Slashdot Mirror
Protesting Apple's DRM
tedet writes "On the heels of the recent DRM news from Bruce Perens, the UK Parliament, and the Norwegian Omsbudman, Defective By Design is planning a flash protest this coming Saturday targeting Apple Stores throughout the United States. Defective by Design is targeting Apple because '[a]s the largest distributor of DRM infected technology, Apple has set a new low in the mistreatment of our freedoms.' We can expect more hazmat suits, and they created some art specific to this action. Hopefully these direct actions by Defective by Design will get the U.S. up-to-speed with its continental counterparts." (Of course, some people are happy with Apple's DRM as a compromise which helped legitimize online music sales.)
It can hardly qualify as a flash protest if you announce it to the world days in advance.
Since Apple's implementation is the least obtrusive and most user friendly, does it make since to protest? Why not go after more draconian DRM?
No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
The problem's DRM, not Apple. Therefore, make sure you add Redmond to the flash mob as well, along with the various headquarters of the xxIA sites, etc.
Hopefully these direct actions by Defective by Design will get the U.S. up-to-speed with its continental counterparts.
Yes, a bunch of random people in hazmat suits passsing out flyers is really going to make a HUGE difference. Really!
Its obvious that this group complaining about Apples "number of copies" is making a point by not providing all the relevant information. As such their honest and integrity are questionable. Apple's number of copies only applies the number of times a specific playlist can be burned if that playlist contains protected music. Want to burn it again then make a new one.
Still its not like its hard to circumvent the DRM in iTunes. The easiest to understand for layman is to burn to music CD and rip back to MP3.
On the point of legally purchased. You enter a contract with Apple when you purchase a protected track. You don't have to buy it from them if you don't agree to their terms. Go buy the CD. DRM rules are not applied to items you RIP yourself as the agreement of that purchase did not involve Apple.
Now, should Apple decide to apply DRM rules to items not purchased through them, specifically CDs you own, then I can see a real reason to cry about it. My first action would be to not upgrade to such a version of iTunes and forever leave the service. My previously purchased music will still work fine, Apple will just be out a lot of customers until they change their tune.
As for the other services, you are not required to use them either. Don't like the idea of a subscription, then fine don't use one but why in the hell must you bitch about products you won't use because you don't like them? Do you just have to be a victim?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
IMO, apple has one of the least obtrusive DRM setups available. Sure the fact that it isn't open to other players makes things difficult, but compared to the rediculous systems the RIAA/MPAA has come up with, Apple's stuff is great.
j.goforth
It's a reasonable limitation. My only complaint about Apple has nothing to do with their DRM, but rather being locked into iTunes + iPod. If Microsoft did this, we'd scream bloody murder, monopology, technical hegemony, etc. Apple doing this is ok for whatever reason. Probably because their market share is paltry and when the underdog uses the overdog's tactics to score a victory, it's hard not to cheer. Anyway, I invite people who object to Apple's DRM to do so, and do so effectively, but if we send a message to the content cartels that even as generous a policy as Apple's isn't generous enough, I don't expect them to do anything but say, "fuck it" and crank it up. I suppose there's something to be said for not taking table scraps when you want the whole turkey and believe that you're entitled to it.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
i'm interested to see how they would set up a legal music downloading system with absolutely no DRM wrapper. also, does their language seem...well, a little orwellian?
from TFA:
"DRM gives them that power over you. Your devices will have to do their bidding. That is what DRM is about, taking the control away from you, and giving it to Big Media and companies like Apple. The hardware and software they sell you will enforce their rules, by removing your rights. As the largest distributor of DRM infected technology, Apple has set a new low in the mistreatment of our freedoms."
my sig is an honor student
... to call it DRM. It's pretty simple to get around, and it was obviously meant to be that way. Any time I buy things from the iTunes Store, I back it up to a CD for two reasons. One, so I have a back-up, and two, so I can use it in my car. Once you have it on a CD, you reimport it to your HD and, voila. You've set the music free. It's not only inexpensive, but also prudent. I'm sure lots of people know this, but it's obvious that some still don't and the bad press that results from it is unfortunate for Apple.
