Apple To Play Fairer With FairPlay?

NewbieMonster writes "According to tech.co.uk, Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB. Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?" From the article: "The expected announcements could signal a move on Apple's part to take some of the sting out of its Fairplay DRM which has come in for a great deal of criticism over recent months. It may also be a way of keeping Made For iPod makers onside, as the draw of the Microsoft Zune becomes stronger." Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

Comments

hmm....

[ganjadude]

Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

.......no

Re:hmm....

[flyingsquid]

Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

Come to think of it, I *do* notice a distinct sucking sensation coming from the Zune...

Re:hmm....

[Psicopatico]

No, it is a squirting sensation...

Re:hmm....

[Bin_jammin]

It's gone from suck to blow.

Re:hmm....

[genrader]

The zune has died. was it penny arcade who did a little thing about zune users the other day?

Re:hmm....

[THE anonymus coward]

yep here[penny-arcade]

Re:hmm....

[Wabbit Wabbit]

It's squirting, you insensitive clod!

Re:hmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I actually predicted this!

We had a discussion about why Steve Jobs was so interested in making MS develop an iPod clone. Most of last January, Steve used every possible public apperance to claim that MS had to take control over the full music experience and copy how Apple developed iPod. There had to be a reason.

And then Zune came, and Microsoft didn't just abadon their partners (by not using P4S as DRM), they screwed them first (making sure Zune didn't play P4S). This way they alienated all their current partners. And it made it extremly costly for Zune to enter the mobile marked. (MS is doing better in the mobile marked than they did in mp3 marked. Making a Zune phone is going to hurt them a lot more, than the destruction of the WMP marked.)

So I speculated that the perfect trick would be to license Fairplay to the former Windows partners. So over 24 months Apple has turned the competition from everybody against Apple to Everybody against Zune, a nice trick considering the problem with MS having enough money to change the world.

It solves the problem with the lawsuites against iTMS, it strengthens iTMS marked (and iTMS is now growing strong enough to actually be an important product at Apple), and Apple is still able to strengthen the iPod ecosystem independent of their partners. (Apple dosen't have to sell games og other features to other players).

But as someone points out, its not published yet.

Re:hmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

its sucking my will to live!

Re:hmm....

[hawg2k]

Wayne: "Well, it certainly does suck!" :)

Re:hmm....

[zonker]

This sounds less like a concern over the zune and more of a concern about showing 'good faith' in not being monopolistic with regard to their DRM (ie, I'll bet this is to keep a lawsuit from happening).

Re:hmm....

[dave_h_in_philly]

To associate sucking and blowing with a product as horrible as the Zune is a travesty!

No

[riceboy50]

Maybe I missed something. Why is the Zune becoming more attractive?

Re:No

[wealthychef]

I've got 250+ encrypted songs I'd really like to play on my Linux box with its superior sound setup, instead of on my iBook.

You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.

This is a bit tedious when done by hand for a large number of songs. The only working Macintosh utility to automate this process that I know of is "DRM Dumpster," which uses a single CD-RW over and over to get the job done. Worked great for me. Other utilities seem to have bugs that prevented me from using them.

Re:No

[Knara]

Wow... you sound really authoritative, but it seems like you really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:No

[yoasif]

mod parent up...

Re:No

[dr.badass]

Wow... you sound really authoritative, but it seems like you really don't know what you're talking about.

Nothing in these links contradicts what the parent said. You can't buy unencrypted music with PyMusique anymore, and the DRM encryption is still unbroken. QTFairUse extracts AAC frames from memory, it does not break the encryption.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong on several counts. It used to be the trick to removing DRM was finding the keys. There were several ways to do this, including grabbing them from an iPod, or using a program that pretended to be iTunes and having the iTMS send you the keys. There were also programs that let you purchase music and would store it unencrypted. All of these methods ceased functioning with version 6.0. Prior to 7.0, iTunes would allow the creation and use of iTunes 4.9 accounts, but after 7.0 was released, they began requiring at least version 6.0, so there is no way to get the keys to your music.

At this point, if anybody knows how to get the keys for iTunes music, they're not talking. This doesn't mean DRM can't be removed. There is a program written in Python that latches onto iTunes like a debugger, has iTunes play DRMed songs, then grabs AAC frames after they've been decrypted but before they've been decoded. It then prevents iTunes from decoding and playing the audio, so a 5 minute song can be decrypted in less than 30 seconds, and it's a lossless transfer (as opposed to burning and ripping). Unfortunately, this program was written for Windows, and I don't believe anyone ever got it working on a Mac. If you can come up with a Windows box, one of the sibling posts has linked to it.

My interest was the same as yours. I had about $300 invested in my iTunes library, but my media center (and now all my other boxes) runs Linux. I certainly don't want to promote piracy, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to want your music library on a Linux box.

Re:No

[anethema]

It is true, all these programs basically exploit an almost analog-hole type situation. And most of them dont even work anymore.

None of them broke the encryption in the first place.

Re:No

[harlows_monkeys]

You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.

I'm surprised no one has made an AAC encoder specifically designed for this situation. Consider how lossy audio compression works. The 30000 ft overview would be that you simplify the input by throwing away some of it (hopefully, some of it that is inaudible), resulting in something that can be losslessly compressed.

When you take a lossy compressed song and expand that (e.g., burn to an audio CD), and want to compress that again, you don't need to throw any of it away to get something that will compress well, if you are trying to compress using the same compression system that was originally used. (If you were expanding an AAC file, and then wanted to compress with, say MP3, that would have to have some degradation, because AAC and MP3 would have different ideas of what needs to be thrown away). What this means is that it should be possible to design an AAC encoder that can take advantage of the knowledge that the input is the result of expanding a 128 kbit/second stereo AAC file, and compress back to something that matches that original AAC file.

Re:No

[corellen]

try myFairTunes6_v0.5.8 is unnoffical beta version works with itunes 7.0.2.16 (version 0.5.7b was the latest official version) be warned though its a stream capture hack, it plays back your music via the itunes scripting interface and captures to lossless then reconverts to .m4a and re adds it back to your itunes library.

Re:No

[QuantumG]

Most people don't usually "break encryption" when they crack copy control mechanisms. Breaking encryption is something people write scientific papers about.

To break copy control, you just re-implement the algorithm and find the keys. Or you let the original code run and grab the unencrypted output.. which is the simplest way.. and yeah, if I gave a shit about iTunes I'd give it a go, but yeah, I don't.

Re:No

[Quiscalus]

"Maybe I missed something. Why is the Zune becoming more attractive?"

My guess is these people can't get enough punishment to satisfy their 'masochistic tendencies||hatred of all things Apple||love for all things Microsoft||pseudo-metalhead-gamer-wannabe fantasies'.

Re:No

[Poltras]

You forgot the magnificient brown colored zune, which, I may say, I was almost happy to see was changed to a pink one... nah just kidding, I'm happy with m'iPod.

Re:No

[QuantumG]

please excuse me if I cause anyone offense in saying this, but maybe if Mac users didn't refer to crackers as "scum" and other names, they wouldn't ostracize the platform. I do appreciate that crackers are finally being recognized by others as the freedom fighters I've always considered them to be. It's about time.

Re:No

[Lehk228]

the zealots only noticed something was amiss now that steve has 'em all by the balls.

Re:No

[Rimbo]

None of them broke the encryption in the first place.

You know, this is probably the core reason why Apple's FairPlay has come under such strong attack recently: People are getting impatient with waiting for the encryption to get cracked.

