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."
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.
[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.
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?
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.
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