Hacker News Reader

Comment by r0s | Hacker News Reader

DRM for music is deeply entrenched in the ecosystem. The most overt of DRM layers can't exist on old media CDs, but it's still everywhere.

None of the major online music services allow unlimited sharing (of files), and even getting this far was a long legal mess, representing part of the extensive history where DRM has attempted to parasitize the legal system.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/are-google-music-...

Another form of DRM in the industry is a pre-emptive fee charged on certain blank digital media: http://torrentfreak.com/where-the-riaa-gets-its-money/

I work for a small record label in my spare time. We submitted a song for pressing (on vinyl), and received a warning from the RIAA not to sell it. The record contained a (very interpreted) cover of a pop song.

DRM at every level of the industry. The lack of direct software enforcement in digital music files really doesn't mean anything.

View on HN

I think you're stretching the definition of DRM a bit. In my comment, I was referring to the set of technologies used to make it harder to copy a legally purchased file.

Wikipedia's definition is quite good, but is a little too long to repost here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

In any event, we're talking about technical solutions to licensing problems.

I haven't read any reports of Google or Amazon's cloud music players adding DRM to files after they've been uploaded. Has anyone heard differently? I thought the whole reason they were legally in the clear is because they're basically file lockers with playback functionality.

The "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media" amendment to the AHRA may be an example of the Recording Industry's lobbying efforts being rewarded more than we'd like, but DRM it is not.

As for your warning letter from the RIAA: did they have reason to believe you wouldn't be paying your publishing royalties? I imagine your record label probably works with the Harry Fox Agency all the time. Was there something that was unusual about your case?

It's true I'm overloading the term. Originally we were talking about DRM as an excuse for piracy; my point was that the inconvenience and restriction is all over the market, not just on an album.

That particular case was years ago, and the only time we've brushed with the RIAA. We're a very small operation and didn't bother to get lawyers involved. Paying royalties wasn't something we'd consider as the work is only superficially related to the original (by my reckoning), riding the line between parody and fundamental re-interpretation. I feel the IP test for such works is unethically restrictive and greedy.

I mostly agree with your message (intent) but you're using the wrong word, DRM, when you in fact meant Intellectual Property (IP).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com