Slashdot Mirror
Congress Ponders Opening up iTunes DRM
hammeredpeon writes "Congress is debating whether or not to require that music shops keep their DRM open for interoperability. Apple wasn't present at the hearings, but Napster's CEO was, arguing that the market should make the decision about interoperability. Considering that previous standards (FireWire/USB, Betamax/VHS) have been decided by the market, could it be that Apple isn't big enough to keep the government out of its industry?"
<sarcasm>
I know exactly how he feels...just the other day, I bought a game that was made for the Xbox, and found that I couldn't play it on my PS2! Can you imagine???
</sarcasm>
This is unbelieveable. Does Congress truly have nothing better to do?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
is Congress cool now?
What I want to know is, how did this come up in the subcommittee in the first place? If you ask me, somebody's hand is being greased.
If the Apple iTunes DRM scheme was available for licensing on a nondiscriminatory basic, Congress probably wouldn't even consider getting involved.
It's not the size of Apple that's invited this attention from Congress, it's their behavior. When Sony and Philips invented the Compact Disc, if they had been unwilling to license the patents to anyone else for manufacture of either discs or players, they would have attracted attention in the same manner. They were smart enough not to do that.Don't they have, like, a War on Terror to support or something?
sulli
RTFJ.
Rick Berman, Dem, CA, is one of the guys behind this. Follow the money. He was the guy behind the proposed legislation to allow hacking people's computers if they were suspected of P2P file sharing. John Paczkowski of Good Morning Silicon Valley referred to him as a "Congressman and Hollywood sock puppet". Is this the guy you want deciding how you will get your music?
I hate DRM. I hate it with a passion. However, if the answer is "more government interference", you are asking the wrong question. The market should be making these decisions.
Personally, I would like to see the DMCA go away; however, any restrictive form of DRM you can think of is fair game. Don't take away your right to make it, and don't take away my right to break it.
No it's because Apple is too big to keep the government out of it's industry.
Creative Demolition
Please, pick one (the better) and stick to it.
or does
"Napster's CEO..." just sound farked up
I really think Napster should stop complaining with apple, make their music player, its not apple's fault they have the half the market. It was just really good advertising and a good player.
This is a no-brainer
The digital music market is just emerging - why legislate a standard? Who knows what the market will look like ten years from now (arguably twice as long as the market as even existed)?
In addition, this is a global market issue. How would their legislation be inforced globally?
I live in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex where congress, through the Wright Amendment, put restrictions on South West Airlines so it cannot fly directly to DFW International unless the flight originates from within Texas or a bordering state. This type of legislation is (IMHO) rediculous and flies in the face of economic forces.
To return to topic, the CEO of Napster has this one right, there is no need to legislate a standard, open or otherwise. The market will determine it.
Fast forward X years when a monopoly exists (today there are at lease two clear choices for DRM, Fairplay and WMA, neither of which is a monopoly). In the even of an abusive monopoly, then, and only then, should the government be involved under the flag of protecting the rights of Her citizens.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Is this really something Congress should be regulating? Is it really worth their time?
If so, then I guess that means they've already balanced the budget, solved Social Security, and cleaned up the DMCA! Wow!
Oh, wait...
Sigh.
Betamax/VHS, USB/Firewire are bad analogies because they are open standards that can be hacked to heaven and back without legal ramifications. Hacking Apple's DRM on the other hand, for sake of interoperability, has ramifications due to the DMCA.
Even if the DMCA technically allows exceptions for circumventing copy-protection for the sake of interoperability, a developer can still bet that they will end up in court if they tried because the DMCA places an extra burden on developers that does not exist with regards to hacking Betamax, VHS, USB, or Firewire. With hacking Apple's DRM, the developer must prove (most likely in court) that the application is only for interoperability, yet does not defeat copy protection... while hacking, say USB to interop with firewire, requires no such proof.
DeCSS is case in point. It is required to play DVDs with an open source player, yet it can be used for movie piracy.
Napster complaining about DRM? Did they forget how they became popular in the first place? Pot... Kettle... black.
...because you only have to crack it once!
If the music/music-player industry wishes to create interoperability, it should be done by the free markets, not by Congress. Betamax was a closed standard, so companies unified and created VHS, essentially killing off Sony's market dominance in the home market (betamax remained very successful for years in the movie/tv/commercial production world for quite some time).
Forcing Apple to open up its trade secrets/patents essentially gives the message to companies that if you create a highly successful product that lots of people like, we're going to do as we please with it. This will deter entrepreneurs/investors from creating/funding new technologies, and will essentially shoot our country in the foot.
Another reason why government should stay out of the free markets. Micro-management never works, especially if it's not even the business your in.
Well, does Fair Use laws (or the DMCA) say that you can even attempt to play Xbox games on the PS2?
Because last time I checked both copyright law and the backwards ass DMCA allow you to do anything to take advantage of Fair Use (which includes ripping to mp3, AAC or whatever).
I think what he is arguing is "Don't I own this song?" And the answer that Napter gave him was "no, that's the big secret behind our industry... we are worse than CD's!!!!" (well he should have said that)
Get your Unix fortune now!
microsoft continues to ass-fuck the computing community without lube, and congress is looking at iTunes? at *ITUNES*?!! WHAT THE FUCK?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Clearly: Jo "don't know" Best.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
They don't what the DRM is? Go play politics on your own time. Leave the tech stuff to the free market.
---- Berlin Brown http://www.newspiritcompany.
Wow, talk about an about-face of thought.
Just because Apple is behind this proprietary DRM scheme doesn't in any way make it acceptable DRM. It is just DRM that sucks less. It still locks you in to a certain platform and forces you to perform contortions in order to unlock the file. If this article was about Microsoft, I'm quite certain everyone would be screaming their heads off about how this should have been done six months ago because anything they ever do is automatically evil. Napster isn't being altruistic by any means, they're just trying to loosen Apple's choke hold on online music. But I can't see how you'd oppose this, because it lets consumers shop around instead of being wedded to one service. Competition will become stiffer, and the online services will be able to compete on a level playing field.
I'm sure someone will tell me that the market should decide. Fair enough, but funny how that reasoning is contingent upon the company being discussed.
Can you imagine if HMV, Virgin or suddenly switched to only selling a proprietary compact disc format which only played on their player and had built-in restrictions?
Sounds a bit like the failed DiVX DVD wannabe we all hated doesn't it?
Oh, except the player was really good though, so everybody wanted one.
Well maybe we should look past the white plastic and aluminium exterior, because that's where Apple are now. It may be an end-to-end solution and it may work well, and we may all love them because they're not Microsoft, but they're a business, and they're in danger of becoming the M$ of digital music players. And seeing as how chummy they've got with the music companies (not the artists the companies) and the stunts they've pulled with sharing playlists etc, I'm not sure I like the idea of a Apple (read: recording company) dominated digital music scene.
If Congress moves to open FairPlay, won't that force the hand of the RIAA, who, in the end, is who all this DRM is for anyway? And, if Congress does this, they'd better open up all the other DRM schemes as well.
It's nice that Real is defending the market place approach. I suppose they see that if the government steps in here, and takes action against number one, how far behind can action against number two be?