People should be blaming the record companies who wouldn't put their music up on the store unless Apple implemented some kind of DRM. And fairly weak DRM at that.
But nobody is forcing people to use the iTMS. If you don't like it, then just buy the CD which can be ripped and used in any device.
DRM exists because the RIAA wants it there. Apple is contractually bound to sell thier music with DRM on it. They can't just remove it at thier own discresion.
Go protest the RIAA membership companies, oh wait then you'd have to deal with the real problem. Nevermind.
Gadget News at Gizmo.com
If it wasn't for consumers (who are at least semi happy about it) then this wouldn't exist and its popularity is growing. If apple did want to sell music that was not DRM'ed the recording cartel of america wouldn't sell it to them (RIAA).
Is it possible apple is in a catch 22 here, they want to sell non DRM'ed stuff but the content cartels wouldn't dare let them ?
Apple's Fairplay DRM scheme is one of the best I've used. Apple allows you to make audio CDs and doesn't have a problem with file/image backup applications.
Do I wish Apple's DRM were better and less restrictive - you betcha! The price per song should be lower and with public disclosure of how much each party receives from each sale. The bitrate should also be higher to handle some more complex pieces of music. The number of CD burn times for each song should also be increased, not decreased. Video content should be able to be burned onto a standard and/or HD/BD DVD.
Too bad emusic cannot charge on per song basis; non-DRMed content is great (subscriptions suck).
If you want to protest, the usual method is by "voting with your feet." That doesn't mean marching in the streets, it means walking out and choosing another vendor. If you don't like iTunes DRM, then don't use it. Buy something else, like an unprotected CD and rip it yourself.
Well, I think we should note that a copy of Windows which can be installed on a machine other than the one it was purchased with costs an extra $100. So Apple isn't entirely alone in this practice; by far the majority of operating system software purchased is tied to a specific computer. Many people don't realize that it's illegal to move that OEM copy of Windows to a different machine but it is.
I'm not aware of any protections on any Apple hardware which prevent the installation of a non-Apple OS. Early Intel Macs came with an EFI-based firmware which Windows doesn't support, but that was a technical restriction, not a DRM one.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Take a look at the bottom of the defectivebydesign.com webpage:
DefectiveByDesign.org is a campaign of the Free Software Foundation Empowered by CivicActions.com Copyright © 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. Verbatim copying and distribution of site content permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.
That's right, there are restrictions to using the contents of their website!!! Doesn't matter how "friendly" these restrictions are, the very fact that there are restrictions is EVIL! Heck, I can't even modify their copyright block, that's right, there is content on their site that I can't modify! I suggest they send some guys in hazmat suits over to their own offices and start the cleanup pronto.
The problem is that Apple's unobtrusive approach to DRM is, by itself, the best argument for DRM one is likely to find, so by bringing this to everyone's attention the FSF is only hurting their own case. Those people who see that protest are going to walk away with that message "oh, so DRM is that thing that the iPod has. well the iPod's never kept me from doing anything I want to do, so I guess that means DRM isn't that bad". Then the next time they see something about an unambiguous abuse of DRM, the drm==ipod association the FSF created in their mind will rear up and they'll go "oh, but drm is just that thing the ipod has. surely this isn't that bad."
I was hoping the FSF would finally be the one to force the DRM problem into the consciousness of "normal america" but it's clear that no, the FSF still has no idea how people's minds work. I guess we can write this protest campaign off as ineffectual from here on out, and the best we can hope for is that it will manage to avoid hurting the digital freedom cause.
Why the heck isn't the FSF using their time protesting Apple to complain about and call attention to Apple's use of TPM/TCPA/Palladium in the new macs? That's:
- A real issue
- One that precious few people are aware of, and there's precious little information available about even for the people who are aware
- Irrelivant to trust of Apple-- Saying "but DRM lets Apple do terrible things to you later!" will get immediately brushed off as "oh, Apple wouldn't do that". But once TPM is present, it can be abused by anybody. You can get people to believe "TPM will let people do evil things to you later" without broaching the impossible task of convincing them "Apple is doing something evil to you now".
