Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer

parvenu74 writes "Arstechnica is running an article pointing out that while some pockets of the entertainment industry are experimenting with DRM-free distribution, Apple Inc, which announced that they have now sold over 2,000,000,000 songs on iTunes, is now the strongest pro-DRM force in digial media. From the article: 'DRM is dying. It's a statement being echoed with increasing frequency around the Web over the last few weeks, and is perhaps best articulated in this Billboard article. But there's a powerful force standing in the way of this DRM-free panacea, and it might not be the one you expect: Apple, Inc.'"

That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Mac OS X is an excellent system. I enjoyed using their earlier systems in the 1980s and 1990s. But since the advent of the iPod and iTunes, I have refused to buy anything from Apple just because of their support of DRM. I don't need my rights "managed", especially by a corporation.

yes and No

[peragrin]

Yes Apple is DRM's biggest backer, then again Apple's DRM is the only DRm that is constant among all songs. Windows DRM can change per player, musician, studio, or even CD. If you have to have DRM then Apple's is certainly better than anyone else's.

Now the only thing better would be no DRM at all. I can't see that happening as long the RIAA exists. How else could they afford to pay to make more Britney's, and Spice Girls?

Till then I will boycott music from non independent sources.

I hate to point this out...

[Cylix]

Apple DRM isn't exactly the strongest brand of DRM Goodness(tm).

I'm fairly certain everyone else is aware of that little secret too.

Be it the little known loop hole of secretly burning off your music and re-ripping it into your favorite codec or the more nefarious path known as fair play.

"might not be the one you suspect"

[jimstapleton]

On what planet did the writers come from? Apple is and has always been a company of control freaks. Not to say that every aspect of such behavior is bad, but it's often not good either.

(1) They control what hardware their OS will run on
(2) They often tried (though not recently) to control what OS(es) will run on their hardware
(3) They tried to control who/what could put songs on their iPods
(4) They are trying to control what software can be Applied to their iPhones

They are all about control, and I would be more surprised if they weren't in the top 5 biggest DRM supports since they deal in music, than that they are the biggest DRM supporter.

not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

the article is short-sighted. apple supports DRM because they have to in order to be granted the right to sell media from various studios. apple is a hardware company, and their hardware works just fine with non-DRM'ed media. the itunes music store embeds DRM because it has to. at no point is apple diametrically opposed to the destruction of DRM; it's not a mutually exclusive relationship in the least. in fact, if media were easier to obtain, a valid argument could be made that apple would benefit- if media were free, people would potentially be more interested in obtaining media hardware [from apple].

Re:yes and No

[HappySqurriel]

At the same time Apple hasn't (so far) hasn't prevented their customers from putting music that has no DRM onto their iPod so I would question whether they really are DRM's biggest backer; they could have easily said that you could only put licenced music on the iPod that was purchased through iTunes in order to protect the 'rights' of artists, but they didn't.

Talk about sensationalism,

[geekoid]

Apple has an agreement to DRM the music in order to carry it.

Steve Jobs said:" "None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

It seems to me when DRM goes,Apple isn't going to try and stop it.

No I don't own any macs.

They're successful because the DRM is weak

[blueZ3]

Apple may be "pushing" DRM, but according to what I've read, it's mainly because they couldn't get the publishers to agree to a DRM-free model. To get access to the music catalogs, they had to be able to say they had a scheme for preventing iTunes from turning into (the old) Napster. The DRM model that they use is pretty much the weakest model you can have and still cal it DRM--you can burn any song or songs to CD and the protection scheme is weak enough that it's been repeatedly broken by people interested in "unprotecting" the files.

I know there are a number of purists (and anti-Apple types) who argue that any and all DRM is bad. But in my opinion, Apple's weak DRM scheme hasn't stopped the imaginary DRM-free world these folks are advocating--it has actually helped by prevented something much more onerous from becoming the de facto standard.

