or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Pundits take sides in DRM battle as responses to Jobs fly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pundits take sides in DRM battle as responses to Jobs fly

post #1 of 71
Thread Starter 
A call by Apple frontman Steve Jobs for a ceasefire in the DRM wars has only escalated the fight, with each side taking its own share of potshots -- including a shot in the dark by the RIAA.

Tuesday's provocative open letter by Jobs has touched a nerve in the already sensitive area of music rights, producing reactions ranging from full support to outright dismissal.

Coming as a shock to little, the primary target of the letter -- the Norwegian Consumer Council whose antitrust threats pose a serious risk to iTunes sales -- wasn't easily fooled by the grassroots image.

"It's [the] iTunes Music Store that's providing a service to the consumers and therefore has the responsibility to offer up a consumer friendly product," said the Council's Torgeir Waterhouse. He welcomed the statement as a serious discussion of the problem but characterized the move as an attempt to shift the focus away from the lack of choice in music players for iTunes customers.

Some even argued that Jobs had not gone far enough, pressing him to back up his claims with immediate action. The Electronic Frontier Foundation was one of the first out of the gates with its opinion and urged the Apple CEO to put "his music store where his mouth is" by promptly stripping the Fairplay protection from independent music, much of which is sold on Bleep.com, eMusic, and other online stores without any DRM whatsoever.

Famed DVD protection cracker Jon Lech Johansen went so far as to research the issue and outline the practical reality for such an idea. "It should not take Apples iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM," he said. "Actions speak louder than words, Steve."

Predictably, the gatekeepers of DRM were quick to cling to their familiar bylines. Warner Music head Edgar Bronfman stopped just short of questioning Jobs' sanity: during a quarterly earnings conference call, he said the Apple frontman's suggestion of dropping copy protection was "completely without logic or merit." The Warner chief contended that the ideas of DRM and interoperability weren't mutually incompatible and that his label had every right to protect its files from illegal copies.

Other responses from proponents of the restrictions bordered on the comedic. In what was an example of either strange criticism or a baffling display of misinterpretation, the oft-maligned RIAA responded by welcoming the (non-existent) offer to license Fairplay to other companies, completely ignoring the discussion of eliminating DRM altogether.

SanDisk founder Eli Harari also produced unintended chuckles by penning his own open letter, which contradicted itself by at once claiming that music listeners deserved "the freedom to enjoy content on any device" while urging Jobs to be "less confrontational" and support the industry's lockdown on music.

Neither Jobs nor Apple spokespeople have offered a response to the criticism leveled against them.
post #2 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Insider

Famed DVD protection cracker Jon Lech Johansen went so far as to research the issue and outline the practical reality for such an idea. "It should not take Apples iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM," he said. "Actions speak louder than words, Steve."

Johansen makes a good point. If Jobs really wants us to think he's serious and that it's really the RIAA forcing Apple use DRM then they need to remove it from labels who don't mind being free from DRM.

We will surely be getting an iTunes and Quicktime update for the iPhone and maybe for AppleTV, perhaps we'll see Selective DRM implemented as well... but I doubt it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #3 of 71
I doubt it as well. The only reason that Apple's been able to take a hard line with the big labels is that every label gets *EXACTLY* the same deal. Open up the gates by giving labels the choice of DRM, and you also open up the gates to variable pricing, variable DRM restrictions, and all the other crap that the RIAA labels have been shoving down other channels.

I say keep it the same until the back breaks on DRM. EMI is apparently open to negotiation on this, perhaps it'll start the ball rolling, along with Apply pushing from their end.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #4 of 71
Why would anyone listen to Edgar Bronfman about selling music, while he's running Warners Music right into the ground? The only thing "completely without logic or merit" is the fact that Bronfman is still head of Warners.

I do think Apple should strip the DRM off the songs from the independent labels. I didn't realize the independents didn't demand the DRM in the first place, and I'm disappointed that Apple added it to their songs. Of course, at the time, iTMS was experimental, so Apple wouldn't have taken the chance of it falling apart, but those days are long gone.

