Slashdot Mirror
Apple's DRM Is Bad For Consumers and Business
BoredStiff writes "Cory Doctorow, noted sci-fi writer and Boing Boing editor, marshals a strong argument against digital rights management in a recent InformationWeek article. His assertion is that there's no good DRM and that Apple's copy-protection technology makes media companies into its servants. Other copy-protection technologies, like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, are just as bad."
I'm so friggin' tired of his blathering on this subject. Apple's DRM has done more for the availability of music on the internets than anything except bittorrent. If it wasn't for Jobs having the cojones to square off against the music and movie congloms we'd all be renting our music by now. Without DRM iTunes would be eMusic.
The guy needs to try a spell in the real world.
And his novels SUCK. No wonder he has no need for DRM.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
re:"t Apple's copy-protection technology makes media companies into its servants"
Wasn't this the protection scheme that the media industry demanded over it's content before providing licesens for distribution - hence it's NOT Apple's? And if it's not Apple's - are you actually claiming that the media companies are making servants of themselves?
I buy the CDs and rip them.
No restrictions, no problem.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
"...Apple's copy-protection technology makes media companies into its servants..." ...and Apple would have a problem with this why? Don't they want EVERYONE to be their servent?
The irony is that it was the media companies who gave Apple this power, by mandating DRM.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Don't buy the music through the iTunes store. It's really that simple. Buy it from another service, buy the physical CD, even pirate it, whatever. You don't have the right to complain about DRM if you buy products that implement it when so many other services are available.
Unless you disable your ability to listen to the "borrowed" tunes for the duration, ethically, that is stealing.
Without Apple's DRM it'd all be "plays4sure" by now.
Which is stronger than Apple's "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" honor system DRM, and (since it's all under Microsoft's eye) has the potential of becoming as invisible and ubiquitous as DVD encryption.
Competition from Apple makes sure that DRM remains fragmented, difficult, and ineffective. And that's good for consumers even if they don't think so right now...
Putting aside your friend's sex change in the middle of this conversation -- what "rights and freedoms" are involved in not being able to "borrow" copyrighted music?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
DRM is bad for business: True, unless you are the winner of the DRM lottery being the distributor of the DRM everyone is actually using. It creates a moat which makes it really hard to compete against. The deal is that there was an unwritten pact bewteen the music industry and Microsoft that the people sitting in luxury behind that DRM moat was supposed to be Microsoft.
So DRM worked just as intented inthe effect it had, it's just that the "wrong" company currently benefits from it.
Consumers: Actually they are better served than it would appear at first glance. Sure right now consumers have a harder time switching away from ITMS than they would have otherwise without DRM. But you have to consider the alternatives:
1) Someone else holds the DRM (say Microsoft). Do any of you think that prices would be lower or terms MORE lienient if anyone but Apple had a stranglehold on DRM? Think back on the no-burn restrictions of early online music stores. Given that, the Apple system is about the best (for the consumer) DRM system we could hope to see.
2) No DRM in place at all. An ideal world, that studios will not buy into - so this is the equivilent of saying there would be no major online music stores. Well what's the difference between that world and the one we have right now? I can still download songs via P2P if I like, or buy from eMusic (which I am a subscriber of). The only difference is that I can also "buy" songs with slightly more encumberance from Apple if I choose. It does not really reduce the choices that would exist if DRM did not exist, it only adds to them.
Furthermore, Apple's lock on digital music distribution can possibly lead to the desired end-state of large music companies distributing msuic free of DRM. It's the only way a music company has of avoiding Apple store fees by going direct to the consumer with a format that will still work with the iPod. Here, see Barenaked Ladies and other Canadian artists. I can also buy those songs on ITMS but I can buy plain MP3 (or even FLAC) BNL songs and concerts from thier site. In theory bands being successful with this approach along with the music companies desire to get out from under the thumb of APple to try thier own "creative" pricing models could drive studios to non-DRM formats sooner rather than later.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
what "rights and freedoms" are involved in not being able to "borrow" copyrighted music?
The same as those involved in taking a book out of the library. Publishers put up a big stink about that too. Come to think of it, they've never ceased at looking for ways to subvert that. Someday they might succeed, say with ebooks, DRM and the DMCA.
