Slashdot Log In
Congress Ponders Opening up iTunes DRM
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Apr 07, 2005 05:34 PM
from the all-skate-everybody-skate dept.
from the all-skate-everybody-skate dept.
hammeredpeon writes "Congress is debating whether or not to require that music shops keep their DRM open for interoperability. Apple wasn't present at the hearings, but Napster's CEO was, arguing that the market should make the decision about interoperability. Considering that previous standards (FireWire/USB, Betamax/VHS) have been decided by the market, could it be that Apple isn't big enough to keep the government out of its industry?"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
<sarcasm>
I know exactly how he feels...just the other day, I bought a game that was made for the Xbox, and found that I couldn't play it on my PS2! Can you imagine???
</sarcasm>
This is unbelieveable. Does Congress truly have nothing better to do?
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the iPod and other players are all capable of players all the same formats. AAC is an open standard, Fairplay is not. So it is an artificial limitation that I oppose.
What this is really quite similar to is region encoding on DVDs. 100% bullshit artificial restriction.
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:4, Interesting)
well not really the regions on DVDs are so some poorer regions can get cheaper DVDs and not cut into the profits of places where a higher price is ok. It helps prevent a situtation like windows where it is charged similiar prices everywhere and that leads to more priacy
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Europe and Japan in a different region from the US? And Australia in a different region from either of them? Furthermore, Australia is in the same region as South America and Mexico, which is quite a disparity in wealth. If it'd been to offer better prices to poorer regions, the US, Japan, Western Europe and Australia would all be in the same region.
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez that is really fair.
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I don't like about this is that they're picking on the little guy before requiring interoperability from the big boys. Why the hell doesn't the Monopoly we call Microsoft have to meet interoperability standards for their business critical Office software? By comparison, digital music is small potatoes.
TW
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Interesting)
This sort of double-standard is quite repugnant.
We can't get Congress to do JACK SQUAT to punish the GUILTY AS SIN Microsoft Monopoly, but we can spend our time worrying that Apple's iTunes store won't allow other players in on the bonanza? So much for free-market government. It's only a "free" market if they're paying the politicians it seems.
Even the Napster CEO has it right, and his company would stand to benefit from this... LET THE MARKET decide...
Bah. Politicians just moved above child molesters on my list of people to kill first when I become supreme overlord of this planet.
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the only difference between the PS2 and XBox format was a single bit on the DVD, do you think Either company should be forced by congress to change their bit so it can plan on someone else's machine?
All limitations are artificial, unless there is some kind of naturally occurring audio format that grows on trees. (heh... tree... Apple... heh.)
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Compulsory licencing does not restrict anyone's speech in any way. It does not compel the copyright holder to do anything.
What compuslory licening means is that someone else can simply mail off an appropriate check to the copyright holder (or to some central clearing house for copyright holders) and then they are properly licence to make and sell copies. You don't need to haggle over rates with the copyright holder, you don't even have to ask his permission. You simply have to pay him the the statutory licening fees.
And as the other poster said, statutory licences are already a normal part of copyright law. He was suggesting that it could simply be extended to more situations.
And if Apple has to do this - then wouldn't software vendors and DVD vendors also have to
It would depend on how such a law was written. It could be written either way.
There have been DRM [] in software for many years.
Oh sure there have been silly gimmicks like defective disk tracks in software for years, but there was never any such thing as "Digital Rights Management" until fairly recently when some idiot came up with the rediculous idea of making it CRIMINAL for innocent NONINFRINGING people to "circumvent" these gimmicks.
licensing restrictions in software for many years
By law you do not require any licence at all to install and run software you bought. This is directly addressed in US code title 17 section 117, and I'm pretty sure there's an essentially identical statement in EU law.
All EULAs are contract offers. You are always free to decline a contract. Of course if you decline a contract then you receive nothing it offers. However an EULA generaly offers you nothing you'd ever want, much less anything you actualy *need*. Of course publishers try all sorts of gimmicks to corner you into accepting the offered contract, and all sorts of gimmicks to argue you agreed to that offered contract, but it is absolutely 100% NOT copyright infringment to decline an EULA and to go ahead and install and run software.
The only real issue is whether you make any extra effort required to install the software without accepting the EULA, and whether they can find some non-copyright legal gimmick to obsruct any way of physically managing to do so. And if such a legal gimmick does exist to make it impossible to declining the EULA, than that legal argument would ALSO be valid if someone were to sell tomatos with EULAs.