I can see the Big 4 possibly using the DRM issue down the road to try to get a higher price from Apple, or other concessions.
post #5 of 71
I agree as well with striping the DRM from those whose labels do not require it. Reason one is this shows that Apple is only using DRM because Apple is being forced to use it as part of the contract between the labels. This points the finger at the labels. Reason two is that by removing the DRM from those that do not require it, this will put pressure upon those that do use DRM.

What's unknown is what response will Apple get by doing this from the labels that require DRM. Will these labels pull the plug on music being sold through iTunes? That is a question that Apple, I'm sure, knows the answer to.

My take on it is that Steve agreed to the DRM to get the show on the road, that was the only way the record companies would play ball, however, once the game reaches a level of no turning back, Steve will "re-negotiate."

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
post #6 of 71
Here's an idea burn a .05 cent cd of your music and re-import it. Done! NO DRM!
post #7 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Johansen makes a good point. If Jobs really wants us to think he's serious and that it's really the RIAA forcing Apple use DRM then they need to remove it from labels who don't mind being free from DRM.

I don't quite agree to it, but the logic is that it is confusing if you have different rights for different songs that you buy from the store. How is a user supposed to know what files have what restrictions on them as they go through their library.

It is consistent with the way Apple works...
post #8 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubfam View Post

Here's an idea burn a .05 cent cd of your music and re-import it. Done! NO DRM!

And spend the next hour re-inputing the tags back into each and every song, unless of course you don't mind seeing only track numbers in your library and not being able to find the song you are looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

How is a user supposed to know what files have what restrictions on them as they go through their library.

It says so right in iTunes.
post #9 of 71
You don't have to re-type tags, iTunes will find those on the internet in second.
post #10 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALM View Post

You don't have to re-type tags, iTunes will find those on the internet in second.

iTunes does not get CD tracks names from a CD that you burnt yourself. When you burn a Music CD in iTunes, it changes the format to AIFF That strips the Tags.
post #11 of 71
Not to mention that the quality will suffer as it's being encoded a second time.
post #12 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

iTunes does not get CD tracks names from a CD that you burnt yourself. When you burn a Music CD in iTunes, it changes the format to AIFF That strips the Tags.

Hmmm...and yet every time I do it, it works every time.

That is because when you burn the disk it saves the information about that disk in your iTunes Library, so the track names will work fine in your own library, you would need to place them in manually only if you gave the disk to someone else and they ripped it on their own computer. But of course that is illegal.
post #13 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post

Not to mention that the quality will suffer as it's being encoded a second time.

Which you wouldn't notice on a non iPod MP3 player
post #14 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

And spend the next hour re-inputing the tags back into each and every song, unless of course you don't mind seeing only track numbers in your library and not being able to find the song you are looking for.



It says so right in iTunes.

Nothing i missed a line in the help files of iTunes.
i Thougt iTunes could convert iTS files to an mp3-cd. DOH!
post #15 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Famed DVD protection cracker Jon Lech Johansen went so far as to research the issue and outline the practical reality for such an idea. "It should not take Apples iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM," he said. "Actions speak louder than words, Steve."

What kind of "research" did he do in 2 days to come to the conclusion that Apple could remove the DRM in 2-3 days? Not just remove it, but selectively remove it (or not implement it, not sure how it gets put in place originally). And once it's removed, they'll still be continued complaints because the song is in AAC format which most portable players besides the iPod can't play. So now those same songs would need to be reencoded as mp3 to be truly "open."

Also, just because some of the labels didn't require DRM for their content to be on iTunes, Apple can't just up and decide to remove the DRM. They would still have to obtain permission to now remove the DRM as its inclusion has been standard since Day 1.

Before I continue, I'd like to say I think DRM is a waste of effort. It has done nothing to stop piracy. Neither did shutting down the original version of Napster. I personally think shutting down Napster made the problem worse. With Napster, the user downloaded one track at a time. Now with Bittorent and other P2P networks, you find complete albums offered or even the artist's entire discography as one file for easy download.

