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.
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.
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 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.
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
"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.
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.