Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma
An anonymous reader writes "Understanding how Apple's FairPlay DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Apple isn't broadly licensing FairPlay, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to iTunes."
Who are you yelling at. The people who create DRM or the Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate DRM so all you have to do is put DRM next to its name it automatically becomes Evil?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Hasen't FairPlay been cracked yet?
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
How can you have open DRM? Doesn't that mean that anyone can make a program use it and then not put restrictions on the user? And isn't the point of DRM to be obscure and inscrutable by all but the most dedicated?
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Understanding how Apple's FairPlay DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Apple isn't broadly licensing FairPlay, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to iTunes.
Because the DRM locks people into iTunes + ipod, and locks out competition. Why do you think they're keeping it?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"FairPlay may make PlaysForSure-based products from Creative and other Microsoft aligned rivals slightly less appealing because they "won't work with iTunes," but since those players work fine with CDs and have stores of their own, the real reason nobody's buying them is not because of the DRM in the iTunes Store." Are you kidding me? The whole reason that other music systems aren't as popular as ipod/Itunes combo is becuase of they dont have the simplicity of the ipods design and the songs they have on itunes form the store wont work on their player.
but it does still puzzle me why they don't allow artists to opt out of having DRM applied to their work. Hopefully we will see that change in the near future.
I prefer to say "DRM-encumbered content". The definition fits perfectly:
encumber
1. To put a heavy load on; burden.
2. To hinder or impede the action or performance of.
3. To burden with legal or financial obligations.
It seems the Apple TV is delayed.
As of tonight, my order for the Apple TV from the Apple Store online is now set to ship on March 20. It had said Feb. 28 until at least this morning. I ordered the day it was announced, so I should be one of the earliest buyers.
First against the wall when the revolution comes
Understanding how Microsoft Zune's DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Microsoft isn't broadly licensing Zune's DRM, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to Zune's store.
Because the DRM locks people into iTunes + ipod, and locks out competition. Why do you think they're keeping it?
If that were true, eMusic wouldn't be so successfully riding on the iPod's coattails, would it?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Excessive verbosity masking rampant Mac fanboyism? Check. /.? Yup. Check.
Fairly good, readable explanations of just those factors favoring Apple's position? Check.
Pompous platitudes and non-sequiturs about factors not favoring Apple's position? "Apple wants things to be simpler and more efficient, not to offer DRM-free indie tracks next to DRM songs. Duh." Oh yeah. Check.
Not-so-subtle baiting ("free-software hippies") at Linux and free software advocates throughout? Check.
Absolute bewilderment at the part of the reader as to why the author would provide so much free PR for Apple? Especially since he likes to insult free software authors for "not getting paid" a couple times each story? Check.
A belief that the author is actually some kind of analyst despite writing fluff that would feel at home in Apple's officially released press releases and technical notes? Check.
Ooh, a mysterious anonymous submission to
"Like reading RoughlyDrafted?" Well I guess I like having my teeth pulled too. It's pretty excruciating to get through each time but I do learn something, I suppose.
"Understanding how Apple's FairPlay DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Apple isn't broadly licensing FairPlay, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to iTunes."
.99$ songs so Apple can sell 350$ iPods. If Apple opens up, the studios can push whatever prices they like because Apple is nothing more than a commodity store. Why on earth would Apple want to give up on that? Even if they didn't need it to compete with other music players, they've essentially funneled money away from music studios and into the hands of prospective iPod buyers. Suddenly "iPod + music" look like a much better package deal. Every time they resist the studios they get good PR. The cobranding effect is enormous. The studios aren't willing to let go of FairPlay, and Apple can effectively use them as shield. So in summary, they haven't done it because there's no good business reason to whatsoever.
The studios demanded DRM. By failing to control the DRM system, the studios made Apple the gatekeeper and now Apple is using it to pressure the studios into offering
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not only does each province have a privacy commissioner, there is a federal privacy commissioner in Canada, as well as consumer rights groups.
g hts-management/
? page=14
http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/digital-ri
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/370
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1383/125/
DRM jellomizer DRM
Sorry man, you have a new boss now.
You really arent that smart, are you?
1. What's a "paridox"? Did'ja know that google can spellcheck?
2. Is there some sort of subliminal message wIth ranDom smatterIngs Of capital leTters?
3. Do complete sentences?
"The problem with digital music unlike previous forms Records, and Tapes."
4. Thats what we in the know call a factual error. MP3 is lossy. FLAC is not. I dont see much FLACs being traded, other than torrent sites.
"With the Compressed Digital Music now causes a problem where music can be spread rapidly, without quality loss."
There's even much more wrong, but find that out for yourself. Ignorance can be fixed, but stupid cannot.
The author claims that an iPod cannot sync up with multiple iTunes' because of DRM. This doesn't follow from his explanation of the keys being downloaded from iTunes. Since it is up to iTunes to manage tracks and their respective keys, it's trivial for iTunes to always upload all keys without erasing existing ones. Furthermore, if I have no DRM files in my library, why am I still limited like this. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the DRM. It's an arbitrary design decision on Apple's part.
Furthermore, the iPod doesn't orchestrate the sync, iTunes does.
The explanation about Apple being somehow unable to deal with both DRMd and non-DRMd files is ridiculous. The argument in the article is that Apple can't deal with non-DRMd files because it is too complex given the current infrastructure. At the same time there is a lengthy discussion about how Apple doesn't want DRM in the first place. To me this implies Apple needs the infrastructure to provide non DRMd files. So which is it?
It is arguable that mixing in non-DRM files would play in Apple's favor in the public relations/good will front. What would the European prosecutors say if Apple started distributing non-DRM files for indy labels that were ok with it? That would more firmly remove the blame from Apple and put it squarely on the music labels'.
I think he's a bit biased...calling DVDJohn a profiteer and such.
As for stripping the DRM having little use since you can burn a CD and re-rip...converting AAC to AIFF and then reconverting causes a huge quality loss. I used QTFairUse to strip my AAC encrypted files so I could play them on my Squeezebox. I did it only to play MY music, not to steal any music. But not being able to play my own music on my Squeezebox also made me realize I didn't want to buy iTMS music any more....
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
You mentioned the word "artists". I think you'd find 99% of content sold by Apple is not controlled by any artists - it is controlled by 'studios' and 'labels'.
"opt out" for artists is not signing your life away to the MAFIAA to start with.
As far as distributing over iTunes is concerned... I don't see how the 'indie philosophy' matches up with proprietary closed-source patent-encumbered systems such as iStore/iTunes/iPod. I also don't see what Apple is trying to hold back, as they can just take the artist's price (and choice of DRM/no-DRM), add on $0.02 for distribution costs, and sell it at that price.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of other alternatives (http://www.drmfree.org/) on the internet for selling music without DRM, some without using proprietary patent-encumbered codecs or other nasties.
"I prefer to say "DRM-encumbered content". The definition fits perfectly:"
No doubt you would. *looks around*
Anyway one, two, and three are all assumptions. As in "I'm assuming everyone uses content like me."
Judging by the wellbeing of iTunes I'd also say that apparently one, two, and three aren't the slash-boogeyman one would like to make it out to be.
I hope you are not that naive. Steve Jobs is brilliant at PR, and when he says something like that, we of course all want to believe it. But just because he says it, that doesn't mean it's true. If you remember the timing of it, it was after they we're banned from selling their DRM music in Norway. Let's be real here, it was a clear PR move.