But I still can't see what the fuss is about DRM. If you don't want it, don't buy from the iTunes Store or the Zune Marketplace or whatever. Go to the store and buy the CD and rip it to whatever you want. I could see the point if Apple hid the conditions attached to the files being purchased, but they don't. Likewise for its inability to not be played on other portable players beyond an iPod. It's sort of like someone complaining that the DVD they bought can't be played on their VCR or that a PS3 game won't play on the Nintendo Wii. You knew that when you bought it, so if you weren't okay with that in the first place you shouldn't have spent the money.
post #16 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

Open up the gates by giving labels the choice of DRM, and you also open up the gates to variable pricing, variable DRM restrictions, and all the other crap that the RIAA labels have been shoving down other channels.

Not really. The DRM/no DRM choice is much, much, much, much, much easier to implement than variable pricing or DRM with variable rights. FairPlay DRM is added by the iTunes client after the song has been downloaded, not by the store.

Apple provides the software to the music companies, who do the uploading to the store themselves. So, just add a tag option to that program: DRM "yes" "no". When the iTS sells a song to a client, it check the "DRM" tag and instructs the client accordingly whether to add DRM or not. These are devastatingly simple coding changes to make. Implementing a DRM system that has variable rights, or a pricing system with variable pricing, involves considerably more work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Why would anyone listen to Edgar Bronfman about selling music, while he's running Warners Music right into the ground? The only thing "completely without logic or merit" is the fact that Bronfman is still head of Warners.

His comment irks me a great deal. To say that an argument is completely without logic or merit, but offer no explanation or reasoning as to why that it the case, is intellectually lazy and dishonest. It irks me even more that all proponents of DRM perpetually dodge the central point that DRM doesn't stop piracy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

I don't quite agree to it, but the logic is that it is confusing if you have different rights for different songs that you buy from the store. How is a user supposed to know what files have what restrictions on them as they go through their library.

It is consistent with the way Apple works...

It wouldn't be confusing. Tracks listed on the iTS could have a big padlock icon next to the DRM protected tracks, and no padlock icon (or a padlock with a cross through it) next to DRM-free tracks. In terms of users browsing their own library, it would be no different from the current situation that tracks they have ripped themselves have no restrictions and iTS store tracks have restrictions: i.e. users are already familiar with browsing a library that has some restricted tracks and some not-restricted tracks.

I hope that the only reason Apple don't sell "indie" label stuff DRM-free is that the contracts they have with the "big four" stipulate that Apple aren't allowed to do it.

The more I think about it, the more I think Apple should just offer the ultimatum to the "big four": No DRM on your tracks, or none of your tracks at the iTS.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #17 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

When you burn a Music CD in iTunes, it changes the format to AIFF That strips the Tags.

That isn't accurate. AIFF is a "wrapper" file-format for containing PCM audio. AIFF, unlike WAV (which is also a PCM container file format) does support tags. A music CD is a "redbook" CD, which doesn't support tags. There is an extension to redbook - CD-text, which could be used to offer some kind of tag equivalent.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #18 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Not really. The DRM/no DRM choice is much, much, much, much, much easier to implement than variable pricing or DRM with variable rights. FairPlay DRM is added by the iTunes client after the song has been downloaded, not by the store.

You missed my point. It's *not* a technical issue, that part *is* simple. It's a *contractual* issue. As I said, the one Really Big Club that Apple has with the RIAA labels is that they all get the same deal, period, end of story. The RIAA folks want variable pricing? "Sorry, everyone gets the same deal." The RIAA folks want different DRM limits on different songs? "Sorry, everyone gets the same deal." The indie folks want no-DRM downloads? "Sorry, everyone gets the same deal."

The fact that the last point is one that we'd like to actually *see* happen is unfortunate, but so far the same-contract policy has kept the RIAA bastards at bay for the most part. What was once a mechanism for ensuring consumer rights is now standing in the way of those same rights, to a certain degree.

Now, some have disagreed with this same-contract approach, but if you think about it, it's brilliant. For the labels to collectively bargain the same deal with variable pricing, with variable DRM, etc, they have to collude amongst themselves... which puts them in jeopardy of monopolistic practices accusations that might be prosecutable.

