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."
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
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."
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
There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not be in 128kbps AAC and cost $0.99 per track, yet it all does. It all stems from the fact that Apple gives one deal to all the independent labels, no negotiation.
Also consider that any label that doesn't want to use DRM can either stop selling at iTunes (an often ignored option) or sell DRM-free elsewhere.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
The "license FairPlay" crowd often overlook this point. Right now it's Apple's DRM monopoly against the labels' music monopoly. They battle it out and prices remain reasonable. If Apple loses, it's just the labels against the consumers directly. No more 99c songs... now you'll pay &4.99 for any reasonably popular song (hey it'll still be cheaper than the CD that has the one song you like and 12 you don't).
In any case, be careful what you wish for. If Apple's forced to open FairPlay expect to pay a lot more for online music.
E pluribus unum
"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.
... lets say 5 iPods per person for the fun of it... you still are only talking on average 100 songs per iPod owner. With numbers like that it is hard to state that iTMS sales have driven iPod sales in any radical fashion (not much of an investment lock in)... sure it helps but it would be hard to state it helps in any signification amount compared to the other factors involved (xplat device, iTunes software integration, etc.).
Exactly how does iTMS drive iPod sales?
We are talking only about 20 songs sold for every iPod sold so far to date. If you say that some folks have purchased multiple iPods or replaced iPods over time
Also the iPod was rapidly ramping up in unit volumes before the iTMS ever came on the scene.