FSF, where is your brain?They are much more numerous than iTunes tracks, and are equally DRM restricted!
GPL Deconstructed
Protesting that a company selling a product that you are at liberty to buy (or not) is a restriction of your freedom has got to be just about the most bizarre thing I've heard since, well, at least 6am this morning.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
There are no such protections. In fact, Apple has provided a semi-official way of doing just that. The only reason why Windows doesn't natively boot on a Mac is because Macs use EFI, which Windows does not yet support.
Add in Parallels which provides virtualization support and you can have a machine that runs Mac OS X, Windows, any Linux distro, Solaris, OS/2, QNX, or damn near any other OS you can think of - without the need to reboot the machine.
Given that my Mac has nearly a dozen OSes installed on it through virtualization at the moment, it's clear that your argument is simply untrue.
I agree with you that DRM is an inherently bad technology, but I can't help but agree that the protests are better directed at more draconian schemes. The RIAA doesn't need Apple: should Apple pull out of the DRM game, the RIAA will simply move to stores with even worse models; God knows there are enough of those to keep the RIAA satisfied.
If the protests are to be truly effective, then they need to recognize that RIAA will always be as draconian as they possibly can. Thus, the protests should be focused to push RIAA to less draconian schemes than the status quo, not more. You don't do that by targeting moderates like Apple; you do it by targeting the more draconian stores. Then, as RIAA is forced to become accustomed to less draconian schemes (because the market won't stand for more draconian ones), you tighten the noose, continually pushing RIAA toward better schemes until you finally get them off of DRM completely.
Is this more difficult than simply targeting the largest vendor? Of course it is. It's also much slower. But it has a far lower chance of unintended consequences.
The bigger problem with this whole DRM mess is that consumers don't really understand what they're buying. They don't understand that Apple controls everything about what they can do with the content that they're buying. They don't know that they're giving up rights that they have always had in order to get music on to their iPod.
To answer the poster who said that this protest is misdirected and that it should be targetting the RIAA, if the RIAA had stores set up in malls that gather lots of foot traffic we might be targetting them as well. But like I said, it's not really about telling Apple that the process stinks, it's about telling consumers. This of course means that the main goal is to have the protest picked up by some mainstream media outlets (even small local newspapers and such).
The real problem is that the situation we have now is one where the law didn't fit the needs of big-media, so they made the technology work the way they wanted __in spite of the law__.
How cool would it be if there was a law that said it was illegal to create a copy protection mechanism that offered the copyright holder more rights than the law did. Since such a law will probably never exist the market is our only chance to change how the system works and that involves informing consumers.
Apple is very smart to keep there OS tied to their hardware. This is a big reason behind Apple stability. They can concentrate on supporting a small set of hardware and not worry about a thousand conflicting drivers. It's stupid that this argument never even came up when macs ran on power architecture. Stop thinking of Mac intel machines as the same thing as windows intel machines, they have components that are not the same. An Apple coreduo machine is not a dell coreduo machine evenif the processors are the same. This is out right false, as the guy who sits a couple desks down from me is right now running windows XP on his MacBook Pro.
Well it's a good thing they don't sell OS X for PC's Reatil isn't it? How exactly where you going to buy it anyway?
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
I'm pretty sure my high school debate teacher told me that, if I want to win an argument, I don't want to alienate the audience. By claiming that the software is "infected" you pretty much loose before you can make your pitch.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Some people are worried about DRM and Trusted Computing. Not because of what it is today but of what it might become in the future.
Examine your own words. You claim that Apples DRM is the obstrusive and user UN-friendly. Oh not as bad as others but what kind of recommondation is that? Sniffing pee ain't as bad as sniffing pure amonia. Do you want to clean my toilet?
