The law as written is foggy, but I think the intended end result is that any DRMed media I buy from any media store should be playable on any media player (including computers).
People are interpreting this as follows:
1. If I create a media store to sell DRMed media, I must make the DRM decodable by any media player that wants it, so I must give them the code to put on their player to decode the DRM, and/or
2. If I make a media player, I must put DRM decoding software on it to decode media using different DRMs from different media stores.
I'm not sure #1 has to be true, for if the iTunes software translated Fairplay DRM into WMA/ATRAC/Real DRM, then I need not give the Fairplay DRM to any media player. I'm not sure #2 has to be true, for if the iTunes software translated WMA/ATRAC/Real DRM into Fairplay DRM, then the iPod need only decode the Fairplay DRM.
Is this latter interpretation right or wrong? Or is making people use iTunes (not iTMS, but iTunes) disallowed by the law? Do I have to allow others to make players (like iTunes.app or like the iPod) that can translate to/from Fairplay DRM? Further, do I have to allow others to make changes to the Fairplay code?
To those that think this law was good, I challenge you to think through the issues more deeply and tell me how it will work for consumers and companies. I've worked it through down the multiple paths. I bet you'll find it's going to be real messy for consumers/companies when using multiple DRMs, or that DRM will need to be dominated by one proprietary scheme, or that DRM will need to be open source (which is no DRM at all, equating to very limited media sales).
Except this bill has got absolutely nothing to do with allowing removal of DRM, in fact it provides stiff penalties for doing so. DRM will still be there, so the labels will still be happy.
Since France realizes it can't strong arm the labels it decides to strong arm the distribution platform.
With 2% of their sales, the losses are acceptable to drop France.
Since France realizes it can't strong arm the labels it decides to strong arm the distribution platform.
With 2% of their sales, the losses are acceptable to drop France.
There is a lot more reason in keeping some form of DRM than keeping the closed iTunes/iPod platform. Unless if you are Apple or have a mattress of Apple stocks.
Said it before and I will say it again: A Sony tape/CD plays on RCA decks, and an RCA tape/cd plays on sony decks.
There is NO reason that an iTunes song shouldnt play on a Creative or Dell player, PocketPC/palm, home stereo wifi integration devices, Windows Media center/free-OSS media centers and there is no reason that MS (Rhapsity Napster...) music shouldmt play on the itunes/ipod platform.
The problem isnt with protection of content, the problem is making content damn near useless.
There is a lot more reason in keeping some form of DRM than keeping the closed iTunes/iPod platform. Unless if you are Apple or have a mattress of Apple stocks.
"Said it before and I will say it again: A Sony tape/CD plays on RCA decks, and an RCA tape/cd plays on sony decks."
Said it before and I will say it again, you have that wonderful choice today: Protected WMA songs from any WMA music store can be played on any WMA player. If you want that flexibility, stick with WMA. There are at hundreds of WMA stores worldwide, and hundreds of WMA players worldwide. Be happy, and don't worry (or complain to Microsoft if you need to play it on a Mac).
Just let iTunes/iPod/iTMS cater to all those fools who don't care about your arbitrary rule. Okay?
Said it before and I will say it again: A Sony tape/CD plays on RCA decks, and an RCA tape/cd plays on sony decks.
There is NO reason that an iTunes song shouldnt play on a Creative or Dell player, PocketPC/palm, home stereo wifi integration devices, Windows Media center/free-OSS media centers and there is no reason that MS (Rhapsity Napster...) music shouldmt play on the itunes/ipod platform.
The problem isnt with protection of content, the problem is making content damn near useless.
The problem is only partly due to DRM. These devices each support different sets of formats (MP3, AAC, WMA, etc.)
If you're wanting to see all formats supported, you're using the wrong analogy; what you want is to be able to play a tape on your CD player!
A. Who here was forced to purchase an iPod? Who here was forced to download iTunes?
B. If you don't like DRM, then put your iPod on ebay and drag your iTunes folder to the trash. Sell your music to someone who can tolerate living under the hellish yoke of DRM.
C. There is a crucial difference between a government sponsored monopoly and a monopoly based upon merit; they are not equal. Apple's market share is the result of the merit of their products.
General DRM is what made the online music business possible. Without it the music companies would never have allowed it. That would have taken the choice away from people. So you can say DRM is what gave the customer the choice between online music and hard copy CDs.
