While people like to ignore it, iTS music IS, by definition, in a proprietary AAC format - hence no one else can read it. If you want an analogy look at the early days of DICOM format for medical images. This was a published standard but was left as extensible by the user. For quite some time manufacturers created proprietary extensions make the images proprietary. The fact that the unlying image was in a standard format was irrelavent in the big picture.
Maybe you should read the dictionary instead of the complaint .
Complainants in an advesarial system (which is what the western legal system are) always put the strongest arguments forward and are not required to balanced. Doesn't mean they're right.
I'm pretty sure that if it was an open format even I could probably write a reader. Likely to be crude and ugly but functional.
Perhaps you should put down the Apple fanboy goggles and read the actual complaint from the Norwegian consumer group.
It's pointless discussing until you do.
He seems to have, it's your argument which has changed tack from consumer-bias (the foundation of the Norwegian complaint) to manufacturer-bias - who cares if nobody wants a piece of Sony's system, it's still closed. It's not Apple's fault they have so many pretenders!
How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.
Save yourself the effort and burn it to an unprotected CD - no D to A to D required, all courtesy of the 'unfairly restricted' iTunes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because? they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.
I think people buy from iTunes because it's easy not because they're 'not pirates' you're confusing cause & effect and possibly setting us up for....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.
..the sell - there it is! Still got shares/financial interest?..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).
The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.
Sorry, the system wouldn't work at all. Conventional wisdom is that prevention is better than cure (DRM as opposed to watermarking). All this system would achieve is continued piracy albeit with a mechanism to track the number of copies originating from particular source. Respective country's tax payers would have to foot the legal bill to chase the 'rogue' pirates only to find that they are not responsible for the number of illegal downloads - "sorry your honour, is it my fault that the others chose to download my file?" of course it isn't. But then again your argument does make sense because...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable...
..the truth comes out at last. You are a pirate! How inconvenient it must be that DRM prevents you from applying your own interpretation of the law!
And by the way..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.
...if DRM can be cracked, so can the watermarking as it's all digital encoding and just a matter of time but that doesn't matter as, clearly, copyright protection isn't a factor in your argument.
The complaint isn't about choice. It's about what Apple is selling in Norway and Norwegian consumer law.
We live in democracies - the complaint is always about choice (or the perception of) that's why these consumer groups exist. If we're not given enough, we complain. If we're given to much and things inevitably fail to deliver, we complain.
However I'm not sure about this..
Quote:
"The Norwegian Consumer Council, Forbrukerradet, lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on behalf of Norwegian consumers claiming that the Fairplay DRM system acted against the interests of consumers. It said that the fact that the technology stopped songs bought from iTunes being played on any player other than an iPod broke the law in Norway.
The Ombudsman has now agreed, according to Torgeir Waterhouse, senior advisor at the Consumer Council.
"It doesn't get any clearer than this. Fairplay is an illegal lock-in technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability," Waterhouse told OUT-LAW.COM. "For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability, in order to boost its own profits."
Waterhouse said that the Ombudsman has written to Apple to say that it believes that Apple's Fairplay system is illegal. "iTunes Music Store must remove its illegal lock-in technology or appear in court," he said. "As of right now we're heading for a big breakthrough that will hopefully pave the way for consumers everywhere to regain control of music they legally purchase."
The Consumer Council believes that Apple has only three options: it can license Fairplay to any manufacturer that wants iTunes songs to play on its machines; it can co-develop an open standard with other companies; or it can abandon DRM altogether.
The Ombudsman has also backed the Consumer Council's claim that the DRM technology is not simply a copy protection scheme. The Council had argued that in restricting consumers' use of music so heavily the technology broke contract law in Norway.
"The Ombudsman has confirmed our claim that the DRM must be considered part of the contract terms and not a copy protection scheme only," said Waterhouse. "This means that under the Norwegian Marketing Control Act the DRM must provide balanced and fair rights to the consumer when they purchase music form iTunes Music Store and similar download services."
"Apple is aware of the concerns we've heard from several agencies in Europe and we're looking forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible,” Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told AP news agency earlier this week. “Apple hopes that European governments will encourage a competitive environment that lets innovation thrive, protects intellectual property and allows consumers to decide which products are successful.”"
1. "a well functioning digital society" - ?!! didn't the great Uncle Steve show us (valid) stats on how certain countries' music sales were going to the wall? With 50% CD sales decreases and piracy on the rise? How is this "well functioning"?
2. "For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability" - With the real examples being what? plays-for-sure? This approach doesn't work! It failed! Even MS abandoned it!
3. "the Fairplay DRM system acted against the interests of consumers" - How? by providing the only successful digital music download model? How is that against consumers' interests? What is against consumers' interests is the assumption that this group are capable of understanding what makes a digital music solution useful to consumers and given they think the 'benefits' of interoperability outweigh the compromise in solution design, they clearly don't.
4. "The Consumer Council believes that Apple has only three options: it can license Fairplay to any manufacturer that wants iTunes songs to play on its machines; it can co-develop an open standard with other companies; or it can abandon DRM altogether." - these options are all the same. DRM runs a race to outpace the crackers, iTunes maintains this pace by constantly upgrading an enticing users to upgrade with extra features. To open up or license the DRM would break the pace and fix the DRM allowing it to be cracked and rendering it useless. So no options here.
This whole case is so clearly orchestrated by pirates it's not funny. Tragically they'll probably win their case because the only other group people who can't understand why this is wrong - are the general public and if iTS is illegal, it's illegal though their rationale is full of holes (and shouldn't this have been picked up before iTS was licensed to trade?)
