Sorry, I should have made it clearer that I was referring exclusively to the first article my comment, thanks for pointing that out.
The second article doesn't point out any bias at all. Google has barred many other ads and other content due to their hate policy, including content from democrats, so-called Christians (due to hateful content against gays), pro-liberal comedy websites ("Who Would Jesus Bomb?"), anti-Islam speech, etc. Their policy isn't biased against republicans, unless republicans are actually more hateful than democrats, which is not the case.
Google aims to provide that mystical thing: an objective angle. Like Wikipedia, it doesn't view the inclusion of every opinion as NPOV.
That many of Google's employees are pro-democrat is an irrelevant coincidence and proves no bias.
Google's acting in accordance to the laws of other nations outside the United States is also irrelevant to a bias inside the United States.
Accusing the BBC of being a "predominately liberal media outlet" is possibly the second-biggest of this article's blunders. The BBC is constantly scrutinized internally and externally in efforst to keep it POV-free. Often, the government accuses the BBC of giving to much voice to the opposition! (Labour's opposition has been The Conservative Party since 1997 when they were elected).
The bigger blunder is the accusation that Google will intentionally provide bias for any site at all ever. Google's policies are not biased. They are apply to everyone equally. If the WSJ made more of its articles free and indexable under Google, I suspect they would often outweigh CNN, AP or the BBC in "quality".
This is a ridiculous (and outdated) article, it jumps to a paranoid conclusion based on one coincidence and no real evidence, just an unsupported claim. "A search of Google's site"? A search for what?
Agreed. The bigger wiretap issue isn't really about people's privacy at all, it's about an Administration viewing itself as above the law and acting with disregard to the law. Regardless of intention, anything that effects wiretapping without court order is illegal. Period.
But would it be worth the misery? He may not hear the last of it!
"...and then you bought a whole new computer! I tell you, what a waste! We had a perfectly good computer, and I know you were trying to be nice, but $600 is a lot of money to spend on something we already..."
I interpreted his statement in your first quote as him saying Maya and Houdini have unnecessarily complicated interfaces. I haven't used Houdini, but comparing Maya to Blender, I agree. I didn't find Blender "intuitive", but once I read the Wikibook, it did become simple. Like learning one instrument after another, there's a learning curve, it is different, but it isn't complicated.
The convictions were reversed in 1991 on the technical grounds that the prosecution's evidence may have been tainted by exposure to Poindexter's testimony before the joint House-Senate committee investigating the matter, in which Poindexter's testimony was compelled by a grant of 'use immunity'. The prosecution was not able to re-try the case.
I wonder if Wired has let AT&T's weasel out the bag.
Sadly, that we can't publicly perform songs we have so much internalized is a clearer reflection of our culture than the music itself.
Morally, I agree with you: copyright on anything that can be internalized (everything) should at least be non-renewable. The importance of artifacts such as music is being undermined amid petty squabbles over ownership: Time Warner owns Happy Birthday, James Joyce's descendants say stop public readings of Ulysses, etc. It's disturbing, yes, and it makes a monster out of what should be heritage.
On the other hand, there are men and women who have dedicated a non-renewable chunk of life to perfecting a novel, album, whatever, and no one member of public, and certainly no collective, should have the right to stand up and say, "We own this. We internalized it and declare it our own!" Public domain is a state free from ownership, not of surrogate ownership.
I'm saying it's a good thing that copyright helps artists pay bills, which helps them make more art. I'm saying it's a bad thing when reading a book out loud in a library or singing a song as you walk down the street is viewed as stealing from the original artist.
And DRM is probably not just immoral, it's unconstitutional. Think about it: even once the copyright has expired (and in theory, all copyright expires), the DRM ticks on... is it protecting an artist then?
In the meantime, by statute, whoever owns the copyright, owns the exclusive right.
Your comment is funny and true (and I'll get to why in a moment), but the poster does have a serious point. For example, the song 'Happy Birthday' is under copyright:
Just the fact that it is (technically) a breach of copyright to sing 'Happy Birthday' in public is... ming boggling! Of course, under the US Code, you can sing such copyrighted songs in private with family and friends, but it seems crazy that something so much a part of our culture is under copyright... or maybe not, maybe it reflects our culture better than any music ever could.