Apple licenses to whomever they want. Motorola comes to mind, with the iTunes phone. I'm willing to let the market decide this one. If Congress and the Supreme court can find that Apple is abusing some kind of monopoly power, then fine. Of course, look at all the good that did with Microsoft. But Congress is really overstepping bounds on this one.
There's a whole list of issues in the music industry I'd like Congress to address. Price fixing on the part of the record companies comes to mind.
Do not touch -Willie
Christ, Apple told the whole world how to break iTunes DRM in their old advertising campaign. You just need to shift it by one word...
... whatever you're doing, you're not in an environment where you're going to notice the loss from ONE burn/rip cycle. Sheesh...
Yeh, yeh, you may lose some quality, but you already lost some buying it from iTMS or Napster instead of ripping the CD on your own, and you're playing it in your iPod or Rio while you're driving or walking or
This whole thing is SUCH a goddamn non-issue.
Apple has announced that they have filed a lawsuit against Congress just for thinking about this.
How about DVD-CSS? or Microsoft's patents on using XML the way that it was designed to be used? or the details on Microsoft's horridly convoluted NTFS? or ......
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Congress passes law doesn't mean it will actually do anything.
Once a law is passed it must stand in the court system. If Apple were to make a stand on this, the courts will be the battle field.
The Shiavo (sp?) case illustrates this well. Congress mandated all it wanted, only to have the court spit in its face.
"Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
defending DRM
DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept and this is EXACTLY the thing goverment should be involved in PROTECTING THE CUSTOMER
big buisness needs to get slapped into shape at times and the citizen doesnt really have a choice
imagine if car manufacturers forced you to use ShellOil gas in your car
1st NeXT computers were Export restricted because of their DSP capability.
2nd NeXT Elipitical Encryption was restricted
3rd Apple DRM-Fairplay is
Cryptography is the Third rail of computing.
There is a law that helps aftermarket makers of replacement car parts. They are allowed to do that and original car companies cannot do hostile things to them like saying that this automatically voids the warranty.
Please back-the-fuck off. Upholding copyright? Fine. I understand that. But deciding on the format and fate of DRM? Fuck off and stay out.
I guess they're on to this now that their pet vegetable is dead.
And people complain about Bush. The real power to fuck up your life is resting in the hands of these idiots.
For every proprietary format that Apple has, Microsoft has ten. If Apple is forced to open up it's DRM, why then shouldn't Microsoft have to open up the file formats for Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.? And let's not forget the Windows Media file formats.
If Congress wants to talk about outlawing all proprietary formats, then fine, let's have that debate. If it wants to pick on one particular company that's simply selling copies of music in a format that works on the systems it sells, it should think again because it's standing on a very slippery slope.
If a case is put forward in which an Apple file format has to be opened up for other companies, then it would be a precedent for Microsoft file formats like Microsoft Office files to be opened up for other companies. It could mean that commercially distributed software has to work on different platforms which could probably be done by the use of fat binaries or Java. Also, if Apple's DRM codec and encryption has to be opened up, then wouldn't that be an argument to open up the Windows source code to competitors?
Whatever legal manoeuvres are used to allow Apple's competitors to get into their digital music market share can also allow Apple to get into Microsoft's OS platform market share. Could that be why Apple didn't bother attending the hearing and are just sitting it out?
Of course, the obvious solution would be not to have DRM on people legally purchasing music (since they likely are NOT the pirates and should stop being treated as such), but paranoia being what it is. Those wishing to make a comparison to software anti-copying techniques would be wise to observe that:
a) Software piracy has not slumped at any point due to increasingly sophisticated routines/methods.
b) The pricing of software is higher and facilitates piracy more than a 99 cent song.
c) Those who download and pay for their music are not as likely to turn around and give it away for free as those who continue to download for free.
d) Online music stores need a better method of sampling songs than 30 second clips. This remains the only (in my opinion, though this will doubtless raise controvery) valid reason for downloading free music: the ability to hear it first.
Anyway, this is all just my opinion, but while iTunes might have moved things in a better direction than the RIAA's lawsuits, they've still got some things to figure out.
Hey do I own those wallpapers/ringtones/games or what?
I get a new phone and can't move my games there
because of Verizon's silly DRM (BREW essentially).
The main reason for the interoperability problems in the first place is Congress's own legislation, the DMCA. Without that, there would be many more projects like Hymn that open up DRM'ed formats and promote interoperability. Now Congress is trying to cure one of the symptoms of its previous ill-conceived legislation with... more legislation.
If Napster wanted to, they could sell music that would play practically anywhere--Windows, MuVo, iPod, iRiver, Mac, Linux, you name it, and they could do it today, without Apple's cooperation.
Just sell MP3s.
You'd save a bunch on support costs too, for when people's music disappears because they upgraded their computers. And you'd get more business from people like me to don't like to shell out real money for disappearing products.
But alas, they couldn't do that, because then people could share the music they bought online. Never mind the fact that the music they bought is already being shared online. You should just pay to download the inferior disappearing version instead, because then the RIAA won't sue you.
No, dont force companies to open their DRM, just make it legal to strip DRM. We want MORE freedom, not LESS.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Napster: Wah, wah, wah! We can't compete, so do it for us Congress. Wah, wah, wah!
As I understand it, the Microsoft DRM that Napster uses EXPIRES your music if you don't stay subscribed. I don't know if this is true, but if so, I'd say its a great way to drive AWAY your market, and help the competition. Either way they need to learn to compete IN the market, instead of crying to congress to make them competitive by leveling Apple's hardwon advantage.
Were those the best decisions? Arguably Beta was a techincally better standard than VHS. But it was proprietary as well. One way to look at this is to say we got the worse technology because Sony gambled and lost. But another way to look at this is to say the market was cheap-ass and bought the cheaper crappier technology and set a quality standard that was low that the rest of us future generations had to live with. THat is, if people had been willing to pay a bit more everyine could have enjoyed a better standard.
Its an open question if this race to the bottom that sets the standard results in better cost/quality perfromance in the long run. Was the money saved used for other things that produced other things that offset the lower quality Video forced on us. Perhaps. Who knows.
but the point is that if you let the market decide it can be a race to the bottom as idiot consumers manage to set the standard at whatever is acceptably cheapest.
An excellent example of this is mac versus PC hardware. Macs are simply better quality as only idiots deny. But are PC's good enough? There certainly are good PCs, arguably better than macs depending on your criteria. But it's pretty non arguable that PCs are hamstrung by a legacy of crappy standards and crapware from microsoft. It was the race to the bottom that set those standards.
Would we all have been better off if mac had won the PC wars early on and set a higher standard. I'll tell you my own opinion. Yes defintiely, provided that some competition using the same standard (not a lower one) had appeared.
So closed standards in my opinion can be much better. Whether they are better in the long run probably hinges on them becoming open standards eventually. the race to the bottom may save cash early on but it saddles us with crappy standards in the long run.
Now what happens when two competing standards are both open? Firewire and USB are both open. It's not clear USB will win out. USB is better desktop bus but its not a good harddrive bus. THe low-end intel consumer is tending to makedo with USB even for disk drives. Thus it's possible USB will conquer firewire. But I doubt it.
So based on this annecdote one might decide that open or cheaply licensed standards allow quality to compete against cheap preferences of the unwashed hordes.
