Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen Gripes About iPod, iTMS
mijkal writes "Hilary Rosen, the former RIAA CEO and chairwoman, has spoken out against Apple's "lock-in" with iPod and the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's." Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
I think my brain just died. Hilary Rosen is complaining about anti-consumer monopolies? This is like bizzaro world. The comments for this story write themselves, much like that Microsoft + Ford article about the car that will never crash.
Jack Valenti made a similar about-face after he retired. Does the *AA install some kind of behavior modification chip in their employees that gets taken out when they leave? (can we get one for a couple of the Slashdot editors?)
Well, she did insert that line about pirate sites being full of viruses (I get viruses form my mp3's al lthe time, god bless her), and soart of backhandedly danced around the fact that DRM and lossy music are the reason we can't transfer, so I guess the party line is stil lsorta there. Oh well.
...non-DRM mp3s that you get from any other source. Ahem.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I think Hilary Rosen might have encountered the concept of telling the truth at a party once, but didn't get beyond the cursory introduction.
I went ahead and RTFA to make sure the above statement wasn't being taken out of context by the post. It wasn't, and it might actually kind of be true if one is absolutely insistent on playing only AAC files on the iPod. The actual truth, which Hilary Rosen would likely not be willing to acknowledge without the threat of slow torture death behind it, is that the iPod works with sample MP3s that you might legally download from a band's website or any one of a gazillion legal indie music MP3 sites, and also works with audiobooks downloaded from Audible.com. But Rosen probably considers any music by an unsigned band to be beneath putting on an iPod anyway, and probably isn't too interested in audiobooks, either.
Other ridiculous ideas in the blog entry include: "He [Steve Jobs] is as laconically casually cool as Bono" and the idea that the iPod constitutes a monopoly. First off, Steve Jobs might be a little bit hip, but he's not cool except to the Mac faithful, the only ones who really care who he is (that's my opinion, though. I might be wrong). Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
The oddest thing to me is that no-one who would actually seek out and read Hilary Rosen's blog would be the least bit fooled by the misstatements in it.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Ok, tell us something we can't guess. So you have a new rag and you've got Hilary Rosen writing thus:
Oh my... Has anyone seen my unawarded Humanitarian of the Millenium trophy around? I've got someone to give it to at last.
Or all your favorite pirated mp3's seems we've been here before.
!Cough! Surely you jest, Hilary! What next will you be pushing? Fair Use? You commie!
Yeah, how cruel. Seems when the big labels were withholding everything from us consumers we were somehow evil to rip and make our own mp3's. Only able to get what the powers that be (RIAA) felt we were worthy of (mostly whatever manufactured band or act they were currently exploiting and wanted us to buy into like so many lemmings. "Puny mortal, you are only worthy of Britney Spears Greatest Dance Songs of Last Week, with CD-ROM destroying anti-copy-protection, now BUY!") Now the stiletto heel is on the other foot?
UltraGasp! This just can't be the same Hilary Rosen! Impostor!!!
I dunno. Maybe you're a consumer now. Or just another cyberslut.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
My bleep downloads seem to play fine on my iPod.
Should I file a bug?
there's more than one way to do me.
The article is from the Huffington Post the "blog of various mainstream media celibrities" which launched today. Impressive that they make Slashdot outa the gate - sounds like the lines are blurring even more between the traditional MSM media and the new online media. It will be interesting to see if they are able to maintain the daily grind of interesting articles ...
or if they eventually becomes as exciting as
watching grass
grow ;-)
The RIAA asked for DRM. iTunes gave you DRM. Apple sees a way to leverage this technology to their advantage and you cry foul? Grow up.
So what, does Warp Records just not exist? And what about all those people all over the internet distributing mp3s of their own personally recorded music legally? Do they just not exist?
Oh, wait, I forgot-- those people aren't RIAA members. So I guess to Hillary Rosen, they don't exist.
Still, it seems awfully odd that "can play anything but WMA and FLAC" means "can only play personally ripped music and iTMS purchasers".
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's.
Hmm... And whose fault would that be? If the Record companies didn't require DRM we wouldn't have to worry about this. Or does she want Apple to open up their DRM scheme?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
She's a human being, that's umpossible!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
... coming from the plaintiff of Diamond vs. RIAA, a lawsuit in which Ms. Rosen and her cronies tried to render the iPod illegal!
How can these people sleep at night?
Will the real Hilary Rosen please stand up?
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
"If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod."
The former head of the RIAA pointing out that the only way to listen to your legally purchased music on an iPod is to break the DRM. That's rich.
And some obscure audio file format. What's it called? Oh, yeah. MP3.
You must think in Russian.
I prefer to buy my music from better legal sites, that are 1/10th the cost of iTunes and use no DRM. Anybody heard of allofmp3.com or mp3search.ru? They both are legal, and have great libraries.
