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."
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.
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.
The same way you have open encryption schemes of any variety.
Without divulging all the details, just consider the open encryption methods involved in OpenPGP or GPG or anything comparable.
Being open does not mean being limited. It just means that it's standardized in such a way that anyone can implement one side or the other without consent or license to the owner of the technology.
Also don't forget about DReaM!
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
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
Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.
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.
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'.
Steve Jobs has publicly stated [apple.com] that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.
There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not have the DRM (ie various independent label works), yet it all does. This might indicate that Apple does indeed desire to use DRM wider than Jobs' statement would seem to indicate.Except DRM isn't encryption, because the attacker and the receiver are the same person. You can't compare open encryption to open DRM, because Encryption assumes the key doesn't fall into the hands of the attacker. DRM relies on the fact that the attacker (user) has the key, but that it is obscured somehow. If you made an open source DRM program, it would be trivially easy to edit the program to output the key to a text file, or take the decrypted music and output it to a wav file instead of playing it over the speakers.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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
[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.
Uh, because before the transition to Intel Macs, OS X didn't have encrypted binaries. Ignoring the 20+ year history of non-DRM is
Unbelievably fucking stupid. Apple had no reason to use DRM for 20 years. They weren't 1) Selling Music & 2) Selling software that could run on standard PC hardware.
They don't stop legitimate users from doing anything they'd like
Bullshit. Plenty of developers out there would love to legally run os x under vmware (with a properly purchase license).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
But then your rant about DRM on iTunes video falls down because, well, you forgot the ol' caveat emptor. You didn't check the DRM restrictions; maybe you just assumed they were the same as for audio? Just as Apple pointed out from the start that you could "bypass" the DRM on iTunes music by burning to CD (with the niggling little - but certainly not onerous - proviso that you can only burn a playlist X number of times), they pointed out from the start that you can't with iTunes video.
Simply : Apple always told you you can "bypass" the DRM in iTunes music, and even told you how. Likewise, they always told you you couldn't bypass the DRM in iTunes video.
Apple didn't screw / lie to / cheat you - you were caught out by your own assumptions. Sucks, yes, but it's nobody's fault but your own.
Seriously, if you get that upset when they've told you the truth all along, how do you fare with the outright lies printed on the box of almost every other piece of hardware or software?
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
If you are no longer using iTunes, then please tell me what legal service you are using today to download these TV shows, that does allow you to write them to DVD. As I understand you, Apple's service is much more restictive as the service you are using now. so please enlighten us, what we should switch to that does allow this, I am not aware of any legal service that gives the options you find missing in iTunes.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
RIAA didn't care at all that RealNetworks was selling DRMed tunes that played on the iPod. If they had, they would have withdrawn their tracks from the RealPlayer Music Store. The only thing that Harmony did was break the iPod-iTMS legal downloads lock-in, and the only party negatively affected by such a break was Apple.
Apple, of course, turned around and denounced Real for breaking the lock-in, changed the firmware on the iPod to deliberately break Harmony, and thus restored the iPod-iTMS lock-in.
Of course, now that some countries are pointing out that their laws prohibit such lock-in, so Steve Jobs is claiming that RIAA and technical limitations are the problem. This is a maneuver technically known as "lying your ass off."
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.