Can you imagine a world where the most successful music download service provides music in Microsoft's WMF and you can't burn a CD or copy the song to more than one PC? My hope is that the success of the weak-DRM'd iTunes store will discourage people from "renting" music or subscribing to some scheme where the DRM is significantly more restrictive.

well

[El Lobo]

Fanbois, moderate me down again, I don't fucking care. Apple has always been about control. They control hardware, software, and don't tolerate rivals.

But a feud between Apple and RealNetworks over music downloads is exposing Jobs' tragic flaw. Amazingly, he seems to be making the same devastating mistakes with the iPod that he made with the Mac 20 years ago.

The iPod has half the digital music player market, and iTunes sells 70% of all legitimate music downloads. Jobs practically willed the digital music business into being.

But around 1985, Jobs and his executives decided not to license Apple's technology or operating system to any other company. Apple wanted total control. It wanted to sell all the products itself. It wanted no competitors.

This was a yawning opening for Microsoft, Intel and the PC. Since anyone could buy the licenses and components to make a Windows-based PC, that technology took wing.

"Apple could have reaped the benefits of having dozens, even hundreds of imitators all adding their own unique value to the Mac," wrote Jim Carlton in his 1997 book, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders. "Legions of suppliers would have sprung up all around the world to furnish components such as disk drives and memory. And since the software was light-years ahead of everybody else's, the Mac's, not Windows, might have come to dominate the personal computer market."

Instead, the opposite happened for Apple, and the PC crowd took advantage of those kinds of economics. This year, Apple is left with less than 4% of the market for personal computers -- basically a cult following.

More recently, Jobs has done for digital music what he once did for personal computing: He's made it appealing to non-techies. Once again, his design sets the pace. No device is as good as the iPod; no software solution works better than iTunes.

But like the Mac of 1985, it's a closed system. Other than open-source MP3 files, only music downloaded through iTunes will play on iPods, and iTunes music won't play on any portable device except an iPod. Apple refuses to license the technology to third parties. Instead of setting a standard for all, Apple wants to own it all. When Microsoft behaves that way, everybody screams antitrust.

So how comes that as a surprise that they are the major users of DMR technlology?

Get it right...

[catwh0re]

Some DRM = Can be good for consumers, e.g. It satisfies crazy music execs while giving average consumers DRM which they will rarely/if ever notice at all.

Restrictive DRM = Bad for consumers. Draconian style restrictions that stop the average consumer from doing ordinary things with their music.

Apple's music is unrestrictive DRM (2 Billion songs worth) you can even burn it to a Audio CD removing the DRM entirely.

We're not talking about zunes that let you share a song which expires after a few plays or a few days (which ever comes first.) Or windows media devices that require regular docking otherwise the music will cease to function. We're talking about the ability to legally download music and literally give it to any of 5 computer users. Or burn copies and spread them infinitely. Some kids use maybe two of their 5 licenses on other computers in the house, the rest usually go to their friends. (Legal or not, it still lets you.)

Side effect of being #1

[thatguywhoiam]

The fact that Apple is the #1 'DRM purveyor' is just a function of the fact that they are the #1 music download service. DRM was a condition absolutely insisted upon by the big record labels. You can argue as to whether or not DRM would have any kind of foothold as it does today were it not for iTMS, and its a valid argument. In the end, this too shall pass; you can't change physics and the old model must pass away eventually. (Kicking and screaming, as it turns out.)

DRM is not evil

[Thumper_SVX]

DRM is not inherently evil, but often implementations are troublesome or onerous.

I probably sound like an Apple apologist here, but to be honest I have no problem with the relatively weak DRM included on iTMS songs or movies. They don't prevent me from watching, they don't prevent me from copying (within reason) and I really believe that the DRM inherent in iTMS and by extension iTunes is not a problem.

