Will People Really Boycott Apple Over DRM? 664
Ian Lamont writes "DefectiveByDesign.org is waging a battle against DRM with a 35-day campaign targeting various hardware and software products from Microsoft, Nintendo, and others. On day 11 it blasted iTunes for continuing to use DRM-encumbered music, games, TV shows, movies, audiobooks, and apps with DRM, while competitors are selling music without restrictions. DefectiveByDesign calls on readers to include 'iTunes gift cards and purchases in your boycott of all Apple products' to 'help drive change.' However, there's a big problem with this call to arms: most people simply don't care about iTunes DRM. Quoting: 'The average user is more than willing to pay more money for hobbled music because of user interface, ease of use, and marketing. ... Apple regularly features exclusive live sets from popular artists, while Amazon treats its digital media sales as one more commodity being sold.' What's your take on the DRM schemes used by Apple and other companies? Is a boycott called for, and can it be effective?"
Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will never be effective. The average Joe coulden't tell you what DRM stood for let alone boycott it.
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will never be effective. The average Joe coulden't tell you what DRM stood for let alone boycott it.
The average Joe must not know what DRM means to experience the implications of it. I hate car analogies, but you don't have to be a greasemonkey to understand that something is wrong with your car.
..ask a friend about it (or)
..google it (or)
..curse and never use the service again
The average Joe will run into DRM restrictions, and;
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and their friend might well tell them just to burn their music tracks to CD and rip them back in to strip the DRM. They might think it's a pain in the arse, but they'll at least know how to get around the restrictions.
IMHO this is a damn sight better than SOME of the DRM employed by other companies which even lock out other operating systems (Windows MediaSlayer I'm looking at you)
That being said, Apple made a big hoo-hah about their DRM-free tracks (and the increased price tag... grrr), and I seem to recall they were claiming that they were going to offer more and more tracks without DRM which prompted many to assume they'd be dropping the practice not long after, but here we are many moons later and it's still the dominant practice for iTunes purchases. In fact, I'm not even sure how many tracks you can get on iTunes without DRM now.
Given enough bad press DRM will eventually go away, but it has to be made as public as possible in a sustained campaign for this to have any effect at all - or a cheap mp3 download service making a BIG deal of not having DRM and getting decent media coverage. Competition from a serious contender that the public begin flocking to (and away from iTMS) will be a more effective engine in driving Apple to drop the DRM in the long run. I don't think people are stupid enough to believe that mp3s they download from other sources can't be used with their shinyPod (despite the BBC's best efforts to repeatedly claim the iPod can ONLY play tracks from the iTMS and vice versa that tracks from the iTMS can only be played on the iPod).
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if all DRM was of the very mild variety I wouldn't have any problems with it.
Mild DRM such as watermarking and such which doesn't actually reduce the functionality of the product can help deter most who would casually infringe and if handled properly could build a reputation that the industry has ways of figuring out who really bought what (even if they have to tell us in the fine print that the drm is there and yes we all know it can be removed). However that isn't enough for many in the industry so they go for strong drm, drm that doesn't seek to build a reputation but rather tries to force compliance and be as its proponents claim unbreakable; even though it is every bit as bi-passable as its weaker counterpart to those who would criminally break copyright laws.
It all boils down to the enforcement and practice of copyright laws has become unjust because non-governmental agencies like the RIAA have taken upon themselves governmental powers and the law has been stretched to cover such extreme lengths of time.
Don't rage against the concept of copyright, it is sound. Rage against its abuse in the law and commercial enterprise.
I say we need to get to something like 25 years from publishing date with 25 years additional after registration(must be completed before the first 25 expires w/no exceptions) and the registration process should involve submitting a copy to a national or state copyright library and should be payed for by the holder(the first 25 are free).
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't rage against the concept of copyright, it is sound.
It was sound 20 years ago, the world has changed. Every household in the country now has the capability to undertake massive copyright infringement without being detected or punished. Copyright is quite simply unenforceable. It makes no sense to have a law you cannot enforce. It does nothing but damage peoples respect for the law.
Yes, the content creation industry will suffer. They will have to adapt to the new information economy. Casual copying is not going away, deal with it. If the content creation industry has to scale back to what they can make on donations, that's life.
If you want even the slimmest chance of stopping a significant portion of copyright infringement you'll have to lock down every general purpose computing device tighter than an Xbox 360. In the end, you'll have to make it impossible to play any unauthorized media. This would be such a tremendous step backwards, essentially we'd be taking ourselves out of the information age. I'm pretty sure that would be worse than the death of the content creation industry, and it still wouldn't work. You'd just end up creating a black market for unrestricted electronics.
If I'm wrong, let me know where this analysis falls short.
