[brokenjago]

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

[mduell]

A lot of bark, but where's the bite?
He's recognizing the direction the industry is going, but he's not leading it.

[BRussell]

Here. I've never seen anything like it from him, it looks almost like a blog entry. It took me a while to believe that it wasn't fake.

Basically he says Apple would love to sell DRM-free music (yeah right, and lose the iTunes lock-in advantage?), but the music companies won't let that happen. It's interesting to read, and there are some good points, but it seems pretty clear that it's meant to address the European lawsuits. Probably written by one of their lawyers.

[::maroma::]

How would you suggest he lead this? The ball is in the record companies' court at this point. They are the ones who are deciding whether or not iTunes and other music download services can distribute the music without any DRM. I don't see how Apple can change that by themselves.

[mdc]

I'm busy reading it now, it's interesting so far. This line I find interesting.

A key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

I assume they closed up the Hymn software?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by mdc 

I'm busy reading it now, it's interesting so far. This line I find interesting.
I assume they closed up the Hymn software?

That really sucks. It would be nice if Apple could just shrug and say 'we tried our best' while letting Hymn continue on. Even though it's easy enough just to burn and re-import a CD, it's a hassle.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Basically he says Apple would love to sell DRM-free music (yeah right, and lose the iTunes lock-in advantage?), but the music companies won't let that happen.

I'm pretty sure he's being very sincere with this statement. I believe that he does indeed want DRM free music on iTunes. He points out how it would benefit everyone, and I feel that he knows Apple can continue to be the #1 distributor of music and #1 maker of digital music players even without the iTunes lock-in advantage. This is what Apple wanted from the start. And I think that only Apple is in the position to get the "big 4" to change their system.

[Big Mac]

A well written piece for the general public. Europe should take note.

[scottiB]

The only way Apple could lead it is by closing the iTunes store - or all but the podcast/Audible parts. Apple makes little profit from it. Steve showed himself that he he doesn't need the store to sell iPods.

/swift

[icruise]

Originally Posted by mduell 

A lot of bark, but where's the bite?
He's recognizing the direction the industry is going, but he's not leading it.

Bark? It sounds like a surprisingly candid explanation of the DRM situation to me. What kind of "bite" would you suggest? Telling the record companies to go to hell and going the way of eMusic?

[LaGow]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A well written piece for the general public. Europe should take note.

Absolutely--but one has to believe Apple has presented this argument to the EU prior to now.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Bark? It sounds like a surprisingly candid explanation of the DRM situation to me. What kind of "bite" would you suggest? Telling the record companies to go to hell and going the way of eMusic?

Sorry if my original post was too American English centric. "All bark and no bite" is a common phrase for someone talking a lot but not actually doing anything.

He's not even saying anything particularly insightful about the industry. We know DRM is inherently flawed. We know the major record labels are control freaks.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Sorry if my original post was too American English centric. "All bark and no bite" is a common phrase for someone talking a lot but not actually doing anything.

He's not even saying anything particularly insightful about the industry. We know DRM is inherently flawed. We know the major record labels are control freaks.

I think the only solution is to do away with DRM altogether. And he said that right in the essay. He gave 3 options, and clearly his favorite is the no-DRM option.

I think the main purpose of this was to let the general public know how he personally feels about it once and for all. There have been lots of rumors about what he feels about DRM, a lot of people felt he wanted DRM. Its clear he'd much rather not. I think this was just basically a call from the leader of music distribution that its time to take a second look at DRM and decide if its truly worthwhile. And he made it clear where he and Apple stand on the matter.

[besson3c]

I don't buy his argument...

He is advocating for no DRM, fine, but then prior to this point he stated that the reason why Apple doesn't want to license Fairplay is because the system can potentially be compromised via leaks. Where his argument falls apart is in not acknowledging the small percentage of users likely to be able to obtain and use this illegal software (he uses a lot of numbers to validate his points), but even more importantly the net result of DRM being compromised is that users will be able to not have DRM. Well, he is advocating for no DRM, so the net gain is the same, no?