KFG
We can thank all of the "but it's only a LITTLE DRM" users too. Now, DRM is on the rise and in the future you will not be able to obtain any mainstream music (IE, anything other than crappy folk) that is not rife with copy protection.
This situation may have been inevitable (then again, I think it may not, too), but the apple zealots certainly helped push it along.
There's a time and a place for fanatacism; four years ago was that time, DRM was that place.
Thanks for selling us all down the river, Jobs!
What will happen when Apple goes bankrupt? Or when the next generation of mini-players comes out with a new DRM?
.mp3 file - almost perfect, but no good for distribution - at least not if the publisher wanted to make money.
Either the files revert to their original rights holders (the record publisher) or, if it worth their while, some other company will quickly buy the rights to the DRM'ed tracks and handle the business.
I love this alarmist screaming - Doctorow's really got himself convinced that all it would take is Apple's demise to screw everyone who ever bought songs from the TMS. He didn't bother to do any research, but instead decided to scream from the rooftops about how bad the coming dark age of digital rights management will be.
In the old days, the physical medium was the DRM.
Then, consumers started demanding smaller and better sonic reproduction.
Then came the
Now, we have iTMS, windows media, etc. ad infinitium. Arguably, iTMS does a really good job - and I have a hard time believing no one would buy the iTMS IP if Apple were to suddenly go out of business. (Think about it, Cory - would the labels have let Apple run with this whole music store idea if they were the slightest bit afraid of the lawsuits that would results from a defunct iTMS?)
Doctorow either hasn't thought this through or more likely has let the more hysterical elements of the Anti-DRM crowd pollute his normally well-oiled brain with "what ifs" and half-truths. The real truth is that DRM is here to stay in one form or another, and with sufficient consumer protection laws, there will always be recourse against businesses who try to leave consumer holding the bag - but unfortunately, gutting consumer protection laws in deference to "out of control" lawsuits (which will be the next thing to get legislated out of existence) seems to be the political course lately.
Locked into iTunes? I just left Borders where I could not stomach $18.99 for a new release. On the way out, I saw a Pink Floyd Album for $14.99 (not The Wall). I can buy them for $9.99 on iTunes, and despite what you say, I can put it on up to 5 computers AT A TIME, and can burn/copy it as often as I like, and if I choose to break the law, I can share it by burning a CD and giving it away. Oh yes, the recipient will have to re-rip, giving them lesser quality, but forgive me if I don't feel bad for those that steal having inferior recordings. And why is Apple getting stung here? It's not like they want to invest money in DRMs. It's the labels that demanded it. keytohwy *and that you can't share it, or copy it, or use it on a different computer." People, and the information they rely and enjoy, desire true freedom.*
Apple didn't invent DRM. They're not the only ones who use it. Then this topic belongs on the Main section. "DRM is bad for--" I'm in absolute agreement.
>Last time I checked buying commerical music was neither a right nor a freedom.
The freedom to do what you want with something which you have paid money for is a fundamental right.
Don't settle for less, ever.
I wonder - wouldn't fair-use rights of the media follow you for the duration of the rental? For instance, I have the right to skip from chapter to chapter, pause, rewind - basically time-shift any part of the movie. I have the right to play with any included interactive content on my PC during that time period (not that I would, mind you...) etc.
Sure, the rights we're talking about are ones that don't make much sense for a one week rental, but while in possession of content that I've rented, am I afforded the same rights that I would have if I owned the DVD/CD/whatever, during the rental period?
Also, if I rent a movie that installs DRM on my PC (ex: Sony rootkit) does the company's right to enforce such DRM end at the end of my rental period?
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Err... why single out Apple? They have the most fair DRM sceheme I've ever witnessed (not that that is saying a lot). If someone is going to get all up in arms about DRM, let's take a look at some of the major DRM players. Microsoft, Sony, for example...
My biggest problem with DRM is that, if I shell out the money for their product, I should be able to do pretty much whatever the hell I want with it after that as long as I'm not making money off it. Whether or not I should care if what I'm doing is 'costing the company money' is debateable, because the legality of that has not been fully dredged out.
