Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma

An anonymous reader writes "Understanding how Apple's FairPlay DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Apple isn't broadly licensing FairPlay, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to iTunes."

Cracked?

[JimXugle]

Hasen't FairPlay been cracked yet?

Re:

[peragrin]

Only up to version 5. versions 5-7 of iTunes are still immune. The problem lies in the fair play license keys are a lot harder to decrypt and use now.

Re:Cracked?

[BradleyUffner]

QTFairUse works just fine on the newest versions of iTunes (unless there has been a new verison in the last week). It even works perfectly on a 64-bit Vista installation, which was a little shocking because I thought it worked by hooking into memory.

Re:Cracked?

[shmlco]

All QTFairUse does is extract an unprotected audio stream from iTunes. As such, any song extracted has to one purchased by you, and your iTunes player has to be authorized to play it.

In short, it's a far cry from being able to crack the DRM on any iTMS file, from any source.

Since iTunes already lets you make an unprotected CD of the music you bought, the only thing QTFairUse really does is let you save to disk instead of CD.

Wow.

Yeah, they've made a "fool" of Apple's DRM...

Re:

[Professor_UNIX]

Since iTunes already lets you make an unprotected CD of the music you bought, the only thing QTFairUse really does is let you save to disk instead of CD.

But that's all legitimate people want to do! I want to take my legally purchased music and strip off the DRM so I can convert it to MP3s that will play on all my other equipment. Why force legitimate customers to jump through the hoops of burning a CD and then re-ripping it into an unprotected format? Just make a damn "convert to MP3" option in iTunes t

Re:

[imsabbel]

Sorry, i DONT WANT to reencode something to mp3 from a 128 kbit source. (especially between different algoithms. Artefacts have the nasty habbit to get amplified by the different psychoaccustic models).

To crack the DRM, i would expect the program to decrypt the file, without transcoding it.

Re:Cracked?

[bri2000]

Or have entirely filled all their CD storage units, have literally no room for any more and have reached the conclussion that the production values of 99% of the popular music recorded today are so low that the compression doesn't make much difference (the only album I've downloaded from iTMS in the last year that I felt was recorded well enough for me to go buy the CD as well is Ys by Joanna Newsom). I am not very satisfied by this compromise, however, and agree that, given the the prices iTMS charges, all songs should be available as lossless (and be easily convertable to lower bit rates for transfer to your iPod). It's very irritating when an album (and this is especially true for old albums, at least in the UK) is actually cheaper on CD then from iTMS.

Open DRM?

[Watson Ladd]

How can you have open DRM? Doesn't that mean that anyone can make a program use it and then not put restrictions on the user? And isn't the point of DRM to be obscure and inscrutable by all but the most dedicated?

Re:

[cybereal]

The same way you have open encryption schemes of any variety.

Without divulging all the details, just consider the open encryption methods involved in OpenPGP or GPG or anything comparable.

Being open does not mean being limited. It just means that it's standardized in such a way that anyone can implement one side or the other without consent or license to the owner of the technology.

Also don't forget about DReaM!

Re:Open DRM?

[CastrTroy]

Except DRM isn't encryption, because the attacker and the receiver are the same person. You can't compare open encryption to open DRM, because Encryption assumes the key doesn't fall into the hands of the attacker. DRM relies on the fact that the attacker (user) has the key, but that it is obscured somehow. If you made an open source DRM program, it would be trivially easy to edit the program to output the key to a text file, or take the decrypted music and output it to a wav file instead of playing it over the speakers.

Re:

[poopdeville]

No, he's saying that the classical encryption model (Alice, Bob, and Carlos with his perv stash) doesn't apply to DRM schemes. DVDs are clearly encrypted. The content maker's assumption when modelling this encryption scheme are that the DVD and the DVD player together make up Alice, and that Bob is the viewer. But Bob, as a matter of fact, has complete control over Alice. Hence we get crap like trusted computing, in an attempt to keep Alice's and Bob's roles distinct.

Re:

[Eivind]

Except, with DRM the intended recipient and the attacker you want to hide the content from is one and the same person, which changes the game from normal encryption to mathemathically impossible bullshit.

Mallory, having bougth a copyrigthed work should be able to decrypt the content if the purpose is displaying on a screen. (thus he must be in posession of all needed knowledge, including any keys).

Mallory, having bougth a copyrigthed work, should be *unable* to decrypt the content if the purpose is stor

Re:

[ejdmoo]

WMA DRM is pretty open, as far as DRM goes. Anyone can be a content provider and put restrictions on stuff. Except for the Zune, which is locked into its own "experience," any device/app supporting WMA DRM can play content from any provider.

Re:

[mgiuca]

You can't. DRM relies solely on "security through obscurity," long considered a "false" security by security experts.

Surprise: No DRM has ever survived being cracked.

Re:Open DRM?

[vought]

and that iTunes copy of "I like big butts" you bought will play on all mp3 players except the Zune.

The song is called "Baby Got Back", you insensitive clod!

Re:

[Phroggy]

Best remake EVER [jonathancoulton.com]

Re:

[JoshJ]

Plain text that would cost them billions to decrypt unless they've got a working quantum computer. You're prematurely paranoid.

obvious

[User 956]

Understanding how Apple's FairPlay DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Apple isn't broadly licensing FairPlay, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to iTunes.

Because the DRM locks people into iTunes + ipod [usatoday.com], and locks out competition. Why do you think they're keeping it?

Re:obvious

[avalys]

Steve Jobs has publicly stated [apple.com] that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.

Re:obvious

[AHumbleOpinion]

Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.

Translation #1: Now that iPod monopolizes the digital music player market we no longer need the "loss leader" iTMS sales. iTMS has accomplished its mission of pumping up iPod sales. Now it can transition to a new role, perhaps even become a profit center.

Translation #2: "Europe" wants to force us to license fair play to others, lets start a FUD/PR campaign and "play the victim"; blame our product's lack of interoperability on the recording industry. It doesn't matter that we ask for something unrealistic, it makes us look like heroes, and give politicians an out after our lobbyists visit them.

Re:obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

"Translation #1: Now that iPod monopolizes the digital music player market we no longer need the "loss leader" iTMS sales. iTMS has accomplished its mission of pumping up iPod sales. Now it can transition to a new role, perhaps even become a profit center.

Exactly how does iTMS drive iPod sales?

