Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer 400
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't quite follow you here, although I agree about the DRM.
it started with "user friendliness" back in the 80s
This seems different than locking down a product to prevent modification... did you mean to link this to the fact that their products used to be expensive, and value form over features?
when the Mac floppy drives had no eject button,
4 ways to eject: Special->Eject Disk, drag to trash (I know, horrible metaphor), press the Eject Disk button in dialog boxe
Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
fyngyrz wrote:
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 i
Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you write; the same thing applies to people refusing Vista because it contains DRM. It's not like one is forced to use the technology in any way. I do have a little problem with this bit though:
DRM isn't any more of a "dirty secret" in subscription services than it is in iTMS, I'm afraid. In both cases, the restrictions are clear (arguably they're more clear in th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You must have missed the chapter on the internet regarding cable TV, PVR, and Windows Media Player 11 on Vista and Windows Media Player 8 on Windows 2K.
Hint, one of them simply displays the words Protected Content instead of recording and playing back the movie.
Both tests were done on the same movie.
It's no longer an option.
I'm too lazy to look up the link of the review, but a se
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
Preferences -> Advanced -> Setting: -> Custom
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TiVo - meh. I thought they were great at first but couldn't afford or rationalize them, and by the time I could my cable company was alre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 comp
Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's why I don't buy from Apple. (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that Apple have made no attempt to disable the 'Burn to CD then reimport' workaround
True, but there's no equivalent for DVDs, unfortunately. That's why I buy tunes on iTMS but not vids.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could buy a $10 cable and plug the iPod directly up to your tv....
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that Apple have made no attempt to disable the 'Burn to CD then reimport' workaround.
Yes, but it would be impossible to disable it unless you disabled burning and importing CDs. Sure, iTunes could refuse to burn DRMed tunes, but if your sound card can play it, any other application can pick it up and record it. As to importing, once the tunes are on the CD, it's just an audio CD with no traces of DRM, so there'd be no way to prevent reimporting it anyway. So I wouldn't say Apple is doing so
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pre
yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The only DRM is in media purchased through the iTunes Store (which, BTW, is set at a consistent price). For songs, you can burn them to a CD (thus creating a physical backup at the same time), rip that CD back to a choice of DRM-free formats (including MP3), and then use that DRM-free MP3 file to put it on any bloody device or machine you want.
Granted, that's not complete and absolute freedom of choice, but it's not ba
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a big difference between stating "buying music online legally", versus the more specific "I want DRM music from another vendor to work on my iPod." A large variety of music works on the iP
Re:yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yes Yes Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple put in DRM to reassure the music companies, but now it is working to their advantage. The music companies are probably regretting mandating DRM now because Apple is such a strong force in music because of this, that they can strongarm the RIAA into
Independent music on iTMS (Score:5, Informative)
Their payout rates to artists are as good or better than other services, as I discussed elsewhere [livejournal.com].
So while no-DRM would be ideal, Apple's approach isn't unfriendly to indie musicians.
Downfall of the iPod (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
That's the problem. (Score:2)
Today, Apple's DRM may not feel so restrictive but it's an illusion. You can end run the DRM by burning a CD and reencoding the music with a minimal loss of quality. Apple has even reached out to be the new gatekeeper of massive sales for musicians. Compared to the analog past, it's not such a huge loss. Compared to the digital future, it's a travesty. Even people from the analog past can gripe about being required to buy a branded music player because they are used to things just working from any ha
How about Apple TV (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about Apple TV (Score:4, Informative)
"Video formats supported: H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store)"
No mpeg2, divx or anything else... so it's clear they don't want you using videos from anywhere else. Pure h264 videos are rather hard to get at the moment.
It really wouldn't suprise me if the DVI was HDCP enabled - in fact the content providers will probably insist.
Re: (Score:2)
DVD + Mac The Ripper + Handbrake.
Re: (Score:2)
Just another reason to get a real Mac Mini and use that instead of an iTV. Then you get a nice home server and the possibility of DVR functionality with the right add-ons.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DRM doesn't affect image scaling at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I hate to point this out... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, really. There are two types of people who download from iTunes:
DRM is just a way
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate to point this out... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 arbi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 app
"might not be the one you suspect" (Score:4, Insightful)
(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.
You don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't really care what you do with the hardware you purchase.
To a certain extent, if you do something non sanctioned and then expect support then they do care. But yeah you're right.
Apple isn't wholly a hardware or software company - that's looking at their business in PC terms. They are an "experience" company, i would have said computer but they seemed to have dropped that. OSX is a value-add and integral part of the product they offer; they aren't in the same business as say Dell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple are NOT a hardware company. They're an "experience" company. They package together hardware and software, and through the wonder of synergy, sell a box that does a lot, for a price that is a lot. That's what apple does. It's not about hardware OR software.
