Slashdot Mirror
Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer
parvenu74 writes "Arstechnica is running an article pointing out that while some pockets of the entertainment industry are experimenting with DRM-free distribution, Apple Inc, which announced that they have now sold over 2,000,000,000 songs on iTunes, is now the strongest pro-DRM force in digial media. From the article: 'DRM is dying. It's a statement being echoed with increasing frequency around the Web over the last few weeks, and is perhaps best articulated in this Billboard article. But there's a powerful force standing in the way of this DRM-free panacea, and it might not be the one you expect: Apple, Inc.'"
I know Mac OS X is an excellent system. I enjoyed using their earlier systems in the 1980s and 1990s. But since the advent of the iPod and iTunes, I have refused to buy anything from Apple just because of their support of DRM. I don't need my rights "managed", especially by a corporation.
Yes Apple is DRM's biggest backer, then again Apple's DRM is the only DRm that is constant among all songs. Windows DRM can change per player, musician, studio, or even CD. If you have to have DRM then Apple's is certainly better than anyone else's.
Now the only thing better would be no DRM at all. I can't see that happening as long the RIAA exists. How else could they afford to pay to make more Britney's, and Spice Girls?
Till then I will boycott music from non independent sources.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I read that Apple TV works without DRM, well the DVI signal to the TV/monitor is not encrypted. How does that fit into this picture?
Apple DRM isn't exactly the strongest brand of DRM Goodness(tm).
I'm fairly certain everyone else is aware of that little secret too.
Be it the little known loop hole of secretly burning off your music and re-ripping it into your favorite codec or the more nefarious path known as fair play.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
On what planet did the writers come from? Apple is and has always been a company of control freaks. Not to say that every aspect of such behavior is bad, but it's often not good either.
(1) They control what hardware their OS will run on
(2) They often tried (though not recently) to control what OS(es) will run on their hardware
(3) They tried to control who/what could put songs on their iPods
(4) They are trying to control what software can be Applied to their iPhones
They are all about control, and I would be more surprised if they weren't in the top 5 biggest DRM supports since they deal in music, than that they are the biggest DRM supporter.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
the article is short-sighted. apple supports DRM because they have to in order to be granted the right to sell media from various studios. apple is a hardware company, and their hardware works just fine with non-DRM'ed media. the itunes music store embeds DRM because it has to. at no point is apple diametrically opposed to the destruction of DRM; it's not a mutually exclusive relationship in the least. in fact, if media were easier to obtain, a valid argument could be made that apple would benefit- if media were free, people would potentially be more interested in obtaining media hardware [from apple].
Apple's DRM doesn't wonderously restrict files. You can still burn them and rerip them.
.99 for a song, do almost what you want with it. They mostly have DRM so they can segway that iPod purchase into some iTunes purchases, and they can only offer that type of DRM. That is why the French fought to try and force Apple to disclose their DRM method. Apple is doing it more for a business model rather than legality according to distributing music. So it's going to be a tougher fight for them to either disclose their DRM method or to be totally non-DRM.
YES! We know there's a small reduction in quality.
Even though they have DRM, they aren't doing it totally for the RIAA. They have a business model that kind of works:
In reality, it's still the record labels that are in the biggest way of DRM and their legal rabbit the RIAA. The recent russian site that closed did send royalty checks to RIAA, but they never cashed them.
Systems are in place, but it's the industry that holds it back.
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
there will be no need for anti-piracy efforts.
Allofmp3 showed the path, is the riaa going to take the red pill or the blue pill?
My personal price range is 25 cents a song.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Apple is selling the right to re-sell music through them to the major music and movie companies. Guess who is requiring DRM? The major music and movie companies. And Apple is having a hard time convincing the major movie companies that online DRM for the movies sold through the iTunes Music Store is good enough. But not to worry. Any of the inherent deficiency in DRM systems exist in Apple's implementation of DRM. If you want to circumvent the measures meant to prevent you from copying what you downloaded from iTunes to your friends, it is not hard. And you can avoid this hassle entirely by ripping the CD yourself and then giving the copies to your friends. I would say you could do the same for DVDs, but they also requiring circumventing DRM to make copies.
:) the DRM provisions of the DMCA.
You could probably stop all of this nonsense by getting your congress person to de-authorize
I love Apple Notebooks and products because of their elegance but DRM has the advantage of locking you in. Apple's songs can be transferred to CD and other players once that iPod gets old but that is not so easy for Joe Average, better to get another iPod.
Apple put in DRM to reassure the music companies, but now it is working to their advantage. The music companies are probably regretting mandating DRM now because Apple is such a strong force in music because of this, that they can strongarm the RIAA into deals now, not the other way around.
This wouldn't have been easily possible with truly open music - then anybody with an iPod could have bought digital files anywhere they like, instead, they semi-have to go to Apple. (Yes, I realize the iPod can play many formats and ripped disks - but perception and ease of use among the average user is king here.)
Apple has an agreement to DRM the music in order to carry it.
Steve Jobs said:" "None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."
It seems to me when DRM goes,Apple isn't going to try and stop it.
No I don't own any macs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apple may be "pushing" DRM, but according to what I've read, it's mainly because they couldn't get the publishers to agree to a DRM-free model. To get access to the music catalogs, they had to be able to say they had a scheme for preventing iTunes from turning into (the old) Napster. The DRM model that they use is pretty much the weakest model you can have and still cal it DRM--you can burn any song or songs to CD and the protection scheme is weak enough that it's been repeatedly broken by people interested in "unprotecting" the files.
I know there are a number of purists (and anti-Apple types) who argue that any and all DRM is bad. But in my opinion, Apple's weak DRM scheme hasn't stopped the imaginary DRM-free world these folks are advocating--it has actually helped by prevented something much more onerous from becoming the de facto standard.
