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
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
QTFairUse works just fine on the newest versions of iTunes (unless there has been a new verison in the last week). It even works perfectly on a 64-bit Vista installation, which was a little shocking because I thought it worked by hooking into memory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
All QTFairUse does is extract an unprotected audio stream from iTunes. As such, any song extracted has to one purchased by you, and your iTunes player has to be authorized to play it.
In short, it's a far cry from being able to crack the DRM on any iTMS file, from any source.
Since iTunes already lets you make an unprotected CD of the music you bought, the only thing QTFairUse really does is let you save to disk instead of CD.
Wow.
Yeah, they've made a "fool" of Apple's DRM...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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.
Or have entirely filled all their CD storage units, have literally no room for any more and have reached the conclussion that the production values of 99% of the popular music recorded today are so low that the compression doesn't make much difference (the only album I've downloaded from iTMS in the last year that I felt was recorded well enough for me to go buy the CD as well is Ys by Joanna Newsom). I am not very satisfied by this compromise, however, and agree that, given the the prices iTMS charges, all songs should be available as lossless (and be easily convertable to lower bit rates for transfer to your iPod). It's very irritating when an album (and this is especially true for old albums, at least in the UK) is actually cheaper on CD then from iTMS.