I try not to get involved in these type of debates these days.
I understand the that the French are/could be using Apple as an example. But the fact remains that the iPod, iTunes and the iTMS are and end to end solution. I don't even consider them separate products. When I had Sony Minidisc player it came with Sonicstage. I don't see anyone making Sony open that up.
It was already stated that none of the other DRM players, offer a solution for non Windows platforms. I don't see a MusicMatch for the Mac. I don't see any Plays for Sure Apple compatibility. Matter of fact, didn't MS just pull the plug on Windows Media Player for the Mac. Shit WMP never played WMA/WMV DRM. Hell it hardly played the regular stuff.
I gotta say that when you 'buy' music you are not actually purchasing the music, only the right to listen. The same applies to the Movie industry. If you actually owned the content you would be getting a royalty check every month.
I'm not sure what people think is so unfair about Apples solution. You can play your music on up to five computers. Try that with a CD. Transfer songs to an unlimited number of iPods, burn purchased music unlimited amount of times, any playlist up to seven times. All it takes is burning it once to remove the DRM if you are so inclined.
I wouldn't mind if Apple were to allow other players to work with iTunes, but I believe they should be allowed to keep the iTMS to themselves. If you want the most convenient seamless and fully supported solution then you choose an iPod.
I think people should take a more modern look at industry. We as consumers demand more and more from companies every day. The minute Apple comes along and stops passing the buck and delivers a truly complete product and succeeds in the market with it ignorant consumers get they're panties in a bunch and start bitching about what they can't do. It doesn't matter what product you choose you lose something. You cannot have your pie and eat it too.
I may be wrong about the rules about Apples DRM rights so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually games and software ARE available on multiple platforms.
Besides, in a lot of cases it could be argued that machine + OS/Games are built for eachother, which in the case of iPod + iTMS is not true.
I think the main argument for this case would be that Apple is actively limiting the use of music, and the reason WHY they limit it.
Their music is basically playable on every player, but limited by Apple.
That's different than an MP3 player not playing WAVs, or software not being runnable on any platform, which are technical issues and choices. Not being able to play CDs in a casette player, is physical.
...
Why should Apple have to pay MS for the license to put WMA on the iPod (and in iTunes)? Isn't that Apple's technical and cost choice in making an iPod? How is that different than Apple deciding to decode WAV or OGG Vorbis formats on the player?
We think of digital bits as something not physical. But decoding digital bits is in the physical realm; I need a processor and instructions to operate that processor. I grant that the PortalPlayer chips in the iPod have the power to decode WMA, but what if (hypothetically) Apple had to write/port the code to decode DRMed WMA on the processor it had chosen, and this increased the amount of RAM or power needed? By the way, given the DRM placed on CDs, it is or soon will be no longer true that all CD players can play all CDs. The region encoding makes this already true for DVDs.
And separately, why is it not true that iTMS was built for the iPod? iTMS works hand-in-hand with iTunes; you don't access iTMS via a general purpose browser but through iTunes (unlike most WMA stores). And iTunes was built for the iPod; for music content, you access (download music/playlists, upload data like times played, etc) the iPod via iTunes not via the file system (unlike most WMA players). That's the beauty of the system - it all works together because each piece knows what the other pieces are doing. How is this different from machine + OS/Games?
as the French were right for Irak, i think they're right for the iPod (uhuh, sorry i couldn't resist)
i want to be able to play on my PSP the music i buy on iTunes (long story short).
when you buy a DVD, you can play it on your powerbook, in your sony dvd player, in your panasonic portable dvd-player. same with a CD.
why would my music be stuck on my powerbook and my iPod?
i love iTunes, i love Apple, but i just think that Apple DRM is not fair and kills competition.
olivier
Can you explain how does it kill competition?
Look, here are the choices:
1. Apple solution - iTMS/iTunes/iPod (any kind) and Mac or PC.
2. Other solution - any WMA store/any browser/WMA-playing software/any WMA device and PC.
3. CDs/iPod or any WMA device or MP3/OGG/etc device, any software to rip/play CD, and Mac or PC.
Since I have a Mac, if you want to compete, just build me a great other solution (solution 2) that works on a Mac, and convince me that it is better than solution 1.
Since I have a Mac, if you want to compete, just build me a great other solution (solution 2) that works on a Mac, and convince me that it is better than solution 1.
