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.
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.
...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.
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
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.
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 ----
Regardless of market share, Apple does not behave like Microsoft at all. While Apple has popular market share for iPod, it is not using that market share to *exclude* competitors. For example, it doesn't attempt to force vendors who want to sell iPods to exclude other players from the market, or threaten retribution to those companies who sell competing products. It also doesn't say that if you sell iPods you must also put Macs on your shelves, etc.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has done pretty much all of these things at one point or another in their history. Consider their OEM agreements with vendors forbidding them to sell computers with other OSes. Consider their attempt to drive Netscape out of business by giving away IE and "integrating it with the OS" (and letting the product stagnate as soon as the competition disappeared). These acts show a company trying to take choice and competition OUT of the market, not providing a BETTER choice. And that's the difference.
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.
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.