Re:No

[Kjella]

QTFairUse extracts AAC frames from memory, it does not break the encryption.

Well, if that'll get you the original compressed AAC version with absolutely zero loss (not even transcoding loss, nevermind the D/A/D loss of the analog hole), what more exactly do you need? Even if you found the key, the encryption is no more or less broken than it was before, they can ship a new version with a new key and a new memory location and you're back to square one again.

Re:No

[cbrocious]

All that needs to be done to make PyMusique again is to reverse-engineer the algorithm used to encrypt the store pages behind ssl, the algorithm that manipulates their keys, and the simple algorithm used to encrypt the files as they're transferred from the store (before per-user DRM is applied).

Not very difficult at all, just a bit time consuming.

(From the original author of PyTunes, which PyMusique is a GUI frontend to :P )

Re:No

[Infernal Device]

Please don't take offense when I mention that you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for a music service, encryption and all. The music you purchase (or don't purchase, as appears to be the case) is a luxury item, not essential to your survival, so it is beyond me to ascertain the justification for breaking the licensing agreements you willingly entered into. You can claim that it's the only way to get the music, but what you should be doing is asking yourself if it's necessary for your survival.

BTW, the term "freedom fighter" is all a matter of perspective. The Minutemen during the Revolution War were Freedom Fighters to one side, bloody-minded terrorists to another.

I don't particularly want DRM-ed music, but on the other hand, I don't want some two-bit cellar monkey with a hard-on for the latest Korn single to be the apparent spokesman for my rights. Personally, I would rather just boycott the entire industry until it's dead, then start over.

Re:No

[Xyde]

Didn't DVD jon crack it a little while ago? I'm sure i remember seeing an article on it here.

Re:No

[QuantumG]

Cracking DRM is the only effective way to get across the message that it is an impossible proposition.

Re:No

[elrous0]

Yep, not only does he have them by the balls, but he's squeezing.

-Eric

Re:No

[jandrese]

I thought Hymn decrypted the files without decoding them? It used the decryption key stored on the iPod to run the music through the decoder and then spit out the byte perfect unencrypted version. Apple broke it with an iPod update.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I used QTFairuse6 a couple of weeks ago on iTunes 7 and it seemed to work (I deauthorized my computer and successfully played the songs).

Re:No

[Devil's Avocado]

I've had the same thought. I wonder if the folks at hydrogenaudio have done listening tests on "auto-transcoded" material to see if the golden-ears can hear significant degradation. If not, they should!

Re:No

[Em Adespoton]

Along with the re-aac suggestion in this thread, I have another one: Shouldn't it be possible to create a virtual cd-r? Then it can burn at 500x, and be deleted when it's done. There are a number of times I've wanted to virtualize burning a CD or DVD. Anyone up for the challenge?

Re:No

[Em Adespoton]

Hymn only works with iTMS5 or earlier; the replacement app for iTMS6+ grabs the decoded AAC frames from the computer's memory and reassembles them.

I think a more elegant solution would be for someone to write a virtual CD-R package :)

Re:No

[dr.badass]

I think a more elegant solution would be for someone to write a virtual CD-R package :)

There is a less elegant solution that has the advantage of not requiring a CD: using iMovie. You just make an iMovie project with your protected audio track, and any video (even a still image), and export to QuickTIme using Expert Settings -- from there you can do AAC, AIFF, WAV, or anything else QuickTime supports -- just be sure to deselect the video track or you'll just have to remove it later.

Not elegant at all, but it doesn't require a CD or the associated burn times.

Re:No

[wealthychef]

it should be possible to design an AAC encoder that can take advantage of the knowledge that the input is the result of expanding a 128 kbit/second stereo AAC file, and compress back to something that matches that original AAC file.

This assumes that AAC encoding is invertible, which may or may not be true. Just because you can decode something does not mean you can re-encode it, or many forms of encryption would be broken, including those used in ssh. Even if there is only one AAC encoding that can result in a given sound file, which you seem to imply, discovering what that encoding was may not be so simple. Simply using AAC encoding on a sound file decoded from AAC may not turn out to be a lossless process vis a viz the original. In particular, I could imagine a small difference in leading silence in the sound file from the original could skew the whole thing, or perhaps the original AAC encoding was from a digital source instead of analog. I am talking out of my hat here, of course, and apologize if this is hogwash.

but seriously ...

[ganjadude]

why was the zune thrown in there???? to start a flame war of course, no other reason, i mean whats a /. article without some micro bashing

Re:but seriously ...

[ganjadude]

this is just my day... I point out the flamebait and get modded flamebait you guys are too funny. And yes I know this is off topic thank you very much, dont waste a mod point on me. give it to someone who deserves it

Re:but seriously ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the pointless Zune reference is from TFA. Oops.

Isn't it cracked?

[QuantumG]

Doesn't that mean that everyone has a license?

again....

[User 956]

According to tech.co.uk, Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB. Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?

Again, reinforcing the point that DRM isn't about preventing piracy, it's about maintaining control over other things. Like competitors in the marketplace.

Re:again....

[falcon5768]

Again, reinforcing the point that DRM isn't about preventing piracy, it's about maintaining control over other things. Like competitors in the marketplace.

ummmm NO SHIT? Steve Job himself said this to EVERYONE when they started the iTunes Music Store. The labels require it though (also to maintain control over your music unless you are living under a rock somewhere and wonder why about that too) so the honest question is, why not use it to your company's advantage when the people your licensing from require it anyway.

Only a business moron or naive fool would not.

Re:again....

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot moderators prove your .sig true... lol

Re:again....

[elrous0]

The labels require it though

Funny, but a lot of music that's available on Emusic without DRM has DRM slapped onto it when the iTunes store sells it. So it would seem that it's NOT the studios that are requiring it (or, at least, not all of them).

-Eric

Re:again....

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There was a time when Apple claimed that they'd rather not have DRM at all, that it's forced on them by the labels. Their actions and statements in the past two or three years now say that they really do like DRM.

Re:again....

[falcon5768]

eMusic sells very few major label releases (most of which are older lesser known acts). iTunes doesnt discriminate between indie labels who dont use DRM and major labels who require it.

You should do a little bit of research before you go around saying emusic sells the same music Apple does, cause I used both services and the fact is, they dont, iTunes has a MUCH larger library of major labels.

Re:again....

[elrous0]

You should do a little bit of research before you go around saying emusic sells the same music Apple does

And you should learn to read more carefully.

-Eric

Re:again....

[falcon5768]

you said that emusic sells music that iTunes does and doesnt have DRM on it. I said your right, BUT eMusic doesnt sell major label which DOES require DRM to be on it, so thus its playing by a different set of rules than eMusic who if they have any major label has obscure or less popular bands that the majors arnt worried about losing money out on.

you assumed that just because emusic sells things without DRM that iTunes should be selling those things too. You never looked into the fact that iTunes doesnt discriminate between major label and indie music it just blankets the whole set with the DRM the major labels require.

If anyone needs to learn how to read more carefully, its the one who cant read that his statement was countered and shot down.

Thank you have a nice day.

No

[DreadSpoon]

No, it is not cracked.

The iTMS (iTunes Music Store) was cracked, meaning that people were able to buy DRM-free songs from iTMS using custom software. iTMS 6.0 changed that, and to date, it is not possible to buy unencrypted music from an account registered with iTMS 6.0 or higher. It's possible to run older iTMS versions (for now) and buy music, but some of us had extensive music purchases before we got our heads out of our butts and realized we wanted to play the music on something other than an iPod.