OK, some people may have a huge problem with DRM philosophically. I must admit, I am not over the moon about the whole idea either but the DRM world is one that we are going to live in whether we like it or not. If we have to accept DRM, then it shouldn't be overly onerous. I think that Apple's implementations are as "consumer-friendly" as you're likely to find. They don't prevent me from using my purchased media, and I don't get the feeling that Apple can "turn off my music" at whim just becuase I changed my registered card number at iTMS. Besides, it's simple to work around with even lossless conversions. I know, I've converted stuff in the past... but generally my purchased iTMS music remains "DRM encumbered" and I have no problems sharing it with my wife's computer or my daughter's iPod as well as my own iPod. The only reason I sometimes convert said music is so I can put a copy on my MythTV box so I can have it when I want to play music on that.

All of course IMO.

Yes, BUT...

[headLITE]

So Apple is the biggest backer of DRM. But then, the DRM I get when I buy songs on iTunes still gives me more choice than the DRM that comes with some CDs these days. And it won't install root kits either. So maybe Apple's just the biggest backer because they're the only large company that uses a kind of DRM people don't mind to being subject to.

Apple may be the biggest purveyor...

[manonthemoon]

But it is also the entity responsible for the oncoming demise of DRM on digital music- or at least the non-FairPlay, non-Watermark variety. Why is Microsoft suddenly the biggest cheerleader for non-DRMed music? Because their obtuse and nasty version of DRM got flattened in the marketplace.

All the other DRM formats can't compete and so they are going to the labels and applying their utmost pressure to be able to release DRM free. The labels are listening because the alternative is ceding utter control of their future digital distribution to Apple.

Watermarking will end up being their common friend. The RIAA gets someone to sue and the online music stores get a format that plays on the iPod. I'm not sure watermarking gives me the warm fuzzies (in fact the whole idea gives me the willies), but it is the likely way for this to play out.

You don't get it.

[geekoid]

"(1) They control what hardware their OS will run on"

No, they control the software need to run the hardware they build.
Apple is a hardware company, always have been.

"(2) They often tried (though not recently) to control what OS(es) will run on their hardware"

No, they never helped some write software for there hardware, but they never tried to stop anyone either.

"(3) They tried to control who/what could put songs on their iPods"

No. They came out with a way to get music onto a hardware device they made. They have done nothing to stop the myriad of other software that can also be used to content onto the iPod.

"(4) They are trying to control what software can be Applied to their iPhones"

This has yet to be seen. I suspect this is an issue with American carriers, if itis true.

Apple doesn't really care what you do with the hardware you purchase.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Same here. And Apple phone also will never be found in my place ever. Just for this reason (and several others, like vendor lock-in).

Apple is just like M$ - however the fanbois want to distort that.

Now mod this down. And lets see how long the parent also stays at 0.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[slughead]

But since the advent of the iPod and iTunes, I have refused to buy anything from Apple just because of their support of DRM. I don't need my rights "managed", especially by a corporation.

I'm a mac user and I don't have any DRM'd files on my hard drive except iTMS TV shows. I have 80GB of music, all Mp3. Apple's mp3 encoder works really well, too.

DRM is only there if you want it there. It's not some dirty little secret like it is with the subscription services.

Most people are aware by now of the limitations they face with iTMS files, and yet it's the 4th biggest source of music worldwide (first for downloads).

DVDs can't be ripped with any software you can purchase, does that mean you don't buy or rent them? DRM isn't intrinsically bad, especially when you can just avoid buying DRM products.

Downfall of the iPod

[Itchyeyes]

I've always imagined that Apple's reluctance to open their iPod/iTunes environment up to third parties will eventually be the iPod's undoing. At the moment, consumer electronics are a mess. Everything is proprietary and nothing works together, much the same way PC's were back in the early 80's. It's only in these kinds of situations that Apple's closed culture really thrives.

Eventually, though, someone is going to get it when it comes to consumer electronics, much the same way Microsoft did with PC's. People like to give Microsoft a lot of crap about how they run their business, but forget the they did a lot of the legwork for making the PC a standardized environment.

Once the digital media market has matured, I imagine we'll look back on the days of the iPod much the same way we look back on the early days of Apple. Meanwhile, Apple will have moved on to another market segment and continue to do what they do best, innovate within a small, closed environment.

Consequences.