It's already annoying that I can only change the region encoding on my laptop DVD drive a limited number of times. I can't think of any logical reasoning behind that besides trying to pigeon-hole me into a market segment. How is that good for me as the consumer? "The more you tighten your grip, the more starsystems will slip through your fingers." It's true here, as well. IMHO, the more ridiculous restrictions goverments/corporations put on media via DRM, the stronger (and likely, smarter) the piracy movement will become, because people will no longer want to deal with it. And I'd say downloading an mp3 or ripping a rented DVD arguably falls under the domain of civil disobedience.
As far as mp3's in particular go, why should I pay roughly the same price for compressed, often proprietary audio as I'm paying for unadulterated WAV files on a CD that also include cover art and liner notes? Wired had it right a few years ago: slash the prices on mp3's and they'll make it up in volume.
Putting the 33k in G33k.
"The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product, so many people look elsewhere to get the things they want..."
No, the problem is that everyone and his brother has their own definition of what constitutes a "fair" price. As your "$20" statement illustrates.
For most things that wouldn't be an issue, as if you think the price for some product is unfair you simply do without it or buy something else. It's not like you're going to die without the lastest piece of junk from 50-Cent. But here, when people decide the price is "unfair" they think they're entitled to it anyway. Back to your statement, why would you buy music from an artist you don't care much for? On the flip side, if you don't care for them, why steal (your word) their music and waste your time in the first place?
Voting with your dollars is one thing. Stealing quite another.
Finally, why should they trust you? You've just clearly stated that anytime you think the terms of the agreement is "unfair" you're going to break it. Where's the "trust" in that?
What if I think it's worth a buck and you think it's worth a quarter? Or if they drop the price of a track to a quarter, and you think a tune by an artist you don't care for is only worth a nickel. In either case are you now justified in stealing whatever you want yet again?
There are quite a few worthwhile arguments out there. Yours, however, isn't one of them...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Do have an honest counter argument or is insulting him the best you can come up with?
If it weren't for Apple, Creative Labs or Sony or Microsoft would be the #1 DRM'd music vendor, and we'd be bitching about their implementation instead. And the honest ones among us who dislike DRM no matter who makes it will still be doing what we have always done, buy our music from cool non-DRM'd labels and occasionally in that old fashioned "CD" format.
How about the right to sell something that you own?
It seems pretty obvious to me. If you bought a CD, you'd expect to be able to sell it. In fact, if you look around, you'll see there are all of these "used CD" stores where they actually do this. Borrowing something is directly equivalent to buying something at zero cost, then selling it back at zero cost.
DRM is an attempt to subvert ownership; the media companies want to pretend to sell things to us, while they are actually renting something with a built-in self-destruct device.
This is fraudulent at its best, and when it's supported by the force of the law (DMCA), it is a blatant violation of the freedoms of individual humans -- in favor of the monied owners of our Congressmen.
Years ago one of my programs was selected by PC Magazine as one of their top 5 freeware/shareware utilities for that year. I made mine fully functional, donations appreciated. I got three, ever. But I regularly ran into people who used it all the time and even recognized my name and gushed about it when introduced to me, plus it wound up on all sorts of those utility discs you used to be able to buy for $5 at computer shows, without me ever being contacted by the CD publishers or the users. I never made a big deal about it, but it did tell me a lot about people.
Perhaps people need not be forced to do the right thing, but if not at least actively propelled and urged, evidence is they won't.
Excuse me for going offtopic, it's not normally something I do.
/. at -1 for when I moderate so I tend to see a lot of this... what is the obsession? On the rare occaision I see a decent first post, the poster isn't screaming 'w00t w00t i gt fpst!' he is actually commenting on the article...
What is the obsession with first post? Do you think it makes you look cool? It always intrigues me to surf
So I ask you, in a legitimate non-flaming manner: What is your obsession with first post? And why do a lot of you feel the need to post as an AC?
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Recently a non-techie friend asked me if his ipod could "talk" to my Zen Mirco:M so he could borrow some music for a few days. I said "sure, they are just mp3s" - she wanted to know how that was possible...that it was so easy to copy and duplicate a file back and forth from my computer to my music device without any hassles...and after our discussion, she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM.
Nowhere in this incoherent story have you indicated what the actual "problem" was. On the one hand, you're saying that you were trying to connect an iPod to a Zen. The reason that wouldn't work has nothing to do with DRM. Also, you seem to be implying that you can't play MP3s on an iPod, which isn't true and wouldn't have anything to do with DRM if it was. Or maybe you mean to say that you were trying to copy music from the iPod to your Zen. That wouldn't work even without DRM, because the Zen can't play AAC.
