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."

Comments

Conflicted Feelings

[slashdot-jake]

There are some things that I prefer renting over buying, and movies are one of those things. With the exception of a few "classics", movies don't have enough replay value for me to justify paying more to buy them. Heck, if DVD's were as cheap as rental I wouldn't buy them because they would just be one more thing cluttering up the house.

However, the concept of rental clashes with the nature of the online and digital world. Everything that exists can be copied in exact form. You can't return data - you have a copy, not the original. The way I see it there are two options, the concept of rental can be preserved artificially with the introduction of DRM, or it can be abandoned in favor of purchases.

As a consumer I don't have a problem with the general idea of DRM on a rental - my fair use rights aren't being violated, because I don't have the right to backup, timeshift, or format shift rentals to begin with (unlike media I own, for which any DRM is intolerable). Where the problem occurs is the proprietary nature of DRM. At best, the rental DRM would be an "Open Standard" meaning anyone who pays RAND* patent fees and signs an NDA will be allowed to implement a device, and be given keys (specific to them) to decode the data. Then I could buy online rental devices or software from any number of manufactures, and it would be guaranteed to work with any number of online rental stores. This is similar to the legal workings of DVDs, Blueray, WMV. At the worst you have proprietary technologies, where each company has it's own format and player, like with Apple or DVIX (the first one). In both cases there will never be an open source player - the best we could hope for is something like the new Real Player that has an open source core with proprietary plug-ins. Even that is unlikely, as the movie industry is demanding end-to-end security (HDMI, Trusted Computing) which an open source operating system would not provide.

In the other option, the internet utopia dream was that the price of media would drop to the point of making rental unnecessary and removing the allure of piracy from the general public. The media industries are strongly opposed to this model of the future, and the only way it will ever happen is if independent media producers embrace it with success, and eventually put the current media companies out of business. This is also unlikely given the weight that the media companies have in government. Therfore, media purchases will also be hindered with DRM for the conceivable future, and will continue to be priced at traditional rates.

So given DRM on rental verses DRM on purchase, I definitely prefer the previous, but there is another potential risk with DRM rental and it is a biggy. The media companies have shown themselves very fond of the idea of DRM rental, as seen with Napster. They like the model where people don't own copies of media, but instead just subscribe to services that provide them. If too many people embrace these services, we could end up in a situation where everything is locked up. We continue to hear stories about how the original archive copies of important cultural media is being lost due to the extreme length of copyright, and the mismanagement of the copyright holders (Dr Who, classic films). But in most of those cases, at least lower quality copies exist in the form of consumer media. However, if we can no longer record broadcast media, and there are no purchased copies of media, the copyright holders will be the only ones capable of preserving the records of our popular culture. Time and time again they show themselves inept at doing so.

Anyway, I plan on sticking to buying CD's and renting locally for as long as those options exist, and continue to support those independent producers who treat their customers with respect. I'll keep trying to inform my representatives about the issues. But I'm not optimistic. We'll see what happens.

* For the uninitiated:
RAND = Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[IAmTheDave]

As a consumer I don't have a problem with the general idea of DRM on a rental - my fair use rights aren't being violated, because I don't have the right to backup, timeshift, or format shift rentals to begin with (unlike media I own, for which any DRM is intolerable).

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?

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[KiloByte]

The copyright holder can not restrict use, just distribution (copying). No amount of small print can change this. To restrict use, they would have to get you to enter a valid contract with them.

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[cpt kangarooski]

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?

No, that's not how it works. You can engage in fair uses all the time, regardless of whether you own a copy, rent a copy, or don't have a copy at all. Fair use is not contingent on ownership. Rather, it's contingent on the circumstances involved. For example, it is entirely possible that if Alice tried to engage in a particular use whilst owning a copy, that it would be unfair, while if Bob tried to engage in the same use, not owning a copy, that it would be fair. Other factors are what's key. Depending on the use in question, ownership might be a relevant factor, but it is not the only one or the most important one.

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[Firehed]

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

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[mstone]

You've got three different bodies of law all mushed together -- copyright, license law, and contract law -- and are dangerously close to joining Microsoft in declaring the GPL illegal.

Copyright law gives the rights holder the power to establish the license under which the work will be distributed. That's all. You're right that copyright law per se doesn't apply to use, only to distribution and copying. License law, OTOH, does give the rights holder the power to set restrictions upon use.