We are talking only about 20 songs sold for every iPod sold so far to date. If you say that some folks have purchased multiple iPods or replaced iPods over time ... lets say 5 iPods per person for the fun of it... you still are only talking on average 100 songs per iPod owner. With numbers like that it is hard to state that iTMS sales have driven iPod sales in any radical fashion (not much of an investment lock in)... sure it helps but it would be hard to state it helps in any signification amount compared to the other factors involved (xplat device, iTunes software integration, etc.).

Also the iPod was rapidly ramping up in unit volumes before the iTMS ever came on the scene.

Re:

[Phroggy]

Exactly how does iTMS drive iPod sales?

Simple: some people want the convenience of being able to buy music online. Assuming Apple didn't license Microsoft's WMA DRM, if the iTMS didn't exist, it would not be possible for iPod users to play music they bought online, thus making the iPod less attractive to people who want to be able to buy music online.

*sigh*

[Phil Urich]

Steve Jobs has publicly stated that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.

Translation #1: Now that iPod monopolizes the digital music player market we no longer need the "loss leader" iTMS sales. iTMS has accomplished its mission of pumping up iPod sales. Now it can transition to a new role, perhaps even become a profit center.

Translation #2: "Europe" wants to force us to license fair play to others, lets start a FUD/PR campaign and "play the victim"; blame our product's lack of interoperability on the recording industry. It doesn't matter that we ask for something unrealistic, it makes us look like heroes, and give politicians an out after our lobbyists visit them.

Exactly. The reality is that Steve Jobs is a relentless, pragmatic businessman; as I once read someone commenting, the fact that he does it in a way that people love him for it doesn't make him less of a pure businessman and marketer, it shows how good he is at it. So good that people can't bring themselves to believe it, and mod rather astute comments like Parent here as "Troll".

Re:obvious

[limecat4eva]

He spoke out against DRM back when the iTunes Music Store was first introduced. Can't find the exact quote right now (since Google's polluted with detritus about the latest brouhaha), but he basically acknowledged that some of the smartest people on the planet knew that DRM was a futile effort and that the record companies were too shortsighted to give a damn about the end-user experience. Can't let that get in the way of a good anti-Apple rant, though, can we?

Re:obvious

[j-beda]

Steve Jobs has publicly stated [apple.com] that the DRM is there only because the record industry demands it, and that if the record industry would allow DRM-free music sales, Apple would remove the DRM from the iTunes Store.

There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not have the DRM (ie various independent label works), yet it all does. This might indicate that Apple does indeed desire to use DRM wider than Jobs' statement would seem to indicate.

Re:obvious

[dr.badass]

There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not have the DRM (ie various independent label works), yet it all does

There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not be in 128kbps AAC and cost $0.99 per track, yet it all does. It all stems from the fact that Apple gives one deal to all the independent labels, no negotiation.

Also consider that any label that doesn't want to use DRM can either stop selling at iTunes (an often ignored option) or sell DRM-free elsewhere.

Re:

[ucblockhead]

Or it could be that the big studios required Apple to put DRM on all songs regardless to avoid having to compete with DRM-free music.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Shihar]

[quote]Or it could be that the big studios required Apple to put DRM on all songs regardless to avoid having to compete with DRM-free music.[/quote]

It could be, but it isn't. If they did, Apple could just merrily role their eyes and just hand over the contract that states they need to DRM all music, even music not owned by the record labels negotiating to the contract, to anti-trust lawyers and get whatever they want.

Apple's excuse for DRMing indie labels that don't want it is that 'it is hard' and it might open up 'exploits'. Yeah, they some how can magically offer up non-DRMed podcasts, but indie songs... well, that is just too hard.

Despite Jobs PR stunt, then reason why Apple has DRM is because it helps Apple. People, it isn't like this is new strategy on Apple's part. There is a reason why you can't install a Mac OS onto a non-Mac (without some serious hacking). It isn't because some evil computer equivalent to the RIAA forces them to demand that their hardware and software come bundled. Apple bundles hardware, software, and content because it is good for their business and locks people into their products. If you can't pull the two apart, it means that you have to throw out the entire package in order to replace it with a competitor.

Seriously people, open your eyes. It isn't like this is some new Apple strategy. This is the same old thing they have been doing for two decades. The only reason why Jobs is spouting off is because A) it is good PR and B) he knows there is not a slim chance in hell the RIAA will relent from their position. It is really safe to declare that you want a DRM free world, even if you don't, when you know that the powers that be will never let this DRM free world come to pass.

Re:

[forel]

You know, of course, that Apple doesn't "offer up" non-DRMed podcasts - none of the podcasts you can subscribe to through iTunes are hosted on Apple's servers. iTunes simply puts all the feeds in one place and provides a simple interface to automatically download them from the podcast host sites on a regular basis. So the point that Apple could offer indie tracks without DRM just as easily is not valid.

I'd also ask if you read the R'dTFA, since it counters your points well, but... of course, this is Slashdo

Re:

[Arker]

It could be, but it isn't. If they did, Apple could just merrily role their eyes and just hand over the contract that states they need to DRM all music, even music not owned by the record labels negotiating to the contract, to anti-trust lawyers and get whatever they want.

No, that wouldn't work. If they signed such a contract, and its requirements were found to violate anti-trust law, the contract would in no way constitute a defense against anti-trust law.

Re:

[Phat_Tony]

Apple believes they sell superior hardware. Apple believes they sell superior software. If follows, if these things are true, and you ignore any mitigating factors, that Apple stands to make the most money by decoupling the sales of these things. Break down barriers to entry for your superior products. Let PC users buy the superior OSX without having to invest in Apple hardware at the same time. Let Windows users buy superior Mac hardware to run Windows. Let people who want the best of both buy Macs and run

Re:

[Dhalka226]

And as we all know, public statements are legally binding oral--

--wait, no they're not.

Maybe he's serious and hated DRM all along; maybe he's serious and just thinks iTunes is big enough that they don't need it anymore. Maybe he's not serious at all, and is just try to score PR points by espousing a position he either doesn't care about or doesn't think will ever come about. Or maybe he's saying one thing in public and another in private in an attempt to ensure that no matter which way things ultimate

Re:

[LarsG]

One of the hallmarks of a great salesman is the ability to frame the debate.

