Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy?
How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.
In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because? they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.
Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable, but what if those friends then seed the music you've given them on p2p? You have to remember though, that the current FairPlay DRM doesn't stop that, because if you burn a CD for your friend, they can rip the tracks DRM-free and then seed.
A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.
I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.
Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).
The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.
On a loosely related topic, I've never had a problem with Apple's DRM until I realized that downloaded videos cannot be burned for playback on a standard DVD player. I'm not sure how I missed that (well, I've never purchased a video through iTunes), but I have to say I find that unreasonable, especially when I'm paying to purchase the film.
Do I have this correct?
Yes, of course. And under the terms of the licence Apple uses on iTunes, they could actually make it even more restrictive such as it self destructing after 4 views. This is the problem with DRM that Norwegian consumers are complaining about as it breaches contract law.
Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod?
It would be impossible for them to do that. It they are required to use DRM by the record companies, and can't licence Apple's FairPlay, they cannot make a DRM-protected track that will play on the iPod. There is no way for them to get onto the iPod the DRM-removal mechanism necessary to play back the file. Well, I suppose they could write custom iPod firmware based on Linux-on-iPod, be then the iPod wouldn't be able to playback iTS purchases.
CDs haven't had DRM on them for decades yet the works are still copyright. I think at some point, governments will intervene and remove DRM so that consumers have the same rights they've always had.
How the music industry solves piracy is another issue.
It'll probably be the European Union that rules against DRM as digital sales become more popular. At the moment, digital sales are small and IMHO stifled by DRM. It'll take legislature to open up the market. Unlike the USA, Europe places a much higher value on culture and free expression above pure market goals. It's evident in this thread that most of us Europeans value that whereas the overriding view in the USA seems to be that governments have no right to interfere (even if that's not actually true in the USA).
CD's also didn't NEED DRM for decades because for a very long time there was no consumer technology that could duplicate them with anything approaching their quality. Now there is.
Not that I think DRM is the solution, I don't. Music in western culture seemed to thrive for centuries without any notion of DRM or even copyright protection.
And it seems to be true that Europe is much more consumer focused, and the US isn't nearly as laissez faire as we preach. But the current case really does go too far. Consumers aren't idiots that need to be protected from themselves. They can choose other products if the iPodosphere doesn't meet their needs. Treating them like sheep in this way is every bit as bad as some monopolistic corporation treating them as sheep from the other direction.
How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.
In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because? they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.
Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable, but what if those friends then seed the music you've given them on p2p? You have to remember though, that the current FairPlay DRM doesn't stop that, because if you burn a CD for your friend, they can rip the tracks DRM-free and then seed.
A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.
I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.
Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).
The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.
Nice reply. Finally someone who opposes DRM gives a plausable alternative. Those who oppose DRM seem to dismiss the rights of the artists. The interests of all parties must be considered in this debate IMO. For the record I'm not a big fan of DRM but I think Apple did the best they could to protect the rights of users. I'm really scared when I hear music label execs discuss DRM. We would be totally screwed if they got their way.
When are these knobs going after Sony as you cannot play your UMD films on anything other than a PSP made by Sony?
are PSPs on sale in Norway?
if they are then surely they ALSO break the laws in Norway, do they?
as stated already, but as yet unanswred if, PROIR to opening the iTMS Apple had to pass various Govement of Norway checks in order to TRADE (iTms) in that country, why are the people responsible for PASSING Apples right to trade in the way that Apple applied to, not being held to account for ALLOWING Apple to break the Laws of Norway?
surely the fault lies with whoever passed Apples product/service as LAWFUL
If I don't like to be bound to an iPod device AND if I don't like to convert my iTs, then I can shop at another online shop or buy CDs. The fact that iTunes is so successfull, is because it's so good (IMHO). After all, we live in a free market, aren't we?
And in the end, I can still play my iTs with the iTunes software.
I think Apple is making a lot of money with iTunes, so I don't see why Apple would make it hard for customers: DRM is a conditio-sine-qua-non, not only for the music industry, but also for all the hardworking musicians; nobody likes to work for free.
Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.
There are so many products on the market that are 'tightly coupled': mobile phones to carriers, television channels to digital TV providers, camera lenses to camera bodies, ...
One can always find something that breaches the 'principles of the free market'.
When are these knobs going after Sony as you cannot play your UMD films on anything other than a PSP made by Sony?