The term 'license' originally meant 'permission to enter my land'. Entering somene else's land without permission is called 'trespassing'. Now, if I give you permission to enter my land, I have every right to impose restrictions on your behavior while you're there. If I say, "no hunting," you can't come onto my land, shoot my deer, and then say, "the restriction is invalid because I never signed a contract." The default state under the law is that you have no right to be on my property, period. I waived my right to have to arrested for trespassing simply for being on my land when I gave you the 'no hunting' license, but you can't extend that license beyond the terms that I set.

Contract law is irrelevant to licensing issues, because the fundamental legal questions are different. The fundamental question of contract law is, "did both sides do what they promised to do?" The fundamental question of license law is, "did the licensee obey the terms that the licensor set?" In a contract, I make a promise contingent on the promise that you made to me. With a license, I waive my right to sue under certain conditions, and you choose between obeying those conditions or not using my property at all.

License law doesn't require any consideration from the licensee because it really only regulates the behavior of the licensor. I can't trap you by inviting you onto my property to come birdwatching, then turn around and have you arrested for trespassing as soon as you show up. As long as you obey the terms I set, license law prohibits me from setting the police on you.

As soon as you step outside the terms of my license, tough, you're back into 'you have no right to be here at all' territory.

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[capologist]

You're telling me that they magically figured out a way to do this without copying the DVD, and they were merely reselling an altered disc?

Of course not. It is a different physical disc, because the original disc is not physically rewritable. But you're emphasizing an irrelevant logistical detail and ignoring the purpose and essence of the act. The logistics are a little different than ripping pages out of a book, but the effect is the same. In no way does society benefit from emphasizing such logistical details and ignoring the essence and effect of an action, nor does it benefit from allowing the studios to eliminate fair use rights through technical means that ensure that the only way to "rip pages out" is to transfer the copy to a different physical medium. In no way does this interpretation of copyright law "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"; quite the contrary, it erects barriers to such progress.

If that were the case, it wouldn't have ended up in court in the first place.

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 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."

Of course somebody who dislikes the statue doesn't have a right to take a sledgehammer to the original, but if I purchase a replica of the statue, I have every right to take a sledgehammer to it or to put a fig leaf on it. And if I don't have a sledgehammer or the means by which to affix a marble fig leaf to the statue, I have every right to pay a vendor to do it for me. The court's own analogy doesn't support the ruling; it undermines it.

Finally, the court rules to award the summary judgement to the studios because the redaction causes "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies. There is a public interest in providing such protection." Yet nowhere does it articulate what this interest is, let alone make a convincing argument that the judgement advances that interest.

The whole ruling is full of such nonsense. It's an utter piece of crap.

Re:Conflicted Feelings

[ivan256]

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.

sooooo they say...

[revlayle]

"...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?

Re:sooooo they say...

[Midnight Thunder]

"...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.

Re:sooooo they say...

[peacefinder]

"The irony is that it was the media companies who gave Apple this power, by mandating DRM."

Exactly. Apple is neither demon nor saint here... they're just riding the wave of the moment.

Their success comes because they put together a vertical integration: a playback device, a content distribution platform, a music store, and most critically an agreement with enough major record labels to support the rest. (It's probable that other tech powers could have managed this, but Apple is the one which did it.)

DRM doesn't do Apple any good in itself. (Or didn't at the iPod/iTunes launch, anyway.) I'm sure DRM was a big headache to design and implement, and they could just as well have done without it. But a plausible DRM implementation was the only way for Apple to get the record companies to play ball, so (in order to reap the profits from the other stages) Apple had to include it.

Now, the iPod/iTunes/iTMS/FairPlay stack is a raging success. It's so successful that it has given Apple the whip hand over the record companies. (Which is more than a bit amusing.)

If at some point the record companies want to break Apple's grip on power, they can do so easily... just drop their DRM demand, thereby cutting their own throats. Or they can stop selling through iTMS, and watch that revenue stream dry up, their artists leave, and listen to their customers howl. Or they can go to an Apple competitor and negotiate a better DRM deal... which consumers will ignore, because a better deal for the record companies is necessarily a worse deal for the end user.

