Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

hussam · 2007-08-01 08:50:34

shining wrote:

hussam wrote:
DRM isn't against 'freedom'. It's only against your faulty understanding of freedom.
If you are not paying for a license to be able to convert it to ogg, how come you expect to have the freedom to do so?
If you are not paying for a license to be able to be stupid, how come you expect to have the freedom to do so?

There's no need to call anyone stupid here. Let's stay civil. If you don't like the inconveniences DRM forces on you, no one is forcing you to buy digital music. In fact, you'll be supporting your artist even more if you buy the whole album on CD. Freedom is to use whatever technology you want without arguing with whatever restrictions that technology enforces both feature and license wise. If I need DRM and that technology isn't supported on Linux, I am free to use windows, right?

krigun · 2007-08-01 10:04:20

There are several places where you can purchase legal, DRM-free MP3-s. Audio watermarking is becoming more popular, so I suppose that is why they are starting to stray away from DRM protected WMA.

I have purchased some music from http://www.nuclearblast-musicshop.de/ and its pretty painless. 0.99 € per song. Most of it is DRM free, and in MP3. Of course, they only offer varieties of metal.

iphitus · 2007-08-01 11:19:44

dolby wrote:

buying the tracks/songs is a waste of your money since you get nothing for them in return.

that comment is stupid on so many levels.

What do you get, you get the music! Something to listen to! the auditory pleasure! That aint nothing.

Financially, yeah it aint an asset and has no resale value, but that doesnt mean it's nothing. The value isnt measured in monetary terms. By your logic, love, friendship, creature comforts, nice words and other non-financial benefits are "nothing".

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-08-01 11:21:03)

wuischke · 2007-08-01 12:27:42

To get back to your question:

Can't something like DRM be ported to Linux?

This is very difficult on a open system like Linux. Creating a proprietary file format and a closed source player and enforcing certain restrictions is one thing, but what use has it if I simply pipe the (digital) output to another DRM-free file? I get perfect copy without the restrictions of DRM.

You have to avoid having any DRM-free copies of your file, as they would be spread in p2p networks. They are not far enough regarding audio connectors (even if you have a perfectly closed computer system, you can still create a copy if you take the analog output), but HDPC aims to close this gap as well.

Back to Linux: As long as Linux is a open system there will always be the risk of illegal copies when playing DRM protected files. On Linux it is possible to capture video and audio as it does not implement a closed and encrypted system comparable to (the approach) of Windows Vista.

finferflu · 2007-08-01 13:15:53

Don't forget Jamendo, one of the largest and growing collection of Creative Commons music, where you can download full albums for free.

veek · 2007-08-01 14:22:58

Okay some interesting topics have come up in this thread, and thanks for pointing out various online music sources.

iphitus wrote:

What do you get, you get the music! Something to listen to! the auditory pleasure! That aint nothing.
Financially, yeah it aint an asset and has no resale value, but that doesnt mean it's nothing. The value isnt measured in monetary terms.

That's what I was going to say. The value is in the music itself of course, ideally that's the only thing I'm paying for.

hussam wrote:

If you don't like the inconveniences DRM forces on you, no one is forcing you to buy digital music. In fact, you'll be supporting your artist even more if you buy the whole album on CD.

I have the freedom to complain about the faults I perceive in a product and I'm going to exercise that right on a regular basis
DRM addresses a legitimate concern, but it exerts a level of control over me I find disturbing. Plus it contradicts the provisions
of fairuse. I think it's also a little too convenient that in the process of protecting the music a company locks you into their system (e.g. itunes + iPod).

From Wikipedia about the DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management):

"Under the Act, circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work is illegal if done with the primary intent of violating the rights of copyright holders."

My intent is to listen to my music on my computer in whatever music player I choose. I currently have an entire album (Liquid Tension Experiment) sitting in iTunes on vmware, you better believe I'm going to circumvent that DRM. Someone mentioned watermarking, that seems a practical alternative.

As for supporting the artist by purchasing a whole CD. Arguing this point could be complicated, but consider this.

There's a new pop album out by Timbaland, and the CD is selling on Amazon for 12.99. The CD has 17 tracks so it comes
out to $0.77 per track. The CD has one of his hits "The way I are" (I'm not gonna get into the grammar issue).

Usually online music stores sell individual tracks for $0.99. If 14 people who don't want the whole CD buy the one track online,
that's $13.86, more than the CD sells for. I guess the question is how many people are there that would buy a single, but wouldn't
buy a whole CD.

