Slashdot Mirror
EU Countries Call Out iTunes DRM
seriouslywtf writes "Europe is upping the pressure on Apple to open up its restrictive DRM that ties iTunes to the iPod. Norway ruled last year that the iPod-iTunes tie-in was unreasonable and gave Apple a deadline to make a change to its policies, but was unsatisfied with the response they got. Now France and Germany have joined forces with Norway, making it a lot harder for Apple to just walk away from those markets. From the article: 'France's consumer lobby group, UFC-Que Choisir, and Germany's Verbraucherzentrale are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system, with more countries considering joining the group. However, the company has been under some fire over the last year due to those restrictions, first with France and then Denmark looking to open up restrictive DRM schemes (including, but not limited to iTunes) ... Norwegian consumer groups were unimpressed by Apple's response. Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies, and the pressure on Apple will likely grow in the months leading up to the deadline.'"
Without the hardware tie in there's realy no incentive for Apple to keep running iTunes. Its the iPod & iTv sales that make them money.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So, if Apple has to open its DRM, then so does Microsoft and everybody else trying to hide behind such things. Anything else is merely targeting one or more members of a group under the pretense of customer satisfaction.
People have lots of alternatives to iPod's, as well as alternatives to iTunes. Is there anything that's ONLY available from iTunes that can't be acquired elsewhere?
If you don't like the iPod, don't buy one.
If you don't like iTunes and Apple's DRM scheme, don't buy from the Apple music store.
Am I missing something here?
There are hundreds of MP3 players you can buy to play many types of music formats.
I'm as anti-DRM as the next communist terrorist hippie, but where do the priorities begin here? Why not make the effort to follow through on removing Microsoft's stranglehold on "standards" to open up before they make their way to Apple? Which is more important -- the computers we use everyday, or the music we listen to on them?
" Norway ruled last year that the iPod-iTunes tie-in was unreasonable and gave Apple a deadline to make a change to its policies,"
I don't understand that at all. You can use 2rd party music managers if you want to. so I fail to see how this tie-in can be percieved to hurt consumers.
Can anyone explain?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apple, I'll still choose to buy music from you because you continue to offer the most seemless system for music management. Just don't force me to do it. You made a good system, just trust in it.
There is *no pressure* on Apple to bow down to any of the EUs demands. They have gotten to a point where they can exit such restrictive markets.
Is this a great country, or what?
Sigh.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
im so tired of it all. i might just stop listening to music.
im skeptical on Kaczynski being 'the guy', as i am with many people demonized by the masses and the mass media, but regardless if he was or not, surely the seeds of our destruction lay garnished in our technological 'advancements'
Surely it is the job of the RIAA/Record labels to define an open DRM standard. After all they are the ones who demand DRM. Apple did not demand DRM on their own. Of course DRM suits Apple to tie users lightly into the iPod.
In any case, no user is actually tied - just burn a playlist on to a CD and copy the MP3's to any device.
Should Wallmart be forced to allow K-Mart to sell goods via the Wallmart checkout systems?
Comment
This is a coordinated action by the Finnish and Norwegian consumer ombudsmen and German and French consumer watchdog organizations. At least that's what the strange gobbledygook here maintains.
"You're being too successful. Please stop."
:-)
Look, I loathe DRM as much as the next guy, but Apple's not using their market dominance to smack around, say, Microsoft from making a run at them. Microsoft is doing a FINE job all by themselves at lousing up their attempts to dethrone Apple.
Ergo, this is just market forces at work. The market has spoken, and people prefer the iPod and iTunes to the competition. Until there's good evidence that iTunes prevents someone from, say, playing a WMA file on Windows or the like, Apple's in the clear on this. Let them have their success, and stop monkeying with the system.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
No DRM system is open, so it's silly to ask for "open DRM". Apple is the wrong target; the right target for this sort of action is the record companies which refuse to sell music that isn't deliberately stripped of interoperability.
DRM, by definition, causes vendor lock-in. If DRM schemes were licensed under a fair and non-discriminatory policy then they would not work, because anyone who wanted to get around them would be able to get the specification. You could even legally create an open source application which did all of the rights checking inside #ifdefs so if someone defined the IGNORE_DRM symbol then they could compile a version that decrypted the DRM'd content but didn't apply any restrictions. This wouldn't even be illegal, since they would be distributing the version that respected the DRM and end users would be applying the modification.
The correct solution, then, is not for lawmakers to go after Apple, but for them to go after DRM in general. Except on books, where it makes perfect sense.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
...add iPod and iTunes to Bill of Rights....or even better ..make it a Fundamental Right!!
Then the world will be divide in two - those who have iPods and those who don't.
Eclipse PDE and Me
...are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system...
I really don't see the point for end users. Music from iTunes store can still be restricted by "Open DRM" to only run on iPod. Music from other providers can have confusing and different restrictions on number of PCs, number/type of devices and expiration time. The only "Open DRM" is an unencrypted MP3 or AAC, but that is already available on iPod.
Then don't sell there.
There are hundreds of other markets Apple can sell any type of their locked-up DRM ridden crap into.
I don't understand the logic behind this. This sounds akin to demanding from Sony that Playstation 3 discs run on all other gaming systems. This isn't an issue of vendor lock in, as it was with Microsoft making it difficult for home users to use anything but Internet Explorer with Windows. If European consumers don't want to deal with the DRM on the iTunes store, then they should not purchase songs from there, it's as simple as that. I can see no reason why Apple should be under some kind of obligation to allow a product that people are well aware only plays on the iPod to play on other MP3 players. Does someone care to enlighten me as to why this makes any logical sense whatsoever?
-Alex
Hopefully this will be applied across the board. Does the Zune also infringe upon such laws. If there is going to be DRM, I am at least happy with the way iTunes handles it, and I typically avoid it by purchasing CDs, discarding the empty shell afterwards.
I burn at 128, a lower resolution copy, which is within fair use for those who wish to call me a thief...