-
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPod may not have more capabilities than the competition, however I doubt most people bought it just because it is nice looking. There are many other nicer looking MP3 players, the iPod just happens to have an excellent interface AND it is more heavily marketed than any other player. If you're really concerned about being able to buy your music from various online stores, you should seriously consider this before you buy your player (though I must admit that I don't recall seeing anything in the iPod marketing about not being able to play music from napster or real's stores - you'd have to read the specs of napster, real, and the iPod itself to deterime they're not compatible)
Apple can have their iTMS offer every song in either their restrictive DRM encrusted AAC format, or a non-DRM'ed MP3. See what format sells more. That would be the industry "speaking".
The industry is 'speaking' now with the current setup. If enough people were bothered by protected AAC, then iTunes wouldn't be so popular. I have an iPod, and I don't buy from iTunes because I have another player that doesn't support AAC. I'd rather buy an entire CD and rip the tracks to MP3 so they work with both players (with the added bonus of being able to keep the physical CD in my car).
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't be getting plain old MP3s from any of the commercial downloaders.
(notwithstanding the Russians, who apparently have a loophole in their laws)
Parent
We're all forgetting who we really owe... (Score:5, Funny)
The artists and record companies got pissed off when people shared tapes -- not much they could do except say "That is illegal. Please support us and our labels and don't share your music".
The artists and record companies got pissed off when people shared CDs -- not much they could do except say "That is illegal. Please support us and our labels and don't share your music".
The artists and record companies got pissed off when people started ripping their CDs into MP3s and sharing them over the intermaweb -- not much they could do except say "That is illegal. Please support us and our labels and don't share your music".
Apple comes along with ITMS and says "What you've all been doing is illegal. The artists and record companies would like your support, so here; pay $0.99 for a song". The artists and record companies love it.
Someone here said that people like to be entertained, that's true. If it wasn't for the artists, the people wouldn't be entertained.
The artists deserve the money they get for their music. To that end, I say again that everyone should just shut the fuck up and let the artists and record companies decide how DRM should work.
Consumers, shut the fuck up... You've been getting a free ride for far too long.
Congress, shut the fuck up... You have know idea what you are talking about.
Apple, shut the fuck up... You guys did really good with ITMS. Ever since I switched to Mac, my whole live has changed, thank you! I think what you have done with ITMS is a fantastic first step for the industry (although I will never buy from you because 192K bit rate doesn't do any justice at all to the music I love on a good stereo compared to a CD), but I think things need to change.
Real, shut the fuck up... I think you suck, period.
Napster, shut the fuck up... The only reason people subscribe to your shitty service is because they can't afford an iPod and are forced to use inferior products on an inferior OS and are forced to rent music. How inferior can a product be.
Let the artists and labels decide and everyone just shut the fuck up.
Parent
They owe ME (Score:5, Insightful)
That means we "Consumers" will repeal all of the paid for legislation that allows "artists" and studios to steal from the public domain.
14 years was the original length of copyright then society owns the the work.
It's the artists and studios who are on a "free ride", who have been raping and pillaging the public domain. It's they that benefit from a society that enables them to create their works. But then the greedy fuckers want to change the rules once it comes time to live up to their end of the deal.
When THEY shut the fuck up THEN I'll shut the fuck up.
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the biggest problem I have it your "ergonomic" claim. That's just patently ridiculous. I want a handgun to be ergonomic, a vacuum cleaner, a ladle. These are things that I use with my hand. My iPod, on the other hand, I use in my pocket or in a case. For that, a simple rectangle with beveled edges is the most *ergonomic* design possible for my pocket.
Don't confuse design that doesn't fit you with problematic design.
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Are they for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
No no...steroids in baseball and making sure your MP3 player can play songs from iTunes...yep, that's MUCH more important. Oh, also there's this other idiot...oops, congressman, that wants people who violate on-air decency laws thrown in jail. Yes, actual jail time for saying "fuck" on TV or radio.
(starts looking through his brochures on moving to New Zealand)
Parent
So, uh (Score:5, Funny)
Who's Behind The Scenes On This One? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who's Behind The Scenes On This One? (Score:5, Insightful)
As Winston Churchill said in 1947, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Parent
Re:Who's Behind The Scenes On This One? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who's Behind The Scenes On This One? (Score:5, Informative)
Dell, Microsoft, Sony, and Time Warner are among his top 20 contributors who would have a direct stake in the outcome of any government intervention. If you check his PAC contributions, you'll find he also accepted $3000 from the RIAA.
Parent
openness, competition (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Apple iTunes DRM scheme was available for licensing on a nondiscriminatory basic, Congress probably wouldn't even consider getting involved.
It's not the size of Apple that's invited this attention from Congress, it's their behavior. When Sony and Philips invented the Compact Disc, if they had been unwilling to license the patents to anyone else for manufacture of either discs or players, they would have attracted attention in the same manner. They were smart enough not to do that.Re:openness, competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps next you'll tell us why it is only right for the Congress to force Google to allow ads to appear on their site the revenue for which goes to competing search engines. After all, they're as much a "standard" by your definition as iTunes DRM.