Can you imagine a world where the most successful music download service provides music in Microsoft's WMF and you can't burn a CD or copy the song to more than one PC? My hope is that the success of the weak-DRM'd iTunes store will discourage people from "renting" music or subscribing to some scheme where the DRM is significantly more restrictive.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
But a feud between Apple and RealNetworks over music downloads is exposing Jobs' tragic flaw. Amazingly, he seems to be making the same devastating mistakes with the iPod that he made with the Mac 20 years ago.
The iPod has half the digital music player market, and iTunes sells 70% of all legitimate music downloads. Jobs practically willed the digital music business into being.
But around 1985, Jobs and his executives decided not to license Apple's technology or operating system to any other company. Apple wanted total control. It wanted to sell all the products itself. It wanted no competitors.
This was a yawning opening for Microsoft, Intel and the PC. Since anyone could buy the licenses and components to make a Windows-based PC, that technology took wing.
"Apple could have reaped the benefits of having dozens, even hundreds of imitators all adding their own unique value to the Mac," wrote Jim Carlton in his 1997 book, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders. "Legions of suppliers would have sprung up all around the world to furnish components such as disk drives and memory. And since the software was light-years ahead of everybody else's, the Mac's, not Windows, might have come to dominate the personal computer market."
Instead, the opposite happened for Apple, and the PC crowd took advantage of those kinds of economics. This year, Apple is left with less than 4% of the market for personal computers -- basically a cult following.
More recently, Jobs has done for digital music what he once did for personal computing: He's made it appealing to non-techies. Once again, his design sets the pace. No device is as good as the iPod; no software solution works better than iTunes.
But like the Mac of 1985, it's a closed system. Other than open-source MP3 files, only music downloaded through iTunes will play on iPods, and iTunes music won't play on any portable device except an iPod. Apple refuses to license the technology to third parties. Instead of setting a standard for all, Apple wants to own it all. When Microsoft behaves that way, everybody screams antitrust.
So how comes that as a surprise that they are the major users of DMR technlology?
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Apple is pretty friendly to independent music sources, as well - CDBaby has a deal where for a small fee they'll perform digital distribution, and I've noticed that iTMS is the overwhelming source of all of the digital purchases of my band's stuff.
Their payout rates to artists are as good or better than other services, as I discussed elsewhere.
So while no-DRM would be ideal, Apple's approach isn't unfriendly to indie musicians.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Restrictive DRM = Bad for consumers. Draconian style restrictions that stop the average consumer from doing ordinary things with their music.
Apple's music is unrestrictive DRM (2 Billion songs worth) you can even burn it to a Audio CD removing the DRM entirely.
We're not talking about zunes that let you share a song which expires after a few plays or a few days (which ever comes first.) Or windows media devices that require regular docking otherwise the music will cease to function. We're talking about the ability to legally download music and literally give it to any of 5 computer users. Or burn copies and spread them infinitely. Some kids use maybe two of their 5 licenses on other computers in the house, the rest usually go to their friends. (Legal or not, it still lets you.)
The fact that Apple is the #1 'DRM purveyor' is just a function of the fact that they are the #1 music download service. DRM was a condition absolutely insisted upon by the big record labels. You can argue as to whether or not DRM would have any kind of foothold as it does today were it not for iTMS, and its a valid argument. In the end, this too shall pass; you can't change physics and the old model must pass away eventually. (Kicking and screaming, as it turns out.)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
You can live in a DRM free world today. Your participation in the existing paradigm is voluntary. Is there anything stopping you today from producing your own hit movie and releasing it without DRM?
If you don't like DRM then become a DRM-free producer. You'll be a more effective leader by walking that walk than you will by being a harping critic who takes no action.
DRM is not inherently evil, but often implementations are troublesome or onerous.
I probably sound like an Apple apologist here, but to be honest I have no problem with the relatively weak DRM included on iTMS songs or movies. They don't prevent me from watching, they don't prevent me from copying (within reason) and I really believe that the DRM inherent in iTMS and by extension iTunes is not a problem.
OK, some people may have a huge problem with DRM philosophically. I must admit, I am not over the moon about the whole idea either but the DRM world is one that we are going to live in whether we like it or not. If we have to accept DRM, then it shouldn't be overly onerous. I think that Apple's implementations are as "consumer-friendly" as you're likely to find. They don't prevent me from using my purchased media, and I don't get the feeling that Apple can "turn off my music" at whim just becuase I changed my registered card number at iTMS. Besides, it's simple to work around with even lossless conversions. I know, I've converted stuff in the past... but generally my purchased iTMS music remains "DRM encumbered" and I have no problems sharing it with my wife's computer or my daughter's iPod as well as my own iPod. The only reason I sometimes convert said music is so I can put a copy on my MythTV box so I can have it when I want to play music on that.
All of course IMO.
So Apple is the biggest backer of DRM. But then, the DRM I get when I buy songs on iTunes still gives me more choice than the DRM that comes with some CDs these days. And it won't install root kits either. So maybe Apple's just the biggest backer because they're the only large company that uses a kind of DRM people don't mind to being subject to.
But it is also the entity responsible for the oncoming demise of DRM on digital music- or at least the non-FairPlay, non-Watermark variety. Why is Microsoft suddenly the biggest cheerleader for non-DRMed music? Because their obtuse and nasty version of DRM got flattened in the marketplace.
All the other DRM formats can't compete and so they are going to the labels and applying their utmost pressure to be able to release DRM free. The labels are listening because the alternative is ceding utter control of their future digital distribution to Apple.
Watermarking will end up being their common friend. The RIAA gets someone to sue and the online music stores get a format that plays on the iPod. I'm not sure watermarking gives me the warm fuzzies (in fact the whole idea gives me the willies), but it is the likely way for this to play out.
"(1) They control what hardware their OS will run on"
No, they control the software need to run the hardware they build.
Apple is a hardware company, always have been.