If you buy music or video from iTMS, you are forced to keep an iPod as a AV player since no other device can handle the DRM on iTMS files. You say, "Don't buy an iPod and don't buy iTMS stuff then." The problem is that later on, you do not have a choice. If someone wants to change their mind and get an iRiver or a Creative or...etc. as their next device then the bought media will be unreasonably difficult (if you wanted to transfer video, I figure you'll have to use screen capture software, and let it run for the duration of each show you want to copy; having to repetitiously burn CDs, rip them, and write new tags isn't fun either) to transfer to your new player. It's the "place/format shifting" part of Fair Use.
I own an iPod.
I own music that I bought from iTunes.
If I wanted to buy a Zune (Oi - stop sniggering at the back) I'd lose all that music, so if I want to keep on playing it, I need to add the cost of re-purchase to my Zune - this keeps people buying iPods, which keeps them buying iTunes DRM etc.
I paid for that music, it's mine - why is it wrong to want to play that on my next portable music player? Why would I not want to but the best hardware next time, rather than the latest iPod?
The Swedish Consumer Agency (KO) has a "Microsoft Only" IT strategy.
Call the other asshats and ask them to publish their own IT strategy.
Sigh.
- - -
kvp.com
In particular, I don't think you've ever actually used iTunes - either the store or the player. Or an iPod for that matter.
If you had, you'd know that Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy music from iTMS. Me, I've been using iTunes since the beginning of this century and I've somehow managed to never buy any music from iTMS.
Of course, I've had Apple goons break my legs a couple times, but they can pry the MP3's out of my cold, dead hands. (And they're trying. I've experienced a couple drive-by shootings in the past couple months.)
...you should realize that wherever government sees money being made, it sees a target for a shakedown. Why should they have priorities when they have enough resources for multiple simultaneous muggings?
Remember, all is fair in love and tyranny.
You missed: 4) Re-tag music. And yes, if you have a library of even a thousand songs, average length 3 minutes apiece, assuming 1MB/min that's roughly 5 discs of burning time. If you have a medium-speed burner, that's going to take you 30 minutes. Say relabeling each song takes 10 seconds. That's another 10,000 seconds = about 3 hours. So because of "lock in" I'd have to spend three hours of my life (that could have been spent somewhere else) converting my library in order to use it on another device when Fair Use would dictate that I have the right to place/format shift the media that I paid for, the right that is blocked by making the breaking of DRM illegal.
If they had been serious about controlling Microsoft they would have gone after the unholy PC maker/Microsoft alliance. But no, that would probably have affected more European companies. So, we have Windows XP N. I for one find it hilarious that pretty much the same demographic that whines about government involvement in their lives were more than happy to see Microsoft get the shaft. Whatever makes you tick, I guess.
These things have a root in protectionism, as always. Europeans just love to dilute markets enough through regulation that consumers end up with less and no one makes any money. The idea that people would go to another player/music service out of choice because they have realized that DRM is bad for them is completely foreign to our pseudosocialist European friends. Competition is good only as long as the they have control over it.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
here here! Mod parent up. I don't understand the problem. Company B invents a widget that people like to purchase. You don't have to buy the widget if you don't want to...
did the EU also contact MS about the Zune marketplace?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The government of Norway is still not satisfied iTunes DRM, and has given Apple until September to change iTunes. Also, consumer advocacy groups in France and Germany are pushing for Apple to change the iTunes DRM.
So one EU government (out of 27), has issued an ultimatum to Apple. Consumer lobby groups in two other EU nations are also advocating against iTunes DRM.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Just say no to .no!
Hey ! Why would we need a printer ?! Just send a note to Gutemberg to explain him that you don't need its thing, as we already have monks to copy books...
Please, once in our life, try to understand that what is acceptable in the USA may not in Europe.
As you point, the scheme is useless, thanks to CDs, so why should we rip CDs to access the music ? That's a loss of time, and time is money
You said:
I own music that I bought from iTunes.
and:
I paid for that music, it's mine
Actually, one of the problems with DRMed media is that the record and movie companies don't view that you have bought anything. They view it that you have rented it for play on one specific device, which means that if you want an iTunes purchase to play on, say, Zune, you need to buy it again for Zune.
"Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies...."
Or else they will send a letter to Apple telling them how upset they are.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
I know this is somewhat off topic, but I see that there are ad-sense type ads on this discussion for software that allows you to get songs off of an iPod. Now, I know that slashdot wouldn't exist without advertising, however, in this case, the ads do clueless readers a disservice.
0 173
P rograms&Page=SharePod
No one should have to pay to get their music off of their iPod. Hell, even Apple now has a page that explains how to do this without any additional software other than iTunes:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
Also, there are plenty of free programs out there that do what the advertised programs do:
Windows:
http://www.ephpod.com/
http://www.sturm.net.nz/website.php?Section=iPod+
Mac:
http://www.ilinkpod.com/
http://fadingred.org/senuti/
I'm sure there are some for Linux as well, but I've yet to connect my iPod to Linux so I haven't ever looked for any.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
Or, is it that this process is: a) too complicated b) too much work c) too time consuming for most Europeans to figure it out?
Not a European myself, and I'm not so sure they're actually railing against DRM in and of itself so much as one particular brand of DRM being restricted to one piece of software and one portable device, but as you brought up this issue...well, let's face it: it's almost as much work as pirating something, and unless you plan on keeping that music on one device, you're effectively paying to experience this inconvenience. As such, one could argue it's foolish, and the only reason to bother is to avoid the risk of prosecution through buying legally, and you still do the so-far-so-good legally gray bit that nobody's gotten a slap on the wrist for as of yet.
Without getting into the "correctness" of the EU's position ("just don't buy it" speaks loudly to me) I fail to see the issue here.