The DRM encryption itself is completely uncracked. IF you can get a hold of your decryption key, there is code to decrypt your music files. Apple has done a rather amazing job of keeping that key secured, though. It's pretty much impossible to pull it off of newer iPods, and I think it's not possible yet to extract it from a box with iTunes 6+.

If I'm wrong about that, let me know... I've got 250+ encrypted songs I'd really like to play on my Linux box with its superior sound setup, instead of on my iBook.

am I missing something

[larry bagina]

Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?

Please, enlighten me.

Re:am I missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they are referring to accessory makers in Apple's "Made For iPod" program. Apple maybe afraid that they would put support behind the Zune. Since Apple already has a less than stellar relationship with them.

Re:am I missing something

[Mr2001]

Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? People who want to transfer files that they've bought to others without handing over the keys to their account. Like, for example, a father on Christmas morning who gives his son an iPod with Pirates of the Carribean loaded - but then he realizes he bought it with his own account, and the son will lose that file as soon as he syncs it with his own computer, unless he also gives his son one of his 5 "authorization" slots.

Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd? I played with one for a few minutes in the store the other day, and the interface is at least as nice as the iPod's - perhaps a bit better. The screen is better for watching videos. The "squirting" seems too half-assed to be a valuable feature, though.

Now a question for you: is there anybody who actually likes the iPod's click wheel? At first, it seems like a cool gizmo, but then you realize how hard it is to move just one click at a time. You can move halfway across the screen with just a little flick, but you have to move s-l-o-w-l-y if you only want to move one stop. When you're searching through a long list, and you do the super-fast spin to activate letter searching mode, you're lucky if you can stop within one or two letters of the one you're looking for.

Re:am I missing something

[mgv]

Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?

Not too many people.

In truth its not very restrictive, as far as the current policies go. And apple has defended the users against abuses from the RIAA (esp with increases in pricing).

In particular, the fact that you can authorise 5 machines and an unlimited number of ipods is good.

More importantly, you can reset the list of 5 machines once per year even if you have lost all your old machines. Which means that having your music work on a new machine isn't likely to be a problem, even if your old machines get stolen or reformatted before you could deauthorise them out of your list of 5 computers.

Not to mention that you can burn the music and rip it again anyway. Sure it loses quality, but if you are buying for quality alone, you wouldn't be using either iTunes or an iPod for that matter.

I'm not surprised that iTunes isn't yet hacked. Mostly because there aren't many reasons yet why a legit user would get pissed off.

The biggest thing they should offer (in my opinion) is the ability to redownload your music that you have purchased. In this situation you would be getting defacto off-site storage of your music, which would be a huge plus for the service that you wouldn't get with mp3's. Unless you consider bittorrent as your off site backup.

Anyway, DRM has worked against the RIAA. They thought it would give them control over the users. Instead it has given apple control of the RIAA.

Michael

Re:am I missing something

[Kalriath]

Michael

What mythical world do you live in? iTunes doesn't have every major label - last I checked, some of them refuse to sign up because "the DRM is too lax". How is Apple in control again?

Re:am I missing something

[Johnny Mnemonic]

unless he also gives his son one of his 5 "authorization" slots.

Worse, is that if the son has his own account already, I don't believe that he can use both authorizations simultaneously.

If user A has 5 slots open, and user B has 5 slots open, can user B simultaneously use both music from A and B accounts, provided he consumes one slot on each? I don't think so.

I'd like to do this; my wife has music on an account on an iMac, and I have music of my own under my account on the same machine. However, I don't believe we can mix libraries, even on the same machine.

Re:am I missing something

[soft_guy]

Now a question for you: is there anybody who actually likes the iPod's click wheel? At first, it seems like a cool gizmo, but then you realize how hard it is to move just one click at a time. It is not a problem for those of us who do not have cerebral palsy.

Re:am I missing something

[grrrl]

Worse, is that if the son has his own account already, I don't believe that he can use both authorizations simultaneously.

Wrong - I use two iTunes accounts under one user on my computer (different countries), no problems with authorisations.

However, I don't believe we can mix libraries, even on the same machine.

You have heaps of options -
use the inbuilt "Sharing" feature of iTunes;
point both your iTunes libraries to the same directory (change permissions on the dir so you can both rw);
copy the songs into both Librarys (not sure if you would need to use two authorisations - I doubt it) - you could probably even use the iPod 'sync purchases' feature for this

Re:am I missing something

[soft_guy]

I'd like to do this; my wife has music on an account on an iMac, and I have music of my own under my account on the same machine. However, I don't believe we can mix libraries, even on the same machine. That's funny - my daughter and I do this all the time.

Re:am I missing something

[Nanpa]

The biggest thing they should offer (in my opinion) is the ability to redownload your music that you have purchased. In this situation you would be getting defacto off-site storage of your music, which would be a huge plus for the service that you wouldn't get with mp3's. Unless you consider bittorrent as your off site backup. Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the 'Check for purchases' option do this? Or does that only apply to purchases that haven't been fully downloaded from the store?

Re:am I missing something

[umbra_dweller]

Yeah, that only applies if something went wrong durring downloading - once you actually have your song then it's tough luck if you lose it. So far I haven't had any problems, but I have had occasion to use backup copies.

Re:am I missing something

[Mr2001]

Well then, I guess I and everyone I know who owns an iPod must have CP. Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Frist.

Re:am I missing something

[Lehk228]

eMusic will, as long as you are a member of the service, go back and redownload any track you got previously for free.

Re:am I missing something

[Kjella]

What mythical world do you live in? iTunes doesn't have every major label - last I checked, some of them refuse to sign up because "the DRM is too lax". How is Apple in control again?

Because those labels haven't been anywhere near to disrupt Apple's success and continued growth? Eventually Apple will be such a large sales channel, they have no choice but to fall in line. Unless they create a proper alternative (which the users will reject) it does them about as much good as staying on DOS and OS/2 did to prevent Mircosoft's monopoly.

Re:am I missing something

[mgv]

What mythical world do you live in? iTunes doesn't have every major label - last I checked, some of them refuse to sign up because "the DRM is too lax". How is Apple in control again?

Because those labels haven't been anywhere near to disrupt Apple's success and continued growth? Eventually Apple will be such a large sales channel, they have no choice but to fall in line.

I have to agree with Kjella.

Look at Apple Corp (the Beatles). I'm willing to wager money that they are about to start releasing music using iTunes. Certainly you have to wonder why else Steve Jobs had their albums splashed everywhere in his keynote speech.

The label's have two real choices: Fairplay for the iPod, or no DRM. The fact that they are starting to sell songs without DRM says how scared they are of apple.

The trouble is that if they use any other DRM, the percentage of the market that they get is so small it isn't worth having. Not to mention the debacle that microsoft produced when it abandoned its "plays for sure" platform for the Zune. I wouldn't want to be selling music to any of those WMA players - the users there might forget to blame microsoft and blame the label when the music they bought 6 months ago now can't be played on a Zune, or pretty much any new hardware that's coming out.

I'm not trying to defend apple for its DRM, but if you look at what happened with iTunes when the music store was cracked - basically they moved to a new version of iTunes but kept the old version still working, even though people were downloading music and bypassing the DRM. To my knowledge, you can still do this with the old version of iTunes if you really want to, but certainly nobody suffered from the DRM being bypassed.

The net effect of this is that the RIAA, if it wants DRM, has to use Apple. Anything else is probably worse than pointless the way microsoft is playing with WMA.

And if they have to use fairplay, they do so on apple's terms. A point which they are just starting to realise.