So I think the record industry is done as a power broker. This is undoubtedly bad for them and for Apple's competitors, and it's less than ideal for consumers, but it's too soon to say that it's really bad overall. With the record companies' power broken, more artists are going to retain the rights to their works, and publish via TuneCore.com or iTMS or whatever. In time, that's going to change the face of the industry.

This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[jhfry]

... considering that this topic has been beaten to death here and every side of the argument has been discussed. It's a well known fact to any Slashdot reader that DRM is bad. Maybe this article should be posted on Apple's, the DMCA, and every other media monster's website. Here it's just telling us what we already know.

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[Linker3000]

Ric Romero is on the case.

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[jhfry]

"Stupid but honest question: if DRM is bad, is the production of music only profitable through DRM also bad?"

There is no such thing as "the production of music only profitable through DRM". I believe, as do many anti-DRM activists, that the average person is more than willing to pay a fair price for anything they want or need, they do not need to be forced to do the right thing.

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. This then results in the media giants deciding that they need to protect their products from theft... so they spend an ungodly amount of money developing and deploying ineffective technologies that do nothing but further alienate their customers while increasing their overhead. Now they have fewer customers, lower profit margins, and more theft occuring... so what do they do, the same stupid thing all over again!

What needs to happen is that these media giants need to start TRUSTING THEIR CUSTOMERS!!! We are in a web of distrust... we don't trust them, and they don't trust us. If an entertainer were to get most of the proceeds from their work, while the record company took a fair share, we could trust them. The cost of their wares would drop and most of us would buy the stuff without thought. But $20 for a CD of music I don't care much for, by an artist who I know only get's pennies of my money. It's bullshit. I would rather steal the music and send the artist a dollar or two.

Fortunately I don't like music, so I don't bother stealing it... talk radio is more entertaining.

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[shmlco]

"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...

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[Fringe]

I believe, as do many anti-DRM activists, that the average person is more than willing to pay a fair price for anything they want or need, they do not need to be forced to do the right thing

Belief is usually required when not supported by facts or reality.

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.

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[dr.badass]

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?

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[no_opinion]

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.

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[mrchaotica]

There are quite a few worthwhile arguments out there. Yours, however, isn't one of them...

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

Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader...

[Ohreally_factor]

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.

Re:Your first mistake

[ronkronk]

What will happen when Apple goes bankrupt? Or when the next generation of mini-players comes out with a new DRM?

You must be thinking of the OTHER music companies, that re-authorize every month or what have you.

If Apple went out of buisiness, you music would continue to play on your current Mac until the end of time.

However, like you say eventually you'd want to move the music. Two options then:

CD's - I can burn any ITMS song to CD as much as I like (limit of ten burns a playlist, but I can always make new playlists...)

Hymn - I can convert protected AAC files into unprotected AAC files, which I can then play on anything that undrestands AAC (most PC players, not many portables) or convert it from there.

So yeah I feel sorry for anyone buying music from anywhere other than ITMS or AllOfMP3.com. I still don't like to use AllOfMP3 though as I don't feel it gives artists as much as it should. Perhaps in the future I'll buy from ITMS, then buy the non-lossy version from AllOfMP3. Too much work though, so I probably wont...

To go foward should we go back?

[brunokummel]

I remember when an old friend told me back at school that he had the ultimate anti-copying technology ! He said let's go back to the vinyl discs! I remember that i laughed my heart out back then, but everyday now I wonder what would the market become if he's right? Not to mention the users...

Re:To go foward should we go back?

[geekoid]

maybe not: http://www.zzounds.com/item--NUMTTX1

People are waking up...

[sweetnjguy29]

...and realizing that DRM sucks. 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.

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." People, and the information they rely and enjoy, desire true freedom.

Re:People are waking up...

[Otter]

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...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.

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?

Re:People are waking up...

[kfg]

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

Re:People are waking up...

[keytohwy]

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.*

Re:People are waking up...

[RLiegh]

>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.

Re:People are waking up...

[krunk7]

1. You can transfer music with just as much ease to and from your iPod as you can from your Zen.
2. If by "locked" into iTunes you mean "must use iTunes music store". Your full of FUD
3. If by "locked into iTunes" you mean you must use iTunes to transfer music. Not quite right, but then virtually all devices of this kind come with some sort of transfer utility.

iPod is just a player. iTunes is just a player. iTunes music store DRM's their music like any other online seller of music like them. If you don't want to DRM, don't buy the music. It's not like your iPod won't work. Sheesh.