No, I think he's implying that whoever 'owns' the music has a right to decide how it's sold. Contributors sign many of those rights away in their contracts. Music and culture is an iffy thing; music != culture (or, at the very least, music !== culture). Culture is 'free', it's a collective whole, we all contribute to culture. Music is a facet of culture, but it is also a main source of income for many musicians, and has been for a long, long time. Before Elvis, people were being paid to make music. Before Mozart, people were being paid to make music. Before Hucbaldus, people were being paid to make music. Most relevantly, before Edison, people were being paid to make music. Now, we have boxes that can play recordings of music, and that complicates things a bit, because it makes a studio musician a lot less like a performer and a lot more like an author. A musician's studio work (or even live work, with bootlegs) can be recorded and resold. With DRM, The Industry (or at least that portion of The Industry that's especially concerned over money) finally sees a 'solution' to this problem. The rest of us see it as something else, and see them as something less than heroic do-gooders.
It sounds like a unique complaint, which is silly, because any song downloaded from iTMS on iTunes >= 6 can't be played on iTunes 6, and iTMS is just as locked into iTunes.
You're right about there being pretty huge gaps in the product line, but wrong about the product line itself. iPods basically fit into three categories: the shuffle, the nanos/minis, and the full-size iPods.
Let's look at the full size iPods first:
The first generation of iPod ($399, 2001) had a 5 GB hard drive. Apple then introduced a 10 GB version ($499, 2002).
The second generation of iPod came with 10 and 20 GB hard drives (2002).
The third generation of iPod came with 10 GB, 15 GB, 20 GB, 30 GB, and 40 GB hard drives (2003).
The initial fourth generation of iPod came with 20 GB ($299) and 40 GB ($399) hard drives (2004). The 20 GB U2 iPod mono game out in late 2004. At the same time, the iPod Photo was introduced (still in the 4th gen) with 40 GB ($499) and 60 GB ($599) hard drives.
At the start of 2005, Apple discontinued the 40 GB monochrome model and instead introduced a 30 GB ($349) photo model, the full-size line now being the 20 GB mono, the 30 GB photo, and the 60 GB photo. This is still 4th gen.
In summer 2005, Apple consolidated its full-size iPod line, removing the iPod monos. Simplifying the lineup, they had a 20 GB color iPod ($299) and a 60 GB color iPod ($399).
The fifth (current) generation of full-size iPod was released late 2005. They come in 30 GB ($299) and 60 GB ($399) sizes.
Now the iPod minis and nanos:
The first generation iPod mini was introduced in Jan 2004. It had 4 GB of storage and cost $249. Some people regard it as part of the 4th generation of iPods and the Nano is typically regarded as the first of the 5th generation of iPods.
The second generation iPod mini was introduced early 2005. A new 4 GB model was lowered to $199 and a 6 GB model was introduced at $249. In the meantime, Apple had dropped its third generation iPods. Some peope regard this as a gap in the iPod line, but in looking at the iPod line as 3 separate lines of similarly named products, this stops making sense. People are either looking for a very very small media player or a lot of songs to carry around.
In late 2005, the iPod Nano was introduced. Instead of a hard disk, the Nano uses flash memory, like the iPod shuffle. It comes in larger sizes, though, and with a screen. The initial iPod Nano line consisted of the 2 GB model ($199) and the 4 GB model ($249). A 1 GB model was introduced in 2006 for $149.
Lastly, the iPod shuffle:
The iPod shuffle was introduced early 2005. It is very small and has no screen. It uses flash memory (and can also be used as a flash drive). It comes in a 512 MB model (now $69) and a 1 GB model (now $99).