Michael

Re:am I missing something

[LKM]

the interface is at least as nice as the iPod's - perhaps a bit better

No scroll wheel, nothing to even remotely replicate its functionality. It's just not an efficient interface.

Re:am I missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?

Not too many people.

I'll have to disagree there. I have a number of friends who have complained to me about DRM on iTunes. They weren't aware that there were restrictions on the music they bought, and feel cheated. It's caused them a number of difficulties, from not being able to play the songs on other computers, to the fact that other mp3 players than iPods don't work. After buying a couple of tracks from iTunes and being burned they have gone back to buying CDs or finding other methods of downloading unrestricted music (legally or otherwise, I presume).

No doubt some people will say these guys should have understood what they were doing better, but isn't the point of iTunes/iPod that it's supposed to be really simple? I know that was a large part of the attraction for my friends trying out iTunes. These people are not power users, but they are reasonably computer literate.

Re:am I missing something

[Mr2001]

The scroll wheel is the iPod's main flaw! The Zune has directional buttons, which you can press once to move one step at a time, or hold down to move a long way. That's more efficient than always scrolling past the item you want and then having to s-l-o-w-l-y scroll back to it.

Re:am I missing something

[jpkunst]

basically they moved to a new version of iTunes but kept the old version still working, even though people were downloading music and bypassing the DRM. To my knowledge, you can still do this with the old version of iTunes if you really want to, but certainly nobody suffered from the DRM being bypassed.

No, you can't do this. The DRM from iTunes > 5 cannot be bypassed anymore (with JHymn) and iTunes <= 5 is locked out from the iTunes Store.

JP

Re:am I missing something

[LKM]

The scroll wheel is the iPod's main flaw! The Zune has directional buttons, which you can press once to move one step at a time, or hold down to move a long way. That's more efficient than always scrolling past the item you want and then having to s-l-o-w-l-y scroll back to it.

Yeah, you're right, if you're slowly going down one item at a time, you're unlikely to overshoot your target.

Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Because the scroll wheel can do both.

Re:am I missing something

[fanningj]

People who want to transfer files that they've bought to others without handing over the keys to their account. Like, for example, a father on Christmas morning who gives his son an iPod with Pirates of the Carribean loaded - but then he realizes he bought it with his own account, and the son will lose that file as soon as he syncs it with his own computer, unless he also gives his son one of his 5 "authorization" slots. You could always gift the movie and then it would be authorised under the sons account.

Re:am I missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

The scroll wheel is finicky. I can select the item I want with the wheel, then as I lift my finger up to press the middle button, that movement will cause the scroll to bounce up or down to the next selection.

Re:am I missing something

[rahrens]

Actually, Apple will let you restore (redownload) purchased music if you can prove (through invoices) the prior purchase, in case of a disk disaster. I've read of an occasional user that happened to in the past. But you've gotta have the invoices. So save them to a CD as proof!

Re:am I missing something

[rahrens]

...and if they are reasonably computer literate, they would have read the restrictions and conditions before buying. There are so many places one reads about the Apple DRM, I'm surprised anybody doesn't know about it. They certainly don't hide it.

Simple doesn't mean free of restrictions, but they are certainly free to use their music, otherwise obtained, in iTunes and on their iPods... the ITS isn't a requirement to use either one.

But with 2 billion songs downloaded, it's hard to call it unpopular!

Re:am I missing something

[Mr2001]

Does that work if the son already has an account? And do you actually get to load the movie onto the iPod, or does he have to download it and install it himself (not an easy task, if you saw how overloaded the iTunes store was on Christmas day)?

Re:am I missing something

[Mr2001]

Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Because the scroll wheel can do both. I'm arguing that discrete is better. With buttons, if you press once, the pointer moves one stop. If you press three times in rapid succession, the pointer moves three stops. If you want to move a long distance, you hold it down until typematic takes over.

The scroll wheel is either not sensitive enough (you have to move really damn slowly to get it to move just one stop at a time) or too sensitive (any average movement moves several stops at once) or again not sensitive enough (you have to move really damn fast to activate letter search mode, and it's near impossible if you're holding the iPod with one hand). It's more efficient if you want to move about 10 stops at a time, but if you just want to select another item on the current screen, it's slower and more frustrating than just moving with buttons.

Re:am I missing something

[mgv]

No, you can't do this. The DRM from iTunes > 5 cannot be bypassed anymore (with JHymn) and iTunes up to 5 is locked out from the iTunes Store.



Fair cop. I didn't know that this had been stopped now. Certainly they didn't lock out iTunes 5 immediately. In any case you need a much later version of iTunes to get the video downloads anyway.

I certainly stand corrected on this point.

However with regard to the rest of my post, I don't recall any complaints from any customers about how bad this was. Nobody got locked out, had keys revoked, etc. Ultimately you were forced to upgrade your version of iTunes and get DRM'ed music, and that was as far as I think it went.

I actually don't have any major gripes about the FairPlay DRM right now. The concern I have is for the future - they can change the rules, unilaterally, and there is litte you can do about it. For this reason I am systematically replacing my purchased songs with mp3's. Its not that I mind paying for music (although I would much rather pay the artists than the RIAA). But if you pay for the music, its alot better if you own it truly, and you don't really own the music if its DRM'ed

If you have to have DRM (and I'm not sure you do), then apple has the best system by far because:
1. They are reasonably consistent with the rules (although they have changed them slighly in the past)
2. They have given you a way of escaping the encryption by burning and re-ripping it.
3. So far, there has been no forced obsolescence (compared with "Plays for Sure")
4. So far, they have used their bargaining power to negotiate content providers down in price, rather than pushing prices up for consumers.

The average consumer probably doesn't think about these points, all they know is that the music they buy works fine on their computer and their iPod. If apple doesn't change the rules, people will stay happy with the DRM and life will go on.

If they do change the rules, and everybody gets annoyed, well...

How big a collection of mp3's do you think will fit on to one of those new fangled 50GB HD-DVD's? You will get alot onto a dual layer DVD; but for many people a lifetime collection of mp3's will fit onto a single blu-ray or HD-DVD disk. Even without file sharing, that music disk will travel.

Apple understands the real competition isn't microsoft here. The DRM has to work for its customers or everything goes back to the napster days.

Michael

Re:am I missing something

[LKM]

Yes, the scroll wheel doesn't give you "force feedback." Interestingly, the older scroll wheel, which physically turned, actually did. Clearly, that older version was even more usable.

The newer scroll wheel needs a bit of getting used to, but at least for me, it's still way more efficient than any other device I've tried. Acceleration seems to be exponential, so it's easy to go really slow, but it's also easy to go real fast with not much effort.

The iPhone's scrolling seems to be interesting, too. I wonder how that holds up in the real world.

Re:am I missing something

[fanningj]

Don't know, depends on a couple of factors, like how old is the son, or do you have the password of their iTunes account? I gave my kids a iTunes gift voucher each, but they are too young according to Apples Terms for an account so had to add them to mine, but they could understand there was issues with the iTunes store and were happy waiting until later to try again.

Re:am I missing something

[FrkyD]

Unless the track has been removed from their catalog, or you were one of the european users and the song you wanted (and bought when there was only one emusic) isnt available for european licensing.

Dont get me wrong, I like emusic and have been a member since the early days of unlimited downloads, but as they become more successful, the service gets worse and worse.

Regional licensing, loss of catalog and increased prices are just the start. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually get pushed into the DRM camp as well.

Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[SeaFox]

Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers [C. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB.

That should be interesting considering there are USB to Optical adapters.

Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?"

Only if these other players have the ability to record the content. When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO COPY" flashing on my player's display.

Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

Uh, No. I haven't heard crap about the Zune since last Christmas. I don't know why it would have anything to do with this summary to begin with. The Zune has no less restrictive DRM than iTunes. Looks like someone was just looking for a reason to mention the Zune to me. [rolleyes]

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[Cheesey]

Only if these other players have the ability to record the content. When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO COPY" flashing on my player's display.

That's SCMS (serial copy management system). It allows the source device to indicate whether the target device should permit recording. The idea is to prevent you copying a copy: you can space-shift your CDs onto MD, but you can't then space-shift that MD onto another without going analogue. The source device can also prevent any recording at all - your DVD player is doing this. The usual workaound is an SCMS removal box that just flips the appropriate bits in the bitstream. SCMS is not very secure :).

It amuses me to think of those paranoid Sony execs, convinced that the minidisc would usher in a terrifying era of unrestrained copying if *something* wasn't done. What confidence they had in their product. Remind you of any other Sony products?

btw. I bought minidisc equipment shortly before the MP3 revolution and have always regretted my short-sightedness.

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[SeaFox]

btw. I bought minidisc equipment shortly before the MP3 revolution and have always regretted my short-sightedness.

I still occasionally think of buying one of the last generation Hi-MD recorders. I'd like to have one for taping. They can play MP3 natively and you can export recordings to your PC (and to unprotected WAV, too). And they can record at quality as high as full PCM.

I actually used my Minidisc for covert recording for a school project recently. I couldn't use my mini cassette recorder as it had no external mic input. But I use a 1GB iPod Shuffle (1st gen) for playing music now. In device recording abilities is something I am still waiting to see in iPods.

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[ndpatel]

Most new Macs and Airport Express come standard with optical-out. What's your point?

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[SeaFox]

You're right, I forgot all about that. The point was the optical out may conceivably give one a way to make a perfect digital copy of an iTunes Music Store purchase.

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[dangitman]

I still occasionally think of buying one of the last generation Hi-MD recorders. I'd like to have one for taping.

Don't bother. A better alternative would be one of the professional digital recorders that generally use flash memory for storage.

In device recording abilities is something I am still waiting to see in iPods.

Meh. I prefer the add-on approach, because it is more flexible. So you can buy an add-on that has nice features like proper XLR connectors and level meters, rather than trying to cram more into the iPod itself. You're never going to fit professional-grade input connectors into something that is supposed to be as compact as an iPod.

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers [C. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB.

That should be interesting considering there are USB to Optical adapters.

Er, why? It would appear to stream *protected* AAC content (and presumably the add-on will license fairplay to decrypt and play it) so it's just like streaming protected AAC content from an NFS/SMB/HTTP/whatever server, it won't magically turn into sound.

Re:Yawn. Rumors, rumors...

[ProfessionalCookie]

This is equivalent to buning a CD and re-importing using the Apple Lossless Codec. Remember, you won't get AAC data off the AE's Optical out.

SCMS

[tepples]

When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO COPY" flashing on my player's display.

You're seeing SCMS. Does line-in misbehave the same way?

Re:SCMS

[SeaFox]

No, it doesn't happen on the plain line out. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure the fact both the minidisc player and the DVD player were Sony didn't make this any better.

It isn't a problem any longer as that DVD is no longer working. The model is actually part of a class action lawsuit against Sony, but I wont be able to get in on the settlement since I have little proof of purchase (it's was bought 5 years ago after all).

Re:SCMS

[spiderbitendeath]

See, thats why I like my Apple products. Their class action lawsuit wanted to give me money for things I didn't purchase.

you bought it... hook, line, and....

[User 956]

The labels require it though (also to maintain control over your music unless you are living under a rock somewhere and wonder why about that too)... why not use it to your company's advantage when the people your licensing from require it anyway.

That's false, and Apple loves that you believe it. The license holders don't "require it". Case-in-point, eMusic, which sells DRM-free MP3's. A ton of them. Johnny Cash, Dashboard Confessional, Credence Clearwater, Moby, the list goes on for miles.

Those songs are DRM-free on eMusic, but on iTunes, those same songs are locked down with Apple's Fairplay. The only one making that decision is Apple, and the only reason they make that decision is to lock in marketshare.

Re:you bought it... hook, line, and....

[Blondie-Wan]

Those songs are sold with DRM on iTunes because other songs from the major labels are sold that way, and iTunes doesn't discriminate by label to know whether to apply DRM or not. It's simply universally applied to everything sold there, in accordance with the wishes of the majors who sell there (and whose music, I'm sure, overwhelmingly dominates sales there as elsewhere).

eMusic doesn't have major label stuff precisely because it doesn't do DRM (well, that, plus it's not as lucrative). That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course; as an eMusic user myself for a fair while, I've come to realize one of the many benefits of the service is how it fosters discovering new/obscure music, and that's frankly easier without the same major label stuff one can get elsewhere anyway dominating the site and distracting one from the hidden real treasures. However, it does mean there's an additional factor that has to be taken into account when comparing DRMed iTunes to DRMless eMusic.

There are in fact a bunch of download services, both with DRM and without (iTunes, eMusic, Audio Lunchbox, Napster, etc.), and the line dividing the ones with major label material from ones without is the same line dividing the ones with DRM from ones without. There's a reason for that, and it's a lot bigger than Apple, since only one of the download services is theirs.

Re:you bought it... hook, line, and....

[Anonymous Coward]

Those songs are sold with DRM on iTunes because other songs from the major labels are sold that way, and iTunes doesn't discriminate by label to know whether to apply DRM or not. It's simply universally applied to everything sold there

...which is exactly the lie that Apple would love everyone to believe.... and the lie that will keep them on top, even when they no longer have the best product.

Re:you bought it... hook, line, and....

[falcon5768]

oh your so full of it, its NOT a lie. It would be a lie if they DID infact have music on iTunes not DRMd but the fact is that they dont, because the major labels up until VERY recently have been of the camp of "no DRM bad bad"

Even now analysts are not sure how long this little group of "hmm maybe not so bad" camps in the labels will last. But your kidding yourself if you though that Apple was the cause of it 5 years ago. Many people wondered how the hell Apple would even be able to sell ANYTHING without there being some DRM on it.

One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

QTFairuse6.

Google it.

You do loose all tags, but it audio isn't re-encoded. It grabs the content after iTunes decrypts it and before it decodes it. It works well, though it works at 1x.

I think I know.

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like a turd, so the fags are all excited about it.

Black hole

[EmbeddedJanitor]

More than a suck, this has been a black hole for MS to throw money in.

There was a brief flurry of interest in Zune when it was released, but now we seem to be getting steady-state numbers.Only one model rates in amazon's top 25 MP3 players list (Apple takes out the first 5 or so entries).

Using "lemon" to describe Zune is an insult to citrus!

Re:Black hole

[Brian Gordon]

Exactly like the PS3 :)

Re:Black hole

[somersault]

I fail to see how. I'd get a PS3 just to play my PS1 and 2 games and watch Blu-ray movies. Being able to run Linux is a nice feature too, though I don't know if I'd bother. The PS3 has sold more than the PS2 did in the first couple of months of release, and obviously has catching up to do to other more abundant consoles, but it's nowhere near dead - yet. There are a lot of people on /. , but there are more gamers who aren't

Re:Black hole

[Anonymous Coward]

not exactly.

