EMI Says Its DRM Will Support The iPod

mbelly writes "Ars Technica has an article about EMI saying that its copy-protected discs will play nicely with the iPod. Problem is, nobody told Apple." From the article: "With the popularity of the iPod, being able to provide copy-protected discs with out-of-the-jewel-box support for Apple's digital music player has been something of a holy grail for the record industry. Macrovision, the company responsible for the copy protection mechanism used on a number of discs, made the claim last year that Apple was about to license FairPlay and that it would provide iPod during 4Q 2004. So far, Macrovision has failed to make good on its claim, and the record labels are left with angry customers who purchase albums only to discover they cannot play the music on their iPods."

Comments

Here is a thought

[Shivetya]

What if EMI is testing the waters? What if they are having this technology developed as a means to market to iPod users? The reason would be simple, they intend to go ahead and jack the wholesale rate for songs setting values based on popularity. Then should Apple not go along with it they can tell consumers that they don't need iTunes to get THEIR music that mean old Apple isn't letting them have.

So bascially, develop a method to get your music on the most popular MP3 player DRM protected with Apple out of the loop. Perhaps an attempt to force Apple to accept the new pricing scheme? EMI could be the frontman with the other studios quietly awaiting the outcome. I fully expect that if they get this to work that Apple will have to try to stop it. If they do get it to work and Apple doesn't agree to the new pricing I expect other companies to join in.

The only reason I suspect this is that iTunes has taken away the control they crave. I don't think they would stop at anything to get it back either. If it means "blackmailing" Apple with a working circumvention then I suspect they will float it.

Don't mess with Jobs

[kherr]

EMI is really looking to irritate Steve Jobs, aren't they? Trying to negotiate through the press isn't going to endear them to Apple, I don't think.

1) It seems very unlikely Apple would support anyone else's DRM. FairPlay does what they want.
2) Apple doesn't pre-announce what they're working on.
3) Partners who divulge projects with Apple before they're announced can expect public humiliation from Steve Jobs. Remember ATI?

As far as "supporting" DRM-crippled pseudo-CDs, all Apple has to do is have iTunes ripping ignore everything except the audio tracks on the discs. These beasts ultimately have to have standard music tracks on them to work in music-only CD players. We've seen how successful special-format stuff like SACD and DVD music has been (not very). Even with better quality the penetration into the marketplace for players just isn't there.

I wonder if Apple's TPM on their Intel platform may have a use of keeping evil music companies from hacking up Mac OS X when you insert a CD? That'd be a sweet irony.

Re:I don't understand the issue

[Guspaz]

Exactly. And guess what? There has yet to be invented a CD that cannot be ripped via one mechanism or another. Exact Audio Copy tends to rip CD's protected by security-through-damage DRM, and the old analog method works for ANY CD.

And guess what? If I was presented with a CD that had Apple's DRM on it, guess what, I'd rip it myself before putting it on my iPod. Because if I own the damned CD, I don't want the music on my iPod encrypted.

I still support FairPlay on iTunes though, because it's Apple's store and they can do whatever they want (there are other places to get the music legally), and because it is the only way that that the music industry is going to permit their stuff to be sold online. I mean, I'd PREFER that iTunes didn't use DRM, but in its case I understand and accept it.

CDs, though, had better not have DRM.

Effectiveness of copy protection

[frostilicus2]

I struggle to see the effectiveness of DRM of this kind - if I can listen to the track on my hi-fi I can connect my sound card to line out consequently rip the track and place it on p2p. There may a little additional noise on the track, but if you're willing to listen to an mp3, you probably wont mind :). If I can listen to the track on my mac, I can use wiretap to capture the audio and convert it to the format of my choice. The time consuming nature of these procedures may stop many casual users from uploading p2p files, but for a popular track (the sort that the record labels are trying to protect) we can expect at least one person to be suitably determined rip the track in these ways, place it on p2p and then wide spread swapping will begin...

please correct me if I have misunderstood the nature of this problem