So what if I can't even try to do that because I need copper, and my competition owns all the coppermines and doesn't want to sell any copper to me?
That's what they are trying to prevent from happening.
[B]Well stated! Apple does not have a monopoly on music, and music is the commodity here. There are all sorts of companies that sell music in other ways - brick & mortar stores, websites, Napster, etc.
Excellent point. You can accuse anyone of being a monopoly if you just define the market narrowly enough. For example, a man selling flowers on the street could be a "monopolist on roses between 45th street and 47th street," and thus be eligible for punishment.
So what if I can't even try to do that because I need copper, and my competition owns all the coppermines and doesn't want to sell any copper to me?
That's what they are trying to prevent from happening.
Nope, wrong analogy. If by copper, you mean songs, it's not true, because Apple doesn't own the songs. The many music labels do. And the labels have made most songs available on other (WMA) stores.
If by copper, you mean Fairplay DRM, it's not true because you don't need Fairplay to compete. You can build your own end-to-end system.
Microsoft-based players don't compete well because they either suck or are me-too copies offering nothing that the user really wants. PlaysforSure sucks, WMA isn't so great, there is no WMA player with all the features of iTunes including usability and easy-reliable sync, WMA stores have nothing to distinguish them, and WMA players for the most part suck. Many people who choose WMA players claim that the ability to move music to the player from the PC desktop was key. Well, lots of people would rather make playlists that update the player automatically instead.
Hey, I'd rather their not be any DRM at all. But the way France is handling this is all wrong - wrong assumptions, wrong reasoning, wrong solution.
So what if I can't even try to do that because I need copper, and my competition owns all the coppermines and doesn't want to sell any copper to me?
That's what they are trying to prevent from happening.
Actually, Apple doesn't own the copper mines, just one way of transporting the ore (to use you lousy analogy). Your point is only valid if Apple is the only way to buy music.
"We" think is is not acceptable for a company to be the only player in a market. If necessary, such companies will be forced to allow competition, because a market without competition is not considered a healthy market.
Ok, but as soon as the government starts pushing people around, telling them they must do this, they must do that, they are no longer free people.
Now you say the government's goal is to create competiitve markets, but which is more important, competitive markets or free people?
ok, as someone who produces music and is a passionate and devoted music collector, I could give a f*ck less about whether traditional business models are maintained or not. business models have been changing since adam first traded his half eaten apple (no pun intended) for some leaf underwear.
the big problem I have with DRM is this scenario:
say at some point in the future, music is only collected and stored in digital form (not much of a stretch). now, say i want to find a copy of a song by some obscure band whose record label long since went out of business, and the master copies of the song are either wiped out or archived in some major label's warehouse never to be seen again. at that point the only copies i can find are DRM protected so that they only work on devices which are ancient history. so essentially the song is "lost" to anyone who may be interested in it.
DRM protected music essentially has a time-limit placed it. that time-limit being the lifecycle of the device on which it can be played (not to mention the technology it's based on and the companies which support it). obviously a similar case can be made for other media also, but at least they are "unlocked" so that, if you could find (or build) another device capable of playing that media, you could retrieve the music. not so with DRM (without "breaking the law" anyways).
just because the majority of people consume music and then throw it out doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to act this way. i am involved with a community of people who are digitizing old (and often rare) vinyl records created by bands and released on record labels which no longer exist in an effort to preserve the recordings since the media will eventually wear out. it would be nice to give future generations the ability to do the same.
now, i understand this is most likely not the motivation behind the legislation in France (more likely it's lobbying by people who want to get a piece of the pie), but i still feel that DRM isn't the right answer either. you all talk about freedom, but what about freedom for the people who are passionate about music?
As a French citizen I must admit that every internet savvy french person is against this law : badly thought, badly written, inadequate and inspired in its major part by majors (Univeral, Warner, Sony BMG and the like). The average age for a member of the the parliament 1st chamber is 50 and they rarely are internet savvy enough to understand DRM, P2P etc. and since the 2d chamber is composed of 70 to 80 old Senators, I am 100 % sure less than 5% of the members examining the law have any clue about it.
As a side note this law was proposed by the current government (within its right) and not by members of the parliament (which is the usage) and since the self- appointed experts working in the various ministries specialized commissions working on the law project are often picked among people in this field (music, entertainment industries), you can bet that this law is a major result of entertainement industry lobbying directed toward ignorant parliament members.