Apple restricted DRM only benefits Apple. The iPod preceeds iTMS so in worst case senario we would not have had iTMS had the French bill been the global policy pre-iTMS, but a lot of other stores to choose from when wanting to buy music for your iPod. Even if the bill makes iTMS less of a sale booster for the iPod you still have the thight iTMS->iTunes->iPod integration that no other store will be able to offer, thus benefitting the iPod sales.
... The iPod preceeds iTMS so in worst case senario we would not have had iTMS had the French bill been the global policy pre-iTMS, but a lot of other stores to choose from when wanting to buy music for your iPod. Even if the bill makes iTMS less of a sale booster for the iPod you still have the thight iTMS->iTunes->iPod integration that no other store will be able to offer, thus benefitting the iPod sales.
Anders, you are right here. If there was a single standard pre-iTMS that was suitable to the music labels, Apple would've used it. I don't think Apple has a problem with a single standard because as you said, Apple has the best integration (even with just 'free' MP3s or podcasts).
But this French law doesn't mandate a single international standard. It says everyone must support multiple schemes and make their own scheme available to everyone else. Apple's position is that's a catastrophe waiting to happen for consumers and for companies - and it will cause people to just go back to the simpler world of piracy.
Carefully think how this will need to be implemented all the way through and you'll see that Apple is right.
Please explain how a single unified DRM is better than a multitude of DRMs when it comes to control. It might be a mess for the programmers but it would be transparent for the user. I have a lot of audible material and I cannot feel the DrM of that is coded differently from Apples own.
The more I read Apples statement the less clear it is. What chain of event is Apple actually fearing? If anything the ability to play your online bought music on more devises and apps will make it more desirable for the customer.
From Paul Resnikoff who edits a blog at www.digitalmusicnews.com, he writes in "Resnikoff's Parting Shot: The Complexities of French Regulation":
Quote:
"Apple asserted that protection becomes much more difficult as a result. "The French implementation...will result in state-sponsored piracy," the company said in a statement on Tuesday. "If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers."
Apple is arguing that the great interoperability equalizer makes tracks functional on different stores, but ultimately reduces protection. Taken a step further, what is the difference between an unprotected, MP3 file, and a protected file that is suddenly interoperable? Interoperable files will probably still carry numerous protections, including limitations on sharing and checks to make sure content has been properly purchased. But a new set of problems will emerge, as technology companies and content holders will have to ?normalize? rules between various DRM schemes, or at least figure out a way that various protection guidelines are preserved following a conversion. Sound complicated? The weeds are far more complex than the top-level promise of ?interoperability,? and company resources are likely to be diverted as a result."
He says more at the blog. I think it's even more complicated than he says. Will the French law prevent new, possibly more innovative but proprietary DRM schemes from being introduced into the market? What if eMusic (which uses MP3s today) adds an open-source DRM scheme pushed by the EFF, and I create a player that plays only that scheme? Is Apple obligated by this law to turn Fairplay DRM tracks into that scheme for use on my player? Who's to evaluate and say that the open-source DRM scheme doesn't protect diddly-squat? Will Apple or the French government be liable to the music labels if the protection gets destroyed as a result?
I've said too much on this - I need to get back to life. So one last thing.
Early yesterday, various articles quoted the IFPI (music industry) as saying they were behind the legislation. This one from Detroit News, which I think is just the Reuters copy, says
Quote:
"The new interoperability rules were welcomed in principle by recording companies, which have often complained that iTunes has deprived them of any control over music pricing. "It is important to consumers to have the ability to move songs between their various listening devices," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Recording Industry."
"The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a trade group, reacted cautiously to the French plan. The group said that while it supported the "interoperability" of different devices, the French proposal failed to define precisely what that means. It also said that any fines "should be genuinely a deterrent."
Personally, I think the main problem is and always has been CDs. If they had been priced better to begin with, people wouldn't have had such a strong compultion to download albums.
This whole iTunes Music Store thing was a wonderful dream, but the labels have turned it into just another horiffic and useless money-grabber from which in the end, nobody wins.
Sure, I'd love to have the convenience of downloading music directly into my library, but I'd only want to do that if it were at the same quality as CD audio, for the same price as a CD. And DRM? Come on. The whole reason it was invented was to stop people from 'stealing' music. Well they wouldn't be stealing music if there was an easier and better alternative to the system to begin with.
Something has got to be done in the near future to solve this whole problem, France is just doing what they think is best for the consumer, Apple is just doing what they think is best for themselves, and neither of them know what they're talking about.
