mlsstl wrote: > One can debate whether DRM has or has not been effective (or even can > be), but the concept (not the technical implementation) is still one of > the guiding lights for the music industry. (An industry, I might add, > that has always been in a love/hate relationship with musicians and > composers.)
Your statement is almost right. DRM is the holy grail of the lawyers who run the RIAA and MPAA. What often gets lost in these discussions is that the RIAA does not represent what most folks outside the music industry consider to be the music industry. Nearly everyone agrees that composers, musicians, singers, etc. should be paid for their work. But the RIAA does not represent these 'stakeholders'. The RIAA represents the major record labels. It has a few minor record labels as members, but all the pull and power is by the big five labels. Most folks, if they think about it for a minute, will even extend past the singers, musicians, composers, to include arrangers, conductors, recording studio owners, recording and mastering engineers, graphic designers for the artwork, etc. I spent four years doing serious cryptography for CyberCash, SuperDistribuion, and OneBigCD. All three companies were about ensuring that people got paid for digital goods. None were as naive as to think brain-dead, simplistic techniques such as the various DRMs seen to date will ever work, if the definition of 'work' is being secure, robust, pain-free for the consumer. I believe I know how to make a DRM be effective. I know it is a ton of work, and none of the bandaids used for DVDs, CDs, iTunes, etc. have any prayer of 'working' in the above sense. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