If you are arguing that those that buy a single should buy the whole CD, that's a whole different matter.
In my case buying online does not mean I won't buy a whole CD, as I mentioned I already have. If it's an artist
I respect I will buy the whole thing. If it's just generic radio crap that has managed to infect my brain to the point
where I have to buy a single, there's no way I'm gonna buy the whole CD that the single comes on.

Last edited by veek (2007-08-01 14:29:37)

shining · 2007-08-01 15:40:46

iphitus wrote:

dolby wrote:
buying the tracks/songs is a waste of your money since you get nothing for them in return.
that comment is stupid on so many levels.
What do you get, you get the music! Something to listen to! the auditory pleasure! That aint nothing.
Financially, yeah it aint an asset and has no resale value, but that doesnt mean it's nothing. The value isnt measured in monetary terms. By your logic, love, friendship, creature comforts, nice words and other non-financial benefits are "nothing".

I'm confused, from what I understand, you're saying exactly the same as dolby.

MrWeatherbee · 2007-08-01 16:42:56

shining wrote:

iphitus wrote:
dolby wrote:
buying the tracks/songs is a waste of your money since you get nothing for them in return.
that comment is stupid on so many levels.
What do you get, you get the music! Something to listen to! the auditory pleasure! That aint nothing.
Financially, yeah it aint an asset and has no resale value, but that doesnt mean it's nothing. The value isnt measured in monetary terms. By your logic, love, friendship, creature comforts, nice words and other non-financial benefits are "nothing".
I'm confused, from what I understand, you're saying exactly the same as dolby.

Not from my reading:

Iphitus = music has value (monetary and otherwise) independent of the media (or lack thereof) that it is stored / presented on.

Dolby = only the physical CD (media) has value, so why not buy that if you are going to pay. Paying for only the downloads is a waste of money because it is not a physical asset and has no monetary value (i.e., if it is not on physical media, it should be free).

I agree with Iphitus. I strongly disagree with Dolby.

See the link Dolby provided. It describes the "anarchist" (or extreme libertarian, perhaps) philosophy to which Dolby subscribes.

skottish · 2007-08-02 01:50:47

[mild bump]

DRM is quickly becoming one of the subjects (like religion and politics) that's bound to turn in to instant argument in public forums. Hopefully this community can remain as level headed as it usually is.

[/mild bump]

Ankka · 2007-08-02 03:57:28

skottish wrote:

[mild bump]
DRM is quickly becoming one of the subjects (like religion and politics) that's bound to turn in to instant argument in public forums. Hopefully this community can remain as level headed as it usually is.
[/mild bump]

Someone actually likes DRM?

FeatherMonkey · 2007-08-02 10:54:55

I'm not sure it's a ? of liking or dis-liking but the realization that perhaps DRM is here to stay.

http://www.channel4.com/watch_online/
http://www.itv.com/Watchnow/default.html
http://download.five.tv/

Out of those 3 which ones can you watch on linux, they are 3 terrestial channels that have a variety of choice of ways of watching/purchasing the media.

Perhaps the pro DRM people have realised its here to stay and even if every one of us stop's buying or Watching DRM there's a large enough windows market who are oblivious. Linux will just become the second class citizen, with out it, what no latest storage media either I ask.

What if you where told you could have a good OS but it only plays cd's no dvd's, would you still want it? Bit like the next generation of linux OS's not having the HDTV disc's 20gb storage media.

shining · 2007-08-02 13:56:24

FeatherMonkey wrote:

What if you where told you could have a good OS but it only plays cd's no dvd's, would you still want it?

Linux isn't really able to read encrypted dvds, it requires a crack for doing so.
So I guess the answer is yes ?

Gullible Jones · 2007-08-02 15:16:47

karsten wrote:

hussam wrote:
Gullible Jones wrote:
Because you bought it and you might wish, for whatever reason, to convert it to ogg for your own personal use - that falls under fair use. There's a difference between copying for personal use and copying for illegal distribution.
That only applies if the license mentions whether you are entitled to make a backup copy for personal usage or not.
the law allows this

It does in the US anway. I'm not sure about Lebanon though.

sula · 2007-08-04 07:26:35

hussam wrote:

If you are not paying for a license to be able to convert it to ogg, how come you expect to have the freedom to do so?