The law as written is foggy, but I think the intended end result is that any DRMed media I buy from any media store should be playable on any media player (including computers).
What definitely is foggy, is the reporting of the issue. The bill may also be foggy, but I haven't read it, so I don't know. Anyone know if the bill is available to read online? Somehow I doubt that it is.
All reports have stated that the bill "forces companies to licence their DRM schemes". The reports have then gone on to interpret this is many flawed ways, such as saying this would force all devices to play back all content and all content providers to provide content playable on all devices. I do not believe that that is what the bill actually states. I believe the bill is just an effort to level the playing field so that someone could make a player capable of playing anything if they wanted to, and someone could introduce a store that sells tracks with all the different sorts of DRM if they wanted to.
Quote:
Originally posted by mark2005
To those that think this law was good, I challenge you to think through the issues more deeply and tell me how it will work for consumers and companies. I've worked it through down the multiple paths. I bet you'll find it's going to be real messy for consumers/companies when using multiple DRMs, or that DRM will need to be dominated by one proprietary scheme, or that DRM will need to be open source (which is no DRM at all, equating to very limited media sales).
Messy for companies to implement - a little. Messy for customers, not really.
So, scenario 1. I want to make a hardware device capable of playing anything. Lets call it a "jFlock". I implement the following decoders: AAC, WMA, ATRAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, FLAC, OGG Vorbis, AIFF, WAV. I go to Apple and I say: "tell me how to decrypt FairPlay, in exchange for this here money", and they tell me, because they have to under this law. Ditto with whatever Sony call their DRM scheme, and ditto with PlaysForSure. Now, I can implement all the DRM decrypting too. So now my jFlock has all the necessary tools for playing all current files. I could make my player compatible with iTunes, Napster and SonyConnect, so in each program, only those files that the program recognises are visible. i.e., when I plug jFlock into my computer and launch iTunes, I see all AAC+FairPlay tracks (and probably AAC and MP3 files too) that are on jFlock. If I launch SonyConnect, I see all the ATRAC tracks, and with Napster I see all the PlaysForSure tracks. Additionally, these programs would pass the necessary keys to jFlock for the decrypting of DRMed tracks.
Alternatively, I could produce my own music library management software that can manage all the different files itself. It would just need to be given the keys for any DRMed stuff by the respective music stores. This could be implemented easily, as part of licensing a DRM scheme would have to involve mechanisms for key retrieval (i.e. instructions on how to communicate with the music stores).
Scenario 2. I want to introduce a music store capable of selling music in every format. So again, I license the DRM mechanisms and implement all the necessary codecs (in this case, I only need WMA, ATRAC and AAC). The person buying the music selects which format they want (I could provide a help section of my site listing all the popular playback devices and which formats they play). If someone has an iPod, they choose AAC+FairPlay, and the song is downloaded. If I'm nice, I even offer the opportunity to download the same track in multiple different formats for no additional, or very minor, fee. To make things easier for the user, I'd probably implement a music library manager too, but if they wanted to use something else, that wouldn't matter. I'd just have to pass the DRM keys to the customer's chosen program. This would not be difficult to implement.
Note that none of this would have any impact on the usability of the iTunes+iPod combination. It would also mean that devices such as the Roku SoundBridge could implement FairPlay and complement the iTunes+iPod combination.
What if eMusic (which uses MP3s today) adds an open-source DRM scheme pushed by the EFF, and I create a player that plays only that scheme?
DRM cannot be open-source. It wouldn't work. People could possibly be prosecuted under this law for open-sourcing DRM schemes (as it would then allow the DRM to be circumvented)
This whole thing is a lot more complicated than anyone can openly admit, and I think Apple's response is largely a BS cover story.
I really don't understand how opening DRM to third parties or dropping DRM encourages piracy. It would be easier to casually "share" media from person to person, but online file trading is there whether or not iTunes is available. P2P existed before iTunes, and should iTunes die, it will probably still be around long afterwards. Despite the easy the availability of free tracks, what Apple showed is that there are a lot of people still willing to pay for a track. I don't see how losing or opening the DRM will make any difference in that regard.
DRM cannot be open-source. It wouldn't work. People could possibly be prosecuted under this law for open-sourcing DRM schemes (as it would then allow the DRM to be circumvented)
I know that DRM cannot be open-source, thus only those who sell tracks as MP3s could possibly use it. Get it?