"(2) They often tried (though not recently) to control what OS(es) will run on their hardware"
No, they never helped some write software for there hardware, but they never tried to stop anyone either.
"(3) They tried to control who/what could put songs on their iPods"
No. They came out with a way to get music onto a hardware device they made. They have done nothing to stop the myriad of other software that can also be used to content onto the iPod.
"(4) They are trying to control what software can be Applied to their iPhones"
This has yet to be seen. I suspect this is an issue with American carriers, if itis true.
Apple doesn't really care what you do with the hardware you purchase.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Microsoft does a great job of diverting attention away from the fundamental problems in the software industry that the F/OSS movement attempts to redress. So much Microsoft bashing happens here and in other forums that the uninitiated might think the primary motivation of the F/OSS movement is to usurp Microsoft. Not so.
If you've never taken the time to read about the philosophy of the free software movement, you really should take the time to do so. The problem is bigger than Microsoft.
This article nor the second one is infact not well written at all, a good article would not make such huge leaps of faith saying the market is one way, when there is plenty of evidence that exists now (such as the fact that much of the music on iPods comes from CD rips, NOT iTunes Music Store) that proves its not even that way today.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Apple is well respected for design and, well, just for being a cool brand, but no one has ever associated Apple and openness. Apple is THE closed, proprietary, system. Being the big backer of DRM is completely consistent for them so I'm not sure why the summary suggests that we should be surprised.
I'm sure a lot of people care about DRM, particularly the sorts you find on slashdot. But hey really, if people cared about DRM so much then Apple wouldn't be able to sell song.
Apple is just like every other large greedy corporation, they do whatever they can get away with to ensure the biggest slice of profit for themselves.
Apple doesn't want to piss off it's customers (too much), otherwise they wouldn't be successful. So, if they think Joe Shmuck will tolerate a bit of lock-in, or DRM (by keeping them happy with shiny new toys) - then lock in and DRM is what he'll get.
I point the finger at the money focused structure of the public company, weaknesses in the free market model, and lazy consumers who only care about themselves.
If you really care, then vote with your feet! Take your money and loyalty elsewhere - then apple will start to listen. (try emusic.com or something)
Ross Kendall Web Consultant and Developer (UK) - Drupal and Open Source Solutions
I've always imagined that Apple's reluctance to open their iPod/iTunes environment up to third parties will eventually be the iPod's undoing. At the moment, consumer electronics are a mess. Everything is proprietary and nothing works together, much the same way PC's were back in the early 80's. It's only in these kinds of situations that Apple's closed culture really thrives.
Eventually, though, someone is going to get it when it comes to consumer electronics, much the same way Microsoft did with PC's. People like to give Microsoft a lot of crap about how they run their business, but forget the they did a lot of the legwork for making the PC a standardized environment.
Once the digital media market has matured, I imagine we'll look back on the days of the iPod much the same way we look back on the early days of Apple. Meanwhile, Apple will have moved on to another market segment and continue to do what they do best, innovate within a small, closed environment.
First they argued to labels that the liberal DRM is needed - or consumers will not buy songs. Now the coin flipped and Apple wants DRM themselves since it is one of the reasons why people buy iPods - so they can use well-integrated iTMS.
Well, it is business as usual: they have made some sacrifices in past (like $0.70 label fee on every song sold) but now they just want to maintain the position iPod has gained in market.
If Apple resorts to such tactics, we may conclude that end of iPod's rein in market is looming. And Apple is feeling that: otherwise they wouldn't have resorted to such low tactics.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I looked at iTunes but their prices are way too high - basically the same as buying a CD at Amazon.com - and the DRM restrictions were just enough to make me want to stay away.
I've been very happy with emusic.com, which offers a growing catalog of music, prices that are about 1/3 of Apple's, and completely unrestricted MP3 files.
Sure you won't find top 40 dreck at emusic.com, but if your tastes are the least bit adventurous there's a lot of great music at reasonable prices.
Bill Evans, Thelonius Monk, Lucinda Williams, Kirsty MacColl, Tom Waits....
Three Squirrels
As the article points out, Apple is neither pro-DRM or anti-DRM. I think FairPlay is just a means to an end for Apple: Apple wanted more sales of their iPods. One way to do it is to make it easy for individuals to purchase music online. If Apple wanted online music distribution, Apple had to work with the music distributors and develop a system that they would permit. FairPlay was/is a compromise. The DRM is restrictive enough not to allow wholesale piracy but not so restrictive as to trample over fair rights.
There will always some people who will not tolerate any DRM. There are those who think that Apple is being unfair in not licensing their system and leveraging their monopoly. Unlike the MS Windows monopoly, consumers have real choices here. If they don't like Apple's DRM, buy CDs. Buy something other than an iPod and buy music from other distributors. Apple is the biggest player here because consumers have chosen it to be.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The headline and summary state that "Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer" as though this is fact, so I was disappointed to see that the link is just to an opinion piece--I was expecting a smoking gun, like Jobs saying "DRM is wonderful; DRM forever."
I'll set forth my own opinion: Apple gains nothing from DRM. Apple makes its money selling hardware, like iPods and Macs. Nobody credible believes that Apple is making much, if any, money from the iTunes music store. Instead, it seems the iTMS exists for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so Apple can sell more iPods.
Therefore, in economic terms, music is the complement to the iPod: the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. It's in Apple's interest to ensure there is as much digital music out there as possible. DRM in the iTMS is merely a means to an end, in that it makes it possible for Apple to sell downloads in an easy-to-use, legal product. I don't mean that DRM makes it *technically* possible, because of course Apple could sell DRM free MP3s. It makes it possible from a *business* perspective, as the labels would cry bloody murder if Apple sold DRM free MP3s in its easy-to-use store.