It provides a brief explanation of how fairplay works, then descends into sheer madness. Remember, these are the same geniuses that defended PPC up until the end, explaining why osx on intel was impossible and would lead to the end of apple.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I am sick of carrying around the 700+ CD's I own everytime I move. I can take all of my CD's music and iTunes Music Store purchases with me wherever I go; either on my iPod or my laptop. My CD's weigh about 100 lbs. My iPod, much less. Also, most of my old CD's are badly scratched.
Apple is successful for a reason. They get it.
People in glass houses ...
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
While the article notes that an ipod can only sync with one itunes, you can load songs on to an ipod from any number of different computers itunes if the ipod is configured for a manually managed content rather than auto syncing.
If the ipod does not keep keys then can you load DRM'd fairplay songs on as many ipods as you wish, and conversly can one ipod have DRM's fairplay songs from any number of itunes accounts?
Huh? Apple has everything right where they want it.
:-)
:-)
Spare me the Apple fan-boys...
In the past 4 months, I bought a nice 17" Intel iMac and a nice Intel Macbook. With upgrades the two have cost me more than $3,200 USD. So any Mac-Boy that complains about what I am about to say should stand out to the intelligent amoung us
Apple DRM... Where to begin? It sucks. Jobs makes statements about how the "music" industry should change from DRM. Well, I haven't had many problems with Apple's DRM when it comes to music. Yeah, Apple DRM on music sucks. However, you can at least burn an audio CD and grab ogg/mp3/aac files from your music CD.
However, I have gotten burned big-time from Apple this past year from buying TV shows. I have paid Apple way too much money to get several seasons of my favorite shows. Now when I try to convert those shows to watch on my 50" HDTV instead of my little 17" iMac, well, Stevie Jobs will not "let" me. What kind of crap is that?
I paid for this stuff! It is not like I am trying to convert some p2p avi to DVD. I just want to be able to watch the 3 seasons of "The Office" and the other show I have bought off of iTMS on my HDTV!!!
I will never buy anything from Apple again. Period. No hardware, no software and especially no content.
Don't lock down the content I buy from you and expect me to be happy.
I would not have cared if Apple locked down _all_ the TV shows I bought from them... if I could burn a DVD/VCD to watch on my TV.
However, as it is, the DRM on the content from iTMS is way out of line.
As I stated above, I have spent close to $4,000 USD in 4 month on Apple stuff. So please, spare me all the Apple zealots who just want to shill for Apple.
I liked Apple before I actually had to deal with their limitations.
Right now, my Intel iMac it triple booted with OS X, Ubuntu and WinXP. I spend all of my time on the iMac in Ubuntu and boot to WinXP for some fun games. I haven't booted to OS X for a while now.
If there is anyone out there thinking about getting a Mac. Well, I would say to hold off on that. Just build-your-own, save a boat load of money and dual-boot with Linux and WinXP. You will have the best of the geek-world and the gaming-world.
Peace
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Or more precisely "Illegal Prior Restraint implemented with Arbitrary, Unregulated Technical Measures.
It is just commonly misspelled DRM.
"DRM" is the "aint" of No F-ing Way.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
This will likely get labeled flamebait but it all seems so simple to me. Who needs Apple?
Get a $15 dollar mp3 player from singapore on Ebay. Stop using Itunes.
There, we solved Apple's drm problem for them.
"It's still a secret, but it's at least a known unknown."
Since when was Donald Rumsfeld deciding DRM issues?
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
There are two ways to use DRM in hardware. One is the one where the owner can use this to ensure only trusted operating systems and software to run through signing, and to ensure that every computer e.g. in their corporate network is genuine. Plug your would-be attacker laptop into the network jack, and you still get nothing. That corporate laptop living a promiscous life out the Internet won't be able to connect back in if it's rooted.
The other is essentially remote controlling other machines. I can give you a document, but you can't copy it, print it and it'll self-destruct in 30 days. It makes my machine every third party's playground where they set the rules, not I. They dictate what software I can use to handle it, and any illegal contracts will be enforced by hardware and protected by the DMCA.
So far, every DRM system I've seen proposed by industry players and not just a rag-tag bunch of activists have been of the latter kind, you're explicitly forbidden from knowing the root key. The first one is a mostly solved problem and highly reactive anyway, you have to come in and have your PC retanked to fix it. Hiding the root key is their promise that my system will work the way they want. If you're a regular consumer you should be against it because apart from petty bickering like Bob sending you an email you can't print, and you sending him the same back you'll have to bend over hundredfold for big corporations. Forget using "alternative" software, alternative OS, altnerative browsers, alternative players, alternative anything. If they didn't sign it for anything but Mircosoft Windows(tm) running Internet Explorer(tm) with Windows Media Player plug-in(tm), it won't play. I think the saying "You're not paranoid if everyone really is out to get you" applies well to DRM. Right now I'm in pretty much total control over my PC. Why should I give up that to become a guest in my own house?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Oh Jesus Christ, more RoughlyDrafted bullshit.
For those of you who don't already know, RoughlyDrafted is an Apple propaganda blog that abused digg by using multiple accounts to "digg" their own stories and "bury" any stories or comments expressing an opposing viewpoints. And now they're infiltrating Slashdot.
Well, now you know the truth. I am posting this as non-AC because I am willing to risk karma for this public service announcement to be heard.
By the way, if you ever wanted to know why FairPlay isn't interoperable, the short answer is because Apple makes more money that way.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
According to the article,
... for the benefit of third parties." This is just false. The CD Audio "happily" produced by iTunes is simply uncompressed AAC audio. That means that all the data that was discarded by the encoder when the file was created is still lost, but the file is back to its original size (a lose-lose scenario, only useful for playing on standard CD players). It's foolish to try to recompress the data--even in AAC format--because new information will be discarded, and the quality will be even less (probably far less) than the original AAC file.
"Because iTunes happily converts protected AAC songs into standard, unprotected AAIF CD files when burning a CD, there isn't much point for a user trying to attack the system or steal its keys. The main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is to exploit the system for the benefit of third parties."
I have no idea what AAIF means. Redbook CD Audio is just a set of raw PCM streams.
That aside, my real complaint lies in the statement that "the main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is
That's where the value of the unencrypted AAC file lies: it can be used just like an MP3 or similar file in any capable player. The file retains the benefit of the much smaller size, and it can be used on other platforms (like Linux) and on compatible players (like newer car/home stereos, many portable media players). The main use is not for the benefit of third parties, but just so I can play music I payed for in a manner of my choosing (a right protected by existing copyright law).
The author of the article may understand DRM, but he doesn't seem to grasp the usefulness of the unencrypted AAC file vs. uncompressed CD audio.
That said music has always had a inherently time and space limited factor, although that factor has grown less important, and clearly certain people have learned to capitalize on that change, and others have clearly suffered. At a live performance, the music lasted as long as the performance, and only so far as the sound and view would carry. This meant many people were performers, and many people benefited. Concert promoters did well, and so did performers. With the advent of recordings, the wax cylinder was still a rather time limited, expensive to record, low quality medium. People still wanted to hear live music, and people still had to replaced the cylinders. Even with the advent of vinyl, these would only last a generation. The record broke the time and space barriers, but still held the same hope of the live perfomance, that people would pay again and again for the same, or at least similar, music. Compilations, box sets, reissue, all to get back to the good old days of selling the same music.