I will admit that I have bought a few songs off of iTunes simply because I wanted a high quality copy before the song was released on CD... but in general, why would I want to pay 10x more for something that I can get legally much cheaper?
American women who are straight refer to female friends as "girlfriends," with no sexual connotation. An American straight man cannot have a "boyfriend," nor can he have a "girlfriend" without whom he's not in some way romantically or sexually involved. It's just a quirk of the American English language, I believe.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I assume you are trying to be funny. If not you obviously aren't around women enough because it is typical for them to call their female friends "girlfriends".
Hilary Rosen was in the position to fix the situation, but instead she helped create a locked-down DRM-prolific online music space. It's funny to see her complain about the exact problem that she put into place.
/ 09/hilary_rosen_laments_apples_drm_strategy.php
Wasn't it easier when we all just had MP3's? Funny how that format works with everything.
Good rebuttal
http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/05
I think whatever she would claim, she actually isn't worried about consumer lock-in. What she's worried about is producer-side lock-in. The RIAA members are locked in to the iTunes Music Store; they have to do business with the iTMS or their competitors will get the purchases there instead. The RIAA probably isn't happy about this. They're used to being able to dictate terms (like "you will carry X, Y and Z but not W because we said so") to retailers, not having the retailers dictate terms to them (like, "customers will be allowed to make as many CD copies as they like").
I beleive it is common knowledge that Ms. Rosen is a lesbian. However, let's despise her for being a shameless spokesperson for anybody willing to pay her to do so; her sexual preferences should be irrelevant.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Steve Jobs, Let my Music Go
Fricking cow. Why don't YOU and all the lawsuit happy pricks on your side let OUR music go.
That's some fricking gall to blame Steve Jobs for Apples answer to the RIAAs psycho DRM paranoia.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Huffington on giving a voice to the silently oppressed celebrities and powerbrokers out there, who have for so long struggled to get their valuable messages out to the anxious public.
Truly, it warms my heart to see come to fruition the hopeful idealism of a youth spent dreaming of a world where who a person is matters as much or more than what that person is saying!
Thank you, Ariana.
I own an iBook, I own an iPod, and I've never had any gripes about not being able to buy music online from anywhere else besides the iTMS. Why? Because Apple makes it easy for me to purchase a song and get it on my iPod with very little hassle.
But hey, I'll take Hilary's advice here and navigate over to walmart.com and see what I'm missing by not being able to buy music from there. But wait, what this? IE 5.5 required to buy music? Well, gee, I guess Walmart is the paragon of a quality music buying service, even though I can't use their service because they only support one browser!
This isn't about Apple's lockin with the iPod and the iTMS, this is about Apple's lockin vs. everybody else's lockin on Windows machines.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to have an approved player right now just to use Napster as well.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
Update Watch - Automatic software update notification
Wow, that's news to me. Who knew?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
It's pretty sucky that if you want to buy music that you have to do it from iTunes but, at the end of the day it's DRM which is the big problem. Without getting into the ethics of it, why would anyone buy a crippled mp3 album for £8+ when you can buy an uncrippled cd for about £10? This is using UK pricing (which I understand is more expensive than US?) but nevertheless, considering you have to pay for the packaging and distribution for a cd then these prices are daylight robbery. This is especially true when considering that 95%+ of the music is available (illegally) elsewhere, without the DRM. It's not a hard choice, DRM vs Free non DRM'd music vs non DRM'd CDs - online music stores come in serverely lagging in 3rd place! I really hope something is done before we are given 'generous personal useage rights' on our audio cds. Online music stores could have been a very good move indeed but the implimentation has been totally shocking.
Yeah, she's lesbian. She's been pretty public about this for years, so it's not exactly news.
What's more, it doesn't have anything to do with anything: slam her for lying to Congress, lying about what dire straits the music industry is in, and wanting to throw kids in jail. There are plenty of things to complain about, but insulting her sexuality (which I see people do pretty often) is uncalled for, and casts all opponents of the RIAA gestapo in a bad light.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Fortunately for Hilary Rosen, there's a simple solution to this problem. All she has to do is go download a copy of Hymn, which will peel off all the license restrictions from the ITunes file. Then she can play her music anywhere.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Her own organization, the RIAA, hires people to create and distribute those viruses to deliberately infect P2P sites. I wonder if Hillary Rosen ever met the truth.
It's not about whether copyright is good or bad, it's simply this:
Makes me/our company/our friends lots of cash, probably at your expense: good
Gives you freedoms/etc at our expense: bad
Jobs was unique in finding a way to make the harsh restrictions placed on downloaded music by the recording industry palatable to a wide audience and profitable to boot.
Seeing as Apple took the risk and won, I think it's unreasonable to ask them to give up the fruits of their labors. As an Apple shareholder I'd hold Jobs culpable if he ever did such a thing. I say to Jobs: "Milk it for all it's worth." Especially since there are plenty of competitors out there to keep him honest. The iPod doesn't have a monopoly because Apple locked everyone else out of the market, ala Microsoft, it has one because it's better.