[ThePhilips]

First they argued to labels that the liberal DRM is needed - or consumers will not buy songs. Now the coin flipped and Apple wants DRM themselves since it is one of the reasons why people buy iPods - so they can use well-integrated iTMS.

Well, it is business as usual: they have made some sacrifices in past (like $0.70 label fee on every song sold) but now they just want to maintain the position iPod has gained in market.

If Apple resorts to such tactics, we may conclude that end of iPod's rein in market is looming. And Apple is feeling that: otherwise they wouldn't have resorted to such low tactics.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Nitage]

Don't forget that Apple have made no attempt to disable the 'Burn to CD then reimport' workaround. It seems as if they're paying lip-service to DRM in order to satisfy record companies, whilst making no attempt to implement a secure system.

Re:not likely

[Steve525]

apple supports DRM because they have to in order to be granted the right to sell media from various studios.

I have no doubt that Apple wouldn't have been able to start the iTunes store without including DRM to make the media companies happy. However, DRM now very much works to Apple's advantage. There's a great synergy between the iTunes store and the iPod. Some of this exsists simply because they are nice products that are designed to work together. However, DRM enforces this synergy because the iPod is the only music player that songs purchased from iTunes (easily) play on. So, once you buy songs from the iTunes store, you are stuck with the iPod as your portable player of choice, unless you want to go through the trouble of burning and re-ripping your files (or breaking the DRM some other way).

As long as iTunes is on top, Apple has no interest in getting rid of DRM. If another store with their own type of incapatible DRM becomes very successful, then you'll suddenly see Apple screaming about abolishing DRM. (This is probably the crux of TFA which I haven't had a chance to read, yet).

Re:I hate to point this out...

[Lazerf4rt]

Yea, really. There are two types of people who download from iTunes:

1. People who want to listen on their PC, their iPod, or a burned CD. They do that. No problem.
2. Nerdier, less scrupulous people who want to shuttle those downloads to other PCs, and need to bypass the DRM. Those people use MyTunes, hymn, dBpowerAMP or something. Or if they're less nerdy (or it's 2001), they burn a CD and rip it. No problem. Any geek knows there is no DRM solution good enough to stop those people anyway.

DRM is just a way to "sort of" protect the studios' interests. It turns out it works really well in iTunes. I've tried to explain to iPod users that they don't need to use the iTunes music store. They can download a torrent a put the MP3's on their iPod. But they're not usually interested. They say, "I'll just use the iTunes store". And they pay. It baffled me for a while, but hey, they're happy.

It's true that Apple is quietly making DRM work very well for them. It works for them, because nobody has any problem with it. And if nobody has any problem, there's no problem.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[vertinox]

I have refused to buy anything from Apple just because of their support of DRM. I don't need my rights "managed", especially by a corporation.

Funny. I have OS X, iTunes, and an iPod without a single bit of DRM on it.

Could it be that the only DRM that apple has is from their iTMS (iTunes Music Store) which I avoid like the plague.

Fairplay DRM isn't about protecting intellectual property as it is a vendor lock in to Apple products, but you can still own Apple products without DRM.

Nonsense!

[joshsnow]

I'm not even going to RTFM. Apple sells 2 billion DRM'd songs, ergo, Apple must be the biggest road block to removing DRM from electronically distributed goods? That's nonsense. It wouldn't be nonsense if Apple owned rights to what they're selling, but they don't - they're just the distributors. The DRM is a condition of being able to distribute. Take Apple out of the equation and you'll see what the RIAA really want - which is price differentiation (latest pop "hits" cost more than old stuff), music "rentals" (you never own what you buy) and a big slice of the revenue from every device sold for use to play or perform the digital content.

So far as I know, the DRM stops casual copying but is easily circumvented. It seems like a pragmatic solution to me and if people want to see real DRM, bring on the Microsofts, and Napsters of this world!

Re:I hate to point this out...

[ChrisWong]

The burn-to-CD-and-rerip workaround is not really a scalable workaround. For any significant music collection, you want to organize by the ubiquitous artist/album/track metadata. But you don't get that when you rip from a homebrew CD: all the CDDB tagging that we take for granted from commercial CDs won't be available. So you will have to enter them yourself: artist, album, track, for every single track that you rip. Either that, or live with a "Misc" folder of 672 files with informative names like "file00012848.mp3".