Because the DRM exists ultimately for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so they can download music from an easy-to-use store--Apple doesn't care about the DRM. They just want the music to be easily available in an easy-to-use store (P2P services are not nearly as usable as the iTMS.) Prices at the iTMS are relatively high, considering what ALLOFMP3 is selling music for. But Apple isn't making much money here. Apple would be better off without the DRM, if it could get away with that, and with cheap prices--remember, the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. More music also would drive appetites for bigger capacity iPods, thus driving sales for newer models.
I think the evidence shows that Apple realizes that DRM benefits it little and that DRM hinders its customers, thus ultimately reducing the sales of iPods. Apple does not license its DRM scheme to other players. I think part of the reason for that is because Apple realizes that it would not benefit from having an industry standard DRM scheme. Such a scheme would keep music prices high, which would mean that customers would have less money to spend on iPods and less music to put on them.
Also, look at the weakness of the iTunes DRM. Burn to a CD, rip it back. It's a well-known hole. Apple has done nothing to close it (unlike Microsoft, which has attempted to implement digital watermark schemes) because Apple doesn't want the DRM to be a hassle. They only have the DRM to placate the labels, and the DRM works well enough for this purpose. This hole is a hassle for customers, though. I think Apple would prefer no DRM at all.
I realized all this when I heard of the lawsuits of people complaining that the iPod is not interoperable. That's absurdity. The iPod plays MP3, the most universal music format there is. The iPod is interoperable with any store that sells MP3s. It's not Apple's fault that the other music stores (except the brilliant ALLOFMP3, along with other players like Magnatune and eMusic) are selling music encumbered with Windows DRM. If Apple were truly interested in locking people in with DRM, then Apple would make their music players play ONLY Apple DRM-locked files.
TFA says "The lock-in afforded by FairPlay creates an Apple ecosystem that essentially ties the iPod to iTunes and to Apple, at least for commercial transactions." That's equally absurd. There is an ecosystem between iPod and iTunes, making them easy to use together. That certainly benefits Apple. However, FairPlay is not creating the lock-in. The majority of music in most people's iTunes collections are ripped from CDs or are downloaded through means other than the iTMS. If Apple sold unencumbered MP3s in its store, then there would still be an easy-to-use Apple ecosystem. The purpose of the ecosystem is to sell more iPods, not to lock people in to a DRM scheme.
Penny - plain text accounting
Apple is not a backer of DRM. Apple has DRM in iTunes because there would be no iTunes without it. It is there to keep Big Music happy and content. As soon as it becomes possible (and it will, the way DRM seems to be wilting away), Apple will drop DRM from the music it sells. But never, ever could they have made the music industry to give their goods for sale on iTunes if there had been no DRM. That's just an ugly fact.
Biggest DRM clusterfuck ever? Vista!
I'm not even going to RTFM. Apple sells 2 billion DRM'd songs, ergo, Apple must be the biggest road block to removing DRM from electronically distributed goods? That's nonsense. It wouldn't be nonsense if Apple owned rights to what they're selling, but they don't - they're just the distributors. The DRM is a condition of being able to distribute. Take Apple out of the equation and you'll see what the RIAA really want - which is price differentiation (latest pop "hits" cost more than old stuff), music "rentals" (you never own what you buy) and a big slice of the revenue from every device sold for use to play or perform the digital content.
So far as I know, the DRM stops casual copying but is easily circumvented. It seems like a pragmatic solution to me and if people want to see real DRM, bring on the Microsofts, and Napsters of this world!
Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning
I will never buy anything from iTunes.
...and a lot of the reasons can be found here. Apple's DRM is fair, thoughtful, addresses both the consumer's and the distributor's needs, and everybody goes into it (except perhaps the truly techno-illiterate) knowing the deal. Come on, multiple devices, 5 computers, being able to easily reset which devices are approved...is this really unfair?
/. because all I ever see is a huge number of highly modded posts supporting the idea that the rights of the people creating this stuff are less important than the rights of the dick who doesn't feel he has to pay for it. I mean, you really think you're going to have the same range, quality, and depth of experience if music is handed out unprotected when the majority of people posting here are all ready proudly posting how they steal it in the first place?
I've really tried to stop reading anything to do with DRM on
Sure, this post will be followed by the 0.01% of people who have some minor, lateral and perhaps even justifiable reason for hating DRM or iTunes or Apple, but that has nothing to do with the general, common-use issues of creative content and the rights of the owners and the agencies they deal with to protect their assets.
Hate corporations (I do, their generally soulless minions), hate the clumsiness of general DRM (like Microsoft-in-the-head's implementations), but instead of just thumping your chest because you cheat or steal and get away with it, offer a solution...or protest it honestly by sticking to the stuff you can access legally for free. But don't pretend that your clever music-stealing schemes are anything more than sticking your hand in somebody else's pocket.
Apple's DRM is, if you like Apple products, more than fair. That is, until all the UNIX-fanboys living here develop their uber-sophisticated, 'permanently version 0.32' of DRM/player technology that lets me freely transport my songs among all my various computers/players (oh, wait, that is what I have now...and now I'm just being nasty). Until then, I'll happily support iTunes, download songs that are fairly priced and as transparently protected as possible. As to the corporations that many of us (myself included) love to hate so much, their days are numbered anyway, if Koopa is any indication of the future.
That's because this "workaround" doesn't pose much of a threat to their DRM endeavors. Some major drawbacks and some other possible hassles:
So while you can make a digitally transferable version of the song you bought if you really want to and are willing to put in some work, it's really not a viable option for a collection. Even then, you're losing quality.
It seems as if they're paying lip-service to DRM in order to satisfy record companies, whilst making no attempt to implement a secure system.So by not totally eliminating your ability to play the music you buy from them on what is likely the most prevalent music playback device (the CD player), Apple is only "paying lip-service" because including that ability enables a clumsy and time-consuming workaround?