Because they sell experiences, they have to control what goes on as much as a marketing agency controls what goes on in adverts - and for the same reason - brand protection. They need to ooze the feeling that you're getting so much more with Ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Apple have to change their name to "Apple Digital Entertainment" before you people will realize that Apple is not a computer hardware company anymore. One would think that the change to "Apple, Inc." would give people a clue, but apparently not.
The original poster's statement is accurate. OS X has the capability of running on hardware othe
Re: (Score:2)
(1) They control what hardware their OS will run on
Of course they do. As another poster mentioned, Apple is a hardware company - I see nothing evil or abusive about ensuring that OSX only runs on Apple hardware. It is also crucial to their reputation as a company that OSX only runs on supported hardware - Apple has seen the gigantic can of worms that MS opened by allowing OEM hardware on Windows. They want their system to be stable and speedy, without legacy HW support bloating, and controlling your har
not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
But the laziest DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
YES! We know there's a small reduction in quality.
Even though they have DRM, they aren't doing it totally for the RIAA. They have a business model that kind of works:
In reality, it's still the record labels that are in the biggest way of DRM and their legal rabbit the RIAA. The recent russian site that closed did send royalty checks to RIAA, but they never cashed them.
Systems are in place, but it's the industry that holds it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But the laziest DRM (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to correct your spelling (segue), but actually considering the very low percentage of songs on most peoples iPods that are actually bought from iTunes, I think you've coined a useful and appropriate new verb.
v. segway - to segway: to vastly underperform based on high initial expectations
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should add: "syn. Vista, Zune, Danica"
When DRM free music is priced correctly (Score:2)
Allofmp3 showed the path, is the riaa going to take the red pill or the blue pill?
My personal price range is 25 cents a song.
Talk about sensationalism, (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs has DRM because the industry insisted. He told them it won't work, he knows it doesn't work, but he has to have something to sell music.
Jobs didn't want his hardware cikkuted, and from a technical standpoint(as opposed to market) he was right. Look how diluted, crapy, and bloated the PC is.
It seems he did learn a lesson, and is being a lot more caref
Re: (Score:2)
Get it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Side effect of being #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a choice in DRM today (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't like DRM then become a DRM-free producer. You'll be a more effective leader by walking that walk than you will by being a harping critic who takes no action.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean besides not having millions of dollars to spend to produce and distribute that hit movie? Well, not having the talent to do so. But other than that...
Of course, to you a "hit movie" is probably something that's gotten more than 100 views on youtube. Those of us more grounded in reality might have a different definition of "hit".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than having $1,000,000 (almost nothing in Hollywood terms) and no access to the distribution stream needed to get a movie into theatres? Not at all. . .
I'm not actually disagreeing with you, only pointing out what I see as a fallacy in your argument. Making the actual movie, assuming one has money, talent and time, is not actually the hard part. The hard part is getting the movie into theatres aroun
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is not evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use Linux as my main desktop OS. Enough said.
So did I until 6 months ago. Part of the reason I changed? Because I accept the fact that we're going to live in a DRM world. There's nothing stopping someone from writing a DRM playback client for Linux using (gasp, shock, horror) a binary playback module developed by Apple. The purists who hate the idea of binary-only code in Linux are the ones who are going to kill it as a desktop. The average user doesn't give a monkeys, they just want to play back their media. You may point out that Apple hasn't produ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments are all valid... and I agree with you. Good philosophy. Sorry, I wasn't trying to "tar you with the brush" of being a Linux zealot... I was making a general comment. That probably didn't come out well in my verbage, though
I wasn't aware of the petition. Thing about petitions though is that they're only effective if they're bought to the attention of those who can make decisions... so
Re: (Score:2)
Enough said, indeed. You made the choice of using Linux; I can't imagine how it could be considered a de facto standard in computing purchases. As part of that choice, you also chose not to use iTunes, Microsoft Office, and a lot of other software that is not available to the platform. Just as I did when I chose OS X.
So, if anyone is preventing you from watching, it's you. But that's okay: it's your choice and your ri
Yes, BUT... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Apple may be the biggest purveyor... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would we not expect this? (Score:2)
Apple is well respected for design and, well, just for being a cool brand, but no one has ever associated Apple and openness. Apple is THE closed, proprietary, system. Being the big backer of DRM is completely consistent for them so I'm not sure why the summary suggests that we should be surprised.
Consequences. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
emusic.com (Score:2)
I've been very happy with emusic.com [emusic.com], which offers a growing catalog of music, prices that are about 1/3 of Apple's, and completely unrestricted MP3 files.
Sure you won't find top 40 dreck at emusic.com, but if your tastes are the least bit adventurous there's a lot of great music at reasonable prices.
