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."
'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.
The U.S. Government has recieved and gratefully appreciates Apples donation.
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?
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")
I get to pick two, right?
Be true and faithful like your dog; but don't eat vomit like your dog
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).