He seems to have, it's your argument which has changed tack from consumer-bias (the foundation of the Norwegian complaint) to manufacturer-bias - who cares if nobody wants a piece of Sony's system, it's still closed. It's not Apple's fault they have so many pretenders!
Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.
Maybe you should read the dictionary instead of the complaint .
Complainants in an adversarial system (which is what the western legal system is) always put the strongest arguments forward and are not required to be balanced. It doesn't mean they're right.
I'm pretty sure that if it was an open format even I could probably write a reader. Likely to be crude and ugly but functional.
*corrected for spelling and grammar in bold.
Your weird phrasing aside, I fail to see what your point is. The Norwegians are exercising their right to complain under their laws. They're a democracy, blah, blah blah, SO WHAT?
The format *IS* an open format not some weird extension like you were saying with your DICOM files. I've no idea what DICOM files are and don't care either. All Fairplay does is encrypt the audio data, add a key and store it in a plain old mp4 container file. That's no secret. It's not proprietary. MP4 is designed to work that way. That is why it's used with DRM instead of MP3, which isn't capable of DRM. They're complaining about the restrictions, not the file format, not some silly closed UMD style media format, not that the iPods can't play WMA files. It's a matter of contract, not software, not hardware.
I'm not sure what's going on in this thread. Is it Apple fanboy-ism? Is it 'Woo Woo America No.1' jingoism? God forbid it was the French complaining. I can imagine the racism coming across the Atlantic now. It is tiresome though that despite quoting the complaint made in this very thread, the reading comprehension thereof seems to be lacking.
I seem to be in the minority but I believe that if you do not agree with the way a company conducts it business then you are free to go to another supplier. That is why I do not use a MS Products. If you do not like iTunes then go elsewhere. Apple does not hide the fact that there are restrictions on its material. If you do not like it then do not become involved. It is your choice and your right. Just as it is the right of Apple to place these restrictions. No one twisted your arm when you parted with your money. To stand there like a 4 year old and stamp your feet because you cannot have it your way. That is beyond reason and does not even deserve a response.
Besides if you you are the least bit computer savvy, taking any iTunes audio product. It can be reproduced into any format desired as many times as you want. That includes MPG4 audio books. There are two catches however. One only for personal consumption and two you have to do a little work. It is not handed to you on a sliver platter.
For crying out loud stop the belly aching and grow up. If you use it Pay for it , know that no service is going to satisfy all.
I'm not sure what's going on in this thread. Is it Apple fanboy-ism? Is it 'Woo Woo America No.1' jingoism? God forbid it was the French complaining. I can imagine the racism coming across the Atlantic now. It is tiresome though that despite quoting the complaint made in this very thread, the reading comprehension thereof seems to be lacking.
I see no reason to now drop into ad hominem arguments about Apple fanboy-ism, etc. The people discussing this have read and understood the complaint. They don't agree with your view of it. In my case, as I said before, I believe the complaint as presented is fallacious and based on very subjective criteria (see bolded terms in the quote below).
To restate the lockin fallacy a different way...
1) you can buy and listen to music from the iTS and never buy apple hardware
2) you can buy apple hardware and never buy music from iTS (like me)
Yes if you want the best experience you buy both, but that's good design.
Should they license Fairplay??? To me that's a question for Apple, not the courts. Unless Norwegian law is so specific about what consumer's rights are with respect to music so as to remove any subjectiveness, then I continue to wonder about the motivations behind this action. Apple has provided more access to DRM'd music than any other DRM scheme out there (I believe).
Quote:
The Council had argued that in restricting consumers' use of music so heavily the technology broke contract law in Norway.
I guess some is ok. How much is not?
Quote:
"The Ombudsman has confirmed our claim that the DRM must be considered part of the contract terms and not a copy protection scheme only," said Waterhouse. "This means that under the Norwegian Marketing Control Act the DRM must provide balanced and fair rights to the consumer when they purchase music form iTunes Music Store and similar download services."
Again is there a specificaiton of this? I don't claim to know.
Of course they have the right to bring this action. I believe that actions such as these, which seem to be based on subjective interpretations, will likely end up with some sort of political solution. No one is questioning the right to pursue this but, because of the quality of the arguments presented, some of us are questioning the motivations behind the action.
(BTW thanks for the corrections. I was going out the door last time.)
Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.
I didn't say you did, Trendannoyer brought it up as a comparable closed ecosystem & you claimed it was irrelevent based on nobody wanting to open it - which in itself is the point that's irrelevent. Seems like you have the goggles on.
I believe that if you do not agree with the way a company conducts it business then you are free to go to another supplier.
Yes, you are.
You're also free to complain to your nations consumer ombudsmen if you think a company is operating unacceptably. That's what they're doing. That's what ombudsmen are there for.
I didn't say you did, Trendannoyer brought it up as a comparable closed ecosystem & you claimed it was irrelevent based on nobody wanting to open it - which in itself is the point that's irrelevent. Seems like you have the goggles on.
No, I just said it was irrelevant. It's a side issue that nobody would want to licence it.
McDave, your entire response incensed me so much due to its lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions that it's taken me a couple of hours to calm down enough to respond without swearing at you or breaking my computer in anger whilst replying. That's the first time that's ever happened to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Save yourself the effort and burn it to an unprotected CD - no D to A to D required, all courtesy of the 'unfairly restricted' iTunes
I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat something that's already been said multiple times in this thread by multiple different people. It's also been explained why that is an unacceptable solution to some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
..the sell - there it is! Still got shares/financial interest?..
