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.
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.
This space intentionally left blank.
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.
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'.
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.
and that iTunes copy of "I like big butts" you bought will play on all mp3 players except the Zune.
The song is called "Baby Got Back", you insensitive clod!
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.
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.
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.