Who in their right mind would licence the UMD format though from Sony to make a player?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
as stated already, but as yet unanswred if, PROIR to opening the iTMS Apple had to pass various Govement of Norway checks in order to TRADE (iTms) in that country, why are the people responsible for PASSING Apples right to trade in the way that Apple applied to, not being held to account for ALLOWING Apple to break the Laws of Norway?
That's where Apple is clever. Norway's iTMS, like all of the European stores, is based in Luxembourg, not Norway. Apple says it operates under the laws of England & Wales. I'm not sure how they get away with that exactly.
The reason they operate from Luxembourg is because that has the lowest sales tax in the EU. How they come to use English/Welsh law, I'm not sure. It should be in theory the law of Luxembourg and certain EU trading laws would then apply such as the free movement of goods across borders. Eg. there should be no restriction (legally, if not morally) for myself in the UK to buy David Hasslehoff's 'Jump in my Car' from the German iTunes store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
surely the fault lies with whoever passed Apples product/service as LAWFUL
can anyone address these points?
WITHOUT talking about sodding straw-bloody-men!
It's all a bit odd, and that's why it's good that it's being questioned aside from the points about interoperability and breaking contracts.
Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.
And Phillips (who are Dutch) and invented the format regularly take companies to court for calling their CDs 'CDs'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jello
There are so many products on the market that are 'tightly coupled': mobile phones to carriers, television channels to digital TV providers, camera lenses to camera bodies, ...
One can always find something that breaches the 'principles of the free market'.
Let the free market be free
In Europe, it's illegal in many countries to lock a phone to a provider and it's not illegal to unlock phones across the whole of the EU now IIRC. Some countries provide free TV, others let the market decide or a mix of both. Can't help you on the camera mount issue though.
I agree that this if being lobbied by those who simply can't compete with a great solution. And, I'm sorry, but it is typical of Europe to go after any successful american enterprise with gov't backed approaches - Airbus.
As I recall, the US used the NSA to spy on Airbus contract negotiations and to pass on the details to Boeing. Nice one that, especially since the UK gives the NSA carte blanche access to tap every phone circuit that passes through the UK and probably all those within. The UK is nominally part of Europe and the wing assemblies for many an airbus are made there.
Who in their right mind would licence the UMD format though from Sony to make a player?
and answering my question with a question does not answer my question does it?
one could just as easily argue "who in their right mind would make an ipod"
the comparison with Sonys CLOSED system stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
That's where Apple is clever. Norway's iTMS, like all of the European stores, is based in Luxembourg, not Norway. Apple says it operates under the laws of England & Wales. I'm not sure how they get away with that exactly.
IF there is a loophole (as i assume that is what you are saying) then it is up to the people doing the complaining to close the loophole FIRST, which would involve (i imagine) going through the European court (?) in order to close the loophole, i would be sure then that Apple would have to comply or change its business.
England and Wales are i believe part of Europe, no matter what certain politicians might say
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
The reason they operate from Luxembourg is because that has the lowest sales tax in the EU.
does that help lower the price to the consumer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
How they come to use English/Welsh law, I'm not sure. It should be in theory the law of Luxembourg
but in practice it seems it is not, therefore, again it seems that the people doing the complaining should direct their efforts to the Law makers to correct the law, and if those who make the law find that current law stands, the complainers should "shut up" so to speak, as has been pointed out MANY times here already, no-one has a gun to your head to buy an ipod. *
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Eg. there should be no restriction (legally, if not morally) for myself in the UK to buy David Hasslehoff's 'Jump in my Car' from the German iTunes store.
i just checked the UK store and "jump in my car" by the Hoff is indeed already there... so what restriction are you suffering from?
----
*{further to this...im fairly sure that an iPod is considered a luxury item, as are ALL other MP3 players,CD, DVD, Tape (digital and analogue) and mini disc. therefore are liable for luxury tax in countries that apply such things, and are considered by most rational people to NOT be a necessity of life, it is not therefore a RIGHT of anyone, either in Law or on Moral grounds to expect to buy a luxury item that as PART of its added function is tied into a PROPRIETY format (fairplay) to which the user is warned about. while it STILL functions as a standard MP3 player!