When the DRM is successful at preventing copying in 98% of cases, and is significantly irritating and has drawbacks in the other 2%, I'd say Apple's doing a lot more than paying lip service. It's more like a french kiss.
People need to get real about Apple. Much of this thread just consists of saying that when Apple does it, it doesn't count. It does count. Apple is the leading exponent in our industry of the customer lockin. Now, this makes things uncomfortable for the devotees, who realize that lockins and DRM are decidedly uncool and ethically very dubious, and associated with the arch enemy MS. So they spend a lot of their time in intellectual contortions trying to deny that Apple is what it is. It is a bit like trying to argue that the former Soviet Union was really very free and democratic. Same sort of silly contortions and denials. Facts:
1) OSX is not open source. Its as proprietary as Windows.
2) You still cannot buy a retail copy of OSX that will run on your shiny old MacIntel. You only get to buy either an upgrade or a retail pack for PPC. Can you think of any legitimate reason for this other than lockin?
3) Despite the fact that the MacIntel is a standard enough Intel box, Apple has gone to great lengths to lock OSX to only those Intel boxes that it has blessed with its logo. No technical reason, its pure lockin.
4) iTunes is a locked system. Yes, you do have to use the Apple software to buy an iTune, and then once you have it, you can't play it on another player without going through contortions and losing quality and maybe violating the DMCA. There is no reason to refuse to license fairplay other than a deliberate effort at consumer lockin.
5) Jobs did say, to the NY Times, that you won't be able to run your own software on the iPhone. The laugable reason given was to protect you and the cellular network. But it fits with all the rest. Its just about control and lockin. As is the taboo on unlocking it and moving it to another network.
Add it all together, and its not much different from MS in approach. The details vary, but the approach and the aim are identical. It stinks. What Apple people need to do is stop denying this. Stop justifying it on the grounds that it helps sell Macs. Of course it does, that is the entire point of lockins, to make you buy things you otherwise would not.
You may all like the fact that the trains run on time, but no, there are no elections and there never will be any. Just accept publicly that lockin is the price you are prepared to pay for your chosen platform and the prosperity of your chosen company. But don't tell the rest of us that black is really white, and there really is no lockin. There is, and it stinks.
And its not at all cool either.
somebody with sense agrees with what I've been saying for years:
- DRM is a fad
- Apple loves DRM
What I found interesting in this submission is that there seems to be a grudging admission by the record companies (not RIAA) that DRM is now hurting their bottom line. It hasn't hit the motion picture and some book publishing executives yet, but it might in time.
If anything, the sales figures are proving that RIAA was talking through its hat all along. Yes, I know, obvious to everyone on Slashdot, but sometimes reality has to slap executives around for a few years before the message gets through.
What's interesting is that the companies that "get it" and have dropped the DRM restrictions have been doing better than those who have clung to it. DRM is expensive to implement, and you end up in a continuing cycle of trying to "protect" things as each new version gets broken, and as consumers start to stay away from it, since they can't do anything with it. Those that dropped it, or didn't bother in the first place have lesser costs, and better customer relations, which equals profit.
It's sad that it takes that much to get the message through. People prefer to be honest. People will buy reasonably priced content. People do not like being told what to do with something they bought, and most definitely don't enjoy being treated like thieves instead of customers! These are obvious points that seems to get missed when you're insulated in an executive suite.
This just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
The only apparent benefit I can see to Apple from DRM would be if Apple somehow used it for prevent iPod owners from getting music anywhere else but the iTunes store. But Apple doesn't do this.
Why wouldn't Apple be perfectly happy to sell UNprotected AAC's or MP3's through the iTune store if the music publishers would let them? (Heck, it might even reduce the load on their servers, since I believe the FairPlay DRM has to be embedded into the file on-the-fly uniquely for every download).
Apple doesn't lock down Mac OS X with copy protection schemes or activation, either. And even though Mac OS X runs on Macs, Mac OS X _upgrades_ are a significant source of revenue to them.
Apple is control-freaky about a lot of things, but I see no evidence at all they they're into DRM for DRM's sake.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Today, Apple's DRM may not feel so restrictive but it's an illusion. You can end run the DRM by burning a CD and reencoding the music with a minimal loss of quality. Apple has even reached out to be the new gatekeeper of massive sales for musicians. Compared to the analog past, it's not such a huge loss. Compared to the digital future, it's a travesty. Even people from the analog past can gripe about being required to buy a branded music player because they are used to things just working from any hardware maker. People used to platform independence and free software have the most to lose - Apple's DRM forces the purchase of software and hardware that puts you straight back into the commercial software world of the 1980s. Suddenly, to have popular media on your computer you have to give control of that computer to someone else. With that control, bad things happen. No thanks, I'll stay DRM free.
The problem is that others might not stay DRM free. If they can establish a market for DRM'd music, non free software makers can continue to push their poison. In the worst of worlds, it replaces the radio based media monopolies. In a free world, non DRM music publishers will push them out. With competition, only the pigopolists lose. The musicians and the public win. The non free software monopoly has the potential to be much worse than the old analog distribution monopoly and can be that much worse for everyone but the pigopolist. If they can make their poison just paletable enough for just long enough, they can win and become the new "gatekeepers" able to push whatever garbage they want by excluding everyone else. It's only when there are clear winners that the real abuse takes place, unless you are stupid like Microsoft is. Their platform is so abusive and painful that no one wants it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
is not quite dead yet. They are, in theory, slated for closure but for the time being they're still up and running.
Apple was always the first company to come to my mind when thinking of DRM. Do you really think they would let go of the install base for their inadequate music player? How about their hardware? Almost nothing works for third party software/hardware with the exception of their OS's and even they are under strict guidelines.
Apple had to make some concessions to get the record companies to go along with licensing to iTunes/iPod. The record companies were sure they were going to be used for pirating. Apple had to give them some assurances to get the record companies to sign on.
