Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protesting Apple's DRM

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the while-babies-starve dept.

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.)

8 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Yes it's DRM, but... by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Yes it's DRM, but... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?
      Because they believe that all DRM is bad. Maybe it doesn't seem so bad now, but once people are used to the "friendly" DRM, then the less and less friendly DRM will be more palatable, and pretty soon everything you do on a computer is controled by the "content providers", kinda like in this scenerio. I'm not sure if it'll get that bad, but a little DRM can go a long way.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    2. Re:Yes it's DRM, but... by Incongruity · · Score: 4, Insightful
      oh i see, DRM's fine so long as the software is easy to use... riiight..

      To a point, yes, actually. DRM is hated so much by many people because it makes software very difficult to use even when you're not doing anything that would violate anyone's rights. If someone could offer a mystical, magical DRM solution that never so much as made a peep unless the user was actually (and let's say blatantly) violating copyright and not protected by fair use exemptions, etc. etc. and it was 100% accurate, the only people who would care would be those who are breaking the copyright law (as to the validity/fairness of those laws, I'll leave that for another time...) because everyone else would not even know the DRM software was there... And that's almost what Apple's DRM software does. I've only been aware of it once and that was when I had made a few too many copies of one of my playlists that contained iTMS purchased songs (which I was, in fact, backing up (mmm hmm)).

      Now where Apple's DRM scheme fails the usability metric is in that music protected by it is unusable with other music players/systems -- that's a huge crimp in usability but at the moment it's mitigated by the fact that Apple makes the best (IMHO) portable players out there and they dominate the market so in practical terms, a minority of people are affected by this. Nevertheless, as I said, this does make Apple's DRM scheme fail my usability test and therefore it's short of that perfect ideal, of course.

  2. In the defense of Apple. by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Flash Protest? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, it can, but I sure hope that's not what they're planning.

  4. This is misdirected by therealking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. What is the point? by sakusha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Very stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What the FSF is trying to do is raise awareness of DRM and call attention to things that might lead more people to oppose DRM.

    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:
    1. A real issue
    2. One that precious few people are aware of, and there's precious little information available about even for the people who are aware
    3. 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?