Re:yes and No

[MrHanky]

Then again, refusing to play straight mp3 songs is a recipe for failure in the mp3 player business. I was going to point out that none of Apples competitors did this either, but then I had a vague memory of Sony trying something like it a few years ago, when they still pushed ATRAC. I guess Ars Technica forgot about Sony since everything they touch turns to shit these days. Apple is the most successful backer of DRM, not the worst. I imagine that also makes them the biggest, but that doesn't make them the most loathsome.

People need to get real about Apple

[Budenny]

People need to get real about Apple. Much of this thread just consists of saying that when Apple does it, it doesn't count. It does count. Apple is the leading exponent in our industry of the customer lockin. Now, this makes things uncomfortable for the devotees, who realize that lockins and DRM are decidedly uncool and ethically very dubious, and associated with the arch enemy MS. So they spend a lot of their time in intellectual contortions trying to deny that Apple is what it is. It is a bit like trying to argue that the former Soviet Union was really very free and democratic. Same sort of silly contortions and denials. Facts:

1) OSX is not open source. Its as proprietary as Windows.

2) You still cannot buy a retail copy of OSX that will run on your shiny old MacIntel. You only get to buy either an upgrade or a retail pack for PPC. Can you think of any legitimate reason for this other than lockin?

3) Despite the fact that the MacIntel is a standard enough Intel box, Apple has gone to great lengths to lock OSX to only those Intel boxes that it has blessed with its logo. No technical reason, its pure lockin.

4) iTunes is a locked system. Yes, you do have to use the Apple software to buy an iTune, and then once you have it, you can't play it on another player without going through contortions and losing quality and maybe violating the DMCA. There is no reason to refuse to license fairplay other than a deliberate effort at consumer lockin.

5) Jobs did say, to the NY Times, that you won't be able to run your own software on the iPhone. The laugable reason given was to protect you and the cellular network. But it fits with all the rest. Its just about control and lockin. As is the taboo on unlocking it and moving it to another network.

Add it all together, and its not much different from MS in approach. The details vary, but the approach and the aim are identical. It stinks. What Apple people need to do is stop denying this. Stop justifying it on the grounds that it helps sell Macs. Of course it does, that is the entire point of lockins, to make you buy things you otherwise would not.

You may all like the fact that the trains run on time, but no, there are no elections and there never will be any. Just accept publicly that lockin is the price you are prepared to pay for your chosen platform and the prosperity of your chosen company. But don't tell the rest of us that black is really white, and there really is no lockin. There is, and it stinks.

And its not at all cool either.

Re:I hate to point this out...

[Hatta]

Apple DRM isn't exactly the strongest brand of DRM Goodness(tm).

It's still bad enough to be onerous. For example, I replaced someone's motherboard and reinstalled their operating system for them. This person had purchased iTunes songs several years ago. She still likes the songs, but hasn't dealt with apple for quite some time. So by now she doesn't know her login, or even what email address she used to log in. The result is that she cannot access her legally purchased iTunes songs.

She used to have the songs, now she doesn't. Apple has stolen from her in a way that is much more concrete than if she had "stolen" those songs through P2P.

Be it the little known loop hole of secretly burning off your music and re-ripping it into your favorite codec or the more nefarious path known as fair play.

It's hardly a useful loophole if it requires a physical CD (at $.25 a pop) and subjects it to a round of lossy transcoding. I can download FLACs from any pirate site and point oggenc at them and get nice quality oggs with all the tags seamlessly applied to the new oggs. Until I can do that with iTunes it's simply not an option.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Overly Critical Guy]

The only DRM you'll find is in purchases from iTunes, and they have to have that for record companies to play along. It's the fairest, most liberal DRM out there, and if you don't want it on your system, just don't buy from iTunes.