That's the reason that DRM is levied evenly across the iTS, regardless of label: everyone gets the same deal, period. This is why Jobs is calling for the big four to agree to no-DRM. If he can get, say, 2 or even 3 of them to agree to it, then the remaining ones will have no choice, or lose one of their biggest online outlets, because again... everyone gets the same deal.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #19 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

That's the reason that DRM is levied evenly across the iTS, regardless of label: everyone gets the same deal, period. This is why Jobs is calling for the big four to agree to no-DRM. If he can get, say, 2 or even 3 of them to agree to it, then the remaining ones will have no choice, or lose one of their biggest online outlets, because again... everyone gets the same deal.

O.K., point taken. I think that Apple is in the position already where they can change that deal offered to everyone: instead of everyone gets DRM, everyone gets no DRM.

If the big four say "no", they'll just have to sit and watch as everyone continues to buy iPods and indie tracks from iTS and piracy of "big four" tracks increases sharply. They'll soon change their mind about DRM.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #20 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

O.K., point taken. I think that Apple is in the position already where they can change that deal offered to everyone: instead of everyone gets DRM, everyone gets no DRM.

If the big four say "no", they'll just have to sit and watch as everyone continues to buy iPods and indie tracks from iTS and piracy of "big four" tracks increases sharply. They'll soon change their mind about DRM.

I think they're getting closer, but they're not to that point yet. EMI is apparently experimenting with the idea of DRM-free online sales, so that's one that might be convinced. Basically, what *can't* happen is for iTS to lose 1/2 or 2/3 of its catalog at one shot - that would be deadly. But 1/6? 1/5? Yeah, it could survive that. Get 2 or 3 of the big labels to go along, hit that critical mass, then tell the other labels that it's no-DRM, or no-ITS, period. I think that's what Jobs is hoping for with this, convincing just a couple of the big labels to go along with it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #21 of 71
I don't know why the big labels don't at least try it out and see what happens.

Myopic freaks.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #22 of 71
Seems to me that Steve is up to something. Why all of a sudden he's crying for the removal of DRM. I don't see why people hate DRM. People have to remember that DRM was a effect of people downloading millions of songs for free...yeah it sill happens but it was a starting point. Sooner or later CDs you buy at best buy will have some sort of DRM on it. They just need to adpot 1 DRM standard so that all music will play on any player.
post #23 of 71
*pulls up chair*
*grabs popcorn*
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #24 of 71
Can anyone point me to a research study done in the last year that evaluates:
  • The impact of online stores and P2P networks individually on traditional CD sales.
  • The impact that DRM on tracks from online stores has had on piracy.
  • The decline or increase of music files transferred illegally over P2P networks.
  • The decline or increase of all music sales and the portion thereof attributed to traditional media, legal downloads, and illegal downloads since iTS's inception.
This is just an opinion, but I don't think anyone has proven or can prove that DRM has been effective. I have nothing to back it up other than what I believe to be common sense, something that seems to escape the management at the big 4 and the RIAA, but I think:
  • Most listeners who stole music via P2P networks over the last few years, still steal music via P2P networks today. Unless they are actually afraid of being sued by the RIAA, how would you convince them that paid is better than free? I'd bet most aren't concerned much about the RIAA and stealing is no more an issue of conscience for them today than it was 3 years ago.
  • Most listeners who buy their music through legal downloads do so because they like the convenience of being able to preview every track and have instant, at home, gratification, not because they've been presented with such a fabulous online shopping experience that they've decided to "go legal."
  • Traditional media sales have declined, in part, as a result of an increase in both legal and illegal downloads.
  • Traditional media sales have declined, also in part, as a result of the perceived lack of value associated with the inflated cost of traditional media.
  • Traditional media sales have also suffered as a result of the listeners inability to purchase songs a la carte foregoing the per-song expense, which is greater for traditional media, imposed for songs they don't like.
  • Online media sales has suffered due to DRM. Many users don't want to deal with DRM or the loss of quality typically associated with the "legal" methods of removing it.

