Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far

Posted by michael on from the skin-deep dept.

Graff writes "This was found on SiliconValley.com. In an article for the Mercury News, Dan Gillmor talks about how Apple is still standing firm against the Digital Rights Management (DRM) efforts which the entertainment industry is trying to force on the public. There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress."

15 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Missing the point by benedict · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Dan Gillmor is missing the point. DRM
    is coming -- it's too useful not to catch on.
    The question is not will we be able to resist
    DRM, but rather, who will be empowered by it?
    With the right laws, the answer could be "the
    public". It will be hard to get the right laws,
    given the evil influences of Microsoft and the
    entertainment industry, but it's not a physical
    or moral impossibility.

    --
    Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    1. Re:Missing the point by skia · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It will be hard to get the right laws, given the evil influences of Microsoft and the entertainment industry, but it's not a physical or moral impossibility.

      Once you have LAWS to enforce what should be a MORAL issue, you remove all chance for morality to blossom there. All moral discussion is replaced by a discussion of the letter of the law.

      Discussions on morality can be had by everyone. Discussions on the letter of the law can only be had effectively by lawyers. Who has more/better/costlier lawyers, Hollywood or me?

      Now tell me how codifying rights management in the law books would work out in my/the public's best interests.

      --

      --

    2. Re:Missing the point by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What we need is a serious revamp of copyright laws to expand fair use and decrease the time of copyrights.

      And the easiest way to get that is to provide technical barriers to replace the legal ones. Technical barriers like... DRM.

      Joe Musician creates music in his computer these days or his garage and can make his own music to distribute easily.

      But he can't make money off that music because distribution over the internet is not profitable. So instead the big names with the big marketing budgets and the ability to cut CDs and more importantly to distribute those CDs make it and the little guy loses. DRM has the ability to change this. Instead of needing to beg the RIAA to get you on a radio station you can release time-limited copies of your music over the internet. With DRM there will be many more artists willing to allow streaming digital audio transmissions. Just take a look at Rhapsody. That's DRM, and if it had enough people willing to use it I think it'd be a positive thing.

  2. What about Pixar? by C.+Mattix · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have always wondered what Pixar's stance on this is. Jobs is one of Pixar's head guys, but they are owned by Disney.

  3. DRM? No thanks. by SeanWithoutPants · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Should DRM become so bad that users can't do some of the most basic actions that would fall under fair use, I really think Apple would be missing a major opportunity if they did not start advertising their lack of DRM. As long as Joe Average knows that not every platform restricts you in such a way, there will be a strong temptation to switch.

    "Step 1: Insert CD

    Step 2: Click import

    Step 3: There is no step 3..."

    Like I said in one of the previous articles, I think that the only way Apple would include DRM is if they become legally required to, or are forced into a situation by the entertainment industry that could cut Apple's users out of the picture...that is if they were to only release material in a DRM approved format. Now I know that there would be computer saavy folk who can work around the DRM, but Apple's average user won't. (heh, unless that simply requires a magic marker) :)

    Regards,
    Sean

  4. Further examples of Apple corporate Schizophrenia by TellarHK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One day Apple is lauded for bringing unix to the masses.

    The next they're hated for keeping Aqua closed.

    A week later, they're lauded once again for making development tools free.

    Then they're hated for pushing specific look and feel.

    They're loved again for ignoring DRM pressure.

    But only a day before, they're scoffed at for keeping people out of the GUI cusstomization business.

    And to top it all off, they're even disliked for having a monopoly in their own segment.

    Either Apple doesn't know what one hand is doing while the other isn't looking, or we're a bunch of really fickle damn people. With me, it's come down to a comparison between Apple, Microsoft and Linux on the areas of usability, who has whose best interests in mind, and price.

    Apple is by far the most usable. Bar none. Linux may have more uses, and Microsoft owns the market. But neither Linux or Microsoft actually seem to develop intuitive interfaces and software that Just Works.

    Apple is only slightly more expensive than a comparable PC. Your typical linux box is kludged together from parts and duct tape, or built significantly cheaper from new parts. Linux wins this hands down, but is it enough?

    But the real key is the question of who has whose best interests in mind. There's no debating the fact that Bill Gates wants your first born. MS EULAs are so easy to find fault with that it's become a hobby here. Microsoft wants to control your computer and accepts no responsibility when things break. Linux is all about freedom, your software, your gear, your control. Great in theory, but things just -break- on Linux as soon as you start installing post-distribution software unless IT is your life. Great for professional IT guys, but Linux seems to continue failing to make mom and dad comfortable.

