ridiculous.

The reason people have a different set of rules for entertainment content is because people are offered a choice between free un-DRMed media and expensive DRMed media and unlike the restaurant comparison you won't get arrested for downloading illegal media (if you have any idea what you're doing) and the society we live in now doesn�t look down on it.

[Evan @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:34PM]

I've had this debate many times...

Many people seem to associate the cost of a DVD with the physical disk and box. They just don't grasp the concept that you are paying for a portion of the movie/software's original production costs. It's the same with cars - some people believe that you are paying for the parts and labor to build the car, but do not understand that they are also paying for a portion of the engineering costs.

[Paul @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:34PM]

I feel that when you go to an online music store they say they are "Selling the music" Nowhere do they say there are just renting the music to you, or loaning it. They say you will own the music. Yet, you pay them good money for music, then suddenly you cant burn it onto a cd, you can only listen to it on one computer, and you can only listen to it on certain MP3 players which will more likely than not be obsolete in less than a year.

Not only these problems, but it has been proven that DRM reduces the battery life of your mp3 player by up to 25%.

I fully support buying music, I would buy it offline in a heartbeat, I am not argueing that that people should steal music. However, I dont see programs that remove DRM from music you already own to be a problem.

Just because DRM is currently the only solution, I dont think we should just say, Oh well, it is a horrible solution, but it works... Because it doesnt work, it forces more people to go to download websites to get music that they can then use anywhere they want.

You are not renting from the music companies, you buy the music, you should be able to use it where you want to use it. However owning the music does not give you the right to give it to other people for free.

[Chris H @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:35PM]

People are angry because 5 years ago you paid for content and you owned it. Now you pay the same price to rent content. 5 years ago there were fair use rights, but slowly and surely the RIAA and MPAA have (and continue) to legislate those rights out of existence.

Mostly though, technically savvy people are pissed off because the war that content providers are waging on technology is ridiculous. Restrictive DRM doesn't do anything to punish those that steal content. It only harms those that actually purchase today's digital content. Plus, any product that is slightly innovative inevitably gets sued out of existence. I have a Slingbox and I love it, but it is only a matter of time until content providers, cable/dsl providers, and mobile providers gang up on SlingMedia and run them out of business.

Products like the Slingbox expose the reality that today's marketplace only serves to suck consumers dry and rip off content creators.

[Jim @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:36PM]

Why should I pay $20 for a movie on DVD, another $12 for the same movie on iPod video and yet another $15 for that same movie on UMD?!??! What I don't understand and am frustrated with is the fact that it's technically not legal for me to rip the DVDs that I own down to PSP/iPod videos and load them onto each device. I figure that if I pay $20 to buy a movie on DVD, I should be able to freely disseminate that onto other devices that I own. And, it shouldn't be so difficult to do so!

[dmf @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:36PM]

One thing that's been forgotten about is "fair use" -- the law _explicitly_ states that content owner's don't get to micro-manage a user's use of their content, as long as that use falls within "fair use" guidelines.

Content owners are trying to eliminate any possibility of taking advantage of the fair use provision in the law -- so let's not be so quick to blame the consumer.

Time/place shifting are fair use. Photocopying for your own personal use is fair use. Is converting a DVD to DivX really any different than photocopying? No -- it's fair use, but the content owners are trying to prevent that. Why is the customer the problem here?

[Jeff @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:37PM]

"Jeremy... then do what I do. Don't download DRM music. Buy CDs."

Man, where the hell have you guys been for the last couple years? Rootkit, anyone? Buying CD's is often *worse* than buying DRM'd downloads, and worse still, many of the DRM schemes used on CD's are shrouded in secrecy. We didn't know about the rootkit fiasco until millions of these CD's had already been purchased and hundreds of thousands of PC's infected. We don't know about a lot of the other DRM schemes still in use; their makers purposely do not release details on them, lest they be broken.

Buying CD's is no longer a solution to this problem.

As for this "entitlement" nonsense, no such sentiment exists. This is an argument put forth by the RIAA, since it supports their cause. But it's just like when the Republicans say the Democrats want to "cut and run" in Iraq. No Democrat has ever suggested that; it's a Republican argument. Same thing here. Make the argument that your opponents want to do something that's obviously stupid and wrong, even when they have made no such argument. It puts them on the defensive, as they now have to explain their position. And often, the accusation sticks even in the face of a compelling counter-argument.

I may as well say "why does the RIAA want to steal your babies and sacrifice them to Satan? How can they defend this position?" Now, I'm just a little guy, so nobody's going to listen to me. But what if, say, a large corporation said it? Or a lobbying group the size of the RIAA? Or a respected politician? You'd have blogs, newspapers and TV shows all over the place inviting the RIAA to defend themselves and their position. You'd have Hardball doing talking points on it. You'd have Bill O'Reilly putting it in his no-spin zone.

Well, I'm not going to explain my position. I don't feel I have to. DRM is evil and that's it. The reasons why are self-evident, and no accusation that I feel I'm "entitled" to steal content is going to cloud the issue for me. What I am entitled to do is use what I pay for in the way I see fit, which is the same as any other product.

[00011000 @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:40PM]

there ought to be a way for people to pay bands they like directly. This isn't a well thought-out argument or anything, but i would certainly have no problem paying a band i like for their CD as i do at gigs or off the street.

