Slashdot Log In
Space Shifting DVDs to Cost Extra?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wednesday December 05, @01:04PM
from the digital-restrictions-monkeybusiness dept.
from the digital-restrictions-monkeybusiness dept.
Depending on who you listen to Steve Jobs has supposedly been pitching the idea of selling "premium" DVDs that would include an extra fee for the privilege of transferring your legally-purchased DVD to a different device. "The courts have held that "space-shifting" your CDs to a portable music device is a fair use. So you can legally import your CD collection to your iPod, or any other device, without paying a penny. But Steve Jobs apparently wants to charge you $4 for the privilege of doing the same with your DVDs."
Space Shifting DVDs to Cost Extra?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 361 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
No way... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that the issue is if Mr. Jobs wants to make money of Consumers the question is how.
The thing is, I don't think that Apple is going to make much money off of this. They traditionally don't make much on content.
I have to wonder if this isn't a way to advertise "ripping" your movies as a feature of their hardware. Remember that the original slogan for the iPod was something like "Rip, Mix, Burn" but they had to stop that lest they be accused of encouraging infringement. This way, it's all DMCA friendly.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
And Steve Jobs is on the Disney board of directors.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I have around 50-100 DVDs (not sure exactly how many, some are seasons of TV shows in boxed sets with multiple disks). Assuming around 7GB per DVD, that's 350-700GB. Even reencoding as H.264, that's a few more generations of iPod before I have enough space. More to the point, you don't need to buy too many DVDs a year to make your current storage device obsolete.
If iTunes let you rip DVDs in the same zero-click way it lets you rip CDs, I would probably have ripped a lot of my disks already, and would be a lot more interested in an iPod with video out (especially one that had support for 5.1 sound out via an external splitter). For $4, I'm not interested though. I suspect the aim of this is to get the functionality shipping in iTunes and then lose a class action lawsuit objecting to them charging.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Interesting)
- One iPod and PSP version video of the movie along with one version in a standard codec.
- One iPod and PSP version video of each episode (if it's something like a Futurama season DVD) along with one version in a standard codec.
- Flac/Wav/lossless version of the songs, if it's a concert DVD.
- No DRM on the ripped stuff.
I am sick of installing 10 gazillion CD/DVD rippers and encoders just so I can watch my DVDs on my PSP and my DSM-320. 4$ for me would be no big deal to pay for that service.
Re:No way... (Score:4, Informative)
All iPods [apple.com] have the same [apple.com] specs [apple.com] for the video they play... Presumably the iPod version of the video from the DVD would conform to the same standards as videos from the iTunes store. Your questions about various iPods and the AppleTV apply just as much to the iTunes video store as they would to these hypothetical DVDs, so I wouldn't think that your questions really pose a problem for this concept. Of course, the AppleTV is supposed to be HD-capable, so that could represent a good question here, but Apple doesn't give you a way to get HD content for it, other than some sample podcasts, at least that's all I've heard about it.
Personally, I think it's dumb that they would sell this for a 20% price increase to "let" you have a "legal" way to get videos to your iPod. I use HandBrake all the time (which the author of TFA incorrectly identifies as violating the DMCA... it doesn't violate it because it doesn't have any way on its own to handle CSS decryption... you need an external program/driver/library for that), and in a decent world, it would be perfectly easy for anyone to use it to put their movies on their portable players. But these companies step in and act like they're freaking awesome, because they've given us a legal way to do this.
If someone wants to pay $4 to make it easier to copy their DVDs, and they think the hassle is worth the price, then good for them. But I would hate to see people paying that extortion money because the content providers are pretending that it's the only way to get it legally.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch.
Now with DVDs and Handbrake it is slightly different; i wouldn't pay $3 to $4 to save me the work of turning a DVD into h.264 format, but some people would. I would probably willingly pay some lesser amount. What people need to realize is that even though it is your right, it is still work.
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch.
Generally I agree with you, although it's slightly more complicated than that because of the DMCA.