The only difference would be the amount of resources necessary to keep Fairplay secure would likely increase, but Apple could potentially make up for this in licensing costs.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Sorry if my original post was too American English centric. "All bark and no bite" is a common phrase for someone talking a lot but not actually doing anything.

Yes, I'd like think that I speak American English just fine. (And technically "all bark and no bite" generally refers to someone making a lot of big promises or threats and not following through on them -- I don't think it really applies here.) My question to you is, what exactly would you have him do?

He's not even saying anything particularly insightful about the industry. We know DRM is inherently flawed. We know the major record labels are control freaks.

Yeah, but that doesn't seem to stop people from picketing Apple stores is some bizarre attempt to blame Apple for the DRM situation. If you want to boil down the entire point of his letter, it is this: "It's not our fault. If you want to blame someone, blame the music industry."

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't buy his argument...

He is advocating for no DRM, fine, but then prior to this point he stated that the reason why Apple doesn't want to license Fairplay is because the system can potentially be compromised via leaks. Where his argument falls apart is in not acknowledging the small percentage of users likely to be able to obtain and use this illegal software (he uses a lot of arguments to validate his points), but even more importantly the net result of DRM being compromised is that users will be able to not have DRM. Well, he is advocating for no DRM, so....

He is saying that the music industry will not let Apple sell their music without DRM, and if the DRM is compromised, Apple only has a few weeks to fix the problem or the labels can, by the terms of their agreement, pull their music from the store. In other words, Apple does not have the power to just get rid of DRM, and neither does it have the option to just turn a blind eye to people trying to crack it. I see no problem with this argument.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I think the only solution is to do away with DRM altogether. And he said that right in the essay. He gave 3 options, and clearly his favorite is the no-DRM option.

Or license Fairplay and put only a reasonable amount of resources into securing it to satisfy the music labels. This way, there would be a deterrent in copying files, even if not an indestructible one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by icruise 

He is saying that the music industry will not let Apple sell their music without DRM, and if the DRM is compromised, Apple only has a few weeks to fix the problem or the labels can, by the terms of their agreement, pull their music from the store. In other words, Apple does not have the power to just get rid of DRM, and neither does it have the option to just turn a blind eye to people trying to crack it. I see no problem with this argument.

Right, and Apple can continue to fix their problems just as they have been, they just can't control the actions of the other companies is what Jobs was saying.

A commercial movie DVD is encrypted with Macrovision. It can be cracked, people crack them all the time. Still, the deterrent exists.

[besson3c]

I agree whole-heartedly with the Norway response:

MacNN | Norway responds to Jobs' open DRM letter

[mduell]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Yes, I'd like think that I speak American English just fine. (And technically "all bark and no bite" generally refers to someone making a lot of big promises or threats and not following through on them -- I don't think it really applies here.) My question to you is, what exactly would you have him do?

Mea culpa, the way you were referring to my words made me think you were unfamiliar with that usage of them.
Here's my dumb idea: Allow individual bands (who used CDBaby to get on iTMS) to opt-out of having DRM on their tracks. Or give those bands the option of selling the whole album (no singles), without DRM, for the price of the same CD (in lossless quality, perhaps).

I don't think the ideas in his letter are bad. I just think they're unoriginal and not backed with any action.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't buy his argument...

He is advocating for no DRM, fine, but then prior to this point he stated that the reason why Apple doesn't want to license Fairplay is because the system can potentially be compromised via leaks. Where his argument falls apart is in not acknowledging the small percentage of users likely to be able to obtain and use this illegal software (he uses a lot of numbers to validate his points), but even more importantly the net result of DRM being compromised is that users will be able to not have DRM. Well, he is advocating for no DRM, so the net gain is the same, no?

The only difference would be the amount of resources necessary to keep Fairplay secure would likely increase, but Apple could potentially make up for this in licensing costs.