It seems like there ought to be a third way. Someway for a manufacturere that created a quality standard to maintain controll and make some profit, but there sure be an assured path to the public domain for the standard. An anecdote here would be Java. Sun's guadianship of JAVA has allowed it to weather major changes and not fork. But it makes people nervous that sun or whomever buys sun (e.g. SCO) will be benevolent.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I guess if this goes through someone might as well follow suit and demand that MSFT opens up the file formats to the office suite, and the protocols for smb etc etc.
Congress, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Yes Mr. Bush, maybe we should pass a law that'll allow us to take over the world!
Uh.. no we already did that, I was just thinking maybe we should go out for some ice cream or someting. You know for old time's sake.
Southwest can fly into DFW all they want. The restriction is on Love Field, Dallas's "downtown" airport.
I don't agree with Apple restricting their files, because it limits my choices as a consumer, but I don't think that Congress should be able to meddle with capitalism whenever someone whines about it. This could set a dangerous precedent, and should be avoided at all costs.
University of Washington
Student
Naked Congressional Corruption in Action
Jobs said it best when he noted that consumers today have choices, its just Apple's competitors who don't like the choices they are making.
I do not see why Mapster is complaining, since if you don't keep up your napster subscription, you can't keep the music you "bought." Like mentioned above it expires like a magazine subscription. DRM I think should be ditched. It has been, and most likely always be hacked so it fails, and while it in many cases protects rights while not impeeding on Fair Use, there are companies who have DRM that does this, and maintaining a basic DRM format that allows rights protectuions with some basic fair use reconition is diffucult. Basically some DRM says "you are a criminal" by not allowing ANY copying at all, even when individual users didn't commit a crime, even though there are those that did. Basically, DRM should either be tweaked so it is fair for everybody, or it should be ditched. I am leaning more towards ditching DRM ideas at this time.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Probably not, because nobody would have used them.
The iPod is doing well because it DOES play a standard format: mp3. Too bad that it's not one that's as convenient for everyone, but if there's enough demand for a player that plays more convenient formats, somebody will surely make one.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
The line for whether or not the government should "be involved" seems to be different from hardware and software. If it's a device designed to play music in a format popularized by the Internet, like an MP3 CD player, MP3 players, DVD-Rs, CD-Rs etc; then there's simply nothing the government wants to do or cares to do. After all, these things are tangible, and also taxable. They have to be sold at some point.
If it's software designed to facilitate the copying and distribution of said formats, it's another story. Think DeCSS for one, also for a while there LAME (mentioned because many websites in 1997-1998 said it was "grey area" legality), Napster, iTunes, Kazaa, BitTorrent.
Perhaps it's easier to disregard hardware because the human element is still there. In other words, someone can look at a DVD with "Mindhunters" on it, a movie that hasn't even hit US theaters, but has been on BitTorrent for a month-and-a-half now, and think, well, the DVD isn't the problem, the person who copied it is.
Yet for some reason, Bit-Torrent, iTunes, and other protocols must either be standardized or eliminated because they are inherenetly illegal. It's as if the human element is detached or presumed to not exist. Kazaa? Illegal. DCC file transfers? Illegal. BitTorrent? Illegal.
When does the madness on the part of my government end?
DRM is a bad idea. It's bad for suppliers. It's bad for customers. It's bad for partners. It's bad for the government. It's bad for the individual. It's bad, it's bad, it's bad. DRM sucks. Information wants to be free.
I hope this isn't interfering with more pressing issues, like the hearing on Major League Baseball!
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
I have no intention of buying anything from iTunes (the website).
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
iTunes is a software application for managing and playing digital music. Ninety plus per cent of the music that I have, for example, in iTunes is in MP3 format without any DRM, because that is the way I ripped it.
iTMS (iTunes Music Store) does use DRM, but there is nothing that requires you to get your music from iTMS. It is perfectly simple to buy the music on CD, rip it, and then put it on the iPod. There is no direct tie between iTMS and the iPod.
The issue is that the iPod only supports one form of DRM, the form used by iTMS. So, if you argue that Apple is tying the iPod to the use of iTMS and the Fairplay DRM, then you are implicitly accepting the argument that the only legitimate digital music is that controlled under a DRM scheme.
This is not a legal opinion, no representation is expressed or implied.
Needs to mind its own business.
Next they will try to mandate daylight savings time...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Government regulation == free markets deciding now?
Is there anything this congress can't turn upside down?
It says in the article about Napster cracking Apples DRM to allow Napster's files to be able to be played on the Ipod.
Is it just me or shouldn't someone be sued? If you or I were to crack the DRM on something the FBI would be at our door. Why is this not so with big business competitors.
... several hundred old guys, who think they are "down with the Internet" because they can send an email, deciding what the new standards and protocols should be.
I'd rather let several hundred old guys (with a handful of young'ns) who've been working in the industry decide, as it's always been.
The best thing about closed DRM models is that they eventually inspire others in the market to release more open models. And how rapidly people will move over to the new format because it works for "everything".
Interop only within a monopoly, like Microsoft's exclusive "integration", is monopoly abuse. Excluding interop among otherwise open products by agreement among the vendors, a group limited in membership by market forces or collusion, is a cartel. Neither are vulnerable to market selection, which is where the government has a job. Congress already passed lots of laws, now languishing after a century of corporate organization. The proper venue for addressing this would probably be the courts, with an antitrust suit brought by the Justice Department. But this Justice Department loves monopolies and trusts, so perhaps the Congress is the only place to find justice.
--
make install -not war
Once again, this is how capitalism works. If you don't like Apple's DRM, don't buy apple. Buy the other guy's. If you don't like the other guy's... Then that means both of them have an inferior product. So, what do you do? You enter the market with a new, standards compliant, competing product. If it is indeed superior to the other two, wooha, everyone wants to buy yours. When people complain about the way companies work, and then tell Congress to do something about it, you're basically telling the government that you are helpless, and want them to do everything for you. Capitalism allows consumers to have all of the power. They just have to not be lazy about it. Don't buy it if it sucks, sell your own if there's no suitable replacement.
No. I have an iPod, and it plays DRM-free MP3s just fine, thanks. Admittedly, Ogg Vorbis support would be nice, but I still don't have to use iTunes. As for music stores, if Apple doesn't want to support WMA and MS's DRM, that's their decision, and if you want a player that will play those files, by all means, get one. No one is forcing you to use iTunes or get an iPod, and this isn't a Microsoft Windows sort of case--you can still get pretty much any music that would be available on pieces of circular plastic that are compatible with a whole lot of things.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
"William Pence, Napster CTO, told the subcommittee that the music industry will eventually promote interoperability itself without the need for government intervention.
"It is my belief, and the essential point of my participation today, that marketplace forces will continue to drive innovation in the DRM arena with attendant consumer benefits - new ways to enjoy digital music at a variety of different price points - while also gradually 'solving' the interoperability problem,""
" While Napster's Pence did advocate a more open approach from Apple, he said mandating one through government was not necessary.
"Napster believes that allowing the iPod to work with multiple service offerings would benefit consumers. Nevertheless, I do not see government intervention as the solution, as it would stifle competition and innovation that will benefit consumers and copyright owners at a very early stage of the market's development," he told the subcommittee. "It does not seem prudent for government to pick a winner in the continuing... marketplace battle between Apple's FairPlay DRM and its competitors.""
Read the article before commenting.
DRM is bad. DRM by Apple is good.