The sell? The sell? No sir, I have no shares/financial interest in the company, or indeed any links with them whatsoever. Neither do any of my family, friends or acquaintances. In addition it wasn't like this was my former company's flagship product, nor was I, any family, friends or acquaintances involved in the development of the system. In case you care, the company in question is Cambridge Consultants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Sorry, the system wouldn't work at all. Conventional wisdom is that prevention is better than cure (DRM as opposed to watermarking).
Conventional wisdom? It's funny to see "wisdom" and "DRM" used in the same sentence as each other. DRM demonstrably does not stop piracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Respective country's tax payers would have to foot the legal bill to chase the 'rogue' pirates
Really? Why is that? Do taxpayers currently foot the bill for the RIAA, BPI and various other recording industry bodies legal battles? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
only to find that they are not responsible for the number of illegal downloads - "sorry your honour, is it my fault that the others chose to download my file?" of course it isn't.
Wrong. That is no excuse. We know this because it already hasn't worked as an excuse. All the people who have been taken to court by the RIAA so far have been taken to court for uploading, not downloading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
But then again your argument does make sense because...
..the truth comes out at last. You are a pirate!
Well, here's the bit where I really have to bite my tongue. No, I am not a pirate, and it makes me very angry that you accuse me of this.
1.) I suggest you read this thread, paying close attention to my responses contained therein. I would like to point out that since the conclusion of the thread, I changed my mind and no longer consider royalties to be the "least bad" solution to how artists/writers should be paid. I now believe that they should be salaried employees like everyone else, and given bonuses/incentives to supplement their income.
2.) Just because I suggest that a particular behaviour is acceptable, doesn't mean I engage in it myself.
3.) I do not consider "making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music" to be piracy. I consider acquiring all/most of your music without paying for it to be piracy. There is a world of difference (in my view) between:
Scenario a) "Person A" thinking to themselves "I like track Z" or "I like album Z", then going to their friend, "Person B", who has "track Z"/"album Z", and copying it from them.
and scenario b) "Person B" makes a compilation of tracks that he thinks "Person A" might like. He doesn't know whether "Person A" will like those tracks for sure, the tracks have not been requested by "Person A". "Person A" receives the compilation. He likes some of the tracks and not others. He then investigates further the artists who produced the tracks he likes, and ends up buying a couple of albums.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about how to draw the lines between what is piracy, what is not piracy, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, then let's do it. But don't accuse me again of being a pirate because I am not, by any definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
And by the way..
...if DRM can be cracked, so can the watermarking as it's all digital encoding
No, it can't, and your "explanation" is no such thing. Again, DRM has a high probability of being cracked because you are provided with:
1.) An encrypted track
2.) A key to decrypt the track
3.) A method to use the key to decrypt the track
Any DRM system conceivable has to provide you with 2.) and 3.), otherwise you can't play the track. Even if you can't work out how to hack 2.) and 3.) in order to permanently remove the DRM, you will always be able to record the analogue signal and end up with a DRM-free track.
An encrypted watermark cannot possibly be removed, it even survives recording of the analogue signal, unlike DRM. If you don't understand how DSSS and CDMA work, please don't bother arguing with me about this because you'll just piss me off. With an encrypted watermark, you are given:
1.) A track with an encrypted watermark.
You are not given a key, and you are not given the encryption method, because removal of the watermark is not necessary for playback. Unless you've a 128 bit quantum computer in your basement (people are struggling to build 3-bit quantum computers, by the way, and adding bits is exponentially harder), encryption is unbreakable. This is very important to appreciate. DRM encryption has not and never will be cracked. DRM systems have been hacked because they have to give you the key and encryption method for playback purposes (Sorry for saying it several times, hopefully you'll understand this time).
Of course, none of this proves that watermarking would stop piracy - I'm just saying that it really is impossible to remove this form of watermarking. In fact, I don't think that watermarking would stop all piracy, as there are plenty of sources of material other than online music stores. What I do believe, is that watermarking (in conjunction with consumer education) would be just as effective as DRM at preventing the pirating of content that originated at an online store.
I believe strongly that trusting people, explaining to them why you are trusting them and the method you will use to check whether that trust has been breached, is more likely to serve your long-term interests than using restrictive DRM schemes that just serve to antagonise people. Treat people as criminals from the off, and they are more likely to behave accordingly (i.e., as criminals).
Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.*
*my highlighting of your arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Says you.
way to put your point, you think your right so thats ok, then you retreat into calling people fanboys and accusations of jingoism when you get stuck and when that doesnt work you correct spelling
but hey, its your view, so I'm fine with that.
shall we agree to wait and see what the courts do, if they do anything at all?
way to put your point, you think your right so thats ok, then you retreat into calling people fanboys and accusations of jingoism when you get stuck and when that doesnt work you correct spelling
but hey, its your view, so I'm fine with that.
shall we agree to wait and see what the courts do, if they do anything at all?
I was just sticking to the facts of the matter. The Norwegian complaint is based on the contract between Apple and the consumer, not the hardware. Nor did they mention Sony. So bringing up UMD disks as a parallel is totally wrong.
In this thread we've had Americans accusing Europeans of whinging about it because we can't compete and bringing up arguments such as Boeing v Airbus and we've had outright defences of Apple's DRM as opposed to other peoples even though they actually are complaining about ALL DRM on music stores and list MSN.no and a couple of others. Excuse me for suggesting people aren't concentrating on the actual facts of the complaint and are jumping to defend Apple without reading. It wasn't helped by a highly inaccurate leader on the original piece which made it seem like there was backing from France, Germany and other European counties at some kind of official level. There isn't.
I was correcting spelling because in the very post I was told to go look at a dictionary instead of reading the facts, the response was littered with spelling mistakes, bad grammar and factual inaccuracies. Irony is obviously lost on you.