Re:People are waking up...

[Anonymous Coward]

what "rights and freedoms" are involved in not being able to "borrow" copyrighted music?

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.

Re:People are waking up...

[dr.badass]

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.

Re:People are waking up...

[RLiegh]

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.

Re:People are waking up...

[TimTheFoolMan]

Yes, I ignored the differences in ways that the mediums are used. It's not relevant to the issue at hand.

Return to the question of a PDF of my book. No doubt, you would look at downloading that across a P2P network exactly the same way, regardless of whether or not you were going to read it once, or read it daily. Is a Bible different because many people crack it open every day? Using your argument, any fixed document that's read and re-read regularly would be purchased exactly once.

This is the same "change the game so my argument holds water" technique that Cory uses all the time. It's the kind of thing that makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with him, because he bases his position on a proposition that isn't relevant. Unfortunately, most people don't stop him at that point, because he's always carrying the banner of "information wants to be free," and pretending to be Thomas Jefferson.

Ultimately, Cory wants to "possess" music (and other electronic data that is similarly protected) without paying the content creator for their work and he wants to get away with it. Whether you call it stealing or something altruistic, he wants the benefit without cost, and without renumeration to the artist or legitimate owner of publication/distribution rights. It's as simple as that.

Tim

P.S. Your argument also suggests that there is no value in owning books. I own them specifically so I can go back and re-read them when I choose to, and not when they're available at the public library. I buy music (principally CD's) for the same purpose. My gripe with online music is that the license doesn't follow the physical model that a CD allows.

Doctorow is an idiot

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

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.

Re:Doctorow is an idiot

[i_should_be_working]

If it wasn't for Jobs we'd be buying cds and downloading mp3s, as many of us still are.

The guy needs to try a spell in the real world. And his novels SUCK. No wonder he has no need for DRM.

How is he not in the real world? He's practicing what he preaches. And no his books don't suck. I know that popularity doesn't equate to quality, but if an author can give away his books and still make money selling them, it should be obvious that he's doing something right.

Re:Doctorow is an idiot

[xigxag]

If it wasn't for Jobs...we'd all be renting our music by now.

That's total Apple fanboy BS. Most music players contain mostly CD rips, not iTMS purchases. People have always been able to buy music without purchasing tracks online, they continue to do so, and as you acknowledge they can still download music without purchasing it at all. It's the omnipresent fear of the latter that ultimately keeps the record companies in check, not Jobs's balls. I've got nothing against Jobs for being a savvy businessman, but DRM just stinks.

And his novels SUCK. ...and how DARE he blaspheme the Church of Jobs.

Re:Doctorow is an idiot

[MKalus]

The guy needs to try a spell in the real world.

I think he lost a bit perspective over the last few years. My favourite beef right now is that he is blabbering on that he is abandoning OS X because of the "proprietary file formats" that Apple is using. I am not quite sure which formats he means.

I am starting to get the feeling he just needs to be "special" and "differnt", Apple now has become "too mainstream" for him and he is "moving on".

As for his Novels.... Some funky ideas, I just wish he would stop being so utterly in love with everything Disney does, or at least let's it colour his view of the world.

which makes no sense

[mgabrys_sf]

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?

Re:which makes no sense

[himurabattousai]

1. Media companies want DRM. Apple comes up with a (relatively) non-restrictive response, barely enough to get approval.

2. iTunes explodes in popularity, in part because most people don't want to/need to go beyond what they are allowed to do. This popularity is not about "DRM is right" v. "DRM is wrong." It's about the illusion of freedom (and it is an illusion); the limits of freedom are only known when they're reached, and most iTunes users don't reach them. Those that do, go around because it's easy to do so.

3. The popularity of iTunes makes media companies drool. They want more, but can't get it because they agreed to a certain business model. They can't change the model or get out of iTunes because they need the money that iTunes brings in.

Sometimes, the best way to defeat an enemy is to make him your friend. This is sort of what Apple has done to the media companies. Sure, the growth of iTunes exceeded reasonable expectations, but that was a risk the media companies took. Were iTunes not as big as it is, the situation would be reversed, but for now, Steve Jobs pretty much has the media companies doing his bidding. If that doesn't make them Apple's servants, then what would?