Re:obvious

[SEE]

RIAA didn't care at all that RealNetworks was selling DRMed tunes that played on the iPod. If they had, they would have withdrawn their tracks from the RealPlayer Music Store. The only thing that Harmony did was break the iPod-iTMS legal downloads lock-in, and the only party negatively affected by such a break was Apple.

Apple, of course, turned around and denounced Real for breaking the lock-in, changed the firmware on the iPod to deliberately break Harmony, and thus restored the iPod-iTMS lock-in.

Of course, now that some countries are pointing out that their laws prohibit such lock-in, so Steve Jobs is claiming that RIAA and technical limitations are the problem. This is a maneuver technically known as "lying your ass off."

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

[1] Yes, I know some OS X programs are AES encrypted so they won't run on generic hardware

Then why the fuck did you say "Witness the lack of DRM on all but the most expensive Apple software"?

Re:obvious

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Uh, because before the transition to Intel Macs, OS X didn't have encrypted binaries. Ignoring the 20+ year history of non-DRM is

Unbelievably fucking stupid. Apple had no reason to use DRM for 20 years. They weren't 1) Selling Music & 2) Selling software that could run on standard PC hardware.

They don't stop legitimate users from doing anything they'd like

Bullshit. Plenty of developers out there would love to legally run os x under vmware (with a properly purchase license).

Your link defeats your post

[Infonaut]

Because the DRM locks people into iTunes + ipod, and locks out competition. Why do you think they're keeping it?

If that were true, eMusic wouldn't be so successfully riding on the iPod's coattails, would it?

I know why Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay

[Lallander]

but it does still puzzle me why they don't allow artists to opt out of having DRM applied to their work. Hopefully we will see that change in the near future.

Re:

[AHumbleOpinion]

but it does still puzzle me why they don't allow artists to opt out of having DRM applied to their work. Hopefully we will see that change in the near future.

The reason is that the stores reason for existence is to pump up iPod sales. It is not a profit center. Now that may change, or is in the process of changing, but iPod sales explains everything to date.

Re:

[Ucklak]

Because artists from the big four don't own their music. They're hired to write music for the big four.

Re:

[schwaang]

This article's handwaving BS answer to that question is what convinced me that it's pure Apple propaganda.

DRM-free content

[noidentity]

I prefer to say "DRM-encumbered content". The definition fits perfectly:

encumber
1. To put a heavy load on; burden.
2. To hinder or impede the action or performance of.
3. To burden with legal or financial obligations.

I prefer Illegal Prior Restraint

[IBitOBear]

Or more precisely "Illegal Prior Restraint implemented with Arbitrary, Unregulated Technical Measures.

It is just commonly misspelled DRM.

"DRM" is the "aint" of No F-ing Way.

Re:

[zarthrag]

Then we'd call you 'Sony'.

and why hasn't Microsoft opened the Zune DRM?

[hxnwix]

Understanding how Microsoft Zune's DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Microsoft isn't broadly licensing Zune's DRM, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to Zune's store.

Re:

[cybrthng]

But But But Joey has DRM that means its OKAY for me to have DRM! The bad guys do it, so should I!

Re:

[bky1701]

You are trying to defend Apple by saying "Microsoft does it too"? Yeah, we all know Microsoft and Apple have a lot in common... that's part of the problem, but you are trying to say Stalin (godwin dodged!) can be forgiven because the devil is worse.

Re:

[jmorris42]

> Understanding how Microsoft Zune's DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions:

Except for one important difference. People actually give a crap about iTunes/FairPlay, whereas Microsoft's little brown chunk 'o oversized product is a different matter.....

And we must not forget that in the digital music scene Microsoft doesn't wield anywhere close to monopoly levels of market power, while Apple currently does. (Yea I know Microsoft eventually WILL have the monopoly, but that is the future. It is Apple

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Understanding how Microsoft Zune's DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions:

Exactly right!

Microsoft is the ethical bar that Apple should adhere to.

(Surely you're not serious?)

Ah, RoughlyDrafted.

[linefeed0]

Excessive verbosity masking rampant Mac fanboyism? Check.
Fairly good, readable explanations of just those factors favoring Apple's position? Check.
Pompous platitudes and non-sequiturs about factors not favoring Apple's position? "Apple wants things to be simpler and more efficient, not to offer DRM-free indie tracks next to DRM songs. Duh." Oh yeah. Check.
Not-so-subtle baiting ("free-software hippies") at Linux and free software advocates throughout? Check.
Absolute bewilderment at the part of the reader as to why the author would provide so much free PR for Apple? Especially since he likes to insult free software authors for "not getting paid" a couple times each story? Check.
A belief that the author is actually some kind of analyst despite writing fluff that would feel at home in Apple's officially released press releases and technical notes? Check.
Ooh, a mysterious anonymous submission to /.? Yup. Check.

"Like reading RoughlyDrafted?" Well I guess I like having my teeth pulled too. It's pretty excruciating to get through each time but I do learn something, I suppose.

Yup

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

It provides a brief explanation of how fairplay works, then descends into sheer madness. Remember, these are the same geniuses that defended PPC up until the end, explaining why osx on intel was impossible and would lead to the end of apple.

How about the very simplest explanation?

[Kjella]

"Understanding how Apple's FairPlay DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions: why it hasn't been replaced with an open, interoperable DRM that anyone can use, why Apple isn't broadly licensing FairPlay, and why the company hasn't jumped to add DRM-free content from indie artists to iTunes."

The studios demanded DRM. By failing to control the DRM system, the studios made Apple the gatekeeper and now Apple is using it to pressure the studios into offering .99$ songs so Apple can sell 350$ iPods. If Apple opens up, the studios can push whatever prices they like because Apple is nothing more than a commodity store. Why on earth would Apple want to give up on that? Even if they didn't need it to compete with other music players, they've essentially funneled money away from music studios and into the hands of prospective iPod buyers. Suddenly "iPod + music" look like a much better package deal. Every time they resist the studios they get good PR. The cobranding effect is enormous. The studios aren't willing to let go of FairPlay, and Apple can effectively use them as shield. So in summary, they haven't done it because there's no good business reason to whatsoever.

Re:How about the very simplest explanation?

[samkass]

The "license FairPlay" crowd often overlook this point. Right now it's Apple's DRM monopoly against the labels' music monopoly. They battle it out and prices remain reasonable. If Apple loses, it's just the labels against the consumers directly. No more 99c songs... now you'll pay &4.99 for any reasonably popular song (hey it'll still be cheaper than the CD that has the one song you like and 12 you don't).