Are you a lawyer -- an antitrust lawyer? How do you know what the "facts" -- let alone interpretations, which is often where the law comes down -- are?
I don't mean this as a contentious question... just trying to put your vehemence into context, that's all. (And, I am not suggesting that vehemnce is a bad thing).
Are you a lawyer -- an antitrust lawyer? How do you know what the "facts" -- let alone interpretations, which is often where the law comes down -- are?
Because these are the facts and they include their interpretations...
That is the basis on which the Norwegian Ombudsman has been asked to act. Fact.
Whilst we've had lots of opinion, noise and debate here about whether DRM is evil, has parallels with Sony's system and whatnot, the question is really whether the Norwegian Consumer Council has a case in largely Norwegian and more widely, EU law.
Most of the points raised in this thread are dealt with in the original complaint (see the PDF), including burning to disk, restricting geographically and more. They clearly state what their issue is with regard to their laws and they state which laws and why they believe they apply.
However, on here some of us have concentrated on defending Apple (fair enough if you want to) instead of adding any light to the debate and finding out if the Norwegian Consumer Council actually have a point. There's very little discussion in this thread about the actual complaint.
I'm not saying the Norwegian Consumer Council are right but they do have every right to lodge a complaint. I've tried to just add to the information flow in this thread rather than take sides but it's kind of difficult when you end up as the target of abuse, just for pointing out what the Norwegian Consumer Council are complaining about.
McDave, your entire response incensed me so much due to its lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions that it's taken me a couple of hours to calm down enough to respond without swearing at you or breaking my computer in anger whilst replying. That's the first time that's ever happened to me.
Steady on old chap, no need to blow an artery or, worse, break your machine (we're such slaves to our opinions aren't we?). Let's take this in easy chunks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat something that's already been said multiple times in this thread by multiple different people. It's also been explained why that is an unacceptable solution to some people.
I was actually agreeing with you that anyone with an external A to D could capture analog audio & convert to an unprotected digital file which could be burned onto CD but no need as that function is already available in iTunes. That'll serve me right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
The sell? The sell? No sir, I have no shares/financial interest in the company, or indeed any links with them whatsoever. Neither do any of my family, friends or acquaintances. In addition it wasn't like this was my former company's flagship product, nor was I, any family, friends or acquaintances involved in the development of the system. In case you care, the company in question is Cambridge Consultants.
Sorry, I was goading but you are selling something
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Conventional wisdom? It's funny to see "wisdom" and "DRM" used in the same sentence as each other. DRM demonstrably does not stop piracy.
I think all but the Pharmaceutical Industry would believe that prevention is better than cure. DRM will not stop piracy but limits it's channels (see following posts) the iTS will not become part of the problem but is part of the solution (I accept only part) As far as I'm aware (and maybe we could use watermarking to track this) no music purchased from iTS has appeared on the P2P networks because unless you're able to crack the DRM there's no point. So DRM does limit piracy from that source
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Really? Why is that? Do taxpayers currently foot the bill for the RIAA, BPI and various other recording industry bodies legal battles? No.
No that's private action. I'm talking about breaking copyright law (public action) which is paid for by the tax payer in most parts of the world
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Wrong. That is no excuse. We know this because it already hasn't worked as an excuse. All the people who have been taken to court by the RIAA so far have been taken to court for uploading, not downloading.
As I said above I'm not talking about private action. So someone can break the law because they know they won't be pursued privately? Nonsense!
No, it can't, and your "explanation" is no such thing. Again, DRM has a high probability of being cracked because you are provided with:
1.) An encrypted track
2.) A key to decrypt the track
3.) A method to use the key to decrypt the track
Any DRM system conceivable has to provide you with 2.) and 3.), otherwise you can't play the track. Even if you can't work out how to hack 2.) and 3.) in order to permanently remove the DRM, you will always be able to record the analogue signal and end up with a DRM-free track.
An encrypted watermark cannot possibly be removed, it even survives recording of the analogue signal, unlike DRM. If you don't understand how DSSS and CDMA work, please don't bother arguing with me about this because you'll just piss me off. With an encrypted watermark, you are given:
1.) A track with an encrypted watermark.
You are not given a key, and you are not given the encryption method, because removal of the watermark is not necessary for playback. Unless you've a 128 bit quantum computer in your basement (people are struggling to build 3-bit quantum computers, by the way, and adding bits is exponentially harder), encryption is unbreakable. This is very important to appreciate. DRM encryption has not and never will be cracked. DRM systems have been hacked because they have to give you the key and encryption method for playback purposes (Sorry for saying it several times, hopefully you'll understand this time).
Of course, none of this proves that watermarking would stop piracy - I'm just saying that it really is impossible to remove this form of watermarking. In fact, I don't think that watermarking would stop all piracy, as there are plenty of sources of material other than online music stores. What I do believe, is that watermarking (in conjunction with consumer education) would be just as effective as DRM at preventing the pirating of content that originated at an online store.
I believe strongly that trusting people, explaining to them why you are trusting them and the method you will use to check whether that trust has been breached, is more likely to serve your long-term interests than using restrictive DRM schemes that just serve to antagonise people. Treat people as criminals from the off, and they are more likely to behave accordingly (i.e., as criminals).
Well, there's no arguing with that. Except, of course, the last part.
If breaking the law is an inadequate deterent how is watermarking going to work at all? All it proves is that one identifiable individual is guilty of at least one upload for one track, all subsequent copies in circulation could have been distributed by other parties and the extent is unlikely to be procured by the original perpetrator so what's the point?