Now a single download could be all that might be recovered from recoding a song. DRM is nasty, but it does impose the time and space that is even present on a CD. It can be argued that DRM free music might make more than the would make otherwise, but certainly less than had been expected in the past. For instance, even if I buy every song I own, I have no reason to buy a greatest hit. Ever.
So, what does this mean. That EMI will sell it's library to anyone willing to buy it lock stock and barrel. EMI is not in the business of giving away music, but if anyone else wishes to, they may. EMI likely believes that the days of mega bands and mega hits are numbered. These are mostly for kids anyway, and kids now figure out what is cool on myspace, not MTV, if MTV was ever a place to be cool.The business model of brainwashing kids to believe an album will make then a better person is over, because the acquisition of the album no longer involves money to the label. It is like porn. None of the magazines are making as much money because people are given the hardcore stuff away for free. No magazine had to pay Britney to flash, and no magazine got the full benefit of the exclusive.
So Apple, and everyone else, has a DRM to give the music some time limited quality. Apple got lucky and this worked to it's advantage. Some of this si just elements of a yound industry, i.e. digital music distribution. I suspect much of this will go the way of wax cylinders and 8-tracks, and we will be looked down on for wasting money on such things.
OTOH, I have no faith that the music industry will come up with the solution. I believe it is the industry greed that got it into this position, and greed that will keep it running in circles. The LP was a special delivery system. The record that would scratch, and the album art that was often more valuable than the record. With the CD, the labels just saw a cheaper product that would have a higher markup. The continuously cut costs, until the CD was nothing more than a way to listen to store bought music, with no compelling value added. It is any wonder that everyone jumped to the cheaper alternative? For most music, the MP3 is not noticeably inferior, without the inconvince of a CD. Sure some still try to add to the experience, but really, who is going to trust non music content from a CD?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
By the way, I forgot to mention that RoughlyDrafted's digg abuse got their site banned from digg until just recently.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
The article talks at length about issues with making it possible for other vendors to sell PROTECTED content that can be loaded PROTECTED onto an iPod. OK, fine.
But what about loading UNprotected content onto an iPod?
If I read this correctly:
- iTunes can't sell UNprotected content and
- Other tools can't load UNprotected content into iPods
because:
- the iPod's onboard software is designed to only be loaded by iTunes software,
- the iTunes store is not designed to serve unprotected content and the iTunes application is not designed to download unprotected content from the store (although it will load unprotected content from the user's machine)
- both are designed to be automatically updated when used if Apple believes it desirable (whether because the protection is cracked or because people are using it in unapproved ways), and
- Apple won't publish an API for loading UNprotected content or commit to stabilizing it.
This means third-party tools, even if trying to load unprotected content, are trying to hit a moving target.
But Apple only makes the iTunes client available for Mac and Windows (linux, non-Mac unix, etc. users need not apply), and only in association with a user account registration.
Which brings me to my situation:
- I have a video iPod (given me as a gift).
- I have only Linux machines, so can't run the Apple iTunes clients.
- I would like to load unprotected content onto the iPod.
- I have no desire to ever buy anything DRM encumbered, which means I will not be buying anything DRM-infested from iTunes, ever (even if I COULD load it under Linux).
- Thus I don't need an iTunes account, which means:
- for me the iPod software will NOT be updating intermittently, but forms a fixed target.
So how can I (and others in a similar situation) load unprotected content onto the iPod?
I had hoped TFA, self-billed as "(Understanding) How Apple's FairPlay DRM works" might give me some insight. But it says nothing about the guts. It just meanders around the high-level design issues of key management.
Does anyone know a solution - or where to look for one?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The question is that DRM simply do not exist. Anything (ANYTHING) that can be played, can be copied. This is that simple... The original DVD encryption (CSS), that tooks million of dollars to be developed and was broken down for a 15yo boy alone in a boring afternoon, was the first example. The AACS (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray reincarnation of the same crap) was an even bigger shame, being broken almost instantly, after years in development and all that bullshit about being "unbreakable"...
The "community" (i.e., the consumers that are tired of being extorted until the last penny, paying again and again for the same content) is just taking action and creating ways to avoid the limitations that the fat and slow-moving rheumatic turtles called MPAA and RIAA impose in things that they have PAID for... So, they want to DRM the musics or movies? PK... The same community will beak every DRM scheme they try to impose.
The only sad thing is that the millions they spend creating the inocuous DRM systems are transformed in overpriced products. Maybe, if they stop spending their (our?) money to impose limits on everything, and focuses only in producing cheaper and DRM-free products, everyone could just live happy forever...
--- Illogical Spock
Mixing non-DRM music into iTunes does nothing to solve Apple's problem, it only complicates matters. Apple would have to update the iTunes software so it could download songs and skip encryption and key storage for non-DRM tracks.
Apple would also have to rework its servers to manage purchased tracks without dealing with keys. It would also have to update the iPod to manage purchased track syncing without trying to use keys. It would then need to spend time making sure all those changes didn't introduce bugs or exploitable vulnerabilities in FairPlay.
The rest of the article was good (actually, I didn't know about FairKeys), but this last argument about why drm-free content can't be sold through iTMS is rubbish. It would be trivially easy to have iTunes not encrypt songs flagged as "no-DRM." PyMusique does exactly that with all of the songs, so iTunes should be able to do it as well. And there wouldn't have to be any updates to the iPod. An unencumbered AAC from iTMS would be just like every other unencumbered file that the iPod can already play.
I do agree, though, that Apple probably just doesn't care about the drm-free ideology. It isn't worth it to them to distinguish between RIAA labels that require drm and independent labels that don't. When they get the ok to not use drm, they'll happily take it out of the system, but until then they aren't going to put any more work into it than absolutely necessary.
I wish I had mod points for you sir :-)
:-)
Though, most Apple shills will just put their fingers in their ears to what you have to say
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
Here are two articles on the subject:
"Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate DRM so all you have to do is put DRM next to its name it automatically becomes Evil"
Hmm. Are they like the Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate torture, so all you have to do is put torture next to its name and it automatically becomes Evil? Or maybe like the Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate murder, so all you have to do is put murder next to its name and it automatically becomes Evil?
The fact is, DRM is evil for all actual implementations of DRM and all reasonable definitions of "evil." It's not nearly as evil as murder or torture, but it is evil nonetheless. The only people for whom it isn't evil are the perpetrators; just as theft does not directly harm the thief, DRM does not directly harm the DRM producer.
anything that uses the GPLed libgpod, such as its parent project, gtkpod.
What were you thinking?
Making an insightful post, that hits the nail on the head, is only going to get marked troll by the first iFanboy to read it.
When you download a song from iTMS, you download it without any DRM on it at all. It is in fact iTunes that wraps the download with the DRM. The original fairplay cracks were for iTunes, they simply grabbed the song before iTunes could put the DRM on it. If Apple allowed others to develop programs that can purchase from the iTMS, those programs could be written to not have DRM at all, and thus defeating the purpose of the DRM altogether.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I like it how you're only using "overrated" so you'll never have to answer to meta-mod. You're modding me down because it's the truth, and you don't want it seen. It's too bad only mac fanatics read deep into the comments of the Apple articles here. Grow some damn balls and give me a real rating. I've got enough karma to burn anyway. And if any editors are reading this, please investigate the abuse of the moderation system here.