Re:Attacking the short poll in the tent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That last part is exactly the point. This:
> the DRM doesn't interfere with my particular use
> of the product.
but it may only be a temporary reality. I've bought a few albums from iTunes, and all is fine as I own an iPod (well, two...but anyway...)
When I replaced my PowerBook with an iMac though, I ran into my first interesting situation. I now have two of a limit of five authorized computers playing my music.
Now, I still have my PowerBook so I can spark it up to deauthorize the computer if I want too,
itunes may be the best compromise right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Acknowledging DRM is bad to the core, there are just economical and business factors that can't be overcome in a single step from DRM to DRM-free. iTunes is doing a good job bridging the gap, providing a fair comparison between tracks that are protected and tracks that are not. It's also getting around or minimizing MOST of the problems that DRM causes. iTunes right now is the most consumer-friendly form of DRM available.
It's unreasonable to assume in any debate that the other side is just going to toss up its arms and say I GIVE UP YOU WIN and concede the world. That's what this "defectivebydesign" group is trying to achieve, and it's never going to work that way.
iTunes is probably the best thing going for the anti-drm movement right now, and that I mean even above non-drm music. It's easing the music industry into free music at a pace it's willing to go. It's something that the consumer can tolerate, and something the industry can tolerate. Right now, drm-free isn't something the industry can tolerate, and drm-lockdown isn't something consumers will tolerate.
The consumers will never accept lockdown, but the industry eventually should accept fredom of format. Just need to give it some time in the middle with things like iTunes to make them warm up to it.
Re:itunes may be the best compromise right now (Score:5, Interesting)
To take what you're saying a step further - Apple's DRM, being the "best available" option is actually *driving* drm-free sales. Apple's solution is quite robust and easy to use, but they're holding the price down as well and driving hardware sales.
However, the music companies want more money, and don't really *want* to do business w/Apple. After many attempts, they've finally realized they can't create a competing drm and sell it for more money - so to beat Apple's product they have to go DRM-free with amazon. In fact, I'm willing to say it's the only form of competition we've seen in this industry whatsoever (as of late).
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what, I don't think the average Joe actually will run into the DRM restrictions in iTunes and so won't give a flying whatever. I do know what DRM is, and it doesn't raise it's ugly head day-to-day.
I buy music, I put it onto my iPod and burn it to CD. Now what am I meant to be protesting about again? ... That's a rhetorical question.
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Informative)
You may not care right now, and nor might an average user. But just wait till the day you want to switch from iPod to some other MP3 player, or for the day when Apple threatens to switch off their licencing servers (as has happened to several others already). Unfortunately, that's when most users will find out about DRM: when it's already too late!
Thankfully, Requiem is available to strip Apple's FairPlay DRM, for those who care to look for it. Although, not everyone does.
Re:Sorry... (Score:4, Insightful)
But just wait till the day you want to switch from iPod to some other MP3 player
So then you burn your music to CDs and then rip it. It's an inconvenience, not a hindrance. So, even fully-aware buyers are left to balance the convenience of the music store, etc., against the inconvenience of creating MP3s, or whatever. Which wins? It's a judgment call and I can see many people shrugging and sticking with iTMS.
or for the day when Apple threatens to switch off their licencing servers
As long as the service is profitable -- and it's doing very well -- that won't happen.
Thankfully, Requiem is available to strip Apple's FairPlay DRM, for those who care to look for it.
Ah, right, there's that option as well.
Bottom line: Apple's DRM is too leaky to be really annoying to people, other than those who stand on principle (like me).
Re:Sorry... (Score:4, Interesting)
My old MP3 player wasn't an iPod, so I very carefully transferred any iTunes purchases to MP3 via rewritable CDs. Fortunately I don't buy much music so it wasn't very tedious.
Since I've bought an iPod, I've continued the process. It is, admittedly, more difficult, which is why I buy from Amazon MP3 first if a song is available there, and only buy iTunes if not. I experimented with Wal-Marts's store when they dropped DRM, but I can't shop there regularly.
(You hear that, Apple? I like your products enough to own your stock, but I still don't prefer your music store.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you forget or can't deauthorize a machine (Score:5, Informative)
You can deauthorize all of your machines and then re-authorize the one's you actually use: About iTunes Store authorization and deauthorization [apple.com]
And it seems silly to boycott a company that provides the most easy to use DRM and is working to phase it out as fast as the labels will work with them: iTunes Store: iTunes Plus Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) [apple.com]
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we can't get people upset and up in arms about trampling of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Police SWAT teams acting like mini-Army battalions, what the hell makes you think they'll get motivated enough to top buying Apple stuff?
Apathetic indeed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it has with me (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it has, at least with me.