So, the iPod product lines as they currently stand:
iPod Shuffle (ultratiny, no screen, also a USB flash drive) 512 MB ipod Shuffle ($69) 1 GB iPod Shuffle ($99)
iPod Nano (very small, color screen, music and photos) 1 GB iPod Nano ($149) 2 GB iPod Nano ($199) 4 GB iPod Nano ($249)
iPod (portable, larger color screen, music, photos, video, hard disk) 30 GB iPod ($299) 60 GB iPod ($399)
The flash-based models are more suitable for jogging, excercise, running around madly, kids, etc. Hard disks are slightly more fragile and less portable; they are more suitable for in-car use and for people who want access to their entire music collection at once.
No, my argument is simply that major record companies aren't willing to sell music downloads without DRM. Period. The conclusion is what you call the premise.
That's an oversimplification of how P2P file sharing. One person on one network part of the time is not going to make one song available to everyone on every P2P network all of the time. Looking up a single song on a P2P network, you will find not one but many files of the same song. Besides, a song ripped from a CD burned in iTunes (and I remind you that circumventing the DRM in this fashion takes a long time: you must burn the CD, which takes time; you must manually enter all the track names and artists, which takes time; you must re-rip the CD, which takes time) is of poor quality.
Online music may not be much cheaper than CDs where you live, but in my town the average price of a CD is $16/17, 60/70% more than what iTunes charges.
The pre-iTunes world was not in anarchy, otherwise P2P file sharing would not have become a black or ever have been a grey area. People I've spoken to who prefer iTunes over P2P say their preference is made not because of moral but legal concerns. They don't want to get in trouble.
1) The point of DRM is to improve the confidence of record companies who have come to think of the internet as "that placce where people steal our music". The ability to rip commercial CDs to other formats is a bucket that's already leaked empty, as emphasized by the Sony rootkit fiasco. Record companies want to make sure that going forward into new formats, media will be locked down and harder to thieve. They aren't about to sell people music in a format that could be dropped into a sharing folder (thus eliminating the need to rip - something that not everyone knew how to do before popular music programs like iTunes started bundling that feature). Basically, the point of DRM is to give major record companies the confidence to allow 'their' music to be sold online. Remove DRM and they will back out. All of them. That means no more iTMS.
2) Without DRM there would be no iTunes Music Store. Record companies would not be willing to sign. See point 1. It's not convenient if it isn't there.
3) And burglar alarms and car alarms and the police can only (at best) reduce crime. People use iTunes Music Store because it is convenient. iTunes Music Store is able to exist because of DRM (see point 1). Major record companies are only willing to sell music online if it is DRMed. If there is no DRMed version available for download, people will once again look to illegal alternatives because they're convenient. People can't be trusted.
4) I agree, but it doesn't matter to them. It's their call to make, stupid or not.
5) Yes, they could bypass Apple and sell DRM-free music downloads in another format such as MP3 (like eMusic, for example), but they don't want to, they want DRMed downloads (see point 1). iTMS is the most popular of the online music stores, but it is only a music store, just like HMV or FYE. Record companies want their music on iTunes like manufacturers want their products in Walmart: more exposure = more customers. Like Walmart manufacturers, iTMS record companies have to agree to a pricing structure. They also have to agree to a format. But that doesn't mean their "locked in". They're free to sell their music through whatever other means they wish: CD, other online music stores, whatever. If they want to sell music on iTunes, yes, the music on iTunes is covered by a DRM and is on a strict pricing structure. If they don't want that, they don't have to sell on iTMS.
6) I agree, Apple is taking advantage of the DRM situation by refusing to license FairPlay to other media player manufacturers. If only France had gotten their way, eh? In many ways, I really wish Apple were forced to license FairPlay. Still, Apple gets away with it using the "security risk" argument (licensing the DRM to untrusted sources presents a security risk, yadayada, blah blah blah, not likely). In the same way, big companies are abusing copyright law, patent law, insurance law, and any other law originally planned as a protection of someone's rights. As long as there is law, there will be imaginative people thinking up new ways to abuse it (let's call them lawyers), but that doesn't mean people will readily jump into anarchy. In the meantime, people have 2 choices, expensive CD or cheap DRM.