What?! I feel sorry for you if that's the law in your country. You should have to do backup copy and convert your music to other formats(like ogg ,mp3, etc) for personal use ALWAYS. No license should have right to limit you from this. Now i'm grateful that law in my country guarantee me that.

shining wrote:

DRM is indeed the only thing missing for Linux to be perfect.

I think we are form diffrent planet.

DRM is one of worst thing people imagined.

Last edited by sula (2007-08-04 07:35:09)

Acid7711 · 2007-08-04 07:48:30

iphitus wrote:

By your logic, love, friendship, creature comforts, nice words and other non-financial benefits are "nothing".
James

Well.....hopefully he (and others) aren't buying/paying for 'love, friendship, and creature comforts'.

Last edited by Acid7711 (2007-08-04 07:52:41)

hussam · 2007-08-06 03:07:07

sula wrote:

hussam wrote:
If you are not paying for a license to be able to convert it to ogg, how come you expect to have the freedom to do so?
What?! I feel sorry for you if that's the law in your country. You should have to do backup copy and convert your music to other formats(like ogg ,mp3, etc) for personal use ALWAYS. No license should have right to limit you from this. Now i'm grateful that law in my country guarantee me that.

In Lebanon, the law says that you limited by the license that comes with your product. Some audio cds might say you are entitled to make one backup copy for personal use in which case you are free to do so. But most audio cds do say that unauthorized reproduction, copying, renting, etc.. is not allowed unless you get permission from the producer/record company. The idea is to respect the license that the record company used when they released their products.

Personally, I don't find it fair that the US government can override the license that the producer of a product uses. Would you find it fair if the government said GPL is invalid?

If you find it unfair that a record company forces restrictive licenses, either try to have the government legally force them to change their licensing or simply abide by it.

Cotton · 2007-08-06 05:21:12

iphitus wrote:

dolby wrote:
buying the tracks/songs is a waste of your money since you get nothing for them in return.
that comment is stupid on so many levels.
What do you get, you get the music! Something to listen to! the auditory pleasure! That aint nothing.
Financially, yeah it aint an asset and has no resale value, but that doesnt mean it's nothing. The value isnt measured in monetary terms.
James

Without the media, you are screwed once your storage platform dies. CDs last for years, hard disks often don't. Most people just don't backup their media collections until they've lost them once.

In many ways, the situation is like buying a PC with windows already installed, but with no source media, ie when it dies, you have to pay for repair/replacement. Which is exactly what the sellers want - repeat sales for what you've already paid for - something they've been doing for decades. Could almost be described as piracy .

Phrodo_00 · 2007-08-07 00:21:10

hussam wrote:

DRM isn't against 'freedom'. It's only against your faulty understanding of freedom.
If you are not paying for a license to be able to convert it to ogg, how come you expect to have the freedom to do so?

That's what laws are for, aren't them. If they put you some nasty chip in your neck that would stop your hand movement in order to prevent you from passing a cd to another guy/riping it/whatever everybody would be complaining (even you, and a lot of people that actually support DRM) and lots of heads would (maybe literally - that would be sweet -) be rolling, DRM is the same thing, but not irl. if there are laws and all kind of mechanisms to legally force you to not do something, that's enough.
And the government CAN change a contract, and it's fair when said conctract is stupid, downhere in Chile (where you aren't free of ripping or duplicating media without explicit permission) jobs conctracts have been changed (way back in the past alredy) because of unfairyness (also, most scams are contract, and they are usually nullified in court), fair use is the same.

Anyway, to the original poster, what everybody has already said: Magnatune, Jamendo (both are accessible from within rhythmbox) and archive.org, for more popular stuff emusic is nice. (Of course, there's always allofmp3.com clones if all you care about is paying someone)

BTW, Why would someone want just a song? the way I see it a disk is a complete work, I mean, I can't imagine just having, let's say, Karn Evil 9 part 1 without Brain Salad Surgery, Wait for sleep without images and words or ...And justice for all (the song) without ...And justice for all (the album), it's like reading just some random chapters of a book... blasphemy.

Peyton · 2007-08-07 04:37:00

Personally, I don't find it fair that the US government can override the license that the producer of a product uses. Would you find it fair if the government said GPL is invalid?

The GPL gets its power from the law.

FeatherMonkey · 2007-08-07 10:28:27

Thats not quite true it get its power from civil contract law. i.e its a breach of contract the illegality is then of passing on copyrighted material that you had no right to, after you breached the contract.