PS3 is an upgrade. The analyst expect Sony to loose aprox 35 million customers on this generation, but still expect it to sell over 100 mill units based on installed userbase (from all the existing PS1/PS2 users). If we look on the sales so far, Sony is 2 week late on their salesnumbers, and analyst seriously expect Sony to reclaim part of this in their European release.

The Zune is a brand new release. They get nothing for free, so they have to succeed. Not making more press impact than so far, isn't good.

On the other hand, MS has Time & Money. While the Playstation ecosystem still outnumbered Xbox this christmas with 1,4 mill PS2 and 750 000 PS3, Xbox360 has left the abyssmal Xbox to its rightful place as junk. I think Xbox will continue eating of the PS userbase this year.

The next Zune might do the same.

Re:Black hole

[Moochman]

Eh, we'll see. As with everything MS, it will take them a couple of versions to make a halfway decent product/really start making a dent in market share. Actually, given the potential decline of the mp3-player market due to the rise of iPhone and other music phones, the Zune may be the only "mp3-player only" gadget that ever comes out of Microsoft. But between the software they developed for Zune, Windows Mobile, and Origami, I have a feeling this won't be the last media-centered piece of hardware coming out of MS Labs, nor does it mean that MS will forever continue to fail in this market.

wrong star type

[megacia]

it's not a black hole, it's a brown dwarf.

I Just use Audio Hijack Pro

[Archeopteryx]

From http://www.rogueamoeba.com/ to convert directly to MP-3 without using up one of my CD burns. Then I can load my iTunes into my Creative RAVE-MP. I just never saw the need to carry ALL of my music with me all the time. Just what I want for the drive I am about to take.

Re:I Just use Audio Hijack Pro

[faffod]

there is no limit to the number of times you can burn a song purchased from the iTunes music store. There is a limit on the number of times you can burn a play list, but if you are only wanting to "work around" the DRM then this isn't a concern.

Another Rumour

[GaryPatterson]

So Apple may be about to licence FairPlay, or maybe they won't. The linked site doesn't provide anything to back up its story, or even quote unnamed Apple sources (a favourite of bad journalism).

We can discuss what this means until the cows come home, but surely it's better to wait for it to *actually* *happen* before we sacrifice millions of innocent pixels as we agonise over this?

iPod != Fair Play

[LKM]

Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?

Anyone notice there are still people who don't realize that you can use plain MP3/AAC files with the iPod?

The Zune has a proprietary DRM system, just like the iPod. It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them. Or maybe I'm just not getting something here.

Re:iPod != Fair Play

[DrXym]

And the Zune, PS3 and PSP will play unencrypted MP3 and AAC too. Still doesn't help if you bought something from iTMS and now discover that it's bound to Apple-only devices and you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.

The moral here is that stores that encrypt music or tie them to a device suck. I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all. All that happens with lock-in is that somebody like Apple dominates the market and then the music industry is compelled to dance to their tune. If you level the playing field by publishing music without restrictions, then you can set your own price, since if Apple won't meet your price, then somebody else sure as hell will. Consumers win out too since they can get their music from dozens of sites and use them on dozens of their own devices. I doubt the amount of piracy would change significantly either since albums can be had right now on P2P, so what difference does it make if there is DRM or not?

Re:iPod != Fair Play

[speculatrix]

I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all. All that happens with lock-in is that somebody like Apple dominates the market

The mistake the labels made was to not insist on some form of key escrow so that they could independently create DRM's tracks that can be played on iPods etc; that way they could have licensed other music shops to sell ipod compatible music with DRM and thus been able to bypass Apple and have iPod owners directly as customers.

I believe that so far the full DRM situation with Zune hasn't been revealed, i.e. as to who's in full control of the DRM and can issue Zune-compatible music. Perhaps this is why Microsoft dumped "plays for sure"?

Re:iPod != Fair Play

[amliebsch]

It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them.

That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?

Artie strikes again!

[LKM]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did grandparent call crackers scum? I didn't see that. Who called crackers scum? Some Mac users you know? And you don't think that there are Windows users calling crackers scum? I mean, this just smells of Artie McStrawman. Mac users aren't one person. There are many different Mac users. Some stupid, some not, just like with most other large groups of people.

then how do you explain ...

[DaveCar]

Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.

DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.

It will *always* be possible for content to end up on the P2P networks in a "good enough" (for 95% of the audience) form anyway, and as soon as one person does it that nixes the value of the DRM to the label anyway.

Some labels might "want" DRM, but it is the illusion that they are buying, not the reality.

Re:then how do you explain ...

[falcon5768]

Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.

Easy, they havent found a DRM that works well on a CD without breaking things all over the place and making them look bad.

Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI have all used copy protection on their CDs recently to mixed results. So your idea that the labels are not pushing it is completely and totally false.

Re:then how do you explain ...

[DaveCar]

OK, I work for a record label (and distributor). We don't give a stuff about DRM and neither do the labels we distribute. They just want to sell records.to people that want to buy them.

Your move.

Re:then how do you explain ...

[falcon5768]

The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales.

Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?

Re:then how do you explain ...

[DaveCar]

The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales.

Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

OK. You clearly have some kind of personal demons about the whole "lying" thing.

1) I stated that labels sell unprotected music on CD. Therefore labels do not "require" DRM to sell music. If they did they would not sell CDs.

2) I stated that DRM is pushed by tech companies. OK that's an opinion, but it is one that I honestly hold.

3) I stated that stuff will always end up on P2P anyway - an opinion again, but the emergence of the first HD-DVD title on p2p backs that up.

4) 'Some labels might "want" DRM, but it is the illusion that they are buying, not the reality.' - OK, labels want to stop people copying stuff and mke them buy all their stuff again, but current DRM doesn't stop people copying stuff (see previous point) so the labels are being sold a pup.

5) You: Easy, they havent found a DRM that works well on a CD without breaking things all over the place and making them look bad. Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI have all used copy protection on their CDs recently to mixed results. So your idea that the labels are not pushing it is completely and totally false.

I actually only disagreed with your assertation that labels "require" it (see 1), they don't on CDs, some do on online but look at somewhere like http://www.playloudershop.com/browse/labels/ for (indie admitedly) labels that don't; XL Recordings (The Prodigy), Play It Again Sam, Skint (Fatboy Slim), Beggars Banquet (Cult), 4AD (Pixies), or somewhere like bleep.com or juno.co.uk. These are all selling MP3s with no protection, so your statement "The labels require it" is false because not all labels do. You might want to qualify it as "The major labels". My assertion would be that most labels don't care (an opinion again, but there would seem to be a lot of labels that don't).

6) You'll have to take my word that our labels aren't bothered, but to my knowledge none have used any protected CDs and I wrote the system which has processed a good deal of them for sending to Juno (which has no protection). This statement could be a lie, but you don't have any proof to the contrary, do you?

7) You: The sheer amount of articles out there talking about how only now within the last 4 months labels are beginning to decide that DRM on CDs is costing them sales. Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?

So you admit that indie labels don't want it and the majors now see that what they have been given by the tech companies is hurting them. Again, I will state that what I think (opinion) is that the ones who do use DRM like the idea of DRM, but they can't buy it. Like a junkie expecting a better hit each time they are buying DRM pushed to them by tech companies.

The labels are hurting (pissed off customers, class action suits), consumers are hurting (some might not have realised it yet though until they try and switch media player), and who is the only one getting any benefit out of each and every sale of track with a lovely little DRM license? Yeah, DRM manufacturers. I think that the push on DRM is coming from the tech companies like Apple and Microsoft who want a liiittle bit of money on every track sold. Their product is, however, not up to the job so they are selling the illusion of protection. I might be wrong, but it not a lie that that is what I think.