To use your 2nd amendment analogy (my thoughts on that subject being an entirely different story, but I'll go with it for the purposes of illustration), it would be like saying you have the right to bear arms, but then saying it's illegal to actually open the box that the weapon comes in because the copyright is owned by the box maker and they don't want you opening it. So then Apple comes in and says they have a legal box-opener that's sanctioned by the box maker, and only they can sell it to you.
That would be pretty ridiculous, right? You can buy the weapon, you can legally use it, but you have to buy the means to open the package separately from some third party? That's what's going on here.
I do agree completely that those offering a service should be compensated for it. I just bought an "MVI" DVD, for example, that includes the band in question's full audio CD, plus pre-ripped mp3's of the entire CD (and yes, real mp3's, on a Warner Music disc), plus 5 bonus tracks, plus about seven videos, plus extra junk like wallpaper, buddy icons, etc. I paid $2 extra over the standard audio CD for all that and I was happy to do it. I probably would have paid $2 extra just for the officially-ripped mp3's by themselves (only because I figure they've gotta have some better quality system to do it with than my LAME... although I'm probably wrong). Point being, it's an extra thing that I don't have to do, and I'm pretty tech savvy - I could do it myself pretty easily - but a lot of people couldn't, they don't even know how to import a CD in iTunes. So for them, they're paying for something that they wouldn't otherwise have at all.
But to pay for the right to do something that you otherwise should have anyway is the problem here.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple is able to pull in a few extra fees for developing and licensing the technology then good for them I suppose. They are in the business of selling hardware remember. I'm sure they would sell more hardware if there was an easy and legal way to transfer content from original media, but there is not and Apple is dealing with it in a way they are good at.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
I worry about this as a precedent. If we keep going down this route, eventually media purchases will be tied to a single device, using digital hardware IDs. I could see a day when you buy a movie, and only have "rights" to play it on one specific DVD player. You would have to provide the hardware ID of that DVD player at the time of purchase. It's no secret that content providers want you to repurchase the same movie a dozen times. One for home use, one for in your car, one for your portable player, one for your PSP, etc. DMCA makes this consumer nightmare possible.
Re:No way... (Score:4, Funny)
And the concept is old news - it's really just an extension of this program:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/itunes_to_sell_your_home_videos [theonion.com]
Steve Jobs or the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily iTunes is not the only tool in town.
Re:Steve Jobs or the MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Even that sucks though, limiting the file to just an Apple format and charging far more for the file than it is reasonably worth it. And at that point, either the file is locked to one device or it renders the DRM on the disc completely useless. In either case it doesn't seem to benefit consumers much, if at all.
Shouldn't the courts acknowledge that DRM isn't a protection measure if most people can break it easily. I mean at that point, what's the real difference between DRM and exotic file format?
For that price... (Score:5, Interesting)
I tell you, I *might* be persuaded to pay that price if it was some sort of continuous license w/unlimited downloads. For example, if I could take a DVD from my current collection, get it so if I lose the file I can always re-download from Apple, and if they release an HD version I get it for free, then that might be worth $4. Otherwise, screw you, I'll rip the DVD myself.
DVDs are encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess if you don't like it, you shouldn't blame Jobs who's trying to exploit a commercial opportunity, but rather contact your lawmaker and explain in layman's terms why this is messed up.
Re:DVDs are encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly Steve ONLY makes money off you if you CAN rip your DVD to an iPod. So I suspect what he's saying is hey MPAA, if we pay you a small extra fee will you let us turn off your encryption so my customers can put your movies on my iPods?
Re:DVDs are encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I read it, what he's saying is "hey MPAA, if our mutual customers pay you a small extra fee will you re-encrypt your movies in an iPod-compatible format so our mutual customers can put the movies on their iPods, but not on other devices which may not be compatible (and which are not sold by Apple.)
The ideal situation for the consumer would be no DRM and no DMCA... too bad consumers (aka "we the people") don't have any influence in Washington or we wouldn't be in this situation.
Might explain "Deauthorize Media" option (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Might explain "Deauthorize Media" option (Score:5, Informative)
------
Authorizing DVDs
When parental controls are enabled, the computer administrator must authorize a DVD before it can be played.