Music purchased from iTMS is in a PROPRIETY format, much like music downloaded from the zune market place is, much like a wax cylinder is, much like a Tape Cassette is, much like minidisc and UMD are, you cannot reasonably expect to play your propriety UMD in an Edison Phonograph how could this be more obvious. }
and answering my question with a question does not answer my question does it?
one could just as easily argue "who in their right mind would make an ipod"
the comparison with Sonys CLOSED system stands.
It's not really a good comparison though since plenty of people make an 'ipod' because they want to and nobody wants to make a UMD player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
IF there is a loophole (as i assume that is what you are saying) then it is up to the people doing the complaining to close the loophole FIRST, which would involve (i imagine) going through the European court (?) in order to close the loophole, i would be sure then that Apple would have to comply or change its business.
England and Wales are i believe part of Europe, no matter what certain politicians might say
No, I'm not saying there's a loophole, just stating how they operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
does that help lower the price to the consumer?
It may do. Or it may just help Apple pay less tax.
I'm surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
but in practice it seems it is not, therefore, again it seems that the people doing the complaining should direct their efforts to the Law makers to correct the law, and if those who make the law find that current law stands, the complainers should "shut up" so to speak, as has been pointed out MANY times here already, no-one has a gun to your head to buy an ipod. *
Well yes. That's EXACTLY what they are doing though - going through the correct legal process of approaching their country's ombudsman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
i just checked the UK store and "jump in my car" by the Hoff is indeed already there... so what restriction are you suffering from?
That's not my point. The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
*{further to this...im fairly sure that an iPod is considered a luxury item, as are ALL other MP3 players,CD, DVD, Tape (digital and analogue) and mini disc. therefore are liable for luxury tax in countries that apply such things, and are considered by most rational people to NOT be a necessity of life, it is not therefore a RIGHT of anyone, either in Law or on Moral grounds to expect to buy a luxury item that as PART of its added function is tied into a PROPRIETY format (fairplay) to which the user is warned about. while it STILL functions as a standard MP3 player!
Music purchased from iTMS is in a PROPRIETY format, much like music downloaded from the zune market place is, much like a wax cylinder is, much like a Tape Cassette is, much like minidisc and UMD are, you cannot reasonably expect to play your propriety UMD in an Edison Phonograph how could this be more obvious. }
Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)
Norway's complaint is that the DRM then applied constitutes a locking mechanism to restrict usage to Apple's players and as such is against their laws. Please read what they are complaining about instead of spouting shite about playing UMD disks on phonographs. It's not about hardware. That's irrelevant. It's not about there being other choices, including not buying from iTMS. It's about what you can do with legitimately (even stupidly since you didn't read the fine print) bought music.
I'm surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.
A friendly FYI: CD-WOW is based in Hong Kong (unless they moved recently?). Play.com is based in the Channel Islands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
That's not my point. The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.
Indeed, but this is not Apple's fault. The problem lies in the ridiculously convoluted manner in which the recording industry is set up, with multiple bodies administering copyrights and royalties across the EU. It is the record companies that are breaching EU law, and as a direct consequence, so is Apple.
A friendly FYI: CD-WOW is based in Hong Kong (unless they moved recently?). Play.com is based in the Channel Islands.
Sorry, yes, got the two confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Indeed, but this is not Apple's fault. The problem lies in the ridiculously convoluted manner in which the recording industry is set up, with multiple bodies administering copyrights and royalties across the EU. It is the record companies that are breaching EU law, and as a direct consequence, so is Apple.
No matter who's fault it is, they still need calling out on it.
No matter who's fault it is, they still need calling out on it.
utter bollocks
whoevers FAULT it is are the one who needs calling out.
would you agree that if it is NOT apples fault (ie they are operating within the law, through loopholes if that is the case), but still within the law, then apple shouldnt be the ones being sued?
Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)
While people like to ignore it, iTS music IS, by definition, in a proprietary AAC format - hence no one else can read it. If you want an analogy look at the early days of DICOM format for medical images. This was a published standard but was left as extensible by the user. For quite some time manufacturers created proprietary extensions make the images proprietary. The fact that the unlying image was in a standard format was irrelavent in the big picture.