1.) "All it takes is one person to do a CD rip..."...and burn. You forgot to mention burn. And iTunes doesn't allow burning to virtual CDs. That's a lot more bother than just downloading and dropping into their sharing folder... in fact, it's a lot more bother than just buying the CD (especially since you'll have to buy the blanks anyway). And it's probably been done. Of course, it doesn't sound good enough to our ears - we can hear the difference. The people who benefit most from music piracy are probably people who are spending too much on music, music lovers. Music lovers will probably have ears that can spot low bandwidth.
2.) "Tell me how DRM is worth anything at all?" You then answer your own question: "The reason people buy from iTunes is because it's easier than messing with bittorrent or limewire or kazaa or whatever." Generally, people prefer iTunes MS over 'illegal' file sharing. DRM prevents them from legal and illegal file sharing without loss in quality of the sound file.
3.) "Improved customer experience is what can defeat piracy." Sure, and an improved economy will defeat crime? No. Reduction isn't defeat. Defeat won't happen because people can't be trusted. People meaning anyone, which unfortunately extends to everyone. It's unfair that everyone should be punished because of the law breakers, but it isn't going away.
4.) "If those same tracks were sold without DRM, it couldn't possibly matter since they're all available through the familiar pirate sources already..." It matters to the record companies. If Apple stopped using DRM, record companies would pull out.
5.) "...and the record companies wouldn't have been locked in to working with apple" They aren't "locked in". However, iTMS is very popular and they want that exposure. Apple's money was on them wanting to stay on iTMS more than they wanted to mess with the pricing structure. Basically, Apple called their bluff on the whole repricing thing.
6.) "A non-DRM solution would have been better for consumers, record companies, and the middlemen." eMusic is fantastic. Use eMusic. Unfortunately, elsewhere, DRM isn't going away. Retailers like Apple aren't the source of the problem. The problem's source is with the record companies who want DRM. Some record companies, like those who make their recordings available on eMusic, are fine with DRM-free downloads. Others, like Sony, EMG... all the big boys... aren't.
99% of people can't tell the original ACC iTunes track from an mp3 re-rip anyways.
It sounds as though DRM isn't a problem, then.
I didn't mention CD purchases. Yes, people can still purchase CDs. The thing is, they have to rip those CDs. Nothing can be done about that. Something can and is being done to help prevent piracy of downloaded content, though: DRM. Otherwise, people could download their songs and stick them straight in their P2P bin...
Removing DRM in favor of nothing is not a better option. Yes, it's annoying that people can't trusted, but still: people can't be trusted. That's why we have locks on our doors, burglar and car alarms. It's an inconvenience for us. Let's not forget that DRM is an inconvenience to music retailers such as Apple, too. Things would be much simpler for them (and they'd stand to gain quite a few more customers and downloads - myself included) if they didn't have to deal with DRM. But they do, because the record companies demand it because it's not just the technically competent who can't be trusted. There are plenty of people who haven't yet realized that they can burn music to CD and back. Of those who have tried this, few have noticed the difference in quality.
As politically incorrect and non/.think as this may sound:
Do you have a better idea?
Face it, people will continue to illegally distribute music online all willy-nilly as long as they can. The music companies and copyright owners don't like this. Since they own the material, they have every right to object.
DRM is just another way to make it harder for the average man on the street to break the law.
I don't want to start a flamewar over this, but why does the iTunes DRM especially 'suck'? As a consumer, I agree that DRM is generally a bad thing, but as DRMs go, FairPlay is pretty friendly:
You can play your track on up to five computers (and as many iPods as you like) at any one time.
You can cancel computers individually or reset your DRM account if you hit the 5 computer mark and are unable to play your music on a new computer. (Handy if you didn't get the chance to deauthorize your computer due to system failure).
You can burn CDs of the music you buy.
The underlying format, AAC, sounds good even at 128kbps. Not OGG good, I'll admit, but good enough for personal use.
Also, how can a DRM be open? An open DRM would be unprotectable, which sort of defeats the point! It'd be nice if the Big Boys were that dumb. Maybe you mean licensed, so other media players could play FairPlay protected files? Right now, the only system I have that can't play iTunes purchases (without circumventing the DRM) is Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I like their service, but I've been wondering that for a while. Anyone?
