Slashdot Mirror


BusinessWeek on Opening Apple's iTunes DRM

hype7 writes "BusinessWeek is running a very interesting story on Apple's foray into music, with a different bent to everyone else's. BW suggests that, instead of opening the iPod up to the world, Apple should instead license its DRM - 'Fairplay' - to anyone who wants to start up a music store. The upside is obvious: it would mean that Apple's music format, AAC, would become ubiquitous; Apple could quite feasibly make money on licensing fees (say 1 cent per song sold); and, it would just happen to stick it to Microsoft and the Windows Media Format. As the iTunes Music Store isn't running at a profit (or forecast to make a big one), having the Music Store clones eat into Apple's existing market share wouldn't be a problem; all these stores would be doing is building a bigger potential market for the iPod."

4 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. It's all about control: BannedMusic.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only reason iTunes has DRM in the first place is because the major labels insist on it: they like their paying customers to have more restrictions than the folks that are getting it for free, makes sense right?

    Every fumbling attempt the record companies make to control and restrict music blows up in their face. Case in point, the new, bannedmusic.org which is using a BitTorrent installer packaged with a specific torrent to spread music that's run afoul of the current copyright regime. They could have made money licensing this stuff, but now there ain't nothin they can do about it.

  2. While this wouldn't hurt by tiktokfx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The obvious problem is that what incentive is there for someone to open a music store with encrypted songs that are only playable on the iPod?

    Musicians already have ways of submitting their music to the iTMS.

    Any large conglomerate opening a music store online is generally stupid or on the "music store" bandwagon, or both. Apple pretty clearly does it because it's a selling point for iPods, and with their early appearance on the scene, they have a good chance to dominate the market until such time as it does become profitable.

    So what earthly good does licensing FairPlay do for anyone?

  3. Re:While... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple likes the 'go it alone' route, regardless of any benefits to other routes.

    Which is why Apple has licensed the iPod to HP.
    Which is why iTunes is also Windows software.
    Which is why the iPod OS is designed and maintained by somebody other than Apple. Which is why USB, Firewire and other technologies are shared across the broad spectrum of platforms. yeah Apple goes it alone with such things as ATA, PCI

    Apple goes it alone on these things:
    Design (beautiful things work better see Donald Norman)
    Usability (because if it's not brain dead simple I'll have to think about how to do stuff instead of just doing it.
    Focus (whether in Digital lifestyle stuff like iTunes and iMovie or whether in bio-informatics, Apples hardware and software are tailored to getting things DONE)
    Lifestyle (like the wearable computing fashion indicates, computers and devices are becoming embedded in our lives to such an extent that choosing these tools is a real factor in fashioning out lives)

    And why Dell, Roxio, M$, and the others only sit and snipe.

  4. Re:So... by nehril · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like Apple's DRM is worth a shit. It's as effective at protecting songs as my goldfish is at protecting my house. When anyone can defeat it by burning & reripping, what's the point? Really, why even bother?

    this is actually a point Steve Jobs made to the music industry execs (according to an interview with Jobs online somewhere, I forget where). He told them that any DRM is basically useless, anything that can be encoded can be cracked. they told him to piss off, a year or so later he came back when all their drm schemes were cracked and he said "See?!" Then they listened.

    so apple put in a bare minimum protection scheme, but more importantly made the terms so loose that nobody really wants to or needs to crack it. the restrictions are pretty insignificant (can't burn the same playlist more than 10x.... but change it slightly and keep going. But who's going to burn the same playlist that many times anyway?). the whole setup basically a fig leaf so that the industry can *feel* protected while raking in the bucks.

    the real protection here is the easy terms that don't stop you from doing what you want to. iTMS is excellent competition to Kazaa & crew: faster, better, more reliable, decently tagged, good catalog, cheap. Apple got tired of waiting for the industry to figure out how to do it right, and did it for them.

    so what exactly is your problem with iTunes?