Forcing a company to open up DRM is good. Forcing Apple to open their DRM is not cool.
Oh and another thing, I'm sick of the US congress deciding things for the rest of the world.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Not evertything has to be done in series. While there's no big movement against MS in the USA right now, it doesn't mean that the government can't do other things, too.
I hear the complaint about software all the time. "WHY Not fix xyz bug, instead of this abc bug?!" They could be doing both at the same time.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
If DRM itself were illegal then everything would play on everything.
Imagine that, then the companies would have to find ways to make you want to buy their product. You know, a level of service and price that makes stealing the product less desirable.
Hey, I think your credit card numbers and Social Security numbers and ATM pin codes want to be free. Hand them over before I call the ACLU, you fascist!
You are free to do business with others, should you choose. You don't have to use their service. And other services are available that don't restrict.
Oh really? If independent musicians make their music popular through DRM-less services, won't the incumbent music publishers file lawsuits alleging subconscious copying? It happened to George Harrison soon after the Beatles broke up.
Does this mean that Micro$oft will have to open up .PST file formats for exchange mail to be migrated to other mail clients? After all I have my own email it is just a prisoner of .pst files.
What about other Micro$oft proprietary formats?
Like Office, Office XML, etc.?
What about the DCMA? Should the MPAA be restricted from using macrovision and css on DVD's?
What about the "Broadcast" Flag?
There is a format that does not rely on a specific companies DRM. MP3.
MP3 does in fact rely on restrictions management, as Fraunhofer owns patents on the format. However, s/MP3/Ogg Vorbis/g and your point becomes valid.
Mmmmmm....icrosoft, perhaps? They have been generous with the campaign contributions...
Microsoft's license package for the WMA formats and CODECs is interesting. A company signing with them would:
1) Pay MSFT royalties, of course
2) Agree to share information on all new products being developed that include the CODECs.
3) Agree not to sue, prosecute, assist or participate in any judicial, administrative or other proceedings of any kind against Microsoft. This effectively grants Microsoft immunity should any of the licensee's IP appear in a future Microsoft product.
This hasn't been too much of an issue with companies planning to just build WMA/MP3 players. Item 3 is not an issue in Japan, since the Japanese Fair Trade Commission demanded this clause be stricken retroactively. (Sony got what they wanted...)
Can you see Apple wanting to turn over prototype hardware and plans for the next release of Mac OS X to Microsoft? How about agreeing to not sue Microsoft should Mr. Softie nick some technology from Apple?
Didn't think so.
Now, imagine the government legislating that Apple must license the WMA CODECs and format from Microsoft to remain in the music business. Welcome to the Land of the Free, comrades...
You think Apple wants to deal with all this DRM shit? They know it's bogus. We know it's bogus.
Have Congress the the RIAA that we actually get our fair use rights, and that they have to adapt or die to a changing enconomy.
If Congress did this, Apple would pull their DRM scheme in heartbeats, I garuntee it. They gain nothing except the Record Industry's approval with it.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
MS can extend, embrace, patent & close it again.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
iTMS (iTunes Music Store) does use DRM, but there is nothing that requires you to get your music from iTMS. It is perfectly simple to buy the music on CD
Which would be true if every recording available on iTMS were also in print on conforming Compact Disc Digital Audio. However, many recordings less than 95 years old are entirely out of print.
No. I have an iPod, and it plays DRM-free MP3s just fine, thanks. Admittedly, Ogg Vorbis support would be nice
MP3s aren't DRM-free. Look at all the exclusive rights that are managed by legit MP3 implementations. Consider switching to an iRiver player when your iPod player's battery breaks down, as iRiver players have a Tremor decoder to support Ogg Vorbis.
No one is forcing you to use iTunes or get an iPod, and this isn't a Microsoft Windows sort of case--you can still get pretty much any music that would be available on pieces of circular plastic that are compatible with a whole lot of things.
A lot of recordings available on iTMS are out of print on CD.
LAME (mentioned because many websites in 1997-1998 said it was "grey area" legality)
The LAME encoder is still well within that gray area in jurisdictions where these patents apply.
Then that means both of them have an inferior product. So, what do you do? You enter the market with a new, standards compliant, competing product.
For one thing, the incumbent companies have all the patents on audio decoder technology and all the copyrights on the musical works and sound recordings. How do you propose getting around this entry barrier?
OK, the DRM world is small potatoes compared to Wars on Terror, revamping social retirement and health care systems, and stacking the World Bank.
But this is about property. That is what governments do... they define, and then protect property. This is meager, but still legitimate business for congress.
I think that most folks agree that authors should have the right of distribution and owner should have the right of making personal copies. Until the recent digital age, technology agreed with these divisions. But now in the digital age owners have the trivially available technological capacity to either make infinite perfect copies or instantly publish world wide. Our current technological capacities violate the principles our society learned (over centuries) to deal with back when copying and publishing were hard.
DRM is the foolish technological attempt to make the new world look like the old world (foolish because it will be technologically defeated every time).
What will change is our society. We will all either begin to believe that authors do not have the right to sole distribution, or that consumers are not owners and criminalize them for copying/publishing. I don't like either of those propositions... but one of them must inevitably succeed to commonly held cultural value status.
And congress will probably ratify several variations along the way.
My main problem with this is that they'd be much more likely to come up with a solution that makes it harder or more expensive to make an MP3 player, or otherwise screw up, and that whatever rules they came up with some company (whether or not it was Apple) would still end up with some kind of annoying lock on the market.
When mods attack!
And that means ... TCPA/Palladium ... bwhahaha
The Raven
So when will we be able to legally play DVDs on Linux?
Napster wants to force Apple to open its DRM, so it can offer "competition" in the marketplace for music. In theory, music prices will go down.
However, try thinking a bit further, and know that they will squeeze every cent they can out of you. Can you guess what will happen if they get this?
Distributors like Napster will start negotiating EXCLUSIVE agreements with labels. DUH! Except the Labels will probably open their own distribution operations.
They will charge whatever the hell they want, they will force you to buy the album and not just the song, they will force whatever format or licensing terms they want on you regardless of whether it's compatible with your system. If they can swing it, they will actually exclude the independent artists. Microsoft will get in on this by leveraging windows-specific WMA. So guess what? You'll be screwed far more thoroughly you are now. Especially if you use a Mac. JUST LIKE IT WAS BEFORE.
The iPod was the carrot and iTMS the stick that forced the music industry to be a part of an eminently reasonable and consistent online sales system. The market Apple built with great effort. Napster and Real are just parasites looking for a piece of the action that Real squandered and Napster used to steal.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Microsoft is probably about to release an Xpod, which will ship with xInternet Explorer installed, its Window's Media DRM isn't enough, it could try to buy out apple, but the cheaper option is to just get the government to allow microsoft to make it "compatible" with its competition, then microsoft can afford to sell its product below its cost value for 12 months until it has won the market share.
abridging the freedom of speech...
that includes Apple's freedom to use proprietary speech. You don't want it - don't buy it.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
How is Apple's own DRM method (i.e., the thing that allows iTunes Music Store to exist) like the patent for CDs? Not at all, that's how. It's not a standard. No one is required to use it.
Combining DRM with copyright enables an anticompetitive practice: Leveraging monopoly power in one sector (downloadable digital audio content) to acquire unfair competitive advantage in another (digital audio players).