I got an AppleTV a couple of years ago, and I had a video iPod already. Of course, the first thing I did was buy a whole bunch of my favorite shows so that I could use the AppleTV kind of like a Tivo, sans commercials and at higher quality video.
I still have my AppleTV, but it didn't take long to exceed its capacity. So I started storing my television shows on my computer. A couple of computers (and iPods, for that matter) later, I've moved my stuff around so much and dropped and reauthorized stuff to the point where the shows I bought when I first got my AppleTV are, for all practical purposes, gone forever unless I want to re-buy them.
So nowadays, I buy all of my stuff on DVD, period, and I rip it to my computer. I put the discs away forever, and I can watch it on anything I want any time I want. If I get a new computer, I copy the files over, I'm done. No reauthorization, no fuss, no chance of losing my stuff or having to re-rip them. Don't get me wrong, I still love my AppleTV. I rent movies on it once a week or so, and I watch a lot of the stuff I rip on it. I just don't buy video media from Apple iTunes any more.
Apple has always been a master of ease-of-use. I just think it's a shame that they, along with other companies in whose vested interest it is to make things as easy for the consumer as possible, can't use their retail power to shed all of this silliness. The technical capability is there for any video or song that you buy from Apple or anyone else to be extremely easily portable and transferrable. If they made it so, would piracy go up? Sure, no doubt. But you know what else would go up? Sales. And isn't that really the goal?
The reason BitTorrent and other illegal means of acquiring video and music is so popular is because it fills a gap that Apple and other RIAA/MPAA-colluding companies never will be able to, the ability to let people watch what they want, where they want. I'm sure the "free" thing is a factor too, but really, for me, it's not. If Apple announced tomorrow that they were dropping DRM on all music and all video, they'd have a loyal customer for life, and I would spend gobs of money in their store. As it is, though, they're losing my business to stores like Amazon.com that sell all DRM-less music and physical DVDs.
Re:Well, it has with me (Score:5, Insightful)
I still have my AppleTV, but it didn't take long to exceed its capacity. So I started storing my television shows on my computer. A couple of computers (and iPods, for that matter) later, I've moved my stuff around so much and dropped and reauthorized stuff to the point where the shows I bought when I first got my AppleTV are, for all practical purposes, gone forever unless I want to re-buy them.
How does this happen? I thought that content purchased from the iTMS were tied to your account, which you can pretty much authorize to 5 computers at a time. You can deauth at any point, either from the computer itself, or from their website.
Unless you've switched accounts, I don't see how your content would be unplayable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People are dumb, enlightened self interest only works where people are actually enlightened, news at 11 etc.
Companies with a decent marketing department can get away with anything.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no. People are dumb.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By your reckoning, you are 'dumb' to keep eating mcdonalds
Good analogy. Keep eating at McDonalds, and the cheap 'food' will eventually be expensive because you will pay with your health. Keep buying DRM'd music, and you will eventually pay with vendor lock-in.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But on the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate to get an Apple player, or even non-DRM tracks from iTunes. (Granted I never actually have, but that's because I like devices with more features, and don't care all that much about the UI so long as it's passable).
Bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
All iTunes media can be played through iTunes on Windows. Windows is not normally run on Apple hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comparing music usage to video usage is specious at best. Were you ever legally allowed to make copies of VHS tapes? Even if you were, why would you? Analog copying of just about any media is like taking a hammer to it. It ALWAYS results in massive generational loss.
DVD's? They were designed with user copying not allowed in mind.
CD's came out before the massive proliferation of the personal computer and the Red Book standard made it easy for people to make byte for byte copies of the original. CD's got gra
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you can blanket statement DRM. It's been implemented in too many ways. The average Joe probably hasn't even noticed the Apple DRM because they probably haven't tired to do something that's not allowed by it. On the other hand, I imagine at least a few average Joes have noticed the horror that is SecureROM.
Even if I'm wrong about the average Joe's run-ins with DRM, I don't think an Apple DRM boycott will be effective because the number of people who dislike Apple's DRM, use it anyway, and are willing to boycott it is probably very small. I'd wager it's very near 0. If they'd be willing to boycott it in the first place, they're probably not using it now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both of my kids know what DRM is - my son uses several "no-cd" cracks to play various games. They both have iPods, and my daughter is getting an iPhone for Christmas. In spite of my best efforts to get them to purchase from Amazon, they both insist on buying from Apple. Reasons I've heard:
- it's easier
- I'm never going to play them on anything buy my iPod anyway
- I'm not going to give my friends music that I paid for. That's illegal anyway.
So... They understand the restrictions, they understand that th
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:4, Funny)
No
You got that right. Apple, being the marketing gods that they are, will get by this easily. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple actually charges extra for the DRM, selling it as service and feature.