To authorize DVDs (if you are the administrator):
Select how you want to authorize the DVD:
To allow the movie to be played this time only, and then to require an administrator name and password every subsequent time, click Play Once.
To allow the movie to be played this time and every subsequent time without requiring an administrator name and password, click Always Allow.
Type the administrator name and password.
To remove authorization, insert the DVD and choose Features > Deauthorize Media. Then either quit DVD Player or insert another disk to complete deauthorization.
----
There might be a catch (Score:1)
But how much to watch on an AppleTV? (Score:4, Insightful)
They really need to make up their mind. Either they're selling us a license to their content (in which case the media should be irrelevant) OR they should be charging us for a physical product, in which case we can do whatever we want with that product including turning it into something we can use in ways they didn't expect.
If I buy some boards and a nails from Home Depot, they don't get a piece of the action if I try to sell the cabinet I made.
Let's do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Charge me the extra $3-4 and leave off ALL DRM. That includes that macrovision crap and all of it. Don't require special software or hardware. Just don't put the DRM in place.
IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This reminds me.... (Score:4, Informative)
Um.... (Score:3, Funny)
MythDVD
A Non-Starter (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you Want to Pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could pay someone to figure it all for you (Buy purchasing commercial software that has a nice GUI)
Or you could watch DvDs on your TV and not your iPod.
Which of these things is worth less than the $4 it takes to Steve Jobs every time? For most people I'm thinking option 3 will be the only one. A smaller group might opt for the commercial software that does the same thing. Very few people will make the effort to get it all set up with open source tools or to wait the length of time it takes to reencode all the mpeg files. I think that most people (who don't read slashdot) will be happy to pay Steve Jobs the $4. I think Steve knows that, too.
"supposedly", "apparently" (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this might be a radical departure for Slashdot editors, but have you ever considered only linking to articles that have, I don't know, actual facts? Instead of rumor and innuendo to drive Apple bashing for Page Hits.
Also, did you hear that rumor about ScuttleMonkey? Supposedly he likes to have sex with washing machines. Apparently it's something he does quite a lot...
Reasoning (Score:2)
That seems like a better argument than releasing an iTunes compatible version on their DVD's- a thing that would take up more space (the movies are not tiny) on the DVD. This would diminish the amount of content movie studios could add on their own.
Simply put, it's in Jobs' best interest to pry away at the DRM that disables the functionality he wants.
This is not how purchasing media should work (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, buddy! (Score:3, Funny)
Thaks Steve! (Score:2)
I have one word for Steve Jobs... (Score:2)
And I will add that a few of my studio-pressed and paid-for DVDs are beginning to show signs of deterioration. I'm not paying for another copy when I can recover the original disc's file, repair it in the process, and re-burn it (as I should be able to do under Fair Use) to a replacement disc.
Keep the peace(es).
Oh come on now is Slashdot this stupid? (Score:2)
Given Jobs recent letters to the media, I highly doubt this is true at all, and strongly suspect this is a bullshit article made to play right into the fears people have here. There are a number of media entities who dont like Jobs, and I would not be shocked that the same groups suing grandmothers, would also like to see Jobs tarnished for making them look like fools to the public.
Until I see Jobs outright say it, this is bullshit, and anyone who is taking this to be fact is a gullible fool. There is not one shred of factual basis anywhere in the blurb.
Which Steve? (Score:2)
Reality check? (Score:2, Insightful)
Get real folks. If Apple pulls another $4 out of your pocket of course they're taking a cut. What are we? School children?
And Poor Saint Jobs, forced by the big bad media companies into doing this? C'mon! Jobs sat down with them and together they cut a deal that will hopefully see both of them make bigger profits. It's highly unlikely that Jobs is giving away the farm with no benefit to Apple shareholders. To suggest otherwise is incredibly naïve.
Maybe I'll pay (Score:2, Informative)
Apple miscalculation (Score:3, Insightful)
There's just very little reason to buy video from Apple at this time. DVD players are overwhelmingly cheap, and DVDs are cheap and easy to buy OR RENT. Netflix, Blockbuster, Wal Mart, Target etc etc are all too happy to put DVDs in your hands. They are making loads of money on them, as are the studios, the only people not cashing in are the writers (see: WGA strike).