What definitely is foggy, is the reporting of the issue. The bill may also be foggy, but I haven't read it, so I don't know.
Reporting being foggy is an understatement and now a fact of life. But the bill itself is also foggy, as demonstrated by the fact that the European music industry rep (IFPI) still is unsure what the bill means by interoperability. (See my earlier post).
Mr. H also writes earlier:
Quote:
Please explain how a single unified DRM is better than a multitude of DRMs when it comes to control.
If there is a single standard (open or proprietary), and single testing/certification body, then liability can be reduced. With multiple schemes, and depending on the interpretation of the bill regarding what each company must do (see my earlier post also), there is no one body and no real way to ensure that the DRM isn't broken in the porting, etc; thus, leaving it unclear as to who is liable for losses and broken contract clauses.
You posit a particular interpretation of the bill in your scenarios, which may or may not be correct, just as I have earlier. I'd only add that although all DRM schemes are conceptually the same in the big picture, the implementations are quite different, thus, making it possible that nobody has to license patents from anybody else to do DRM. Somehow today's different schemes, and possibly future schemes, need to be made interoperable - no easy feat.
Apple may have chosen to highlight the worst case scenario, and to use sensationalism in its response but I don't think it's BS. It's a possibility, and it was also a warning to the music industry to wake up, or wind up with a DRM house of cards. Apple is right to believe that a DRM house of cards will mean that the labels will forbid digital sales - by not just Apple, but everybody - until we hear otherwise from the labels. And Apple has played out these scenarios in its offices - the first poke was by Real's Harmony, remember? They've certainly thought about it longer than any of us.
Again, I want a world where there's no DRM - I actually still buy CDs; the only songs I've gotten from iTMS were either free downloads or through redeeming promotions (Song Airlines, Pepsi, US Army, Gap, etc). But being pragmatic, I'd rather a world where I can have downloads with non-intrusive DRM than no downloads at all.
One final note - Fairplay was a last-minute Apple "acquisition." Not long before opening the iTunes store, Apple somehow "acquired" it from another company (anybody remember the name?); it's as if Apple didn't think about DRM until it was forced by the labels. At which point, they decided they didn't want to use Microsoft's DRM. It's mysterious - no press release, no mention in any SEC filing, no acknowledgement by Apple that anything occurred. The other company's website stayed online for a long time even after it seemed to no longer be in business, and it was never updated.
Comments
People are interpreting this as follows:
1. If I create a media store to sell DRMed media, I must make the DRM decodable by any media player that wants it, so I must give them the code to put on their player to decode the DRM, and/or
2. If I make a media player, I must put DRM decoding software on it to decode media using different DRMs from different media stores.
I'm not sure #1 has to be true, for if the iTunes software translated Fairplay DRM into WMA/ATRAC/Real DRM, then I need not give the Fairplay DRM to any media player. I'm not sure #2 has to be true, for if the iTunes software translated WMA/ATRAC/Real DRM into Fairplay DRM, then the iPod need only decode the Fairplay DRM.
Is this latter interpretation right or wrong? Or is making people use iTunes (not iTMS, but iTunes) disallowed by the law? Do I have to allow others to make players (like iTunes.app or like the iPod) that can translate to/from Fairplay DRM? Further, do I have to allow others to make changes to the Fairplay code?
To those that think this law was good, I challenge you to think through the issues more deeply and tell me how it will work for consumers and companies. I've worked it through down the multiple paths. I bet you'll find it's going to be real messy for consumers/companies when using multiple DRMs, or that DRM will need to be dominated by one proprietary scheme, or that DRM will need to be open source (which is no DRM at all, equating to very limited media sales).
Originally posted by Mr. H
Except this bill has got absolutely nothing to do with allowing removal of DRM, in fact it provides stiff penalties for doing so. DRM will still be there, so the labels will still be happy.
Since France realizes it can't strong arm the labels it decides to strong arm the distribution platform.
With 2% of their sales, the losses are acceptable to drop France.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Since France realizes it can't strong arm the labels it decides to strong arm the distribution platform.
With 2% of their sales, the losses are acceptable to drop France.
There is a lot more reason in keeping some form of DRM than keeping the closed iTunes/iPod platform. Unless if you are Apple or have a mattress of Apple stocks.