So, am I a liar as you claim? On

Re:then how do you explain ...

[turnipsatemybaby]

Wow... where to begin? I think at the beginning is probably the best. When CDs were first created long long ago, the format itself was considered a DRM measure, because computers at the time were hopelessly incapable of copying them. They didn't have enough capacity, there was no "internet" to speak of... Hell, most computers at the time didn't even have CDROM drives, let alone CD Burners. No one could forsee the world we have now. CDs have been around for a LONG time now. So your assertion that the labels wouldn't sell CDs if they weren't concerned about theft is ridiculous. To add insult to injury, despite the fact that CDs were astoundingly cheaper to produce, CDs were significantly more expensive than casette tapes. I talked to someone once who worked in the industry, and they said it was because CDs had "longevity" and thus priced it accordingly. Riiiiight. Your "opinion" is that its the tech companies who are pushing DRM (and by implication, the major labels are just victims of the advertising). Well, until you can give some figures to back that up, I would say that that statement is downright idiotic and naive. As the GP mentioned, there are countless articles spanning years about the major labels talking about how desperate DRM is needed in order to curtail the rampant piracy and other nonsense. There are also a good number of articles pointing out how completely false these statements are, and how laughable the supposed supporting evidence is. Major labels, and major content providers in general (ie: movies) have ALWAYS had a fondness for ANYTHING they can use to control what people do with content, with the only limiting factor being the law. VHS tapes have special encodings to prevent them from being copied, for example. Content control is not a new thing. It is not some thing that tech companies suddenly dreamed up. Tech companies now are doing nothing more than similar companies did in the past. They saw that the media industry wanted to control the product they sell to customers, and created products accordingly to suit the media industries whims. The fact that it's biting the media industry in the ass is PURELY the media industry's fault, as a result of the media industries own greed. No amount of spinning you try to do will change that simple, widely acknowledged fact.

Re:then how do you explain ...

[poopdeville]

There's clearly a misunderstanding here, and I don't think it's your fault.

I don't work in the industry. I'm just a music fan. But I understand how management works in the industry (more-or-less). I get the impression that the GP thinks that Universal (for instance) has draconian policies that all its subsidiaries must follow.

In reality -- from my limited perspective -- it seems like Universal (again, for instance) invests heavily in its subsidiaries but gives them a lot of managerial control. Indeed, in this respect, the "pop artists" subsidize the creation of the music I like.

All the labels you mentioned are highly respected among fans. All of them put out music most don't consider mainstream. They know their niche far better than a media giant would, and I think the giants respect that, for now. Indeed, it seems that the more popular an artist is, the more restrictive policies regarding their releases get.

Feel free to correct me. I once wanted to be an EE and work in a studio. (I studied math once I realized how boring physics is.) I'm fascinated by the process, won't argue, or take offense.

I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music

[LKM]

Certainly you have to wonder why else Steve Jobs had their albums splashed everywhere in his keynote speech.

This may sound quaint, but I think he just likes the Beatles. Apple also had the John Lennon poster, and they used to play Beatles songs before Keynotes. Maybe there's some additional meaning to it, but more likely, Jobs just added some music which he liked and thought they kind of represented Apple's spirit.

Re:I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music

[rahrens]

I doubt that. Nothing that Steve Jobs does in his keynotes is by accident. It is all tightly scripted and choreographed, practiced over and over in the weeks prior to the actual keynote. That is done largely to ensure that he doesn't slip and give away something by accident, as well as to ensure a really great show. That is why there is so much speculation about the Beatles on iTunes. You don't think he's going to take the chance of accidentally exposing really personal stuff in front of thousands of people? Ha! I don't think so.

Sure he could have ripped the Cd's, but the artwork, which he specifically noted how beautiful it was, comes only from the iTunes store, even if you get the album from a CD. Unless you scan the artwork yourself, and somehow, I don't see a CEO of a major tech company scanning in his artwork from an old album cover...

Re:I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music

[LKM]

Oh, I didn't mean to say that it was by accident. Just that it doesn't imply anything other than that Jobs thinks the Beatles fit with his presentation.

You don't think he's going to take the chance of accidentally exposing really personal stuff in front of thousands of people?

Again, no, not accidentally. But personal stuff? Sure. He used to show home movies done in iMovie by people working at Apple.

but the artwork, which he specifically noted how beautiful it was, comes only from the iTunes store

Why? I doubt he'd have to scan it himself to get it in there, but I wouldn't put that above him. Seems like something a perfectionist would do :-)

Re:I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music

[rahrens]

All very reasonable sounding, but nothing you say negates my point, which is that his keynotes are closely choreographed, which is a matter of public interviews and articles published about him in the past. So, no, I don't think the Beatles' music or artwork at the keynotes was accidental at all, but was a closely planned disclosure.

Re:I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music

[LKM]

I guess we'll find out during the coming weeks :-)

Re:I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music

[rahrens]

Yep, we will! (By the way, I didn't mean to imply that Jobs doesn't like the Beatles.)

Exactly: The music industry is hurting itself

[LKM]

And the Zune, PS3 and PSP will play unencrypted MP3 and AAC too. Still doesn't help if you bought something from iTMS and now discover that it's bound to Apple-only devices and you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.

Exactly. This is a question of which shop you're using. The device doesn't play any kind of role. You don't need to own an iPod to use the iTunes store, and you don't need to use the iTunes store if you own an iPod.

I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all.

I think it's mainly to maximize profits from their honest customers. It's a stupid strategy, because you're punishing the very people who give you money, while those who don't give you money get a better product - and, as you say, they help establish a monopoly which plays against them. I also think some of them are starting to see the light and changing their ways.

Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[LKM]

That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?

Haha. Okay. Thanks very much, now everyone is looking at me. Hey, guys, I'm working, I promise!

Anyway. I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.

The problem with adding DRM to non-DRM'd meterial is that it is illegal in some cases - depending on the rights the person adding the DRM has.

Some licenses allow you to give content to others, as long as you don't change the file and/or add DRM to it - some creatives commons licenses do that, for example.

In this specific case, it may not be illegal, since the current CC licenses only disallow changing of the file, and according to Microsoft, the Zune does not actually change the squirted files. Future CC licenses will probably remove this loophole.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[amliebsch]

In this specific case, it may not be illegal

Of course it's not illegal, since, as you pointed out, nothing is actually added to the file. Once that's taken away, the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used unless a licensing agreement is entered into, and there is no license to my knowledge that requires users to distribute or use it. What is the CC license going to be modified to say? Anyone who accepts a CC file must distribute that file to a certain number of other people? Anyone who accepts a CC file must listen to it more than three times? The "loophole" you are trying to close is "people using the files on the hardware of their choice."

I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.

IAAL. So don't be ambiguous, what exactly do you believe I am not informed about? Where is the illegality?

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[jpatters]

How about:

You may distribute the file to a third party, but if you do, you must follow these conditions:
(1) You may not cause the third party to to be unable to distribute the file to other parties.
(2) You may not cause restrictions to be placed on how many times the third party can utilize the file.
(3) You may not cause restrictions to be placed on the manor that the thrid party can utilize the file.