It's not really a good comparison though since plenty of people make an 'ipod' because they want to and nobody wants to make a UMD player.
its is the perfect comparison, but you choose to not see it as one because it suits your argument. it is a closed eco system just like apples iTunes store. although in fact i suppose it IS LESS closed as songs bought on the store can at least be used on more than one device which i suppose IS better than the number of devices you can play UMD on... mmm... in that respect they are different but only in terms of Apples being more open
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
No, I'm not saying there's a loophole, just stating how they operate.
funny they could operate within the law for long enough to become a large enough pile of money that everyone wants to take a bite.
plus you yourself say
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Norway's government actually went as far as saying they would not investigate Apple's practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
It may do. Or it may just help Apple pay less tax.
so you admit that Apple operating in Luxembourg MAY cost the consumer LESS.. while operating somewhere else (Norway) may cost the consumer MORE ? and so it MAY have been a choice baised on that
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.
as an aside, wernt tescos and other supermarkets forced to move out because of monopoly issues (cant remember the details)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
yes. That's EXACTLY what they are doing though - going through the correct legal process of approaching their country's ombudsman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.
cool, let the courts decide, but if they change the law first, apple can change how they operate, and so avoid any fines.
but Norway isnt part of the EU as you pointed out
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
A number of people have posted in this thread that it's "Apple v the EU" in this argument. Please, that's not the case. The complaint has not been brought before the EU Parliament, council or courts. Norway isn't even a member of the EU.
so what way are you arguing? that Apple are within the law or are not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)
Norway's complaint is that the DRM then applied constitutes a locking mechanism to restrict usage to Apple's players and as such is against their laws. Please read what they are complaining about instead of spouting shite about playing UMD disks on phonographs. It's not about hardware. That's irrelevant. It's not about there being other choices, including not buying from iTMS. It's about what you can do with legitimately (even stupidly since you didn't read the fine print) bought music.
once the music has "fairplay" attached to it it IS a propriatry format, and ONLY music bought from iTunes store has this propriatry format that only plays on iPods THE most popular player, which of course it WASNT to begin with, why didnt someone take Apple to court when it WASNT the biggest kid on the block? after all if its practises were SO restrictive THEN (as apparently now) people would have voted with their wallet and left it on the shelf... wouldnt they?
Comments
Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy?
How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.
In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because? they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.
Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable, but what if those friends then seed the music you've given them on p2p? You have to remember though, that the current FairPlay DRM doesn't stop that, because if you burn a CD for your friend, they can rip the tracks DRM-free and then seed.
A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.
I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.
Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).
The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.
Have a read of this article that Aegis posted earlier: arstechnica article
On a loosely related topic, I've never had a problem with Apple's DRM until I realized that downloaded videos cannot be burned for playback on a standard DVD player. I'm not sure how I missed that (well, I've never purchased a video through iTunes), but I have to say I find that unreasonable, especially when I'm paying to purchase the film.
Do I have this correct?
Yes, of course. And under the terms of the licence Apple uses on iTunes, they could actually make it even more restrictive such as it self destructing after 4 views. This is the problem with DRM that Norwegian consumers are complaining about as it breaches contract law.
Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod?
It would be impossible for them to do that. It they are required to use DRM by the record companies, and can't licence Apple's FairPlay, they cannot make a DRM-protected track that will play on the iPod. There is no way for them to get onto the iPod the DRM-removal mechanism necessary to play back the file. Well, I suppose they could write custom iPod firmware based on Linux-on-iPod, be then the iPod wouldn't be able to playback iTS purchases.
CDs haven't had DRM on them for decades yet the works are still copyright. I think at some point, governments will intervene and remove DRM so that consumers have the same rights they've always had.
How the music industry solves piracy is another issue.
It'll probably be the European Union that rules against DRM as digital sales become more popular. At the moment, digital sales are small and IMHO stifled by DRM. It'll take legislature to open up the market. Unlike the USA, Europe places a much higher value on culture and free expression above pure market goals. It's evident in this thread that most of us Europeans value that whereas the overriding view in the USA seems to be that governments have no right to interfere (even if that's not actually true in the USA).
CD's also didn't NEED DRM for decades because for a very long time there was no consumer technology that could duplicate them with anything approaching their quality. Now there is.
Not that I think DRM is the solution, I don't. Music in western culture seemed to thrive for centuries without any notion of DRM or even copyright protection.
And it seems to be true that Europe is much more consumer focused, and the US isn't nearly as laissez faire as we preach. But the current case really does go too far. Consumers aren't idiots that need to be protected from themselves. They can choose other products if the iPodosphere doesn't meet their needs. Treating them like sheep in this way is every bit as bad as some monopolistic corporation treating them as sheep from the other direction.
How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.
In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because? they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.
Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable, but what if those friends then seed the music you've given them on p2p? You have to remember though, that the current FairPlay DRM doesn't stop that, because if you burn a CD for your friend, they can rip the tracks DRM-free and then seed.
A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.
I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.
Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).
The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.
Have a read of this article that Aegis posted earlier: arstechnica article
Nice reply. Finally someone who opposes DRM gives a plausable alternative. Those who oppose DRM seem to dismiss the rights of the artists. The interests of all parties must be considered in this debate IMO. For the record I'm not a big fan of DRM but I think Apple did the best they could to protect the rights of users. I'm really scared when I hear music label execs discuss DRM. We would be totally screwed if they got their way.
When are these knobs going after Sony as you cannot play your UMD films on anything other than a PSP made by Sony?
are PSPs on sale in Norway?
if they are then surely they ALSO break the laws in Norway, do they?
as stated already, but as yet unanswred if, PROIR to opening the iTMS Apple had to pass various Govement of Norway checks in order to TRADE (iTms) in that country, why are the people responsible for PASSING Apples right to trade in the way that Apple applied to, not being held to account for ALLOWING Apple to break the Laws of Norway?
surely the fault lies with whoever passed Apples product/service as LAWFUL
can anyone address these points?
WITHOUT talking about sodding straw-bloody-men!
If I don't like to be bound to an iPod device AND if I don't like to convert my iTs, then I can shop at another online shop or buy CDs. The fact that iTunes is so successfull, is because it's so good (IMHO). After all, we live in a free market, aren't we?
And in the end, I can still play my iTs with the iTunes software.
I think Apple is making a lot of money with iTunes, so I don't see why Apple would make it hard for customers: DRM is a conditio-sine-qua-non, not only for the music industry, but also for all the hardworking musicians; nobody likes to work for free.
Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.
There are so many products on the market that are 'tightly coupled': mobile phones to carriers, television channels to digital TV providers, camera lenses to camera bodies, ...
One can always find something that breaches the 'principles of the free market'.
Let the free market be free
can anone answer me this?
When are these knobs going after Sony as you cannot play your UMD films on anything other than a PSP made by Sony?
Who in their right mind would licence the UMD format though from Sony to make a player?
as stated already, but as yet unanswred if, PROIR to opening the iTMS Apple had to pass various Govement of Norway checks in order to TRADE (iTms) in that country, why are the people responsible for PASSING Apples right to trade in the way that Apple applied to, not being held to account for ALLOWING Apple to break the Laws of Norway?
That's where Apple is clever. Norway's iTMS, like all of the European stores, is based in Luxembourg, not Norway. Apple says it operates under the laws of England & Wales. I'm not sure how they get away with that exactly.
The reason they operate from Luxembourg is because that has the lowest sales tax in the EU. How they come to use English/Welsh law, I'm not sure. It should be in theory the law of Luxembourg and certain EU trading laws would then apply such as the free movement of goods across borders. Eg. there should be no restriction (legally, if not morally) for myself in the UK to buy David Hasslehoff's 'Jump in my Car' from the German iTunes store.
surely the fault lies with whoever passed Apples product/service as LAWFUL
can anyone address these points?
WITHOUT talking about sodding straw-bloody-men!
It's all a bit odd, and that's why it's good that it's being questioned aside from the points about interoperability and breaking contracts.
Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.
And Phillips (who are Dutch) and invented the format regularly take companies to court for calling their CDs 'CDs'.
There are so many products on the market that are 'tightly coupled': mobile phones to carriers, television channels to digital TV providers, camera lenses to camera bodies, ...
One can always find something that breaches the 'principles of the free market'.
Let the free market be free
In Europe, it's illegal in many countries to lock a phone to a provider and it's not illegal to unlock phones across the whole of the EU now IIRC. Some countries provide free TV, others let the market decide or a mix of both. Can't help you on the camera mount issue though.
I agree that this if being lobbied by those who simply can't compete with a great solution. And, I'm sorry, but it is typical of Europe to go after any successful american enterprise with gov't backed approaches - Airbus.
As I recall, the US used the NSA to spy on Airbus contract negotiations and to pass on the details to Boeing. Nice one that, especially since the UK gives the NSA carte blanche access to tap every phone circuit that passes through the UK and probably all those within. The UK is nominally part of Europe and the wing assemblies for many an airbus are made there.