I guess if only parliament members had spoken a little with their 10 years old children or grand children, they would have understood better what they were voting about? Stupids, really?
It's amazing how some people can be against this law, since it's so obviously in their own personal interest.
Are you blinded by chauvinism? Patriottism? Or does the mere fact that politics are driven by opportunism and powerplay keep you from seeing that this time, it's in your own advantage as a consumer?
The question is rather why not *all* governments force all companies *all* content from *all* hardware.
iPods, PSPs X-Boxes - they're all really huge copyright dongles. Geez doesn't anyone see how you pay premium prices for PSP games because the hardware is a loss leader? We're only *lucky* that Apple lets us pay fair prices for their music, but for how long would they think they need to do that?
I know that some people think that you have to protect innovation by allowing companies to make economical use of it.
But Apple doesn't need DRM laws. As the possibility to burn cds without DRM shows. DRM is Apple trick to satisfy content companies.
By keeping their music prices low and their iPod prices realistically high, they have made sure that they remain competitive while the market conditions are going to change.
Because who is going to get hurt when the law gets into effect? Not Apple. The unfairly priced business models, like PSP, XBox, music-by-subscribtion are, while Apple is going to change nothing and survive.
The misconception everyone on the net seems to make, is that because the iTunes store and the iTunes-iPod combination work together so well, each of them can't stand on it's own.
Well, they can. Easily. Laughingly. iTunes is profitable, iPod is profitable. And their each the best the planet has to offer in it's category. That's the difference with content/hardware combinations Sony and Microsoft have to offer.
You read it here: Apple is going to function as the example for Sony and Microsoft, in being an innovative company with a pricing system that is resistant to anti-kartel laws that benefit us, consumers, and will be applied everywhere.
If the law passes it would be bye bye iTMS France. It only exist as a way for Apple to sell iPods. Simple as that.
What could be done was to ensure the right of the consumer to "unDRM" the files legally if it falls under some sort of "fair use". For those with the burning needs to use the music elsewhere than on iTunes or the iPod it could be done and all the negative consequences of Apples policy could be avoided.
It's amazing how some people can be against this law, since it's so obviously in their own personal interest.
Are you blinded by chauvinism? Patriottism? Or does the mere fact that politics are driven by opportunism and powerplay keep you from seeing that this time, it's in your own advantage as a consumer?
But... when deciding what's in your best interest, you have to look at the next 80 years, not the next 5 minutes. So allowing a society to develop where the goverment pushes people around, for the sake of a few non-DRM songs, might not be a good idea.
But... when deciding what's in your best interest, you have to look at the next 80 years, not the next 5 minutes. So allowing a society to develop where the goverment pushes people around, for the sake of a few non-DRM songs, might not be a good idea.
Hey look what I did - I replaced "a few non-DRM songs" with "a few drums of Oil" in your statement and you started making sense.
Well, unfortunately this article is really lacking in details. If the idea is to force companies into technology licensing agreements, I'm not sure how that can really work. How do you decide which DRM systems must be supported and on which devices/platforms? On the flip side, I'm all for anything that pushed back on industry to protect the "fair use" rights we consumers used to have with media content which have horribly eroded in the US over the past few years.
In the meantime, we can always hope that somewhere in the distant future, people will learn that stealing is wrong, and this crap all becomes unnecessary. Truly sad, the effort and money that goes into this garbage.
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
CompTIA, a trade association, reportedly said the law was the latest in a series of measures in the European Union that were "punishing inventors and stifling innovation."
Hilarious, way to suck in the Bill Gates so called "innovation" argument. Yeah right, limiting access to information via DRM is soooo inventive and innovative.
i love my powerbooks, i am reading 5 different mac-related RSS feeds every hour, couldn't live without my iPod (or almost) and can't wait till the iPod video (the real one with a real screen and battery) is announced. i'm converting my co-workers to the delights of Keynote vs. Powerpoint. and i love gifting songs from iTMS to my friends.
but there is no way that i will defend Apple and its DRM system. if i want to listen to my songs on my PSP, i must be able to do it. if sony or anyone else comes up with a f***ing great ipod-killer one day (come on, i'm sure it will happen, i'm already bored of being a ipod-owner. that was cool 3 years ago, not anymore) i want to be able to buy one and make sure that all the songs i paid $1 for will be transferable on this new gizmo.
it doesn't make sense to me that you would defend the iTunes/iPod closed system. we're talking about your rights as a consumer, not your hobby as a PR for Apple.
for those who speak French, this article relates that Steve Jobs justifies DRMs as a way to protect Apple from the power of Microsoft!