    Steve Jobs on the other hand, is a very odd type. He wants things his way, but he's utterly convinced it's' because it's better for everyone else. And oddly enough, he's usually not too far off. Apple makes their entire reputation based on making the system something anyone can get into and take the reins of. With XServe, they're on track to some badly needed credibility in the IT segment. They might be a scary monopolistic bunch in some pretty noticable ways, but despite it, they've got the best system for anyone.

    I wish I were of enough stature to suggest a truce. I'd suggest this. Apple should open up the interface for a bit more customization, expose the API's and maybe work in some kind of X11/Aqua hybrid feature so X11 applications can run on Aqua without extensive modification to the Aqua look and feel. In exchange for this, Open Source advocates can shut up about how Apple isn't entirely Open Source, and accept the fact that Apple's survival counts on them having the exclusive control of their own interface.

    Sound fair?

    --
    My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
  5. Re:Apple knows which side their bread is buttered by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple's real business is selling Macs, the iPod is simply a Mac accessory. They hope that cool toys like the iPod will sell more Macs. Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers. If DRM was good for their computer business they would dump the iPod faster than you could say "Newton."

    They want people to see the Mac as the platform for folks who are making their own cool mix CDs, and that are making their own movies. DRM would put kinks in these kinds of uses, and so Apple opposes DRM. Besides, they have seen the writing on the wall, a lot of people actually like getting on Kazaa (or whatever, I have never really gotten into P2P) and sharing music, videos, and other assorted files. For many people that is their primary reason for owning a computer. The last thing Apple wants is to be cut off from this market.

  6. Remember - it's spelled DRM by cats-paw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but it's pronounced Digital RESTRICTIONS Management.

    I'm not sure who originated the term, I first saw it attributed to RMS.

    Digital Rights Management is total Orwellian double-speak.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  7. Re:Don't delude yourselves. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Of course Apple isn't standing up for your rights on principle. A lot of people seem to have missed the fact that Apple is banking on positioning themselves as the hub of digital media devices in the home, a position IN OPPOSITION TO the set top box approach that Microsoft is taking. In order to succeed in the centralized digital device hub model, digital media needs to flow freely from device to device. If everything is encrypted, controlled, and we can't do anything with it, then nobody is going to want or need a hub for their digital media devices, and nobody will buy into the Apple strategy.


    I think this has more to do with Apple's strategic position than with currying favor with users per se, but I'm sure they would like to be seen as more user friendly than other computer manufacturers, and this does fit in with that.


    It's obvious that corporations exist to make money, but if we are successfully voting with our dollars, we will encourage PC manufacturers to give us the kind of open hardware and software we want. Granted, Debian will always be more Free than Mac OS, but that doesn't mean we ignore a position that an important company is taking that supports our stance on user rights and freedoms.

  8. DRM - what it is (and what it is not) by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see a necessity for this post since most people don't seem to realise what this is and what it is not. Some people take the acronym as thruth and assume it will enforce their rights online. It will NOT.

    a) Microsoft WILL be able to bypass the restrictions and thus your rights will not be protected from them and their "partners". It will protect their "rights" against you (the quotation marks are there because market domination and forced obsolecence will surely be among the enforced "rights")

    b) DRM is a technical solution to achieve MORE and STRICTER copyright law. According to microsoft's own site.
    0) you will need a licence server to actually be able "transparently" protect files. This means the possibility of giving out licences over the web. (I wonder what other way they had in mind)
    -> somehow i doubt they will support apache
    -> the cost of a licence server is in the same ballpark as the datacenter server version of windows (NOT the consumer ballpark), so if you're an artist, you will most likely not be able to afford this
    1) DRM will prevent resale of bought music.
    2) DRM can make most music self destruct after a while, because you have supposedly agreed to that (note that you DO NOT get the choice to agree or not) at the present time, the clauses of the "contract" aren't even shown to the user. And it is ILLEGAL to bypass the contract (as in potential jail time if you record the music)
    3) DRM does not allow you to play a file on another computer, an mp3 player or ...
    4) DRM makes it possible for the licensor to revoke and change YOUR rights to your music AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON.
    5) Because licenses and digital media files are stored separately, licensing terms can be changed on the server, without needing to redistribute or repackage the digital media file.
    6) Windows Media Rights Manager "locks" digital media files with a license key to maintain content protection, even if these files are widely distributed. Each license is uniquely assigned to each computer.

