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.'"
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?
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!
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
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.
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
Bingo. Same here. And Apple phone also will never be found in my place ever. Just for this reason (and several others, like vendor lock-in).
Apple is just like M$ - however the fanbois want to distort that.
Now mod this down. And lets see how long the parent also stays at 0.
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.
I'm a mac user and I don't have any DRM'd files on my hard drive except iTMS TV shows. I have 80GB of music, all Mp3. Apple's mp3 encoder works really well, too.
DRM is only there if you want it there. It's not some dirty little secret like it is with the subscription services.
Most people are aware by now of the limitations they face with iTMS files, and yet it's the 4th biggest source of music worldwide (first for downloads).
DVDs can't be ripped with any software you can purchase, does that mean you don't buy or rent them? DRM isn't intrinsically bad, especially when you can just avoid buying DRM products.
Latewire
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.
Don't forget that Apple have made no attempt to disable the 'Burn to CD then reimport' workaround. 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.
Apple DRM isn't exactly the strongest brand of DRM Goodness(tm).
It's still bad enough to be onerous. For example, I replaced someone's motherboard and reinstalled their operating system for them. This person had purchased iTunes songs several years ago. She still likes the songs, but hasn't dealt with apple for quite some time. So by now she doesn't know her login, or even what email address she used to log in. The result is that she cannot access her legally purchased iTunes songs.
She used to have the songs, now she doesn't. Apple has stolen from her in a way that is much more concrete than if she had "stolen" those songs through P2P.
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.
It's hardly a useful loophole if it requires a physical CD (at $.25 a pop) and subjects it to a round of lossy transcoding. I can download FLACs from any pirate site and point oggenc at them and get nice quality oggs with all the tags seamlessly applied to the new oggs. Until I can do that with iTunes it's simply not an option.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!