If you don't like the fact that you can't play your Windows Media songs on the iPod, buy a different player ... or do what I do and buy the physical CD and convert it into whatever format you prefer. I get my CDs primarily from Amazon.com, but never from Apple.
And Hillary, if you don't like the myriad proprietary forms of DRM on downloaded music, consider the fact that it's your fault it's there in the first place.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
"The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap," said Rosen.
Girlfriend??
______________________________________________
"... when oh when will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?" "
When the market dictates that this is a good business move. Right now, Apple can combat the RIAA on prices (read as lower prices for you and me) with such large marketshare.
Also Ms. Rosen is free to walk in to the thousands of retail locations that sell CDs and rip them to her iPod at any time she wishes.
"There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks."
Then go buy them! Apple isn't telling you to only buy iPods. By controlling the player and the store, Apple is able to sustain a successful business model - NO OTHER COMPETITOR IS MAKING MONEY!!!
"Most every player device works at every one of these "stores" and it is pretty easy to keep all the songs, no matter where you got them, in a single folder or "jukebox" on your computer."
But not as easy as the iPod
Also, tell me how many custom cases & accessories I can find for the Creative Muvo again?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Yes, that is true. Also, Hilary Rosen is gay. This has been out of the closet longer than she's been in the public spotlight, as far as I know.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
for making APIs that lock people into Windows, Windows Media for not working on PalmOS, Torvalds for not making the Linux Kernel applications run on Mac OS, etc.
Are we now advocating that all content must be available for all platforms? That's just silly.
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's. But those other music sites have lots of music that you can't get at the iTunes store. So, if you have an iPod, you are out of luck. If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod. But then you have also degraded the sound quality. How cruel.
Y'know what? None of my MP3 collection has "degraded sound quality."
If any of the stores wanted to, they could easily sell me MP3's, which would go onto my iPod no problem. But they won't, because the RIAA still haven't wised up that consumers don't want their DRM crap.
No, now we get Hilary Rosen, mouthpiece of the RIAA for so long, whining about how "Apple" stops their songs from going onto the iPod rather than whining about how none of the stores are willing to sell a song in a format the iPod will take.
Give me a fucking break.
emusic.com has the best deal on REAL mp3s, and you can play them on an ipod or any other "MP3 player".
Don't be so naiive. Rosen is a professional shill. She's probably getting paid by Microsoft (since she namechecks them in her post) or whomever has the lack of wisdom to hire her to spin the iPod in a bad light in favor of "open" systems.
I guess she wasn't aware of the fact that there is an option in the iTunes menu which says "Convert selection to mp3," instantly making your AAC files into cross-platform mp3s. And she probably didn't realize her statement that "even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars" is invalidated by going to the Apple website and seeing that the base iPod shuffle costs $99.
Not that surprising, when you figure that the majority of Slashdot editors fall on the Democratic side of the fence...
Ms. Huffington went to great lengths to insist that she's commissioned a multitude of Democratic party aligned writers to contribute articles to her site.. There are 14 authors on the front page today, and we've got: Tips from Cronkite on how to fix the Democratic party, Sen Corzine blasting Bush on not supporing one of his bills, Huffington making fun of Tom Delay, Rep Markly criticizing the Bush administration over N.K. nukes, another critiquing Bush's foreign policy, a critique of the wildlife commission, a critique of the Republican religious base...
Not bad! Way to change minds and win friends!
I think my brain just died.
Then you're perfectly qualified to work for the RIAA.
It's Mr. Pot on line 2 and wishes to speak with you.
All of the other stores that she seems to be arguing for require Windows.
That's a monopoly. That's lock-in. Exactly what she's arguing against.
As a Mac owner, I won't be shopping at the alternatives any time soon.
These comments are made purely because good old Hilary has finally seen what a number here have noticed: Apple's potential to cut the RIAA members "out of the loop".
iPod's a market leader, as is iTunes. They RIAA have finally noticed that Apple own both the hardware and the portal to their customers - so what exactly do they need the RIAA for? "Content" - RIAA are just brokers for the market - marketing? Apple own the portal, they can push whatever they want to push....
Long term Apple can kill the RIAA, and that's her motivation.
You really must be blind not to see the idea behind this one.. She's pushing Microsoft WMA10 format. Simple as that.
WMA 10 has some nifty little features with it:
- Specifically designed such that *only* Microsoft approved devices can receive the music. They don't make the device themselves of course, they just sell licensing schemes.
- What do you think that whole "Plays For Sure" certification is all about? It's about the most restrictive DRM ever developed. A "Plays For Sure" device is certified to be capable of ERASING your music, by itself, if you don't reenable it every so often by connecting it to your computer. How do you think the new Napster-To-Go actually works?
She states it pretty clearly here, in fact:
If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod.