The reasons he gave examples of why DRM licensing over many different distributors is bad is to show the record companies that this model cannot work effectively. And allowing the DRM to be broken purposfully is also counterproductive to the record companies, as well as Apple. Under terms of the current contract, if the DRM is broken Apple has a set amount of time to fix it. If they don't, they lose all rights to the music. So its not in Apple's interest, nor is it in the record companies interest to go this route.

Basically, every distributor at this point is at the mercy of the record companies. The record companies make the rules, Apple and the rest must abide by them. Steve is basically trying to tell the record companies that this DRM thing has been tested in the market, has shown to be inefficient and expensive and unnecessarily restrictive, and therefor proves that its unnecessary to even have any DRM in place. He uses the point that the vast majority of music sold to consumers is not protected, so why should digital downloads be different?

The record companies have Apple and the rest of the distributers by the balls. Steve is just telling them to let go of his balls, and explaining why letting go of his balls is good for everyone. Thats pretty much it.

[Eriamjh]

Yeah. I'd blame the record companies, too.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree whole-heartedly with the Norway response:

MacNN | Norway responds to Jobs' open DRM letter

I don't agree with what they're saying. In fact, I think they misunderstood what Steve was saying.

They said:

"[Steve Jobs] also goes on to turn the whole issue on its head by stating iPod owners are not locked into [the] iTunes Music Store - the issue our complaint [addresses] is of course the opposite, iTunes Music Store customers are locked to the iPod."

What Steve said:

To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own.......

Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. Its hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.

I don't know if its the translation that got mixed up or if I'm reading it wrong or what, but it seems to be that they are confused about what Steve was saying. Of course everyone knows if you buy from the iTunes Music Store you are locked into iPods for playback. But owning an iPod does not make you tied into the iTunes music store. iPod owners are not locked into the iTunes store, but iTunes Store customers are locked into iPods. Its quite different.

[brokenjago]

You just quoted norway as saying that iTS customers are locked into using the iPod, and then say that it's quite different? I'm consfused.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I'm pretty sure he's being very sincere with this statement.

I don't. I guess people have already forgotten his stance in 2004:

At a recent private meeting with Hollywood studio heads and tech czars like Microsoft Corp.'s Steve Ballmer and Hewlett-Packard Co.'s Carly Fiorina, Mr. Jobs argued that studios shouldn't license their movies for use in the planned "high-definition DVD" format until Hollywood is assured by the tech industry that the discs can't be copied by new DVD burners that will come along. High-definition DVDs are being developed as a successor to the current digital-video-disc format and are expected to be on the market by next year, along with high-definition DVD burners.

Mr. Jobs even suggested that high-definition DVD burners not be bundled with computers at all -- a scenario he said in an interview was "extreme" and one that "I hope we don't have to get to, but it helps to put the issue in perspective." He said it is up to the tech industry to prove to Hollywood that high-definition content can be adequately protected.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I don't know if its the translation that got mixed up or if I'm reading it wrong or what, but it seems to be that they are confused about what Steve was saying. Of course everyone knows if you buy from the iTunes Music Store you are locked into iPods for playback. But owning an iPod does not make you tied into the iTunes music store. iPod owners are not locked into the iTunes store, but iTunes Store customers are locked into iPods. Its quite different.

Where I think SJ is wrong is that he's implying that because the amount of iPod music coming from the iTunes store is so small (he says 3%), that means it doesn't really create any significant lock in. Well I disagree. In fact, the primary reason I do not use the iTunes store is because it DOES create lock-in, even if only for a small percentage of my music collection.

There is NO WAY for me to use the iTunes DRM'd (FairPlayed) music with anything else, so I'm locked into iTunes/iPod any time I want to use the items in my collection that came from iTunes store.

I don't care what SJ says... that IS lock in.