In another pair of fields (OS, applications software) this is EXACTLY what Microsoft did that caused them to lose antitrust suits.
When Apple now does the same thing using its proprietary content protection system, the DMCA (another creature of congress) actively supports their efforts using government power to block commercial products based on reverse-engineering of their format, in the same way a patent would.
The creation of secondary monopolies was NOT congress' intent when it passed the DMCA. Thus the scrutiny now: to see if it needs to patch the laws to debug this unintended consequence.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Is if Apple used the DMCA against Congress for harshing their buzz. Throw in RICO for good measure.
Here's a question for you.
Do they have a choice? We don't know exactly what's going on between Apple and the RIAA. It's very hard to say.
But let's assume they can. Why should they? As long as the RIAA is requiring them to use DRM, why should they open it up? Who's clamoring for this to change? Real, for example? Ahh, let me play my Violin for Real. They've been holding out on their video format for years. Suddenly someone comes along and begins to make some real money selling media and media peripherals. And suddenly, it's unfair. Ahh, the tables have turned.
Or maybe we should talk about Napster? Oh yeah, Napster 2.0, friendlier, fluffier, totally under the RIAA's thumb. Their music subscription system is even more restrictive than Apple's!
Look, as long as the RIAA is on this DRM kick, the consumer is screwed. No amount of licensing, patenting, or copyrighting is going to change this simple fact. Apple's at least given us DRM terms that aren't completely awful, and if other companies don't like that, too bad. If you buy iTMS music then switch players, too bad. Welcome to Capitalism, population: everyone trying to make money.
Companies do this kind of stuff all the time, and it only seems to be "bad" when someone succeeds. But Apple's succeeding so wildly that you have to ask why we're upset! People obviously like the way things are, or they wouldn't be buying all these iPods and music. If it's legal, and people like it, then screw the competition. You can censure Apple because the RIAA won't let people sell music that plays on an iPod.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Congress really IS the opposite of Progress...
...maybe they WANT Congress to throw DRM open.
:D
/. that Fairplay is consistently engineered to be "just good enough" to keep the record companies at bay? Why NOT use their position to try and spoil everybody's fun?
Think about it: they wouldn't just open Fairplay; they'd open EVERYBODY's DRM. Including Microsoft's!!
That sounds like the kind of kamikaze mission Apple would be happy to send their DRM scheme into. Isn't the consensus on
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
Anything to make you unhappy!
They could be holding hearings on "bread and circuses."
But if it is something unimportant, like, say, the underpinnings of a computer, the operating system, for example, then it's okay for the company to keep things closed up nice and tight.
I guess we know which 500# gorilla owns the most Congresscritters!
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
Dude, did you RTFA? Did you Read the original /. post?
No, you didn't.
First, Napster's CEO wasn't their. The CTO was.
And read this: "William Pence, Napster CTO, told the subcommittee that the music industry will eventually promote interoperability itself without the need for government intervention."
I'm sorry, so just to be clear: You are supporting the government in this case? You want them to regulate this.
Furthermore, I couldn't find anything on Napster complaining about DRM.
Jason Lotito
remember that most of those DRM'd CD's by definition aren't actually CD's... they're something else that looks like one...
Maybe everyone should shut the fuck up and ask the artists (and record companies) what they want.
The artists and record companies got pissed off when people shared tapes -- not much they could do except say "That is illegal. Please support us and our labels and don't share your music".
The artists and record companies got pissed off when people shared CDs -- not much they could do except say "That is illegal. Please support us and our labels and don't share your music".
The artists and record companies got pissed off when people started ripping their CDs into MP3s and sharing them over the intermaweb -- not much they could do except say "That is illegal. Please support us and our labels and don't share your music".
Apple comes along with ITMS and says "What you've all been doing is illegal. The artists and record companies would like your support, so here; pay $0.99 for a song". The artists and record companies love it.
Someone here said that people like to be entertained, that's true. If it wasn't for the artists, the people wouldn't be entertained.
The artists deserve the money they get for their music. To that end, I say again that everyone should just shut the fuck up and let the artists and record companies decide how DRM should work.
Consumers, shut the fuck up... You've been getting a free ride for far too long.
Congress, shut the fuck up... You have know idea what you are talking about.
Apple, shut the fuck up... You guys did really good with ITMS. Ever since I switched to Mac, my whole live has changed, thank you! I think what you have done with ITMS is a fantastic first step for the industry (although I will never buy from you because 192K bit rate doesn't do any justice at all to the music I love on a good stereo compared to a CD), but I think things need to change.
Real, shut the fuck up... I think you suck, period.
Napster, shut the fuck up... The only reason people subscribe to your shitty service is because they can't afford an iPod and are forced to use inferior products on an inferior OS and are forced to rent music. How inferior can a product be.
Let the artists and labels decide and everyone just shut the fuck up.
a leftover from the first of the month. Why in the name of "your diety" would we need any legislation whatsoever in the entertainment field?? If they just want to make sure the thing doesn't explode in you pocket and rip your leg off, then fine. I could understand that. Let's just cut to the chase and make them put all our music back on vinyl so my grandmother can listen to her Led Zeppelin collection on her Victorola. This is getting so stupid on both sides, and does nothing to solve the IP problem.
What?
Now as for some need to play games from 20 years ago as the defining characterisitic of a computer. Gee, maybe we should go all the way back and support Eniac? where do you freaking draw the line on backward comaptibility versus stupidity. I like that macs are not slaves to their achitecture and bad early decisions like 640K being enough for anyone. grow up!
by the way, with an emulator mac osx plays any apple II software which predates the PC. so Neah Neah
The whole point of DRM is that it prevents interoperability. Apple doesn't just use DRM to placate the music industry. It makes money on hardware, not downloads, so it wants to lock customers into its proprietary player. (And thanks to the non-replaceable battery, that's even a recurring revenue stream.)
If you've bought tracks from iTunes, you can't play them on a non-Apple mp3 player without either breaking the DRM (iOpener, which might be illegal) or going round it (CD burning and reripping, which is awkward). All this benefits Apple, not the RIAA, and intentionally so.
Of course, the music industry doesn't want interoperability either, because it would mean the end of DRM. The nature of open standards is simply that they don't include DRM-like restrictions. I think what Apple's rivals really want is compulsory licensing, which is something a bit different. (The main difference being that Apple would be forced to provide its encryption keys to Microsoft, but not to you and me.)
Sorry, after getting all these repsonses I looked it up and I understand the issues better. (Never had read the actual restrictions on the amendment, just knew the consequences).
At any rate, since everyone is so up on this amendment by Congress, perhaps we can discusss how well/unwell it worked and how it may be similar to the whole congressional hearing that sparked this conversation.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
chicks and fags
i hate when people who dont understand technology are charged with making laws and regulations regarding it.
Seriously, after the DMCA youd think these guys (congress) would learn to stick with what they are good at... whatever that is.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
You bastard! I've been saying that for years! With the ellipses! At any rate, this is absolute horse shit, and if the government sticks their grimy cock in this pie, they will destroy everything that they claim to be protecting.
This would result in more choices for every consumer. Ipod owners, non iPod owners and iTunes, non iTunes users would all be able to select from one another for the source and player. Can a single Apple diehard fan please explain how this could not be good for every single consumer? It takes NOTHING away, it only adds more choices. I am confused.