Also, I'm not accusing all Mac fans of this kind of bias. Of the major blogs (ignoring all the rumor sites), only RoughlyDrafted really shows journalism skills worthy of Fox News. I might disagree with John Gruber, for instance, but I actually like reading Daring Fireball from time to time and I find his observations insightful to the extent that I care to keep track of that particular sector of the industry.
[quote]Or it could be that the big studios required Apple to put DRM on all songs regardless to avoid having to compete with DRM-free music.[/quote]
It could be, but it isn't. If they did, Apple could just merrily role their eyes and just hand over the contract that states they need to DRM all music, even music not owned by the record labels negotiating to the contract, to anti-trust lawyers and get whatever they want.
Apple's excuse for DRMing indie labels that don't want it is that 'it is hard' and it might open up 'exploits'. Yeah, they some how can magically offer up non-DRMed podcasts, but indie songs... well, that is just too hard.
Despite Jobs PR stunt, then reason why Apple has DRM is because it helps Apple. People, it isn't like this is new strategy on Apple's part. There is a reason why you can't install a Mac OS onto a non-Mac (without some serious hacking). It isn't because some evil computer equivalent to the RIAA forces them to demand that their hardware and software come bundled. Apple bundles hardware, software, and content because it is good for their business and locks people into their products. If you can't pull the two apart, it means that you have to throw out the entire package in order to replace it with a competitor.
Seriously people, open your eyes. It isn't like this is some new Apple strategy. This is the same old thing they have been doing for two decades. The only reason why Jobs is spouting off is because A) it is good PR and B) he knows there is not a slim chance in hell the RIAA will relent from their position. It is really safe to declare that you want a DRM free world, even if you don't, when you know that the powers that be will never let this DRM free world come to pass.
(sorry if this got double posted)
I doubt none but the whiniest slashdotters care about "getting infiltrated" -- just look at Roland P.'s "contributions". Sure, there are some complaints, but in the end, I think most people come here for the comments. Even abusing Digg doesn't bother me much, though I can see why it would bother Digg community members.
However, that DECS guy is a giant pompous asshole. Posting on his online magazine and letting his arguments stand on their own doesn't satisfy him. He comes here to "debate" -- which always turns into him using ad hominem when people make points he can't counter. Transparent "Well you must be too fucking dumb to understand my argument"-kinds of ad hominem. I read slashdot because of the interesting mix of serious and troll posts. DECS can't do either well. He is a tedious little turd,.. Funnily enough, the mods don't seem to disagree.
After all, I am strangely colored.
What about when Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist so he can find where they've hidden a nuclear bomb. Or when he kills one of them? Would you say that's evil?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Translation #1: Now that iPod monopolizes the digital music player market we no longer need the "loss leader" iTMS sales. iTMS has accomplished its mission of pumping up iPod sales. Now it can transition to a new role, perhaps even become a profit center.
Translation #2: "Europe" wants to force us to license fair play to others, lets start a FUD/PR campaign and "play the victim"; blame our product's lack of interoperability on the recording industry. It doesn't matter that we ask for something unrealistic, it makes us look like heroes, and give politicians an out after our lobbyists visit them. Exactly. The reality is that Steve Jobs is a relentless, pragmatic businessman; as I once read someone commenting, the fact that he does it in a way that people love him for it doesn't make him less of a pure businessman and marketer, it shows how good he is at it. So good that people can't bring themselves to believe it, and mod rather astute comments like Parent here as "Troll".
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
what are you? a fucking fag? get out there and keep sucking those dicks you stupid faggot.
Well, I actually read it, and despite not liking some of the wording in some passages (his deft use of the word, "duh," for example), his reasoning for why Apple doesn't sell indie music for free seemed to make sense. If you could make iTunes capable of handling non-DRM music next to DRM music, you run the risk of creating an exploit whereby somebody figures out how to fool iTunes into thinking that all the music should be DRM-free.
Another possible reason that I haven't heard anybody mention yet is that perhaps the labels have told Apple flat out that they themselves don't want non-DRM music being sold side-by-side with their offerings, as it would, if nothing else, give a bad impression and create negative customer feedback.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Mount the ipod as a drive. Copy your previously ripped CD files to it.
Better yet: RTFM or Google around for some 'Ipods for Dummies' information. Here's a starting point: Using an iPod in Linux http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8160
>> the iTunes store is not designed to serve unprotected content and the iTunes application.
Rubbish. Example: Podcasts. Most of them are mp3/aac, yet they load on the iPod just fine.
* Apple does not want to provide a stable API for loading songs on the ipod. They want you to use itunes (and osx while you are at it)
* Apple is trying to avoid legal trouble in northern europe by shifting the blame
* Apple can start serving up unprotected content just as easily as they patched the last time QTFairPlay broke the encryption
* Apple is smart (At marketing)
Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
The answer to every why question about Apple's DRM is the same exact response: "To sell iPods." Apple doesn't make their money off the music store. The purpose of the music store is drive sales of the iPod. Why didn't we see video content on iTunes until the video iPod? You can't tell me they didn't have the technology to serve video. No, they just didn't want to bother serving something that didn't push sales of the iPod. If Apple opens its DRM, then people don't need to buy an iPod anymore. The DRM locks people in. I know that one reason I have continued to purchase iPods is that I don't want to lose access to a bunch of my music.
I'd say you've been watching too much TV.
In reality, you don't have hidden nuclear bombs and known terrorists who are conveniently in your jail cell and know where the nuclear bombs are hidden. In reality, when you torture someone, they tell you whatever they think will stop the torture, whether they are guilty or not. In reality, you are vile scum, as bad as the terrorists you pretend to be fighting, if you think torture of a suspect is justified when it might yield some information useful to you.
---You're missing the point.
Thats because there is no point.
---An MP3 loses quality from the original source
That in itself is arguable. Yes, a MP3 decompressed to PCM compared to a CD converted to PCM does show 'lossage', but according to the psychoacoustic model of sound, there really is no discernible loss. The higher the bitrate of the lossy compression, the harder it is to hear artifacts. In converse, the better the equipment to replicate the sound, the easier it is to hear artifacts.
---but you can spread thousands of copies of it without each of those copies becoming progressively lower quality.
I can also spread lossless audio. Digital only means in the truest word discrete. If I could modulate my 802.11g card, I could trade true waveforms of music captured, of course your sampling would have to be double to capture what I output, and you couldnt guarantee that what you recorded was what I outputted..
See? It a PARIDOX!!
Offering DRM-free tracks next to protected songs in the iTunes Store would require significant changes to how iTunes works, and could inadvertently open up new exploits to the remaining DRM system, complicating the system further....Apple would have to update the iTunes software so it could download songs and skip encryption and key storage for non-DRM tracks.
....
if [ "${DRM}" = "yes" ] ; then
Load_Keys
Run_Encryption
fi
hey look!! i just solved their problem!!! i wonder what its worth
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
From the article:
Yes, there are no licensing fees for streaming or distributing AAC files, however, according to Wikipedia:
So while AAC is not a "proprietary" file format, because the specification is freely available, I would consider it only "partially open", as actually doing anything with the spec (such as building an encoder or decoder) is illegal without an additional license.
coding is life
Please stop posting this crap from RoughlyDrafted.