Not to disimilar from DRM except

DRM gets its power from the law its circumventing copyright protection devices, not breach of contract. With regards to fair use I think a few would be surprised to find that that circumvention of DRM is not fair use, and is clearly outlined as illegal in most fair use bits I've seen.

Last edited by FeatherMonkey (2007-08-07 10:30:57)

t12ek · 2007-08-08 13:21:03

Phrodo_00 wrote:

BTW, Why would someone want just a song? the way I see it a disk is a complete work, I mean, I can't imagine just having, let's say, Karn Evil 9 part 1 without Brain Salad Surgery, Wait for sleep without images and words or ...And justice for all (the song) without ...And justice for all (the album), it's like reading just some random chapters of a book... blasphemy.

While I personally prefer full albums myself, I can see why some people just want individual tracks. Take your book analogy, and, what if instead of a novel, it's a short story compilation? And, what if all but 1-3 of the short stories suck? Would you still want the whole book then?

Peyton · 2007-08-08 20:18:54

FeatherMonkey wrote:

Thats not quite true it get its power from civil contract law. i.e its a breach of contract the illegality is then of passing on copyrighted material that you had no right to, after you breached the contract.

Wikipedia wrote:

The GPL was designed as a license, rather than a contract. In some Common Law jurisdictions, the legal distinction between a license and a contract is an important one: contracts are enforceable by contract law, whereas licences are enforced under copyright law. However, this distinction is not useful in the many jurisdictions where there are no differences between contracts and licenses, such as Civil Law systems.

Last edited by Peyton (2007-08-08 20:19:13)

FeatherMonkey · 2007-08-08 20:46:34

Didn't that confirm it "-->-- no differences between contracts and licenses -->--" You're hardly likely to get criminal law (and even your paragraph says some) involved in a GPL case. Which means Civil Law read the bit you posted about Civil Law(here it says many).

Please lets not quote the wiki, use as a reference fine but its far from gospel. You then need to do more research.

Why that paragraph even talks about common law is beyond me, if you can give me one example where breach of the GPL is common law, I'll accept it, just one .

I'll presume you don't understand the differences between common law and civil law.

Now DRM in my country we have trading standards that enforce copyright with the police, who enforces the GPL did the fsf suddenly become a law enforcer then, I must of missed that?

Last edited by FeatherMonkey (2007-08-08 21:57:19)

Peyton · 2007-08-08 23:50:52

FeatherMonkey wrote:

Didn't that confirm it "-->-- no differences between contracts and licenses -->--"

In civil law systems, yes, but we were talking about the United States, which operates under a common law system.

FeatherMonkey · 2007-08-09 00:11:58

I don't know about the states but have to say this an issue thats world wide not just stateside.

Though find it strarge the states don't distinguish between common law and civil law the 2 things are so different its not even funny.

In the UK we have both common law enforced by the police, civil law sueing the arse of each other. Strange legal system in the states.

My facts maybe slightly of the beat but the point stands its a crime to breach the copyright on DRM, but with the GPL I'm certainly not going to get arrested, the fsf are going to have to take me to court.

Last edited by FeatherMonkey (2007-08-09 00:34:55)

Arch Linux

#26 2007-08-01 08:50:34

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#27 2007-08-01 10:04:20

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#28 2007-08-01 11:19:44

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#29 2007-08-01 12:27:42

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#30 2007-08-01 13:15:53

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#31 2007-08-01 14:22:58

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#32 2007-08-01 15:40:46

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#33 2007-08-01 16:42:56

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#34 2007-08-02 01:50:47

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#35 2007-08-02 03:57:28

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#36 2007-08-02 10:54:55

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#37 2007-08-02 13:56:24

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#38 2007-08-02 15:16:47

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#39 2007-08-04 07:26:35

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#40 2007-08-04 07:48:30

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#41 2007-08-06 03:07:07

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#42 2007-08-06 05:21:12

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#43 2007-08-07 00:21:10

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#44 2007-08-07 04:37:00

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#45 2007-08-07 10:28:27

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#46 2007-08-08 13:21:03

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#47 2007-08-08 20:18:54

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#48 2007-08-08 20:46:34

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#49 2007-08-08 23:50:52

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

#50 2007-08-09 00:11:58

Re: Can't legally buy music on Linux...argh!!

Board footer