Slashdot Log In
Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Feb 26, 2007 09:47 PM
from the how-FairPlay-works dept.
from the how-FairPlay-works dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Open DRM? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Open DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open DRM? (Score:5, Funny)
The song is called "Baby Got Back", you insensitive clod!
Parent
obvious (Score:4, Informative)
Because the DRM locks people into iTunes + ipod [usatoday.com], and locks out competition. Why do you think they're keeping it?
Re:obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve Jobs has publicly stated [apple.com] 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.
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. This might indicate that Apple does indeed desire to use DRM wider than Jobs' statement would seem to indicate.Parent
Re:obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, of course, turned around and denounced Real for breaking the lock-in, changed the firmware on the iPod to deliberately break Harmony, and thus restored the iPod-iTMS lock-in.
Of course, now that some countries are pointing out that their laws prohibit such lock-in, so Steve Jobs is claiming that RIAA and technical limitations are the problem. This is a maneuver technically known as "lying your ass off."
Parent
Re:obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Parent
DRM-free content (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
and why hasn't Microsoft opened the Zune DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, RoughlyDrafted. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
How about the very simplest explanation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:How about the very simplest explanation? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Author is confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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'.
A reason to strip DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
No, no, no (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you who don't already know, RoughlyDrafted is an Apple propaganda blog that abused [googlepages.com] digg [googlepages.com] 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.
Parent
Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cracked? (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Parent