I wish I had mod points here. The parent is absolutely correct. If you justify using "any means available", then you are no different from the terrorists. That's where morals and ethics come in. That's the reason why some of us appalled by the actions of this US administration. Because more than any other time in the past, they have used the doctrine of necessity to justify any and every act that in other times would have been categorized as evil.
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
Even if m4p's were sold without DRM from itms (read aac), you'd still need apple hardware to listen to them. So in effect, you are locked into apple with or without DRM. My blog has more details.
I dont know where to start...
Open DRM does exist. Its called Marlin. Okay nobody uses it, but it proves its doable. If Apple was coming out tomorrow saying: "we will now use Marlin for our DRM needs", this would take off.
The article has a good overview of how iTunes works. But nothing in how-it-works proscribe a licensable or open
DRM.
And you know, they all work the same. The Zune DRM, the PlayForSure DRM, FairPlay and this Marlin, they could all be explained with the same slides. You have a master key for the content, and you encrypt the master key with a user's key.
FairPlay and Zune: Non Licensable and Proprietary
PlayForSure: Licensable and Proprietary
Marlin: Open
The reason why FairPlay is winning has nothing to do with the fact that it is proprietary and completely closed. Its winning because they were there first, and executed very well.
Apple need to control the DRM? Why?
So it is more secure ? Not really: they are not protecting their own IP, their are just doing it for the studios. So what's so crucial to protect the content that bad. The studios dont even care that much. Look, FairPlay is broken as is PlayForSure, did the studio sue them? No. Did Apple actually fixed iTunes? No, the current iTunes is still vulnerable. I heard Apple is already ready with the next iTunes generation but are holding off the upgrade until they take heat from the studios or they have another reason to upgrade.
For the liability ? Actually, I think if the Studio approved an open-drm and Apple respected the Robustness rules, then why would Apple be bothered? Right now Apple is shouldering alone the legal responsability for the design and their implementation. If they were using an open-drm they would only be liable for their own implementation.
To keep it simple? Trust me, I saw an implementation of Marlin, running on a PSP, and actually tested it. It was very very very user friendly. I know the demo I used was polished, but it means it is possible, and I would not believe that Apple could not do the same. Please somebody send a journalist to Intertrust (the people who demoed this to me) to witness what they can do.
To keep cost down ? I believe it is cheaper to implement a spec than to write your own spec, and implement it. Apple is still hiring more people in the fairplay team. It is still costing them developers. If Apple was using an open interoperable DRM on their iPod, they could connect to any store. And since Apple does not make any money from the store (right?), they would save even more money.
More information about the Marlin DRM: http://www.marlin-community.com/
Intertrust is the company behind it: http://www.intertrust.com/
Like all the other stuff that spews out over the net from RD, this should be treated as spam. Don't read it, don't comment on it. And for goodness sake can someone find something constructive for the guy to do with his time? Like programming something very obscure and complicated in machine language?
When someone comes up with a solution whereby the artist and the constituent people who worked hard on creating the material can still be paid for their efforts (in exchange for someone's enjoyment), maybe then we can entertain the "(all) DRM is evil" proposition.
This is a classic Nietscheian observation at work here: us against them. (They are evil and we are good.) This use of the word evil is a gross oversimplification of the difficulties DRM is an attempt to solve. If you want to argue that the RIAA leverages the concept of DRM in the pursuit of unnecessarily excessive profits for it's constituents, I couldn't agree more, but to simply say that "DRM is evil" is to state something that hasn't been thought through.
And just remember, for every Mac Fanboy out there, there's a Mac Hater more than willing to fan the flames.
Do You Experiment?
The main points are: ...
...).
- Why Apple don't sell MP3 ?
Answer : either because there is no demand (if you ignore Jobs-no-DRM),
or because it will be complicated for consumers (Apple consumers are not that smart ??)
or it will be complicated to update the software (as if iTunes didn't know how to work with MP3 already)... Yeah sure,
- Why Apple doens't licences its DRM ?
Answer : because it will be doing like Micosoft, and we all know Microsoft is EVIL(TM), and Apple doesn't want to be EVIL(TM).
And consumer have choosen iPod because its DRM is good (yeah sure, it's not beacause of desing, feature, laucnh timing, marketing,
And because it makes no sense to have competition between music stores, beacause content is just a utility for players (artists will appreciate the point).
And if Apple licence it to other hardware manufacturer, it will sell less iPods (no kidding) ; and Apple need a near monopoly to protect us for the evil RIAA demands.
Yes, thats all very well, quite possibly true, but can you actually find a fault in the article? Or are you just 'putting your fingers in your ears', like another slashbot put it, because you don't like Apple? Personally, speaking as someone who couldn't really care less about iTMS, I think it makes pretty good sense.
LOL at your 'karma risk' comment though, how old are you, 14?
That reason being: YOU don't get it!
The idea of this article seems to really be thinking "how can we make a better DRM?" - Isn't that missing the whole point - Such that they shouldn't be using DRM at all! It has now been proved that DRM actually increases the number of people who download free copies. Note, I didn't say piracy because when you share on the internet no-one is profiting (No more than they could by buying from iTunes and selling on what they've bought on burnt CDRs). The other way I was going put it was "illegal sharing" - which is technically correct and I think highlights the whole flaw of the current copyright and DRM situation. Doesn't "illegal sharing" sound like a sick piece of legislation ?
Its for the user experience, an iPod is something personal and linked to 1 account and 1 user. Linking 1 iPod to many accounts and computers is way to confusing. Duplicate music is a first problem, manage all 5 duplicates or use 1 and apply different users to the file? Apple looks at what 95% of the users will find a reasonable limitation in order to get ease of use and it works out great, the remaining 5 % will have to adopt to it or buy another product.
In reality, you don't have hidden nuclear bombs and known terrorists who are conveniently in your jail cell and know where the nuclear bombs are hidden
Yeah, but what if you did? Let's say you've got some terrorist who killed your wife and daughter, and has planted a bomb that will kill millions of people. Time is ticking, and unless the police get the information they don't have time to search all the possible locations. You've got Carlos the terrorist handcuffed to a radiator, a pair of pliers and blowtorch. Oh, and Carlos starts goading you about how your wife and daughter pleaded for their lives. He is unarmed.
Good I can feel your hatred. Take up the pliers and the blowtorch and torture him with all your anger and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete.
This message was paid for by Fox News on behalf of the Committee to Elect Anyone But McCain.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
According to the article, music leaves iTunes' servers unencrypted, then iTunes encrypts the file locally, this means that there isn't one master encrypted version that Apple sends to everyone. Each file is unique, and in order to make that feasible, it is your computer that processes that encryption. Were Apple to impliment a no-DRM option for some music, they would have to have the iTMS send a message to iTunes telling whether it should encrypt each particular song it sends. This signal would then become a vulnerability that would be exploitable by hackers. As the article explains, Apple's anti-DRM position is entirely self-serving: they believe that they would make less money if they could sell all their music DRM free. They don't believe they'd make more money by unDRMing a few selected tracks, so they haven't gone to the trouble of expending money, manpower, and liability exposure on it.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
The entire article doesn't really address this question, the author just takes the logic leap of "iPod needs content, therefore the iTunes store".
Yet he does notice that the fast majority of music content (wich is what the iPod needs) is sold on CD. Not online.
So why would iPod software not just be an extremely efficient, easy to use, piece of ripping software? (It appently is but I do not use it so I leave that upto other to judge)
Did any of the other MP3 players out there NOT sell because there wasn't a online music store for them? Is the iPod a success because of the iTunes music store?
