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
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.As Winston Churchill said in 1947, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
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.
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!
Is this a parody? Seriously, you understand that stealing is a crime and protecting your property is not. Or were you thinking we were in another country?
Is this a parody? Seriously, you understand that stripping DRM from a file to play it in my car MP3 deck should not be a crime and that violating terms of service is not any sort of theft. Or were you thinking we were in another country, comrade?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
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
Apple probably haven't paid their full subscription to congress. A few donations from them and this will all go away.
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 US is a constitutional republic, which is in a sense a restricted form of democracy. You wouldn't want a direct democracy in a country the size of the US. As Benjamin Franklin observed, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
Stop whining. There are a large number of music services, especially those related to independent label, that will sell you DRM-less mp3s (e.g bleep.com), and these will, of course, run just fine on your iPod. You could also fill your iPod by *gasp*, ripping your CD collection to iTunes in any number of formats. But you have a WMA file and felt the need to cry. What about transcoding, or purchasing a music player (yes there are others) that PlaysForSure(TM)?
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
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.
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!
M$ has anything to do with this 'issue'.
If the 'issue' is business practices and interoperability problems, then yes.
Congress considering taking action because of Apple's iTunes is a bit like a security guard walking past some guy currently spraying a mall with automatic gunfire and instead considering seizing a slingshot that is safely tucked away in some kid's pocket.
"not because they have vendor-lock-in"
DRM becomes much much less evil when you can have interoperability. Currently, there is no guarantee that you can use any of the iTunes songs in the future should Apple decide to stop supporting that particular DRM. You may say that market forces would prevent them from doing this, but I disagree-- Sometimes the most profit lies in the path that is most destructive to the society as a whole.
If the point of the DRM is vendor lock-in, then that is a different issue than what Congress was trying to address with the DCMA, which is currently what makes it illegal to reverse-engineer the DRM on those songs, even for interoperability..