[tupsy0]

Came across this web site, Apple DRM | DefectiveByDesign.org. Has anyone heard of it or seen it? It basically attacks Apples use of DRM. Do they have a real arguement here, or are they just Apple bashing because DRM gives software and content providers legitimate protection from theft?

Still plan to get one as soon as they are out by the way but wondering what the score is. I always thought DRM was just there to prevent pirates stealing because digital content is so easy to distrobute on a large scale.

[imitchellg5]

They seem to be just Apple bashing. Apple isn't the only company that uses DRM. Amazon and Microsoft do it as well.

[tupsy0]

They must be afraid of the iPad which may actually help it get off the ground with content. A protected environment like the one offered by the iPad (and it's little brothers) must be more atractive to book and magazine publishers etc. than the open un protected waters of general computing.
I for one am happy to pay for the content I consume. If I don't like the price I don't buy and you wouldn't get films like "Avitar" if no one paid for it.

[::maroma::]

I think Apple's angle is that in order to get these publishers (who tend to be stuck in the "old ways" of doing business and distributing their content) to commit to a new model of business, they need to be assured that their content will be "safe" and not easily pirated. Apple wooed the music industry this way and it worked. Apple has been outspoken in regards to the fact that they don't like DRM but feel that its necessary for this reason. I think that in a few years or so these print publishers will follow suit with the music industry and ease up on the whole locked down DRM thing.

I think sometimes we have to deal with these sorts of restrictions on the users in order to get these giant publishing companies to let go of their old thinking and become more modern. We seemed to survive the DRM'd music, so I think we'll survive the DRM'd books/magazines/newspapers and even video.

Do you remember the open letter that Jobs himself wrote regarding DRM? Its pretty eye opening and shows that its not Apple that is fighting for DRM, but its Apple that uses it in order to get these publishers on board.

[mduell]

The site has been around a while. Everything they say is true, most people just don't care.

[Big Mac]

tupsy, the term "Defective By Design" is a label given by certain geeks to any technology that employs DRM in any form. Some people just believe that all DRM is inherently wrong and should be resisted. By the way, defective is spelled defectively in your thread title.

[ghporter]

I've never run into any DRM problems, but I usually am pretty conservative in how I use digital media. I use HDMI cables between my Blu-Ray player and my TV-does that make HDMI cables "defective by design?"

[Dork.]

Apple has played the Music Industry like a fiddle over DRM issues, and they are about to play the magazine industry the same way. When the Music Industry insisted on adding a DRM issue as a condition of selling their songs on iTunes, Apple happily complied. They came up with a DRM scheme themselves, and did not license it to anyone else, which locked protected iTunes content permanently to Apple devices. By the time the industry realized the hole they dug for themselves, it was too late: Apple controls the entire experience of buying music online, from the store to the players. Not even Amazon can really compete now, even with cheaper tracks without DRM.

The publishing industry may be about to do the same thing, and insist that Apple protect their content so it doesn't get copied. What will happen is that the Apple DRM will lock the content out of other devices, which will quickly become paperweights.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

tupsy, the term "Defective By Design" is a label given by certain geeks to any technology that employs DRM in any form. Some people just believe that all DRM is inherently wrong and should be resisted.

The problem with DRM is that it punishes customers for doing the right thing and paying for content. We got rid of Cable a few months ago, but we are able to "buy" episodes of some of the shows we watch directly from Amazon. The Amazon content downaloads to our TiVo and plays fine there (which is why we buy it), but it cannot be played on our iPods and (last I checked) there was no Mac port of Amazon's viewer software, so if we want to watch it on our Macs, we have to stream it through a Web browser.

I have all these restrictions precisely because I am a sucker and prefer to pay for my entertainment. If I had downloaded it for free (illegally, of course), the content would not be protected and (with a little work) I would be able to format it for any device I own. What exactly am I paying for, again? The "illegal" stuff has far more utility for me, and the "legal" stuff is crippled.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The problem with DRM is that it punishes customers for doing the right thing and paying for content.

True. Remember the fiasco that EA got into with their copyright protection on their games. DRM punishes honest people by restricting what they can do with content they have paid for while pirated downloads can be used anywhere and anyhow.

Obviously better brains thanI have failed to square this circle but the answer must be one where the presence of any type of drm on a digital file means any machine recognises it and will play it, while the lack of drm restricts usage. While people have large amounts of home ripped content this will also be an issue but it might be helpful if ripping software added a drm stamp as it went, this wouldn't stop piracy but it would add a step as pirates would have to rip a file before copying it back onto their mac, thereby putting them at the disadvantage not the consumer.