Instead of forcing Apple/et al to open up their standards, simply make it legal to break that very DRM if it isn't open. You will very quickly see applications for sale to do it (come out from the shadows) and the Apples of the world will be motivated to change to an open standard.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
1. Norway is not part of the EU. 2. I cant see how actually an EU country is doing something here.. only organizations that work in this countries.... Conclusion: Catchy but wrong title
Sorry, but you're wrong about needing to re-tag the music. If you burn an audio CD in iTunes and then re-rip it, the tags are intact.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
Nay! Apple must not be restricted! If they maintain a microsoftian monopoly it is for the good of mankind, and we must not question their mysterious and infinite wisdom. All will become clear when the iPhone is brought down from the heavens and placed in the pockets of iPod-earplugged yuppies striding along the streets of the Financial District. They will show us the way. They will understand the word made silicon and plastic, and convey it to the rest of us mere cheapskate mortals who are unable or unwilling to invest in the meager cost of an iPod, iPhone, MacBook, or other godly Apple instrument. Then we shall see, then we shall hear, then we shall know. The clouds will part, warriors will lay down their arms and embrace each other, weeping with joy and brotherly love. The hungry shall find nourishment, the thirsty will quench themselves with pure crystalline water. The poor shall know prosperity for the first time and forever. The barren shall bear fruit, and the downtrodden shall find dignity.
It is the unbelievers, the infidels who challenge the sacred rule of the Jobsian iSacraments. They must be stopped!
...are we scared yet?
What part of "choose" do you not understand?
...and please don't give me crap about my "taste in music" because you have no idea. The fact that I make my decision based on my interest in music and convenience of the system have nothing to do with what kind of music I like.
I *choose* to spend money on tracks on iTune because it's easy for me. I don't wnat to spend the time to buy a CD, take it home, unwrap it, and click "burn"
I also don't want to search Peer-to-peer sites, find the version that has some semblance of the correct meta-data and deal with it that way.
I know Apple isn't forcing me to use their system. I just don't care about *a lot* (ie- not all) of my music enough to really care about it.
Also, I'm not lazy, user interfaces and user experiences should be as seemless and efficient as possible, the "Apple system" provides that for me better.
That said, a large majority of my library is mp3 as well (the ones I *do* care about)- but that's irrelevant.
How about some real consumer rights, like "If you own it, do what you want with it."
FUCK DRM.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Doing what you describe is, however you want to play it, illegal, as you are violating a contract you made with Apple when you bought their music:
9. Purchase of Apple Content
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
That is clearly a 'no getting around the DRM' clause. Are you suggesting that all users of the iTunes store should commit an illegal act to relieve Apple of the burden of illegally abusing their iPod monopoly?
The point is - music you buy from iTunes is only playable on either your computer (a limited number, to boot) or an iPod (admittedly unlimited). The European courts look unfavourably on any kind of lock-in, and they want iTunes music to be playable on any device, legally, because you bought it, and Apple are denying you the right as a consumer to use it how you like.
There is no way you should be forced to spend upwards of 200 dollars to use something you spent 99 cents on.
It's amazing really - the bulk of these comments are "Why should Apple let you play iTunes music on any other player", when almost exactly the same people have been saying "Microsoft have to give their full Windows API to EVERYONE otherwise it's monopoly abuse". Why shouldn't Apple have to a) give out how they code their DRM to allow others to make DRM music that is compatible, and b) give out their DRM specs so manufacturers can code their MP3 firmware to be able to play iTunes music?
I love a good bout of hypocrisy.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
What exactly is the tie-in? You can certainly use an ipod without itunes (I'm doing it on my Ubuntu box right now, as a matter of fact). You can just as easily use the itunes music store without owning an ipod. Neither of these require owning an apple iMac or MacPro, either.
:-)
I suppose the only real tie-in is that you cannot reasonably use an ipod without having access to a computer. Given how popular ipods are now a days, I bet some people did try that along the ways.
As for using ipods with other music download sites, the devices play mp3s, which are what most music is currently distributed in (just ask the RIAA!). It's the other sites that are being incompatible.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
the deal here is that while "techies" may know how to get around the DRM you cannot easily integrate an iPod without using iTunes and you cannot easily use iTunes with another MP3 player.
The problem becomes, whats in it for Apple? I think now that the iPod is so successful that there is little risk allowing iTunes to work with other players, other than the support issues that the other players just foul up iTunes. Same goes for the reverse, allowing the iPod to be easily integrated to other Music managers. This requires that their DRM be available for anyone else to incorporate.
Frankly if I were in these governments I would just make all companies use the same standard. Its bad enough consumers deal with DRM, let alone 10 different shades of it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm not pointing out that the scheme is useless. The scheme has a use. It pacifies the recording industry into a false sense of security and it got the whole legal downloading of music kick started.
It's kind of like getting your uptight, virginal boyfriend/girlfriend to finally take a few sips of wine. Yeah, you could argue that he/she should have just given himself/herself to you in the first place, but unfortunately, sometimes in life we have to build up a certain level of trust and tear down a certain level of reserve or nothing exciting will ever happen.
Let's just be glad the way around Apple's DRM is easy and hope that at some point the recording industry realizes that it is unnecessary. But, the answer isn't to require Apple to let others use their DRM- that would be a step backward. The answer is to show people that owning an iPod isn't tied to using the iTunes Music Store (iTMS), and that, conversely, buying tracks on iTMS isn't tied to using those tracks only on an iPod. Educating the public about how easy it is to use iTMS tracks with the device of their choosing is a far better solution than opening up Apple's DRM for more use elsewhere.
And, to those of you who say that taking your 5,000 tracks you bought from iTMS and burning them to CD and then re-ripping them would be too much work, here's a hint- don't do it all at once. One or two CDs a day and you'd have this library free of DRM restrictions in no time.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
Apple has one of least troublesome DRMs, and there's not really a tie-in, since you can put any mp3 file in the iPod, and use a program like winAmp to do so. Why don't they bother MS, Sony or EMI that has much more draconian DRM systems. I mean, as long as these are legitimate and genuine complaints, and just suing the company they would profit the most, considering how much Apple has of the mp3 player market.
Seems the only way Microsoft's Zune could compete was to buy a country.