If I carry my CDs to work with me, I don't have to authorize my Mac, PC, or the standalone CD/clock radio on my desk to play a CD. I think it's ridiculous that I have to authorize the computer to which the speakers are attached so that I can listen to my music from my iPod out loud with an interface that gives me easier control over what is played using a larger display, more sorting options, and increased selection flexibility. In addition, there are so many flaws with the authorize/deauthorize process and the things that can go wrong that I just refuse to get involved. I burn and re-rip and I'm perfectly happy with the quality. I'm sure it is not as good, but it was cheaper, and honestly, I can't discern enough of a difference to fret over it. I have backups of the original DRMed files so that I can go back to them if the DRM nightmare ever ends (I'm assuming we'll be given a method to strip DRM from existing files).

It's just too easy to rip or otherwise convert DRMed music files to obtain DRM-free files to ever think that DRM will be effective. Besides, dishonest (and many honest) people will always find a way around it. If people want to pirate music they will find a way to do it. If I were making copies of an album to sell, I could just buy and rip one original. I don't need downloads to do that, so I don't see the point to DRM. It just seems absolutely useless.
post #25 of 71
I wonder how adding songs to the iPhone would count towards you user agreement. I also wonder if this is the reason why SJ is now up in a huff over DRM.
post #26 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

I don't know why the big labels don't at least try it out and see what happens.

Myopic freaks.

Well, you know me...not exactly a hippie rebel. But one thing makes me want to take to the streets and scream"Fight the Power" more than anything else, and that's the goddamned RIAA and the recording industry in general. They are heartless, dickless, visionless, short sighted pieces of monkey shit if I've ever seen one.

Event: The labels own the world from 1920-1999.

Industry: "Doo wop shoo bop!" Whop badda do wap, a bop bam BOOM!" CDS are
so awesome! We're really, really, REALLY rich!


Event: Napster is created in 1999.

RIAA: "Snore...huh....uh...What's Napster?...is that like Tickle Me Elmo?"


Event: Napster and P2P use explodes

RIAA: "Hmmm This doesn't seem good. "Hey, maybe we should sue. Yep..that's
the ticket!" "Also, let's not offer any alternative. Suing will work. Always does!"


Event: iTunes Store opens, massively successful.

RIAA: <yawn>


Event: iTunes becomes even more successful. Contracts come up for renewal.

RIAA: "WE WANT VARIABLE PRICED DOWLOADS! Apple is a monopoly!"


Event: Jobs gives them the finger.

RIAA: <Sniffle> "That wasn't nice."


Event: Piracy decreases because there is a reasonable alternative. Not due to DRM.

RIAA: "Hey, you guys think we should get T bone steaks for lunch? Bill? Ron?" <yawn>


Event: Jobs calls for DRM to end

RIAA: "WHHHHAAAT? Apple is monopoly! Most iPods have 90% pirated music! Where's
my T bone? Seriously guys, it's been like an hour. Oh, and call Wal-Mart. They're
running low on that new K-Fed CD. Man, I love CDs. Stupid Apple."




DRM needs to end. Give people a good alternative to stealing music and they'll embrace it. That's already been proven. The RIAA can still go after P2P networks..nothing will change there. I swear, watching this is almost comical. With each event the labels prove they have their heads up their asses. They have no idea where their industry is going and haven't since Michael Jackson had a real nose.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 71
Well, let's not stop at the Music Labels, because we all know it's wrong for them to try and protect their profits.

OPEN UP OSX FOR IT TO WORK ON ALL PC'S. If all DL'd music should be able to play on any player, then all OS's should be able to work on any PC (meeting spec requirements of course)

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, you know me...not exactly a hippie rebel. But one thing makes me want to take to the streets and scream"Fight the Power" more than anything else, and that's the goddamned RIAA and the recording industry in general. They are heartless, dickless, visionless, short sighted pieces of moneky shit if I've ever seen one.

Event: The labels own the world from 1920-1999.

Industry: "Doo wop shoo bop!" Whop badda do wap, a bop bam BOOM!" CDS are
so awesome! We're really, really, REALLY rich!


Event: Napster is created in 1999.

RIAA: "Snore...huh....uh...What's Napster?...is that like Tickle Me Elmo?"


Event: Napster and P2P use explodes

RIAA: "Hmmm This doesn't seem good. "Hey, maybe we should sue. Yep..that's
the ticket!" "Also, let's not offer any alternative. Suing will work. Always does!"


