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?"
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.
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.
"What this is really quite similar to is region encoding on DVDs. 100% bullshit artificial restriction"
well not really the regions on DVDs are so some poorer regions can get cheaper DVDs and not cut into the profits of places where a higher price is ok. It helps prevent a situtation like windows where it is charged similiar prices everywhere and that leads to more priacy
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Considering that previous standards (Firewire/USB, Betamax/VHS) have been decided by the market,
They were decided by the market, but there were multiple competitors making each of those choices, because the standards were available for licensing to anyone at relatively reasonable prices.
Well, at least in the VHS/Betamax case, only the VHS standard had reasonable licensing -- eith Betamax, Sony decided to follow the IBM PS2/Apple model of tightly controlling both the standard and anything made using the standard, the result being the even though Betamax was technically superior, it priced itself out of the market.
If the Apple iTunes DRM scheme was available for licensing on a nondiscriminatory basic, Congress probably wouldn't even consider getting involved.
Why should this matter? The U.S. does not have compulsory licensing laws except in a very limited number of cases.
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.
No, if Philips and Sony had not licensed the CD standard, it would have died out (see Betamax, PS2, etc.) and something else would have come along to replace it. The government didn't step in to save Betamax, they didn't step in to try and save Firewire (although admittedly Firewire is not dead, of course), they didn't step in to save DAT -- if CD's had been made too expensive due to licensing, they wouldn't have survived in the marketplace, and maybe we would all be using DAT now -- or maybe somebody would have come up with something even better.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Actually, I liked the GP analagy...
If I buy GTA3 for one console, why should I have to buy it for any other console or pc I want to play it on?
It is the same argument of VHS vs DVD. If I own a VHS copy of a movie, it really bugs me that the movie industries want me to pay them again for THE SAME MOVIE!
If the only difference between the PS2 and XBox format was a single bit on the DVD, do you think Either company should be forced by congress to change their bit so it can plan on someone else's machine?
All limitations are artificial, unless there is some kind of naturally occurring audio format that grows on trees. (heh... tree... Apple... heh.)
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
How is this flamebait? This is a genuine concern for Mac users. We cannot playback either Real purchased songs or WMA store purchased songs on our macs.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
they didn't step in to save DAT
Actually, the government stepped in to destroy DAT. DAT recorders are mandated to make poor copies, whereas audio CDs can be copied perfectly indefinately.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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
Not all labels. Look at emusic.com ...
Apple has no choke hold. It was not the first and it is not the only online music store. By popular vote it is the best. iPod is not the first and is not the only digital music player. By popular vote it is the best.
Apple did not finagle their way into what they have right now, they earned it fair and square by making a great product and doing what people wanted. They have no secret deals they made no shady collusions. I think people are so used to Microsoft's game that they think everyone plays that way.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
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?
"And let's not forget the Windows Media file formats."
.doc, .xls, etc.
You can license the Windows Media file standard. You can not license fairplay. That's the difference. It would be nice if MS licensed
Vote for Pedro
Exactly.... Why the hell is it such a big deal that Apple provide interoperability, when Microsoft snubs its nose at every company who wants to know about their FILE formats.
:)
This sort of double-standard is quite repugnant.
We can't get Congress to do JACK SQUAT to punish the GUILTY AS SIN Microsoft Monopoly, but we can spend our time worrying that Apple's iTunes store won't allow other players in on the bonanza? So much for free-market government. It's only a "free" market if they're paying the politicians it seems.
Even the Napster CEO has it right, and his company would stand to benefit from this... LET THE MARKET decide...
Bah. Politicians just moved above child molesters on my list of people to kill first when I become supreme overlord of this planet.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
True, except that the pop music industry's financial model is based on most performers getting a very small percentage of record sales. Sort of like how Blockbuster counts on getting late fees.
Consumers, shut the fuck up... You've been getting a free ride for far longer.
I would argue that record producers have been riding on the backs of musicians for far too long.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Wouldn't that be contrary to the First Amendment?
No. Compulsory licencing does not restrict anyone's speech in any way. It does not compel the copyright holder to do anything.
What compuslory licening means is that someone else can simply mail off an appropriate check to the copyright holder (or to some central clearing house for copyright holders) and then they are properly licence to make and sell copies. You don't need to haggle over rates with the copyright holder, you don't even have to ask his permission. You simply have to pay him the the statutory licening fees.
And as the other poster said, statutory licences are already a normal part of copyright law. He was suggesting that it could simply be extended to more situations.
And if Apple has to do this - then wouldn't software vendors and DVD vendors also have to
It would depend on how such a law was written. It could be written either way.
There have been DRM [] in software for many years.
Oh sure there have been silly gimmicks like defective disk tracks in software for years, but there was never any such thing as "Digital Rights Management" until fairly recently when some idiot came up with the rediculous idea of making it CRIMINAL for innocent NONINFRINGING people to "circumvent" these gimmicks.
licensing restrictions in software for many years
By law you do not require any licence at all to install and run software you bought. This is directly addressed in US code title 17 section 117, and I'm pretty sure there's an essentially identical statement in EU law.
All EULAs are contract offers. You are always free to decline a contract. Of course if you decline a contract then you receive nothing it offers. However an EULA generaly offers you nothing you'd ever want, much less anything you actualy *need*. Of course publishers try all sorts of gimmicks to corner you into accepting the offered contract, and all sorts of gimmicks to argue you agreed to that offered contract, but it is absolutely 100% NOT copyright infringment to decline an EULA and to go ahead and install and run software.
The only real issue is whether you make any extra effort required to install the software without accepting the EULA, and whether they can find some non-copyright legal gimmick to obsruct any way of physically managing to do so. And if such a legal gimmick does exist to make it impossible to declining the EULA, than that legal argument would ALSO be valid if someone were to sell tomatos with EULAs.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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
I suggest you learn a bit more about more about copyright law. Statutory licencing is part of the law here in the US and just about everywhere else. Note: Based on the DMCA comments you appear to be American, and it's US copyright law and the court cases I've been reading, so this text will be US-centric.
license their "speech" (software) to certain users
Who's said anything about Apple's software?
The original story was about other companies being able to sell music that would play on the iPod, and they would presumably be more than happy to write their own software to do so. I don't think I even addressed that exact subject.
The person you replied to, and apparently the current subject, was "compulsory licensing of recordings on the music industry". Under that sugegsted system aomeone who aquired any copy of any song would be able to simply mail off the statutory royalty check and legally sell copies of that song in whatever format they wanted. This is the system US radio uses, and this is the system Russian download sales use. (And as I said the Russian law may be bugged in not properly addressing the multiple copyrights in each song.)
Why should a company be compelled to license their material to anyone it doesn't want to license it to?
If that is what you believe should be true then I suggest you lobby to change EXISTING law. Oh, and expect a big fat mess if you succeed. For starters the entire radio system would fall apart, it is based on statuory licencing of music. And as I indicated the RIAA members themselves make extensive use of statutory licencing. If you revoke statutory licencing then the RIAA is going to have to pull a TON of music off of the shelves. Lots of songs are based on statutory licencing of lyrics.
Wikipedia has a small but decent blurb on it.
I know it's not going to make sense to you without a full explanation but the truth is that copyright holders are not compelled to do anything, it is the government granting the statutory licence. The fact is that it *is* part of the law, and even the RIAA cites the benefits of statutory licencing.
Copyright is a good and useful thing, but it's easy to come to the wrong conclusions if you don't have a good grounding in the origin and operation of copyright. I don't have time now or this weekend, but if you're actually up for reading Supreme Court rulings on the foundation and nature of copyright then maybe on Monday or Tuesday I can dig up the links and clear up why statutory licencing is perfectly logical and reasonable. Why it's not a "taking" or "forcing" against authors at all.
The courts see circumventing dongles and other DRM as being illegal under the DMCA.
Actually no court has EVER upheld DMCA anti-circumvention law. Seriously. It's been on the books seven years and never upheld once.
>By law you do not require any licence at all to install and run software you bought. This is directly addressed in US code title 17 section 117, and I'm pretty sure there's an essentially identical statement in EU law. All EULAs are contract offers. You are always free to decline a contract.
How is this relevant? How does this enable me to run Quark XPress without a dongle?
You said "There have been DRM and licensing restrictions in software for many years". I explained this was false.
Prior to the DMCA you could decline any EULA and bypass any dongle or activation gimmicks.
Post DMCA you can still decline any EULA and it is still not copyright infringment if you install and run it. You STILL do not require a licence.
As I said the QUESTION was whether (A) you made the effort to install/run it while declining the EULA and (B) whether they could find some non-copyright infringment gimmick to block you from accomplishing it. As you point out they can now at least attempt to use the DMCA and gimick up the in
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So how does eMusic get away with selling songs with no DRM?
I have not and will not buy from any of the DRM encumbered stores.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who