Comments
I understand the that the French are/could be using Apple as an example. But the fact remains that the iPod, iTunes and the iTMS are and end to end solution. I don't even consider them separate products. When I had Sony Minidisc player it came with Sonicstage. I don't see anyone making Sony open that up.
It was already stated that none of the other DRM players, offer a solution for non Windows platforms. I don't see a MusicMatch for the Mac. I don't see any Plays for Sure Apple compatibility. Matter of fact, didn't MS just pull the plug on Windows Media Player for the Mac. Shit WMP never played WMA/WMV DRM. Hell it hardly played the regular stuff.
I gotta say that when you 'buy' music you are not actually purchasing the music, only the right to listen. The same applies to the Movie industry. If you actually owned the content you would be getting a royalty check every month.
I'm not sure what people think is so unfair about Apples solution. You can play your music on up to five computers. Try that with a CD. Transfer songs to an unlimited number of iPods, burn purchased music unlimited amount of times, any playlist up to seven times. All it takes is burning it once to remove the DRM if you are so inclined.
I wouldn't mind if Apple were to allow other players to work with iTunes, but I believe they should be allowed to keep the iTMS to themselves. If you want the most convenient seamless and fully supported solution then you choose an iPod.
I think people should take a more modern look at industry. We as consumers demand more and more from companies every day. The minute Apple comes along and stops passing the buck and delivers a truly complete product and succeeds in the market with it ignorant consumers get they're panties in a bunch and start bitching about what they can't do. It doesn't matter what product you choose you lose something. You cannot have your pie and eat it too.
I may be wrong about the rules about Apples DRM rights so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay I think I'm finished now.
Originally posted by SMQT
Actually games and software ARE available on multiple platforms.
Besides, in a lot of cases it could be argued that machine + OS/Games are built for eachother, which in the case of iPod + iTMS is not true.
I think the main argument for this case would be that Apple is actively limiting the use of music, and the reason WHY they limit it.
Their music is basically playable on every player, but limited by Apple.
That's different than an MP3 player not playing WAVs, or software not being runnable on any platform, which are technical issues and choices. Not being able to play CDs in a casette player, is physical.
...
Why should Apple have to pay MS for the license to put WMA on the iPod (and in iTunes)? Isn't that Apple's technical and cost choice in making an iPod? How is that different than Apple deciding to decode WAV or OGG Vorbis formats on the player?
We think of digital bits as something not physical. But decoding digital bits is in the physical realm; I need a processor and instructions to operate that processor. I grant that the PortalPlayer chips in the iPod have the power to decode WMA, but what if (hypothetically) Apple had to write/port the code to decode DRMed WMA on the processor it had chosen, and this increased the amount of RAM or power needed? By the way, given the DRM placed on CDs, it is or soon will be no longer true that all CD players can play all CDs. The region encoding makes this already true for DVDs.
And separately, why is it not true that iTMS was built for the iPod? iTMS works hand-in-hand with iTunes; you don't access iTMS via a general purpose browser but through iTunes (unlike most WMA stores). And iTunes was built for the iPod; for music content, you access (download music/playlists, upload data like times played, etc) the iPod via iTunes not via the file system (unlike most WMA players). That's the beauty of the system - it all works together because each piece knows what the other pieces are doing. How is this different from machine + OS/Games?
Originally posted by olive_
chers américains,
as the French were right for Irak, i think they're right for the iPod (uhuh, sorry i couldn't resist)
i want to be able to play on my PSP the music i buy on iTunes (long story short).
when you buy a DVD, you can play it on your powerbook, in your sony dvd player, in your panasonic portable dvd-player. same with a CD.
why would my music be stuck on my powerbook and my iPod?
i love iTunes, i love Apple, but i just think that Apple DRM is not fair and kills competition.
olivier
Can you explain how does it kill competition?
Look, here are the choices:
1. Apple solution - iTMS/iTunes/iPod (any kind) and Mac or PC.
2. Other solution - any WMA store/any browser/WMA-playing software/any WMA device and PC.
3. CDs/iPod or any WMA device or MP3/OGG/etc device, any software to rip/play CD, and Mac or PC.
Since I have a Mac, if you want to compete, just build me a great other solution (solution 2) that works on a Mac, and convince me that it is better than solution 1.