However, I do understand his reasons, and don't particularly disagree with anything else he says. I wonder about the sincerity WRT pushing non-DRM'd music distribution through iTMS, but it's probably there.

[bloodshot]

Now let's break this down and dispense with all the BS...

Having DRM in the songs sold through the iTunes Music Store is REQUIRED in Apple's contract with the record labels, and if it's cracked Apple has a very limited time frame to fix it, or the Labels can pull their songs. Who's to blame for that requirement in the contract could be disputed all day, none of us really knows the truth. However, watching the past greediness of the Music Industry, I'd bet money they wanted the embedded DRM technology more than Apple.

Saying that having DRM in all iTMS songs "locks you into" Apple's platform is really a ridiculous argument no matter what perspective you're looking at it from. Since the beginning of the modern Music Industry there have been a number of dramatic shifts in technology. It all started with vinyl, then 8-tracks, then cassettes, then CDS, now digital music, none of which are directly compatible with another. For the first time you actually have real choices for your music distribution. Let me repeat that, for the first time EVER you, the consumer, actually has a real choice for your music distribution (and saying you could choose between casettes and CDs for years isn't fair, as one technology was a vastly superior product). I can go buy a CD and easily rip that into whatever digital format I want, or I could download a digital song and easily burn that to an audio CD, and then rip it right back into another digital format. How is this locking you into a format?

If you bought a bunch of CDs 20 years ago and wanted to play them in your car the most obvious choices were a DiscMan with a tape adapter or dub the CD to tape. Hmmm, sounds familiar to how we now use iTunes or any other music jukebox software. Oh, and if you still had an 8-track in your car you were totally SOL, or if you wanted to play all the cassettes from your car on your new CD system you were also screwed.

So to recap...

• DRM is required (most likely) by the music companies in their contract with Apple.
• DRM does NOT lock you into one format, you can get music into iTunes or your iPod in multiple ways.
• Incompatable formats are nothing new in the Music Industry, we've been dealing with that for almost 50 years.

Saying all that, I would really like to know how any of this is Apple's "fault". I'm all for critiques and debates, but let's stick to the facts here people. Apple didn't create the DRM monster, far from it.


One last comment, I did not address getting music out of your iPod for a reason, mostly because it's not pertinent to this debate. Personally, I believe that you should be able to view yours songs on your iPod just like they're stored on your hard drive. However, combined with non-DRM songs, this may make piracy so easy that no one will ever buy music again.

[Drakino]

Incompatable formats are nothing new in the Music Industry, we've been dealing with that for almost 50 years.

So, we should just shrug off any idea of the digital information age making our music lives easier, just because on the past 50 years, the analog music kept changing formats? I for one welcome the countries in Europe standing up for consumer rights. Music companies need to stop treating their customers like criminals, and technology companies need to stop being willing slaves to the music industry.

One last comment, I did not address getting music out of your iPod for a reason, mostly because it's not pertinent to this debate. Personally, I believe that you should be able to view yours songs on your iPod just like they're stored on your hard drive. However, combined with non-DRM songs, this may make piracy so easy that no one will ever buy music again.

This is simply a limitation Apple is choosing to have in place. Rio devices allowed music to be transferred off them and back to the computer, and this was back before the iPod was released. One of the many lawsuits Rio/SonicBlue had to deal with over both the MP3 and DVR markets somehow allowed this.

[Simon]

I agree with what was written in that letter. And I find the whole frenzy people are into about the iTunes DRM somewhat skewed. iTunes software and the iPod are the requirements to use iTS content. Just like having a PC is a requirement to run Vista or having GPU xyz is a requirement to run a certain computer game. I fail to see why it's OK for many audio and video vendors to lock out Mac and Linux users with protected WMA, but it's not OK for Apple to sell music only to those who have bought their player.