Good workaround, sure. As long as the record companies are happy, let's not burst their delusional bubble.
photosMy Photostream
I'm beginning to think that the slashdot website is degenerating into a trollsite.
This time I didn't bother to read the article because I've read enough of
Arstechnica's twisted spew to conclude that the excuse-for-content
of the entire article can be extrapolated from the title.
Almost every Arstechnica posting I've read via slashdot is some sort
political or religious rant posturing as an informative article.
The deliberate distortion combined with aggressive ignorance in these articles is nauseating.
Is there a single writer for that mag over the emotional age of 6.
For a better excuse for technology information go to www.digg.com
Why are people blaming Apple for DRM? Do you blame the distributor (Tower Records) of a physical CD for the album cover art? Anyone with half a brain knows that Apple has to cater to the music labels. Just because they have sold more songs than anyone else doesn't make them the biggest supporter of DRM. It doesn't even make them the richest, as the labels are still basking in that glory. Artists? They hardly even show up on the scope...
Apple controls its stuff, so the customer can control his own stuff.
All the freedom in the world is useless if one cannot make use of it. Linux, as great as it is, as much as I like it, as much as I use it, STILL isn't ready for grandma or uncle bob. WHY? Because it takes a guy like me to download (or buy) it, install it, set it all up so that it looks like something they are familiar with.
And between the two consumer OSes out there, I much rather trust Apple to actually get things right, which means allowing the user to do what the user wants without digging for heinous workarounds and without restrictions.
In two years, when the choice is VISTA and Mac OS X Tabby I know which one I'll be forced to buy because it will be the ONLY one that will "just work".
This is why Linux Fanboys didn't get the iPod, why many don't get the iPhone. It is exactly the same thing, people will pay for something if it makes it easier to use, or more convenient. Think McDonalds vs homemade burgers. I can make my family better tasting burgers if I cook them myself, but sometimes Daddy doesn't want to cook and just wants to feed the kids. The phrase, "I can make a better burger for less cost" doesn't really matter.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
DRM only hurts Apple, as illustrated by parent. It's always been obvious to me that Apple only implemented DRM into the iTMS because there wouldn't be an iTMS without it. It was a necessary evil. No DRM, no support from the record labels.
Apple has always had a good attitude about Music and fair use. Remember the Rip. Mix. Burn. campaign? It's your music. Burn it on a Mac.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
* "PERSONAL FABRICATION: A Talk with Neil Gershenfeld"
* Democratizing Innovation
Bring on the future, where things like fab@home are in every home, where people no longer have to wait for companies to develop products, the people as a community develop them together, with the same spirit/philosophy of FOSS.
I don't want a Win/Mac box, I don't care how easy either of them appear, I want a free and open source box and neither Win/Mac provide me with that freedom. Here's a brief article I recommend everyone read:
The Land of "Nothing for free" by Jeremy Allison .
The fact that our society today is filled with people who would rather consume than fiddle is one of the reasons why gas guzzling cars with proprietary internals are still used by the majority. Eventually this will all change as people will more easily be able to develop their own hardware themselves (think something like fab@home in every home) with free/open hardware designs shared and improved upon.
The question is: do you want to support the FOSS movement or do you want to support companies who provide closed source software? I don't care if hardware from Microsoft or Apple can run Linux, I don't want my money going to either company, period. If other people enjoy tinkering with said hardware, cool. I believe we all should (and will, eventually) be developing hardware on our own. Those who would respond with, "I don't care about all that, I just want X,Y,Z" are the focal point of blame. Unwind the philosophy from the person and the soul is nothing but another bag of peas to scan at the check stand for Company A,B,C.
Isn't Apple's DRM pretty moderate and easily broken? If that's the worst we face now, can that not be considered good progress? Does *everything* have to be spun negative in the media these days? I swear we could wake up tomorrow and magically have a fully functioning and peaceful democracy in Iraq, and somehow the media would present it as a terrible tragedy.
How many bootleg Macs do you see out there? It is this low piracy rate that has kept their marketshare so low. And if any of the others were really worried about piracy, they would employ Apple's and Avid's and Pro tools' methods of tying software to hardware. I'm not complaining about it, just pointing out that Apple has been very successful in this matter because they have always had DRM built into their hardware...er..software. How many of you are running OSX or OS9 or even 7.5 in a virtual machine on your linux boxes? And furthermore, how come Apple gets to keep their BIOS under IP lockdown when IBM had to give theirs up? They may treat other peoples' Imaginary Property rather lightly, but they protect their own with a very effective iron fist...so to speak :-)
What?
Let me pre-emptively address the people who don't care about spelling and grammar. If you use incorrect syntax, or misspell a word in code or data, it's not going to work right, so you have to fix the error. When you're writing for humans, don't you owe us at least as much respect as you do a machine?
Watt wood-eyed dew width out mine ice bell Czech her?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Um, with the Zune doing SOOOOO well , and Visturd(tm) just around the corner, I call shennanigans!
With the exception of the iTunes Store, I see absolutely NO effort to have "in your face" DRM in OS X.
Compare that with Vista's "sandbox" approach to multimedia I/O. No, we don't have Leopard yet to compare to, but methinks that the Mac developer community would be screaming bloody murder if the kind of Big Brotherism that exists in Vista was planned for OS X.
Just compare what you can do with a song purchased at the Zune store with what you can do with that same song purchased at the iTunes Store, and you'll immediately get my point.
You're misquoting the "Man's Prayer" from the Red Green show. It's But, not And. At least in the original Canadian broadcast...
All these fucks out there..."iPod is awesome!" "I want a PowerBook!" "OOO SHINY NEW APPLE PHONE!!! GIMME"
Congrats on supporting a company that backs the very reason so many people are pissed off.
DRM.
How's that hypocrisy taste, you braindead fucking consumer?
