Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Backs Apple's iTunes DRM
breun writes "The U.S. has asked foreign governments to consider the effects of interfering with popular new technologies, pointing to recent scrutiny of Apple's iTunes Music Store as an example of bad judgment. The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust chief Thomas Barnett cited recent foreign proposals to impose restrictions on Apple's iTunes service as an example of strict regulation which could discourage innovation and hurt consumers." From the Washington Post article: "In prepared remarks, Barnett said the scrutiny of Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.' Barnett said Apple should be applauded for creating a legal, profitable and easy-to-use system for downloading music and other entertainment via the Internet."
Really? And here I thought it just represented some government's that are *shock* looking out for their constituents right! THE HORROR!
'a useful illustration of how an attack from intellectual property rights-holders can threaten dynamic innovation.'
Fixed that for you, Barnett.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"All your music are belong to us" -GW
i support the right to offend.
The U.S. Government has recieved and gratefully appreciates Apples donation.
Isn't the whole point of DRM to restrict what consumers can do, thereby harming consumers?
How TF can restricting DRM then harm consumers?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
IOW: Only the US has the right to make laws.
Only the USA can liberate things, people and oil.
No country is allowed to break USA-created-DRM.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Too easy to see whose side our government is on. And this from an Anti-Trust Chief of all people!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The US GOVERNMENT is warning other governments against too much regulation?
ResidntGeek
This is obviously more business interest than concern for foreign consumers speaking. :-)
How does openness and interoperability between different devices discourage competition? Of course it discourages Apple from donating money to "a top U.S. antitrust official"
And how exactly am I as a customer being hurt by being able to play your music where I want? I'll probably get a heart attack from overenjoying myself.
Ever since pirates were found to be way cooler than ninjas.
Sure, because DRM never interfered with fair use, or anything... and all countries have the exact same copyright laws as the US.
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
I highly doubt it is Apple doing this. I'm thinking if Apple had a choice, they would not put DRM onto their files. This is most likely a push from the Music Industry to protect the files so they cannot be easily copied between computers.
Its not what it is, its something else.
Many here on slashdot will attack them for their viewpoint but basically they're right. So what do i mean with "basically"?
You, the consumers, should have no obligation to go into contract with anyone if you don't like the conditions. But the people offering stuff have exactly the same right. So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like. But this is your CHOICE.
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services. It's not like we're talking food or other essential stuff, just ignore their offering and they'll learn by themself. Any other behaviour either encourages them or weakens your standpoint.
Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.'
Third party manufacturers cannot make Wi-Fi or UPNP streaming devices since they can't decrypt the DRM, programmers can't write plugins to dynamically mash-up your favourite tracks, etc etc etc, since Apple impedes your property rights with their digital restricitons.
You know what, this ignorant-ass troll post pisses me off so bad, I feel compelled to further correct your idiocy.
The french itunes DRM fiasco, which spawned this whole debate, wasn't about stealing music. It was about buying some shit on itunes, then having the right, as a consumer, to play it on devices other than the freaking ipod. The original law in france was that companies (such as apple) would have to "share DRM secrets to allow competitors to create compatible devices, eventually allowing other music services to offer music for the most popular music player" (from macnn.com).
Of course, don't let that stop your knee-jerk "goddamned hippie pirates want everything for free" trolls.
If governments don't allow companies to create cool new stuff and sell them however they want, then consumers won't get to buy cool new stuff. That'd be free market thinkin.
If you don't like Apple's DRM, go buy a CD. It's not like Apple is a label and is keeping music from being released for other platforms (yes, I meant it that way).
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong - is Apple Computer doing exclusive media deals with anyone?)
Finally, if you don't like Apple's DRM, then burn the tunes to a regular CD and do whatever you want with it. (someone is going to say "yeah, but that's not really CD quality audio", to which I say "yeah, but CDs aren't vinyl quality audio")
When you agreed to their license, which was a binding legal contract. If you don't agree to their license, and therefore don't get their product, you're not affected.