I don't get it...

[bobalu]

I buy the CDs and rip them.

No restrictions, no problem.

Re:Your first mistake

[argent]

So yeah I feel sorry for anyone buying music from anywhere other than ITMS or $PIRATESITE

I feel sorry for people getting music from anywhere but iTunes or eMusic or mp3bogs like 3hive or buying CDs in used music stores and ripping them or...

There's a solution to the DRM

[Zorque]

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.

Re:Your first mistake

[Incongruity]

Don't forget emusic.com -- cheap, 100% legal and 100% DRM free-music. [I wish they paid me, but sadly, I pay them for access, just to be clear.]

Competition in DRM technology: good for consumers

[argent]

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...

Bad for who, when

[SuperKendall]

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.

Thanks to apple, DRM is mainstream

[RLiegh]

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!

Re:Your first mistake

[vought]

What will happen when Apple goes bankrupt? Or when the next generation of mini-players comes out with a new DRM?


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 .mp3 file - almost perfect, but no good for distribution - at least not if the publisher wanted to make money.

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.

Why "Apple" topic?

[Swift2001]

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.

Re:"Borrowing" = Stealing

[linuxrocks123]

> ethically, that is stealing.

Mentally, you are retarded.

Technically, you can break your own locks

[Sloppy]

It doesn't even matter if you're the creator of the work the lock controls! You can't even access your own work on your own terms if you need to break a lock to do it.

This is a little off. 1201(a)(3)(A) defines circumvention as bypassing the controls without authorization from the copyright holder. If you, the copyright holder, authorize yourself to bypass the lock, then bypassing is not circumvention. This actually leaves some loopholes open, though I don't think they've been tested yet.

The problem is with tools. 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1) prohibit trafficking in tools that are primarily intended to circumvent (and this is a subjective judgement call, so you can pretty much expect a hostile judge to rule against you), and 1201(b)(2)(A) defines circumvention differently so that the tool is illegal whether you have copyright holders' permission or not. (By a super-strict reading of 1201(b)(1), all DRM players for copyrighted content should be illegal, even the "blessed" ones such as iTunes or DVDCCA-licensed DVD players.) Thus, breaking your own locks on your own content with your permission, still might be pretty hard, since the necessary tools will be "underground."

Just Apple?

[necro2607]

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...

Fair Use

[Zelbinian]

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.

argumentum ad hominem

[leoxx]

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.

Re:argumentum ad hominem

[QuantumFTL]

Do have an honest counter argument or is insulting him the best you can come up with?

Apart from insulting being fun, the ad-hominem attack is very effective. Why is this? Is it a quirk of human nature "I hate this guy so I don't listen to anything he says," or is it actually rational? I've mentioned this earlier on slashdot, and I'd like you to think about this for a moment:

If one takes a Bayesian view of probability (probability represents one's degree of belief in a proposition, not a frequency of occurrance), then if one is a rational Bayesian agent, one must incorporate all "relevant" information when ascertaining the belief of a hypothesis, through the chaining of probabilities. Starting with a prior on a statement (unfortunately what prior to choose is often unclear, and is perhaps even arbitrary), one modifies the belief by multiplying by conditional probabilities as gathered by evidence.

One can easily make the claim (the "proof" for this shall be left as an exercise to the reader) that given the sum of experiences one has collected over their lifetime, (direct experience or transitive experience through discussion, books, and other media) one can infer that there is indeed a conditional probability connecting the probability that entity A is a "zealot" and that information from entity A is incorrect.

Bayesian reasoning/inference differs significantly from "pure" boolean reasoning in that it captures this information in a way tha tis actually useful in real life. For instance, the statement "if someone is pointing a gun at you, they will kill you" is obviously false under boolean logic systems, however in real life it is prudent to infer that it is likely enough that htey will kill you that you should take it into account in your planning process. Similarly with the "ad hominem" attacks. The following statements are all valid in a Bayesian framework (when one takes into account the independence of these propositions from other information known about entity A):

1. Entity A is a zealot/crackpot, therefore assertion X made by A is more likely to be incorrect.
2. Entity A is a well respected, unbiased source, therefore assertion X is likely to be correct.
3. Assertion X is known to conflict with deep laws of science/politics, or is a minority viewpoint which is considered to be "fringe thinking"/"crackpottery"/un-preferred worldview (i.e. over-unity devices, fascism, tinfoil-hat), therefore Entity A is likely to be an untrustworthy source.
4. Assertion X, Y, Z, etc have proven to be correct and are in-line with generally accepted theory, therefore Entity A is more likely to be a trustworthy source.