Many other people are waking up to the fact that DRM is shorthand for "you really don't own this piece of music you paid $1 for, and that you can't share it, or copy it, or use it on a different computer."
In the case of iTunes DRM, none of those statements are true.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Ironically, all of your exaggerated and extreme examples only come into play when you do things which adversely affect someone else. IE causing pollution which drives down your neighbors property, fire a weapon which can maim or kill someone else or engaging in fraud which damages the income and reputation of someone else.
At the end of the day I'm allowed to do what I want with my property, but I'm held responsible for the mis use (ie, printing up a gazillon copies and selling them on ebay) of it as well.
So, that said; the freedom to do what you want with something which you have paid money for is a fundamental right. Period. That does not release you from accepting responsibility for your mis-use of what you do with it; but if you don't have the freedom to misuse it, you don't really own it.
Ownership -property rights- is the cornerstone of a free country.
The current climate is eroding the concept of personal property through the means of limited use/rental (you rent -not own- the films and music you download, in the future you will rent -not own- the copy of Windows you operate) as well as eroding the already-established concept of fair use and ownership.
This is a condition to be resisted; not embraced.
The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product, so many people look elsewhere to get the things they want.
The fact that you, personally, do not want to pay a particular price does not make it unfair.
I would rather steal the music and send the artist a dollar or two.
What about the producer? What about the recording engineer? What about all of the other people involved in creating the recording that you've just stolen? Do they not deserve to be compensated for their work?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Thanks for the great example. Look at the p2p track data for a popular release (e.g. from BigChampagne), and then total up the sales figures for that album and singles combined across all legitimate formats (CD, iTunes, Napster, etc.). When I've done this, the data shows that many more people pirate than purchase. Surprise, but people are not inherently honest, they'll take free if it's easy and they don't think they'll get caught. There needs to be both a carrot and a stick.
So what?!
What our society seems to have forgotten is that the publisher does not have a God-given right to make money! If technology has evolved beyond the need for publishers -- and it has -- then publishers should be abolished, and good riddance to them! If they can't make their business model work without abusing the law, then they deserve to die.
We, as a society, will be much better off if we remember this fact, and the sooner the better!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Indeed.
The real justification for copyright infringment has nothing to do with price. Instead, it originates from the fact that copyright was originally designed as a social contract for the purpose of benefiting society (that's what the "to Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" part of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution means). Because the music publishers have already violated the social contract (in a variety of ways: using DRM, lobbying to have copyright extended way beyond any socially-beneficial length, etc.), we, as citizens, no longer have any obligation to hold up ours.
And before anyone says it*, no, copyright violation isn't stealing. It can't be, because ideas are not property, and the music never belonged to the publishers -- or the artists -- to begin with. Ideas inherently belong to society (as is obvious to demonstrate: what would happen without copyright law?); we're merely taking back what's rightfully ours.
*shmico: I'm aware that you didn't say it; in fact, thank you very much for putting it in quotes like that"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It isn't Apple which imposes DRM. It's the content creators. It's the same way with Blu-Ray. The studios won't release anything unless they're certain the DRM works. The only advantage gained by Apple is the ability to lock out competing players by controlling access to the DRM. That's why Blu-Ray players won't go down in price the way DVD players did.
What happens when the copyright expires, as the Constitution demands it ultimately must? Will the DRM magically evaporate? Or will it impair people from doing anything they like with the then-public domain work?
This alone is reason enough to get rid of DRM to the fullest extent we can.
There are other problems with it, though. For example, copyright does not prevent people from conveying lawfully made copies of works. But iTMS DRM interferes with this, since the work is not usable by the second purchaser. Copyright law is meant to serve the public interest. Why should the public tolerate mere authors and publishers interfering in this, twisting and warping matters for their own desires? Why shouldn't the default rules be the only rules, at least in ordinary consumer transactions?
Copyright deals with the big picture, over the long term. You're thinking too small. Think big, and the problems that make DRM inherently unacceptable become plain as day.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If I give you property, I don't have it anymore. My wealth has decreased; yours has increased; the net difference is zero. If I give you an idea, I still have it. My wealth has stayed the same; yours has increased; the net gain is 100%. Ideas aren't property and they can't be property. By failing to realize that fact we are only hurting ourselves. It's as simple as that.