Event: iTunes Store opens, massively successful.

RIAA: <yawn>


Event: iTunes becomes even more successful. Contracts come up for renewal.

RIAA: "WE WANT VARIABLE PRICED DOWLOADS! Apple is a monopoly!"


Event: Jobs gives them the finger.

RIAA: <Sniffle> "That wasn't nice."


Event: Piracy decreases because there is a reasonable alternative. Not due to DRM.

RIAA: "Hey, you guys think we should get T bone steaks for lunch? Bill? Ron?" <yawn>


Event: Jobs calls for DRM to end

RIAA: "WHHHHAAAT? Apple is monopoly! Most iPods have 90% pirated music! Where's
my T bone? Seriously guys, it's been like an hour. Oh, and call Wal-Mart. They're
running low on that new K-Fed CD. Man, I love CDs. Stupid Apple."




DRM needs to end. Give people a good alternative to stealing music and they'll embrace it. That's already been proven. The RIAA can still go after P2P networks..nothing will change there. I swear, watching this is almost comical. With each event the labels prove they have their heads up their asses. They have no idea where their industry is going and haven't since Michael Jacskon had a real nose.
post #28 of 71
There are two issues going on here with the Norwegians. One is licensing Fairplay, the second one, which is probably Apple would never ever want to do is to open up iTunes for direct connection to non-iPod players.

iTunes is one of the biggest advantages iPod has over its competitors. It's half of the user-friendly experience that makes the iPod so attractive. It sounds like the Norwegians want any old MP3 player to be able to interact with iTunes just like an iPod. And it's no surprise that Apple vehemently opposes this. The Norwegians are asking Apple to hand over their competitive advantage to its rivals. Apple invested money and time to develop this great content and device management service for iPod owners and now they should let other players benefit from it? This is like Coke being told to hand over its recipe to Pepsi.

I must say the Norwegians are out of whack on this. No company is under any obligation to share its lawful competitive advantages with the competition.
post #29 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

There are two issues going on here with the Norwegians. One is licensing Fairplay, the second one, which is probably Apple would never ever want to do is to open up iTunes for direct connection to non-iPod players.

iTunes is one of the biggest advantages iPod has over its competitors. It's half of the user-friendly experience that makes the iPod so attractive. It sounds like the Norwegians want any old MP3 player to be able to interact with iTunes just like an iPod. And it's no surprise that Apple vehemently opposes this. The Norwegians are asking Apple to hand over their competitive advantage to its rivals. Apple invested money and time to develop this great content and device management service for iPod owners and now they should let other players benefit from it? This is like Coke being told to hand over its recipe to Pepsi.

I must say the Norwegians are out of whack on this. No company is under any obligation to share its lawful competitive advantages with the competition.

Uh, according to Jobs, Apple is willing to open it up...completely. That's the entire point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 71
I hate how the music industry makes it look like they have a choice. If they pull their music from iTunes, people will go back to stealing it. Get rid of the DRM and they mite sell MORE songs, because now zune/zen/ and who ever else can use iTunes super easy layout. This could make loads of money.
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
post #31 of 71
I just don't see how the RIAA can justify my ability to rip a CD and do WHATEVER I want with it (including share it illegally) while also offering music downloads at poorer quality with limitations on how I can use it.

Either all CDs need to get DRM or all digital downloads need to lose DRM.

Apple's not concerned about iTunes/iPod in all this because you can still only load songs on an iPod with iTunes. If that remains the case (which it should) then iPod users will need to get their music into iTunes somehow. Instead of using some other download site and moving the files over, the user will just click on the "iTunes Store" icon and buy stuff from there.

I agree with some others here that Steve Jobs must be up to something. There must be a reason why it released that letter now.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #32 of 71
Hey Steve Jobs and Apple,

First negotiate a deal with labels and leverage licensing of DRM technology for Apple dropping DRM legal responsibility but have software acknowledge DRM and work as it does now variably. Then...

Sell Licenses of DRM to the labels without warrantee for their use and if they want programming changes, charge for it. They can put it on anything they want and they have to police it themselves.