Who in their right mind would licence the UMD format though from Sony to make a player?
and answering my question with a question does not answer my question does it?
one could just as easily argue "who in their right mind would make an ipod"
the comparison with Sonys CLOSED system stands.
That's where Apple is clever. Norway's iTMS, like all of the European stores, is based in Luxembourg, not Norway. Apple says it operates under the laws of England & Wales. I'm not sure how they get away with that exactly.
IF there is a loophole (as i assume that is what you are saying) then it is up to the people doing the complaining to close the loophole FIRST, which would involve (i imagine) going through the European court (?) in order to close the loophole, i would be sure then that Apple would have to comply or change its business.
England and Wales are i believe part of Europe, no matter what certain politicians might say
The reason they operate from Luxembourg is because that has the lowest sales tax in the EU.
does that help lower the price to the consumer?
How they come to use English/Welsh law, I'm not sure. It should be in theory the law of Luxembourg
but in practice it seems it is not, therefore, again it seems that the people doing the complaining should direct their efforts to the Law makers to correct the law, and if those who make the law find that current law stands, the complainers should "shut up" so to speak, as has been pointed out MANY times here already, no-one has a gun to your head to buy an ipod. *
Eg. there should be no restriction (legally, if not morally) for myself in the UK to buy David Hasslehoff's 'Jump in my Car' from the German iTunes store.
i just checked the UK store and "jump in my car" by the Hoff is indeed already there... so what restriction are you suffering from?
----
*{further to this...im fairly sure that an iPod is considered a luxury item, as are ALL other MP3 players,CD, DVD, Tape (digital and analogue) and mini disc. therefore are liable for luxury tax in countries that apply such things, and are considered by most rational people to NOT be a necessity of life, it is not therefore a RIGHT of anyone, either in Law or on Moral grounds to expect to buy a luxury item that as PART of its added function is tied into a PROPRIETY format (fairplay) to which the user is warned about. while it STILL functions as a standard MP3 player!
Music purchased from iTMS is in a PROPRIETY format, much like music downloaded from the zune market place is, much like a wax cylinder is, much like a Tape Cassette is, much like minidisc and UMD are, you cannot reasonably expect to play your propriety UMD in an Edison Phonograph how could this be more obvious. }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jello
Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.
And Phillips (who are Dutch) and invented the format regularly take companies to court for calling their CDs 'CDs'.
So, by implication, it would be OK for iTS to do what it does if it renames the downloaded song to be, say, FP songs instead of ?
and answering my question with a question does not answer my question does it?
one could just as easily argue "who in their right mind would make an ipod"
the comparison with Sonys CLOSED system stands.
It's not really a good comparison though since plenty of people make an 'ipod' because they want to and nobody wants to make a UMD player.
IF there is a loophole (as i assume that is what you are saying) then it is up to the people doing the complaining to close the loophole FIRST, which would involve (i imagine) going through the European court (?) in order to close the loophole, i would be sure then that Apple would have to comply or change its business.
England and Wales are i believe part of Europe, no matter what certain politicians might say
No, I'm not saying there's a loophole, just stating how they operate.
does that help lower the price to the consumer?
It may do. Or it may just help Apple pay less tax.
I'm surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.
but in practice it seems it is not, therefore, again it seems that the people doing the complaining should direct their efforts to the Law makers to correct the law, and if those who make the law find that current law stands, the complainers should "shut up" so to speak, as has been pointed out MANY times here already, no-one has a gun to your head to buy an ipod. *
Well yes. That's EXACTLY what they are doing though - going through the correct legal process of approaching their country's ombudsman.
i just checked the UK store and "jump in my car" by the Hoff is indeed already there... so what restriction are you suffering from?
That's not my point. The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.
*{further to this...im fairly sure that an iPod is considered a luxury item, as are ALL other MP3 players,CD, DVD, Tape (digital and analogue) and mini disc. therefore are liable for luxury tax in countries that apply such things, and are considered by most rational people to NOT be a necessity of life, it is not therefore a RIGHT of anyone, either in Law or on Moral grounds to expect to buy a luxury item that as PART of its added function is tied into a PROPRIETY format (fairplay) to which the user is warned about. while it STILL functions as a standard MP3 player!