Sorry, I should have made it clearer that I was referring exclusively to the first article my comment, thanks for pointing that out.
The second article doesn't point out any bias at all. Google has barred many other ads and other content due to their hate policy, including content from democrats, so-called Christians (due to hateful content against gays), pro-liberal comedy websites ("Who Would Jesus Bomb?"), anti-Islam speech, etc. Their policy isn't biased against republicans, unless republicans are actually more hateful than democrats, which is not the case.
Google aims to provide that mystical thing: an objective angle. Like Wikipedia, it doesn't view the inclusion of every opinion as NPOV.
That many of Google's employees are pro-democrat is an irrelevant coincidence and proves no bias.
Google's acting in accordance to the laws of other nations outside the United States is also irrelevant to a bias inside the United States.
Accusing the BBC of being a "predominately liberal media outlet" is possibly the second-biggest of this article's blunders. The BBC is constantly scrutinized internally and externally in efforst to keep it POV-free. Often, the government accuses the BBC of giving to much voice to the opposition! (Labour's opposition has been The Conservative Party since 1997 when they were elected).
The bigger blunder is the accusation that Google will intentionally provide bias for any site at all ever. Google's policies are not biased. They are apply to everyone equally. If the WSJ made more of its articles free and indexable under Google, I suspect they would often outweigh CNN, AP or the BBC in "quality".
This is a ridiculous (and outdated) article, it jumps to a paranoid conclusion based on one coincidence and no real evidence, just an unsupported claim. "A search of Google's site"? A search for what?
Agreed. The bigger wiretap issue isn't really about people's privacy at all, it's about an Administration viewing itself as above the law and acting with disregard to the law. Regardless of intention, anything that effects wiretapping without court order is illegal. Period.
I hate to say it, but I was thinking of Lewis Zimmerman!
But would it be worth the misery? He may not hear the last of it!
"...and then you bought a whole new computer! I tell you, what a waste! We had a perfectly good computer, and I know you were trying to be nice, but $600 is a lot of money to spend on something we already..."
Because it means buying a whole new computer.
I interpreted his statement in your first quote as him saying Maya and Houdini have unnecessarily complicated interfaces. I haven't used Houdini, but comparing Maya to Blender, I agree. I didn't find Blender "intuitive", but once I read the Wikibook, it did become simple. Like learning one instrument after another, there's a learning curve, it is different, but it isn't complicated.
Sadly, that we can't publicly perform songs we have so much internalized is a clearer reflection of our culture than the music itself.
Morally, I agree with you: copyright on anything that can be internalized (everything) should at least be non-renewable. The importance of artifacts such as music is being undermined amid petty squabbles over ownership: Time Warner owns Happy Birthday, James Joyce's descendants say stop public readings of Ulysses, etc. It's disturbing, yes, and it makes a monster out of what should be heritage.
On the other hand, there are men and women who have dedicated a non-renewable chunk of life to perfecting a novel, album, whatever, and no one member of public, and certainly no collective, should have the right to stand up and say, "We own this. We internalized it and declare it our own!" Public domain is a state free from ownership, not of surrogate ownership.
I'm saying it's a good thing that copyright helps artists pay bills, which helps them make more art. I'm saying it's a bad thing when reading a book out loud in a library or singing a song as you walk down the street is viewed as stealing from the original artist.
And DRM is probably not just immoral, it's unconstitutional. Think about it: even once the copyright has expired (and in theory, all copyright expires), the DRM ticks on... is it protecting an artist then?
In the meantime, by statute, whoever owns the copyright, owns the exclusive right.
Your comment is funny and true (and I'll get to why in a moment), but the poster does have a serious point. For example, the song 'Happy Birthday' is under copyright:
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
Just the fact that it is (technically) a breach of copyright to sing 'Happy Birthday' in public is... ming boggling! Of course, under the US Code, you can sing such copyrighted songs in private with family and friends, but it seems crazy that something so much a part of our culture is under copyright... or maybe not, maybe it reflects our culture better than any music ever could.
Sadly, that's probably true.
That sounds like Nazi talk to me.