Music isn't an "idea." It is the result of creative effort on the part of artists who provide a service - the creation and performance of music - as well as that of a host of technical people and business people (sound engineers, marketeers, etc. etc.). They provide consumers with a service and have every right to compensation for that service, just as if they were performing their music live.
You are an apologist for thievery. You just mock virtue when you try to make your greed look like something it isn't with specious arguments. It's as simple as this: you're a cheap bastard who wants something for nothing at the expense of others.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
Why does the copyright need to expire before people can do anything they like with the work?
It's possible you're misunderstanding me slightly due to my wording. I don't mean 'anything' in the sense of 'not nothing,' but instead in the sense of 'everything under the sun.'
When the work enters the public domain, there are no more copyright-related restrictions on the work. I can do literally anything I wish with the work, including simply making and selling copies. It is true, though, that prior to the copyright expiring, that I can do some things with the work. But not absolutely anything; I'm limited then.
You can already burn to CD and reimport into a lossless format
Why should I tolerate such a deliberate pain in the ass? Why is it in my interests to protect people when they try to make my life difficult by throwing obstacles at me? Especially as they may be insurmountable, since not all DRM is implemented like Apple's.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Lossless? What iTMS are you using? Last I was aware, every song in their multi-million-strong library was available at 128Kbps, no more, no less. Far from lossless, which (at least in my experience) tends to hover around the 750Kbps mark. IANAL, but I'm pretty confident that them preventing you from burning at the full bitrate of the lossy version WOULD violate your fair use rights. You pay less and get a lower quality version - fine, I can deal with that. Hell, I'm not bothered that they want to prevent me from handing out their content for free to everyone as I please, even if I find it disagreeable (that's to say, I understand, but still think it sucks). But disallowing me from using that content as I please without making me incur further costs (blank media) and time is simply unacceptable.
Their implementation is horrible in any form, though from my understanding and small amount of experience, iTMS takes by far the least invasive approach. Good. But the method sucks. I don't have any alternative, but I expect to be able to transfer my purchased media among my own computers and have it Just Work - not be restricted to a single player. I like iTunes now (used to detest it, but it's grown on me) and have no plan to switch portables, but I don't want to worry about things not working if something comes up. I paid for it - I can use it, and if that's ever not the case, then the system isn't working. When iTunes is dead and I want to move my media, how am I going to re-attain my license on the new computer? I'd be SOL, and I'm not okay with that. My remaining three options (CD, allofmp3, piracy) all screw over the artist, while two of them offer lossless media and one of them is comparatively cheap. Of course iTunes screws over artists too, but then again so does every other option that isn't 'going to a concert'. Might as well get the best quality for my buck, and not support the organization that I so truly detest in the process. Exactly which one that is depends on how cheap or picky I'm feeling at the moment, but it's not going to be the CD.
No matter what happens, artists get screwed. If you buy the CD, they see next to none of that money. If you buy it from iTunes, they see next to none of that money. If you buy it from AllofMP3, they almost certainly see none of that money. If you pirate it, there's no money for them to see. CDs are lossless, as are most albums on AllofMP3 and the odd torrent. iTunes is cheaper and lossy, as is AllofMP3 and piracy. iTunes and some CDs have copy protection, and are the only two that give money to the RIAA - the people who ensured that copy protection was present, whereas AllofMP3 is in a legal limbo and piracy is just plain illegal. All of these somewhat increase the chance of seeing the artist in concert, though I'm personally more inclined to pay to see an artist where I haven't already paid for the CD/digital album. The CD is starting to die out to the various forms of online distribution, and with next-gen optical drives not (yet) supporting plain ol' CDs (well, blu-ray anyways last I knew), ripping may not always be an option. And if your protection-licensor goes the way of the dodo, you're equally screwed- stocked with a pile of useless media that you can't play.