In any case, be careful what you wish for. If Apple's forced to open FairPlay expect to pay a lot more for online music.

Author is confused

[Coward Anonymous]

The author claims that an iPod cannot sync up with multiple iTunes' because of DRM. This doesn't follow from his explanation of the keys being downloaded from iTunes. Since it is up to iTunes to manage tracks and their respective keys, it's trivial for iTunes to always upload all keys without erasing existing ones. Furthermore, if I have no DRM files in my library, why am I still limited like this. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the DRM. It's an arbitrary design decision on Apple's part.
Furthermore, the iPod doesn't orchestrate the sync, iTunes does.

The explanation about Apple being somehow unable to deal with both DRMd and non-DRMd files is ridiculous. The argument in the article is that Apple can't deal with non-DRMd files because it is too complex given the current infrastructure. At the same time there is a lengthy discussion about how Apple doesn't want DRM in the first place. To me this implies Apple needs the infrastructure to provide non DRMd files. So which is it?
It is arguable that mixing in non-DRM files would play in Apple's favor in the public relations/good will front. What would the European prosecutors say if Apple started distributing non-DRM files for indy labels that were ok with it? That would more firmly remove the blame from Apple and put it squarely on the music labels'.

Typically Apple

[Peter Bonte]

Its for the user experience, an iPod is something personal and linked to 1 account and 1 user. Linking 1 iPod to many accounts and computers is way to confusing. Duplicate music is a first problem, manage all 5 duplicates or use 1 and apply different users to the file? Apple looks at what 95% of the users will find a reasonable limitation in order to get ease of use and it works out great, the remaining 5 % will have to adopt to it or buy another product.

A reason to strip DRM

[JakiChan]

I think he's a bit biased...calling DVDJohn a profiteer and such.

As for stripping the DRM having little use since you can burn a CD and re-rip...converting AAC to AIFF and then reconverting causes a huge quality loss. I used QTFairUse to strip my AAC encrypted files so I could play them on my Squeezebox. I did it only to play MY music, not to steal any music. But not being able to play my own music on my Squeezebox also made me realize I didn't want to buy iTMS music any more....

I have no problem with iTunes Store or DRM.

[MacOSXHead]

I am sick of carrying around the 700+ CD's I own everytime I move. I can take all of my CD's music and iTunes Music Store purchases with me wherever I go; either on my iPod or my laptop. My CD's weigh about 100 lbs. My iPod, much less. Also, most of my old CD's are badly scratched.

Apple is successful for a reason. They get it.

Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma?

[JimDaGeek]

Huh? Apple has everything right where they want it.

Spare me the Apple fan-boys...

In the past 4 months, I bought a nice 17" Intel iMac and a nice Intel Macbook. With upgrades the two have cost me more than $3,200 USD. So any Mac-Boy that complains about what I am about to say should stand out to the intelligent amoung us :-)

Apple DRM... Where to begin? It sucks. Jobs makes statements about how the "music" industry should change from DRM. Well, I haven't had many problems with Apple's DRM when it comes to music. Yeah, Apple DRM on music sucks. However, you can at least burn an audio CD and grab ogg/mp3/aac files from your music CD.

However, I have gotten burned big-time from Apple this past year from buying TV shows. I have paid Apple way too much money to get several seasons of my favorite shows. Now when I try to convert those shows to watch on my 50" HDTV instead of my little 17" iMac, well, Stevie Jobs will not "let" me. What kind of crap is that?

I paid for this stuff! It is not like I am trying to convert some p2p avi to DVD. I just want to be able to watch the 3 seasons of "The Office" and the other show I have bought off of iTMS on my HDTV!!!

I will never buy anything from Apple again. Period. No hardware, no software and especially no content.

Don't lock down the content I buy from you and expect me to be happy.

I would not have cared if Apple locked down _all_ the TV shows I bought from them... if I could burn a DVD/VCD to watch on my TV.

However, as it is, the DRM on the content from iTMS is way out of line.

As I stated above, I have spent close to $4,000 USD in 4 month on Apple stuff. So please, spare me all the Apple zealots who just want to shill for Apple.

I liked Apple before I actually had to deal with their limitations.

Right now, my Intel iMac it triple booted with OS X, Ubuntu and WinXP. I spend all of my time on the iMac in Ubuntu and boot to WinXP for some fun games. I haven't booted to OS X for a while now.

If there is anyone out there thinking about getting a Mac. Well, I would say to hold off on that. Just build-your-own, save a boat load of money and dual-boot with Linux and WinXP. You will have the best of the geek-world and the gaming-world.

Peace :-)

Re:

[SkipNewarkDE]

Yes, I hate when that happens. I spent thousands of dollars on DVDs, and now I want to play them at HD resolution on my BlueRay player, and I can't, I have to go buy all new DVD's because those evil DVD companies won't let me.

Do you have an iPod? One of the video models? Spend $30.00 on a video cable, sync it to your TV show library, and plug it into your TV. Look at that, kind of like a Tivo or DVR in your pocket! Great for taking movies on business trips to watch in the hotel, too.

Re:

[ZzzzSleep]

$30 for an iPod to TV cable? That's ridiculous! You can buy a cheap camcorder cable with the same endpoints for much less. For example see http://www.streetwise.com.au/product_info.php?prod ucts_id=4194& [streetwise.com.au] . That's only $15AUD

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Yes, I hate when that happens. I spent thousands of dollars on DVDs, and now I want to play them at HD resolution on my BlueRay player, and I can't, I have to go buy all new DVD's because those evil DVD companies won't let me.

Did you read his complaint?

He's complaining (to use your analogy) that his DVD's won't play on his HDTV at all, he's not asking for any better resolution than before.

Your analogy in other words was fucking stupid.

Re:

[pkulak]

They should make some kind of stripped down computer that you could hook up to your TV and wirelessly stream video to from iTunes. That would even be better then burning a DVD and walking it the 10 feet over to the TV. Those bastards would never do that though.

Re:

[Unplugged68]

Not to sound condescending, but isn't it a tad bit stupid to stop buying from Apple simply because you were ignorant of the limitations inherent within the DRM?

It's like never buying from John Deere again because you bought a Weed Whacker and tried using it to mix a martini.

Re:Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma?

[Duds]

Is it only me that immediately wants to try that now?

Re:Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma?