No, I think he's implying that whoever 'owns' the music has a right to decide how it's sold. Contributors sign many of those rights away in their contracts. Music and culture is an iffy thing; music != culture (or, at the very least, music !== culture). Culture is 'free', it's a collective whole, we all contribute to culture. Music is a facet of culture, but it is also a main source of income for many musicians, and has been for a long, long time. Before Elvis, people were being paid to make music. Before Mozart, people were being paid to make music. Before Hucbaldus, people were being paid to make music. Most relevantly, before Edison, people were being paid to make music. Now, we have boxes that can play recordings of music, and that complicates things a bit, because it makes a studio musician a lot less like a performer and a lot more like an author. A musician's studio work (or even live work, with bootlegs) can be recorded and resold. With DRM, The Industry (or at least that portion of The Industry that's especially concerned over money) finally sees a 'solution' to this problem. The rest of us see it as something else, and see them as something less than heroic do-gooders.
It sounds like a unique complaint, which is silly, because any song downloaded from iTMS on iTunes >= 6 can't be played on iTunes 6, and iTMS is just as locked into iTunes.
Ah, that would be a cell from footage of Voyager episode #425.
You're right about there being pretty huge gaps in the product line, but wrong about the product line itself. iPods basically fit into three categories: the shuffle, the nanos/minis, and the full-size iPods.
Let's look at the full size iPods first:
The first generation of iPod ($399, 2001) had a 5 GB hard drive. Apple then introduced a 10 GB version ($499, 2002).
The second generation of iPod came with 10 and 20 GB hard drives (2002).
The third generation of iPod came with 10 GB, 15 GB, 20 GB, 30 GB, and 40 GB hard drives (2003).
The initial fourth generation of iPod came with 20 GB ($299) and 40 GB ($399) hard drives (2004). The 20 GB U2 iPod mono game out in late 2004. At the same time, the iPod Photo was introduced (still in the 4th gen) with 40 GB ($499) and 60 GB ($599) hard drives.
At the start of 2005, Apple discontinued the 40 GB monochrome model and instead introduced a 30 GB ($349) photo model, the full-size line now being the 20 GB mono, the 30 GB photo, and the 60 GB photo. This is still 4th gen.
In summer 2005, Apple consolidated its full-size iPod line, removing the iPod monos. Simplifying the lineup, they had a 20 GB color iPod ($299) and a 60 GB color iPod ($399).
The fifth (current) generation of full-size iPod was released late 2005. They come in 30 GB ($299) and 60 GB ($399) sizes.
Now the iPod minis and nanos:
The first generation iPod mini was introduced in Jan 2004. It had 4 GB of storage and cost $249. Some people regard it as part of the 4th generation of iPods and the Nano is typically regarded as the first of the 5th generation of iPods.
The second generation iPod mini was introduced early 2005. A new 4 GB model was lowered to $199 and a 6 GB model was introduced at $249. In the meantime, Apple had dropped its third generation iPods. Some peope regard this as a gap in the iPod line, but in looking at the iPod line as 3 separate lines of similarly named products, this stops making sense. People are either looking for a very very small media player or a lot of songs to carry around.
In late 2005, the iPod Nano was introduced. Instead of a hard disk, the Nano uses flash memory, like the iPod shuffle. It comes in larger sizes, though, and with a screen. The initial iPod Nano line consisted of the 2 GB model ($199) and the 4 GB model ($249). A 1 GB model was introduced in 2006 for $149.
Lastly, the iPod shuffle:
The iPod shuffle was introduced early 2005. It is very small and has no screen. It uses flash memory (and can also be used as a flash drive). It comes in a 512 MB model (now $69) and a 1 GB model (now $99).
So, the iPod product lines as they currently stand:
iPod Shuffle (ultratiny, no screen, also a USB flash drive)
512 MB ipod Shuffle ($69)
1 GB iPod Shuffle ($99)
iPod Nano (very small, color screen, music and photos)
1 GB iPod Nano ($149)
2 GB iPod Nano ($199)
4 GB iPod Nano ($249)
iPod (portable, larger color screen, music, photos, video, hard disk)
30 GB iPod ($299)
60 GB iPod ($399)
The flash-based models are more suitable for jogging, excercise, running around madly, kids, etc. Hard disks are slightly more fragile and less portable; they are more suitable for in-car use and for people who want access to their entire music collection at once.