Exactly. You have to remove that violently horrible DRM in order for Microsoft's products to work on your iPod. Let's not forget that Microsoft WMA10 came out into a market where the iPod was king. They're not interested in compatibility, they're interested in owning the market by owning the format and controlling the devices and stores themselves that way.
I admit that Apple has been a bit stupid with regards to compatibility. Specifically breaking Real's Harmony software should have been beneath them.
However, if walmart.com wanted to sell AAC files, those AAC files would play on the iPod just fine. It plays un DRM-encumbered music like nobody's business.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Oh, and check out this quote from the article (on page 3):
"Hilary Rosen would prefer it if the world's youth didn't think she was hopelessly uncool. She has an iPod."
Interesting to note the article where she has an iPod is from February 2003, but her recent article (from TODAY) says she just got an iPod!!!!:
"The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap."
Hillary, you have been dismissed as a non-credible witness. and a moron.
The latest fad in american business and politics is to spread FUD like it's going out of style. In post 9/11 america, it works way too well, especially for a people who lost the ability to reason a long time ago, if they ever had it.
This may seem like an incredibly stupid thing to say, but in reality you just have to follow the money. The RIAA doesn't like the iTunes model because Apple has this segment of the market locked up real nice because their system works so well for 90% of the American public. With power comes control of the cash. If the RIAA tries to leverage itself against iTunes, the egomaniacal Jobs will push back, because he likes using his power.
Market power translates directly to money, for all those who don't understand why companies like Microsoft have $40 billion in the bank. Apple has a lot of say over what gets sold and for how much. Too much for the comfort of the RIAA.
Bottom line, The RIAA wants to chip away at iTunes' power and get more of it themselves. The more power they get, the more money they get. And Joe consumer will buy it because only those educated in the supply chain of music understand the details.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
If Apple controls the distribution of music then who does the RIAA represent? Apple becomes the music publisher. As Apple is not a member of the RIAA obviously this would be a problem. They want DRM management with fragmentation between services and without the inclusion of indy music. This creates "competition" and lets the Music Publishers pretend they still have a purpose.
Sure beats taking them to court.
To clarify, if you have an iPod (which plays mp3, wav, aac, and Apple's DRM aac version Fairplay.), you cannot download music from other websites like Wal-mart which uses the proprietary DRMed Windows format wma. So you want Apple to adopt somebody else's DRM?
Remember this simple fact: The standard default file format for 99% of all portable media players is mp3 not wma not Fairplay. Apple supports that default format. They will not support somebody else's format that is not the standard.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have a theory. Hillary Rosen at one time was the evil record executive we all love to hate. However, after being debated and berated by copyfighters she saw the light. However, she was still on the RIAA payroll and couldn't openly express her true opinions. I'm making an optimisted educated guess when I say she quit because she didn't agree with the position her employment forced her to take. Remember when she almost walked out the wrong door at that debate?
It seems rather likely considering that everything she said while she was in charge was evil and everything she has said since her resignation is singificantly more sane.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Ahh. Bless MS and their iPod bashing! Let us not forget gems such as, 'Let a professional make your next playlist.' and '...some come with extra accessories like high-quality headphones, a belt clip, or an armband. Because most of these features are included at no additional cost, make sure the device you choose is filled with these fun extras.'
i ces/flash.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/dev
I felt so much more educated after reading that! I wish my iPod had fun extras and I wish a professional would make my playlist for me because I miss adverts before, after and during my music!
If they would've let the stores sell MP3s from the start, we wouldn't be in this situation.
LordBodak's journal.
Apple actually aknowledges than when a person buys a song/album, they should be able to listen to it in their car, on the MP3 player (iPod of course), their computer, etc. No, they don't think you should be able to stand on a street corner and hand out copies to complete strangers. Apple's solution is actually that happy medium where music companies get money for online music downloads and consumers get music in a form that is convenient and easy to move around their different listening devices. So yes, the OP had a legitimate gripe and Hillary Rosen is just being moronic and trying to twist reality into something it isn't.
Space for rent, inquire within
That doesn't work for protected AACs...just AIFs and WAVs and other nonprotected files...
Now I'm not arguing that the RIAA is good or anything, and yes, it's just about money.
But arguing that Apples DRM in any way means "Gives you freedoms/etc at our expense" for RIAA, is the epitome of hypocrisy. It gives you exactly what freedom? The "freedom" to have exactly one choice of online music?
Apple _is_ using two products in a way that each keeps you pretty much locked into the other. Same as, you know, Microsoft loves to use its own products to enforce a monopoly.
In fact, _that_ is MS's monopoly. It's not just "waah, they're evil because they have money", it's that each product reinforces the other, as to (A) make it painful to break out of that vicious circle if you're already hooked, and (B) make it a painfully high entry barrier: if you want to compete with Windows you have to pretty much compete with all of them at the same time.