I've never gotten people like you who act like OS X is ridden with DRM the way Vista is. You don't have to deal with DRM whatsoever on a Mac if you don't want to.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Karlt1]

"All you need to do is spend $$$$$ to buy an "iTV" and then your problems are solved."

Or you could buy a $10 cable and plug the iPod directly up to your tv....

The Future Is Fabricated

[lotusleaf]

* "PERSONAL FABRICATION: A Talk with Neil Gershenfeld" [edge.org]

* Democratizing Innovation [fabathome.org]

Bring on the future, where things like fab@home [fabathome.org] are in every home, where people no longer have to wait for companies to develop products, the people as a community develop them together, with the same spirit/philosophy of FOSS.

I don't want a Win/Mac box, I don't care how easy either of them appear, I want a free and open source box and neither Win/Mac provide me with that freedom. Here's a brief article I recommend everyone read:

The Land of "Nothing for free" by Jeremy Allison [samba.org] .

The fact that our society today is filled with people who would rather consume than fiddle is one of the reasons why gas guzzling cars with proprietary internals are still used by the majority. Eventually this will all change as people will more easily be able to develop their own hardware themselves (think something like fab@home in every home) with free/open hardware designs shared and improved upon.

The question is: do you want to support the FOSS movement or do you want to support companies who provide closed source software? I don't care if hardware from Microsoft or Apple can run Linux, I don't want my money going to either company, period. If other people enjoy tinkering with said hardware, cool. I believe we all should (and will, eventually) be developing hardware on our own. Those who would respond with, "I don't care about all that, I just want X,Y,Z" are the focal point of blame. Unwind the philosophy from the person and the soul is nothing but another bag of peas to scan at the check stand for Company A,B,C.

It has been that way since the beginning

[iminplaya]

How many bootleg Macs do you see out there? It is this low piracy rate that has kept their marketshare so low. And if any of the others were really worried about piracy, they would employ Apple's and Avid's and Pro tools' methods of tying software to hardware. I'm not complaining about it, just pointing out that Apple has been very successful in this matter because they have always had DRM built into their hardware...er..software. How many of you are running OSX or OS9 or even 7.5 in a virtual machine on your linux boxes? And furthermore, how come Apple gets to keep their BIOS under IP lockdown when IBM had to give theirs up? They may treat other peoples' Imaginary Property rather lightly, but they protect their own with a very effective iron fist...so to speak :-)

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[LunaticTippy]

You've missed the point of TFA. There is a movement towards unencumbered mp3s in the digital music sales world and apple itunes store is the strongest force against this. Why are you talking about how the DRM is liberal? Why are you talking about Vista? Why are you talking about not needing DRM on a Mac?

Re:yes and No

[mkw87]

If you have to have DRM then Apple's is certainly better than anyone else's.

Thats the same as saying "well, if you have to fuck me in the ass, you might as well use the smallest dick". Well, personally, I don't like getting fucked in the ass. Why should I have to? Don't be such a sheep and give up your rights to music YOU PURCHASED. The digital media market is fucked up. You have the option to pay money to download a file you can't do everything you want with - or - you can download it for free and do whatever you want. Which one would you choose?

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[MoxFulder]

I like Apple's hardware too. They *do* design good products, even if they sometimes value form over function, and price them too high. But I hate how they take a cool product and totally lock it down so the user can't easily modify it.

This is a long trend for Apple... it started with "user friendliness" back in the 80s when the Mac floppy drives had no eject button, the monitor was built into the case, etc. Now it's gotten more insidious with DRM all over the place and vendor lock-in with the iPhone. I'm expecting the iPhone to flop given its high price, lock-in, and open alternatives based on Qt and GTK hitting the market around the same time.

Re:yes and No

[Divebus]

Boy. You said it, Chewie. It didn't take long for Apple (and everyone else) to figure out their own closed system would either lead to monopoly or failure. DRM is working for Apple in ways everyone else only hopes for.

As much as we hammer on DRM and such, the REAL broken thing here are the stupid DMCA and EUCD laws which sanction this kind of nonsense on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA (enough acronyms?). DRM in itself isn't bad because it attempts to get artists paid (a good thing). But you're absolutely right about how DRM inhibits what we think is our [dwindling] fair use and mobility of the files.