Nope. Burning the tracks to a regular audio CD and then re-ripping them is no illegal. In doing this, you haven't "circumvented" or "modified any security technology" to do so. You've only done what Apple has allowed you to do with iTunes. If they didn't want you to be able to do this, then they wouldn't have designed the software to allow it. Also, this method of 'circumventing' the DRM has been widely published since the the iTunes Music Store was announced and Apple have done nothing to prevent people from distributing this information.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
I personally like to download a non-DRM copy from P2P along with the copy song purchased from iTunes. While technically not legal, I seriously think that any litigation taken against me would not hold up in court. If I can burn the iTunes music and rerip into a non-DRM format then I can arguably just dowload the copy as a more expedient alternative. I won't share the song after it has been downloaded. Moreover, I don't think the courts would uphold restrictions on obtaining non-DRM copies when the music is purchased because it infringes on a consumers right to choose (in this case- what player to use for the music). I am pretty sure you won't see those types of lawsuits because Apple would risk the courts banning the use of DRM for the purpose of locking a consumer to a platform. After seeing Microsoft faulty implementation of DRM, I don't think it is a good idea for developers to cripple their software by arbitratrating how their software is used.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Don't overlook that these are foreign companies ruling against a US based one. I'm sure that their motives are far less altruistic than you might think. Probably more along the lines of "What legislation can I pass that gets me positive PR *and* stops giving money to the Americans?".
Apple has a lock on the market and this is just a political move. The only difference is that the politicians involved aren't owned by the US government this time.
First, I didn't relize that in the EU and Norway people put a gun to your haed and forced you to use an iPod. That's wierd.
Second, There are many expensive things that allow you to manipulte much cheaper things. A blender comes to mind. The price of the iPod doesn't matter in this conversation.
this issue and the MS monopoly issue are completly different and as irrelevant as comparing a car to chocolate.
the iPod is just a device for playing music that apple puts out. If they want to make there own music format, then fine.
here is no hypocrisy here, only yuour inability to see the difference between an operating system by a cmompany that abused it's monopoly, and a hardware company that makes a music device.
I think I'll go out and create a new device witrh my own private music format, and then force apple to make the product they sell suport it.
I don't like DRM but this argument makes no sense what so ever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
norway is not part a member of the EU
Call me stupid for missing that obvious point.
It also makes the "EU Countries Call Out iTunes DRM" headline even more ludicrous. Thanks for the correction.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You have: 1. A music file 2. A music file player 3. An online store for the music files None of those elements should be laden down with branding. If I want to buy music song-per-song, I should be able to do so easily. The product should not be tied into some proprietary player. It should not degrade when I convert it to a different format - not by design, anyway. I should be able to buy, listen, and collect the music in whatever way I see fit. Anything they add to that equation is doomed to failure. Let me raise the bugbear of The Artist who created the music. What does any of this market scheming do for them? What does sit do for me, as a User? I realize that Apple is doing what it can to make money - just as MS does, and plans to take far, far beyond this - but that doesn't mean I have to applaud or play along. Too bad if it endangers their revenue model - make money by improving your computers and hardware, Steve! Lots of work to do there, IMO
YES! You see, the music industry has this greedy scheme: Get DRM on all devices and then slowly close the door on all free formats. The only problem is that Apple decided to screw the screwers. They put DRM on iTunes that only they could use in addition non DRM formats to ensure wide distribution and seize the marketplace.
Now the RIAA and the copyright cartel have a huge problem. If they beat down on Apple, then Apple may just say "well screw you, we'll just disable any DRM and all music will be free" - ruining their plan to close the doors. However, if they don't beat down on Apple, then Apple will be the DRM master, also runining their greedy plans to be the DRM masters themselves.
The RIAA and the music industry are like the Mexican Army. You see, the Mexican Army (mid 1800) had better equiptment, more men, and better training than the US Army, but the US Army was albe to waltz in and kick ass because none of the Mexican generals trusted each other enough to work together. That's why the western half of America today belongs to the US and not Mexico. Well the same is true with DRM, they will kill each other before they will help their peers at their expense.
> Probably more along the lines of "What legislation can I pass that gets me positive PR
;( Just look at DOJ v MSFT. You better behave you convicted monopolist.... or... or... damnifiknow what will happen. How many times have they promised to stop the Windows Tax over teh last fifteen years and is there a single large vendor who will defy their unwritten law and unbundle Windows from their PCs?
Especially when one actually looks at what they have done..... i.e. nothing. It is typical European brinksmanship. You better comply before our deadline.... or we will talk sternly to you and set a new one. Flaunt us for a decade and we might start fining you, but don't worry the fine will be less than the ill gotten gains you are reaping. (See EU vs MIcrosoft)
The problem is talk by itself is useless, talk backed by a credible threat of action can be very effective. Europe lost the ability for taking action on anything twenty years ago. Forget international affairs, they lack the required ferocity to even bully a small corporation like Apple Inc. And they actually wonder why they always fail in diplomatic efforts. Just for example, why would Iran listen to them? There is never the slightest hint of an "or else" even discussed.
Not that the US is much more effective at policing corporations.....
Democrat delenda est
I was actually replying to the sentence after that, "Just don't force me to do it," and its implication that Apple is forcing its customers to buy music from iTMS. They aren't.
If you had taken things the other way around and talked about how Apple makes it hard for people to use music they buy on iTMS with other products, you'd be on firm ground.
Fair enough... my sentence should have been worded where the "force me to do it" was attached to the "trust in your system" instead of the "purchase your music" aspect.
Apologies.
Open up restrictive DGM schemes and let me play my Xbox games on the Playstation!
;)
Say no to digital vendor lock in!
But for me it would have a positive effect on my business with the iTMS if Apple actually did decide to drop DRM from iTMS. I would start purchasing more songs from them. It's a hassle to avoid/decrypt the DRM yourself with workarounds anyway. It's time for Fair Use to prevail, it should have been proven to these DRM'd companies by now that DRM doesn't work.
Apples DRM is as follows:
Unlimited CD burns
Unlimited iPods(yes, this includes your friends. you can have music uploaded from multiple computers and users on one iPod)
Five computers.
Boo. Freaking. Hoo.
"Oh noes! I can only burn it to ? CDs, on which the DRM does not carry over! And I, unlike 99.99% of iTunes users, cannot use my crappy third party Mp3 player! I am limited to iTunes, CDs, and iPods! Unless I just rip it again!"