That all said, I do think the European dispute is a good thing. Obviously Apple has already suggested to the labels to offer DRM-free iTS content and the labels didn't want that. So then, who else could convince the labels if not the consumers themselves? If Norway would actually ban closed DRM schemes the labels could either allow Apple to sell DRM-free iTS content to Norwegian customers (which they currently will probably not do) or they can watch the digital music download business become purely illegal and hence generate zero profit. In other words, the labels will be forced to either give up on revenue from digital music downloads or they will have to deliver what consumers really want.

Presently consumers don't have a real choice. There is only one type of legal digital music download and that's the one with DRM. Some say CDs are an alternative, but that's not really true since I have to guy buy those physically rather than downloading them at home. And since the music industry is trying to force customers into that scheme and not offering a choice so the free market could make a decision, I find it absolutely favorable to apply legislative pressure. DRM is presently only hurting the honest buyers. It's time customers make clear that they are not willing to pay and be bullied around. And if US legislators are not willing to fight that battle for whatever reasons, I more than welcome European legislators to pick it up.

[pra9ab0y]

I found the very last line quite interesting...

Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace

Maybe this means they are working towards getting licenses.

And the last line

Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

hmmmmm............................

[Eug]

Nah. Apple just wants to protect its proprietary setup with the iPod and iTunes, and is trying to shift the blame to the music companies, when both the music companies and Apple deserve blame. While Apple is now in a position to work with a DRM-less scheme, because they dominate the market, Jobs probably offered up this DRM-free idea because he knows the big companies won't go for it.

I also find it amusing that when Jobs-at-Pixar was talking about movies, he wanted DRM up the yinyang. However, when Jobs-at-Apple is talking about music, he claims to be on the consumers' side and wants everything to be DRM-free.

[icruise]

John Gruber's reaction to the letter.

Daring Fireball: Reading Between the Lines of Steve Jobs's 'Thoughts on Music'

Steve makes a pretty good point when he says that he really doesn't need DRM (or the iTS itself) to keep people buying iPods. While his numbers are kind of misleading (among other things, they don't take into account people who have more than one iPod, or the fact that iPods are available in a lot of places where the iTS is not) it's hard to deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of iPod users don't use the iTS at all.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by bloodshot 

Incompatable formats are nothing new in the Music Industry, we've been dealing with that for almost 50 years.

In the previous cases, the problem was physical incompatibility. You can't fit a record in a cassette player, or a cassette in a CD player. The great thing about digital distribution is that you can put the content wherever you can store bits: on a hard drive, in flash memory, or on an optical disk. There isn't a good reason to cling to this analog limitation.

Originally Posted by Simon 

I agree with what was written in that letter. And I find the whole frenzy people are into about the iTunes DRM somewhat skewed. iTunes software and the iPod are the requirements to use iTS content. Just like having a PC is a requirement to run Vista or having GPU xyz is a requirement to run a certain computer game. I fail to see why it's OK for many audio and video vendors to lock out Mac and Linux users with protected WMA, but it's not OK for Apple to sell music only to those who have bought their player.

Your analogies don't really work; you can buy a Dell or an HP PC and run Vista; you can buy an ATi or nVidia card and play a game.
The reason that iTMS/iPod concern the consumer advocates more than PlaysForSure or Zune is because of marketshare; the former is has the majority of the market, while the latter does not. It's the same reason the US has laws like Sherman anti-trust.

[Simon]

Vista won't run on my UltraSparc box and the commercial antenna design package our EEs use requires an ATI GPU to run. Software always comes with hardware requirments. Just because there are many PC vendors to buy from does not mean software has always allowed people to chose their hardware freely.

While the consumer groups' main issue is a valid one (namely why consumers have to put up with DRM restrictions after legally acquiring content), their arguments are flawed because there is no unusual, unethical or even illegal lock-in here. When you buy iTS content you know right from the start that it will only work with FP players. That is currently one Motorola phone and the iPod family. Apple tells you this on day one. There is no deception or breach of contract going on here.