DRM doesn't intrinsically interfere with fair use, because non DRM'd media is not affected. The license, not the technology, is what harms your rights.
Q. Since when is it the right of the company to do anything?
A. Since I agreed to it.
I get to pick two, right?
Be true and faithful like your dog; but don't eat vomit like your dog
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Sorry, no contract is legally binding if you're not allowed to read it before purchasing. With a music even after you buy it you never agree to their terms since they are never presented to you. Besides that, it's a license not a contract which has to be signed by an individual one way or another. What if I'm a company and buy a bunch of cds with a company credit card. No identity ever signed a contract, no person is responsible.
DRM does intrinsically interfere with fair use as I'm explicity allowed to format shift and resample. The minute I have to break DRM to accomplish either of those then my fair use is comprimised without my consent.
Apple imposes their DRM even when musicians ask not to have it applied to their music
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
The Music Industry demanded DRM in order to prevent piracy. Apple went right along with that because it means that if people want to use the biggest (legal) online music store, they have to get an iPod if they want a portable music player. Apple won't allow their music to be distributed without DRM any more than they'll license Fairplay to their competitors (which I believe is what was being demanded in European countries, not that Apple sell DRM free music).
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services
This works in theory and practice with itunes: You still can buy in other online music stores or even buy the CD
It's very different in the case of DVD, though. Because the companies who make movies are the same companies who control the "electronics" market, consumers didn't have a choice, they were imposed what format they should use, like if they were living on Russia when Communism was still there. I just don't understand why companies are allowed to be big enought that they control EVERYTHING on a given market. It's like the companies who make petrol would also make cars and would make their petrol compatible only with their engines, and if other company tried to build a car compatible with their petrol would get sued. IMO this is anti-liberal and goes against capitalism. Should people be allowed to create big enterprises that create jobs? Hell, yes. Should those companies be allowed to control the market and lock out competitors? Hell, NO.
Remember that the ONE reason why you can see DVD in Linux is because someone broke the DRM protection. In the case of Itunes, it's clear that its DRM isn't dangerous, since you can buy other players and use other music stores. But if itunes would got 99% of the online music market, it WOULD be a problem. So DRM can be both good and bad - it's up to the government to make laws to stop it from being bad.
I'm thinking if Apple had a choice, they would not put DRM onto their files.
What? If they had a choice? Umm, newsflash: They have a choice. There is a side effect to that choice, but choosing to do something that is wrong because you make money at it is not the same as not having a choice.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Sure, because DRM never interfered with fair use, or anything... and all countries have the exact same copyright laws as the US.
What's stopping you from doing analog recording off the headphone jack to get your fair use? Or using a microphone if they eventually manage to close the "analog hole"? Fair use isn't the same as "convenient, unadulterated, pristine copies that preserve track info."
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
High performance cars artificially limit your top speed. Heck, 50cc scooters in some markets do this. There are workarounds.
But a more pressing example is how food is genetically modified so that the seeds of the produce you buy are infertile, so you can't plant those seeds and grow your own. Recently, I saw a bamboo tree for sale at a garden center with a warning that said that copyright law made it illegal to make offspring of the plant (however that is done with bamboo?). It makes me wonder why there is so much debate about mere entertainment.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
This isn't in the iTunes license, but rather in the customer agreement to create an iTunes Store account. iTunes is fully functional without the ability to purchase music from the iTunes Store; it's not like Apple requires you to get an iTunes Store account... well, unless you want free tracks from them, or want to buy something from them. But that's definitely not a shrink-wrap or click-wrap deal.
Excessive government interference can deter innovation and encourage rival companies to "devote their resources to legal challenges rather than business innovation," he (Barnett) added.
Exactly. When the DMCA was passed, it open a floodgate of lawsuits by the recorded music manufacturing industry against its own consumers. This consumed valuable resources, and stifled the market's ability to force the recorded music vendors to innovate and come up with new products that their consumers wanted to buy.
