Here’s the article and quote that I like:

The weakness of these values on the Continent is not the only impediment to a revival of dynamism there. There is the solidarist aim of protecting the “social partners”–communities and regions, business owners, organized labor and the professions–from disruptive market forces. There is also the consensualist aim of blocking business initiatives that lack the consent of the “stakeholders”–those, such as employees, customers and rival companies, thought to have a stake besides the owners. There is an intellectual current elevating community and society over individual engagement and personal growth, which springs from antimaterialist and egalitarian strains in Western culture. There is also the “scientism” that holds that state-directed research is the key to higher productivity. Equally, there is the tradition of hierarchical organization in Continental countries. Lastly, there a strain of anti-commercialism. “A German would rather say he had inherited his fortune than say he made it himself,” the economist Hans-Werner Sinn once remarked to me.

from http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009657

The point is, this poster has found that the iTunes sales model fits the way they buy music. There is no single way to buy music. There is no unique type of customer. And I agree - I don’t mind paying $0.99/track even though I can’t play it on a Zen. $0.99/track, with restrictions, is worth it to me. It’s great. I intend to continue buying music like this. It’s not because I’m stupid. It’s not because I’m unaware of the consequences of my actions. It’s because a track that I want, with restrictions, is worth more to me than $0.99. It’s that simple. The only people who don’t understand this are people who have a religious anti-DRM ax to grind. That’s their problem.

Although I would like to take my iTunes purchased songs and play them on a Zune or some other device someday (ie, an open standard) I feel that Apple has done enough to provide me with “fair use” while still ensuring the user experience that keeps me “in the Apple system.”

I have the capability to authorize my songs many computers, I haven’t lost my files becuause of a hard drive crash or computer upgrade… When I divorces, I copied and split my library fine with my ex-wife with no problems.

Further- I can burn anything onto CD and have unfettered access to it.

Ben is right- I’m aware of the DRM restrictions that come with iTunes, but it’s simply the best experience and easiest to use. That’s why I choose this method. 99 cents is a decent enough price for me to get my “fair use” out of a track.

On a personal note, I don’t understand the need to meticulously maintain every single song you’ve ever purchased. I get blasted a lot on slashdot when I say that because people assume I just have bad taste in music, but maybe I just don’t put that much *stock* in music? If I can listen to a song for year or two (I’m going on 4 years now with my iTunes purchased songs), and then Apple turns into some kind of evil empire or something and totally locks out my music, I’ll just think “eh, well that was a good run, on to some other service.” and feel just as fine.

This leads to someone eventually saying “well, say you’ve spent 100 dollars in songs over the years.. won’t you be upset?” To which I reply “for music? I pay more than that dining out in one weekend, but I got four years out of that music and I’m satisfied with with.”

Those that think I’m dumb for being willing to walk away from my library, that’s fine, but it’s my money not yours.

Those that think I’m only willing to walk away from my library because I just buy *britney spears new roxorz greatest hitz!* are also mistaken. My latest purchase was a digital copy of Pink Floyd albums. But just because it’s good music doesn’t mean I’m going to make the government pry it from my “cold dead hands”

And in conclusion, who’s to say I haven’t already burned, bought, or otherwise backed up any songs I really feel like I need to have forever? (I have)

…but in real conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I would prefer open standards for digital music…. dangit- this is starting another topic…

On open standards, I often hear “why should Apple care about making their system work with other devices?” and that’s followed with “I can’t play my cassette tape on my CD player…”

To which I reply: “yes, but you can play your CD in any CD player.” Apple doesn’t need to ensure their format works on any device. They can take and enhance the digital audio format to work best with their system, but it should be able to work across the board.

The best example I can think of is audio CDs that also include music videos or some media on it so that when you put in your computer you can view the media (enhanced format for a particular type of device) but the CD still plays in all players regardless of who makes it.

So.. even though I’d like Open Standards, I’m still willing to play ball with Apple’s system under the restrictions they put on me because it simply works best and I’m willing to work within those restrictions.

The market SHOULD take care of DRM. But it can’t do that when those who own DRM are able to manipulate the market via government legislation. Free markets only work when truly free (which are few and far between…)

As for the constitution:

“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”

That *is* what copyright law is for. We’ve already esstablished that. It works (as best as it can not-withstanding obscene changes to it by the likes of Disney). In otherwords, we had a decent system. No need for DRM and no need for the DMCA in it’s current form.