[NoMaster]

However, I have gotten burned big-time from Apple this past year from buying TV shows. I have paid Apple way too much money to get several seasons of my favorite shows. Now when I try to convert those shows to watch on my 50" HDTV instead of my little 17" iMac, well, Stevie Jobs will not "let" me. What kind of crap is that?

Well, you started off well. You pointed out Apple's DRM sucks - not because of its (remarkably few) restrictions, but purely because it's DRM. I think we can all agree with that.

But then your rant about DRM on iTunes video falls down because, well, you forgot the ol' caveat emptor. You didn't check the DRM restrictions; maybe you just assumed they were the same as for audio? Just as Apple pointed out from the start that you could "bypass" the DRM on iTunes music by burning to CD (with the niggling little - but certainly not onerous - proviso that you can only burn a playlist X number of times), they pointed out from the start that you can't with iTunes video.

Simply : Apple always told you you can "bypass" the DRM in iTunes music, and even told you how. Likewise, they always told you you couldn't bypass the DRM in iTunes video.

Apple didn't screw / lie to / cheat you - you were caught out by your own assumptions. Sucks, yes, but it's nobody's fault but your own.

Seriously, if you get that upset when they've told you the truth all along, how do you fare with the outright lies printed on the box of almost every other piece of hardware or software?

Re:Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma?

[RogerWilco]

If you are no longer using iTunes, then please tell me what legal service you are using today to download these TV shows, that does allow you to write them to DVD. As I understand you, Apple's service is much more restictive as the service you are using now. so please enlighten us, what we should switch to that does allow this, I am not aware of any legal service that gives the options you find missing in iTunes.

ExSecDef on DRM?

[EGSonikku]

"It's still a secret, but it's at least a known unknown."

Since when was Donald Rumsfeld deciding DRM issues?

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

No, no, no

[kbolino]

According to the article,

"Because iTunes happily converts protected AAC songs into standard, unprotected AAIF CD files when burning a CD, there isn't much point for a user trying to attack the system or steal its keys. The main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is to exploit the system for the benefit of third parties."

I have no idea what AAIF means. Redbook CD Audio is just a set of raw PCM streams.

That aside, my real complaint lies in the statement that "the main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is ... for the benefit of third parties." This is just false. The CD Audio "happily" produced by iTunes is simply uncompressed AAC audio. That means that all the data that was discarded by the encoder when the file was created is still lost, but the file is back to its original size (a lose-lose scenario, only useful for playing on standard CD players). It's foolish to try to recompress the data--even in AAC format--because new information will be discarded, and the quality will be even less (probably far less) than the original AAC file.

That's where the value of the unencrypted AAC file lies: it can be used just like an MP3 or similar file in any capable player. The file retains the benefit of the much smaller size, and it can be used on other platforms (like Linux) and on compatible players (like newer car/home stereos, many portable media players). The main use is not for the benefit of third parties, but just so I can play music I payed for in a manner of my choosing (a right protected by existing copyright law).

The author of the article may understand DRM, but he doesn't seem to grasp the usefulness of the unencrypted AAC file vs. uncompressed CD audio.

Re:

[GrahamCox]

It's foolish to try to recompress the data--even in AAC format--because new information will be discarded, and the quality will be even less (probably far less) than the original AAC file.

What new information? You can't make something out of nothng, so when the AAC was converted back to CD Audio, it did this by creating samples from the AAC stream. Thus, that information was in the AAC stream. When it's recompressed back, these created samples will, by and large, be seen as redundant and removed again.

Re:

[SeaFox]

I have no idea what AAIF means. Redbook CD Audio is just a set of raw PCM streams.

I couldn't tell if you were joking at the author's lack of technical understanding about audio formats or if you were serious. He was referring to AIFF [wikipedia.org], which is just a container format for PCM audio. It's like the Macintosh equivalent of WAV files, and is often an intermediary step in creating an actual Audio CD from a set of music files in compressed format. It was a pain in "the olden days" as one had to have a CD's worth o

young industrg

[fermion]

I am going to defend the music industry here, not that I think they are right, not that I think Apple is right, but simply that I do agree that the people who make the music, or their agents, do have broad power to do with the music as they please. If we, as the music fan, don't like what they do with the music, or how they use the money, then don't buy the music. No one is forcing anyone to buy this music, in any particular form. There is a lot of good music out there, and each one of us does have a choice.

That said music has always had a inherently time and space limited factor, although that factor has grown less important, and clearly certain people have learned to capitalize on that change, and others have clearly suffered. At a live performance, the music lasted as long as the performance, and only so far as the sound and view would carry. This meant many people were performers, and many people benefited. Concert promoters did well, and so did performers. With the advent of recordings, the wax cylinder was still a rather time limited, expensive to record, low quality medium. People still wanted to hear live music, and people still had to replaced the cylinders. Even with the advent of vinyl, these would only last a generation. The record broke the time and space barriers, but still held the same hope of the live perfomance, that people would pay again and again for the same, or at least similar, music. Compilations, box sets, reissue, all to get back to the good old days of selling the same music.

Now a single download could be all that might be recovered from recoding a song. DRM is nasty, but it does impose the time and space that is even present on a CD. It can be argued that DRM free music might make more than the would make otherwise, but certainly less than had been expected in the past. For instance, even if I buy every song I own, I have no reason to buy a greatest hit. Ever.

So, what does this mean. That EMI will sell it's library to anyone willing to buy it lock stock and barrel. EMI is not in the business of giving away music, but if anyone else wishes to, they may. EMI likely believes that the days of mega bands and mega hits are numbered. These are mostly for kids anyway, and kids now figure out what is cool on myspace, not MTV, if MTV was ever a place to be cool.The business model of brainwashing kids to believe an album will make then a better person is over, because the acquisition of the album no longer involves money to the label. It is like porn. None of the magazines are making as much money because people are given the hardcore stuff away for free. No magazine had to pay Britney to flash, and no magazine got the full benefit of the exclusive.

So Apple, and everyone else, has a DRM to give the music some time limited quality. Apple got lucky and this worked to it's advantage. Some of this si just elements of a yound industry, i.e. digital music distribution. I suspect much of this will go the way of wax cylinders and 8-tracks, and we will be looked down on for wasting money on such things.