Well, considering the extremely poor sales of the iTunes store and considering the record breaking sales of the iPod I would assume that like me, an awfull lot of iTunes (the program) users simply ignore the store or even have found out you can disable it altogether.
Why does Apple bother with re-selling music, wich the author claims is a low profit business, and taking on the huge mess of DRM?
I can think of a number of reasons.
A: MP3 players have been called the tools of piracy by the RIAA loonies. Therefore, the iPod being the largest is therefore the largest piracy tool for music. Que voters voting for idiot politicians who then put a tax on MP3players and other digital content holders so fatten the RIAA pockets. This could eat into Apples real moneymaker, ipod sales. With the iTunes store Apple has the defence of saying that it gives users access to legal music and since ALL ipod users use iTunes and iTunes is the store therefore iPods are filled with legal music. Yes there are holes in this argument but this is the music industry we are talking about. Logic can take a flying leap.
Is this likely? iTunes store being nothing more then a cover while Apple knows that its iPods will really be filled with ripped CD content (either legal or illegal, with Apple not really caring but having to pretend that it does).
Perhaps, except that it doesn't work, the music industry still is demanding that MP3 players (including iPods) be taxed.
B: The author is an idiot who cannot understand that low-profit still is profit. Especially when combined with huge volume. Especially when combined with low-risk.
Unlike some CD based publisher/seller Apple takes NO risk on its "stocking" a track. A few megabyte of storage space, a monkey to enter the details in the database and off you go. Those costs remain the same if it sells 0 copies or a million of that track. Compare this to a the CD version where you run the risk of either not pressing enough discs so you can't sell to the demand (and people go to another store OR alternative distrubution method) or to many and you have to take the surpless back.
Perhaps Apple tought the iTunes store was going to do a lot better, surely at the beginning everyone seemed to think this was going to be massive. Then it didn't and now everyone seems to take it for granted that Apple NEVER thought that iTunes was going to be big.
But there is another simpler issue, iTunes may not be making Apple a lot of money, but it is making them money. Profit of any sort is good. Even if iTunes made Apple only a single million in pure profit it would be foolish of them to drop it. Profit is profit.
Could Apple just be in it for the money? Hoping that it might become big but in the meantime happy as long it doesn't cost money? This ain't MS xbox or MSN, this attempt to reach into other markets IS making Apple money.
C: Apple LOVES DRM. Ah, well I got karma to burn. Think about it, none of its products are exactly know for their openeness. Apple is NOT one of the nice companies out there. In a world were all of the old grumpy giants are turning out GPL software left right and center Apple remains a bastion of closed software.
Oh yeah, darwin. Right. Except what has actually come out of it? Has a single tool made its way out of OS-X and onto say linux? Has Apple done anything but take take take?
Not really. They a
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Everyone keeps calling it a loss-leader. However for that to work iTunes (the store) got to be loosing Apple money. From what I been able to gather it does in fact make a profit. Not as big as other divisions within Apple and certainly NOT with the margins of other divisions BUT a profit nonetheless.
That rules out it being a loss-leader. In super market bread is a lossleader for its other products. It has to sell bread to get people in the store so it can then sell them the profitable items like candy.
A decent supermarket will also sell dairy products like butter, the margin on them is extremely small, (or at least they were 20 years ago when I studied this) BUT the margin is there and results in a profit. Therefore these items are NOT a loss-leader.
Some economists think a company got to focus on only the high margin items. This is typical armchair thinking, real business leaders know that it is often the low-margin low-profit items that are the most stable.
Think of this, were is the risk with iTunes? The store is up and running requiring only patches to stay current. Compare this to the iPod were each new model that costs a fortune to develop AND produce could bomb leaving Apple with unsold stock.
High margins, lots of profit but also lots of risk.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What's the deal with the old rotary phone photograph on Apple's index page? Has Apple's site been hacked?
From the article: "Because iTunes happily converts protected AAC songs into standard, unprotected AAIF CD files when burning a CD, there isn't much point for a user trying to attack the system or steal its keys. The main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is to exploit the system for the benefit of third parties."
Garbage.
Rubbish, folderol, pure and unadulterated balderdash.
Unless there's some way of re-encoding that file to AAC at the original quality level such that the resulting file is identical to the original unencrypted but compressed file, then the user still has a reason to want to unencrypt it.
And from the point of view of someone wanting to "exploit the system for the benefit of third parties" the slight but real loss of quality from re-encoding is less important than it is for the person who purchased the original music.
Now I don't personally care about the minor cost of re-encoding for iTunes, since anything I buy on iTunes is already lower quality than it would be if I bought it on CD so I just don't buy classical music that way... I stick to stuff that's written for car radios and bars rather than concert halls and headphones. But enough people have bought into the idea that re-encoding is unacceptable to make this paragraph obvious nonsense.
So why is it in there?
* The author has bought into enough of the DRM myth that he actually believes it. Given the rest of the article I find that hard to believe.
* The author has thrown it in in an attempt to keep the DRM camp-followers from whining at him about being pro-piracy. Maybe.
* The author is confused about how people think, or hasn't bothered to think things through. This is possible, but he doesn't seem intellectually lazy and nobody who's familiar enough with the topic could have easily missed the whining about the "unacceptable" loss in quality from re-encoding.
* The author wanted to slam Jon Johansen for finally throwing in the towel on the whole open-source thing after Apple blocked his third try at letting people bypass it for free. Come on, mate, if he wanted to be a "DRM Profiteer" why did he give away the first three shots?
Open-source DRM bypassing doesn't work for the same reason open-source DRM doesn't work. To ship a product to bypass DRM, you have to keep the guy who put the DRM in from being able to see how you're doing it, and from being able to change their product to adapt to you. This was possible with DeCSS, because there's no way for the movie industry to reach out and change the encryption on disks they already shipped or to change the keys in players people had already bought. It's not possible with Fairtunes/Playfair/Pymusique and the rest. All open source does is make it a bit easier for Apple to see how to break the software in the next version of iTunes.
The fact that it took Jon three tries to give up the fight makes him one of the more reluctant "profiteers" around. My guess is that he was suffering from the same confusion in the mind that makes people think Jobs is thick enough not to realise that DRM's a stupid idea, despite Jobs repeatedly pointing out himself that it's a stupid idea. It's a common confusion among technically smart people who haven't blunted their horns on society enough to realise that just because something's true doesn't mean it matters.
As to the nonsense I quoted... I don't know what excuse the author of the article has, but those are my guesses.
How about Amarok?
It can load files on your iPod, it also has Magnatunes integrated into it I think from version 1.4.4 (maybe earlier). Magnatunes is an independant record label which sells DRM free music files in many formats (Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, MP3, Wave) and you can download the files as many times as you need to and even share them with 3 friends. It has lots more features aswell.
Think about it, none of its products are exactly know for their openeness. Apple is NOT one of the nice companies out there. In a world were all of the old grumpy giants are turning out GPL software left right and center Apple remains a bastion of closed software.
This has nothing to do with Apple being "nice" or not, this has to do with Jobs being stupid or not. Jobs probably doesn't care a lot about open source, but that doesn't matter. The only reason for Jobs to "love DRM" would be if he was stupid enough to believe that DRM could work. Disney is irrelevant: DRM is just as much of a mickey mouse idea for Mickey Mouse as for Metallica.