The primitive state of broadband means downloads are not pressuring the industry, there is piracy but it's just not like it was for music in the Napster days. At that time you could literally get virtually any song on your hard drive within a few minutes. For video, you need to figure out BitTorrent, then wait wait wait for the download. Or you need to set up iTunes and then wait wait wait for the download.
THEN you have to get your TV hooked up to your computer, and then tolerate visibly worse quality. This was not the case with MP3s, they sounded just as good as CDs to most people, despite the specs, and people already had headphones to plug in to their computers, or a miniplug to hook up to the stereo cost $5 at Radio Shack.
Amid this backdrop, Apple is trying to make a market for video downloads. But the effort is futile until broadband speeds get up closer to FTTP (fiber) levels. Even then, the studios probably won't hand Apple a new market to dominate like they did last time. Wired recently quoted one studio head who said he gave in to Jobs on iTunes because Jobs pointed out that Mac's 5 percent market share mitigated the risk -- if the studio's worst nightmares came true, the impact would still be minor. No one is going to be fooled this time around into thinking Jobs just wants to make an innocent little side service for Mac users. You can bet a Google or Netflix is going to get licensing parity (which did not happen with iTunes).
Whats the problem (Score:1)
I don't want to watch movies on a cellphone - the screen is too small.
he's not the only one (Score:1)
Bundling Does Not Equal Greater Profits (Score:2)
So, slap a $4 dollar download code onto a $12 dollar DVD and while you might get away with a $16 dollar price for a brief time with strong advertising, it won't be long before the thing sells for $12 dollars again.
Nobody bundles a strongly-demanded product with another strongly-demanded product. If both were strongly-demanded then they'd be sold separately to maximize profit. Consumers see the raised price as nothing more than a price hike on the one item that they would have bought, won't pay the increased price and retailers will have to lower the price to move the bundle off their shelves.
Steve Jobs is not a fool. He has people around to remind him of these things. If Jobs is pushing bundled downloads, it's as a promotional bonus and not a premium.
It's all in the spin. (Score:2)
And it basically says Jobs likes the idea of a company selling a "premium" version of a DVD that includes an iTunes download of the same movie. And so TechDirt spins it as "the DMCA at work"-- which is a reasonable explanation, given that technically a tool like Handbrake _is_ illegal.
(Funny, of course, that nobody wants to take the folks who make Handbrake to court yet...)
It would've been so easy for Apple to spin it the other way-- heck, spin's what they're good at. "You can pop the disc in your computer and let it grind for a few hours, or you can buy the premium version that comes with the iTunes download of the thing for you. We've handled all the details for you, so you don't have to know what an h.264 is or what resolution your iPod can handle"
Won't be an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say all this has led to people wanting quantities of music and not quality music. In past when everyone paid for music you listened hard to who you were going to spend your money on. Record companies had to try their best to put out good music so get your money. Now a days people just want to say "I have 10,000 downloads of stuff". How much of that do you actually listen to versus just occupies space on a hard drive and is all that really stuff worth listening to??? I only bring this up because the war between the downloaders and RIAA has many bad side effects and a boatload of crap music is one of those side effects.
No thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
No thanks. You can keep your offer and I can keep my "extra fee". I'll just decrypt my DVD myself thankyouverymuch.
That is, I would... if I ever.... you know... bought a DVD in the first place. EVER. The fact that I don't own any DVDs might have something to do with the fact that.... you know... being annoyed that I would have to bother decrypting my DVD for it to be legitimate and properly usable.
I've never needed to decrypt a VCR tape. I've never needed to decrypt cd. I've never needed to decrypt an audio cassette tape. I've never needed to decrypt a goddamn book or anything else. I don't think it's exactly me being the one doing something new and bizarre and unreasonable here. Someone wants to sell me encrypted crap? And after I bought it, they expect me not to decrypt it?
Fuck. That.
Fuck. You.
Not. One. Mother. Fucking. Dollar.