I can't find any fault with this statement of his.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Without iTunes DRM, the major music companies wouldn't allow Apple to sell music in the iTunes store. Same holds true for other online music sales sites (think of the ones that the RIAA is okay with). If you get rid of the iTunes DRM, we'd all still be paying for an entire CD instead of just the songs we want to listen to.
Some of you will claim that the solution is to purchase non-RIAA music, which is fine. There are some RIAA bands I enjoy, however, so for me that's not a solution. Obviously in the case of iTunes, DRM is actually helping consumers. It may not allow us to do everything we want, but it gives us one additional choice in how we get our music.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Let me throw it back in your face - since when is it your right to use someone else's creation in violation of the terms to which they agreed to sell it to you?
Car analogies. They need to go, ok? We definitely need a car-analogy equivalent of Godwin's law.
Apple created Itunes and Ipod to work with each other, and people KNOWING THIS agreed to buy them. Property rights are causal. The reason corporations/peopel create things is because they can control them/profit from them. If they could not control/profit from them, the creation would have been nonexistent or greatly diminished.
Don't be so obtuse. These kinds of anti-intellectual property rights arguments so often come from those who create nothing.
Recently, copyright was extended on works that had already been created. How does that incent creativity? The works were set to belong to the public domain and were stolen from them and given back to the creators for an additional period. How is that even legal?
Likewise, sampling is legal under copyright. A copyright owner does and should have limits as to how many specifications they can set on the use of their work.
but to me it's also same as getting pissed at GM because a Ford transmission doesn't hook up to it.
To use your metaphore, to me it's like saying that it's illegal to hook a Ford transmission up to a GM car, or to own the tools needed to even open the hood since by opening the hood someone might very well copy the technology inside. Because of course we didn't actually buy a Ford, only the license to drive one, or somthing along those lines. If GM wants to make transmissions for Ford cars, it has every right to do so, even if that means taking apart a Ford to do it. As long as they don't start making Fords, they're in fair territory.
When one company has a near monopoly on Operating Systems or any other tool, then of course it has an unfair advantage in the realm of software production or the production of any product which relies on that first tool. The DMCA is the legal mechanism which secures that advantage.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
That is a sad, tired argument - and all you can hope with it is the 'repeat it until people believe it' strategy. 'Intelectual property' rights are granted by the state for a limited period of time to encourage creation. In return for this protection, when the time expires the protected content should fall back into public domain so that the state (as in 'society at large') can benefit from them (you know, cross-polination type, or as some say 'standing on the soulders of giants'). DRM prevents that, as it does not have a built-in 'expiry date', effectively preventing the society from receiving any real benefits from allowing DRM. And don't give me that 'no DRM, no creation' crap - culture started well before DRM and Gutenberg's press did not ruin it at all, quite the contrary.
I say that even in the hugely improbable case that the RIAA members go banckrupt from lack of DRM (although the fact that they didn't already should clue one in) - bring it on! It should lower the market access price for many producers of good music (aka artists) that nowadays have to go indie.
You mean technologies like LPs, CDs and tapes?
I love going to battle against DRM and fighting for Fair Use and even against the concept of IP and copywrites. However, even if the battle is lost, and the corporations win, and those old farts get their old idea, that information gets them money, backed by government enforement, the consumers will still get to decide in the end and ultimately come out victorious. That's why the GPL came to life, to counteract Copyrights with Copylefts. Don't like that someone is trying to legally prevent you from re-using their program or picture or (information) in a way you see fit? Go someplace else where you have that freedom, like the open source community. I don't want consumers to have to do that, but I think that's where the majority of consumers will head to when the government comes knocking to collect "copywrite infringement funds" for monopolies.
Small example: Look at newspaper comics. Penny Arcade was attacked by the old farts who make some of the comics in newspapers because the Internet has broken down their ability to make as much money as they once did. The Internet is about sharing information, so any market system which heavily depends upon the creation of information is threatened, so they go screaming to the government for help. This has happened many times before in history. Eventually those markets either dissolve or adapt. Hopefully it will happen with this, too, as long as the government isn't successful (and it's impossible to be in this case) in forcing the old market to exist, and by doing so "discourage innovation and hurt consumers". :)
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Without DRM, there would still be a market to sell music online.
