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?"
You misunderstand me. There are a number of rights I have with materials I purchase. I have the right to phase-shift, time-shift, make excerpts, etc.
Since I have those rights, the only "management" that can be done by a copyright holder is to take them away (I've yet to see DRM that added rights without taking anything away). I feel copyright holders should be free to create whatever DRM they want to try to limit how I can use their works, since I do not believe it would be ethical for me to tell them what they can do with their own works.
Likewise, I do not feel that they should have legal protection when they try to take away my legal rights. The government should back off and let the market decide.
Note: I did not say anything about repealing copyright. Breaking DRM, then infringing copyright is still infringing copyright. I just don't believe DRM should be legally regulated, protected, or prohibited.
That's kind of what happens... Sony makes a $0.025 patent royalty on each disc sold.
Face it, the iPod is killing everything else sales wise. As a result, nobody but Apple can legally sell music for it....
Even if I ignored for the fact that the iPod actually also plays regular AAC and MP3 files in addition to Apple's fairplay-restricted files -- why the fuck does the government have to get involved?
This is a market issue. If people were really tied to iTunes and sick of it, they'd buy something other than an iPod. It's not like the iPod is the only digital music device you can buy.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I tell you what. Why don't we get Apple to do a little experiment? Apple can have their iTMS offer every song in either their restrictive DRM encrusted AAC format, or a non-DRM'ed MP3. See what format sells more. That would be the industry "speaking".
So, you are proposing that Congress unilaterally modify a license agreement between Apple and the major labels? Because that is exactly why they use DRM - the labels will not allow non-DRM music to be sold.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
Real uses neither FairPlay or WMA DRM. They use their own technology, HelixDRM.
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.
Dell, Microsoft, Sony, and Time Warner are among his top 20 contributors who would have a direct stake in the outcome of any government intervention. If you check his PAC contributions, you'll find he also accepted $3000 from the RIAA.
I'm sure that there isn't a whole lot of fraud in our government programs. I know of at least a half-dozen people who are scamming the fuck out of Social Security, and Medicaid.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
No, there are some things that are for damn sure artificial limitations. My definition of an artificial limitation is when the designer goes the extra mile to insure incompatibility. In other words, if it takes more effort to make your product incompatible then to make it compatible, it is an artificial limitation. Something like designing a DRM system to tack on top of otherwise standard mp3's so that other people can't use them, or region coding where only certain DVD players can play certain DVD's, those are artificial limitations and company's are greedy assholes for employing them.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.....
Real player won't play DRM'd content, and trying to play DRM'd content in the latest mac windows media player brings me to a web page telling me i need to "upgrade" to WMP9+ for windows.
Cute try, but you haven't seemed to figure out the difference between marketing specs and actual tests. Yes, marketing says they should last about 500 cycles so heavy users should generally get about 2-3 years out of them. (Obviously some people will get more.) But the reality is that many people have much less actual time with them and have even sued over it.
As for the total hours, sure some people can get up to 12 hours (often only in the first year) on the generation 4 and 5, but if you read some of the above you'll see some as low as 4-5 hours, and often 8 hours is a typical normal accomplishment. You'll even notice some of the above links report the iPod mini is supposed to get 12 hours but testing suggests it only gets about 7 hours.
We can argue about actual numbers and conditions like crazy, but the point is that real people are getting less than the marketing suggests and a good number have general battery problems.
As far as replacement, yes, you can crack it open yourself using 3rd party battery sources, but a proper battery replacement (they aren't made to be opened) costs $99 from Apple (see above link).
Even more importantly, the actual dollar and length of life is not really the main issue. The point is that iPods have battery problems. It's easy to find all over the internet. While this isn't a big problem with some people, it certainly means that not only "dumbfucks" (as the grandparent post said) have objections to the iPods and there are legitimate reasons to believe that they aren't the best.