Yes there are worse DRM at the moment but they are not a success. Apples is and while Steve Jobs at the moment is labelled as the saviour of consumers (I doubt it, this is Steve "Disney" Jobs we are talking about but that is another story) it is still very clear that the content owners are not happy with it and pressuring Apple to increase the DRM.
Is Apple really going to keep standing up to them. Is this the maximum level of DRM OR is this the famous baby step. Getting us used to DRM so that it can be slowly increased overtime until we have no rights left?
Lets not forget that BEFORE iTunes came along DRM was unacceptable. Now it is accepted by a lot of people. The first step has already been taken.
Yes a lot of this reeks of paranoia but the thing about paranoia is that it ain't real paranoia if they are really out to get you.
Not Apple perse (although again the disney link makes me doubtfull) but has the record industry found a usefull ally in Apple nonetheless? Not that they seem very gratefull but a lot of mankinds worse moments arrived through stupid coincedences and people thinking that for now the lesser of two evils is all for the best.
There are three camps in this battle. Those who believe that all DRM and Trusted Computing is a path to hell, those who believe it will be good and the saviour of mankind and those in the middle who just want their content. The problem is that the two extremes must be extremes. DRM and Trusted computing can't be half measurers. They require ABSOLUTES. In away Apples DRM is just a piss poor copy protection easily circumvented. For someting to be really DRM you must not be able to circumvent it.
So if you want to be in the middle good luck. You might find out that once you made that first step the next steps come a lot easier. Especially when billion dollar companies are tugging on your arms.
If Apple increases its drm, can you resist?
No reign of terror comes without a warning sign. The trick is to regonize the warning signs. Prophets and madman are good at it. The funny thing is that they are often the same person. They just go from madman to prophet after it is too late and we wonder why nobody said something before it all went to hell.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I have a pretty good understanding of DRM and yes, APPLE is the market leader in online (drm'd) music sales. However, this is all due to the trickle down effect created by groups like the RIAA.
No major label will sell drm-free music. Emusic, the number 2 online store sells mostly drm-free indie label and back catalog stuff b/c no major label will allow them to sell the next Britney Spears album without some alleged protection.. And- if they did allow this, it would cost a pretty penny.
Apple just happens to be the number one player in the market due to their success with the IPOD. The labels had online stores and failed in the past. Every legit apple competitor, outside of emusic, sells DRM'd files. I don't think this is by choice.
If you want change, you need to start with the source. THE RIAA. THE MPAA. They set the terms that allow Apple to sell their content.
If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
Thanks!
Kwame
Compared to what the RIAA/MPAA want to do to you Apple stuff is great. Right?
DRM is an absolute. iTunes DRM is not complete. Steve Jobs realized that for now this is the maximum he could get away with. Question is, is Steve Jobs going to lessen the DRM as the RIAA/MPAA smartens up OR is he going to increase the DRM as the public gets used to it.
What do you think? To invoke godwin, the consumer is poland during WW2. It doesn't really matter who wins the DRM war, poland is going to get it up the ass sooner or later.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In my mind, you show up at an Apple store dressed in a Hazmat suit and you are just begging to be mistaken for the Intel bunnysuit guys. Most people will probably see this and think it's advertising the new Intel chipped computers!
In fact that would be pretty hilarious, find some of the protesters outside the store and slap them on the back to let them know what a good job they are doing... with an Intel Inside sticker in hand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Most products you buy you are free to use them in anyway you see fit. With game consoles this is no longer the case. Wonder what will be next?
Apple sure didn't seem to like people hacking their OS to run on other hardware nor for that matter people hacking their hardware to run other OS'es.
Just because today you have a freedom don't count on it being there tomorrow unless you are willing to fight for it today.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, there's a difference. The "music industry" sure wants people to believe that they license music when they buy a CD, but they're just plain wrong and they don't have the evidence to back it up, because licensing simply does not occur in the retail transaction. The best argument they have (and it's pretty wacked out and dishonest) is that in states that have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, if one of the parties in a transaction thinks that there is a secret hidden contract that the other party doesn't know about, then maybe there really is a secret hidden contract that can be enforced. (Like I said, it's wacked out and dishonest.)