The issue of labels screwing the artists is a well-trodden one. One solution could be for the labels to be more transparent about what kind of monies actually make it to the artists. This could relieve some resentment - ultimately however, ideally, i'd like to buy my music directly from the artist.

[Allen @ Sep 22nd 2006 3:12PM]

My wife and I are musicians and the sad reality is that most of the money you pay for a CD or song download through a record label never makes it to the artists. (If you'd like to read the full story of how the music industry works, pick up a copy of Donald Passman's All You Need To Know About the Music Business.)

However, there are several ways to support artists directly. Online independent distributors, such as CDbaby.com, have been an incredible tool for artists to get their music distributed and still keep the majority of their sales. Consumers can also, as mentioned previously, go see the artist on tour and buy their album/merchandise at the show.

I've also noticed a lot of talk about DRM'd music being inferior to physical media. To that end, I wonder if piracy would decrease if iTunes/Rhapsody/etc offered CD-quality .wav files with DRM enclosures. The same holds true for movies. If you could download a full movie with special features, etc. from iTunes and then burn it to a DVD, would people still complain? And, would people continue to bittorrent movies? Sadly, I think both would continue, but to a lesser extent.

As an artist and an individual, I think the reason that iTunes (and others) has succeeded is because they have found the right balance between consumer and content creator rights. As a consumer, I feel that ninety-nine cents for a song is a fair price, and the ability to burn a CD and then rip it into any format alleviates my fears of platform obsolescence. As an artist, I know that I will sell more songs based on the convenience of fans being able to download music from the comfort of their own home and then load it immediately onto their portable music player.

Pending DRM issues, such as the infamous broadcast flag and HDCP, are a little more disconcerting. However, I honestly feel that the market will strike a balance. Personally, after reading about Amazon's Unbox license agreement at http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon_unbox_to_cust.html, I will not be buying from them. But, other people may be perfectly fine with the terms. Ultimately, if someone is providing an inferior product or service (i.e. locked-down, rootkitted media), then that just means that there is an opening in the market for someone else to provide a better alternative.

============================
Allen Guthier
Manager, Marce's Music
Marce - "Gainesville's Joni Mitchell"
http://www.marceonline.com
http://www.myspace.com/marceonline

[disciple83 @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:40PM]

I think that the purpose of a portable media player is just what it says it is, it plays media, and it can move with the user. When CD's were around, you bought them, and man did I love buying CD's. I brought it home and put it in my Stereo, and if I wasn't finished with it when I left the room, I took it from the stereo and placed it in my portable media player, I mean discman. the discman didn't say, "f- you, pirate, you can't play that here, you didn't buy it for discman, you bought it for stereo".

If a friend wanted to borrow my CD, I had no qualms with that. It was his decision whether or not to copy it. And even then, there was that little thread of guilt because, "damn, I am copying this CD, that's kinda wrong." The honor system played into it a whole lot more.

In comes DRM, the rootkits, the self-destructing files, the licenses. When the hardware gave way to software, the principle should never have changed. You should be able to put this in whatever media player you choose, and if you don't own the media player, well, thats the moral decision on your behalf, the honor system still applies. The rules should not have changed. They haven't for the consumer, just for the producer. It is their fault, and they have brought this massively overplayed delima upon themselves.

[Yury @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:40PM]

The core of the issue lies in whether or not there is value in digital content (ie intangible content). If we are honest, we realize that someone did have to work to create it in the first place, and therefore it does have value. People feel entitlement with regards to digital rights because there is no sense of guilt. The commentary in this article about that is spot on. Furthermore, the line on what value to ascribe to something is quite blurry. What is the value of an episode of "scrubs" that appears for free on non-cable television? Is a free show really all that different from downloading a DVD quality copy of "the usual suspects" which we know will sell for approx $15 at best buy. It probably isn't and Viacom (or whoever produces scrubs) should set the price for downloading it after it has aired. And, as in all other transactions in a capitalistic society, we must accept that the creator of the content gets to write the rules/conditions on the sale of the content. In a fair world, the one most people want to live in, we shouldn't feel entitled to take whatever we want from whoever we want to take it from. That is called anarchy and I don't think it works.

[AmusedReader @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:41PM]

It is funny that no one really addressed the actual question... namely, why don't people respect 'content.' Most of the responses rely on the the old 'straw man' -- DRM. No one acknowledges the fact that consumer choice is the real mechanism of change, not evasion. If you don't like DRM, if you are concerned that 'big-bad-media' is neffariously intent on disabling your ability to play DRM'd content 'sometime in the future' then you make a choice not to buy DRM'd content. The 'solution' of not paying for something you obviously *want* -- why do you possess it if you don't -- is no solution. You are breaking a societal covenant.

That covenant is what the question is really asking about... no one has made anything resembling a coherent argument for figuratively "dining and dashing."

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[Grendel @ Sep 22nd 2006 12:41PM]

I stand firmly in the middle of the road. If it's available to buy on iTunes, I'll buy it. I can always burn it to CD & convert it to non-DRMed mp3(although inconvenient). My big problem is the LACK of legal content. Not everyone listens to top-40 crap and their are a lot of tunes you can't find in one store. Oh sure, maybe it's on another service, but then it's wrapped in a DRM format incompatible with my Ipod. I think most people would like to be legal, but until I can get that special remix track without driving to a specialty store 2 hours away or ordering it from Germany or Japan, I'll keep my P2P up and running.