IANAL, though.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[LKM]

the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used

That's simply not true, and you know it.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[amliebsch]

None of those would apply, because the sending device is doing nothing to restrict the third party - after all, it's sending the unmodified file - it's the third party that's restricting itself.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[amliebsch]

Sure it is. Copyright law governs copying and performance, and that's about it. Any restrictions on what you can or can't do with your copy have to come from somewhere else.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[LKM]

Okay, I'm seriously not sure whether you're just baiting me or whether you're serious. Either way, you're wrong. Copyright holders have quite a bit of rights to restrict what users can do with their works (ever watched a DVD which told you not to show the film publicly?). In fact, creative commons licenses will probably be updated to reflect the Zune's DRM:

But this approach may not be legal for long, especially if the Zune becomes a big hit. Garlick told me that should the device become popular, the Creative Commons could revise its license so that the device-level hampering of sharing would violate the license as much as adding file-based digital rights management to a CC file does today.

wired.com

For reference, here's the part in the CC licenses which was supposed to prevent DRM:

You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.

Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these. In fact, I'm not quite sur how this doesn't already disallow what the Zune is doing.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, fucking idiot, maybe you should actually read the GP's post:

"Copyright law governs copying and performance"

And then you said: "ever watched a DVD which told you not to show the film publicly?"

That's called performance, numbnuts.

I will state it again for the GP. Copyright law governs copying and performance. It does not affect use.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[amliebsch]

Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these.

They are perfectly free to dictate the terms under which I may copy or perform the work. But if their policy is that only unaltered duplication is permissible, and I have a device which digitally transmits an unaltered duplication of the work, I have met their requirements. The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy, having obtained it in compliance with their terms, unless I agree to a separate licensing contract.

Now, if the CC wants to make a license that forbids distribution to any device that imposes playback restrictions, or even just the Zune specifically, they are free to do so, but don't you think that undercuts the whole concept of free choice? If I choose to use such a device, of what concern should it be to the author? The only person it affects is me.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[jZnat]

If by "third party" you mean "the Zune owned by the person in question receiving the file", then yes, you are right.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[LKM]

The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy, having obtained it in compliance with their terms, unless I agree to a separate licensing contract.

You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you. Obviously, fair use applies. A copyright holder may not forbid that you, say, listen to his song in reverse, but then, that is hardly the point here.

Now, if the CC wants to make a license that forbids distribution to any device that imposes playback restrictions, or even just the Zune specifically, they are free to do so

Thank you. Finally. That was my point.

but don't you think that undercuts the whole concept of free choice?

Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours? You're free to not use copyrighted works whose license terms don't agree with you. You might not agree with them, but these licenses have a place in our copyright system.

Personally, I see no problem with it because it ensures that everyone gets the same freedom.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[amliebsch]

You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you.

No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something, I must actively accept that. I can go buy a CD or a DVD - a copyrighted work - with no license restrictions.

Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours?

Mine - that is to say, the user's - obviously. Otherwise, the CC is as worthless as a Microsoft EULA. Or am I missing the point of organizations like the FSF and creative commons?

Personally, I see no problem with it because it ensures that everyone gets the same freedom.

Really? You see no problem with a license that locks people out just for using an "unapproved" device? Congratualtions, you are a DRM advocate.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[LKM]

No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something

Ah, yes, if it restricts your fair-use rights, then you'd need more than just a normal license. But that's not the issue here.

Sending somebody a file in such a way that it then is DRM'd is hardly something that goes under "fair use", especially if you're free to send it non-DRM'd.

You see no problem with a license that locks people out just for using an "unapproved" device? Congratualtions, you are a DRM advocate.

Congratulation, that quote is just moronic. Yes, I don't see a problem (legally, because that's what we're talking about here) with copyright holders imposing restrictions on the users of their content - as long as it's within the law. No, I'm not a DRM advocate. DRM sucks.

Interestingly, this issue you just brought up is entirely different from what we've been talking. DRM is not law. DRM is technology. Also, DRM restricts the user's fair-use rights. Should that be legal? I think not. But as I said, I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.

In fact, since you think that DRMing a cc'd file should be fair use, you are the one advocating DRM, and you are the one restricting the fair use of the person receiving the DRM'd file.

Re:Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal

[amliebsch]

Sending somebody a file in such a way that it then is DRM'd is hardly something that goes under "fair use", especially if you're free to send it non-DRM'd.

This, I think, is where we have a difference of understanding. My whole point is that the Zune does not send the file in such a way that it is DRM'd. It receives the file in such a way. The sent file is a plain, ordinary file - presumably, if you could receive it with a non-Zune device, it would be an ordinary, DRM-free file, just as the CC requires. Or, if you could send the file with a FOSS non-Zune device, the receiving Zune would still restrict its playback! The restrictions are imposed by the receiver. That's why I accused you of supporting the restriction of fair-use rights. Once I've received that file, why shouldn't I be able to listen to it on any device that I choose? If it's a device that artificially restricts my playback, who cares? And more to the point, how is that a violation of the CC license?

It's the DRM... right? ...Guys?

[Valdrax]

Why is the Zune becoming more attractive?

Obviously, it's because the Zune is unencumbered by a proprietary, consumer-hating DRM scheme unlike the iPod, and you can access music stores that offer a better and cheaper experience than the iTunes store.

... ... What? Why are you looking at me like that?

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Apple Corp (the Beatles). I'm willing to wager money that they are about to start releasing music using iTunes. Certainly you have to wonder why else Steve Jobs had their albums splashed everywhere in his keynote speech. Y'know what would be really interesting? If the newly renamed Apple, Inc and Apple Records merged.

Suddenly Apple, Inc has a music distribution company, and a world of possibilities opens up. Signing artists to iTunes, carving out a chunk of the field from other, more restrictive record co's, eliminating the middle man and getting the artists a fairer cut (as well as themselves).

Apple, inc already has a huge advertising machine (see iPod ads), which is the main thing Record Co's (to my knowledge) supply the artists with, or, at least, the main thing artists need that they can't do themselves (as widely).

Not to mention it would solve the pesky lawsuits between the companies, and benefit both greatly.

If it's unlikely, at least it's an interesting idea...

I doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't plan on seeing Apple end it's tyrannical, monopolistic practices anytime soon.

Apple has proven, time and again over the past decades, that it will only get more tyrannical and more monopolistic toward any marketplace it assimilates.

Wow, WTF is wrong with you?

[LKM]

fucking idiot (...) numbnuts

Wow. What is your problem? You really should seek professional help, anonymously cursing at strangers like that does not seem normal to me.

Also, your post makes no sense. We are talking about copying and performance here. or are you arguing that "squirting" somebody a file does not copy it? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Maybe less swearing and more meaningful sentences would help.

Burning a CD is circumvention?

[argent]

you can NEVER play it on anything else except by circumventing the DRM.

Burning a CD from iTunes using iTunes own CD-burning function that's explicitly supported by Apple for burning files you bought from the iTunes store is "circumvention"?

Steve Jobs agrees with you, the labels don't.

[argent]

DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.
Steve Jobs told the labels that DRM wouldn't work, and had to talk them around to accepting half a loaf with Apple's "honor system" quality protection:

"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

MS Zune enters "Made for iPod" Program

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, MS--realizing that Zune Marketplace blows monkey balls--has sought to license the Zune as a "Made for iPod accessory." MS sources note that giving Zune users the possibility of using iTunes songs on their Zunes may actually make the device somewhat useful, and may send sales of the beleagured music player soaring into the double digits.

Re:No - just two topics from the zunescene forum

[walter_f]

Just two topics from the zunescene.com forum mentioned above:

"How to: Prevent files being deleted from your Zune when it syncs"
"Sync so slow, it is on day 2" :-))

Walter.

P.S. Never been there before, never will be again, either ;-)