With customers of the iTunes Music Store, though, the contract actually is part of the transaction. Every user agrees to it it ***prior*** to any money exchanging hands, prior to having music data sent to them, and the contract is displayed in a manner that the user actually knows that it is happening. It really is part of the transaction and it's right out in the open where everyone can see it.
iTMS customers, unlike retail music and software customers, actually do license the stuff rather than buy it. And that's one of the reasons I think protests like this are a good thing: Apple really is implementing a business model that is completely new to most of their customers, which also happens to be strongly against the interests of those customers.
Apple is doing something very distasteful and threatening here, but it's not dishonest the way the rest of the music industry is trying to be.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Really good even. Somebody should tell these guys that you protest a corporation's actions by not doing business with them. Which obviously would mean not buying songs from iTunes. I'm not sure that not buying an ipod counts, most mp3 players support one drm format or another these days.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The protest is there to get people asking "what is this DRM thing?" and to bring about awareness of DRM. Most people don't realise it exists yet, or if they have been obstructed by it, they assumed the problem was something of a technical nature as opposed to something that Apple did on purpose.
Buying other DRM products is a stupid way of "getting back at Apple".
"There is no way to officially pull music you put on your own iPod off" ...and once I open a can of beer, there is no way for me to unopen it. Should I be upset with the good people at Sprecher about this?
"You have to use their software to work with the iPod."
"Can't use iTunes to browse and listen to music on my iPod. Ok I admit, I don't have a big enough hard drive to hold all the music CDs I own and ripped." ...and if you just picked up your shiny new iPod and were surprised by this, you can take it back for a refund. Maybe Apple should have personally consulted with you about what features to put in iPod/iTunes and developed an "AC" version for you. In the real world, that just isn't likely I like to play Grand Theft Auto, but it doesn't work on my hardware. If GTA was really the most important requirement for me, I would have bought a PC instead of a Powerbook.
"Yep, so if it wasn't for the solution on the Apple website," ...So you are using the iPod as an expensive external drive, you had a problem, the Apple web site provided a solution. I don't see the iPod really being marketed as a external hard drive, and at $300 for 30 GB, it's easily 4 times the cost for 1/3 the storage of storage solutions built for that purpose.
It really sounds like the iPod isn't right for you. Fortunately you have a lot of choices other than iPod, or perhaps ipodlinux.org if you really must have the iPod hardware. Instead of whining about Apple's DRM and your puny hard drive, return that iPod and spend $50 on a larger drive. Outside your return period? Right now on Ebay bidding is up to $44 for a broken iPod. Surely a working iPod will fetch enough to get a decent hard drive and maybe an audio player more aligned with your needs. As far as I know, there isn't a law that requires you to buy an iPod. Next time you are in the market to purchase something, do a little more work researching the capabilities before you make your purchase.
Since Mr. Guillotine's implementation is the least painful and most user friendly, does it make sense to protest? Why not go after more draconian execution methods?
I didn't realize consumers were happy about DRM. Can you please point me to the polls that show the average consumer knows what DRM is and is happy about it? I must have missed them.
DRM is something in software or hardware that attempts to restrict something, usually copying. That said, There is no DRM on this website. PROTIP: highlight some of the text and/or images and then right-click. I'm rather certain one of the menu entries is named "copy".
The statement about verbatim copying is the opposite of a restriction. It is a blanket allowance to copy the page, provided you copy it in whole and preserve the copyright notice. It has nothing to do with DRM, and is the opposite of what DRM is designed to do.
Seriously, the more I read slashdot, the more I realize people have no reading comprehension whatsoever.
I'm a big Apple fan, but I'm strongly against this DRM.
I bought some tracks from the iTMS. Before a trip to South Africa, I dumped them to my laptop because I figured my dad would get a kick out of hearing them.
9000KMs from home with no 'net access, I realised I had forgotten to ask Apple for permission to play the audio that I had bought from them on the specific device I was taking with me. I hadn't authorised those tracks for my laptop.