So why is it good and "freedom" when Apple does it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
In Future News today, the RIAA headquarters in sunny Washington, DC was completely destroyed when a large mass of irony accidentally fell off an aircraft and crashed into the building.
Rescue workers were quick to arrive at the scene, but surprisingly found no casualties.
"Apparently, the building was only staffed by vampires - bloodthirsty creatures who feed on the blood, sweat, and tears of the living - and they proved immune to the effects of such irony" said a broke-musician turned fireman that was among the first to arrive at the scene.
The irony broke free shortly after a Boeing-767 carrying lawyers to file papers against an entire sixth-grade class stopped at Ronald Reagan National Airport to take RIAA head Mitch Bainwol to a charity dinner for the school of the same children.
According to witnesses, the irony could be seen by bloody everyone; however, apparently it was not visible from within the RIAA headquarters itself. Washington DC mayor Anthony Williams has discussed potential legislation to force all employees of businesses within city limits to remove their blinders during working hours.
I'm you from the future! We have to finish our time machine before the Angels of Destruction find the portal!
The (Like Microsoft) was the clue for me.
The Reg covers it off.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/09/rosen_joke _jobs/
Still making payments on those Monster cables, eh?
Isn't this just an excuse to decouple iTunes from iPod so that the RIAA can charge more money? I read somewhere (here?) that Apple signed a fixed price deal with the RIAA back in the days before the iPod went Windows. This seems like a ploy to me to try to get out of that deal so that the music industry can charge more for music through other vendors...a practice made harder when Apple either prevents non-iTunes sold AAC files from working (through "upgrades") or charge a cost-prohibitive license fee.
Who is she kidding? She doesn't want our music to be free, she just wants it to be managed by someone who can charge more.
Everything in that article is a load of crap, "viruses of the pirate sites" what? iPod plays mp3's and thats pretty much the single most popular (lossy compressed) digital audio format on earth right now (not including audio CD's, DAT, MiniDisc and the like). If the most popular format on earth is not good enough for this woman then what the hell is? The absolute fact of the matter is a) ripping from CD is not hard and b) if you own the CD you are entitled to fire up a decent P2P client and type in the song/album name and see as it easily and speedily downloads, without a single virus in sight, and probably at a higher bit rate than iTunes etc.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The Register has an article stating that "What was billed as a mecca of famous, liberal commentators has turned out to be a satire site in the tradition of The Onion. Yep, Arianna has done it again and fooled us all.Kudos." http://www.theregister.com/2005/05/09/rosen_joke_j obs/
That's my take on it as well. The subtle message is that Microsoft used to be closed but is now open, while Apple is still closed.
Let's not forget that Microsoft WMA10 came out into a market where the iPod was king. They're not interested in compatibility, they're interested in owning the market by owning the format and controlling the devices and stores themselves that way.
Exactly. Hillary's assessment is particularly absurd given that you can save non-DRMed WMP files as AAC files. This is really all about which DRM format is going to win. Apple came to market with AAC/FairPlay and people liked it. They recognized that it was a compromise, but it was a reasonable one.
My feeling is that Apple should be doing everything it can to bring more players into the AAC/FairPlay camp, rather than just letting Microsoft draw everyone into the WMA 10 fold. But Microsoft doesn't give a gnat's ass about making things easier on consumers.
They're all for the "music as a subscription" model, because it's a perfect extension of their goal of divesting control from hardware manufacturers. Plus, if you never own the music you listen to, it's easy to keep charging you for it over, and over, and over. Any guess why a music industry flak likes the Microsoft approach better than the Apple approach?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's a humor site. Try reading some of the stories on the front page. The Register didn't fall for it. heh http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/09/rosen_joke _jobs/
But Britney Spears music a) is distributed virally, via TRL and b) eats your brain.
And who the hell is this Slashdot reader who reads the Huffington Post?
"DELIVERING NEWS AND OPINION SINCE MAY 9, 2005"
WOW!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
True, I had forgotten about that because I never buy from the iTunes Music Store (I believe it rips off the actual artists just as much as the RIAA). I do agree that those files should not be protected by unlockable DRM, and have said from the beginning that Apple is complicit in anti-consumer behavior regarding its Music Store. But hey, it's not like anyone is forced to use the iTunes Music Store in order to use your iPod. Apple doesn't limit you from loading on your own mp3s onto your iPod.
The biggest takeaway from her "blog" is that there is no takeaway. This is a PR piece pure and simple, and slashdot and other "news" outlets have played right into her hand (and whomever is paying her) by covering it as a real story.
Iduno, man. A couple people were confused by TFA because she mentioned her girlfriend, and they went all haywire, so I informed them.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
For ten thousand years culture has been the property of its society. People shared music to build their culture, in the same way that they shared stories and pictures. Till the last few hundred years or so when profit became more important than culture. In current Western society we do the same thing. Ever since the creation of blank tapes, and maybe before, teenagers copied music to share with their friends, to create their own cultural identity. When the majority of the people are engaged in this, but small but wealthy groups like the RIAA can control and alter our rights to do so, we no longer have the right to call ourselves a free democratic society. The whole DRM thing means now that we are often restricted from copying a CD we own to another format (MP3 or whatever) for our own personal use. That's 'our' music.