My main gripe is the fact that with electronic media, the industries want to abolish any concept of fair use. I’m not saying fair use should include stealing a CD minting 20,000 copies and selling them on the streets of NYC. I’m not even saying sharing them online with 1,000 people sans permission is fair use. I’m saying let me have my media in a format that *I* can use without having to jump through absurd hoops and/or having to re-purchase each time I want to shift hardware.

All that said, I concede that the market is having an effect, finally. It took 10 years and lots of frivilous lawsuits, but it is working. That does show the power of the market. I see Norway just speeding that process up.

To set some things in context, The original intention of copyright laws (in the U.S. at least) was to strike a balance, over time, between the (commercial) benefits of author creation and the interests of the public domain to benefit from the greater society’s ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Traditionally, copyrights (Europe) carried the characteristics of real property rights, that do not expire, and can be passed to heirs just like land, etc. The Founders wanted to strike a balance between ownership and the progress of useful arts in constructing the U.S. approach.

DRM, good or bad, is a reaction to prolific piracy in the digital age. When you buy physical property, you’re entitled to do whatever you want with it. In the case of a book, you can resell it, mark it up, or burn it. The content of the work, the “expression,” if you will) is protected, however. So, in essence, it is a license to use, not outright ownership. Physical world= personal property. Intellectual/creative expression=intangible. They are different and are treated differently. DRM merely abides by federally-granted rights of an author or holder of the rights to creative work.

So, Darrel, to your points generally, People don’t create creative works for the benefit of you as an individual consumer. Or, more correctly, they aren’t compelled to by law to do so. they reserve the right to. To assert otherwise would imply an economic or geopolitical system that is not the world we live in (sorry, I’m not an expert on civics or government so I can’t comment much here). To shift the right of companies, owners/authors of creative works to control the licensing of their work to the general public makes copyright obsolete. (From a captialist perspective, it threatens trillions of dollars of commerce, not just for record/media companies, but also for independent creators who are smart enough to retain their copyrights and market themselves accordingly). In a DRM world, the people who want to break the rules and copy, steal, or otherwise illicitly obtain intellectual property of others will find a way to do so, with or without DRM.

Fair use in a traditional sense is a legal defense for copyright infringement. If there are any commercial ramifications, then it probably wouldn’t hold up, in a very general sense. Expanding that doctrine legally may be worth discussion.

If you want to do away with copyright (and DRM), at least in the U.S., you’d better start at the top and come up with a plan to amend Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Otherwise, let the market take care of DRM.

(BTW the new Tom Waits release from emusic is fantastic–and yes, affordable!).

http://digg.com/apple/Norway_declares_iTunes_Illegal_3

I’m not a big fan of giving the copyright…holders even more power over the consumer. Fair use is a valuable concept, IMHO.

“Or to put it another way, tell me how you’d write DMCA ”

I wouldn’t. We already had copyright laws in this country. I’m not a big fan of giving the copyright.

“Back to the database example”

The analogy is weak. Both DBs are relational and use SQL, no?

“And just because Tom Waits gives his music away on MP3, does that somehow oblige Britney Spears to as well?”

a) Tom Waits doesn’t give his music away and b) The label owns Britney’s distribution rights.

“All Norway has done is blocked a transaction of two willing participants”

Maybe. Or maybe the’ve paved the way for other countries to do the same. Afterall, these are governments OF the people…it’s nothing more than the market responding. I’m guessing these people were perhaps less than willing, given that they elected representatives that enacted this. ;o)

“That would be a valid point if one could shop for the same music on both services.”
Back to the database example: under your logic, you must be angry that you can’t get Oracle DBs for free since MySQL is willing to simply give theirs away. Should we declare it illegal? And just because Tom Waits gives his music away on MP3, does that somehow oblige Britney Spears to as well? All Norway has done is blocked a transaction of two willing participants: Apple and a Norwegian teen who loves Britney Spears.

I think we’re in complete agreement here.

I’m arguing that perhaps more legislation could even the playing field. I think you’re arguing less could even the playing field. In the end, either method would probably work…it’s just the current situation is what is bad.

“It is incorrect to say each of those purchasers has been extorted.”

They’re under the threat of extortion if they choose the more convenient and DRM free method out there (bittorrent and the like).

“If DMCA isn’t correct, then fix DMCA. ”

I think that’s what Norway wants to do. ;o)

“Actually, the market gave you eMusic, before Norway made iTunes illegal. ”

That would be a valid point if one could shop for the same music on both services.