Knowing that a DRM'd file also has your ID and that nobody could play it (without going through a lot of hoops) is far more effective. I do take your point that DRM is oppressive and likely to inspire rebellion (as is our nature) but so is any direct action that grates with our convenient perspectives.
Comments
While people like to ignore it, iTS music IS, by definition, in a proprietary AAC format - hence no one else can read it. If you want an analogy look at the early days of DICOM format for medical images. This was a published standard but was left as extensible by the user. For quite some time manufacturers created proprietary extensions make the images proprietary. The fact that the unlying image was in a standard format was irrelavent in the big picture.
Says you.
The Norwegians are arguing otherwise and I agree.
Says you.
The Norwegians are arguing otherwise and I agree.
Maybe you should read the dictionary instead of the complaint
Complainants in an advesarial system (which is what the western legal system are) always put the strongest arguments forward and are not required to balanced. Doesn't mean they're right.
I'm pretty sure that if it was an open format even I could probably write a reader. Likely to be crude and ugly but functional.
Perhaps you should put down the Apple fanboy goggles and read the actual complaint from the Norwegian consumer group.
It's pointless discussing until you do.
He seems to have, it's your argument which has changed tack from consumer-bias (the foundation of the Norwegian complaint) to manufacturer-bias - who cares if nobody wants a piece of Sony's system, it's still closed. It's not Apple's fault they have so many pretenders!
Is that a bit fanboy-ish? McD
How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.
Save yourself the effort and burn it to an unprotected CD - no D to A to D required, all courtesy of the 'unfairly restricted' iTunes
In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because? they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.
I think people buy from iTunes because it's easy not because they're 'not pirates' you're confusing cause & effect and possibly setting us up for....
I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.
..the sell - there it is! Still got shares/financial interest?..
Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).
The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.
Sorry, the system wouldn't work at all. Conventional wisdom is that prevention is better than cure (DRM as opposed to watermarking). All this system would achieve is continued piracy albeit with a mechanism to track the number of copies originating from particular source. Respective country's tax payers would have to foot the legal bill to chase the 'rogue' pirates only to find that they are not responsible for the number of illegal downloads - "sorry your honour, is it my fault that the others chose to download my file?" of course it isn't. But then again your argument does make sense because...
Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable...
..the truth comes out at last. You are a pirate! How inconvenient it must be that DRM prevents you from applying your own interpretation of the law!
And by the way..
A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.
...if DRM can be cracked, so can the watermarking as it's all digital encoding and just a matter of time but that doesn't matter as, clearly, copyright protection isn't a factor in your argument.
McD
Again with the strawman.
The complaint isn't about choice. It's about what Apple is selling in Norway and Norwegian consumer law.
We live in democracies - the complaint is always about choice (or the perception of) that's why these consumer groups exist. If we're not given enough, we complain. If we're given to much and things inevitably fail to deliver, we complain.
However I'm not sure about this..
"The Norwegian Consumer Council, Forbrukerradet, lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on behalf of Norwegian consumers claiming that the Fairplay DRM system acted against the interests of consumers. It said that the fact that the technology stopped songs bought from iTunes being played on any player other than an iPod broke the law in Norway.
The Ombudsman has now agreed, according to Torgeir Waterhouse, senior advisor at the Consumer Council.
"It doesn't get any clearer than this. Fairplay is an illegal lock-in technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability," Waterhouse told OUT-LAW.COM. "For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability, in order to boost its own profits."
Waterhouse said that the Ombudsman has written to Apple to say that it believes that Apple's Fairplay system is illegal. "iTunes Music Store must remove its illegal lock-in technology or appear in court," he said. "As of right now we're heading for a big breakthrough that will hopefully pave the way for consumers everywhere to regain control of music they legally purchase."
The Consumer Council believes that Apple has only three options: it can license Fairplay to any manufacturer that wants iTunes songs to play on its machines; it can co-develop an open standard with other companies; or it can abandon DRM altogether.
The Ombudsman has also backed the Consumer Council's claim that the DRM technology is not simply a copy protection scheme. The Council had argued that in restricting consumers' use of music so heavily the technology broke contract law in Norway.
"The Ombudsman has confirmed our claim that the DRM must be considered part of the contract terms and not a copy protection scheme only," said Waterhouse. "This means that under the Norwegian Marketing Control Act the DRM must provide balanced and fair rights to the consumer when they purchase music form iTunes Music Store and similar download services."
"Apple is aware of the concerns we've heard from several agencies in Europe and we're looking forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible,” Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told AP news agency earlier this week. “Apple hopes that European governments will encourage a competitive environment that lets innovation thrive, protects intellectual property and allows consumers to decide which products are successful.”"
1. "a well functioning digital society" - ?!! didn't the great Uncle Steve show us (valid) stats on how certain countries' music sales were going to the wall? With 50% CD sales decreases and piracy on the rise? How is this "well functioning"?
2. "For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability" - With the real examples being what? plays-for-sure? This approach doesn't work! It failed! Even MS abandoned it!
3. "the Fairplay DRM system acted against the interests of consumers" - How? by providing the only successful digital music download model? How is that against consumers' interests? What is against consumers' interests is the assumption that this group are capable of understanding what makes a digital music solution useful to consumers and given they think the 'benefits' of interoperability outweigh the compromise in solution design, they clearly don't.
4. "The Consumer Council believes that Apple has only three options: it can license Fairplay to any manufacturer that wants iTunes songs to play on its machines; it can co-develop an open standard with other companies; or it can abandon DRM altogether." - these options are all the same. DRM runs a race to outpace the crackers, iTunes maintains this pace by constantly upgrading an enticing users to upgrade with extra features. To open up or license the DRM would break the pace and fix the DRM allowing it to be cracked and rendering it useless. So no options here.