I can just hear it now from the Apple Fans, "Apple has DRM! Do the other services? Nooooo! That's why I buy Apple for these extra value added services! That's why they charge more!"
Currently, I wondering if I should really take the Karma hit. Is there a way my Karma hit can go to starving orphans or something? Starving orphans that need Apple products?
Yep, I'm going to Slashdot Hell for this. Windows 3.1 as my OS on a 386, Balmer as my boss, and no stock options to compensate...
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, this boycott will fail, and Apple will be able to simply ignore it.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...have tried to craft their DRM to have minimal interference with those use cases.
I love how you list this as a criticism. If DRM doesn't stop your normal use of your music, is it really a bad thing?
I don't like it, because I don't like vendor lock-in. But if people don't care about DRM isn't it possible that they're doing it right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now they're talking to the labels to get more DRM-free music in the iTMS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No
You got that right. Apple, being the marketing gods that they are, will get by this easily.
Marketing has nothing to do with it. Most folks don't even know what DRM is, and even if they're aware of DRM they seldom care.
Folks buy a song on the iTunes Music Store and try to play it...it works. They put it on their iPod...it works. They burn it to a CD...it works. As far as they're concerned the music works just fine.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're looking for is iTunes Plus [apple.com]. Bog standard AAC files in high bitrate, for the same cost as DRM-encumbered files.
If you really want to show that you care about a lack of DRM, skew the sales numbers so that non-DRM files are obviously outselling the encumbered ones.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
RDF > DRM. It's a scientific fact.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are going to have a strong anti-DRM movement you also need a Strong anti-piracy movement to go with it. Otherwise the companies, government, and people who don't care as strongly will just see you as a bunch of Wackos who want something for nothing AKA "The Pinko Commie who Hates America". If they offered a strong voice against piracy and worked hard to discourage such behavior then their message about easing and finally removing DRM will not be heard on deaf ears.
Activist love the idea of being this little group fighting a big evil and heartless corporation. However if you want action you need to treat your opponents as people too and understand and work with their concerns as well, then you can create change. Otherwise you are in a battle of wills who's ever will is the strongest or has the extra buck to fight back will win, not because of intellect or greater good. Why do you think Marten Luther King was more effective in history then the Black Panthers, The Black Panthers worked on creating a divide while MLK tried to create unity. Yes it is much more exciting to be in a Moral Battle of Right and Wrong however war (even with words) isn't the answer Open Dialog with the willingness to accept and respect your opponents concerns, works much better.
So you don't like DRM neither do I. However if you are going to get a broad cooperate acceptance of removing DRM you are going to create a culture where illegally downloading free music and not paying for them ever is no longer considered socially acceptable.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you are going to have a strong anti-DRM movement you also need a Strong anti-piracy movement to go with it."
"if you are going to get a broad cooperate acceptance of removing DRM you are going to create a culture where illegally downloading free music and not paying for them ever is no longer considered socially acceptable."
I think you're wrong. You can easily show people that:
1. DRM doesn't affect availability to pirates.
2. DRM costs money to implement
And therefore it's just not worth it. I can understand their concerns just fine, but their actions are expensive and counter-productive. They make the end product less valuable to users, who are then more likely to turn to piracy.
I don't "pirate" music, but I won't buy anything DRM'd either, because ripping my CDs and storing/playing them on various devices is my goddamned right.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Their fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their fault? (Score:5, Informative)
If only Amazon would sell MP3s to people who don't live in the US. Are the Canadian arms of the American music companies really that different?
I buy my music online from the likes of Magnatune [magnatune.com] and the "iTunes Plus" store (DRM-free, and higher-quality files than the regular iTunes store). When I can, I buy directly from the artists online.
Sure Apple is enabling idiotic behaviour from the music companies, but I'm not sure we should blame them; would the music companies have even allowed them to sell music without the DRM? You could show your "appreciation" for the DRM'd music by buying something from the iTunes Plus store...
Re:Their fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
You could show your "appreciation" for the DRM'd music by buying something from the iTunes Plus store...
Which cost more, I would buy from iTunes but amazon is cheaper for drm free music.
Since when is 99 cents more than 99 cents?
Re:Their fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's optional! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's optional! (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. When I want a song I first check if ITMS has it DRM free. If it does I usually buy it there. If not, I head to Amazon. The good thing about Amazon is that they also offer a lot of tracks at 89c and frequently offer specials for $5 song sets.
For me ease of use is a tie since the Amazon downloader takes the song and loads it into itunes just fine. Some people complain about Amazons search function, but I find it works just like it should and the service is often faster when it comes to previewing songs.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to buy your media from the ITMS...