Originally posted by mark2005
Since I have a Mac, if you want to compete, just build me a great other solution (solution 2) that works on a Mac, and convince me that it is better than solution 1.
So what if I can't even try to do that because I need copper, and my competition owns all the coppermines and doesn't want to sell any copper to me?
That's what they are trying to prevent from happening.
Originally posted by jwdawso
[B]Well stated! Apple does not have a monopoly on music, and music is the commodity here. There are all sorts of companies that sell music in other ways - brick & mortar stores, websites, Napster, etc.
Excellent point. You can accuse anyone of being a monopoly if you just define the market narrowly enough. For example, a man selling flowers on the street could be a "monopolist on roses between 45th street and 47th street," and thus be eligible for punishment.
Originally posted by SMQT
So what if I can't even try to do that because I need copper, and my competition owns all the coppermines and doesn't want to sell any copper to me?
That's what they are trying to prevent from happening.
Nope, wrong analogy. If by copper, you mean songs, it's not true, because Apple doesn't own the songs. The many music labels do. And the labels have made most songs available on other (WMA) stores.
If by copper, you mean Fairplay DRM, it's not true because you don't need Fairplay to compete. You can build your own end-to-end system.
Microsoft-based players don't compete well because they either suck or are me-too copies offering nothing that the user really wants. PlaysforSure sucks, WMA isn't so great, there is no WMA player with all the features of iTunes including usability and easy-reliable sync, WMA stores have nothing to distinguish them, and WMA players for the most part suck. Many people who choose WMA players claim that the ability to move music to the player from the PC desktop was key. Well, lots of people would rather make playlists that update the player automatically instead.
Hey, I'd rather their not be any DRM at all. But the way France is handling this is all wrong - wrong assumptions, wrong reasoning, wrong solution.
Originally posted by SMQT
So what if I can't even try to do that because I need copper, and my competition owns all the coppermines and doesn't want to sell any copper to me?
That's what they are trying to prevent from happening.
Actually, Apple doesn't own the copper mines, just one way of transporting the ore (to use you lousy analogy). Your point is only valid if Apple is the only way to buy music.
Originally posted by SMQT
"We" think is is not acceptable for a company to be the only player in a market. If necessary, such companies will be forced to allow competition, because a market without competition is not considered a healthy market.
Ok, but as soon as the government starts pushing people around, telling them they must do this, they must do that, they are no longer free people.
Now you say the government's goal is to create competiitve markets, but which is more important, competitive markets or free people?
the big problem I have with DRM is this scenario:
say at some point in the future, music is only collected and stored in digital form (not much of a stretch). now, say i want to find a copy of a song by some obscure band whose record label long since went out of business, and the master copies of the song are either wiped out or archived in some major label's warehouse never to be seen again. at that point the only copies i can find are DRM protected so that they only work on devices which are ancient history. so essentially the song is "lost" to anyone who may be interested in it.
DRM protected music essentially has a time-limit placed it. that time-limit being the lifecycle of the device on which it can be played (not to mention the technology it's based on and the companies which support it). obviously a similar case can be made for other media also, but at least they are "unlocked" so that, if you could find (or build) another device capable of playing that media, you could retrieve the music. not so with DRM (without "breaking the law" anyways).
just because the majority of people consume music and then throw it out doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to act this way. i am involved with a community of people who are digitizing old (and often rare) vinyl records created by bands and released on record labels which no longer exist in an effort to preserve the recordings since the media will eventually wear out. it would be nice to give future generations the ability to do the same.
now, i understand this is most likely not the motivation behind the legislation in France (more likely it's lobbying by people who want to get a piece of the pie), but i still feel that DRM isn't the right answer either. you all talk about freedom, but what about freedom for the people who are passionate about music?
CRY BABIES AS ALWAYS!!!!!
As a side note this law was proposed by the current government (within its right) and not by members of the parliament (which is the usage) and since the self- appointed experts working in the various ministries specialized commissions working on the law project are often picked among people in this field (music, entertainment industries), you can bet that this law is a major result of entertainement industry lobbying directed toward ignorant parliament members.