If you actually download from iTunes, chance are you have an iPod. If you don't, who cares?
circumvent transitive verb
1 a : to hem in b : to make a circuit around
2 : to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem
Just because Apple haven't asked you to stop, doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's also not illegal because of state/federal/European law regarding personal copies - you agreed to terms and conditions when you bought the music and if you fail to follow them youYou have circumvented copy protection - if you perform the actions you outline, you end up with a close to exact copy of what you had before yet without any copy protection. That seems pretty textbook to me.
Let's just say for a brief moment that you might be right: if the circumvention is that 'trivial', and it's not illegal, and Apple don't have a problem with it, then why are they taking every measure possible to avoid providing information about their DRM to their rivals? Surely if circumvention is trivial and Apple don't care, where is the issue with providing documentation to rivals for their DRM?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
You guys really confuse the hell out of me. Now all of a sudden DRM is okay because it is Apple? I guarantee that if I pulled up half of your names on the comment history or if a non-Apple DRM story came up you guys would have comments crying bloody murder. Get the hell over yourselves. Either you support DRM or you don't. You guys just want to find somebody and all of a sudden convenience trumps all your ideology about DRM-Free music. You know Microsoft isn't part of the RIAA either but implements it so your argument that Apple's hands are tied while complaining about DRM in with other's are null and void. Also burning to a CD?!? People on this site, a majority of which are supposed to be bright individuals who are computer savvy and "Burn to a CD" to a lossy format is the best solution you can come up with or lazily accept. I hope your ipod batteries explode. Don't support or oppose something because it is convenient.
I fully expect to get modded into oblivian for this, however;
There are many arguements below that make the case that you have the RIGHT to buy music without restriction and that the music companies MUST sell it that way. My questions is, why? They own the rights to the product, they have the right to dictate how they want to sell it. The only real right you have is to NOT buy it.
If you want the laws changed to that you have the explicit RIGHT to platform shift, get the law changed. Like it or not, according to the DCMA, there are cases where you don't have that right.
If you want music that is unencumbered by DRM, buy it from somewhere that sells it that way. Buy CDs that don't have copy protection, if you stumble on one that does, return it as defective.
First, I didn't relize that in the EU and Norway people put a gun to your haed and forced you to use an iPod. That's wierd.
Try reading my comment, because I don't think you actually did. I said if you buy iTunes music then you have to buy an iPod to be able take it with you. That is fact, stop trying to spin it.
Second, There are many expensive things that allow you to manipulte much cheaper things. A blender comes to mind. The price of the iPod doesn't matter in this conversation.
But there isn't branded veg, sold as normal veg, that can only be blended in a particular type of blender that costs you $200. The price matters because Apple are essentially charging you a $200 levy to make music that you should be free to use portable. If you don't buy an iPod, your music stays put. EU court says "This isn't on - sort it out."
this issue and the MS monopoly issue are completly different and as irrelevant as comparing a car to chocolate.
Can you give me a reason why they're incomparable? I gave a good reason why they are, care to properly rebut that?
If they want to make there own music format, then fine.
It's not a new format. It's an MP4 or an MP3, I forget which at this time. However, I have a right to expect that anything labelled as an MP4/MP3 is playable on any device marked as being able to play MP4 or MP3, like say my Sony Ericsson phone. I can't, because of iTunes DRM.
here is no hypocrisy here, only yuour inability to see the difference between an operating system by a cmompany that abused it's monopoly, and a hardware company that makes a music device.
Rephrase that as 'a hardware company that has as much of a monopoly on the MP3/MP4 player market as Microsoft does on the OS market, which is leveraging that monopoly to sell music as a software company' and you're closer to the truth.
I think I'll go out and create a new device witrh my own private music format, and then force apple to make the product they sell suport it.
You don't make close to 90% of the MP3 players out there. Monopolies are treated differently because if they weren't, the market they monopolise would stagnate. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I don't like DRM but this argument makes no sense what so ever.
I would blame a limited understanding of the issues at hand on your part, rather than mine.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
So here's the deal. Apple has a near monopoly on portable music players. As such, they wield a lot of power normal companies do not. Thus, all other things equal, it is perfectly reasonable for the law to require them not to tie the iPod to their store and DRM and jukebox software. I think this is makes sense and benefits consumers. Just because I have an iPod (theoretically) doesn't mean I should have to buy my music from Apple instead of Sony's online store. Likewise, I should be able to use Mplayer of Windows Media player on equal ground with ITunes.
So here's the problem. Microsoft also has tied their DRM (which they license to stores) and their music jukebox software to a monopolized product (Windows). They have even been convicted of this by the EU courts. But no one has stopped them from this tying and the "punishment" was useless and did nothing.
I'm all for mandating only open standards, including DRM, for music players in a given country or the EU. But stopping Apple from tying while not stopping Microsoft is not justice, it is handing the market to Microsoft. As soon as Windows Media Player can interoperate with iPods it will own the market (it already owns a lot of it). Allowing MS to tie their jukebox software to Windows, but not letting Apple tie their jukebox software to iPods is enforcing a double standard.
All of this relates to public perception. People are accustomed to tolerating illegal lock-in with their operating system since it has been standard practice for years. People are less accustomed to the same for portable music players. Enforce the law against both of them or neither.
I bought my first iPod (second generation) in 2002 which was long before iTMS came out in the US let alone when it came to Canada (where I live). I relied on CD's and eMusic to fill my iPod before iTMS was available in Canada and many of my colleagues rely on sources other than iTMS to get their music for their iPods. I use iTMS because of its large selection, the free weekly songs and the shear convenience of it.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
An open market is good whether it's Apple or Microsoft that are being told about it. I can't see how this DRM enhances the user experience or is godd in any other way than to force consumers into one label. It's good Norway is doing something about it. (I live in Sweden and i thought that the nordic consumer rights bla bla people had joined together sometime last year because of this. I might be wrong though.)
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Zune DRM
Sony ha
DRM is inherently evil and defective by design. Check this movement by Free Software Foundation for details on http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
You either have DRM or you don't. I, for one, hope the RIAA comes to their senses at some point in time and drops their demand for DRM'd music on online music stores. I don't share my music now. And I rarely buy anything on iTunes because of the DRM.