OTOH, I have no faith that the music industry will come up with the solution. I believe it is the industry greed that got it into this position, and greed that will keep it running in circles. The LP was a special delivery system. The record that would scratch, and the album art that was often more valuable than the record. With the CD, the labels just saw a cheaper product that would have a higher markup. The continuously cut costs, until the CD was nothing more than a way to listen to store bought music, with no compelling value added. It is any wonder that everyone jumped to the cheaper alternative? For most music, the MP3 is not noticeably inferior, without the inconvince of a CD. Sure some still try to add to the experience, but really, who is going to trust non music content from a CD?

Music industry vs musicians.

[argent]

I do agree that the people who make the music, or their agents, do have broad power to do with the music as they please.

By and large it's not 'the people who make the music or their agents' who are pushing DRM, it's the labels.

So how do you load unprotected content into iPod?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The article talks at length about issues with making it possible for other vendors to sell PROTECTED content that can be loaded PROTECTED onto an iPod. OK, fine.

But what about loading UNprotected content onto an iPod?

If I read this correctly:
  - iTunes can't sell UNprotected content and
  - Other tools can't load UNprotected content into iPods
because:
  - the iPod's onboard software is designed to only be loaded by iTunes software,
  - the iTunes store is not designed to serve unprotected content and the iTunes application is not designed to download unprotected content from the store (although it will load unprotected content from the user's machine)
  - both are designed to be automatically updated when used if Apple believes it desirable (whether because the protection is cracked or because people are using it in unapproved ways), and
  - Apple won't publish an API for loading UNprotected content or commit to stabilizing it.

This means third-party tools, even if trying to load unprotected content, are trying to hit a moving target.

But Apple only makes the iTunes client available for Mac and Windows (linux, non-Mac unix, etc. users need not apply), and only in association with a user account registration.

Which brings me to my situation:

  - I have a video iPod (given me as a gift).
  - I have only Linux machines, so can't run the Apple iTunes clients.
  - I would like to load unprotected content onto the iPod.
  - I have no desire to ever buy anything DRM encumbered, which means I will not be buying anything DRM-infested from iTunes, ever (even if I COULD load it under Linux).
  - Thus I don't need an iTunes account, which means:
  - for me the iPod software will NOT be updating intermittently, but forms a fixed target.

So how can I (and others in a similar situation) load unprotected content onto the iPod?

I had hoped TFA, self-billed as "(Understanding) How Apple's FairPlay DRM works" might give me some insight. But it says nothing about the guts. It just meanders around the high-level design issues of key management.

Does anyone know a solution - or where to look for one?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So how do you load unprotected content into iPo

[AchiIIe]

>> the iTunes store is not designed to serve unprotected content and the iTunes application.

Rubbish. Example: Podcasts. Most of them are mp3/aac, yet they load on the iPod just fine.

* Apple does not want to provide a stable API for loading songs on the ipod. They want you to use itunes (and osx while you are at it)
* Apple is trying to avoid legal trouble in northern europe by shifting the blame
* Apple can start serving up unprotected content just as easily as they patched the last time QTFairPlay brok

drm vs. drm-free content

[Rutulian]

Mixing non-DRM music into iTunes does nothing to solve Apple's problem, it only complicates matters. Apple would have to update the iTunes software so it could download songs and skip encryption and key storage for non-DRM tracks.

Apple would also have to rework its servers to manage purchased tracks without dealing with keys. It would also have to update the iPod to manage purchased track syncing without trying to use keys. It would then need to spend time making sure all those changes didn't introduce bugs or exploitable vulnerabilities in FairPlay.

The rest of the article was good (actually, I didn't know about FairKeys), but this last argument about why drm-free content can't be sold through iTMS is rubbish. It would be trivially easy to have iTunes not encrypt songs flagged as "no-DRM." PyMusique does exactly that with all of the songs, so iTunes should be able to do it as well. And there wouldn't have to be any updates to the iPod. An unencumbered AAC from iTMS would be just like every other unencumbered file that the iPod can already play.

I do agree, though, that Apple probably just doesn't care about the drm-free ideology. It isn't worth it to them to distinguish between RIAA labels that require drm and independent labels that don't. When they get the ok to not use drm, they'll happily take it out of the system, but until then they aren't going to put any more work into it than absolutely necessary.

Well, the thing about fairplay is...

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

When you download a song from iTMS, you download it without any DRM on it at all. It is in fact iTunes that wraps the download with the DRM. The original fairplay cracks were for iTunes, they simply grabbed the song before iTunes could put the DRM on it. If Apple allowed others to develop programs that can purchase from the iTMS, those programs could be written to not have DRM at all, and thus defeating the purpose of the DRM altogether.

They want to sell iPods. Duh!

[jinxidoru]

The answer to every why question about Apple's DRM is the same exact response: "To sell iPods." Apple doesn't make their money off the music store. The purpose of the music store is drive sales of the iPod. Why didn't we see video content on iTunes until the video iPod? You can't tell me they didn't have the technology to serve video. No, they just didn't want to bother serving something that didn't push sales of the iPod. If Apple opens its DRM, then people don't need to buy an iPod anymore. The DRM

Funniest Part

[chef_raekwon]

Offering DRM-free tracks next to protected songs in the iTunes Store would require significant changes to how iTunes works, and could inadvertently open up new exploits to the remaining DRM system, complicating the system further....Apple would have to update the iTunes software so it could download songs and skip encryption and key storage for non-DRM tracks.

if [ "${DRM}" = "yes" ] ; then
Load_Keys
Run_Encryption
fi

hey look!! i just solved their problem!!! i wonder what its wort

AAC is not an "open standard"...

[Qubit]

...at least not completely open.

From the article:

AAC was developed by some of the same audio experts that created the original MP3 standard...[i]t was adopted as an open standard a decade ago this year...Royalty payments are required for using the MP3 format for distributed content, but no licenses or fees are required to stream or distribute content in AAC, making it a more attractive format...

Yes, there are no licensing fees for streaming or distributing AAC files, however, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

...a pat

Open DRM does exist.

[droopycom]

I dont know where to start...

Open DRM does exist. Its called Marlin. Okay nobody uses it, but it proves its doable. If Apple was coming out tomorrow saying: "we will now use Marlin for our DRM needs", this would take off.