Parent
Re:openness, competition (Score:5, Informative)
Even if I ignored for the fact that the iPod actually also plays regular AAC and MP3 files in addition to Apple's fairplay-restricted files -- why the fuck does the government have to get involved?
This is a market issue. If people were really tied to iTunes and sick of it, they'd buy something other than an iPod. It's not like the iPod is the only digital music device you can buy.
Parent
Re:openness, competition (Score:5, Insightful)
I buy songs from eMusic.com [emusic.com] for my iPod. eMusic sells unencumbered MP3 tracks.
The other online music stores could also be 100% compatible with the iPod, by selling unencumbered MP3 tracks.
Parent
Re:openness, competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:openness, competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody loves car analogies, so here's one. Ford makes the Mustang. It can drive on many roads, using fuel from many gas stations. Lots of different companies make accessories for it. But let's say Ford makes a particular accessory that only works with the Mustang. Are they now a monopoly because of this? What a bunch of crap.
For those who are really slow, it works like this. Apple makes the iPod. It can play many different songs in many different formats. Lots of companies make accessories for it. Apple happens to sell a particular type of music file that only works with the iPod. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM A MONOPOLY.
Can you buy music elsewhere that works with the iPod? Check. Can you buy other players that work with other music? Check. Can you buy cool accessories for those other players? Check. If you want music for your iPod, are you locked into Apple's store? Nope.
Let's see, with the Mustang... You can buy fuel from many places that works with the Mustang, check. You can buy other cars that work with other types of fuel, check. You can buy cool accessories for other cars, check. If you want fuel or accessories for your Mustang, you aren't locked into Ford stuff.
Conclusion: you hate Apple almost as much as you hate thinking rationally.
Parent
Re:openness, competition (Score:5, Insightful)
> Congress, it's their behavior
Of course, some Republicans were aghast at the Department of Justice looking into Microsoft illegally abusing its monopoly. So much so, that all it required was for Microsoft to hire Bush advisor and Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed as a lobbyist, and to send a few million dollars Bush's way, and the DOJ dropped the case. Done. That obvious case was where Microsoft lied throughout the trial, had more smoking guns an Indiana Jones movie, and showed nothing but contempt for the judge and the rulings. No muss no fuss.
But now, Congress thinks it's important to go after Apple, who is just starting off in the market. They don't have a monopoly, and their success is far from assured. They are nowhere near the place in digital music that Microsoft is in for operatings systems and Microsoft Office.
If you don't like Apple's business model. Fine. Don't buy their stuff. But until Apple has been sued and found to (1) have a legal monopoly in terms of digital music, and (2) found to be illegally abusing their monopoly (like you if your iPod stops working if it finds you're not using their word processor Pages), Congress should stay away from nationalizing iTunes or iPods.
Or, if they can't keep themselves away, they should at least stop calling whatever we have in the U.S. a democracy and capitalism.
Parent
Congress?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Congress?! (Score:5, Funny)
Does Napster's palpable fear count?
Parent
A bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. Consider that the studios would like nothing more than to shove their brand of DRM down your throats. Apple, so far, has played a strange game, simultaneously protecting consumers (by keeping the record labels from arbitrarialy jacking up rates, as they've tried to do in the recent past) while preserving a semblance of DRM to placate the labels.
There's only one problem - the labels aren't making enough money. Thus, you have this legislation, which attempts to open up Apple's private playground, which they have neatly tended and grown, to every bozo with a contract to sell music. Why is this a problem?
Well, currently, if you really want to sell music to play on the iPod, and you aren't Apple, you can sell non DRMed tracks. Apple likes this because they don't have to worry about DRM compatibility issues. They can just focus on selling iPods and music from the iTunes music store. The instant you start adding other DRM sources, you add complexity, and you make it more likely that Apple will get blamed if something breaks. Moreover, the instant you have other people using and relying on this DRM, the more likely that it is that they will attempt to dictate what level of restrictions are available through Fairplay. Can you imagine Napster arguing that you should only be allowed to burn a track X number of times? (at the behest of the record labels, of course)
Parent
The government should keep it's hands off. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I would like to see the DMCA go away; however, any restrictive form of DRM you can think of is fair game. Don't take away your right to make it, and don't take away my right to break it.
Emerging market should be decided by the market (Score:5, Insightful)
The digital music market is just emerging - why legislate a standard? Who knows what the market will look like ten years from now (arguably twice as long as the market as even existed)?
In addition, this is a global market issue. How would their legislation be inforced globally?