I'm all for DRM being made illegal. But demanding that Apple open up its music while not requiring all Plays4Sure and Zune and other DRM schemes to be either open or interoperable is sheer stupidity. No, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. It has a large share of the market, but the same songs are available for all platforms and all players by: buying from another store, which have most of the same content and some that Apple doesn't have, or by ripping CDs, or, well, by those other means of copying music.
I would just like to know why all these companies keep bowing to the will of the EU. I understand they believe that DRM's are unfair, believe me, i hate having to use iTunes only to listen to my music from there, but why is it that the EU is the only country to force these companies to wake up? First is was MS, now iTunes/Apple, Where do we draw the line? And why is America not doign the same thing? Most of us hate proprietary DRMs that force us to use lackluster software or products, but all the US legal and economical systems says it "It's good for buisness" Well what about the customers?
...and monopolies are the classic example. Arguably "lock-in" generally promotes this inefficieny (Microsoft anti-trust trial anyone?) And this is exactly what we have with Apple/iTunes (lock-in.)
...and besides the quality loss, a hassle to boot.
It's like the summary says: over here in Europe we're upping the pressure on companies that force DRM on consumers, and I feel that US customers should do the same.
And that part is really good (the fact you keep the music forever). Still, I found the subscription to be tiresome. I don't buy music every month. I tend to buy 5CDs one month, and then none for the next two months. I don't like the fact that eMusic is basically pushing me into the same type of contract I hate having with my cellphone provider.
If they went back to unlimited downloads for a monthly fee, I might consider it. If they went à la carte, I might consider it. What they have now doesn't fit my needs enough.
Well, if DRM is the problem, then what Norway and France and Germany ought to do is just outlaw DRM entirely and be done with it!
After all, why should it be the governments' responsibility to prop up Apple's business model, to the detriment of their own citizens?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
- You buy an iPod
- You buy music from ITMS
- Your iPod breaks
What music player to you buy to replace your broken iPod? If you buy a non-iPod, your new player will be unable to play the music that you bought from ITMS. There's the lock-in.That's impossible.
If it's an open standard, then anyone can built tools of arbitrary functionality that interoperate with it, thus defeating the very purpose of DRM. DRM must always be a trade secret.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
but that just makes it clear how much simpler it'd be just to grab the music in mp3/flc from usenet/torrent/allofmp3 in the first place (and only get one lot of lossy encoding).
Apple could quite easily add a 'convert to mp3 and lose some quality' button on iTunes. They don't - as the record labels wouldn't let them (and Apple want to keep you on their iPods). Labels are trying to tie me to DRM, Apple is trying to tie me to iTunes - it's in neither of their interests to make life any easier for me - they win, I suffer trying to play their game.
The quite ridiculous thing is if I bought that music on the shiny plastic disk, I have it at full quality to do with as I wish. Now I sit back and think about it the entire online music system seems to be a way of taxing the lazy and impulsive. That's it.
Yes, but Norway is STILL not a member of the EU - and Norway was the one who started this line of complaints... Norway objected to Apple imposing foreign law on their consumers (when in Rome...). Secondly they opposed the DRM restrictions.
I don't think this is about giving more choice to consumers. Europe is full of monopolies like the BBC who agressively go after people for fees the same way the RIAA goes after people for file sharing, and countries like France where the "visual style" of clothing is considered and IP and people can go to jail for copying another's "style"... and the same EU that wants to make it illegal to sell Champaign that isn't from Champaign, or make it illegal to sell Parmisan cheese made outside of Parmigiano. Monopolies and restrictions in order to benifit certain companies and economic interests are rampant in Europe. There are hundreds of things hurting European consumers far worse than iTunes.
This action is more about protectionism, and scoring a few cheap political points with the anti-American populous by going after a visible U.S. corporation, than about protecting consumers. If the E.U. really wanted to protect consumers, they would simply ban all DRM, and the problem would be solved! Of course, then they would piss off big European media companies like Vivendi, who are looking to create a DRMed locked-in European digital music monopoly.
Well considering Norway has a GDP of $296.01 billion and assets like a $300 billion fund, oil, fisheries, minerals, high tech engineering industries and offshore/oil/shipbuilding industries not to mention large portions of the Arctic and the Antarctic - Micrsoft would be hard pressed to purchase it! Even if the King decided to sell :)
Yes because abandoning markets (which means handing them to the competition on a silver tablet) is a good idea. What if this escalates to EU wide levels? Should Apple hand a whole continent to the competition?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Your comment made me laugh so hard I had to reply. Seriously. The Consumer protection agency in Norway decided to complain about Apples terms for Norwegian consumers regarding music purchases which were too restrictive according to Norwegian consumer protection laws. Apple cannot limit liability in Norway and Apple wanted to use English (UK) law which is not valid here. The Ombudsman demanded this be changed immediately - when in Rome... does as the Romans!!
Secondly he wanted changes to the DRM restrictions that are in conflict with Norwegian fair use laws. This includes MSN Music and every other service on the market using DRM! Norway does have a few MP3-player companies for sure - but this agency is hardly interested in helping them! Its all made in Korea anyway. Try to restrict the hateful anti-Europe sentiments.
Europe is NOT full of monopolies because the EU actively fights against them (example: Microsoft) and all other kinds of trade barriers within the EU. The European Union is very aggressively pursuing opening all national markets for competition. In fact the national governments are required by EU law to assist in this venture.
The BBC and many other national public broadcasters are NOT monopolies because there is plenty of competition! The BBC and the like are actually recipients of the national TV-license fees that the government requires for TV ownership in some countries. You may not like it but it is required none the less. This happens to be the case in Norway as well - for reasons of protecting our language from the massive English influence on the commercial TV-stations.
The EU does not make it illegal to sell Champagne or Parmesan products! They do however require that producers labeling their products Champagne actually have some basis in reality - and produce it in that region! Think trademark and salesmark laws.
Like I said above the EU is VERY active in removing exactly that kind of barrier to free trade within and amongst the EU nations. You obviously do NOT know anything on the subject.
What protectionism? This started in Norway. And as far as Norway is concerned this is about Norwegian consumer protection laws that far better than anything the US has ever seen - they actually protect the consumer! Think democractic socialism where consumers actually have rights.