This whole case is so clearly orchestrated by pirates it's not funny. Tragically they'll probably win their case because the only other group people who can't understand why this is wrong - are the general public and if iTS is illegal, it's illegal though their rationale is full of holes (and shouldn't this have been picked up before iTS was licensed to trade?)
McD
He seems to have, it's your argument which has changed tack from consumer-bias (the foundation of the Norwegian complaint) to manufacturer-bias - who cares if nobody wants a piece of Sony's system, it's still closed. It's not Apple's fault they have so many pretenders!
Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.
Maybe you should read the dictionary instead of the complaint
Complainants in an adversarial system (which is what the western legal system is) always put the strongest arguments forward and are not required to be balanced. It doesn't mean they're right.
I'm pretty sure that if it was an open format even I could probably write a reader. Likely to be crude and ugly but functional.
*corrected for spelling and grammar in bold.
Your weird phrasing aside, I fail to see what your point is. The Norwegians are exercising their right to complain under their laws. They're a democracy, blah, blah blah, SO WHAT?
The format *IS* an open format not some weird extension like you were saying with your DICOM files. I've no idea what DICOM files are and don't care either. All Fairplay does is encrypt the audio data, add a key and store it in a plain old mp4 container file. That's no secret. It's not proprietary. MP4 is designed to work that way. That is why it's used with DRM instead of MP3, which isn't capable of DRM. They're complaining about the restrictions, not the file format, not some silly closed UMD style media format, not that the iPods can't play WMA files. It's a matter of contract, not software, not hardware.
I'm not sure what's going on in this thread. Is it Apple fanboy-ism? Is it 'Woo Woo America No.1' jingoism? God forbid it was the French complaining. I can imagine the racism coming across the Atlantic now. It is tiresome though that despite quoting the complaint made in this very thread, the reading comprehension thereof seems to be lacking.
Besides if you you are the least bit computer savvy, taking any iTunes audio product. It can be reproduced into any format desired as many times as you want. That includes MPG4 audio books. There are two catches however. One only for personal consumption and two you have to do a little work. It is not handed to you on a sliver platter.
For crying out loud stop the belly aching and grow up. If you use it Pay for it , know that no service is going to satisfy all.
*corrected for spelling and grammar in bold.
I'm not sure what's going on in this thread. Is it Apple fanboy-ism? Is it 'Woo Woo America No.1' jingoism? God forbid it was the French complaining. I can imagine the racism coming across the Atlantic now. It is tiresome though that despite quoting the complaint made in this very thread, the reading comprehension thereof seems to be lacking.
I see no reason to now drop into ad hominem arguments about Apple fanboy-ism, etc. The people discussing this have read and understood the complaint. They don't agree with your view of it. In my case, as I said before, I believe the complaint as presented is fallacious and based on very subjective criteria (see bolded terms in the quote below).
To restate the lockin fallacy a different way...
1) you can buy and listen to music from the iTS and never buy apple hardware
2) you can buy apple hardware and never buy music from iTS (like me)
Yes if you want the best experience you buy both, but that's good design.
Should they license Fairplay??? To me that's a question for Apple, not the courts. Unless Norwegian law is so specific about what consumer's rights are with respect to music so as to remove any subjectiveness, then I continue to wonder about the motivations behind this action. Apple has provided more access to DRM'd music than any other DRM scheme out there (I believe).
The Council had argued that in restricting consumers' use of music so heavily the technology broke contract law in Norway.
I guess some is ok. How much is not?
"The Ombudsman has confirmed our claim that the DRM must be considered part of the contract terms and not a copy protection scheme only," said Waterhouse. "This means that under the Norwegian Marketing Control Act the DRM must provide balanced and fair rights to the consumer when they purchase music form iTunes Music Store and similar download services."
Again is there a specificaiton of this? I don't claim to know.
Of course they have the right to bring this action. I believe that actions such as these, which seem to be based on subjective interpretations, will likely end up with some sort of political solution. No one is questioning the right to pursue this but, because of the quality of the arguments presented, some of us are questioning the motivations behind the action.
(BTW thanks for the corrections. I was going out the door last time.)
Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.
I didn't say you did, Trendannoyer brought it up as a comparable closed ecosystem & you claimed it was irrelevent based on nobody wanting to open it - which in itself is the point that's irrelevent. Seems like you have the goggles on.
I believe that if you do not agree with the way a company conducts it business then you are free to go to another supplier.
Yes, you are.
You're also free to complain to your nations consumer ombudsmen if you think a company is operating unacceptably. That's what they're doing. That's what ombudsmen are there for.
Both are valid approaches.
I didn't say you did, Trendannoyer brought it up as a comparable closed ecosystem & you claimed it was irrelevent based on nobody wanting to open it - which in itself is the point that's irrelevent. Seems like you have the goggles on.
No, I just said it was irrelevant. It's a side issue that nobody would want to licence it.
Save yourself the effort and burn it to an unprotected CD - no D to A to D required, all courtesy of the 'unfairly restricted' iTunes
I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat something that's already been said multiple times in this thread by multiple different people. It's also been explained why that is an unacceptable solution to some people.
..the sell - there it is! Still got shares/financial interest?..
The sell? The sell? No sir, I have no shares/financial interest in the company, or indeed any links with them whatsoever. Neither do any of my family, friends or acquaintances. In addition it wasn't like this was my former company's flagship product, nor was I, any family, friends or acquaintances involved in the development of the system. In case you care, the company in question is Cambridge Consultants.