I live in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex where congress, through the Wright Amendment [wikipedia.org], put restrictions on South West Airlines so it cannot fly directly to DFW International unless the flight originates from within Texas or a bordering state. This type of legislation is (IMHO) rediculous and flies in the face of economic forces.
To return to topic, the CEO of Napster has this one right, there is no need to legislate a standard, open or otherwise. The market will determine it.
Fast forward X years when a monopoly exists (today there are at lease two clear choices for DRM, Fairplay and WMA, neither of which is a monopoly). In the even of an abusive monopoly, then, and only then, should the government be involved under the flag of protecting the rights of Her citizens.
Congress (Score:4, Funny)
If so, then I guess that means they've already balanced the budget, solved Social Security, and cleaned up the DMCA! Wow!
Oh, wait...
Sigh.
Betamax/VHS, USB/Firewire are bad analogies (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the DMCA technically allows exceptions for circumventing copy-protection for the sake of interoperability, a developer can still bet that they will end up in court if they tried because the DMCA places an extra burden on developers that does not exist with regards to hacking Betamax, VHS, USB, or Firewire. With hacking Apple's DRM, the developer must prove (most likely in court) that the application is only for interoperability, yet does not defeat copy protection... while hacking, say USB to interop with firewire, requires no such proof.
DeCSS is case in point. It is required to play DVDs with an open source player, yet it can be used for movie piracy.
A single, mandated DRM standard is a great idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
un-fucking-believable (Score:5, Funny)
Re:un-fucking-believable (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Look at it another way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds a bit like the failed DiVX DVD wannabe we all hated doesn't it?
Oh, except the player was really good though, so everybody wanted one.
Well maybe we should look past the white plastic and aluminium exterior, because that's where Apple are now. It may be an end-to-end solution and it may work well, and we may all love them because they're not Microsoft, but they're a business, and they're in danger of becoming the M$ of digital music players. And seeing as how chummy they've got with the music companies (not the artists the companies) and the stunts they've pulled with sharing playlists etc, I'm not sure I like the idea of a Apple (read: recording company) dominated digital music scene.
DRM'd CDs? DVD Region Codes? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Congress moves to open FairPlay, won't that force the hand of the RIAA, who, in the end, is who all this DRM is for anyway? And, if Congress does this, they'd better open up all the other DRM schemes as well.
It's nice that Real is defending the market place approach. I suppose they see that if the government steps in here, and takes action against number one, how far behind can action against number two be?
Apple licenses to whomever they want. Motorola comes to mind, with the iTunes phone. I'm willing to let the market decide this one. If Congress and the Supreme court can find that Apple is abusing some kind of monopoly power, then fine. Of course, look at all the good that did with Microsoft. But Congress is really overstepping bounds on this one.
There's a whole list of issues in the music industry I'd like Congress to address. Price fixing on the part of the record companies comes to mind.
Microsoft won't let that happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress wants to talk about outlawing all proprietary formats, then fine, let's have that debate. If it wants to pick on one particular company that's simply selling copies of music in a format that works on the systems it sells, it should think again because it's standing on a very slippery slope.
May not be such a bad thing for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
If a case is put forward in which an Apple file format has to be opened up for other companies, then it would be a precedent for Microsoft file formats like Microsoft Office files to be opened up for other companies. It could mean that commercially distributed software has to work on different platforms which could probably be done by the use of fat binaries or Java. Also, if Apple's DRM codec and encryption has to be opened up, then wouldn't that be an argument to open up the Windows source code to competitors?
Whatever legal manoeuvres are used to allow Apple's competitors to get into their digital music market share can also allow Apple to get into Microsoft's OS platform market share. Could that be why Apple didn't bother attending the hearing and are just sitting it out?
Who created this problem in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason for the interoperability problems in the first place is Congress's own legislation, the DMCA. Without that, there would be many more projects like Hymn that open up DRM'ed formats and promote interoperability. Now Congress is trying to cure one of the symptoms of its previous ill-conceived legislation with... more legislation.
Congress (Score:5, Funny)
Next they will try to mandate daylight savings time...
Re:Since when is proprietary DRM tolerated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of market share, Apple does not behave like Microsoft at all. While Apple has popular market share for iPod, it is not using that market share to *exclude* competitors. For example, it doesn't attempt to force vendors who want to sell iPods to exclude other players from the market, or threaten retribution to those companies who sell competing products. It also doesn't say that if you sell iPods you must also put Macs on your shelves, etc.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has done pretty much all of these things at one point or another in their history. Consider their OEM agreements with vendors forbidding them to sell computers with other OSes. Consider their attempt to drive Netscape out of business by giving away IE and "integrating it with the OS" (and letting the product stagnate as soon as the competition disappeared). These acts show a company trying to take choice and competition OUT of the market, not providing a BETTER choice. And that's the difference.
Parent