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
She is not complaining about DRM, she is complaining that Apple doesn't support Microsoft DRM. Why would they? They have the number one player and the number one service. Now if there was an Open DRM they might support that. But they are certainly not going to pay microsoft a licence fee for each IPOD.
Does anyone really think she is interested in using all these other music services. Or is she just acting as a paid mouth piece?
I wonder who is paying for her opinions these days.
My iPod also works perfectly fine with tracks I ripped from other people's CDs.
Cue RIAA lawyers in 5...4...Firstly, as has been mentioned many times, the ipod is able to play mp3s, so if other sites were prepared to sell them, there would be no problem. This is a no-brainer.
The second angle is IMO more important. Apple should licence the DRMd AAC spec, to allow other manufacturers to play music from ITMS. I know Apple doesn't *have* to do this, but I think we'd all be better off if they did. Also, it would quash some of the comments about their 'monopoly'...
assuming you're a fellow, how about i come over to your house and "share" your wife / partner?
Seriously I don't know how people can use this emotive and inappropriate analogy. It's used for the GPL too.
For fuck's sake: There is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between sharing copyrighted works and sharing someone's wife. One is copyright infringement, the other is adultery.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
not everyone who is against the RIAA supports music piracy. some of us are grown adults who just want things liek ot be able to get the music we want to buy and play it on any music player we own (much liek apprently hillary wants). we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes which restricts our fair use rights, costs us money, and in the end do next to nothing to stop the REAL pirates.
you wanna share my wife? that's a different story. let's talk about something that really is property? change that to a car. want to borrow my car? not likely. want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free.
as for the "laws" the RIAA is enforcing... in case you didnt' know.. they bought those laws, to serve their own interest. they took the original copyright laws, which were intended to give the artist a LIMITED time to recoupe some money from their work, then be contributed to the public domain and changed them so that the middle men, who have nothign to do with the creation or performign of the music make most of the the money. artists went broke long before P2P.. it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has.
i also contend that there would be no music if there were no copyright laws.. history proves otherwise. people who want to make music will make music. especially in this day and age, it's very easy for a small time artist to make music and get it distributed, even if he/she doesn't want to make any profit from it.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
no such thing as a 'happy medium' with drm. its thier scheme, not mine, no negotiation.
...we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes...
The RIAA as representatives of the multi-rich music companies DEMANDED that if Apple wanted to sell their music they would have to implement some sort of DRM. So Apple implemented some DRM and now that same person who demanded it complains about it. Before the iTunes store existed I remember the "rip, mix-burn" ads from Apple. Even now the constituents of the RIAA are implementing CDs with all sorts of (mostly useless) anti-copying (sharpiepen) technology! What a hypocrite!
All theory is gray
I had modpoints, but this is the best comment ever on slashdot. EVER.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
- The Constitution:
The foundations of the coutry already had it set in that arts and sciences were meant to enhance and enrich our culture, but creators had a limited time to recoupe their loses. the current system locks modern art from being able to be added to our public domain and enriching our culture.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
well, that might be what you intended, but what you said sounded different.
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. in some cases they are getting debt... lots of it, cause they end up owing more money for the millions of records they sold than they made.
it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING.
why do they automatically get nothing? musicians existed before and managed to make a living, at least the good ones did. even if you go back only 200+ years to the founging of this coutnry, they also believed that arts and science were meant to be part of the public domain, but the creator woudl still get a limited copyright to make money off his work, before it got absored into thepublic domain.
yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case i never said throw out the entire copyright system. i said get rid of the new laws that abuse the consumer and the artist alike. get rid of the industry that makes it's money by leechign off both ends of the music spectrum. so yes.. i DO rally for artists' rights and indipendant labels.
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
there are already laws in place, that don't get enforced.. why do i want to get MY use harmed by new laws that will do little to stop the pirates? the new laws and anti-cpying technology has proven to be able to stop no one, but has several cases of abuse... especially the DMCA.
let me sum up my stance again so you don't continue to argue against me on points that are not mine: 1) i am in favour of limited copyrights as per the original rules. a way to allow the creator of a work to recoupe for their for, for a limtied time, before beign part of the public domain 2) i am against new laws that do more consumer harm than protect the artists (eg. DMCA) 3) i am against an industry that abuses the very creators of the work they live off of, then claim to be protecting them. 4) i am against using government money to persecute criminals who's activity has never been proven to be harmful. i think that's a good summary for now.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
I have been downloading music from various free sites for months, and understand the concepts of finding files in folders and putting those files into places where my iPod looks. Ignorant cusomer chick....