• When you buy a phone charger and later decide to switch to another phone, can you continue to use your charger? No. Is that an unethical lock-in? No. You knew right form the start that the charger would only work with your brand (or even model) of phone.

• When you buy toner cartridges for your HP Laserjet and later on decide to switch to a Tektronix, can you expect to be able to continue using those HP cartridges? No, they were built to work only with the HP Laserjet and you knew it when you bought them.

• When you buy MS Office for Windows and later want to switch to Linux or OS X, can you continue to use your Office license? No. Is that an unethical lock-in? No, you knew when you bought the Office license that it would only run while you stick with Windows.

Again, if the consumer groups want to pressure legislators to ban DRM from digital media download services, that's perfectly fine with me. But going after the iPod/iTS combo as if it were in any way special, unethical or otherwise illegitimate is just plain hypocrisy.

[Simon]

The French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir is now quoting Steve:

UFC-Que Choisir asks the Minister of Culture and Communication to press the four main Music Majors for removing DRM associated to music tracks available from legal online music stores.
There are too many evidences proving that DRMs kills music, prevent innovations, increase risk of monopoly and proprietary protection systems. Following European Consumer Organizations, Indies, online stores, it is now Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO, who recently called for a complete removal of DRM on music tracks available from online stores.
About 80% of the music production, edition and distribution are shared by 4 Music Majors which are the only ones to support DRMs.
As written in the DADVSI act (active since August 1st), it is illegal for consumers to bypass/hack DRM, so our Minister should take position and explain clearly to Music Majors that it is time to "free the music on internet". [from HardMac]

Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't want to budge: they recommend opening up FP.

I find that last note fairly interesting. If the RIAA thinks opening up FP is no security risk (as Steve claims) they surely wouldn't mind removing this part of their agreement with Apple
However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.
So, once the RIAA removes that part of the agreement, Apple can open up FP to as many competitors as the RIAA wants... Right, Steve?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Simon 

While the consumer groups' main issue is a valid one (namely why consumers have to put up with DRM restrictions after legally acquiring content), their arguments are flawed because there is no unusual, unethical or even illegal lock-in here. When you buy iTS content you know right from the start that it will only work with FP players. That is currently one Motorola phone and the iPod family. Apple tells you this on day one. There is no deception or breach of contract going on here.

You're quite correct in the examples you give. Video games don't work from console to console, and neither do the various video formats, or accessories for most products, etc. These all *could* be made universal, but a large part of their purpose is to generate revenue only for the company selling the product, so it's in the company's best interest to keep them proprietary. A lot of people seem to have the idea that music should be different, and while I agree with them in theory (it would be a much nicer world for the consumer if all music played on all devices) I'm not sure that's realistic, and it certainly would be the exception rather than the rule.

I'd actually like to be able to argue against DRM from a logical standpoint, because I don't really like it, but I can't really think of anything to say aside from "it's bad for the consumer." But I'm not even entirely convinced of that, since without DRM it's likely that the iTS itself wouldn't exist, and I can't argue that would be to anyone's advantage (except maybe Apple's competitors). Can anyone explain to me why music should be different from video games or toner refills?

[Simon]

I agree with you.

This would also be an entirely different issue if the labels made digital content downloads an iTS exclusive. But it's not: if someone doesn't want to be tied to Apple they can tie themselves to WMA players or to MS's Zune. It's the customers' choice. And if people want no ties at all they'll have to change legislation to make DRM illegal across the board.

In terms of 'logical argument against DRM' I can offer you this: It's inefficient and ineffective. First of all, it doesn't really work. There are still loads of pirated music or video content available all over the place. In addition all DRM schemes are a hassle for the legal buyer, not for the pirate. If you want to stop piracy, you have to go after the pirates and make legal purchase more attractive. DRM does the opposite.

[opus_az]

I don't know if anyone's posted this yet, but here's the music industry's response to Jobs:
Link to Daily Camera AP News article

snip...