There is NO reason that an iTunes song shouldnt play on a Creative or Dell player, PocketPC/palm, home stereo wifi integration devices, Windows Media center/free-OSS media centers and there is no reason that MS (Rhapsity Napster...) music shouldmt play on the itunes/ipod platform.
The problem isnt with protection of content, the problem is making content damn near useless.
Originally posted by Anders
There is a lot more reason in keeping some form of DRM than keeping the closed iTunes/iPod platform. Unless if you are Apple or have a mattress of Apple stocks.
Your statement is obfuscated!
Said it before and I will say it again, you have that wonderful choice today: Protected WMA songs from any WMA music store can be played on any WMA player. If you want that flexibility, stick with WMA. There are at hundreds of WMA stores worldwide, and hundreds of WMA players worldwide. Be happy, and don't worry (or complain to Microsoft if you need to play it on a Mac).
Just let iTunes/iPod/iTMS cater to all those fools who don't care about your arbitrary rule. Okay?
Originally posted by a_greer
Said it before and I will say it again: A Sony tape/CD plays on RCA decks, and an RCA tape/cd plays on sony decks.
There is NO reason that an iTunes song shouldnt play on a Creative or Dell player, PocketPC/palm, home stereo wifi integration devices, Windows Media center/free-OSS media centers and there is no reason that MS (Rhapsity Napster...) music shouldmt play on the itunes/ipod platform.
The problem isnt with protection of content, the problem is making content damn near useless.
The problem is only partly due to DRM. These devices each support different sets of formats (MP3, AAC, WMA, etc.)
If you're wanting to see all formats supported, you're using the wrong analogy; what you want is to be able to play a tape on your CD player!
B. If you don't like DRM, then put your iPod on ebay and drag your iTunes folder to the trash. Sell your music to someone who can tolerate living under the hellish yoke of DRM.
C. There is a crucial difference between a government sponsored monopoly and a monopoly based upon merit; they are not equal. Apple's market share is the result of the merit of their products.
D. Hey, France! "laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer," !
That concludes my participation in this thread.
Merci et adieu,
Aries 1B
Originally posted by ibuzz
Your statement is obfuscated!
General DRM is what made the online music business possible. Without it the music companies would never have allowed it. That would have taken the choice away from people. So you can say DRM is what gave the customer the choice between online music and hard copy CDs.
Apple restricted DRM only benefits Apple. The iPod preceeds iTMS so in worst case senario we would not have had iTMS had the French bill been the global policy pre-iTMS, but a lot of other stores to choose from when wanting to buy music for your iPod. Even if the bill makes iTMS less of a sale booster for the iPod you still have the thight iTMS->iTunes->iPod integration that no other store will be able to offer, thus benefitting the iPod sales.
Originally posted by Anders
... The iPod preceeds iTMS so in worst case senario we would not have had iTMS had the French bill been the global policy pre-iTMS, but a lot of other stores to choose from when wanting to buy music for your iPod. Even if the bill makes iTMS less of a sale booster for the iPod you still have the thight iTMS->iTunes->iPod integration that no other store will be able to offer, thus benefitting the iPod sales.
Anders, you are right here. If there was a single standard pre-iTMS that was suitable to the music labels, Apple would've used it. I don't think Apple has a problem with a single standard because as you said, Apple has the best integration (even with just 'free' MP3s or podcasts).
But this French law doesn't mandate a single international standard. It says everyone must support multiple schemes and make their own scheme available to everyone else. Apple's position is that's a catastrophe waiting to happen for consumers and for companies - and it will cause people to just go back to the simpler world of piracy.
Carefully think how this will need to be implemented all the way through and you'll see that Apple is right.
The more I read Apples statement the less clear it is. What chain of event is Apple actually fearing? If anything the ability to play your online bought music on more devises and apps will make it more desirable for the customer.
"Apple asserted that protection becomes much more difficult as a result. "The French implementation...will result in state-sponsored piracy," the company said in a statement on Tuesday. "If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers."
Apple is arguing that the great interoperability equalizer makes tracks functional on different stores, but ultimately reduces protection. Taken a step further, what is the difference between an unprotected, MP3 file, and a protected file that is suddenly interoperable? Interoperable files will probably still carry numerous protections, including limitations on sharing and checks to make sure content has been properly purchased. But a new set of problems will emerge, as technology companies and content holders will have to ?normalize? rules between various DRM schemes, or at least figure out a way that various protection guidelines are preserved following a conversion. Sound complicated? The weeds are far more complex than the top-level promise of ?interoperability,? and company resources are likely to be diverted as a result."