Norway is a great friend of the US - and loves America! The population has nothing but great respect for the US. This is about legitimate complaints from consumer agencies.
Lets face it. The law makers here are not arguing to allow users to move the music they bought in iTunes to another player. They want other companies to have access to the secret juice that drives the innovative system that Apple created, so that they can, without effort, get into the business i nthe name of competition. Apple did the (almost) impossible. They actually convinced the record companies to sell their music with DRM which is not terribly restrictive. No competitor has come around yet to creating something that is as good, whilst appeasing the big record companies.
No emusic is not quite up there. Until Justin Timberlake starts selling on emusic, it will remain a very small sideshow in the whole online music scene.
This is the dilemna of intellectual property in the digital age.
If you can replicate a car (perfectly), then you can give one to all your friends, who can in turn replicate that car and give it to all their friends. Really, you're only limited to the amount of garage space you have. However, you'll all own the same car, and may want to drive something else every once in a while. Problem is, all the effort that the auto manufacturer has gone through to make that car so cool isn't getting paid for, making it more difficult for them to pay someone to do it again.
If someone is paying for it, then the person who created the work might be able to more like it because they can afford to live without working full time at a Taco Bell. In the case of music, the purpose of DRM is to enforce people paying for it. I know some will argue "more people pay for their music now than...", but it sure wasn't the case in the late 90s where, without DRM, everyone seemed to be getting their tunes via Napster.
Record companies as big, greedy beasts who haven't figured out a new fair model yet for the artists and consumers? Sure. But they exist to make money, and to make money for those that created the work (however poorly they distribute it to those people.) If someone has a better idea than DRM that allows everyone to win, from the artist, to the label that puts up the money to record and promote, to the consumer, please let them (and me) know.
Solutions, people, rather than "me-me-me-me-me!"
Do You Experiment?
the market voted with its (dollars, yen, euros, kroner, what have you)... and Apple won. the hardware works. the software works. it's easy to use and fun, and the kids got it.
what is there about these countries that makes them want to force you to break what works?
what they'll end up with is torrents of MP3s, all illegal, if they persist. MP3s will play nicely on iPods.
lucky for them they aren't picking on a company that the bushies like. look what happened to Saddam and Iraq for saying he wanted bush 41 dead....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
And the same DRM that Zune uses is supported on over a hundred of other devices made by dozens of other companies. www.playsforsure.com will help you find such devices that are supported. Let's see Apple do that.
Apparently you haven't heard: PlaysForSure is not compatible with the Zune. That means that any DRM-based stores out there which used PlaysForSure before the Zune came out (isn't that all of them but iTunes?) will not function with the Zune, and as far as I know, tracks from the Zune store will not function on PlaysForSure devices.
It's funny because France has been threatening stuff like this for months now, and now MS stepped in, as the single company that should benefit from cutting off iTunes and just legitimized Apple's strategy and said to Hell with the old strategy. It was actually kind of nice to see Microsoft do that.
P.S. I hope you're not planning to buy a Zune based on the information you just stated.
1) You have a choice of other online stores to fill your iPod with music other than the iTunes store. You don't have to be an iTunes customer to be an iPod customer.
2) Can I fill my iPod with music from the Zune Marketplace? If not, then why aren't we requiring the Microsoft to "open their DRM" as well?
open DRM.
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
So it's time for us to ask for a little liberation from abroad. Apple's due for a good reality check on this one, and it'll take a free people to deliver it.
You can easily legislate technology, governments do it all the time.
There are laws that govern how much cars can pollute, to take just one example.
This is really not a story about technology, it's about consumer protection, something that exists in much of Europe and not really in the US.
One of the main complaints is that Apple can revoke access to music that people have bought, that's illegal around here, so naturally they have to fix the problem.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
Funny how that works, we (well many in Europe) see Americans as rash, stupid and violent in international affairs.
You (the US) seems to lack all moderation.
The EU works mainly to maintain the open market with free competition, it has succeeded in doing that for a long time, many cartels have been broken up and many companies have been fined into compliance with the laws.
The way to fix the problems is not to say "(We will ban all your products from the entire EU | turn your country into a glass parking lot) unless you do as we say", the objective is not to kill the opposition, but to modify harmful behavior, in that regard moderation is key.
It's much better to talk to the company and back that up with increasing fines, because that's something that will eventually make the company change its mind.
Apple and MS are small potatoes, they will fall in line soon enough.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
You have completely failed to understand the issue.
This has nothing to do with how successful Apple is, this has to do with Apple not obeying the laws.
You can't pretend sell stuff around here and then amend the contract after the fact.
There are several other problems with DRM, like the restrictions on otherwise legal use (like making unlimited copies), so it good to see that the other end of the copyright bargain gets some backing.
It's simple consumer protection, Apple has to shape up and obey the laws.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
You might have heard of this concept called "laws", "laws" tell people and companies how they must act and what happens when they don't.
I know that this will come as a shock to you lawless frontier cowboys, so brace yourself, around here there are things that you just can't do, no matter what.
One of these things is murder, no matter what contract you get someone to sign, you can't murder them.
Some business transactions are regulated in the same way, here are a couple of examples:
* You can't get less than 2 years warranty on new goods, no matter what the store says.
* You can't be forced into further restrictions after a sale has been made (EULAs are void).
What Apple does is to apply restrictions that are not legal, that's why they are being asked to fix their problem.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
I equally hate DRM just as much as anyone else here, but the whole argument looks flawed. Customers buy the ipod because they like it, not because any evil government forced it upon them. They buy the songs from the apple store because they find it convenient - not because there is a decree stopping them from visiting allofmp3 and downloading whatever they like.
Log story short, this drm lock is chosen by the customers because they see a perceived benefit in it. Its just the same as going the windows or the OSX route - they get a locked down system and they use it because they like it better than a open or free system. If any, the governments should be targeting to change the mindset of the people. The boycotts should be called by the actual users. Anything else is against the rules of the open market.
BTW, the whole issue reminds me of the binary modules in the linux kernel episode.