A recording industry group fired back Wednesday at Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, suggesting his company should open up its anti-piracy technology to its rivals instead of urging major record labels to strip copying restrictions from music sold online.

Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said the move would eliminate technology hurdles that now prevent fans from playing songs bought at Apple's iTunes Music Store on devices other than the company's iPod.

Edit....oh, I see this linked a few posts up, sorry.

[deomacius]

Personally, I'd encourage people to contact the RIAA and make your opinions known at their "Contact Us" link. Heck, tell friends to contact them too. It' can't hurt.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Vista won't run on my UltraSparc box and the commercial antenna design package our EEs use requires an ATI GPU to run. Software always comes with hardware requirments. Just because there are many PC vendors to buy from does not mean software has always allowed people to chose their hardware freely.

The difference here is that you could build your own hardware to work with Vista; anyone can create the sort of incompatibility you've described by creating their own hardware that is incompatible with any other standard. ATi-based video cards are available from a variety of companies; there's no lock-in there.

Originally Posted by Simon 

• When you buy a phone charger and later decide to switch to another phone, can you continue to use your charger? No. Is that an unethical lock-in? No. You knew right form the start that the charger would only work with your brand (or even model) of phone.

Another hardware-hardware example; see my previous comment. Not relevant to to the iPod-iTMS hardware-software discussion.
As off-topic note, I'm happy to see the phone manufacturers moving to standardize mini-USB for power and data; any mini-USB cable works with any mini-USB phone.

Originally Posted by Simon 

• When you buy toner cartridges for your HP Laserjet and later on decide to switch to a Tektronix, can you expect to be able to continue using those HP cartridges? No, they were built to work only with the HP Laserjet and you knew it when you bought them.

Another hardware-hardware example; see my previous comment. Not relevant to to the iPod-iTMS hardware-software discussion.

Originally Posted by Simon 

• When you buy MS Office for Windows and later want to switch to Linux or OS X, can you continue to use your Office license? No. Is that an unethical lock-in? No, you knew when you bought the Office license that it would only run while you stick with Windows.

Great example. And for a fraction of the price of Office, you can buy a converter that will let you use your Office application and license on Windows. Where's the "cheap" (in time and money, relative to the cost of iTMS downloads) converter to put FairPlay-crippled music on my PDA?

[mduell]

I think PlaysForSure is a good example of how a DRM system can be licensed (both on the store side and player side), yet just as good as FairPlay with respect to the label's demand that cracks be fixed within a few weeks (both have been cracked once or twice for short periods of time).
Also, given that the RIAA is encouraging Apple to license FairPlay, I don't think they're worried about the DRM systems being cracked from time to time. They accept it's going to happen, and they'd rather sell more music in the meantime.

[Simon]

I see no reason why hardware and software should be treated differently from a legal POV. In the old days the storage medium itself was the DRM. But with cassette recorders that started to change. Analog copies had a quality penalty but with the CD that disappeared too. CDs are DRM free. There is no reason why digital music downloads can't be DRM free as well. But from a legal POV there should be no difference between hardware lock-ins and software lock-ins. What's legal for printer manufacturers can't be illegal for the iTS.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Where's the "cheap" (in time and money, relative to the cost of iTMS downloads) converter to put FairPlay-crippled music on my PDA?

The "cheap" way is to convert to audio CD which strips the DRM entirely. It's free and it's fast. Although I consider that a hassle, it's still much less expensive and time consuming than the 'converter' you talk about (which converter would that be that would make a Linux version out of my MS Office 2007 Win version btw?).

IMHO FP is bad because it's a DRM and DRM per se is inefficient and ineffective. However, as a DRM FP is actually comparably good, because it has a backdoor allowing you to strip the DRM.

Again, I'm all for abolishing DRMs, but as long as legislators want them I'm perfectly fine with FP and the iTS/iPod combo. You as a consumer in a free market are however at will to chose WMA/PfS or Zune DRM together with the according players.