And if for some reason I do buy something from you, I'm fucking decrypting it.
Want to imprison me under the DMCA? Well that would be interesting. And novel.
After a decade of the DMCA, I would be the first person convicted under it. Ever.
I offer a compromise. Yeah I know my suggestion is is a bit.... EXTREMIST here... but heay, just for shits and giggles I'm going to make my extremist suggestion anyway. And my radical extremist suggestion is... how about good old traditional copyright law. How about we don't criminalize noninfringing people. You know... good old copyright law before the DMCA crap criminalizing innocent noninfringing people, before the DMCA crap criminalizing legitimate valuable noninfringing products.
Yeah, I know. That makes me freak. It makes me an anarchist. It means I want to destroy everything and let people run around murdering and raping each other in the streets. Because I suggested good old traditional copyright law like we've had for over 200 years. I know, extremist and insane. My bad here.
I must repent my radical sins. I'll run out immediately and mail the movie studios each a big fat check... to make up for all of the DVD's that I never ever ever bought from them. I've been such a monster... it's so bad that I've completely lost count of how many DVD's I didn't buy.
-
Why Should We Have to "Buy" Back Our Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it may be the case that through DRM they have made it difficult to exercise my rights without paying them (i.e. I have to break the DRM to enable my rights), but that brings up another problem with DRM and specifically the DMCA. It is unlawful (technically) to break the DRM (aka access protection mechanism) even if I break it for the purpose of re-enabling my rights to time or format shift or for fair use. As the law is currently written it is unlawful to break the DRM no matter what the intent and that is wrong. The DMCA needs to be changed so that safe harbors for breaking the access protection mechanism are created when the consumer is re-enabling RIGHTS that the creator or owner has seized improperly via DRM (aka the access protection mechanism).
Steve Jobs (Score:2)
Am I missing something? Where does Jobs say this? (Score:5, Informative)
The following paragraph continues, "More interestingly perhaps, the studios are hoping to create "premium" versions of DVDs that include a copy of the movie that can easily be put on an iPod (and presumably a laptop with iTunes or an Apple TV). Fox has tried this already, with a version of "Die Hard 4 that includes a digital copy. Mr. Greenfield writes that this version costs $3 or $4 more than an ordinary DVD."
This paragraph doesn't refer to Jobs at all, but rather to a DVD that Fox released.
I'm missing the connection between Apple and Fox that Tim Lee's seeing. Can someone explain where this is hiding?
An analogy. (Score:2, Funny)
I heard the law says you have the right not to be punched. So if you pay me $4, I won't punch you. If you want me not to punch you again, it's another $4.
Extortion? What's that?
Apple trying to help industy and consumers (Score:1)
What I see in this move by Apple is trying to further get rid of DRM. Remember when they let EMI charge more for songs on iTunes if they were DRM free? I think they are trying to do the same thing with the movie industry now. Yes, everyone has their theories about Apple liking fairplay because it ties the music in their store to the iPod exclusively but I think fairplay causes just as many headaches for Apple as it does consumers because they have to keep track of all these keys, # of times burned, etc.
Yes, consumers have the right to copy dvds but obviously there is still some legal issue with it because DVDShrink has been pummeled out of public existence. If Apple can make DRM DVDs free for an extra price, its just one more step towards removing DRM, Macrovision, etc from all DVDs. Just take a look at whats happening to online music right now. The new online stores (such as Amazon) will only sell DRM free MP3s.
I think this just the first step towards the same change in the movie industry and it just happened to be Apple who took it, which really makes sense. The more crap we can put on iPods easily, the more we will want/use them.
Flip4Mac DriveIn (Score:2)
Flip4Mac DriveIn [flip4mac.com]
"Drive-in is an innovative application that allows you to store your personal DVD movie library on your Mac. It is now available as a public beta.
Using Drive-in you can create an image of a DVD disc on your laptop or home entertainment system. The image preserves the quality, navigation and special features of the original DVD and can be played using Apple's DVD Player or Front Row."
levy (Score:2)
can anyone say ringtones? (Score:1)
DRM=bad for consumers
DMCA=really bad for consumers
Blu-Ray/Sony/Fox/Apple=super-duper bad for consumers
apple fanboys ho! (Score:1)
seriously though, why the hell is he going in this direction after introducing unlocked itunes?