Even if you do, you can buy the DRM-free tracks. Apple's ready to sell anything that the labels will let them sell.
Unfortunately, that's not that much. Only one of the big labels (EMI) offers DRM-free music via iTunes.
There were rumors Apple was going to offer all tracks publiced by Sony, Universal and Warner DRM-free beginning on December 9th, but that was rapidly claimed to be untrue [cnet.com].
Re: (Score:2)
ITunes sucks it don't play ogg by default and it refuses to play ogg from the network even after the quicktime coded is installed. I have setted up a daap for my home and itunes simply does not work, while rythmbox work perfectly.
I also tried to configure songbird to see my daap, but had no luck, and my wife want something that is as easy as itunes.
Also I loved the "Dr. Horrible sing along blog" I tryed to buy the files from itunes, it is impossible, because you know you have to have a itunes installed, so
Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
Most internet users can't tell the difference between firefox and IE, it's unlikely they'll understand what DRM even is. Those who do understand DRM, probably never bought from the itunes store in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
But what if the recipients reject the education? One response I regularly come across with the norms is "This really doesn't matter to me at all. Why should I need to be aware of an issue that I couldn't care less about?" This generally appears on topics such as this, along with net neutrality, Phorm, Nebuad and the likes and just how much power and information Google has. Really, hardly anyone cares.
The bottom line is that some of us will eschew DRM because it limits our rights. That's our group and we can realistically only change OUR behaviour and decisions because we're a minority and, the way things are going, we will remain such. Then there will be those that protest against DRM because they think it makes piracy more difficult. This is the hardest of the three groups to understand because DRM does not make piracy harder, it simply restricts the rights of those who try to play fair. The norms will consume without a thought simply because they don't care. That's the vast (and, looking around me, I really do mean VAST) majority of people. There are advantages to both of the sane points of view, most notably that we tend to have lower blood pressure despite the stress of trying to swim upstream ;o)
My solution to DRM is and probably always will be to buy polycarbonate frizbees and rip to FLAC for my music collection. Not only do I get a very acceptable quality recording, I also have something tangible to wave at the copyright policeman when he starts giving me hassle. I really don't see a better alternative despite the Internet's potential to revolutionise music distribution. I either put up with a crap recording on a lossy, proprietary codec and pay nearly the same as I would have for DRM-free, lossless audio with a nice master backup if I lose my collection, regardless of whether it's DRM free MP3 or not, or put a little effort in to do it this way. The advantages are clear. I also refuse to use P2P applications and share the results. Sorry, I paid for these. You want them, you know how to get them: The same way I did.
Before anyone points out that audio CDs are mostly copy protected these days, not when you don't use Windows and autorun, they're not. A track is still a track on a standards-compliant CD. There are also some rather nice FLAC enabled, inexpensive personal media players coming out of the Far East right now, for example this [ricco.tv] is a rather nice little gadget if you're more interested in quality audio than being seen with white earbuds on the bus...
In other words, the revolution that replaces the current music industry will probably not be based around the Internet at all unless some folks change their ideas. Piracy is NOT acceptable, regardless of the Robin Hood wannabe crowd. Accepting low quality crap that removes your fair-use rights is also not acceptable. People need to realise these facts. The likelihood of that happening, as the GP poster suggests, is slim.
Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even remotely true. Lots of people who understand DRM have bought from the iTunes store. Understanding DRM doesn't necessarily mean opposition to it. Or, more specifically, understanding it doesn't mean opposition to it in every and all forms. Some DRM sucks and should be avoided in protest. Some DRM is sufficiently light that people don't mind. Yes, some oppose DRM in any and all forms but some, even though they understand DRM perfectly well, don't object to it in the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the average computer user want to listen to their music on Linux? They use Windows or OS X.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Listen to it on Linux no, but my brother, a very average computer user, was quite disappointed to learn that he couldn't listen to his iTunes purchases on his generic MP3 player that his wife got him for his birthday. He has no idea what DRM stands for, but now that I've had a talk with him he DOES understand that the songs he now buys from Amazon.com work fine on that player.
Whether or not he understood DRM or not, Apple still lost a customer in this case. I'm sure it won't be their only one. The questi
iTunes Plus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:iTunes Plus (Score:5, Informative)
iTunes plus has been $.99 (same as iTunes minus) for quite a while now.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. They originally sold for more, but all songs, AFAIK, are now 99c.
Re:iTunes Plus (Score:5, Informative)
Apple DOES offer iTunes Plus.
Yes, it is sold at a premium price.
No, it's not. It was when Apple introduced iTunes Plus, but now the DRM-free tracks are sold at the same price as those with DRM.