I guess if only parliament members had spoken a little with their 10 years old children or grand children, they would have understood better what they were voting about? Stupids, really?
Are you blinded by chauvinism? Patriottism? Or does the mere fact that politics are driven by opportunism and powerplay keep you from seeing that this time, it's in your own advantage as a consumer?
The question is rather why not *all* governments force all companies *all* content from *all* hardware.
iPods, PSPs X-Boxes - they're all really huge copyright dongles. Geez doesn't anyone see how you pay premium prices for PSP games because the hardware is a loss leader? We're only *lucky* that Apple lets us pay fair prices for their music, but for how long would they think they need to do that?
I know that some people think that you have to protect innovation by allowing companies to make economical use of it.
But Apple doesn't need DRM laws. As the possibility to burn cds without DRM shows. DRM is Apple trick to satisfy content companies.
By keeping their music prices low and their iPod prices realistically high, they have made sure that they remain competitive while the market conditions are going to change.
Because who is going to get hurt when the law gets into effect? Not Apple. The unfairly priced business models, like PSP, XBox, music-by-subscribtion are, while Apple is going to change nothing and survive.
The misconception everyone on the net seems to make, is that because the iTunes store and the iTunes-iPod combination work together so well, each of them can't stand on it's own.
Well, they can. Easily. Laughingly. iTunes is profitable, iPod is profitable. And their each the best the planet has to offer in it's category. That's the difference with content/hardware combinations Sony and Microsoft have to offer.
You read it here: Apple is going to function as the example for Sony and Microsoft, in being an innovative company with a pricing system that is resistant to anti-kartel laws that benefit us, consumers, and will be applied everywhere.
What could be done was to ensure the right of the consumer to "unDRM" the files legally if it falls under some sort of "fair use". For those with the burning needs to use the music elsewhere than on iTunes or the iPod it could be done and all the negative consequences of Apples policy could be avoided.
Originally posted by Doxxic
It's amazing how some people can be against this law, since it's so obviously in their own personal interest.
Are you blinded by chauvinism? Patriottism? Or does the mere fact that politics are driven by opportunism and powerplay keep you from seeing that this time, it's in your own advantage as a consumer?
But... when deciding what's in your best interest, you have to look at the next 80 years, not the next 5 minutes. So allowing a society to develop where the goverment pushes people around, for the sake of a few non-DRM songs, might not be a good idea.
Originally posted by ascii
But... when deciding what's in your best interest, you have to look at the next 80 years, not the next 5 minutes. So allowing a society to develop where the goverment pushes people around, for the sake of a few non-DRM songs, might not be a good idea.
Hey look what I did - I replaced "a few non-DRM songs" with "a few drums of Oil" in your statement and you started making sense.
In the meantime, we can always hope that somewhere in the distant future, people will learn that stealing is wrong, and this crap all becomes unnecessary. Truly sad, the effort and money that goes into this garbage.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
CompTIA, a trade association, reportedly said the law was the latest in a series of measures in the European Union that were "punishing inventors and stifling innovation."
Hilarious, way to suck in the Bill Gates so called "innovation" argument. Yeah right, limiting access to information via DRM is soooo inventive and innovative.
You still like France?
i love my powerbooks, i am reading 5 different mac-related RSS feeds every hour, couldn't live without my iPod (or almost) and can't wait till the iPod video (the real one with a real screen and battery) is announced. i'm converting my co-workers to the delights of Keynote vs. Powerpoint. and i love gifting songs from iTMS to my friends.
but there is no way that i will defend Apple and its DRM system. if i want to listen to my songs on my PSP, i must be able to do it. if sony or anyone else comes up with a f***ing great ipod-killer one day (come on, i'm sure it will happen, i'm already bored of being a ipod-owner. that was cool 3 years ago, not anymore) i want to be able to buy one and make sure that all the songs i paid $1 for will be transferable on this new gizmo.
it doesn't make sense to me that you would defend the iTunes/iPod closed system. we're talking about your rights as a consumer, not your hobby as a PR for Apple.
for those who speak French, this article relates that Steve Jobs justifies DRMs as a way to protect Apple from the power of Microsoft!
http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/200603..._francais.html
today there is no better system than iTunes + iPod. but tomorrow?
i can't take much more time to write about this but think again before insulting the Frenchies.
olivier
PS: they don;t always vote great laws though. the P2P one that just passed last week is retarded.