Long story short - I understand their desire for copy protection, and am not opposed to the concept. But their implementation is simply something waiting to leave purchasers high and dry once we've all moved on to the Next Big Thing. It's a risk you take with analog media, where we needed to move on to increase the quality, but that's simply not the case with the digital storage a PC offers - computers, in some form or another anyways, are here to stay, and while the hardware may change, the idea of storing stuff and being able to play it back won't. This 'licensed media' approach to everything is the same as our different analog media, where you needed a new setup to play the newer media. In ten years when CD-capable drives have gone the way of the floppy (still h
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Did you also notice how he links to a blog entry he wrote, but than he misrepresents what he originally wrote? He links to this, saying in the current story that it is about how Apple killed off the ROKR. But if you bother to read the actual blog entry, he points out that the main blame is supposedly with the cell carriers.
It's this sort of intellectually dishonest crap that turned me off of Doctrow a long time ago. He wants to be a Cringley (which some might argue is not a very lofty aspiration), but instead is firmly caught in a Dvorak transmogrification. I've lost all respect for Doctrow. Hey Cory, on the off chance you read this, I have one question for you: is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
This is, in my mind, the only legitimate complaint about DRM mixed with copyrights. The two are contradictory. It's not DRM that is bad, it's the DMCA that's the real problem. Focusing on the DRM is not going to be effective. Focusing on a terrible law will be effective. We need to change the law, people. Fighting DRM is quixotic at best.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Finally. Someone who read ALL THREE pages of the article.
The point of the article was not that Apple's DRM is bad. (Like the Slashdot headline says.)
The points of the article were:
DRM is bad.
Apple's DRM isn't as bad for consumers as other DRMs are.
Apple's DRM is worse for record companies than other DRMs are.
Apple's DRM effectively locks users in to iPods.
Most other DRMs are just there to get the record companies to hand over the content.
iPods are so popular now that record companies can't play hard ball with Apple any more.
Apple became the most popular by providing a better service, not because of their DRM.
The only way other providers can get their music onto iPods is to remove DRM.
The only way other comapnies can compete with iTunes is to provide a better service.
Most comments here seem to indicate that the Slashdotter only read the first page of the article; the bit about DRM being bad and how Apple's DRM is easily circumvented. We already know that stuff... it's been on Slashdot for years. The insight only comes on the third page where Doctorow suggests that the only way forward is to forget DRM altogether.
I suspect that point is aimed at record company execs and not at Slashdot punters. I particularly like the way he connected the failure of DRM (to be useful to consumers) in DVDs to Blueray and DVD-HD in an article about DRM on music sold at iTunes.
He's really asking record company execs to connect the dots; if you want to be as successful as iTunes/iPod then you need to forget DRM.
Sig matters not. Judge me by my sig, do you?
He states: "That obvious restriction: No one but Apple is allowed to make players for iTunes Music Store songs, and no one but Apple can sell you proprietary file-format music that will play on the iPod".
As far as I know, it's the other way around:
"only the iPod can play the proprietary file-format music that you can buy on the iTunes Music Store."
No one is forced to buy music from iTMS -- the iPod plays MP3s fine.
If allofmp3 is a pirate site, importing a CD is pirating.
But you're emphasizing an irrelevant logistical detail
The hell I'm not. I'm emphasizing the entire legal standing in the case.
The court ruling doesn't emphasize the physicality of the medium so much as some presumed fundamental right of the copyright holder "to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."
The copyright holder absolutley has that right under the current law, but only in situations where a copy is being made. In fact, the ruling was considerably more narrow than what the law allows. Not only does the creator have the right to protect their creation in the form in which it was created, but they have the right to stop you from making copies for any other damned reason they can come up with too.
The court argues by analogy that "a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David" does not have "a right to take a sledgehammer to it, or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children."
Let's fix your utterly stupid and broken analogy:
The court argues by analogy that "a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David" (irrelevant detail, BTW) does not have "a right to make an identical copy of a majority of it and then take a sledgehammer to it, or as may be more aptly said in this case, to copy the entire statue except for the penis to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children."
There, now the analogy is accurate, if not stupid because Michelangelo's David is not protected by copyright. To further emphisize how dumb your analogy is, under the ruling, defacing an artistic work, or a licensed copy of an artistic work remains perfectly legal. You can continue to crush, burn, microwave, or deficate on your DVDs at will. You can also fast forward through the naughty bits, or flip to religious programming until the cast has been reclothed, all with total disregard to artistic integrity.
The law may be crap, but the ruling upholds the law. They did not have the right to run the business they were running.