The article has a good overview of how iTunes works. But nothing in how-it-works proscribe a licensable or open
DRM.
And you know, they all work the same. The Zune DRM, the PlayForSure DRM, FairPlay and this Marlin, they could all be explained with the same slides. You have a master key for t

more spam from Roughly Drafted

[Budenny]

Like all the other stuff that spews out over the net from RD, this should be treated as spam. Don't read it, don't comment on it. And for goodness sake can someone find something constructive for the guy to do with his time? Like programming something very obscure and complicated in machine language?

One question remains unasked: Why iTunes?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The entire article doesn't really address this question, the author just takes the logic leap of "iPod needs content, therefore the iTunes store".

Yet he does notice that the fast majority of music content (wich is what the iPod needs) is sold on CD. Not online.

So why would iPod software not just be an extremely efficient, easy to use, piece of ripping software? (It appently is but I do not use it so I leave that upto other to judge)

Did any of the other MP3 players out there NOT sell because there wasn't a online music store for them? Is the iPod a success because of the iTunes music store?

Well, considering the extremely poor sales of the iTunes store and considering the record breaking sales of the iPod I would assume that like me, an awfull lot of iTunes (the program) users simply ignore the store or even have found out you can disable it altogether.

Why does Apple bother with re-selling music, wich the author claims is a low profit business, and taking on the huge mess of DRM?

I can think of a number of reasons.

A: MP3 players have been called the tools of piracy by the RIAA loonies. Therefore, the iPod being the largest is therefore the largest piracy tool for music. Que voters voting for idiot politicians who then put a tax on MP3players and other digital content holders so fatten the RIAA pockets. This could eat into Apples real moneymaker, ipod sales. With the iTunes store Apple has the defence of saying that it gives users access to legal music and since ALL ipod users use iTunes and iTunes is the store therefore iPods are filled with legal music. Yes there are holes in this argument but this is the music industry we are talking about. Logic can take a flying leap.

Is this likely? iTunes store being nothing more then a cover while Apple knows that its iPods will really be filled with ripped CD content (either legal or illegal, with Apple not really caring but having to pretend that it does).

Perhaps, except that it doesn't work, the music industry still is demanding that MP3 players (including iPods) be taxed.

B: The author is an idiot who cannot understand that low-profit still is profit. Especially when combined with huge volume. Especially when combined with low-risk.

Unlike some CD based publisher/seller Apple takes NO risk on its "stocking" a track. A few megabyte of storage space, a monkey to enter the details in the database and off you go. Those costs remain the same if it sells 0 copies or a million of that track. Compare this to a the CD version where you run the risk of either not pressing enough discs so you can't sell to the demand (and people go to another store OR alternative distrubution method) or to many and you have to take the surpless back.

Perhaps Apple tought the iTunes store was going to do a lot better, surely at the beginning everyone seemed to think this was going to be massive. Then it didn't and now everyone seems to take it for granted that Apple NEVER thought that iTunes was going to be big.

But there is another simpler issue, iTunes may not be making Apple a lot of money, but it is making them money. Profit of any sort is good. Even if iTunes made Apple only a single million in pure profit it would be foolish of them to drop it. Profit is profit.

Could Apple just be in it for the money? Hoping that it might become big but in the meantime happy as long it doesn't cost money? This ain't MS xbox or MSN, this attempt to reach into other markets IS making Apple money.

C: Apple LOVES DRM. Ah, well I got karma to burn. Think about it, none of its products are exactly know for their openeness. Apple is NOT one of the nice companies out there. In a world were all of the old grumpy giants are turning out GPL software left right and center Apple remains a bastion of closed software.

Oh yeah, darwin. Right. Except what has actually come out of it? Has a single tool made its way out of OS-X and onto say linux? Has Apple done anything but take take take?

Not really. They a

Do you really think Jobs is stupid?

[argent]

Think about it, none of its products are exactly know for their openeness. Apple is NOT one of the nice companies out there. In a world were all of the old grumpy giants are turning out GPL software left right and center Apple remains a bastion of closed software.

This has nothing to do with Apple being "nice" or not, this has to do with Jobs being stupid or not. Jobs probably doesn't care a lot about open source, but that doesn't matter. The only reason for Jobs to "love DRM" would be if he was stupid enoug

Why is this one spot of nonsense in there?

[argent]

From the article: "Because iTunes happily converts protected AAC songs into standard, unprotected AAIF CD files when burning a CD, there isn't much point for a user trying to attack the system or steal its keys. The main reason for trying to defeat FairPlay is to exploit the system for the benefit of third parties."

Garbage.

Rubbish, folderol, pure and unadulterated balderdash.

Unless there's some way of re-encoding that file to AAC at the original quality level such that the resulting file is identical to the original unencrypted but compressed file, then the user still has a reason to want to unencrypt it.

And from the point of view of someone wanting to "exploit the system for the benefit of third parties" the slight but real loss of quality from re-encoding is less important than it is for the person who purchased the original music.

Now I don't personally care about the minor cost of re-encoding for iTunes, since anything I buy on iTunes is already lower quality than it would be if I bought it on CD so I just don't buy classical music that way... I stick to stuff that's written for car radios and bars rather than concert halls and headphones. But enough people have bought into the idea that re-encoding is unacceptable to make this paragraph obvious nonsense.

So why is it in there?

* The author has bought into enough of the DRM myth that he actually believes it. Given the rest of the article I find that hard to believe.

* The author has thrown it in in an attempt to keep the DRM camp-followers from whining at him about being pro-piracy. Maybe.

* The author is confused about how people think, or hasn't bothered to think things through. This is possible, but he doesn't seem intellectually lazy and nobody who's familiar enough with the topic could have easily missed the whining about the "unacceptable" loss in quality from re-encoding.

* The author wanted to slam Jon Johansen for finally throwing in the towel on the whole open-source thing after Apple blocked his third try at letting people bypass it for free. Come on, mate, if he wanted to be a "DRM Profiteer" why did he give away the first three shots?

Open-source DRM bypassing doesn't work for the same reason open-source DRM doesn't work. To ship a product to bypass DRM, you have to keep the guy who put the DRM in from being able to see how you're doing it, and from being able to change their product to adapt to you. This was possible with DeCSS, because there's no way for the movie industry to reach out and change the encryption on disks they already shipped or to change the keys in players people had already bought. It's not possible with Fairtunes/Playfair/Pymusique and the rest. All open source does is make it a bit easier for Apple to see how to break the software in the next version of iTunes.