It's true that the encryption mechanism can be open, but where the key is closed, the DRM is closed (and where the key is open, the DRM is pointless).
What's your number? If I can't copy/paste it into Ekiga, I won't call you.
No, my argument is simply that major record companies aren't willing to sell music downloads without DRM. Period. The conclusion is what you call the premise.
That's an oversimplification of how P2P file sharing. One person on one network part of the time is not going to make one song available to everyone on every P2P network all of the time. Looking up a single song on a P2P network, you will find not one but many files of the same song. Besides, a song ripped from a CD burned in iTunes (and I remind you that circumventing the DRM in this fashion takes a long time: you must burn the CD, which takes time; you must manually enter all the track names and artists, which takes time; you must re-rip the CD, which takes time) is of poor quality.
Online music may not be much cheaper than CDs where you live, but in my town the average price of a CD is $16/17, 60/70% more than what iTunes charges.
The pre-iTunes world was not in anarchy, otherwise P2P file sharing would not have become a black or ever have been a grey area. People I've spoken to who prefer iTunes over P2P say their preference is made not because of moral but legal concerns. They don't want to get in trouble.
1) The point of DRM is to improve the confidence of record companies who have come to think of the internet as "that placce where people steal our music". The ability to rip commercial CDs to other formats is a bucket that's already leaked empty, as emphasized by the Sony rootkit fiasco. Record companies want to make sure that going forward into new formats, media will be locked down and harder to thieve. They aren't about to sell people music in a format that could be dropped into a sharing folder (thus eliminating the need to rip - something that not everyone knew how to do before popular music programs like iTunes started bundling that feature). Basically, the point of DRM is to give major record companies the confidence to allow 'their' music to be sold online. Remove DRM and they will back out. All of them. That means no more iTMS.
2) Without DRM there would be no iTunes Music Store. Record companies would not be willing to sign. See point 1. It's not convenient if it isn't there.
3) And burglar alarms and car alarms and the police can only (at best) reduce crime. People use iTunes Music Store because it is convenient. iTunes Music Store is able to exist because of DRM (see point 1). Major record companies are only willing to sell music online if it is DRMed. If there is no DRMed version available for download, people will once again look to illegal alternatives because they're convenient. People can't be trusted.
4) I agree, but it doesn't matter to them. It's their call to make, stupid or not.
5) Yes, they could bypass Apple and sell DRM-free music downloads in another format such as MP3 (like eMusic, for example), but they don't want to, they want DRMed downloads (see point 1). iTMS is the most popular of the online music stores, but it is only a music store, just like HMV or FYE. Record companies want their music on iTunes like manufacturers want their products in Walmart: more exposure = more customers. Like Walmart manufacturers, iTMS record companies have to agree to a pricing structure. They also have to agree to a format. But that doesn't mean their "locked in". They're free to sell their music through whatever other means they wish: CD, other online music stores, whatever. If they want to sell music on iTunes, yes, the music on iTunes is covered by a DRM and is on a strict pricing structure. If they don't want that, they don't have to sell on iTMS.
6) I agree, Apple is taking advantage of the DRM situation by refusing to license FairPlay to other media player manufacturers. If only France had gotten their way, eh? In many ways, I really wish Apple were forced to license FairPlay. Still, Apple gets away with it using the "security risk" argument (licensing the DRM to untrusted sources presents a security risk, yadayada, blah blah blah, not likely). In the same way, big companies are abusing copyright law, patent law, insurance law, and any other law originally planned as a protection of someone's rights. As long as there is law, there will be imaginative people thinking up new ways to abuse it (let's call them lawyers), but that doesn't mean people will readily jump into anarchy. In the meantime, people have 2 choices, expensive CD or cheap DRM.