Hilary Rosen complaining about the inconvenient side effects of DRM schemes is like Ted Kennedy complaining that his taxes are too high or John Ashcroft complaining that the government is poking into his private business.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
n the RIAA's perfect world, you and I would pay every time we listen to a song, on every device that could possibly play the song.
And ASCAP would charge you and your landlord everytime you decided to sing while taking a crap.
-- $G
Arianna Huffington has been putting this website together for some time now. Today is its first day of operation. I seriously doubt that a new venture like this would put up such an aggressive spoof--complete with accurate bio--on its first day of publication. It would be in serious trouble in its first twenty-four hours.
I know that Apple is far from perfect, but I have never seen the kind of vehemence against a particular product--the iPod--in my life. Every other article is "Is this the next iPod Killer?" and "When will the iPod lose its cool?" It would be different if the criticisms were grounded in reality, but sitres like C|Net whip Apple and the iPod like second-hand mules.
Reminds me of those scenes in The Godfather and The Sopranos where one mobster latches onto a sweet deal and the others are clamoring to let the fortunate one "wet their beaks" on the proceeds of that good fortune.
The iPod came out of left field, has kept coming, and parts of three or four industries are screaming "no fair!" Bitching is easier than innovating.
The part of the the article I didn't like was when she kept going on about the kettle being black.
.\.\att Clare
It would be beneficial for the RIAA and online sales of DRMed songs if all players could support all DRM formats. This is not the case currently. Currently it sucks that the DRMed songs you pay for today for one player may not work for another player you may buy in the future. An audio format that cannot be played by third party hardware is probably historically unprecedented. She puts the blame on Steve Jobs for not adding DRMed WMA support to iPods. She attempts to describe this as if it would be something great for consumers, but I think this is an exaggeration, since in the end it is the RIAA that has Intellectual Property rights and control to the songs.
She doesn't explain whether or not the problem goes both ways. I.e. non-Apple players (save the HP iPod clone) can't play DRMed AAC, just like Apple players can't play DRMed WMA. How much of the current situation is the result of companies' can'ts and how much of it is the result of companies' won'ts? Also, which format -- AAC vs WMA -- is more open?
It's there in black and white. "multiple (read Microsoft)"
She's actually complaining that some bastard has the audacity to come up with a file format which isn't open for Microsoft to copy.
The implication is that if iTunes dished out WMA, then she'd be happy, because MSFT are already bum-buddies with the RIAA. The rest is just whitewash.
It's been a long time since I last heard anyone complain that a system is too closed, because Microsoft don't have the license to use it.
I'm no fan of iTunes - it's still DRM'd music. I'd rather own a CD and the rights to the music on that CD - to play it in my car, at home, on my laptop, wherever I wish. Apple and Microsoft are apparently intent on denying these rights; from a PC speaker, MP3 will do okay for me. In the car, at home, I'll copy the CD, thank you.
I don't download music which I don't already own (unless the publisher allows it - eg www.slidepheromone.com) and I certainly don't pay to download music, as the only options are limited-rights downloads.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?
They do. They're called CDs. You still sell music on those, right?
You know, I've always been quick to jump on the Apple sucks bandwagon ever since they deep-sixed my first love, the Apple II, but in this case, I couldn't care less.
Who but iPod users could possibly give a shit about anything related to iPods? Don't like the way Apple runs it? Well, there are plenty of perfectly workable competitors. They largely lack the fashionability of the iPod, but they work just fine and many of them are cheaper. Go get one and quit griping. There are also plenty of legal ways to get digital music online other than iTunes, and some of them have large collections and competitive prices. Go use them.
Despite Apple's early lead, which will likely erode over time, this is one field where there is plenty of competition and consumer choice. What Rosen is bitching about, presumably on Microsoft's tab, is that everyone hasn't chosen Microsoft's lackluster offerings in this department.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I completely agree... and because simply laughing at it did not seem to do it proper justice, I actually went to the fridge and got a glass of milk, just to have something to snarf when I read it.
Thank you Rei.
If you read between the lines, what she's really complaining about is that Apple isn't bending over for the RIAA, so they're trying to discredit them and find someone who will (i.e., Microsoft). She's complaining that Apple won't use the RIAA's extra-restrictive DRM, which they want to be the standard instead of Apple's less restrictive (and already cracked) DRM.
Remember, just like the oracle in the Matrix, she doesn't speak the "truth," just what she wants you to hear. In this case, that's "abandon Apple." She's just using the false promise of freedom to twist people to her will.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
She's lobbying for market acceptance of DRM the RIAA can control -- apparently they're upset that Apple isn't dopping its pants and bending over for them enough.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Quite easily explained.
Rosen no longer works for the RIAA, therefore no longer gets all the free "demo" CD's.
Where then is Ms. Rosen to get her free music from?