Sorry, the system wouldn't work at all. Conventional wisdom is that prevention is better than cure (DRM as opposed to watermarking).
Conventional wisdom?
Respective country's tax payers would have to foot the legal bill to chase the 'rogue' pirates
Really? Why is that? Do taxpayers currently foot the bill for the RIAA, BPI and various other recording industry bodies legal battles? No.
only to find that they are not responsible for the number of illegal downloads - "sorry your honour, is it my fault that the others chose to download my file?" of course it isn't.
Wrong. That is no excuse. We know this because it already hasn't worked as an excuse. All the people who have been taken to court by the RIAA so far have been taken to court for uploading, not downloading.
But then again your argument does make sense because...
..the truth comes out at last. You are a pirate!
Well, here's the bit where I really have to bite my tongue. No, I am not a pirate, and it makes me very angry that you accuse me of this.
1.) I suggest you read this thread, paying close attention to my responses contained therein. I would like to point out that since the conclusion of the thread, I changed my mind and no longer consider royalties to be the "least bad" solution to how artists/writers should be paid. I now believe that they should be salaried employees like everyone else, and given bonuses/incentives to supplement their income.
2.) Just because I suggest that a particular behaviour is acceptable, doesn't mean I engage in it myself.
3.) I do not consider "making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music" to be piracy. I consider acquiring all/most of your music without paying for it to be piracy. There is a world of difference (in my view) between:
Scenario a) "Person A" thinking to themselves "I like track Z" or "I like album Z", then going to their friend, "Person B", who has "track Z"/"album Z", and copying it from them.
and scenario b) "Person B" makes a compilation of tracks that he thinks "Person A" might like. He doesn't know whether "Person A" will like those tracks for sure, the tracks have not been requested by "Person A". "Person A" receives the compilation. He likes some of the tracks and not others. He then investigates further the artists who produced the tracks he likes, and ends up buying a couple of albums.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about how to draw the lines between what is piracy, what is not piracy, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, then let's do it. But don't accuse me again of being a pirate because I am not, by any definition.
And by the way..
...if DRM can be cracked, so can the watermarking as it's all digital encoding
No, it can't, and your "explanation" is no such thing. Again, DRM has a high probability of being cracked because you are provided with:
1.) An encrypted track
2.) A key to decrypt the track
3.) A method to use the key to decrypt the track
Any DRM system conceivable has to provide you with 2.) and 3.), otherwise you can't play the track. Even if you can't work out how to hack 2.) and 3.) in order to permanently remove the DRM, you will always be able to record the analogue signal and end up with a DRM-free track.
An encrypted watermark cannot possibly be removed, it even survives recording of the analogue signal, unlike DRM. If you don't understand how DSSS and CDMA work, please don't bother arguing with me about this because you'll just piss me off. With an encrypted watermark, you are given:
1.) A track with an encrypted watermark.
You are not given a key, and you are not given the encryption method, because removal of the watermark is not necessary for playback. Unless you've a 128 bit quantum computer in your basement (people are struggling to build 3-bit quantum computers, by the way, and adding bits is exponentially harder), encryption is unbreakable. This is very important to appreciate. DRM encryption has not and never will be cracked. DRM systems have been hacked because they have to give you the key and encryption method for playback purposes (Sorry for saying it several times, hopefully you'll understand this time).
Of course, none of this proves that watermarking would stop piracy - I'm just saying that it really is impossible to remove this form of watermarking. In fact, I don't think that watermarking would stop all piracy, as there are plenty of sources of material other than online music stores. What I do believe, is that watermarking (in conjunction with consumer education) would be just as effective as DRM at preventing the pirating of content that originated at an online store.
I believe strongly that trusting people, explaining to them why you are trusting them and the method you will use to check whether that trust has been breached, is more likely to serve your long-term interests than using restrictive DRM schemes that just serve to antagonise people. Treat people as criminals from the off, and they are more likely to behave accordingly (i.e., as criminals).
Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.*
*my highlighting of your arrogance
Says you.
way to put your point, you think your right so thats ok, then you retreat into calling people fanboys and accusations of jingoism when you get stuck
but hey, its your view, so I'm fine with that.
shall we agree to wait and see what the courts do, if they do anything at all?
*my highlighting of your arrogance
way to put your point, you think your right so thats ok, then you retreat into calling people fanboys and accusations of jingoism when you get stuck
but hey, its your view, so I'm fine with that.
shall we agree to wait and see what the courts do, if they do anything at all?
I was just sticking to the facts of the matter. The Norwegian complaint is based on the contract between Apple and the consumer, not the hardware. Nor did they mention Sony. So bringing up UMD disks as a parallel is totally wrong.
In this thread we've had Americans accusing Europeans of whinging about it because we can't compete and bringing up arguments such as Boeing v Airbus and we've had outright defences of Apple's DRM as opposed to other peoples even though they actually are complaining about ALL DRM on music stores and list MSN.no and a couple of others. Excuse me for suggesting people aren't concentrating on the actual facts of the complaint and are jumping to defend Apple without reading. It wasn't helped by a highly inaccurate leader on the original piece which made it seem like there was backing from France, Germany and other European counties at some kind of official level. There isn't.
I was correcting spelling because in the very post I was told to go look at a dictionary instead of reading the facts, the response was littered with spelling mistakes, bad grammar and factual inaccuracies. Irony is obviously lost on you.
I was just sticking to the facts of the matter.
Are you a lawyer -- an antitrust lawyer? How do you know what the "facts" -- let alone interpretations, which is often where the law comes down -- are?
I don't mean this as a contentious question... just trying to put your vehemence into context, that's all. (And, I am not suggesting that vehemnce is a bad thing).