And Jobs isn't stupid, and he doesn't think DRM can work. He's been saying that DRM is a dumb idea right from the start. He said DRM was a dumb idea shortly after he opened the iTunes Music Store, in an interview with Rolling Stone. This is important because it means this isn't him "appearing to give up on an unsuccessful strategy". He was already telling us the strategy was doomed right from the start.
The simple question remains, why did Apple bother with opening an online music store.
You already answered that one: "Did any of the other MP3 players out there NOT sell because there wasn't a online music store for them? Is the iPod a success because of the iTunes music store?"
Gven that the iPod is pretty much the only real success story in the MP3 player market, I guess it's really possible that the answer to your rhetorical questions there is 'yes, and yes'. Oh, I'm not saying that this is the only reason the other players failed, or that the iPod won. And I'm not saying that it's as simple as "an MP3 player needs a store", but what would have happened if Apple hadn't come up with the iTunes Music Store and it's honor-system-quality DRM? What other players were there in the game?
Well... how successful would the iPod have been if APple had licensed Janus from Microsoft, and all of a sudden you couldn't load protected music onto the iPod from a Mac, unless Apple was prepared to put a strong DRM module controlled by Microsoft into the Mac OS kernel?
Because that's the other option Jobs was faced with. There was really no alternative, and Jobs wasn't stupid enough to miss that.
Yet another article from the Apple fanboi site Roughlydrafted.com. And it is no surprise that the excuses used by the site for Apple locking in their customers is defended by Slashdot Apple fanbois. I'm really sick of fanboi-ism and Apple apologists. Next Apple fanboi I see gets punched in the face.
Marlin is no more "open" than the standard DRM embedding in the OPEN MP4 standard from DRM that APple is using from Fairplay.
All "open DRM" means is "here's a way to shove your closed DRM into the music format in an open way".
Corrected comment:
Marlin is no more "open" than the standard DRM embedding in the OPEN MP4 standard from DRM that Apple is using for Fairplay.
All "open DRM" means is "here's a way to shove your closed DRM into the music format in an open way".
Bah, humbug, and I did hit preview, and missed that.
By the way, apart from this one spot of nonsense the article is otherwise totally spot-on.
The majority of successful viruses and worms out there attack this bit of code in Microsoft's HTML control and other Microsoft applications and components:
if [ "${zone}" = "secure" ] ; then
Load Active Component
Launch Virus
fi
That if [ "${trust_me}" ] bit is just too attractive a point of attack.
Even if someone could persuade the iTunes client not to DRM-wrap a downloaded song that should be DRM-wrapped, that really wouldn't be any different from any of the hacks that have already been tried.Now we're getting to the real reason. The major record labels don't like the idea of the general public seeing Another Way It Could Be Done. It would lead them to question why, if some mangers don't have dogs in them, does theirs need one?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
when I looked for it on the US iTunes Store last month, they weren't selling Sir Mix-a-Lot's classic
He argues that competition in this case is something that was positive for the newton (no competition) and negative for the iPhone.
Its the other way around, with Newton apple had to educate a market, in this case everybody knows what a cell phone is, and are looking for the next cool thing.
I think the biggest blunder is to lock it to a certain carrier.
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
The post you initially trolled was saying that the record companies always had a secure position selling music, initially because reproduction caused rapid quality loss, then because CDs were almost as expensive to copy as to buy legitimately, then bandwidth was expensive, but now there is nothing to keep people from creating high quality (admittedly with some loss) copies and redistribute them without any additional loss per copy. The point you claim does not exist was that after decades of being able to provide the highest quality versions of their music, pirates can produce a comparable product and spread it to thousands of people at virtually no cost. Take that for what you will, but you've got to be incredibly ignorant and stubborn to claim that there was no point.
Didn't they change the Store to make it add DRM when PyMusique got out? (Because as you say, PyMusique didn't add (and couldn't reasonably have added) DRM after downloading songs.)
That said, I'm not buying the "fool into thinking it's DRM-less". First of all, Apple serves up DRM-less music *today* with the iTunes U (U for University) program where they host AAC files of lectures. Now that this is all done of the server, getting that changed would be either a wide-open hole in the code OR getting into the database and changing, say, hasDRM from 1 to 0. If either of those holes are there, you could do much worse than remove DRM.
I do believe that since the Big Four labels were on first and got to dictate that they absolutely needed DRM, it wouldn't be beyond them to say "and don't let anyone else serve up DRM-less music from iTunes". After all, when iTunes offers only DRM-ed music, Apple looks bad; if iTunes offered non-DRM-ed music from a bunch of artists but not from the Big Fours, the Big Four would look bad. And we know which one the Big Four would prefer.
Are you kidding me? The whole reason that other music systems aren't as popular as ipod/Itunes combo is becuase of they dont have the simplicity of the ipods design and the songs they have on itunes form the store wont work on their player.
Oh, yeah, keep ignoring that PlaysForSure is older and already had several (lame) stores before the iTMS. There is very little content that you can buy on the iTMS but not on one of several PlaysForSure based stores.The claim that people would rush out to buy non-iPods if only they could play music bought from the iT(M)S is nothing but dumb excuse for the lacking sales.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Yeah, but what if you did? Let's say you've got some terrorist who killed your wife and daughter, and has planted a bomb that will kill millions of people. Time is ticking, and unless the police get the information they don't have time to search all the possible locations. You've got Carlos the terrorist handcuffed to a radiator, a pair of pliers and blowtorch. Oh, and Carlos starts goading you about how your wife and daughter pleaded for their lives. He is unarmed.
Good I can feel your hatred. Take up the pliers and the blowtorch and torture him with all your anger and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete.
This message was paid for by Fox News on behalf of the Committee to Elect Anyone But McCain. You forgot to mention that while any American who knows something is trained to withstand torture, but everybody else isn't (at least not the improved American torture, errrmm, interogation).
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Seems to me that Jobs is simply stating that it's all or nothing. Either they (the online music industry as a whole) have to completely remove DRM from the marketplace, or live with it and shut up. Personally, I think he really would like to get rid of it. Why not? Saves the company millions in server time for encoding and constant vigilance to stay ahead of the crackers. Hell, the savings in legal costs alone would make it worth the switch. Lock in? Whatever. 99% of my music isn't locked in. I play all my music on my Palm.
I really got you good. I bet you didnt even finish reading the post. Besides, if you recognize my (intentionally) bad grammar, you should agree with what I'm saying about roughly drafted.
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
We're talking about the music download market, not the player market here.
Parent seemed to think the two were linked, but assuming you're right and we're just talking about music downloads, then I don't see how Apple's DRM is a problem. After all, you can buy music from Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo, et al and play it on your computer, right? PlayFair has nothing to do with other music stores, any more than Windows Media keeps users from using iTunes.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Rubbish. Example: Podcasts. Most of them are mp3/aac, yet they load on the iPod just fine.
From the iTunes online store or from other sources?
My impression from reading the article was that you can load them just fine from your local disk (or perhaps a remote source) using the iTunes client software on your computer, but that (Apple / TFA claims) the store's software isn't (currently) set up to handle a non-DRMed download.
(Of course I don't have the iTunes software - and can't, short of buying a new computer, installing Windoze, or Apple coming out with a Linux iTunes client. Did I misread the article?)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Someone here pointed out that Apple tried to dissuade the record companies from forcing DRM.c id=18164502
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224288&
RE: Roughly Drafted; -1 Disinformative. It is not a propaganda blog, but it is generally pro-Apple.