All of these statements are fairly vague (I'm sure one can find a far more rigorous discussion of this somewhere online), however I trust you can see that independent of all other information on Entity A these statements are correct.

That leads me to conclude (in an albeit simplified fashion) that because information on a subject/individual/particular point is highly limited (indeed, with things like global warming, etc, even having a PhD in the field is only a reasonable start, not a comprehensive, authoritative educaiton), one must consider all information about an argument (and weight it according to statistical correlation) when one makes an inference (once again assuming one is a Bayesian, which is a strong assumption, but definitely closer to human reasoning under uncertainty than pure boolean logic, or frequentism). Therefore ad-hominmen attacks are actually important - if you must extend "trust" to a source (you are trusting their reasoning or their data), you must first ascertain the level of trust you should extend. Ad-hominem attacks are therefore effective precisely because they provide evidence (often very unbiased, but sometimes not) that the data should not be trusted. This does not in any way prove that the data or reasoning is wrong, merely that is should have a reduced weighting in the final inference of belief.

Ummm.....guys?

[DaveInAZ]

As usual, I saw something completely different in that story than everyone else seems to have seen. Of course, that could be because everyone else is so sick of this issue that they didn't really read the article. Wouldn't surprise me. Personally, I haven't been paying attention because I already decided it was bad the first time I heard the phrase.

But, the thing that caught my eye was this statement; The DMCA makes it a crime to circumvent "effective means of access control." To me, the key word, there, is effective . As far as I'm concerned, if I can circumvent it, it isn't effective, Q.E.D.. Ok, I'm a bit of a geek, or I probably wouldn't be here, right? But I'm no bigtime cracker, and there are plenty of security measures I can't circumvent. I consider those measures to be "effective". Anything else seems to be fair game, according to that act. I suspect most judges would agree, if it were explained that way. At worst, it would depend on the outcome of one heck of a battle over the definition of the word "effective".

Re:Ummm.....guys?

[cpt kangarooski]

The DMCA makes it a crime to circumvent "effective means of access control." To me, the key word, there, is effective . As far as I'm concerned, if I can circumvent it, it isn't effective, Q.E.D..

I'm going to take a guess here: you don't really know anything about the law, right?

Not only is that not what it means, but no judge would ever think that your interpretation is correct, for the following reason:

It is a rule of statutory interpretation that Congress never intends to pass a meaningless law. Laws all must do something that wasn't already being done, because there are no useless laws. So only interpretations where there is some use to the law, some real meaning, are valid.

If it is illegal to break access controls that are effective, where effective means that they are unbreakable, then the law is meaningless. No one ever could break it, because it would be impossible to do so by definition. This cannot possibly be what Congress intended. Therefore, effectiveness must mean something else, something that permits a TPM to be broken, yet still be considered 'effective.' Maybe the word doesn't quite match the dictionary definition, but the law frequently uses words in a specialized manner. (Think of how various fields created their own definitions of words like 'computer' or 'broadcast' or 'network' or 'drive' or 'memory.')

What it actually turns out to mean is that it has any material degree of effectiveness against nearly anyone at all. ROT13 is likely not effective, but analogue Macrovision probably would be.

Your argument would get laughed out of court. You're coming across like one of those schmucks who rejects the authority of a court due to trivialities like the flag in the courtroom.

Re:nice

[Architect_sasyr]

Excuse me for going offtopic, it's not normally something I do.

What is the obsession with first post? Do you think it makes you look cool? It always intrigues me to surf /. 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...

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?

Re:nice

[XFriday]

First Response!! WOOT!! (Sorry in advance.)

Another vote against an apple conspiracy this time

[heroine]

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.

Apple's DRM work-around

[Mantrid42]

I know that if you want to get around the DRM that Apple uses, you can burn to a cd, and then rip it from the cd. So why can't this process be virtualized? I mean, in theory, couldn't you burn it to a virtual cd drive (i.e., make an iso), and then rip it from that, and then take this whole thing and put it into one neat little packaged? At that point, you could automate it, so it would automatically "burn" a disk, rip it, delete the disk, and start over with the next group of songs. Right?