Are you a lawyer -- an antitrust lawyer? How do you know what the "facts" -- let alone interpretations, which is often where the law comes down -- are?
Because these are the facts and they include their interpretations...
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71
and
http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearch...ic%20Store.pdf
That is the basis on which the Norwegian Ombudsman has been asked to act. Fact.
Whilst we've had lots of opinion, noise and debate here about whether DRM is evil, has parallels with Sony's system and whatnot, the question is really whether the Norwegian Consumer Council has a case in largely Norwegian and more widely, EU law.
Most of the points raised in this thread are dealt with in the original complaint (see the PDF), including burning to disk, restricting geographically and more. They clearly state what their issue is with regard to their laws and they state which laws and why they believe they apply.
However, on here some of us have concentrated on defending Apple (fair enough if you want to) instead of adding any light to the debate and finding out if the Norwegian Consumer Council actually have a point. There's very little discussion in this thread about the actual complaint.
I'm not saying the Norwegian Consumer Council are right but they do have every right to lodge a complaint. I've tried to just add to the information flow in this thread rather than take sides but it's kind of difficult when you end up as the target of abuse, just for pointing out what the Norwegian Consumer Council are complaining about.
http://atvs.vg.no/player/index.php?id=7334
Nice computer they picked to demo it on.
McDave, your entire response incensed me so much due to its lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions that it's taken me a couple of hours to calm down enough to respond without swearing at you or breaking my computer in anger whilst replying. That's the first time that's ever happened to me.
Steady on old chap, no need to blow an artery or, worse, break your machine (we're such slaves to our opinions aren't we?). Let's take this in easy chunks...
I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat something that's already been said multiple times in this thread by multiple different people. It's also been explained why that is an unacceptable solution to some people.
I was actually agreeing with you that anyone with an external A to D could capture analog audio & convert to an unprotected digital file which could be burned onto CD but no need as that function is already available in iTunes. That'll serve me right!
The sell? The sell? No sir, I have no shares/financial interest in the company, or indeed any links with them whatsoever. Neither do any of my family, friends or acquaintances. In addition it wasn't like this was my former company's flagship product, nor was I, any family, friends or acquaintances involved in the development of the system. In case you care, the company in question is Cambridge Consultants.
Sorry, I was goading but you are selling something
Conventional wisdom?
I think all but the Pharmaceutical Industry would believe that prevention is better than cure. DRM will not stop piracy but limits it's channels (see following posts) the iTS will not become part of the problem but is part of the solution (I accept only part) As far as I'm aware (and maybe we could use watermarking to track this) no music purchased from iTS has appeared on the P2P networks because unless you're able to crack the DRM there's no point. So DRM does limit piracy from that source
Really? Why is that? Do taxpayers currently foot the bill for the RIAA, BPI and various other recording industry bodies legal battles? No.
No that's private action. I'm talking about breaking copyright law (public action) which is paid for by the tax payer in most parts of the world
Wrong. That is no excuse. We know this because it already hasn't worked as an excuse. All the people who have been taken to court by the RIAA so far have been taken to court for uploading, not downloading.
As I said above I'm not talking about private action. So someone can break the law because they know they won't be pursued privately? Nonsense!
...
No, it can't, and your "explanation" is no such thing. Again, DRM has a high probability of being cracked because you are provided with:
1.) An encrypted track
2.) A key to decrypt the track
3.) A method to use the key to decrypt the track
Any DRM system conceivable has to provide you with 2.) and 3.), otherwise you can't play the track. Even if you can't work out how to hack 2.) and 3.) in order to permanently remove the DRM, you will always be able to record the analogue signal and end up with a DRM-free track.
An encrypted watermark cannot possibly be removed, it even survives recording of the analogue signal, unlike DRM. If you don't understand how DSSS and CDMA work, please don't bother arguing with me about this because you'll just piss me off. With an encrypted watermark, you are given:
1.) A track with an encrypted watermark.
You are not given a key, and you are not given the encryption method, because removal of the watermark is not necessary for playback. Unless you've a 128 bit quantum computer in your basement (people are struggling to build 3-bit quantum computers, by the way, and adding bits is exponentially harder), encryption is unbreakable. This is very important to appreciate. DRM encryption has not and never will be cracked. DRM systems have been hacked because they have to give you the key and encryption method for playback purposes (Sorry for saying it several times, hopefully you'll understand this time).
Of course, none of this proves that watermarking would stop piracy - I'm just saying that it really is impossible to remove this form of watermarking. In fact, I don't think that watermarking would stop all piracy, as there are plenty of sources of material other than online music stores. What I do believe, is that watermarking (in conjunction with consumer education) would be just as effective as DRM at preventing the pirating of content that originated at an online store.
I believe strongly that trusting people, explaining to them why you are trusting them and the method you will use to check whether that trust has been breached, is more likely to serve your long-term interests than using restrictive DRM schemes that just serve to antagonise people. Treat people as criminals from the off, and they are more likely to behave accordingly (i.e., as criminals).
Well, there's no arguing with that. Except, of course, the last part.
If breaking the law is an inadequate deterent how is watermarking going to work at all? All it proves is that one identifiable individual is guilty of at least one upload for one track, all subsequent copies in circulation could have been distributed by other parties and the extent is unlikely to be procured by the original perpetrator so what's the point?
Knowing that a DRM'd file also has your ID and that nobody could play it (without going through a lot of hoops) is far more effective. I do take your point that DRM is oppressive and likely to inspire rebellion (as is our nature) but so is any direct action that grates with our convenient perspectives.
Speaking of which...