Most iPod owners have no clue about the DRM restrictions and therefore it works, so motivating a nation to demand open source DRM is out. There has to be a better way.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[OldeTimeGeek]

I they are using insidious DRM technologies, how can you opt out of using them.

You opt out by not buying anything from iTunes.

The choice is never going to be as simple as: "DRM? click 'y' or 'n'". Apple has clearly said what can and can't be done with items purchased from their store. Nobody's forcing you to buy their stuff - if you don't agree, opt out by getting your music somewhere else.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Sosigenes]

"The only DRM you'll find is in purchases from iTunes, and they have to have that for record companies to play along. It's the fairest, most liberal DRM out there, and if you don't want it on your system, just don't buy from iTunes."

I keep on seeing quotes such as this, and can't help but wonder if I'm failing to see something. Microsoft licenses their DRM so that DRM protected windows media files can be played in different players, different portable devices and other devices, wheras with Apple, you're pretty much tied into Apple products - seems more restrictive to me.

Before I knew better, I made use of Napster (new napster) and purchased a few files and wanted to find a media player that would support it, and I had quite a large amount of choice - more fair and liberal than Apple's DRM, I would say, although this was just my opinion as a consumer - I notably had much more choice and freedom than I would have had I gone with Apple.

Plus, I don't see how you can excuse Apple's DRM because you can burn it to a CD and rip it (which if you have a big music collection wastes a lot of time which doesn't need to be wasted!) and again, this doesn't work for videos, only music. If you're going to say that Apple's DRM is liberal and free because of this, so is most DRM (currently), you can burn to a CD, or rip the output - still unnecessary hassle, but Apple isn't the golden example to free and easy DRM compared to everyone else.

As has already been said - DRM is not about protecting piracy, it's all about control. What is worrying is that Apple being the biggest proponent of DRM and being a company which likes control (other companies too, not just Apple), I fear things can only get worse.

Re:I hate to point this out...

[Hatta]

Losing your account information is equivalent to losing the keys to your car or losing the CDs you purchased.

But it's not. As I already said, she had the files on a disc which she didn't lose. It's a lot easier to forget arbitrary strings of characters than it is to lose a physical object. I still have my CD collection from high school, I don't have any of my old email addresses or remember any website login information from that long ago.

Besides the requirement for login information is a completely arbitrary one. It's a hoop you just shouldn't have to jump through. There's no good reason for it. I benefit from the added security of having to unlock my car before using it. I don't benefit at all form having to unlock music before using it.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[fyngyrz]

I don't quite follow you here, although I agree about the DRM.

I don't support DRM, but I do support Apple. Why? Because they made it easy - even trivial - to not go the DRM route. Just like .Mac, you can use it, or not -- your choice. I simply buy CDs, import them into iTunes, and then I have the songs I want, in high fidelity, unprotected (I can copy them anywhere, and I do -- into my Palm, into my PSP, onto my other computers), and managed by iTunes which is a great audio library management system as well as a decent playback machine.

The DRM that Apple supports is consumer chosen and if anyone has a beef, it is with the fact that consumers are not as well informed as they should be about the issues. But Apple does not force anyone to use DRM. That's a gold-plated fact.

Now, you compare this behavior with Microsoft. As a musician, my concerns about fidelity and rights and restrictions are fairly wide-ranging. Vista, Microsoft's new OS, will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, it didn't come from someone who has made some sort of agreement with Microsoft. So I can create high fidelity works, try t play them back in Vista, and it will intentionally screw them up on playback. Now that is the kind of rights-related behavior we should be concerned about.

Don't support Apple's model for selling tracks? Simple: Don't buy from them. No one is making you do so, and opting out of the Apple music store in no way inconveniences you, in no way degrades your experience in audio terms, in no way limits how you can use the iTunes software. The fact is, if no one buys protected tracks (just follow my lead, I don't!) then the iTunes store will change or disappear. Until or unless Apple forces some restriction (or more than one) on non-protected tracks, these complaints are mostly pointless harping on a company that is letting you do it your way. Unlike Microsoft.

