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 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'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!
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.)
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.
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
The bottom line is that Apple, Microsoft, et al may be shipping insidious DRM technologies, but there's no obligation to use them.
You must have missed the chapter on the internet regarding cable TV, PVR, and Windows Media Player 11 on Vista and Windows Media Player 8 on Windows 2K.
Hint, one of them simply displays the words Protected Content instead of recording and playing back the movie.
Both tests were done on the same movie.
It's no longer an option.
I'm too lazy to look up the link of the review, but a search sould find it including screen captures.
In short, if you want to use Windows as a PVR, for cable TV, use Windows Media Player 8 on Windows 2K. Don't use Media Player 11 on Vista.
The truth shall set you free!
You're definitely right about lots of examples of common products not supporting AAC. However, I believe that is changing, which is why I said "starting to be able" - lots still don't, but it's percolating. Certainly any new iPod competitor should be able to play AAC for all the people who've had iTunes for a few years and imported their music with the default settings.
TiVo - meh. I thought they were great at first but couldn't afford or rationalize them, and by the time I could my cable company was already offering a more convenient all-in-one DVR solution so I don't much care what TiVo does anymore. Yeah, I can't get video off the cable company's box, but I can set recordings once instead of twice on two boxes, and I can record two channels at once or watch one while recording another, and I value that more than "owning" the shows I watch.
If they had a proper dual-CableCard solution right now, I might care as that would solve the above problems, but they don't. And by the time they get around to it I expect Elgato or one of the other Mac-compatible TV-tuner companies to have something with dual CableCard abilities, so again I won't care what TiVo does as I'll just replace my cable company's DVR box with a mini + TV tuner. That's the plan, anyway, but things change.
(BTW, don't take any of the above personally, I expect TiVo is a great solution for lots of people!)
I don't quite follow you here, although I agree about the DRM.
it started with "user friendliness" back in the 80s
This seems different than locking down a product to prevent modification... did you mean to link this to the fact that their products used to be expensive, and value form over features?
when the Mac floppy drives had no eject button,
4 ways to eject: Special->Eject Disk, drag to trash (I know, horrible metaphor), press the Eject Disk button in dialog boxes, or use a paper clip to press the recessed eject button.
the monitor was built into the case, //GS, they were already selling modular Macintoshes in the LC series.
In 1984, Apple provided a choice between the Macintosh, and the Apple ][ series computer. The Mac was all-in-one, the ][ was modular, and booted into ProDOS. When Apple eventually discontinued the
etc.
Normally there's a logical series of examples before an "etc" but I have no idea what your next example would be, based on what you've said so far. Is it that Apple released a free Resource editor that let you modify almost any applications that ran on the Macintosh OS to your heart's content? Was it the fact that each Mac included a programmer's switch so that if you wanted to do something outside the GUI, you pressed a button, and you had direct access to all the hardware, the kernel message parsing, poweful memory manipulation tools, real-time ASM tools and control of the OS primitives?
Now it's gotten more insidious with DRM all over the place and vendor lock-in with the iPhone.
Would you like to explain that? I know of DRM in two places: 1) iTunes DRM'd AAC files, and 2) CSS decoding in the DVD Player. The DVD Player also has other annoying restrictions: it is region aware, and it is feature lockdown aware. Both instances are explained up front, and are neither insiduous, nor "all over the place."
The iPhone is truely annoying, although I'd argue that it isn't because of the vendor lock-in -- that's par for the course. It's the OS lockdown that they've paired with that. EVERY other Apple device has allowed me to, with a small amount of research, modify EVERYTHING to my heart's content. Now suddenly Apple is making me agree to a contract that forbids me from modifying anything, and at the same time has locked down the software artificially to "protect Cingular." That IS both insiduous and, as far as I can see, AGAINST everything Apple has stood for in the past. I, for one, am not amused.
I'm expecting the iPhone to flop given its high price, lock-in, and open alternatives based on Qt and GTK hitting the market around the same time.
Why? Apple is obviously not selling to the people that would buy a Qt or GTK-based device. They've scoped out 1% of the cellular market, and they're gunning for that focused demographic with all they've got. I think they'll do very well in that market space. However, that space only overlaps with the iPod and Macintosh userspace; it does not encompass them. For one, it does not encompass me (neither does the iPod; I prefer a more customizable Palm device, even if the interface is worse. After all, I normally play in shuffle mode anyway).
The iPhone would need at least three more things before I would buy it: SDIO, third party app support (even if run in a sandbox), and tactile feedback of some sort. However, Apple's entry into the market has done a few things: 1) it has shown that some of these features (WiFi) can be put in a phone that a carrier will carry, 2) it has introduced a new interface device that is MUCH better than old touchscreen technology, 3) it has introduced the idea of a consumer acceptable fullscreen phone (OK, LG really did that, but hey...), and 4) it has added a shiny, "just works" user interface to the phone market. All of these things will help push the competition to come up with something at least on-par, and possibly innovate somethi
I'd rather see expiring DRM. For example, the DRM is uber-restrictive the first month the song is released, then slowly grants additional freedoms. After 2-3 years, the DRM expires and you can do what you want.
No, I will not work for your startup