Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress Ponders Opening up iTunes DRM

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the all-skate-everybody-skate dept.

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?"

24 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Are they for real? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article, here's a quote from the chairman of the subcommittee, Lamar Smith:

    "This interoperability issue is of concern to me since consumers who bought legal copies of music from Real could not play them on an iPod."


    <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

    1. Re:Are they for real? by truesaer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Your analogy is all wrong. The xbox and PS2 are completely different architectures...there is no way you could make them interoperable without a complete emulation.


      On the other hand, the iPod and other players are all capable of players all the same formats. AAC is an open standard, Fairplay is not. So it is an artificial limitation that I oppose.


      What this is really quite similar to is region encoding on DVDs. 100% bullshit artificial restriction.

    2. Re:Are they for real? by sgant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah...um...where's my fucking healthcare and retirement programs? How about have a subcommittee on wrangling these gas prices in?

      No no...steroids in baseball and making sure your MP3 player can play songs from iTunes...yep, that's MUCH more important. Oh, also there's this other idiot...oops, congressman, that wants people who violate on-air decency laws thrown in jail. Yes, actual jail time for saying "fuck" on TV or radio.

      (starts looking through his brochures on moving to New Zealand)

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    3. Re:Are they for real? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily true. The government decides all kinds of interoperability standards for infrastructure. TV, radio, transportation and finance all have strict interoperability requirements in order to serve the greater public good.

      The only thing I don't like about this is that they're picking on the little guy before requiring interoperability from the big boys. Why the hell doesn't the Monopoly we call Microsoft have to meet interoperability standards for their business critical Office software? By comparison, digital music is small potatoes.

      TW

    4. Re:Are they for real? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is interoperability, the iPod supports mp3s, so just serve the music in mp3 format. ;)

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Are they for real? by dvdeug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      Why is Europe and Japan in a different region from the US? And Australia in a different region from either of them? Furthermore, Australia is in the same region as South America and Mexico, which is quite a disparity in wealth. If it'd been to offer better prices to poorer regions, the US, Japan, Western Europe and Australia would all be in the same region.

  2. So, uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    is Congress cool now?

  3. openness, competition by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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. To a first approximation, the Apple iTunes DRM "standard" is available for licensing to noone. Certainly it's not available to just any company that wants to publish music in the Apple format, nor to just any company that wants to build compatible players.

    If the Apple iTunes DRM scheme was available for licensing on a nondiscriminatory basic, Congress probably wouldn't even consider getting involved.

    could it be that Apple isn't big enough to keep the government out of its industry
    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.
    1. Re:openness, competition by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:openness, competition by sg3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > It's not the size of Apple that's invited this attention from
      > Congress, it's their behavior

      Of course, some Republicans were aghast at the Department of Justice looking into Microsoft illegally abusing its monopoly. So much so, that all it required was for Microsoft to hire Bush advisor and Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed as a lobbyist, and to send a few million dollars Bush's way, and the DOJ dropped the case. Done. That obvious case was where Microsoft lied throughout the trial, had more smoking guns an Indiana Jones movie, and showed nothing but contempt for the judge and the rulings. No muss no fuss.

      But now, Congress thinks it's important to go after Apple, who is just starting off in the market. They don't have a monopoly, and their success is far from assured. They are nowhere near the place in digital music that Microsoft is in for operatings systems and Microsoft Office.

      If you don't like Apple's business model. Fine. Don't buy their stuff. But until Apple has been sued and found to (1) have a legal monopoly in terms of digital music, and (2) found to be illegally abusing their monopoly (like you if your iPod stops working if it finds you're not using their word processor Pages), Congress should stay away from nationalizing iTunes or iPods.

      Or, if they can't keep themselves away, they should at least stop calling whatever we have in the U.S. a democracy and capitalism.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    3. Re:openness, competition by chmilar · · Score: 5, Insightful
      nobody but Apple can legally sell music for it

      I buy songs from eMusic.com for my iPod. eMusic sells unencumbered MP3 tracks.

      The other online music stores could also be 100% compatible with the iPod, by selling unencumbered MP3 tracks.

      --
      Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
    4. Re:openness, competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus. Can we please cut out the one-company Apple-is-a-monopoly bullshit?

      Everybody loves car analogies, so here's one. Ford makes the Mustang. It can drive on many roads, using fuel from many gas stations. Lots of different companies make accessories for it. But let's say Ford makes a particular accessory that only works with the Mustang. Are they now a monopoly because of this? What a bunch of crap.

      For those who are really slow, it works like this. Apple makes the iPod. It can play many different songs in many different formats. Lots of companies make accessories for it. Apple happens to sell a particular type of music file that only works with the iPod. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM A MONOPOLY.

      Can you buy music elsewhere that works with the iPod? Check. Can you buy other players that work with other music? Check. Can you buy cool accessories for those other players? Check. If you want music for your iPod, are you locked into Apple's store? Nope.

      Let's see, with the Mustang... You can buy fuel from many places that works with the Mustang, check. You can buy other cars that work with other types of fuel, check. You can buy cool accessories for other cars, check. If you want fuel or accessories for your Mustang, you aren't locked into Ford stuff.

      Conclusion: you hate Apple almost as much as you hate thinking rationally.

  4. A bad idea by waynegoode · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:A bad idea by istewart · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's behind Enterprise, too! That son of a bitch!

  5. The government should keep it's hands off. by karmatic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Congress?! by BandwidthHog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't they have, like, a War on Terror to support or something?

    Does Napster's palpable fear count?

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  7. Emerging market should be decided by the market by amichalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Betamax/VHS, USB/Firewire are bad analogies by Jagasian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. A single, mandated DRM standard is a great idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...because you only have to crack it once!

  10. un-fucking-believable by flacco · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:un-fucking-believable by rpozz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple probably haven't paid their full subscription to congress. A few donations from them and this will all go away.

  11. Who created this problem in the first place? by Experiment+626 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. We're all forgetting who we really owe... by iJakBeatZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  13. They owe ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.