If RIAA, did not want to profit from this, there would be many that would.
The younger generation would buy/download online, not get CD's, whether or not the RIAA was selling.
Eventually the RIAA would sell online without DRM like everyone else.
DRM allows the RIAA to keep the old disposible media model (LP-8Track-Cassette-CD), where the consumers keep re-purchasing the same media. Consumers being able to have a "permanent" copy is scary to the RIAA. Copyright extensions and public domain are scary for the same reason. It would force new art/invention/innovation to get profit.
DRM, DMCA, and infinite copyright law are fighting agaist the "printing press like", which is free internet information exchange. No, "free information exchange" does not mean anarchy. There should be regulation that encourages innovation. But 120 year copyrights, and encrypting all information for sale is attempting to reverse free information exchange, and "kill the printing press".
I would just like to point out that every one of you who go and put money in Apple's pocket buying their tainted songs just puts that much more ammunition in the guns of the RIAA and their likes.
But is it going to far when you say those itunes you bought can only be played in pristine quality on an ipod? What if you opt for the zune? or if you change to a oss os? Would you want to leave your itunes behind and say "oh well, I'm not allowed to listen to those anymore"?
I'm not convinced that listening to music in its original pristine quality is an inalienable right. When lps were king, as soon as you started listening to the music you bought, its quality started to degrade due to scratches and general groove wear due to mechanical contact. And you couldn't just bring the record back to the store and get a replacement. The quality was about as good as you treated your collection. And if you wanted to back it up, you'd copy to cassette (or reel-to-reel, like my grandpa used to do with all his jazz and polka records) with significantly reduced quality. That analog duplication may be the only way to backup my music collection is now an infringement on my rights? It certainly wasn't 30 years ago. It's when they start to outlaw or heavily regulate the sale of microphones that I'll be worried.
That doesn't make any sense, plus once people buy $500 of ipod only tunes they are unlikely to want to change to a new service, aiding market domination and lack of choice.
Market dominance is certainly an issue. I think it's encouraging that so early in the development of legal downloads that there are at least 3 different major music download platforms: iTunes, playsForSure, and straight mp3. Again, moving between these services may not be convenient or "lossless", but it's possible and, I believe, still legal.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
But is it going to far when you say those itunes you bought can only be played in pristine quality on an ipod? What if you opt for the zune? or if you change to a oss os? Would you want to leave your itunes behind and say "oh well, I'm not allowed to listen to those anymore"?
:
.
Well, there's a difference between inconvenient and illegal
When you (legally) burn your DRM-protected AAC-tracks to an Audio-CD (from within iTunes) they are converted (without loss) to AIFF-files. Still "pristine" (i.e.: there is no further degradation from the original compression). You can now (legally) convert the AIFF-file to any other (lossless) audio-format, whatever yor player (Zune or what have you) supports. Sure, it's a shlepp, but you're absolutely allowed to do this.
Now compare this to ripping a DVD: You could do something similar, but that would actually be illegal
So (to reiterate): it's not true that you're "not allowed to listen to those [songs anywhere else]" . It's inconvenient, but not illegal.
sig? Oh, that sig...
I think you guys are missing the whole issue here.
Whatever your feelings on DRM (I personally won't buy anything DRM'd but do own an iPod; I use my CD collection) the regulation goverments are trying to do against Apple isn't whether they should or shouldn't have DRM, but rather whether or not they have to open the iTunes Store to competitors. The DRM would still be on every song.
So now that we are on the same page for whats going on and in Slashdot tradition, I am going to share my unasked for opinion on this subject.
