Slashdot Mirror
Labels Push for a Unified DRM Standard
thejoelpatrol writes "Bad news for Apple fanatics but good news for all the crazy slashdotters who want an iPod but feel dirty using Apple's DRM: the labels are getting together and insisting that online stores standardize their DRM methods. Being the providers of the music, the labels clearly wield a lot of power, but so does Apple: without iTunes, the online music business is next to nothing. Will Apple give in? Not if they can help it -- they're on top of the world. Before anyone messes it up, AAC is an open format, while the Fairplay DRM standard is not."
Even though I do understand that content creators wish to protect themselves I believe that no DRM is the way to go.
The main thing is to focus on having a well working and simple delivery model, and to make sure the content isn't over-priced. DRM ultimately pretty useless, since it can always be broken eventually. If it's simpler to buy the content from a reputable store than getting it over P2P the model will work.
Tim O'Reilly wrote and excellent piece on the subject in 2002, and it still applies today: Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution
PS. I'm sure a lot of you will disagree, but at least I can claim to be a content creator myself...
.: Max Romantschuk
This should be interesing, Apple is very good at being independent and wanting to be different, but this looks like that strategy won't work out. They must keep the studios happy or the studios will happily take away the music.
Personally I wonder how this would affect older devices (like iPods) that might not be able to play the standardized DRM. The article makes no mention of this, and while I can't see Apple in particular (and other digital music player makers) wanting to make their older products incompatible, I really would not be surprised if the studios could care less if that were to occur. If it does there will be quite a few incredibly angry folks out there!
before the record labels are sued as being a monopoly? I imagine the indy labels all rising up in a class action suit, but I mean seriously, it's been 5 years of announcements like this on an average of once a week or more, I want my music, I want it free (of restrictions) I'll pay a resonable price for decent music I enjoy listening to, and if I want to buy something on CD I'll go to a used CD store. I'm not just on music burnout, I'm afraid I've burned up all the fuel I've used to burn the pyre of hatred for the acts of RIAA and MPAA.... someone help, I need a transfusion.
They should use Creative Commons for part of a standardised DRM scheme. The whole concept of having XML data describe different licensing methods so that they can be understood by software would be the way to go.
The rest should follow the leader.....
After that Apple should open up their DRM to others.
They made this mistake before an lost to the pc....don't make the same mistake twice.
if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants
I guess the problem is that the ignorant media are saying that Apple's DRM is "proprietary" (which it is) but implying that other online stores are not (because they use WMA-DRM).
Of course the labels want a standard - a standard they control. they want to be able to raise the price when they want and sue anyone who breaks it. Sadly it's exactly this sort of promise that Ms will make for them.
So, AAC is open but patent-encumbered. Not a problem. The file format doesn't really matter anyway, the issue is the DRM. And by it's nature it's going to bug people whatever happens.
In my case, I'm not worried. I can use Apple's DRM'ed files and I don't need to worry about it. Definitely a case of "I'm all right, Jack"
M
And no, sorry, I don't see any good aspects for open platforms in all this unless the "standard" itself would be an open one which I doubt. Some closed source software vendors participating in the DRM system will certainly know how to put massive obstacles against such an open variant. They want to keep out open platforms out of multimedia and the music industry will not have any objections here.
Walter.
Record labels have nothing to lose here. Revenues they get from Apple are laughable.
Apple, however, can't:
1. Make tracks more expensive - nobody's gonna buy them
2. Share the DRM format - bye bye iTunes revnues
3. Implement stronger DRM - nobody will buy tracks
4. Tell the record labels to fuck off - where are they gonna get the music then?
I think they're royally fucked.
For myself, I find the music store tracks priced too high because they contain any DRM. Consider that I can go to a used CD store, pay $8-9 for an album which is comparable to purchasing same from the iTunes music store, I get a permanent lossless copy without any DRM, albeit I cannot buy songs a la carte.
Online music purchasing offers initial convienence with the possible future expense of having to hack DRM in order to use your purchase the way you desire. They also do not sell a lossless format, so that when MPG-100 or some other desired format arrives, you can either transcode (and take more, if limited, fidelity loss) or buy the music again.
My strategy: buy used CDs, RIP them to Apple Lossless Format, archive those files to DVD, stick the CD on a shelf, transcode from Lossless to AAC for everyday/iPod use. The Lossless archive provides offsite backup and a path to transcode to any format with no degradation.
I expect at least some of the savings from online distribution (no duplication, printing, inventory, shipping or other overhead costs) to be passed along to the consumer in order to offset future possible disadvantages from any DRM. The current sad state is that you get to pay full-price and all the cost-savings from online distribution go into the record industry's pocket.
And they are still not satisfied.
.
And what's so funny about it is that O'Reilly *still* does not sell unbundled, non-DRM'ed, digital downloads.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The industry HATES Apple's $0.99 price point. If they could charge more, they would.
Of course, the industry could license Apple's DRM! And the license fees would likely be very very inexpensive. But Apple isn't likely to license their DRM without a stipulation that songs must be less than $1.00.
Yay Apple! I'm no Apple fan, but this is the GOOD THING FOR ALL... even if you're NOT an iPod owner!
"good news for all the crazy slashdotters who want an iPod but feel dirty using Apple's DRM"
What part of "I don't pay money for DRM" don't you understand? I don't care where in the equation the DRM came from, I will not pay money for either DRM software or the DRM hardware required to run it.
The only "exception" I have to this rule is with DVDs: I'll buy a DVD so long as it's not published by a member of the MPAA, and even then I play it on a region-free DVD player.
Why are they picking on Apple's proprietary DRM and open format? Microsoft uses a proprietary DRM AND proprietary format. So does Sony. And there's no other major DRMed formats other than those three. AAC is the least of the three evils, since it's the only one with an open format! (WMA, Sony's format that I forgot the name of, and AAC) Why not pick on Microsoft FIRST, or Sony, then Apple? Why single out Apple?
Most music stores are WMA- one is AAC- and they pick on the AAC one? Did Microsoft bribe them or something?
I think we should get away from actually believing that a 15-year-old boy in Norway sat down and decoded the media industry DVD Content Scrambling System.
A technician from Xing Corporation passed the confidential trade-secret information for descrambling the signal to 'DVD Jon' who wrote a front-end interface in Linux for this information and uploaded his program to a Linux distribution site.
If you think that a 15-year-old could just sit down and decode an industry encryption standard, then you should go work for National Public Radio and not spend so much time on Slashdot.
I think it's great that independent artists have the means to produce their own art and distribute it without having to deal with the Music Mafia.
I wonder if iTMS would allow an independent artists to stipulate that they wanted to release their music in non-DRM AAC format or even Loss-less format through iTMS. It would be great if they offered a whole section devoted to "open/indy artists" who were offering their content in this way.
I know that I for one would frequent that section often, if only because I believe in supporting "the good guys".
Are you definitely going to be on iTMS? Once you are on it, is getting your second album on it easier?
Keep up the good work!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
download drm'd aac songs, export them to cd audio, then rip the new cd. no drm. lossless. sounds great to me. downloaded digital music is not going to be the absolutely highest quality. it takes $1000 stereo system to hear a tiny difference in quality of a $0.99 song. holy crap. apple's drm is the least invasive and lest restrictive. would you rather microsoft's drm?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Glad you liked it! My CD will definitely be on iTunes, but they won't say when. It can take anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months to get into iTunes, if you're an independent artist. 3 months is a long time, but I really can't complain - I'm just happy they're willing to carry small independent artists like me.
Music - www.richardmac.com
Because after all that transcoding all you'll hear is white noise.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.