Sure, I paid for the bits with real money, but because I forgot to ask for permission to use them on two computers instead of one, I was screwed.
That was the first and last purchase I made from iTMS.
There's actually a couple of good things about Apple's DRM.
Here's two HUGE advantages of having Apple in the DRM market that more than make up for all the disadvantages of FairPlay.
1. Competition in the DRM marketplace is good for consumers, because the more complex and difficult DRM is to use, the less acceptable people will find it. I like the fact that I have to jump through extra hoops to unlock my music to play on a generic player, because if it's extra work for a geek it means it's a lot of extra work for a typical user... so they won't be inclined to put up with it. If they used Microsoft's DRM and everything Just Worked, then people would ignore it the way they ignore the DRM on DVDs.
Protesting Apple's DRM plays into the hands of the Intellectual Property Misers. Protest PlaysForSure instead, because if Apple actually caves in that'll be the only alternative... and with everyone using it it'll be invisible and surprisingly easy. And easy DRM is a boot stamping on a music-lover's face, forever.
2. Apple's DRM is practically "honor system". They even ran ads telling you how to bypass it, if you paid attention when they were telling you to "Rip Mix Burn". Just change the order... "Mix Burn Rip". And if that's not good enough don't forget that they have no Microsoftian "Trusted Audio Path", so you can use Wiretap on the Mac or equivalent programs on Windows to save the cost of a CDR. And to top it all off, iTunes Music Store downloads the file in unencrypted format and encrypts it when you download it...
Protesting Apple's DRM plays into the hands of the Intellectual Property Misers. Protest PlaysForSure instead, because it's more effective. And effective DRM is a boot... you know the drill...
That was the first and last purchase I made from iTMS.
THAT is how you protest DRM!
Seems like these guys want to hang around Apple stores and bitch to every customer who walks in trying to buy an iPod.
Well, they may not be lying. They may be terminally clueless. Nobody who's even just been following the debate could have missed this stuff:
They claimed that Apple limits the number of copies you can make of a song. That's not true, you can burn as many copies of a song as you want. You just have to make a new playlist now and then (which is pretty easy, it's about 3 clicks and a drag).
They claimed that Apple was the biggest distributor of DRM in the world. Not even close. Microsoft beats them hollow, and the DVD industry makes both look like small potatoes.
In other words, you are acting like a corporate whore. You don't care about the real issues, you just care about getting attention, and the most foot traffic. Nice one.
... and then they built the supercollider.
They don't know that they're giving up rights that they have always had in order to get music on to their iPod.
If I buy a song from the iTMS and burn it to an audio CD, I can do anything with it I could do with the same song bought on an audio CD from the nearest music store.
What rights am I giving up?
It's not like I bought a DVD from France and wanted to play it on my DVD player in the US.
if the RIAA had stores set up in malls that gather lots of foot traffic we might be targetting them as well.
Every bookstore and video store is selling encrypted DRMed DVDs. They just don't happen to be inconvenient for you, I guess.
How cool would it be if there was a law that said it was illegal to create a copy protection mechanism that offered the copyright holder more rights than the law did.
Wow. A law that would keep me from encrypting my own personal documents on my own computer.
Protests are always about getting attention. The whole point is to get your message heard. Your reply has a few logic errors in it. One, I'm not acting like a _corporate_ whore because this I'm not catering to a corporation. Maybe I'm acting like a media whore or something, but that's the point. And, I _do_ care about the real issues because I'm trying to get attention brought to them. It's not like Apple is going to rip DRM out of their products because a dozen guys in haz-mat suits walked past their store. They would only remove it if customers demanded products without it. It's a long shot, but trying something is better than sitting around in my undies eating cheez doodles, right?
Correct me if I am wrong...but shouldn't they be protesting the record companies. Isn't the DRM Apple applies to iTunes tracks one of the things Apple had to agree to to get the record companies on board with the initial launch of iTunes?
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."