This is actually an equivocation. The Napster we know now has absolutely nothing in common with the Napster of yore except for the name, which was the only thing really valuable thing left when it was picked up during the Napster of yore's bankruptcy proceedings.
No, seriously. I woke up a couple of days ago and for some reason thought about Apple decamping from the USA to move to friendlier waters, such as Canada, the Uk or Australia. I have no idea why I thought this. Would be interesting if it did happen though.
I cannot play MS DRM'd media on my Mac. MS is using their monopoly power to push me to use Windows to view anything encoded with their version of DRM. If they were the leader in digital content they would use it to enforce their OS domination. iTunes is available on PC and Mac. I think they should support Linux also with quicktime and iTunes, but that would be poking the MS bear and probably not the best strategic move.
Your argument says the DVD version is the same as the VHS. Correct?
Well maybe it isn't. DVDs will often have more information - multi channel surround sound, interviews, and extras etc than a VHS of the same title. I am not saying I support the directors cut, the platinum edition, the extended furry edition ad infinitum, being put out in succession just far enough apart to maximize buyers. But they are different.
The only truely "independant" group in the bunch of music services is RealNetworks. Sony and Apple both tie their media to their electronics. Everybody else is a shill for MS [Napster, Walmart, and the like]. Sure MS has "play for sure" but that's really just an attempt to lock OUT companies like apple so they have to pay MS tax too. Look at the new Sony PSP...that thing's more locked down than anything ever sold! Only Sony manufactures the actual media, and you can only play your files thru Sony-approved file types on sony-approved memory sticks.
Fundamentally, Apple's Fairplay DRM is the most reasonable DRM scheme out there right now. It would be nice if they'd support Linux, cause then I could ditch MS entirely... [it's not like they'll loose mac sale to used dells with ubuntu] but they choose not to so I've gotta deal. I CAN play my iTMS purchased songs on Linux...its actually allowed in the iTunes software...just burn the songs to standard-format audio CD and re-rip them. The way I see it, Apple's DRM is the absolute minimum contractual agreement they could get away with and talk the record companies into allowing them to sell their songs... remember that... the RIAA is the cartel calling the shots here.. and they've cozied up to M$! MS is happily in bed with the RIAA, MPAA, and cell providers that want to make sure you "pay to play" every time.
Fact of the matter is that Apple has pulled the computer coup-de-etes we've all been waiting for...they've got the best selling product in music players right now and they did it WITHOUT caving to Microsoft's monopolistic OS position... Fact of the matter is that Apple can't sublicense iTMS... most likely they have "backroom" agreements with the music labels not too. Also, it's a matter of keeping taps with the latest hackers so that their DRM remains secure. Remember, apple is also who will get the pointy finger when Fairplay is cracked and the pirateing songs starts all over... They can't risk anybody else having "loose lips" and spoiling it for everybody. Apple is the good guy here.. don't forget it. The only other viable alternative is to go the MS path...which every OTHER manufacture wants to go to ... M$ has assured them they can have FULL control over the files you download... and you will never "own" anything again if the M$ way takes over!!!
While the Chairman singled out Apple's failure to appear at the hearing as a bad thing, it was mostly an admonishment for not doing what he asked.
He wasn't anti-Apple.
Additionally, every Member of Congress who attended was VERY clear in supporting market forces, NOT government mandates to 'solve' the interoperability issue.
Subcommitee Ranking Member Berman (D-CA) pointed out that even the Consumer Federation witness, Dr. Cooper, did not support government intervention. Dr. Cooper noted that he thought mark forces should be allowed to work at the "widget" layer, as opposed to the 'core'.
The only disconcerting thing that was said was that Chairman Smith used a narrow marketshare definition to describe Apple's status. By saying Apple's marketshare was 80% of the digital download market, he failed to include the fact that Apple's share, as a percentage of ALL music sales is tiny.
Monopoly and market share are places where defining the scope of the market is key.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
Fine, as long as the entertainment industry and "artists" shut the fuck up when it comes time for their works to be no longer covered by copyright.
That means we "Consumers" will repeal all of the paid for legislation that allows "artists" and studios to steal from the public domain.
14 years was the original length of copyright then society owns the the work.
It's the artists and studios who are on a "free ride", who have been raping and pillaging the public domain. It's they that benefit from a society that enables them to create their works. But then the greedy fuckers want to change the rules once it comes time to live up to their end of the deal.
When THEY shut the fuck up THEN I'll shut the fuck up.
Someone in Congress has too much time on his hands.
And I don't blame Apple for giving this one the cold shoulder.
If the artists want to record their music on piece of plexi-glass, then it's their canvas.
I think that talking about opening iTunes DRM while blatantly ignore the closed and ever-changing MS Office formats year after year is really rubbish.
The iPod does NOT lock you into iTunes.
Rather, iTunes locks you into the iPod. And you have every damn right to go use Walmart's music store and put those mp3's on your iPod.
The downside? You don't have quite the ease of use - but guess what: you knew that going in. Consumer choose iPod and they choose iTunes, in most instances. Their hands aren't forced.
And when you buy an iTunes mp3, you're agreeing to use that DRM. There is no monopoly unless you couldn't buy that same song somewhere else - and that isn't the case.
I love how our conservative Congress says we should engage in "personal responsibility" - but they feel the need to hold our hand in the decisions we make. The hypocrisy makes me sick. Very, very sick.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
The only reason this is happening is because big campaign donors like Sony and Microsoft are whining to their buddies in Congress that their crappy products aren't as popular as iPod - and this is a great way to unfairly hurt Apple's dominance. Welcome to the world of money politics. It's not the first time. And refer to opensecrets.org if you'd like proof that Sony and Microsoft spend a TON of money on political campaigns and PACs (Apple doesn't).
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Where did firewire go?
I use it on my laptop for everything.
I buy it on all new peripherals.
Everyone I know has it.
In short: Huh?
Direct away from face when opening.
...is not "tyranny of the majority". We would have a constitution and all that, to keep wild mood swings from doing too much damage. It's not like Congress doesn't get emotional when passing acts like the Patriot act either. By any logic the poltician who followed the same policy would get two wolf votes and a majority anyway.
A big problem is consistancy. If you voted on each issue, the money would run out as there are many more worthy causes than income. On the other hand, people doesn't care about everything the government is doing. As long as "their part" gets a good share, fine.
If you tried to solve that with complete budgets, it would be chaos as 99% would know nothing about 99% of the contents. You'd have to come up with a brilliant hierarchy to vote "I want more money for healthcare", then after the distribution between that and defense/roads/whatnot has been settled, those who want vote within that sector "I want more money for cancer research" and so on.
The other real problem is that direct democracy is often not a representative democracy. It is far too easy to rally a minority to vote on some issue, since people simply wouldn't vote on 99% of the issues. The result is that it subverts democracy rather than support it.
Ultimately - you're going to end up with a few central people who put forth budget suggestions, and opinions people listen to. And these people will be lobbied by corporations. Instead of voting on behalf of the sheep, they herd the sheep. Politicans by any other name.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Umm... until recently, Beta SP was a very strong standard and pretty much any time you turned on the TV, you were watching signal broadcast from a Beta SP player at the TV station. Working with MoreMusic (the video network, not sure if they still exist) we received all the music videos in Beta SP format back then. So really, I don't think either Beta or VHS won. I think that one took the professional market and the other took the consumer market.