Living With a Nerd
"On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple's iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store. He said "no." I was puzzled, because I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php
An unnamed "head" lawyer? If the EFF is going to practice journalism, is it too much to ask that they don't suck as bad as the mainstream press?
"Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer"? Really? I think there is a significant difference between a company that actively goes out of it's way to find ways to integrate DRM into it's products versus a company that is realistic about the current IP climate and realizes that in order to have any product to sell at the iTunes store, DRM is a necessary evil. In the future, once recording studios become a bit more comfortable with this manner of music sales and realize that they could maximize profits by dropping the needless expense of DRM, maybe we'll see completely unencumbered music sales. Additionally, it's clear from the massive music sales at iTunes, at least in the short term, that many people are either uneducated about the restrictions of DRM or just don't care because it doesn't significantly impair the way they use their music. Personally, I wouldn't by music at iTunes because of the DRM, but I, like many posting on Slashdot, are the minority.
On a different subject, the thing I find most curious is all the DRM restrictions that they're squeezing into Windows Vista. Who's going to want to use Vista if they can't play any of their music or videos? What features are they adding to Vista to make people want to use it versus all the restrictions they're building into the OS with respect to DRM?
I disagree. I don't think that most people buying music from ITMS have any idea of how negative DRM is and the pitfalls that could potentially be in-store for them by buying DRM'ed music. The majority of people that I see using iPods on the street are what I call YMCs (Young Marketing Chicks). Not exactly the people that have technology savvy or really much perception of anything beyond the latest fad (the perfect iPod demographic).
What's interesting is that the companies that "get it" and have dropped the DRM restrictions have been doing better than those who have clung to it
Just for the record, Apple can't drop the DRM restrictions because they don't own the content they're distributing. The companies that need to "get it" are, as you rightfully point out, the record companies. Wish everyone else in this discussion understood that too.
All these fucks out there..."iPod is awesome!" "I want a PowerBook!" "OOO SHINY NEW APPLE PHONE!!! GIMME" Congrats on supporting a company that backs the very reason so many people are pissed off.
Oh wake up and get a clue! Apples DRM is easily circumvented and exists because the Association representing the copyright holders of the material Apple distributes demands that their content be "copy protected".
Also, iPods being awesome - yeah they are. Awesome in their simplicity, their relentless focus on their core function and the ability to get out of the way of the person who is using that function. That's why they're so popular. If you wish to telnet into the Kremlin from your music player, then obviously, you'll be disappointed with Apples offering.
And thanks for making me take a fan boy position.
How exactly is a subscription service business model at all functional without DRM? In order to have access to the entire music library *as long as you pay the monthly fee* it is assumed that the music will "expire" when you don't renew the contract.
Pretending like paying for a download is a purchase is when DRM becomes a dirty little secret. Subscription services are like rentals. DRM downloads are not like purchases, however.
The worst part about the iTMS DRM is that it locks you into Apple products forever unless you want to abandon your "purchase."
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Try to watch an iTMS video file on your Zune. No? What about any other portable device that isn't made by Apple or a laptop running iTunes?
This *shouldn't* be a problem that consumers have to deal with.
It sounds like it's not so much preventing you from watching it on anything you want as preventing you from even *thinking* about watching it on anything else.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Is Apple going to follow Microsoft's lead into more restrictive DRM? =)
It's a sick fantasy to believe that Apple only uses DRM to satisfy record companies. The iTMS wouldn't be nearly as profitable if everyone could simply and easily share the song files they bought. There's no question that one person would pay for the song and send it to all his or her friends if there wasn't a technological restriction preventing them from doing so. Apple's store would be at least on the order of five times less profitable without it. Apple makes some nice things, but that doesn't change the situation: in running the largest online music store, Apple has an even larger stake in DRM than the record companies do.
Haven't seen this yet- is non-RIAA music from iTunes DRMed? The only way the RIAA music ever got onto iTunes was to have some kind of DRM, so I can't blame Apple for that. You don't have to get your music from there, so from my point of view this becomes a non-issue.
As for the iPhone lock-in to Cingular, I'm wondering if there will be enough criticism to force Apple to eventually partner with the other cell companies?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
At first they fought the record companies against it, but now it makes sense for Apple to keep it.
The iTunes DRM keeps iPods as the only portable players that can play iTunes-purchased content.
cygnuhchur
Setup: user owns an iPod. User uses iTune Music Store to buy a large collection of music. One day, the user is in a parade, and drops his iPod. Before he picks it up, an elephant steps on it. It is crushed. The day after the parade, the user shops around for a replacement for his crushed iPod. Question: what are the user's options?
Scenario 1: The collection of music that the user bought, is UNprotected. Answer 1: the user can buy any music player, and it will work with his collection. Maybe it'll be an Apple product, maybe it won't.
Scenario 2: The collection of music that the user bought, is protected. Answer 2: the user will buy an Apple iPod.
The real point (I'm not actually cautioning you against participating in parades, though I do recommend keeping a safe distance from elephants) is that DRM always means lack of interoperability. It is always a form of product-tying, working against a free market. That is why some vendors consider it to be to their advantage.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If they had to change the DRM standard now, wouldn't that kind of retroactively gum up the works with the existing setup (both hardware and software, including the music files)? It seems to me that Apple has a good thing going for them, so of course they're not about to stop. Just because I've never bought an Apple product doesn't mean I can't appreciate some of the great things they've managed to do for the average consumer and the nice little touches they include (say, when you pull a pair of headphones out of the jack when music is playing, it mutes it, or so I'm told). It's the little things that make the whole package that much sweeter. My mom didn't really have any trouble setting up the iPod the college gave her for when she creates podcasts. Technology shouldn't be all that obtrusive, and while I don't agree with DRM philosophically, at least the easy workaround (burn and rip from an audio CD) is available for those that choose to purchase music from the iTunes Music Store. Just because it's successful doesn't always mean it's bad! Heck, Ubuntu is what got me interested in Linux to begin with, since it seems pretty straightforward. I have friends that use it, and I'll get around to installing it eventually.
Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
So now someone from a record ranking service claims that DRM is dead? Please forgive me for quoting "Thank You for Smoking", but he (the author) hardly sounds like a credible expert.
The guy writing the article claims that if digital music sales slump, record executives will hit the panic button. His conclusion is that this will somehow cause them to abandon DRM?
The "places to watch" list says nothing about any firm change to go with DRM-free music. He puts Amazon first on the list, and claims, at the end of the paragraph, that Amazon has the power to force a DRM strategy shift. What's holding them back? Actually, he answers that for us: The online retailer reportedly is itching to get into digital downloads but is holding out for a DRM-free service. So they are holding off on what they supposedly have the power to do? My BS alarm is on 5 bells after reading that.
I've got a company to put in place of Amazon on his list: APPLE
Look for 2007 to be business as usual, but look for killer jokes about abandoning DRM at the water cooler, too. One last suggestion: music labels seem to be so scared that CD sales are slipping, and if digital music sales begin slipping, it means the sky is falling. What have the labels done to stop this by looking internally, rather than trying music-with-control and now abandoning it?
- Have they considered that sales are slipping because they are still trying to force us to buy 6-10 crap songs for every 2-4 hits? (Stadium Arcadium anyone?)
- Have they started requiring that newly-signed artists have a good voice that requires no digital retouching, and have the ability to write thought-provoking music?
- Have they cut down on the number of "me too" bands they support?
- Have they caught on that education levels are rising, and people are more media-savvy than ever before in their target audience?
I've got a hypothesis I want one of these anti-DRM people to prove or disprove:
Music sales are slumping because the labels continue to shun talented artists in favor of crafting mega stars and enforcing little or no quality standards in the music that they publish.
There is a better way, by which you avoid the loss in quality caused by the decompression->compression process (however slight it may be): http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155 3
...and you'll save that cd for something useful instead (pr0n?)
Past stories on Slashdot and more credible sources have suggested that Apple does indeed pull in around 10-12 cents per song. Each one of those is charged a transaction fee by Visa or Paypal or however you pay for the songs (except gift cards, naturally). Then you have to take into account the actual costs of running the store, from maintenance to bandwidth to artwork to massively redundant data storage (for accounts and the media files themselves).
Put another way, Apple's earnings reports indicate that ALL non-hardware sales at Apple clock in at less than 10% of their total revenue. This includes software sales of their OS, iLife, iWork, their pro applications, AppleCare purchases, etc. AND iTunes sales. The explosive growth in both Mac and other hardware sales (and now their consumer electronics products) make the iTunes sales essentially irrelevant to their bottom line.
"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.
What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it." -- Steve Jobs
Funny, the last thread I posted this quote to was titled Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM? iTunes is a success because its DRM is basically "honor system", because that's about as far as DRM can be pushed.
That's what I thought of first, too.
It'll be hard to convince Apple that their DRM was a bad idea after 2 billion songs have been purchased by people who don't give a damn that they paid full price for low bitrate music they might not be able to play in 10 years. I swear, some people think 128k AAC sounds better than the original CD, and anything Apple touches must be the best.
Apple has the right to use DRM. If you don't like their arbitrary restrictions, don't buy from them, and educate others.
Because they made it easy - even trivial - to not go the DRM route
Everybody made it "easy [...] to not go the DRM route" long before Apple: I captured plenty of CDs on Windows and Linux.
What Apple contributed was an easy-to-use DRM--as long as you stay within their product range. Apple is primarily responsible for DRM having become widespread by doing what they always do: creating a fairly simple, easy to use version. But in this case, they have used their design skills for evil, and the result still has all the problems that DRM has.
Face it: Apple is responsible for what Microsoft never achieved: widespread acceptance and utilization of DRM. Now that Apple has made it possible, Microsoft is following them.
Vista, Microsoft's new OS, will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, it didn't come from someone who has made some sort of agreement with Microsoft.
That's complete fabrication. In fact, Vista will only "degrade" audio quality when you're playing back some kinds of DRM'ed output to a high-fidelity digital output; yes, non-DRM'ed content may get caught up in that if it happens to be playing at the same time, so what? In any case, I expect this will not get triggered anyway, since you can also degrade only the protected audio before it reaches the device, in which case unprotected content isn't affected; this is only a stopgap measure to prevent poorly written apps from exposing protected content. DRM is evil, but Microsoft's implementation of it is no more evil than Apple's.
The reason this hasn't become an issue on the Mac yet has nothing to do with any kind of benevolence of Apple towards their users; rather, S/PDIF simply isn't a mass market item on Macs, and there is no content that requires this sort of policy on the Mac anyway. And I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just quietly does this already anyway--you probably wouldn't even notice if they did.
The bottom line is that Apple, Microsoft, et al may be shipping insidious DRM technologies, but there's no obligation to use them.
But there is less and less of a choice. Over the next few years, increasingly, tracks are going to be released online-only and DRM-only, and then there will be an obligation to use them if you want to listen to music at all.
Apple's DRM doesn't wonderously restrict files. You can still burn them and rerip them.
Really? I can buy a movie on iTMS, burn it somehow, and rerip it somehow? That's news to me. I suppose I could find a DVD ripping program easily enough, but I'm not sure how I would burn an iTunes movie onto a DVD. Are you thinking "play back in iTunes with SnapZPro running"? I suppose that would work, but it's one step this side of "put a camera in front of the TV" -- it's as restrictive as Apple can make it without shipping a police officer with every Mac.
Even though they have DRM, they aren't doing it totally for the RIAA.
Well, that's certainly true. They're also doing it for the MPAA.