Music purchased from iTMS is in a PROPRIETY format, much like music downloaded from the zune market place is, much like a wax cylinder is, much like a Tape Cassette is, much like minidisc and UMD are, you cannot reasonably expect to play your propriety UMD in an Edison Phonograph how could this be more obvious. }
Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)
Norway's complaint is that the DRM then applied constitutes a locking mechanism to restrict usage to Apple's players and as such is against their laws. Please read what they are complaining about instead of spouting shite about playing UMD disks on phonographs. It's not about hardware. That's irrelevant. It's not about there being other choices, including not buying from iTMS. It's about what you can do with legitimately (even stupidly since you didn't read the fine print) bought music.
I'm surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.
A friendly FYI: CD-WOW is based in Hong Kong (unless they moved recently?). Play.com is based in the Channel Islands.
That's not my point. The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.
Indeed, but this is not Apple's fault. The problem lies in the ridiculously convoluted manner in which the recording industry is set up, with multiple bodies administering copyrights and royalties across the EU. It is the record companies that are breaching EU law, and as a direct consequence, so is Apple.
A friendly FYI: CD-WOW is based in Hong Kong (unless they moved recently?). Play.com is based in the Channel Islands.
Sorry, yes, got the two confused.
Indeed, but this is not Apple's fault. The problem lies in the ridiculously convoluted manner in which the recording industry is set up, with multiple bodies administering copyrights and royalties across the EU. It is the record companies that are breaching EU law, and as a direct consequence, so is Apple.
No matter who's fault it is, they still need calling out on it.
No matter who's fault it is, they still need calling out on it.
utter bollocks
whoevers FAULT it is are the one who needs calling out.
would you agree that if it is NOT apples fault (ie they are operating within the law, through loopholes if that is the case), but still within the law, then apple shouldnt be the ones being sued?
Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)
While people like to ignore it, iTS music IS, by definition, in a proprietary AAC format - hence no one else can read it. If you want an analogy look at the early days of DICOM format for medical images. This was a published standard but was left as extensible by the user. For quite some time manufacturers created proprietary extensions make the images proprietary. The fact that the unlying image was in a standard format was irrelavent in the big picture.
It's not really a good comparison though since plenty of people make an 'ipod' because they want to and nobody wants to make a UMD player.
its is the perfect comparison, but you choose to not see it as one because it suits your argument. it is a closed eco system just like apples iTunes store. although in fact i suppose it IS LESS closed as songs bought on the store can at least be used on more than one device which i suppose IS better than the number of devices you can play UMD on... mmm... in that respect they are different
No, I'm not saying there's a loophole, just stating how they operate.
funny they could operate within the law for long enough to become a large enough pile of money that everyone wants to take a bite.
plus you yourself say
Norway's government actually went as far as saying they would not investigate Apple's practices.
It may do. Or it may just help Apple pay less tax.
so you admit that Apple operating in Luxembourg MAY cost the consumer LESS.. while operating somewhere else (Norway) may cost the consumer MORE ? and so it MAY have been a choice baised on that
surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.
as an aside, wernt tescos and other supermarkets forced to move out because of monopoly issues (cant remember the details)
yes. That's EXACTLY what they are doing though - going through the correct legal process of approaching their country's ombudsman.
The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.
cool, let the courts decide, but if they change the law first, apple can change how they operate, and so avoid any fines.
but Norway isnt part of the EU as you pointed out
A number of people have posted in this thread that it's "Apple v the EU" in this argument. Please, that's not the case. The complaint has not been brought before the EU Parliament, council or courts. Norway isn't even a member of the EU.
so what way are you arguing? that Apple are within the law or are not?
Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)
Norway's complaint is that the DRM then applied constitutes a locking mechanism to restrict usage to Apple's players and as such is against their laws. Please read what they are complaining about instead of spouting shite about playing UMD disks on phonographs. It's not about hardware. That's irrelevant. It's not about there being other choices, including not buying from iTMS. It's about what you can do with legitimately (even stupidly since you didn't read the fine print) bought music.
once the music has "fairplay" attached to it it IS a propriatry format, and ONLY music bought from iTunes store has this propriatry format that only plays on iPods THE most popular player, which of course it WASNT to begin with, why didnt someone take Apple to court when it WASNT the biggest kid on the block? after all if its practises were SO restrictive THEN (as apparently now) people would have voted with their wallet and left it on the shelf... wouldnt they?
utter bollocks
Perhaps you should put down the Apple fanboy goggles and read the actual complaint from the Norwegian consumer group.
It's pointless discussing until you do.