.M4A files just seems like a better idea than ripping from normal CD.
As in USB vs. Firewire I have no idea which one won that one. For the past few months, I've been running my external hard drives on USB 2.0 since I had been to lazy to search for my firewire cards, when I finally found the card recently, I reconnected all the drives as firewire. Performance was much better, there was less hangs, etc... I think again this is a case of consumer vs. professional.
As to DRM, ummm does DRM actually work? I figure that at the very least it's only a temporary block. I actually know for fact that the only reason Microsoft's DRM scheme hasn't been cracked publicly is because the content isn't widespread enough yet. Be patient, when more commercial content is released for Microsoft Media Player and Microsoft is locked into the scheme, the crack will of course be released.
There's no such thing as effective DRM, it's almost not worth putting onto media in the first place, but it makes the music industry feel a little better thinking that only smart people can download a program to crack it.
I personally am amazed that I don't find more DRM removed content on the peer-to-peers since it's typically encoded better from Apple, so removing the DRM and then just sending out the
Also, I've been seeing recently a few AAC files out there that have been encoded from better than CD sources. Meaning that it looks like the music studios are actually trying to sell higher definition audio to the public. Pretty cool
I find it hilarious and sad that the two examples given, betamax/vhs and firewire/usb, are both cases where the market decided which standard would become dominant, and in both cases, the market chose the inferior product.
Do we really want the ten million monkeys to decide what's best?
was FireWire/USB decided? I thought they aimed at different markets. I thought both types of devices still are sold/developed.
Look, when will RIAA allow unencumbered digital downloads in AAC or MP3 format? Never. So you SHOULD ignore iPod being able to play AAC and MP3 because they are NOT part of the digital download market scheme. Unless congress makes P2P sharing legal even if copyright is breached.
Fairplay is NOT a mrket issue because of both copyrighs, patent and DMCA laws making it an actual 100% perfect monopoly.
It's when you have to tell people to SHUT THE FUCK UP, you really should just shut the fuck up yourself.
Oh wait...
Doh!
I believe artists should choose creative mediums. Like delivering the album in sem@code or possibly the highly diverse Teddy Ruckspin medium.
We have the best government money can buy.
If that were true, we'd sure have a heck of a lot better government than we've got now.
I've been in expensive houses. They are, almost without exception, much better than cheaper houses in the same area. I've been in expensive cars that run better than average-priced cars. I've watched expensive TVs and listened to expensive stereos. I've compared furniture, appliances, and computer equipment. Virtually without exception, I've found that those who can pay more get a better product.
This current government may be pricey, but the quality reeks.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
Why people complain when Microsoft dominate the market but support Apple to do so? Don't you get it that Apple iPod is about to become what Microsoft Windows is for OS? And in contrast, Microsoft's policy is more open than Apple.
How many people can add a software to iPod? Zero.
How many software can be run on Microsoft Windows? I lost my count.
Hey, I support free trade and I don't see why Microsoft or Apple could be convicted just because no one else do things better than them. But stop raising the open source flag while your ears still plug with iPod.
Apple are far worse than Microsoft in term of openness. When many of us here (not me) are servant of open source, why not hate Apple?
Why dosen't Apple sell Mp3s in it's iStore?
Same reason Real and Napster don't offer Mp3s.
The recording industry will not liccens music to be sold on unrestricted formats such as Mp3s.
They demand DRM. Apple, Real and Napster comply.
At the core Real is ticked becouse they can't sell DRM restricted music the iPod supports.
So what happends now?
Fairplay becomes portable and Real can sell fairplay restricted music for about 10 seconds.
Then the music industry clamps down before someone makes an application to strip the DRM and make iStore music playable on ANY Mp3 player.
The iPod dies and your now all buying Microsoft media players.
Congradualtions for defending Microsoft against the evil Apple monopoly.
DRM formats are for the most part security by obscurity.
The people making the DRM systems don't care if they work well they just care that they work well enough to satisfy the music industry.
Apple would be perfictly happy selling MP3s but Apple can't prevent those same MP3s from turnning up on GnuTella.
I don't actually exist.
Mind you, if there was a government-mandated DRM standard, you would probably get the death penalty for circumventing it ...
... and then they built the supercollider.
I *still* can't view WMV files with DRM on my machines as I use a Mac - is congress looking at this - forcing MS to open it up or release WMA 10 for Mac? What about Real's music store (not that I'd touch it with a big stick...) - I can't buy files off there using my Mac. Congress looking at this - nope. That's not exactly fair play is it? *badum tish* *groans*
Apple are reaping what they have sown now. They have such brand recognition with Joe Sixpack that when someone goes out to buy an mp3 player, they ask for an iPod. Most congress committee members have about the same intelligence level as Joe Sixpack, and when you half explain to them that FairPlay is restrictive, they think something along the lines of "[the only distribution channel on the internet that anyone except my tech savvy nephew knows about] is restrictive". So they open it up. Opening FairPlay up would be wrong, but beneficial. Congress have no right to do it, but I would sure as hell love it: FairPlay sucks some serious ass encrptionwise and if every online store were to use FairPlay (including subscription services such as Napster) we would just HYMN all our music to be DRM free. Apple would never adopt MS's DRM (if they did they would have to rehaul iTunes... Ok I may have spoken too soon) so they could either get everyone else to adopt their DRM (which seems more likely - everyone wants a piece of the iPod pie) or go DRM free, which would be a glorious occasion indeed, if an unlikely one.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
This reminds me of an old joke: The other day I got a cable modem. I went to eBay while watching CSPAN and bought a Senator.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Furthermore, I couldn't find anything on Napster complaining about DRM.
FTA...
I never said that they wanted the government to handle it, just that they wanted it opened.
I can't wait to get an Ipod for the sole purpose of never having to deal with CD's again. I already use Itunes on my PC as the main source for feeding my home stereo. I figured to use the Ipod in a similar arrangement in my car so I could LEAVE the CD's out of the car. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Come on... for example - SONY owns the technology and manufactures the consumer gear (DVD players, etc). Owns the movie studio that produces the movie and the distribution company that distributes it... what fuckin' marketplace are these "industry" smucks talking about.
VOIP is a VERY disruptive technology that can FREE consumers from the profit pirates of the big and baby Bells. TOUGH SHIT for the big players who have not responded quickly enough! THAT'S what a FREE marketplace is about.
Here in Canada Bell Canada is moving quickly into the Quebec market with VOIP because they know if they don't they WILL LOSE marketshare. There is a HUGE question to be answered here in Canada about how VOIP should be regulated or if it should be regulated but that is NOT going to stop any other disruptive technologies from finding their way to consumers PCs or homes from that matter.
Eventually we are going to see the literal buffet of online services that the consumer can choose from be they FREE of for FEE.
It's amazing how quickly the big monopolies cry foul when disruptive technologies like VOIP smash their strangle hold on the consumer.
Again TOUGHT SHIT! That's what should happen in a FREE marketplace. The day of legislative monopolies is OVER!
The penguin shall set you FREE! (.v.)