[shifuimam]

Just my two cents...this thread is already to wordy to read thoroughly:

I realized what I wrote was too long and I doubt anybody cares, so here's a link instead.
http://shifuimam.livejournal.com

[mduell]

Looks like EMI (major label) is heading toward DRM-free MP3 sales. They've already been selling unrestricted MP3 singles for a while.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Looks like EMI (major label) is heading toward DRM-free MP3 sales. They've already been selling unrestricted MP3 singles for a while.

Jeez, it's about time. I can't believe it's taken them this long to realize that treating their customers like criminals is, shockingly enough, a crappy business model.

Now, if they also stop suing the pants off of anyone and everyone who downloads even a single song "illegally", I might actually consider buying music again.

[Eug]

I posted this (along with the Jobs Pixar quote above) in the thread in the Lounge, but I think it is worth reposting here:

Nettwerk sez it no longer requires DRM on its songs, but Apple still puts FairPlay on them.

Unlike the four major labels — Universal, Warner Music Group, EMI and Sony BMG — the independents provide eMusic with permission to distribute the music in plain MP3 format. There is no copy protection, no customer lock-in, no restrictions on what kind of music player or media center a customer chooses to use — the MP3 standard is accommodated by all players.

EMusic recently celebrated the sale of its 100 millionth download; it trails only iTunes as the largest online seller of digital music. (Of course, iTunes, with 2 billion downloads, has a substantial lead.)

Among the artists who can be found at eMusic are Barenaked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, who are represented by Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver, British Columbia. All Nettwerk releases are available at eMusic without copy protection.

But when the same tracks are sold by the iTunes Music Store, Apple insists on attaching FairPlay copy protection that limits their use to only one portable player, the iPod. Terry McBride, Nettwerk’s chief executive, said that the artists initially required Apple to use copy protection, but that this was no longer the case. At this point, he said, copy protection serves only Apple’s interests.

[scottiB]

My guess is that Apple has the same contract/arrangement for all labels (or individuals) that wish to sell through iTunes. It would be no different if Nettwek wanted to sell their music at $0.69 per song and $5.99 per album. Apple wouldn't do that either. All get the same deal.

Those who want MP3s can go to eMusic.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

My guess is that Apple has the same contract/arrangement for all labels (or individuals) that wish to sell through iTunes. It would be no different if Nettwek wanted to sell their music at $0.69 per song and $5.99 per album. Apple wouldn't do that either. All get the same deal.

AFAIK, your guess would be incorrect. The arrangements are negotiated separately (even if they may be similar). For example, a few years ago the independents were complaining they didn't get as good a deal as the big labels and that's why they weren't signing onto iTunes.

[hangarbum]

my question is, how does apple feel about movies? with apple tv coming out soon, will there be a new version of iTunes that will let me import my dvd collection and conversely burn dvds from the movies i may purchase from the iTunes store? that is really the only reason i haven't bought any movies from there yet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hangarbum 

my question is, how does apple feel about movies? with apple tv coming out soon, will there be a new version of iTunes that will let me import my dvd collection and conversely burn dvds from the movies i may purchase from the iTunes store? that is really the only reason i haven't bought any movies from there yet.

DVDs are Macrovision encrypted, so there is no way to legally rip/transcode a DVD without circumventing this security mechanism... Or, at least, there is no way Apple would want to get into this business, I wouldn't think.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

DVDs are Macrovision encrypted, so there is no way to legally rip/transcode a DVD without circumventing this security mechanism... Or, at least, there is no way Apple would want to get into this business, I wouldn't think.

Ditto. At least with music, you've always been able to make your own copies of things. DVDs are pretty heavily encrypted, and the only software available in the US for making what could be considered legal backup copies (aka DVD X Platinum) has since been banned - in the US, at least. If the MPAA won't let you make legitimate backups of your movies, I doubt they're going to let you rip them to your AppleTV.

Just another reason to use a Mini instead of an AppleTV in your home theatre setup.