P2P is the answer! But now she is upset that she can't play all of her "free" wma music on her iPod.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Hilary Rosen speaking out for consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics is like Jerry Falwell coming out in support of tolerance, understanding, and gay rights. She has to have been misquoted. There is no other possible explanation.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The implication is that if iTunes dished out WMA, then she'd be happy, because MSFT are already bum-buddies with the RIAA.
You also have to consider the fact that WMA is harder to break because it runs only on Windows and Microsoft has embedded Windows Media Player's DRM component (as of version 9) deeply in the kernel where it's much much harder to patch than iTunes, which is just an application.
This isn't really a problem, because it doesn't really matter whether DRM is breakable or not, because building a DRM that's really unbreakable is a fantasy. DRM can never be more than a token effort on any system that isn't embedded in epoxy from the data to the cortex, with a self-destruct charge wired into the data that'll go off if it thinks you're trying to break into it. Anything less can at the very least be intercepted between the metal and the meat.
And with the internet, once one person, anywhere in the world, has beaten the DRM... it's beaten everywhere. All DRM can do is slow things down. So stopping piracy isn't the real point to DRM. Now the people who push DRM may honestly believe it is, but it's not... it can't stop piracy. But... it DOES have an effect.
What DRM does is increase the control the people peddling the DRM have over the people using the end product. And control can ALWAYS be parleyed into money. DRM doesn't actually have to work to make this control possible, people just have to go along with the DRM. So, it just has to be strong enough that people go along with it, without being restrictive enough that people are forced to try and break it anyway. And iTunes seems to be doing a pretty good job of that, actually.
Anyway, the big problem for a lot of us who oppose DRM is not that it makes music cost a little more or be a little less convenient, it's that DRM depends on keeping a part of the system you sell to a user secret from the user you sell it to. To build a really strong DRM mechanism you really do need a tightly controlled proprietary system... an "open source" DRM is a contradiction in terms. In fact, even having a DRM plugin or component in an open-source application is impossible. Hell, even having openly documented hooks for the DRM module would render it irrelevant. Any place you let the user control what his own hardware and software are doing you provide a place to strip out the DRM. And putting that control in the hands of the user... not the vendor... is what Open Source and Open Systems are really all about.
Now, a little bit of openness isn't really a problem for the DRM advocates. After all, they started out by complaining about the impact of 'piracy' on a system that had no DRM at all. But over the years they have convinced themselves that it is.
And Microsoft's DRM is "better" than Apple's.
And that's why I don't want Apple using WMA, anywhere. I don't want the DRM pressure groups to push Apple to reduce their commitment to Open Source and Open Systems.
She can have music other than that from iTunes on her iPod. Its just that removing the DRM from those other legit music files obtained at other legal music distribution sites would be illegal.
Steve Jobs has little to do with what DRM systems other companies implement. No, the DMCA is more to blame here for causing this mess. The very act that she helped pass.
It is because (indirectly albeit) of her own actions that using music legitimately bought any way seen fit (ie. using it on more than just one brand specific MP3 player) is illegal.
The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap.
Isn't everything a girlfriend gives you a trap in some way or another?
MSN.com, Rhapsody.com, aolmusic.com, even walmart.com. There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks.
And I suppose you use one of these little $29 players and buy your music from Walmart.com, Hilary?
Most agree it is the best quality player on the market even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars
Why, yes they do.
I know Steve Jobs is a god.
I've got an altar in my bedroom, at which I sacrifice virgins daily. If Jobs is a God (hey, it nearly rhymes!) then it seems somewhat blasphemous to crticicize His music store on small technical details. Shouldn't the papers be screaming headlines that an actual, honest-to-Jobs deity is currently gracing this great green-and-gray Earth?
The iPod: Designed by God. Priced for mere mortals. Dare you resist?
Look, I bowed at his feet when the iPod and iTunes was created because HE GOT THE BALL ROLLING. He is as laconically casually cool as Bono and makes really good cartoon movies too
Of course! How could I be so stupid? I thought Jobs was a founder/CEO of a computer/software/electronics company, and recently the CEO of an animation studio. But I've been so blind! What really matter is that Jobs = Bono in the coolness stakes. Although to be fair, Jobs is also Keanu Reeves. After all, if he can be CEO of two wildly successful companies, then why can't he be two iconoclastic alternate-reality pop-media personae simultaneously? Of course he can, because Jobs is omnipotent.
But keeping the iTunes system a proprietary technology to prevent anyone from using multiple (read Microsoft) music systems is the most anti-consumer and user unfriendly thing any god can do.
Yes, Hilary read Microsoft. I know you do. Get paid, too.
Is this the same Jobs that railed for years about the Microsoft monopoly? Is taking a page out of their playbook the only way to have a successful business? If he isn't careful Bill Gates might just Betamax him while the crowds cheer him on.
Is being Betamaxed something like getting an Atomic Wedgie? That sounds painful, especially if done by someone named Bill.
Come on Steve - open it up.
As soon as you open your legs, sweetie.
... and then they built the supercollider.