Congressman Lamar Smith is the chairman of the committee that is looking into legislating DRM uniformity. It is interesting to note that among the top twenty PACs that contributed to Congressman Smith's 2002 campaign, for which the info is readily available, are Dell (#10), Microsoft and Wallmart (tied at #11) and the National Assn of Broadcasters (#20). This info is from opensecrets.org
'Fairplay' DRM is not analogous to "a proprietary compact disc format," but is a technical means of appeasing the music labels and providing some basic reassurances that their music will not be freely traded as soon as it hits a person's PC. Without some means of assuring this, Apple would never have been able to negotiate with and bring onboard the large number of labels the store carries.
Napster et al are whining to congress to legalize their right to piggyback their own DRMed content onto Apple's iPods, that's all.
(Sound of world's smallest violin heard playing quietly in the distance.)
-Ocelot Wreak.
"I figure you're here 'cause you need some whacko who's willing to stick his finger in the fan. So who are we helping?
The logistics of a simultaneous global release would be daunting for any movie studio. If we're talk about distributing film than shipping all those reels all across the world to all the theaters that want to show it would be one logistical nightmare, with movies and distribution going digital this would theoretically solve the problem. Although, not all countries around the world have a fat enough internet pipe to download a digital 2K (or 4K?) resolution movie. Even in the distant future with movies going digital and all nations catching up with their internet bandwidth, the other issue is marketing and promotion costs. A movie studio or distributor like Disney would find it near impossible to promote on t.v, print, billboards, radio and preview in theaters simultaneously around the world. The current strategy to piecemeal the globe into regional release dates makes sense for the studio. Personally, I don't like the regional encoding its a pain.
Perhaps we (the customers) need to ask ourselves "What does Napster et. al. provide, that Apple does not?".
I'm not sure, but one possible answer may be "nothing"! And you know why? Because if if the WMA pack ever had some advantage to the customer (and it's not choice - I'll get to that later) they could use their HUGE marketing muscle to make people aware of the good point. But they don't!
Napster, and Real too, offer more or less the same RIAA music (but no audio books or iMix-like buying tips, right?) And if you read the fine print, turns out that iTunes has less DRM restrictions than all the competition in this sense.
That's for choice music-wise, then there's the players, hundreds of WMA-ready music players and some even support PlaysForSure. But they seem awfully alike. Around 80% are flash-based and even seem to use the same chipset = same features. The remaining are harddrive-based with an interface synthesised from an iPod-knockoff and their cheaper flash cousins. As we know, this segment is always compared to the iPod these days.
Conclusion: all online music stores are alike save for the format, you make a choice more by which player you like.
Unless the lapdogs in congress bring down the axe, MS' lackeys really need to get their act together and show exactly how they are different and just not worse.
Jane Doe (or John, of course) goes for a player, not a store. People like players by design, interface and performance- not store names or file format acronyms.
When you buy an iPod an then realise that you can't buy music from Microsoft (common problem!), you will quickly find out about ITMS and what's more, not get disappointed with it.
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
I would disagree, although you raise an interesting point in terms of dividing the world market between distributors. I'm sure when DVD regional encoding was concocted, it was made for current movies in mind, not many people thought of making money on classics in the very beginning. Besides to have regional encoding for the reasons I stated in my original post and to have non-regional encoded classics would confuse manufacturing and consumers. Consumers would probably rebel against the movie studios if they knew that they could produce non-regional DVDs as well and have more regional restrictions for the newer movies they bought. At least thats my theory.
We had a visiting Sensei help out at karate last night who got the kids to pretend they were practicing against Mickey Mouse because "He's a very evil mouse". (Mickey Mouse was actually a soft foam ball which the kids were practicing hitting).
:-)
I was wondering what would I answer if asked by one of my students why Mickey Mouse was so evil, and I think I have my answer. Unfortunately I won't have time in a lesson to explain it, but I'd say that Mickey Mouse was part of a gang of thieves and that together they stole something really big from everyone, but stole it some time ago so I expect none of the kids know what it is. Mickey Mouse stole the Public Domain.
That is the unfortunate legacy of Mickey Mouse (and why I'm considering adding big round paper ears to the soft ball for next lesson
- Sensei Richard
Apple is dominating the market, and it's not because they have vendor-lock-in with the iTunes music store. I mean, in order to get locked in, they first need to sell you an iPod or an iTMS song.
Since you're pretty unlikely to buy one without the other, I don't think Apple cares all that much. On Slashdot, people love to say music sharing doesn't cut into music sales. I'd love to see if that is true.
I think it'd be interesting if Apple stopped DRMing their 128bit AAC files and only DRM'd their high quality Apple Lossless files, taking a page from radio. A lossy transmission is great for listening, but people who want the media for arhchival and distribution get licenses.
I'm not saying DRM is okay, but it'd be interesting to see what happens to iTMS sales.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Boo Hoo...my GSM phone won't work on Sprint's non-GSM network. Let's pass a LAW that makes it illegal for Sprint not to support a technology that was never advertised by Sprint to support.
THAT WAY we could have more lawsuits! yippee!
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
When you download from a WMA site, do you get copy protection with it? Yes, you do. (I have to guess about this, because those sites won't even let my OS X computer even look at what they have.) When you pay your Napster-to-Go fee, is there copy protection? Yup. In fact, it makes all that music disappear when you stop anteing up.
Would the labels go along with ANY online music sales that didn't copy protect? Nope. The only one I know of is that quasi-legal site in Russia, and the music industry isn't pleased about it at all. Will Windows allow all its WMA formats to be published? Real? No. How about their copy protection? Free licensing across platforms? Nope.
If Congress wants to decree one form of copy protection for every online music site, and require one format to be supported by all music players, I'd be for it. The software companies and record labels who give them donations wouldn't be for it. They just want to take down Apple, because they're the industry leader.
So what? Why not just download music from BitTorrent, it's a lot cheaper.
Not surprisingly Apple is in a precarious position. Is it any wonder, Jobs having bedded down with one of our most corrupt industries? The labels have one goal--restoring their traditional market hegemony--and since Jobs has refused to raise prices they will, at the earliest opportunity, screw him. Only iPod's dominance is keeping this shaky alliance going. The moment that crumbles...
Let's see, Apple users are more likely to be gay, liberal, educated, and less religious. Apple's CEO gives big money to democrats and liberal causes. Is it any wonder that our redneck, bible-thumping, war-mongering congress would go after Apple?
"Talking nonsense is man's only privilege that distinguishes him from all other organisms." - Fyodor Dostoevsky -Chines
One thing the iPod cannot do yet is play music from the future. When they add that feature there won't be any need for DRM right?
if congress says this should be then it must be for everyone and windows has to open up to run all software currently used on other platforms and offer software that is identical to windows software must run on all other platforms through the efforts of microsoft
If this quote is true: "US legislators are debating whether to force Apple's products to interoperate with Microsoft's."
Then it just goes to show that they aren't addressing a real issue here. iTunes is compatible with Microsoft Windows and the iPod works with Windows machines as well. The problem is that the iTunes Music Store's DRM doesn't work with third party digital music players. If congress wants to address an issue, that is the issue they should be addressing. The quote doesn't actually address the issue they want to go after.
Apple shouldn't testify at these hearings as congress clearly doesn't know what it is that they are talking about.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Is your time that unimportant that you need to defend poorly written journal entries?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I agree. Congress should either pass the DRMCA or repeal the DMCA and let the free market handle it. Let Real include pyMusique or Hymn with their players.