However, for those concerned about DRM, it at least affords an alternative that is higher quality and DRM free.
Unfortunately, still only part of the catalogue is offered as DRM-free tracks...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And people should try to remember that Apple would like to do away with DRM, but the RECORDING LABELS won't let them. All the while letting Amazon etc all go without DRM. There should be a lawsuit in there somewhere imo, but I'm not a lawyer.
So basically boycotting Apple over DRM, something they don't want either, is stupid. Boycot the recording industry for forcing them to keep it.
Won't matter (Score:2)
Just 1 or 2% (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yeaaaaaaah goodluck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Not buy any music from any artist on any major label? Wow. That's a bit extreme.
True, the majors sign a lot of crap that they can sell at high prices for short term profit, but they also sign bands that will survive in the long run.
Not buying from the majors means not buying Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Ramones, Motorhead, Slayer, Mr. Bungle, etc.
Support quality, not ideology.
I pity people who limit themselves based off of ideology. True, there is a ton of great music on the indies and that is the majority of where my music dollars is spent, but denying myself the greats, the legends from the past because of a deluded idea that labels are inherently bad is just plain stupid.
Vote with your dollars. Don't buy the new Britney, sure, but denying yourself Led Zeppelin's Presence, Metallica's Master of Puppets.... just plain stupid.
The problem with the /. perspective on the music industry is that the crowd here only considers the technological perspective on the industry and not the financial realities faced by artists who sign to the majors. Good bands who sign bad deals. Hell yeah I'll buy an album by a good band on a major. If they don't get that sale, chances are they will end up in major debt to the label. Believe me. Way too many of my friends have suffered from this. Psychefunkapus. Limbomaniacs. Fungo Mungo. All peers of Primus from back in the day who dreamed of big time success and wound up only with big time debt due to their lack of business experience and cock-eyed optimism.
Great albums ruined by naivete and ruthless business practices. I felt duty bound to buy their albums to help my friends and to have copies of this stuff after it was shelved by the labels.
Signing with the majors does not immediately mean the music is sub par. Many indies sign a lot of crap as well. The whole shoegazer and emo movements of the late nineties early 2000's was largely fueled by the indie labels.
This entire notion is based on a false premise.
Buy what is good. Period.
I have (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one consumer, already have. I don't buy Apple products because of the DRM. Creative Zen MP3 player, Dell, and Fujitsu laptops, and Samsung i760 cellphone. My ex uses a Mac Mini. My best friend sweears by his iPhone and a couple Macs. Nice machines! Apple looks like a good OS but this danged DRM is the showstopper.
Bah! Come on Apple, lighten up. You seem to think all yer customers are sneaks and thieves, like Sam's or Best Buy.
Re:I have (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to add to this, the labels are mandating DRM for Apple to cause exactly what DfD wants: the labels want people to boycott Apple. Apple is too big and too strong for the labels taste; the labels want to raise prices and use variable prices, they want to do away with individual tracks on hot items, they want to increasing the amount of advertising and payola at digital music stores. Apple will have none of this, and they're big enough to keep the labels from getting it.
Divide and conquer, that's the labe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has been answered in other posts above. Simply, the answer is that the RIAA re-negotiated with Amazon and some other sites the selling of DRM-free music in order to give them an edge at competing with iTMS. This is because they feel, and rightly so, that Apple may have too much power in the market, and they fear losing control.
-dZ.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Something HD", as in the HD rip of $movie that I downloaded from $favourite_filesharing_site? Yep, works just fine.
If you don't buy crippled media, you won't have any problems with DRM. And filesharing is just another way of voting with your wallet.
I hope so (Score:2)
people want software they can use (Score:5, Insightful)
"The average user is more than willing to pay more money for hobbled music because of user interface, ease of use"
Why should it be surprising that people are willing to pay for ease of use? it can mean the difference between actually being able to use something and not being able to.
Most people can't use most of most software.
Re:people want software they can use (Score:4, Funny)
Most people can't use most of most software.
Most uses of the word most I have ever seen in one sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Please send your recent post to every project on Sourceforge.
Kind regards,
robot_love
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. DRM doesn't improve ease of use. The average user is more than willing to pay for hobbled music because the music he/she wants is only available in DRM-restricteds formats. If the popular artists were only releasing new songs on 8-track tapes, people would buy 8-track tapes. The format in which music is sold has little to do with convenience; it has much more to do with the recor
For several reasons no (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The iPhone is the biggest selling single phone on the market, hell they've a 1/3 of the whole market with one device
2) The iPod is the biggest selling digital music player by a mile
3) iTunes is one of the easiest to use ways of managing your digital music collection
So will the vast majority of people give any sort of hoot about DRM when all they can see is their ability to share the music between their PCs and their digital music player? No they will not.