He says more at the blog. I think it's even more complicated than he says. Will the French law prevent new, possibly more innovative but proprietary DRM schemes from being introduced into the market? What if eMusic (which uses MP3s today) adds an open-source DRM scheme pushed by the EFF, and I create a player that plays only that scheme? Is Apple obligated by this law to turn Fairplay DRM tracks into that scheme for use on my player? Who's to evaluate and say that the open-source DRM scheme doesn't protect diddly-squat? Will Apple or the French government be liable to the music labels if the protection gets destroyed as a result?
Early yesterday, various articles quoted the IFPI (music industry) as saying they were behind the legislation. This one from Detroit News, which I think is just the Reuters copy, says
"The new interoperability rules were welcomed in principle by recording companies, which have often complained that iTunes has deprived them of any control over music pricing. "It is important to consumers to have the ability to move songs between their various listening devices," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Recording Industry."
But after Apple's outburst, today's NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/te...gy/22ipod.html - reg. required) says,
"The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a trade group, reacted cautiously to the French plan. The group said that while it supported the "interoperability" of different devices, the French proposal failed to define precisely what that means. It also said that any fines "should be genuinely a deterrent."
Just a tad more cautious now, eh?
Personally, I think the main problem is and always has been CDs. If they had been priced better to begin with, people wouldn't have had such a strong compultion to download albums.
This whole iTunes Music Store thing was a wonderful dream, but the labels have turned it into just another horiffic and useless money-grabber from which in the end, nobody wins.
Sure, I'd love to have the convenience of downloading music directly into my library, but I'd only want to do that if it were at the same quality as CD audio, for the same price as a CD. And DRM? Come on. The whole reason it was invented was to stop people from 'stealing' music. Well they wouldn't be stealing music if there was an easier and better alternative to the system to begin with.
Something has got to be done in the near future to solve this whole problem, France is just doing what they think is best for the consumer, Apple is just doing what they think is best for themselves, and neither of them know what they're talking about.
Jimzip
Originally posted by mark2005
The law as written is foggy, but I think the intended end result is that any DRMed media I buy from any media store should be playable on any media player (including computers).
What definitely is foggy, is the reporting of the issue. The bill may also be foggy, but I haven't read it, so I don't know. Anyone know if the bill is available to read online? Somehow I doubt that it is.
All reports have stated that the bill "forces companies to licence their DRM schemes". The reports have then gone on to interpret this is many flawed ways, such as saying this would force all devices to play back all content and all content providers to provide content playable on all devices. I do not believe that that is what the bill actually states. I believe the bill is just an effort to level the playing field so that someone could make a player capable of playing anything if they wanted to, and someone could introduce a store that sells tracks with all the different sorts of DRM if they wanted to.
Originally posted by mark2005
To those that think this law was good, I challenge you to think through the issues more deeply and tell me how it will work for consumers and companies. I've worked it through down the multiple paths. I bet you'll find it's going to be real messy for consumers/companies when using multiple DRMs, or that DRM will need to be dominated by one proprietary scheme, or that DRM will need to be open source (which is no DRM at all, equating to very limited media sales).
Messy for companies to implement - a little. Messy for customers, not really.
So, scenario 1. I want to make a hardware device capable of playing anything. Lets call it a "jFlock". I implement the following decoders: AAC, WMA, ATRAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, FLAC, OGG Vorbis, AIFF, WAV. I go to Apple and I say: "tell me how to decrypt FairPlay, in exchange for this here money", and they tell me, because they have to under this law. Ditto with whatever Sony call their DRM scheme, and ditto with PlaysForSure. Now, I can implement all the DRM decrypting too. So now my jFlock has all the necessary tools for playing all current files. I could make my player compatible with iTunes, Napster and SonyConnect, so in each program, only those files that the program recognises are visible. i.e., when I plug jFlock into my computer and launch iTunes, I see all AAC+FairPlay tracks (and probably AAC and MP3 files too) that are on jFlock. If I launch SonyConnect, I see all the ATRAC tracks, and with Napster I see all the PlaysForSure tracks. Additionally, these programs would pass the necessary keys to jFlock for the decrypting of DRMed tracks.
Alternatively, I could produce my own music library management software that can manage all the different files itself. It would just need to be given the keys for any DRMed stuff by the respective music stores. This could be implemented easily, as part of licensing a DRM scheme would have to involve mechanisms for key retrieval (i.e. instructions on how to communicate with the music stores).