Re:I hate to point this out...

[Hatta]

There is a great benefit for it, which I stated before. One of the things I've heard people moan about is having to rebuy their CDs when one is lost. With ITMS anything you buy is now attached to your account (by way of DRM). You now basically permanently own that song.

That has nothing to do with encryption and everything to do with identification. eMusic [emusic.com], for instance, has no DRM and allows you to re-download everything you've bought from them as many times as you like. Locking up music behind encryption provides NO benefit whatsoever to the consumer.

Why don't you help your friend and tell her to call apple so she can re-activate her songs instead of trying to push your itms, apple sucks agenda on her.

I'm not. She's the one who feels cheated. The look of surprise and disgust on her face was priceless. That's the best way to educate people about the evils of DRM, let it bite them on the ass and they'll learn soon enough.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[doom]

fyngyrz wrote:

I don't support DRM, but I do support Apple. Why? Because they made it easy - even trivial - to not go the DRM route.

I know other people who've gone that route, and I think it's short-sighted. If you buy an iPod because you figure you'll just put regular mp3s on it, you still end up supporting the marketing of a device that embraces DRM. The Clueless User looks at you, the Computer Expert, and sees that even you are using an iPod.

If you're not going to use the iStore, don't buy an iPod. There are other alternatives out there.

Re:Why Apple gains little from DRM

[3choTh1s]

Most of what you say is both interesting and correct but

I'll set forth my own opinion: Apple gains nothing from DRM. Apple makes its money selling hardware, like iPods and Macs. Nobody credible believes that Apple is making much, if any, money from the iTunes music store. Instead, it seems the iTMS exists for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so Apple can sell more iPods.

that's a little silly don't you think. Using these statistics http://cmichae.acm.jhu.edu/blog/articles/apple-itu nes-sales-statistics/ [jhu.edu] and saying that iTMS makes about 35 cents per download equates to roughly $1,000,000 PER DAY. But lets just short change them quite a bit and say they make just 10 cents per download. that's still $300,000 per day and $9,000,000 per month and that's without any sort of physical store to take care of, and low balling them quite a bit. So to say they don't have a vested interest in having DRM in their music or trying to create vendor lock-in is a little short sighted.

Re:I hate to point this out...

[Hatta]

The thing is that they have probably the best form of DRM out there right now.

That's like saying the US has the nicest form of torture out there.

The history of file sharing has shown the music companies that releasing files w/o some sort of protection won't work.

Actually it will work. eMusic, magnatune, Bleep, and the like prove it. What won't work is trying to keep a monopoly stranglehold on the music industry. That is what you are supporting when you make that compromise.

I'm sure you told her that apple was evil and left out the part that all she probably needed to do was call them and all her music would be restored.

I said something like "yeah, I could have told you that. You might be able to get them back if you email someone at apple, but I don't know for sure." At which point she said "ugh, maybe I'll do it later." I honestly didn't know for sure because I'd never buy anything with DRM in the first place. I might try to call apple this weekend just to see how easy it is though. I've got to call Microsoft too. Funny that WGA is about as restrictive as apples DRM, yet I don't think you'll see many slashdotters defending it.

Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple.

[Technician]

It's first in LEGAL downloads fourth over all in LEGAL ways to obtain music.

Thanks for noticing. If another legal source sold MP3's from the same catalog at the same price next to the DRM stuff for the rest of us to buy, do you think Apple would be the number one in legal downloads. They are there simply because there is no mainstream non-DRM MP3 downloads. Many people unable to find compatible music for MP3 players (including car decks and DVD players that play MP3 CD's) and use the only sources of compatible music in existance. There is no LEGAL alternative for mainstream music in MP3 format. The closest is iTunes where you burn a CD then rip it at an additional expense of money, time, and quality.

Show me the Legal mainstream MP3 download service and I'll show you what will take Apple's business.