  9. In other news... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
    RedHat announce that they won't have DRM in their OS anytime soon.

    Not to be left behind, all the other distros made similar proclamations, except Debian, which is late and expected to follow suit sometime next year.

    Pretty shortly, the OS/2 development team will make a similar announcement, as will the FreeBSD teams, as will the QNX team, as will that guy down the road who wrote his own OS in assembler.

    ..... seriously, get a grip guys. Firstly, Palladium is so far vapourware. I haven't seen a Palladium computer. Have you?

    Secondly, this is a non story. Apple HAVEN'T made an announcement! Incredible. I haven't made an announcement today either, can I get a story on slashdot? In fact, the ONLY people who have announced their intention to support DRM are the one company that do in fact have a monopoly and can therefore do such an unpopular thing.

    Finally, all those people who've posted things like "Wow, Apple you are clearly sticking up for my rights, I'll buy a Mac" are talking rubbish. Apple are famous for abusing the legal system whenever it suits them. They are a corporation, and know all about legal pressure points. If it turns out that this mystical all encompassing DRM strategy isn't working because the pirates are using Macs, then the RIAA will have a quick chat with Jobs, who will see where his best interests lie, and bingo suddenly QuickTime has DRM.

    There is in fact only 1 type of OS that will never have DRM, guaranteed. Say no more.

  10. Tried buying mainstream vinyl these days? by marm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The day CD-DA disappears because "everyone" has magically switched to Windows Media, I will eat my hat.

    Sure, I mean this isn't the industry that forced us all to transition to LP's from 78's, or that convinced us to rebuy all our music on cassette after that, and then 20 years ago convinced us all to upgrade all our music to CD again. Is it?

    Tried getting hold of any mainstream music on vinyl recently? Even cassettes are pretty hard to find now, and the sound and cassette assembly quality of pre-recorded cassettes is at an all-time low. Of course, you probably don't notice this, because chances are, you buy everything on CD.

    The content industry has proved at least 3 times that it knows exactly how to get us all to upgrade our media formats, whether we like it or not: the transition from LP to cassette was in all sorts of ways a step backwards, but it still happened. Cassettes didn't last too long in the mainstream either, because they allowed you to record. The content providers pushed for a more desirable format, and up popped CD, which you could only copy to analogue cassette for the first 15 years of its life or so, significantly downgrading the quality.

    Today we face a situation fairly similar to how things were in 1981 or thereabouts: a recordable, fairly open format (Then: cassette, Now: MP3/Ogg) is going mainstream, and is slowly killing off an older, more cumbersome, more expensive but arguably better-sounding format (Then: LP, Now: CD). The content industry is unhappy about this, because they feel that the recordability/copyability of the newer format is going to affect their bottom line. So they lobby for new laws in the US (Then: 1976 Copyright Act, Now: 1998 DMCA) to give them some legal standing, and to enable them to clamp down on those encouraging copying, and then they push for a new, virtually uncopyable format (Then: CD, Now: Windows Media/Palladium) with their technology partners (Then: Sony/Philips, Now: Microsoft/Intel/AMD). The new format has benefits for the consumer (Then: better sound quality and robustness, Now: no more trudging round music shops - entire catalogues available for easy download, all with pristine encoding and no blatant P2P spyware/stealware included).

    The parallels are stark, and it only took 10 years for CD to dominate and for other formats to start dying, niche markets aside. If the content industry and Microsoft gets the marketing right, I fully expect exactly the same to happen with WM/Palladium - it will come to dominate in 10 years and CD will die.

    The situation isn't entirely identical - the evolution of digital technology has made the stakes higher for both content provider (free P2P distribution is their worst nightmare) and consumer (breaking strong encryption on trusted systems seems a lot harder than simply waiting for recordable CD technology to become available and affordable). So you can expect much more of a battle than was the case with CDs. Nonetheless, I still expect the content industry to win this one - they are the ones with all the strings to pull. We don't have to let them walk all over us though - if we make noise now, we should be able to at least get some concessions towards fair use. If we shout loud enough, there is still the outside possibility that we can kill it dead.

    However, if you simply sit tight and see what happens, maybe buying a Mac rather than a PC in a token gesture, then I hope you've got lube and an unwanted hat (not a red fedora by any chance?) because you'll be bending right over for the content industry and you'd better be hungry.