All this will do is demonstrate how pointless the actual demonstration is, thus meaning that Apple will be less likely to be concerned.
For most people the question isn't DRM-free its "playable on my iPod".
Re:For several reasons no (Score:5, Informative)
1) The iPhone is the biggest selling single phone on the market, hell they've a 1/3 of the whole market with one device
Bullshit! They're nowhere close to 1/3 of the market. In 2007, over 1 billion cellphones were sold. Assuming a similar rate over the last year, we can compare that to Apple's iPhone sales (roughly 4 million) and it becomes evident that Apple has 0.4% of the market.
Even in the U.S, they only have around 5% of the market.
I think it's the U.S. touchscreen smartphone they've got 1/3 of the market of.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) The iPhone is the biggest selling single phone on the market, hell they've a 1/3 of the whole market with one device
The OP misspoke slightly, but sometimes stuff can get confusing. The iPhone is the biggest selling phone in the United States, yes, even more than the freebie RAZR (cite [appleinsider.com]). They had 28% back in February of 2008 and now have 30% as of December 2, 2008 -- although the later figure seems more suspect (cite [arstechnica.com], cite [cnn.com]). The supply drop of iPhone-2Gs in the 1Q diminished their numbers quite a bit. Also, the market is smart phones, not just touch screen ones. The largest player in smart phones in the US is Blackbe
Right (Score:2, Insightful)
exclusivity (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple regularly features exclusive live sets"
I think this sort of thing prevents the uptake of Free Software in general. People want to be part of an "in crowd", and seek ways to believe it's true (eg. Da Vinci code, fashion, nerd snobbishness, etc). People will pay for this feeling, and I reckon it was used to help prop up the monarchies (and now demonarchies*).
I mean, how "exclusive" is a live set on iTMS? Anyone can buy it, right? This is where marketing comes in. Grass-roots arts and software producers don't want to come across as "here's some scones that my mad-great-aunt made (they make great hearth-stones), all proceeds to the parish..."
*typo intended, exscuse the piss-take ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about "exclusive to us, iTunes, rather than the umpteen brazillion other online outlets."
If only one store is offering the product or service, that makes it exclusive to the store.
Uphill battle (Score:5, Insightful)
DefectiveByDesign would have better luck picking on Microsoft or some of the game publishers. Apple has managed to find the sweet spot between user freedom and DRM. Yes, Apple still uses DRM but it doesn't encumber a majority of Apple iTMS users.
Let's run through Apple's DRM:
I hate DRM as much as the next /'er but the above "restrictions" are pretty darn loose. When iTMS and its uber-convenience is added into the equation, Apple's DRM becomes a minor annoyance. Point-Click-Purchase? One-click purchases? Recommendations based on previous purchases? It becomes pretty easy to overlook the little bit of DRM that is involved.
I'm not an Apple fanboy either:
[me@mydesktop ~]$ uname -a Linux my.rhel.desktop 2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 #1 SMP Wed Nov 5 09:00:19 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
5 different computers that run iTunes. So any Linux boxes, XBMC, cell phones, etc, are out of the question.
iPhones are cell phones and have no limitation on the number of devices that are authorized.
Assuming you own an ipod. To those of us who prefer another device, that's worthless.
If you don't own an iPod, you aren't buying music on iTunes.
3. When de-authorize / re-authorize computers as needed. Just another annoying needless hassle.
Nonsense. It's one button click and an Internet connection that takes less than five seconds to accomplish. This is something you'd be expected to need to do every couple of years at most--hardly "another annoying needless hassle".
You have a very strange definition of loose. Every one of those 4 points by itself would be a deal breaker for me. All together, it's amazing anyone stands for it, let alone defends it.
And the rest of us just look at you like you are a hyper-sensitive ideologue that likes to go on about hypothetical problems th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, you seriously can't use this arguement: "what if there's no internet connection". Simple, find one and authorize your computer. It takes 5 seconds. If you are buying songs on iTunes, you have an Internet connection.
Second, if you want to be able to play your music anywhere you want, go buy formats that allow that. I like to play my music pretty much everywhere I want too, and since I use OSX, iPods and iPhones, I have that ability. If I didn't, I wouldn't use the iTunes store. Pretty simpl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sometimes there's just not one. I don't know where you live that everyone has internet.
Your point is ridiculous. You need an Internet connection for things far more important to getting your new computer running than authorizing an iTunes account.
It's not like you are cruising along listening to tunes with no Internet connection and you are suddenly prompted to connect to the Internet to verify your account. It doesn't work that way.