For the record I haven't bought a single DRMed file and won't for the rest of my life. But I stand by apple here, they built the ecosystem and they should get to choose the rules by which they operate it. Its the same with Microsoft's monopoly, and I don't see any government asking them to open up the windows source.
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
Of course this is a great country!
We get to pollute the earth and the skies, we get to kill foreigners and steal their resources, we get to enact laws that apply to the rest of the world and then arrest foreign citizens under them, we get to kidnap, torture and murder anyone who ends up on one of our 'suspicious' databases...
gee, what more could a good ole' boy want?
is to allow non-drm music on the iTunes store.
If the copyright holder doesn't want DRM free music on the store, they can either choose another market or MP4.
Either that or in the EU allow PlayFair to be run and supply this.
That last one is a little evil: it allows the DRM to be removed by the owner, so it is legally fine to run. HOWEVER, it is an action that the EU made illegal with the EUCD. The EU pick either upholding their ruling that Apple open up their DRM or allw this exception to the EUCD.
A third more evil thought is to allow licensing on other platforms but make it pay-per-play.
The previous poster wanted to say:
"I only like mainstream music. Is Britney Spears next album out?"
"I hate using a search button. It is so 1990s"
"I am deaf"
"Three subscription models are less choice than one model, the true Apple's one. Seriously"
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or European Economic Area, which is several countries outside the EU and the EU, who agree to be bound by economic policies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Mexico panaderias (bakeries) used to sell milk with a catch, you could buy milk only if you bought bread.
This was declared illegal (tied sales are illegal in most countries I have lived in).
What Apple is doing is controlling which portable device you can use by means of tying iPods to iTunes. The "option" of burning a CD and then ripping it is a non option, any person with a modicum of computing literacy knows this.
Lets say that is like if the panaderias allowed the shop downstairs (who are renting space and thus can be arm forced) to sell you milk only if it was deficient in some way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All this jumping through loops should not be a consumer concern.
Since the companies are not organizing a competitive market that allows consumers to get what they are paying for, then govrnments have to intervine in order to tell the companies what is acceptable behaviour in a competitive and fair market.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"You are being succesful, curb your monopolistic instincts"
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... to play iTunes music, unless it is an iPod.
Save us all the burning-ripping nonsense.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can happily download with your Web browser only.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That was a brilliant post!
Okay. I understand why Apple wants DRM. I understand why the labels want DRM. I understand why DRM can't be fully open.
I hate that Fairplay is a moving target!
I don't want Fairplay to move. I don't want to have to upgrade my copy of iTunes from 6.x to 7.x simply to get songs from the iTunes store without losing the metadata. I don't like losing metadata because I'm afraid I'll lose critcal details: for a while, I had a few songs in my copy of iTunes with no artist listed because I couldn't remember who did them.
If Apple licenses Fairplay to other vendors, it won't move as fast. I think that this will be a good thing.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Bullshit. The EU is built around the Internal Market - and one of the greatest concerns for Europe is opening national markets to both domestic and foreign (European/international) competition. If you do not know this - you know nothing about the EU. I wish I could explain it all - but then again I studied this at Uni and it would take some to time do.
No, the license is for the TV set. The channel gets the funds over the national budget. Many consumers do not understand this important legal distinction.
You are such a troll! What Norway is trying to do is keep our tiny language alive through active measures like producing programming in our native language! In another 50 years we will probably only use English anyway - all our major corporations already do. Our cultural protection program has nothing to do with foreigners or xenophobia - its about American TV and music crushing our own unique culture. You have probably heard about how the French protect their language.
No, in my "socialist" country, like you said, it is all about the "proletariat". At least try to be consistent. We actually have a system where the people have the power.
We are not members of the EU (of our own choosing).
You obviously have not visited Norway. The council is independent and non-political. Your political and legal system is so different from ours - I understand your scepticism. We have our tiny leftwing anti-American groups, of course, but our close historical ties (WWII/NATO) and the 4 million Norwegian-Americans mean we are actually quite fond of the US.
Actually Norway is not bound by all the "economic policies" - but a limited set of common laws for free trade.
Norway does NOT follow the "policies" of the EU unless it is covered by the limited agreement - and even then we have a rejection right (veto).
Fined... or...
They will simply stop letting users in those countries purchase from iTMS in order to comply with the legislation.
That would probably do very little to hurt iPod sales anyway.
If they wanted to pick a fight, they'd have iTunes block access to iTMS and put up a "sorry, your government has legislatively disabled your access to iTMS; to email your government representative and complain, click here: [insert appropriate contact information derived from credit card billing information here]".
-- Terry
what they'll end up with is torrents of MP3s, all illegal, if they persist.
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened!
As a concept, DRM is necessary based on the assumption that, if left to their own devices, consumers will take valuable data (the kind which has taken work to create and thus is deemed to be worth monetary compensation for permission to possess) and redistribute it without such permission 'coz they can'.
I believe that this assumption is unfortunately reasonable. But that aside, I wonder what would happen if record companies and distributors like apple were to collectively give their customers the benefit of the doubt. If they were to remove DRM and simply make a polite request that anyone who wanted their own copy of the song please buy it instead of just copying someone else's.
Basic Idea: If people could be trusted to act in the interests of other parties instead of solely themselves, DRM would not be necessary. But that level of trust in the consumer is unreasonable. The consumer, in reality, can't be trusted to give fair pay to content creators when they don't have to. However, I believe that the reason for this is that the consumer doesn't trust the company. The consumer feels that if they don't go out of their way to avoid paying any money they can, they will inevitably be ripped off. Again, not a particularly unfair assumption in most cases. This is a case of circular distrust. Though I don't honestly believe it will ever happen, I believe what it would take to break this cycle is for either the consumers (who are much harder to organise) or the company to deliberately give the benefit of the doubt to the other party. They would more than likely lose a great deal of money over it, but if say, Apple and the RIAA were to jointly remove all DRM and simply ask their consumers to do what is fair (which for certain companies, without pointing fingers, may mean dropping their prices), they may find that when their customers realise that the company has enough respect for them to treat them how the company itself would like to be treated, they may just return the favour.
"People can enforce laws and morality - but only God can change the heart." - Jeremy Cole
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.