    1. Re:Tried buying mainstream vinyl these days? by gerardrj · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Sure, I mean this isn't the industry that forced us all to transition to LP's from 78's

      Nobody forced anything. The industry marketed well, and consumers decided time and time again to purchase the newly hyped technology and format, almost always for ease of use.
      Nobody ever came to my house and forced me to start buying cassettes instead of 8 tracks, or 33s instead of 78s. I don't recall any "format army" removing my tape decks and installing CD players.

      Tapes were lower sound quality than vinyl, but portable and more durable. Convenience won out over quality.
      CDs, are another step in convenience: more music(ignoring the flaky 90m and 120m cassetes) in a smaller package and instant access to any portion of the content. Sound quality is arguably about the same as good vinyl and cassette(with DNR).
      DVDs offer extra content, better image and sound quality, and instant access to any portion of the content. Consumers are now starting to catch on to that and VHS content is begining to wane.

      If at any of those transitions the public had, on the whole, simply decided to keep purchasing the old formats, the new stuff would have langished and died, or both formats would have endured for a long time. Arguably, the latter is quite the case for the most recent transitions. Most recordings are still available on cassette. Cassette players are still readily available and come standard in most systems. VHS still dominates the shelves and we're what, 6 years in to DVD lifetime?

      But there are some failed conversions: Laser video disks (quality was outweighed by the inconvenience of flipping a disk in the middle of a movie) people stayed with VHS. Betamax: better technology (arguably), bad political moves: VHS came out on top. DAT: Smaller media size outweighed by wind/rewind delays: people stayed with CDs. In each case the consumers as a whole decided that the newly offered technology, though perhaps technically superior, was not easier to use and did not purchase it. I ignore cost as a barrier to adoption because all new technology is expensive initially.

      If DRM offers the consumer some 'next step' in convenience that is preferable, then it will catch on and become the norm. Trying to make consumers believe the content provider's goal of "our content our way, or no way" is easier or better for the consumer will be a long, hard sell at best. Their best bet to get adoption is to play the cost game. Make the content in DRM format low cost and raise the cost for non-DRM version. Ex: Same album: DRM version $10, non-DRM version: $25.
      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  11. Re:All kinds of forces by bmajik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hrmm.

    I for one am really looking forward to having a palladium infrastructure in place.

    1) I wont buy shitty music regardless of how its encumbered, so that doesn't effect me.

    2) DVDs are encumbered now, but i can do whatever i want to with them (watch them). There are black-market players that are available to me that let me skip commercials, undo region coding, etc, but as much as i dislike those attributes, i haven't voted with my dollars (yet)

    3) If someone like microsoft (or apple, or sun, or any other technology company) outlines how DRM et al should work, that means record companies and legislators _ARENT_ doing it. When was the last time you ran across a good government standard ? When was the last time you saw a peice of software by a media company that was worth using ?

    4) I really like the idea of being able to put a usage policy on content. For instance, if i scan some pictures of a vacation, and put them on a website, perhaps i want to apply a policy that says these can only be viewed by people that have access the picture from the URL. Then i can simply restrict access to the site via the normal means, and the pictures will not be redistributable once they've been downloaded by the viewers that I do allow.

    you think this is stupid, and maybe it is. On the other hand, a picture taken of my wife and a friend of ours (totally clean, of course) from a party we went to ended up on a "hot teen of the day" site. Asking the site adminstrator to take the pciture down of course was a pain. And i was lucky that they complied.

    If there had been some sort of DRM policy on JPEGs then i wouldn't have to be upset with the friend that posted the pictures on his site for not restricting access. I wouldn't have to flinch everytime i see a camera to think "where the fuck is this going to end up, maybe with a few photoshop edits"

    The MS work behind TCPA/Palladium is not as orweillian as you think. It is not a framework designed to let hollywood hold all the strings (nor is it setup to let MS hold all the strings).

    TCPA / Palladium do not add any restrictions. They allow new types of things to be done that cannot currently be done (sending an email that cannot be forwarded, distributing an image that cannot be edited, etc)

    If media companies stop distributing media in clear-text, thats their choice. Vote with your dollars. If, despite rational arguments to the contrary, you cannot stand the idea of TCPA, you'll be able to vote with your dollars there, as well.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  12. Re:Economics applies... by fintler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work for best buy and get stuff for 5% above best buy's cost...

    iPod 10G
    Retail = $399
    Cost + 5% = $365

    so about 13% of the retail price goes to best buy, the rest to apple. 13% is pretty low considering a lot of stuff at best buy is marked up 60% or more from their cost. Anyone have any idea what apple's cost figures for an iPod are?