Scenario 2. I want to introduce a music store capable of selling music in every format. So again, I license the DRM mechanisms and implement all the necessary codecs (in this case, I only need WMA, ATRAC and AAC). The person buying the music selects which format they want (I could provide a help section of my site listing all the popular playback devices and which formats they play). If someone has an iPod, they choose AAC+FairPlay, and the song is downloaded. If I'm nice, I even offer the opportunity to download the same track in multiple different formats for no additional, or very minor, fee. To make things easier for the user, I'd probably implement a music library manager too, but if they wanted to use something else, that wouldn't matter. I'd just have to pass the DRM keys to the customer's chosen program. This would not be difficult to implement.
Note that none of this would have any impact on the usability of the iTunes+iPod combination. It would also mean that devices such as the Roku SoundBridge could implement FairPlay and complement the iTunes+iPod combination.
Originally posted by mark2005
What if eMusic (which uses MP3s today) adds an open-source DRM scheme pushed by the EFF, and I create a player that plays only that scheme?
DRM cannot be open-source. It wouldn't work. People could possibly be prosecuted under this law for open-sourcing DRM schemes (as it would then allow the DRM to be circumvented)
I really don't understand how opening DRM to third parties or dropping DRM encourages piracy. It would be easier to casually "share" media from person to person, but online file trading is there whether or not iTunes is available. P2P existed before iTunes, and should iTunes die, it will probably still be around long afterwards. Despite the easy the availability of free tracks, what Apple showed is that there are a lot of people still willing to pay for a track. I don't see how losing or opening the DRM will make any difference in that regard.
Originally posted by Mr. H
DRM cannot be open-source. It wouldn't work. People could possibly be prosecuted under this law for open-sourcing DRM schemes (as it would then allow the DRM to be circumvented)
I know that DRM cannot be open-source, thus only those who sell tracks as MP3s could possibly use it. Get it?
But see http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21..._let_msft.html for further thoughts on open-source players and the french law.
What definitely is foggy, is the reporting of the issue. The bill may also be foggy, but I haven't read it, so I don't know.
Reporting being foggy is an understatement and now a fact of life. But the bill itself is also foggy, as demonstrated by the fact that the European music industry rep (IFPI) still is unsure what the bill means by interoperability. (See my earlier post).
Mr. H also writes earlier:
Please explain how a single unified DRM is better than a multitude of DRMs when it comes to control.
If there is a single standard (open or proprietary), and single testing/certification body, then liability can be reduced. With multiple schemes, and depending on the interpretation of the bill regarding what each company must do (see my earlier post also), there is no one body and no real way to ensure that the DRM isn't broken in the porting, etc; thus, leaving it unclear as to who is liable for losses and broken contract clauses.
You posit a particular interpretation of the bill in your scenarios, which may or may not be correct, just as I have earlier. I'd only add that although all DRM schemes are conceptually the same in the big picture, the implementations are quite different, thus, making it possible that nobody has to license patents from anybody else to do DRM. Somehow today's different schemes, and possibly future schemes, need to be made interoperable - no easy feat.
Apple may have chosen to highlight the worst case scenario, and to use sensationalism in its response but I don't think it's BS. It's a possibility, and it was also a warning to the music industry to wake up, or wind up with a DRM house of cards. Apple is right to believe that a DRM house of cards will mean that the labels will forbid digital sales - by not just Apple, but everybody - until we hear otherwise from the labels. And Apple has played out these scenarios in its offices - the first poke was by Real's Harmony, remember? They've certainly thought about it longer than any of us.
Again, I want a world where there's no DRM - I actually still buy CDs; the only songs I've gotten from iTMS were either free downloads or through redeeming promotions (Song Airlines, Pepsi, US Army, Gap, etc). But being pragmatic, I'd rather a world where I can have downloads with non-intrusive DRM than no downloads at all.
One final note - Fairplay was a last-minute Apple "acquisition." Not long before opening the iTunes store, Apple somehow "acquired" it from another company (anybody remember the name?); it's as if Apple didn't think about DRM until it was forced by the labels. At which point, they decided they didn't want to use Microsoft's DRM. It's mysterious - no press release, no mention in any SEC filing, no acknowledgement by Apple that anything occurred. The other company's website stayed online for a long time even after it seemed to no longer be in business, and it was never updated.