Slashdot Mirror
Apple Music and the Terrible Return of DRM
An anonymous reader writes: Apple's rumored music streaming service looks set to materialize soon, and a lot of people are talking about how good it might be. But Nilay Patel is looking at the other side — if the service fits with Apple's typical mode of operation, it'll only work with other Apple products. "That means I'll have yet a fourth music service in my life (Spotify, Google Play Music, Prime, and Apple Music) and a fourth set of content exclusives and pricing windows to think about instead of just listening to music." He points out Steve Jobs's 2007 essay on the state of digital music and notes that Jobs seemed to feel DRM was a waste of time — something forced on Apple by the labels. "But it's no longer the labels pushing DRM on the music services; it's the services themselves, because locking you into a single ecosystem guarantees you'll keep paying their monthly subscription fees and hopefully buy into the rest of their ecosystem. ... Apple Music might be available on Android, but it probably won't be as good, because Apple wants you to buy an iPhone.... There's just lock-in, endless lock-in. Is this what we wanted?"
I never wanted monthly music rental to begin with, so ... no.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
DRM is a means of limiting the distribution of a purchased (or licensed) digital file by the owner (or licensee). Exclusively locking a subscription service to a platform is not DRM. Rather, it is a means of boosting the sale of the platform by offering additional platform-only services. We can discuss the harm and inconvenience that platform lock-in may cause. However, we should not confuse the issue with DRM. That will just inflame old passions, preventing someone from approaching this new distinct issue from a fresh perspective.
No doubt many people against DRM will also be against platform lock-in. Perhaps others may not. For instance, I am generally against DRM. I purchased a digital file; I would like to be free to make copies of it for my own use. However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?
The author is complaining that he can't play MP3s on his Xbox anymore, because Spotify doesn't work on Xbox. This is not someone you can reason with.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But why? Analog sound is garbage.
all sound is analog.
Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...
The question is whether you are a clueless twat with no knowledge of history, or if you are spouting that nonsense intentionally.
DRM on music was never in Apple's interest. Apple didn't manage to get the rights to sell DRM free music from the record companies. Then EMI gave them the rights to sell EMI music without DRM; that was the first DRM free music from the big labels that you could buy online anywhere. Then, as a reaction, the other labels allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music, but withheld the right from Apple, blackmailing Apple into raising prices for more popular music. And that's where we are now.
Indeed. Apple didn't really turn "anti-DRM" until they got into trouble with market regulators...
Errm http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027-998590.html:
April 28, 2003 12:16 PM PDT
...
Apple unveils music store
The songs cost 99 cents each to download, with no subscription fee, and include the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date. Jobs has been an outspoken opponent of so-called digital rights management (DRM) in the past, arguing that limitations on digital music will undermine the market for legitimate content.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.