$4 discount (Score:2)
Oh, right, that's the same thing.
iTunes video compromise? (Score:2)
By proposing such a system and pioneering it themselves, Apple could become the first computer manufacturer to offer a user-friendly, MPAA-blessed dvd ripping solution that functions almost identically to the CD ripping tools in iTunes. Also, by creating a product designed specifically for ripping by the end user, it puts the "fair use" argument for ripping traditional dvds into question, as users shouldn't need to play shadow games to move protected video to an alternate device, when a readily-available, legally-rippable source is already available for purchase by the end user.
Handbrake (Score:1)
Imagine if books had the same restrictions as DVDs (Score:1)
fair use is a right... (Score:2)
I believe that removing DRM to exercise your fair rights *is* a Right.
The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the issue.
Free Idea (Score:1)
Content providers just provide a licence to Apple and others to allow their space shifting software to rip the content to the proprietry device? It can be a one off licence for each disc. So I pay $1 to Steve and Co, which they pass on to the content provider (taking a small cut to cover costs), and then iTunes or other software allows me to decode a device specific copy of the content from the original disc.
Saves content providers modifying manufacturing
No lock in to Apple etc
No requiement for massive bandwidth etc (even work on dial up)
Still requires purchase of original so the "artist" is being paid
Would provide a easy way to do this for Joe Sixpack as the software would be provided by the hardware vendor and thus be an integrated process.
Take it, use it, but don't Patent it as I have prior art here.
For Apple, this is about hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably the only way they can get the content providers to agree: Show them the money carrot. Make it legal for your customers to move movies to different media, and you'll get money. I think it's not so bad; everyone wins:
Good Discussion (Score:2)
If you start at the other end, of course, and buy a full-priced DVD, then I believe you should have the same right to rip and transcode that you have with a CD. If I was a smart studio head, and I'm not sure there are any of those, I'd sell my DVDs with a pre-ripped, optimized h.264 version right on the disk, saving the consumer the time of doing it himself.
Is it that big a deal? (Score:1)
And you're done.
Like copy protection on CDs and DRM on iTunes if it sucks that bad the market will kill it.
I'm not saying the market is perfect but it works well enough to cut the knackers off the real dumb stuff.
this is stupid (Score:1)
FIX THE DAMN SUMMARY (Score:2)
Re:convenience (Score:2)
Not when it's wasting a gigabyte of space that is of no use to anyone who doesn't have an iPod. I'd rather have better picture quality with all those extra bits, or more extras.
In any case, DVD 'copy protection' is history; why charge people more for something they can already do for free?
Re:convenience (Score:2)
If it wasn't for DMCA there would be plenty of commercial software out there that would do this, (just like there are plenty of polished products for ripping CDs). Because DVD ripping software is effectively illegal, no company is going to invest $$ into writing a polished piece of software. The best we get are home-brew solutions, and half-assed products both of which get sued out of existence (or at least out of the US) if they begin to look halfway decent.
The market for the $4 iPod version of movie only exists because the DMCA prevents a competing product from existing.
If it wasn't for Jobs (and Apple) being in bed with the movie industry, I'd hope that they would take Hollywood on and make such a piece of software. Most people are comfortable with the idea that you can copy a CD to portable device, so it would take quite a PR job for Hollywood to convince people that DVDs should somehow be different.
Re:[Reality Distortion Field] - I CAN!! (Score:2)
I can. He wants to charge you extra for a right you already have. That's not aligning with my own personal interests.
Re:convenience (Score:1)
Re:convenience (Score:1)
Re:[Reality Distortion Field] (Score:2)
ummm. apple sells content too. it's in their interest to drive you to the apple store to purchase your content, not buy it somewhere else and rip it onto your ipod. as long as you can get it from iTMS apple is happy.
the ipod is not successful because it is the best, most full featured player out there. rather, it's the superb integration with iTMS and iTunes.