I tend to think of it as a Apple obsessed "freelance analyst" blog. Not too shabby, IMHO.
RE: Gaming Digg; That's nothing outrageous -- if that even matters... I don't really care.
"...objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences, subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." -Gould
Great article - but some portions of this discussion are astoundingly ignorant.
If you want to say anything intelligent about Apple, acknowledge one simple fact: Apple is a hardware company. They sell hardware. That's what pays the bills. Hardware. One more time - hardware. They also make software, but they make software to entice people to buy their hardware. And that's the business model. Pretty simple. As a bonus, by making both hardware and software, Apple can create great solutions for real world user scenarios. Another good reason to buy Apple hardware. Simple. (Just don't even mention destroying the company by selling OS X for PCs separately. Particularly not in the same breath as debating music company DRM bullshit.)
So in the iPod/iTunes equation, where's the money? In the hardware obviously. iTunes existed to sell Macs originally, and later, to sell iPods and Macs. That's what iTunes and the iTunes store is for, and that's also why it's tough to compete against: iTunes store is not even trying to make a profit! It's trying to sell hardware. (That's why you get copycats like Coke music stores - they are just trying to sell Coke - because the margins are so slim, it's the only rational approach.)
And why are we even discussing how Apple feels about DRM?
Apple has no reason to push DRM, as it's obviously just as big an expense and hassle for them as it is for the rest of us. Sure, the DRM in iTunes sucks. All DRM sucks. By definition, it is a stupid and unworkable idea that does little but inconvenience paying customers. I don't buy anything from iTunes because then I have to authorize and de-authorize computers. I don't want the hassle. I want convenience. And iTunes DRM is completely counter-productive bullshit. And so is the Microsoft DRM that the world is slowly being wrapped up in. Everywhere I turn for media - even the BBC - I find I need to purchase a suite of Microsoft products to "enjoy" them. Like that's going to happen.
Please bitch, complain, vote with your wallet, boycott your DVD rental service, boycott Apple, boycott Microsoft - or better yet, boycott the gigantic corporations that own music, movies, and music - write offensive letters, become a 'suicide banner' and throw yourself off a building with a big sign, but do NOT discuss 'the merits' of DRM. It's like discussing the merits of a neo-fascist corporate-welfare state. It doesn't get on the agenda. It's not up for discussion. It really is THAT STUPID. It simply gets refused.
I know that one reason I have continued to purchase iPods is that I don't want to lose access to a bunch of my music.
Did you buy a bunch of classical music from the iTMS, or have you really bought into the "quality" myth. I mean, if you cared that much about your music quality why didn't you buy it on CD instead of lossy-encoded AAC? Since you did, what's stopping you from burning and ripping?
I do agree that the people who make the music, or their agents, do have broad power to do with the music as they please.
By and large it's not 'the people who make the music or their agents' who are pushing DRM, it's the labels.
Right now it's Apple's DRM vs the labels. If Fairplay was licensed then it's then not just Apple against the label but everyone else who has a license. Do you think that any person is actually gonna spend 5 dollars on a reasonably popular song? (hey I can get a single for $2.00 at the store and I get a physical disc). When profits drop for the labels you know theres gonna be someone asking for a more aggressive pricing structure. And the companies selling the music are gonna want to compete with the Apple and co.
In all cases, if Apple licensed FairPlay, get ready for a price war.
Read my journal, bitch.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Aren't songs purchased from iTunes still limited to 128Kpbs? Doesn't the >11x compression suck when put on a CD and compared to another CD?
.128Mbps stream onto a 1.4112Mbps media? It's certainly not going to allow inter-player portability -- first adding 91% "white space" to convert to CD, then recompressing that to some other format? YUCK.
:-/
That Apple "allows burning to CD" is ridiculously useless. Who would want to waste time and materials burning a
Unless Apple allows burning a "lossless" format to CD, their burn to CD option is essentially worthless other than to protect against catastrophic loss -- but even then -- to put it back on your iPod, you'll have to recompress it and never having even the "medium" quality that the original iTune download had.
It is amazing what Apple has done if you think about it. They've taken music that came at 1.4Mbps, reduce the quality to some minor fraction of the original, then resell the songs at a dollar a piece, maybe doubling the price/song then giving the user a non-tangible "right" to play this low-quality format. With a CD, at least you can sell the CD if you don't want it anymore. I doubt there is a resale value for iTune songs even if the license and software permitted.
Essentially, they did what the music distributors wanted to do -- selling you a low-quality copy that is too low to have any intrinsic value that may not even be worth backing up or trying to save. Basically a low-quality, "rental" copy. And the market loves them!
Amazon is doing the same with movies -- a rental download -- that doesn't appear to be near the same quality as a DVD and cannot be saved -- all for about the same price as a DVD.
Seems like such a waste of time and money, but unfortunately, the market is not only accepting this "hyper inflation", but "eating it up".
This doesn't bode well for media being moved into the public domain for the public good. I know others have whined about this before, but copyrights were supposed to be a reward for contributing to the public good. Where's the balance?
We need a new category icon for stories based on these vacuous, Jobs-deifying RoughlyDrafted articles.
Wow how about I just buy a CD. How does that sound? also visit www.ghettoball.tk and sign my petition PLEASE!!!!
"It could create an exploit" is not sufficient reason. Smells like a strawman argument to me, actually. There are plenty of ways to implement this, and none need be exploitable. How about just sending an unencumbered AAC file, what's wrong with that? You can't fool iTunes into playing an unencumbered file since it's encrypted. That's the entire point of encryption: if you don't have the key you can't get to the contents.
As the article itself notes it's already possible to play a song in iTunes and extract the unencrypted version. After all, iTunes needs to store that somewhere in memory before playback, so you can already circumvent the encryption. That's the entire reason DRM is fundamentally broken and, co-incidentally, the reason for the whole TPM idea. The article also doesn't seem to make a convincing argument against allowing other vendors to use this DRM system either, they could conceivably just install their own set of user keys into iTunes.
It's the other way around. The iPod makes iTMS popular. Conceivably if other stores would be able to sell music for the iPod free market mechanisms could take hold. You can't sell music without DRM atm and nobody can sell DRM-ed music for the iPod (which _is_ the most popular music player).
Ahh, so you are one of those who wants Apple to pump up those losers who bet their money on PlaysForSure players to sell their tunes for them and failed despite having a headstart on both the availability of players and stores. Maybe they should have stuck to selling used cars?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
No no not I for one. I prefer them shaken NOT stirred. Say two flasks attached to a belt worn by a rather energetic and otherwise scantily clad hottie sounds like a fun method. Is this a memory derived from a scene in a Bond movie?
Wabi Sabi
Matthew
No I'm one of those who thinks Apple is being facetious when it tells people it can't share its DRM while it technically can but it's making bundles of money precisely because of this DRM. Not all music stores are actually tied to a particular player, but all the music stores out there already are now unable to compete with Apple in the digital music space. If they were, they could conceivably offer lower prices for the same music, or other payment plans than the ones Apple has. That is probably not extremely likely considering the stranglehold the music industry has on all of them, but it would still make for a more healthy market.
If Apple would open their DRM, the music industry would benefit. Ergo the consumer would lose. QED.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck