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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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
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.
I hope this isn't interfering with more pressing issues, like the hearing on Major League Baseball!
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
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 ----
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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!
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
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
"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..