Apple makes money on the licensing + programming and saves money everywhere else. $$

Hey, make some doe in this instead of the headache it is now...
G
Reply
G
Reply
post #33 of 71
I remember back in the day you would buy a CD, bring it home, listen to it a couple times, stick it in your brand new 52x CD-ROM drive (state of the art ) rip it to your computer, [Repeat previous process a few times], take your favorite songs and burn them to a CD, give them to your friends and let them enjoy them.

And of course the friends would put it onto their computer and rip it to the computer, take their own songs and some of yours, burn it to a CD and give it to that cute girl in Biology.

Repeat. There is always a way to share the music. Its just the music companies that are calling it illegal. I applaud Steve Jobs for spearheading this issue.

And hell, I sell iPods at circuit city and a lot of people I tell about the iTunes Store, there are an alarming amount of people who actually don't want to buy stuff off iTS, and would in fact rather have a CD.

The people who these DRM are protecting the companies against are the teens and college students. You won't see many 40 year old men trying to download free music. And when it comes to these teens, you want to let them have at least a bit of free music. In order to make money in the music industry you have to have your name out there, and if no one knows about you because they have better things to spend their 14 dollars on (10 on iTS ) then how are they going to know about you? From what I've heard, musicians make more money going on tours and selling out the halls.

Radio plays free music. But its okay because they are really just advertisments for the band to purchase their music. Why can't DRM services allow this without making it illegal?

And for the record, I have a 60 GB iPod Video, and I haven't downloaded, purchased, or even listened to a song for about 9 months now. Maybe something like the DRMRevolution could bring back users from long ago that have been neglecting their iPod Librarys.

Music is a powerful thing. Viva la DRMR.
Powerbook G4 17" 1.0 GHz, 60 GB HD, 1GB RAM
Macbook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz, 100 GB 7200 RPM, 2 GB RAM
Soon: 30" Apple Cinema Display
Soon: Macbook Pro 17" Merom Full Specs.
Reply
Powerbook G4 17" 1.0 GHz, 60 GB HD, 1GB RAM
Macbook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz, 100 GB 7200 RPM, 2 GB RAM
Soon: 30" Apple Cinema Display
Soon: Macbook Pro 17" Merom Full Specs.
Reply
post #34 of 71
Quote:
I remember back in the day....

What, like in 2002?

OMG. I am old.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 71
Let's face it. The music industry model failed. Now only live performing bands can make money in music unless you are a publisher.

New industry slogan should be: "We'll make it free if it's an MP3"
G
Reply
G
Reply
post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh, according to Jobs, Apple is willing to open it up...completely. That's the entire point.

Upon further review, you're probably right.
post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What, like in 2002?

OMG. I am old.

haha, yeah. I remember back in the day you'd buy a vinyl record and record it to tape, then use "high-speed dubbing" (like a 2X tape drive) to make crappy copies for all your friends.

I definitely feel dated now...

"No you're analog!"
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #38 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

And spend the next hour re-inputing the tags back into each and every song, unless of course you don't mind seeing only track numbers in your library and not being able to find the song you are looking for.

I wrote a little bash script that builds a tagging script based on the names in iTunes that automatically tags them after I re-import them (or more accurately, after I import full .aiff format and re-encode with a command line utility.) Manual labor? Pssshh, I have the shell!
post #39 of 71
Who would pay more for a DRM-less song on iTunes? Say, $2.50? The labels won't budge unless they can get more money.
post #40 of 71
Yeah it was like 1999. I'm 18, remember? :P

Youngun! Rispeck yur oldurs!
Powerbook G4 17" 1.0 GHz, 60 GB HD, 1GB RAM
Macbook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz, 100 GB 7200 RPM, 2 GB RAM
Soon: 30" Apple Cinema Display
Soon: Macbook Pro 17" Merom Full Specs.
Reply
Powerbook G4 17" 1.0 GHz, 60 GB HD, 1GB RAM
Macbook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz, 100 GB 7200 RPM, 2 GB RAM
Soon: 30" Apple Cinema Display
Soon: Macbook Pro 17" Merom Full Specs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Pundits take sides in DRM battle as responses to Jobs fly