1.) "All it takes is one person to do a CD rip..." ...and burn. You forgot to mention burn. And iTunes doesn't allow burning to virtual CDs. That's a lot more bother than just downloading and dropping into their sharing folder... in fact, it's a lot more bother than just buying the CD (especially since you'll have to buy the blanks anyway). And it's probably been done. Of course, it doesn't sound good enough to our ears - we can hear the difference. The people who benefit most from music piracy are probably people who are spending too much on music, music lovers. Music lovers will probably have ears that can spot low bandwidth.
2.) "Tell me how DRM is worth anything at all?" You then answer your own question: "The reason people buy from iTunes is because it's easier than messing with bittorrent or limewire or kazaa or whatever." Generally, people prefer iTunes MS over 'illegal' file sharing. DRM prevents them from legal and illegal file sharing without loss in quality of the sound file.
3.) "Improved customer experience is what can defeat piracy." Sure, and an improved economy will defeat crime? No. Reduction isn't defeat. Defeat won't happen because people can't be trusted. People meaning anyone, which unfortunately extends to everyone. It's unfair that everyone should be punished because of the law breakers, but it isn't going away.
4.) "If those same tracks were sold without DRM, it couldn't possibly matter since they're all available through the familiar pirate sources already..." It matters to the record companies. If Apple stopped using DRM, record companies would pull out.
5.) "...and the record companies wouldn't have been locked in to working with apple" They aren't "locked in". However, iTMS is very popular and they want that exposure. Apple's money was on them wanting to stay on iTMS more than they wanted to mess with the pricing structure. Basically, Apple called their bluff on the whole repricing thing.
6.) "A non-DRM solution would have been better for consumers, record companies, and the middlemen." eMusic is fantastic. Use eMusic. Unfortunately, elsewhere, DRM isn't going away. Retailers like Apple aren't the source of the problem. The problem's source is with the record companies who want DRM. Some record companies, like those who make their recordings available on eMusic, are fine with DRM-free downloads. Others, like Sony, EMG... all the big boys... aren't.
It sounds as though DRM isn't a problem, then.
I didn't mention CD purchases. Yes, people can still purchase CDs. The thing is, they have to rip those CDs. Nothing can be done about that. Something can and is being done to help prevent piracy of downloaded content, though: DRM. Otherwise, people could download their songs and stick them straight in their P2P bin...
Removing DRM in favor of nothing is not a better option. Yes, it's annoying that people can't trusted, but still: people can't be trusted. That's why we have locks on our doors, burglar and car alarms. It's an inconvenience for us. Let's not forget that DRM is an inconvenience to music retailers such as Apple, too. Things would be much simpler for them (and they'd stand to gain quite a few more customers and downloads - myself included) if they didn't have to deal with DRM. But they do, because the record companies demand it because it's not just the technically competent who can't be trusted. There are plenty of people who haven't yet realized that they can burn music to CD and back. Of those who have tried this, few have noticed the difference in quality.
As politically incorrect and non/.think as this may sound:
Do you have a better idea?
Face it, people will continue to illegally distribute music online all willy-nilly as long as they can. The music companies and copyright owners don't like this. Since they own the material, they have every right to object.
DRM is just another way to make it harder for the average man on the street to break the law.
I don't want to start a flamewar over this, but why does the iTunes DRM especially 'suck'? As a consumer, I agree that DRM is generally a bad thing, but as DRMs go, FairPlay is pretty friendly:
You can play your track on up to five computers (and as many iPods as you like) at any one time.
You can cancel computers individually or reset your DRM account if you hit the 5 computer mark and are unable to play your music on a new computer. (Handy if you didn't get the chance to deauthorize your computer due to system failure).
You can burn CDs of the music you buy.
The underlying format, AAC, sounds good even at 128kbps. Not OGG good, I'll admit, but good enough for personal use.
Also, how can a DRM be open? An open DRM would be unprotectable, which sort of defeats the point! It'd be nice if the Big Boys were that dumb. Maybe you mean licensed, so other media players could play FairPlay protected files? Right now, the only system I have that can't play iTunes purchases (without circumventing the DRM) is Linux.
Wow, VHS! How come Japan gets all the new technology first?