Government to Apple: Hey apple, we know you put a ton of time and money into creating a fully integrated music/media solution for your users and were the first to really get consumers behind you...well how to put this, the other companies, nobody really wants to buy their stuff cause there are no integrated solutions for it. So do you think you could open up your online store and let everyone and their dog connect to it? We realize that this would lose you sales on your hardware which is where you make most (if not all) of your money. We also realize that when joe schmoe can't get his [insert brand] mp3 player to easily work with the store and automatically add purchased media to the mp3 player he is going to call you, despite that fact that you have nothing to do with the support of his mp3 player, thereby costing you more time and money in support. Further we understand that this will affect your image of "just works" because grandma will associate the hassle of getting her music she purchased through your store onto her [insert-brand] thereby causing damage to your image. So Apple, what do you think...you don't mind do you?
Apple to gov: Umm...how about no...
To me it just seems like the other companies (the ones too lazy to try to create their own fully integrated solution) are just trying to regulate their biggest competitor out of the business. What company would want to innovate like this in the future if they then have to open up everything they did to their competitors. It would be much easier to wait for the next guy to innovate and then force them to open up. Hence, resulting in further lack of consumer choice. And remember, if you don't like the choice, you don't have to take it (remember this isn't about DRM being there or not, the goverments aren't proposing getting rid of DRM).
Just my 2c (or 2p for you Euro guys).
Funny, DRM doesn't stop wholesale infringement. It never will - if the content can be seen or heard, it can be copied and distributed. It's worse than useless, since treating all customers as thieves = bad for business.
Here's a suggestion anyway: Offer quality content.
That includes good music, but other things as well - fantastic package art, fanclub memberships, entries in contests, points that could be redeemed for concerts, concert tickets themselves, ringtones, apparel, books, and things of that nature. Make the media more than the audio recording, and people will buy it.
Crippling the audio recording only penalizes those who stay legit. Those who cheat bareley even notice it.
Since when is it a creator's (and what an abused term that is for the deriviative pap we're discussing) right to limit every citizen's abiity to distribute information to preserve one version of a business model for an extremely low-priorty 'product', as their distributors now call it? One of the content distribution industy's greatest victories in the modern debate over copyright and DRM is to structure the discussion in such a way to completely shut out the greater effect on everyone and limit it to 'our rights' and 'our property', 'our' refering to a tiny minority and for the most part a rich, known minority interested preserving a market over being heard. Why on this green earth should some asshole in American Hollywood, who's 'product' I revile, determine how this Canadian uses a computer, the most general and powerful machine in the history of mankind, now being shoe-horned into the role of 'media centre' to preserve their livelihood? Wake. Up.
They sure as heck can donate. And that's worth many votes.
I have been using iTunes since its inception, and have just signed up for an account to download album art. I have never purchased anything, but use iTunes to burn CDs that I purchase -- fair use -- without any restrictions. I get access to music not available online, and have higher bit rates!
Apple is the least restrictive DRM, and I don't doubt for a minute that they have fought a pretty tough battle against labels wishing for the most draconian of rights.
Sorry, no contract is legally binding if you're not allowed to read it before purchasing.
At least one federal court disagrees.
Developers: We can use your help.
2p? You think we are British or something? Heaven forbid... No, we got cents just like the rest of ... the USA. Our civilization is developing nice and slowly towards higher standards now.
The actual problem is fundamentally tied to the monopoly control aspects of intellectual property. There were numerous solutions accomplishing the same thing before iTunes, but as the RIAA corps wanted to keep control, they weren't acceptable to them.
Amazing how the DOJ has the gall to point to this issue as an example of regulation hindering innovation; strict IP legislation has already held innovation in the field back for the last decade, and the US has been a prime example.
Imagine the applications possible without monopoly based IP... you could have a vast library with all human culture available at the touch of a button. You could navigate through genres, performers, creators, country and culture of origin, you could mix and create and derive and enrich the culture to your hearts content. (Oh, and without the money drains of the RIAA/MPAA corps, we could pay even more creative talent for the same resources we spend today).
So, let me throw it back in your face: Since when is it your right to post bullshit to the public without having taken the time to learn or think about the area? ("Bill of rights" and freedom of speech is irrelevant - I'm talking about the moral issue, where you should be self-censoring out of a combination of responsibility and pride in yourself.)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.