Re:Ideas CAN'T be stolen!

[FeloniousPunk]

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.

Re:Your first mistake

[Ohreally_factor]

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?

To compete with iTunes, forgat all about DRM

[ladadadada]

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.

His logic is flawed.

[Tetard]

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.

Re:Ideas CAN'T be stolen!

[TecKnow]

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.

The sort version: By the time you have the chance to buy or steal a CD, the artist and all the technical people you mention above have already been paid for the performance recorded on that CD, and most probably won't be paid for it again no matter how well it sells.

The long version:
As a software engineer the way my work is treated isn't that different legally or culturally from the way that music or movies are treated and I doubt the argument you use above is any more valid for music than it is for software. When I write software I only get paid once for my time and all those 'technical people' you mentioned probably also only get paid once as well. Since I have already been paid by the time anything I work on can be bought or stolen (and those 'technical people' have probably also already been paid by the time the CD is finished) it is dishonest to say that illegally copying my product deprives me of compensation and I find it equally unlikely that copying a recorded song dprives anyone directly involved in the recording of that song of compensation.

Also, the statement "Just as if they were performing live" rings hollow. Concert tickets and a CD don't cost the same amount. A shrink wrapped product doesn't cost the same amount as hiring a team of software developers to make the same product for you from scratch. They aren't the same, considering that the majority of the people directly involved in the performance recorded on the CD have probably already been paid for that performance the one and only time, they are barely even related.

Lastly, just because something takes effort to develop doesn't mean it isn't an idea. Lots of work has gone into the idea of object oriented programming, or the idea of relativity, and they are even more clearly ideas than a recorded song in that they lack any specific physical or sensory form. (I'll actually grant you that a recorded song might not qualify as an idea.)

You can call me greedy if you want, but remember I stand to lose exactly as much from software piracy as most analogous people in the music industry stand to lose from music piracy, which from my perspective is: Nothing. Piracy, even F/OSS and the creative commons may have other effects on software, music, and the market in general both good and bad, and I'd be happy to talk about that if you want, but as a 'content producer' I have a real problem with people complaining piracy deprives 'content producers' of payment, in my experience that's almost never true.

Re:Your first mistake

[Duds]

If allofmp3 is a pirate site, importing a CD is pirating.

Re:Your first mistake

[Weedlekin]

"As does capitalism, which you attempt to reference with your solipsistic 'supply and demand' reference. Artists have as much a right to make a living from their work as does anyone else who works for a living, including yourself."

Capitalism does not confer any rights beyond that of individuals being able to own property (capital) which is theirs to do with as they wish, within confines that the capitalist system imposes by its nature, so owning a gun for example does not mean one is free to shoot anything or anyone, because damaging or destroying the property of others infringes on their rights as owners (and this includes their lives and bits of their bodies, which they also own). No form of capital has any intrinsic value beyond what others are willing to pay for it, and that includes work, which is simply another form of capital -- the only "right" a worker has under a capitalist system is therefore to receive the amount of capital from others that they're willing to exchange for that work, or not doing it at all, in which case no capital exchange takes place (i.e. you get nothing).

What then would be the role of copyrights under a capitalist system? Actually, none at all, because they use the threat of force to prevent the natural tendency of markets to place less value on desirable commodities that are scarce than equally desirable ones which are plentiful. Why something is plentiful has no relevance, only the fact that it is, and using non-market forces to change this is profoundly anti-capitalist, while measures such as DRM that make it more technically more difficult difficult for others to "manufacture" an equivalent would be quite acceptable.

Note that patents are equally anti-capitalist because they again use non-market forces to maintain a temporary artificial monopoly. Trademarks on the other hand are something that serves to identify market entities, so infringing on them would be an attempt to artificially manipulate markets by pretending to be someone or something else instead of simply releasing one's own product or service that competes on its own merits (doing what IBM does better than them is fine, but pretending to be IBM isn't).

All of the above makes it rather ironic that the so-called capitalist US is determined to force countries like China and Russia to adopt "IP" protection measures that are intended to prevent that most capitalist of phenomena, i.e. home-grown entrepreneurs producing easily manufactured products more cheaply than overseas competitors!