Bill Evans, Thelonius Monk, Lucind
So what? (Score:2)
As the article points out, Apple is neither pro-DRM or anti-DRM. I think FairPlay is just a means to an end for Apple: Apple wanted more sales of their iPods. One way to do it is to make it easy for individuals to purchase music online. If Apple wanted online music distribution, Apple had to work with the music distributors and develop a system that they would permit. FairPlay was/is a compromise. The DRM is restrictive enough not to allow wholesale piracy but not so restrictive as to trample over fai
Re: (Score:2)
Why Apple gains little from DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Therefore, in economic terms, music is the complement to the iPod: the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. It's in Apple's interest to ensure there is as much digital music out there as possible. DRM in the iTMS is merely a means to an end, in that it makes it possible for Apple to sell downloads in an easy-to-use, legal product. I don't mean that DRM makes it *technically* possible, because of course Apple could sell DRM free MP3s. It makes it possible from a *business* perspective, as the labels would cry bloody murder if Apple sold DRM free MP3s in its easy-to-use store.
Because the DRM exists ultimately for the convenience of Apple's customers--that is, so they can download music from an easy-to-use store--Apple doesn't care about the DRM. They just want the music to be easily available in an easy-to-use store (P2P services are not nearly as usable as the iTMS.) Prices at the iTMS are relatively high, considering what ALLOFMP3 is selling music for. But Apple isn't making much money here. Apple would be better off without the DRM, if it could get away with that, and with cheap prices--remember, the more music that's out there, the more iPods Apple sells. More music also would drive appetites for bigger capacity iPods, thus driving sales for newer models.
I think the evidence shows that Apple realizes that DRM benefits it little and that DRM hinders its customers, thus ultimately reducing the sales of iPods. Apple does not license its DRM scheme to other players. I think part of the reason for that is because Apple realizes that it would not benefit from having an industry standard DRM scheme. Such a scheme would keep music prices high, which would mean that customers would have less money to spend on iPods and less music to put on them.
Also, look at the weakness of the iTunes DRM. Burn to a CD, rip it back. It's a well-known hole. Apple has done nothing to close it (unlike Microsoft, which has attempted to implement digital watermark schemes) because Apple doesn't want the DRM to be a hassle. They only have the DRM to placate the labels, and the DRM works well enough for this purpose. This hole is a hassle for customers, though. I think Apple would prefer no DRM at all.
I realized all this when I heard of the lawsuits of people complaining that the iPod is not interoperable. That's absurdity. The iPod plays MP3, the most universal music format there is. The iPod is interoperable with any store that sells MP3s. It's not Apple's fault that the other music stores (except the brilliant ALLOFMP3, along with other players like Magnatune and eMusic) are selling music encumbered with Windows DRM. If Apple were truly interested in locking people in with DRM, then Apple would make their music players play ONLY Apple DRM-locked files.
TFA says "The lock-in afforded by FairPlay creates an Apple ecosystem that essentially ties the iPod to iTunes and to Apple, at least for commercial transactions." That's equally absurd. There is an ecosystem between iPod and iTunes, making them easy to use together. That certainly benefits Apple. However, FairPlay is not creating the lock-in. The majority of music in most people's iTunes collections are ripped from CDs or are downloaded through means other than the iTMS. If Apple sold unencumbered MP3s in its store, then there would still be an easy-to-use Apple ecosystem. The purpose of the ecosystem is to sell more iPods, not to lock people in to a DRM scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
But looking to the future, Apple's DRM very much works to their advantage. For instance...
Let's say you are Microsoft or Creative and you want to sell a portable player to compete with the iPod. What? Your player won't (easily) play all the music everyone's bought on iTunes? You're SOL.
Let's say you are Amazon o
Once again, repeat after me... (Score:2)
Nonsense! (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
People need to get real about Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Finally... (Score:2)
- DRM is a fad
- Apple loves DRM
Reality Bites the Industry? (Score:2)
What I found interesting in this submission is that there seems to be a grudging admission by the record companies (not RIAA) that DRM is now hurting their bottom line. It hasn't hit the motion picture and some book publishing executives yet, but it might in time.
If anything, the sales figures are proving that RIAA was talking through its hat all along. Yes, I know, obvious to everyone on Slashdot, but sometimes reality has to slap executives around for a few years before the message gets through.
Sounds silly. How does Apple benefit from DRM? (Score:2)
The only apparent benefit I can see to Apple from DRM would be if Apple somehow used it for prevent iPod owners from getting music anywhere else but the iTunes store. But Apple doesn't do this.
Why wouldn't Apple be perfectly happy to sell UNprotected AAC's or MP3's through the iTune store if the music publishers would let them? (Heck, it might even reduce the load on their servers, since I believe the FairPlay DRM has to be embedded into the file on-the-fly uniq