The fact that it took Jon three tries to give up the fight makes him one of the more reluctant "profiteers" around. My guess is that he was suffering from the same confusion in the mind that makes people think Jobs is thick enough not to realise that DRM's a stupid idea, despite Jobs repeatedly pointing out himself that it's a stupid idea. It's a common confusion among technically smart people who haven't blunted their horns on society enough to realise that just because something's true doesn't mean it matters.

As to the nonsense I quoted... I don't know what excuse the author of the article has, but those are my guesses.

Re:

[jellomizer]

Who are you yelling at. The people who create DRM or the Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate DRM so all you have to do is put DRM next to its name it automatically becomes Evil?

Re:

[bedwards09]

"FairPlay may make PlaysForSure-based products from Creative and other Microsoft aligned rivals slightly less appealing because they "won't work with iTunes," but since those players work fine with CDs and have stores of their own, the real reason nobody's buying them is not because of the DRM in the iTunes Store." Are you kidding me? The whole reason that other music systems aren't as popular as ipod/Itunes combo is becuase of they dont have the simplicity of the ipods design and the songs they have on it

Re:DRM

[DJCacophony]

Oh Jesus Christ, more RoughlyDrafted bullshit.
For those of you who don't already know, RoughlyDrafted is an Apple propaganda blog that abused [googlepages.com] digg [googlepages.com] by using multiple accounts to "digg" their own stories and "bury" any stories or comments expressing an opposing viewpoints. And now they're infiltrating Slashdot.

Well, now you know the truth. I am posting this as non-AC because I am willing to risk karma for this public service announcement to be heard.


By the way, if you ever wanted to know why FairPlay isn't interoperable, the short answer is because Apple makes more money that way.

Re:DRM

[DJCacophony]

By the way, I forgot to mention that RoughlyDrafted's digg abuse got their site banned from digg [wordpress.com] until just recently [pronetadvertising.com].

Re:

[JimDaGeek]

I wish I had mod points for you sir :-)

Though, most Apple shills will just put their fingers in their ears to what you have to say :-)

Re:

[cultrhetor]

RoughlyDrafted is an Apple propaganda blog

Say, instead, a fanboy propaganda blog - it's pretty obvious he's not connected to Apple: his "news" is mostly old, recycled entries from more mainstream Apple weblogs mixed in with googled history. Besides, an Apple propaganda blog would probably look smoother and talk more frequently and more in depth about actual new items.

Re:

[MidnightBrewer]

Well, I actually read it, and despite not liking some of the wording in some passages (his deft use of the word, "duh," for example), his reasoning for why Apple doesn't sell indie music for free seemed to make sense. If you could make iTunes capable of handling non-DRM music next to DRM music, you run the risk of creating an exploit whereby somebody figures out how to fool iTunes into thinking that all the music should be DRM-free.

Another possible reason that I haven't heard anybody mention yet is that pe

Re:

[ajs318]

If you could make iTunes capable of handling non-DRM music next to DRM music, you run the risk of creating an exploit whereby somebody figures out how to fool iTunes into thinking that all the music should be DRM-free.

The music already comes down from the server "unencumbered" (but encrypted against a key known only to the user who paid for it). It is the iTunes client which adds the Digital Restrictions Management. All hacks demonstrated so far have been based on intercepting the stream from server to

Re:

[ProfessionalCookie]

DRM jellomizer DRM

Sorry man, you have a new boss now.

Re:DRM

[Kjella]

There are two ways to use DRM in hardware. One is the one where the owner can use this to ensure only trusted operating systems and software to run through signing, and to ensure that every computer e.g. in their corporate network is genuine. Plug your would-be attacker laptop into the network jack, and you still get nothing. That corporate laptop living a promiscous life out the Internet won't be able to connect back in if it's rooted.

The other is essentially remote controlling other machines. I can give you a document, but you can't copy it, print it and it'll self-destruct in 30 days. It makes my machine every third party's playground where they set the rules, not I. They dictate what software I can use to handle it, and any illegal contracts will be enforced by hardware and protected by the DMCA.

So far, every DRM system I've seen proposed by industry players and not just a rag-tag bunch of activists have been of the latter kind, you're explicitly forbidden from knowing the root key. The first one is a mostly solved problem and highly reactive anyway, you have to come in and have your PC retanked to fix it. Hiding the root key is their promise that my system will work the way they want. If you're a regular consumer you should be against it because apart from petty bickering like Bob sending you an email you can't print, and you sending him the same back you'll have to bend over hundredfold for big corporations. Forget using "alternative" software, alternative OS, altnerative browsers, alternative players, alternative anything. If they didn't sign it for anything but Mircosoft Windows(tm) running Internet Explorer(tm) with Windows Media Player plug-in(tm), it won't play. I think the saying "You're not paranoid if everyone really is out to get you" applies well to DRM. Right now I'm in pretty much total control over my PC. Why should I give up that to become a guest in my own house?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate DRM so all you have to do is put DRM next to its name it automatically becomes Evil"

Hmm. Are they like the Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate torture, so all you have to do is put torture next to its name and it automatically becomes Evil? Or maybe like the Slashdotters who franticly and blindly hate murder, so all you have to do is put murder next to its name and it automatically becomes Evil?

The fact is, DRM is evil for all actual implementations of

Re:

[Hal_Porter]

What about when Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist so he can find where they've hidden a nuclear bomb. Or when he kills one of them? Would you say that's evil?

Re:

[stony3k]

I wish I had mod points here. The parent is absolutely correct. If you justify using "any means available", then you are no different from the terrorists. That's where morals and ethics come in. That's the reason why some of us appalled by the actions of this US administration. Because more than any other time in the past, they have used the doctrine of necessity to justify any and every act that in other times would have been categorized as evil.

Re:

[zenkonami]

When someone comes up with a solution whereby the artist and the constituent people who worked hard on creating the material can still be paid for their efforts (in exchange for someone's enjoyment), maybe then we can entertain the "(all) DRM is evil" proposition.

This is a classic Nietscheian observation at work here: us against them. (They are evil and we are good.) This use of the word evil is a gross oversimplification of the difficulties DRM is an attempt to solve. If you want to argue that the RI

Re:

[AusIV]

Thats what we in the know call a factual error. MP3 is lossy. FLAC is not. I dont see much FLACs being traded, other than torrent sites.

You're missing the point. An MP3 loses quality from the original source, but you can spread thousands of copies of it without each of those copies becoming progressively lower quality.