I'm not so sure we are in as much agreement as you think. Basically I'm saying "take it or leave it" and you are yelling (rather loudly) "LEAVE IT BECAUSE
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
accessibility (Score:5, Interesting)
The average user is more than willing to pay more money for hobbled music because of user interface, ease of use, and marketing.
There is an escape from Apple's DRM: just burn tracks on music CD.
On other side, many companies really disregard the time. The time user has to spend on doing something silly and stupid. Apple was always good on removing the artificial barriers and negotiating compromise where it doesn't hurt users. (But it's not that Apple is clear on all DRM charges.)
From my personal experience, I would easily overpay for something what requires little of attention and just works. Though most of my friends prefer to spend time searching for better deal, spend time getting into the deal and then spend even more time trying to make it work in the end.
IMHO, good accessibility is also feature and I do not mind paying extra for it. Though you never find accessibility on official list of features.
Right now iTMS holds really little of advantage over other stores, so the point of RTFAs stands. Yet, now the time Apple invested into building user loyalty is simply paying back. iTMS competitors shoot themselves so many times in all the possible foots and they would need considerable time to gain the trust back.
P.S. And thanks to misleading **AA campaign many believe that Apple's DRM is norm of life. And that I believe is bigger problem.
DRM ha! (Score:2)
They can DRM all they want. I haven't played their pop music game since they killed Napster. Anything I want to listen to I play myself on the guitar. I'm no Jimi Hendrix but I do well enough and the satisfaction of doing well enough is as great as hearing the virtuoso himself.
And I often forget to flagellate myself for not paying performance fees.
DRM (Score:2)
Misinformed (Score:2, Informative)
How is it "hobbled"? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of music with DRM bought from the iTunes store: I can play it on my computer with no problems at all. I can burn it onto CDs without any problems at all. I can play it in my car (by copying it onto my iPod) without any problems at all. I can't give it away to friends to play on their computers (which would be illegal, which I might or might not care about, and I can give CDs with the music on them to friends, which is just as illegal, which again I might or might not care about), and I can't convert it to MP3 which would allow me to put it onto a cheap 4GB memory stick which can be played in many places, or onto a DVD which my DVD player can play.
Most computer users that I know would have no idea how to put _any_ music onto a memory stick or a DVD, so I don't think there is very much of a limitation at all. On the other hand, the music is easy to buy, and looking in other places is effort as well.
In the case of movie rentals, DRM might very much keep people from using a movie in the way the intend, but it's not in their way when they try to get what they paid for out of a movie (at least with the Apple store).
On the other hand, years ago I tried to buy some eBooks, which came with DRM. Paid for four books (but only a few Euros), had to download bloody Adobe eBook reader software, the software crashed during the download, and all in all I was able to read one of the four books I paid for. I don't dare thinking about what hoops I would have to jump through to make these books readable on my current computer. So in that case, DRM was most definitely in my way and kept me from giving them any more of my money for years. They now sell the same books in unprotected PDF files, which means I can read them on a Mac using Preview, and they will be usable forever.
So the summary: I am not going to boycott DRM if it is implemented well and I trust the company doing it. And if it is implemented badly, you don't need to ask me to boycott it.
Yes. (Score:2)
Files on my ipod (RIP, Neuros II...): 20GB
ITMS purchases: 0
And going to stay that way.
Maybe the average joe can't be arsed to learn about DRM, but that's just one more person for me to laugh at when the next company pulls a wal-mart.
iTunes DRM doesn't bother me. (Score:2)
The DRM on music doesn't bother me because, if a track isn't a DRM-free iTunes Plus track, I can simply burn an Audio CD (using a CD-RW) and rip the CD to MP3s. I'm not an audiophile, so any "loss" due to the conversion isn't something I notice. The day Apple announces a date for their iTunes authentication server to go down, I'll burn some CDs.
The DRM on videos doesn't bother us because we simply don't buy them. We simply rip our DVDs
It just works. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a major difference between Apple's iTunes DRM and other companies:
it lets people do what they want with it.
No, not what YOU want to do with it, what the average iPod/Mac owner wants to do with it.
Most people who are buying songs through iTunes have an iPod or iPhone, many have a mac, and the songs and shows are designed to work just fine on both. They don't want to sync with anything else, so why would they care about the DRM?
Something that restricts you from putting music on your iPod, yes that's going to piss the users off, but something designed to integrate with it? Not so much.
Or you could just not buy what you don't like (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm confused. If 'boycotting' means simply not buying what you don't like from some place that doesn't supply what you wish, then I guess I've been boycotting certain retail outlets all my life. With minimal effort on my part.
Should I be starting websites of my own to tell people what I won't be buying? Cos that could get pretty time consuming and frankly I have better things to be doing. Obviously these people don't.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)