Licensing FairPlay (Apple iTunes DRM)

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

CNN posted followup (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/10/24/ipod.code.ap/index.html) to the previous news that Jon Lech Johansen ("DVD Jon") had reverse engineered Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights Management (DRM) format.

Johansen has formed a company to license the format to other companies interested in providing DRM protected files that are playable on Apple's iPod. Apple has not allowed other companies to license FairPlay, effectively blocking most companies from selling DRM protected songs that can play on the iPod.

The article states that "an unnamed client will soon use the technology so its copy-protected content will be playable on iPods". Details are not available yet.

DVD Jon had previously circumvented FairPlay's DRM (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031122001549.shtml) in 2003, and since then multiple other tools have appeared to provide similar functionality for updated versions of Quicktime/iTunes. Jon is also credited for developing an algorithm named deCSS to strip a DVD of its encryption (called Content Scramble System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System), or CSS), hence his nickname.

[tvguru]

Wow, I'm not sure what to think. Where's Ze Frank when I need him? ;)

[nbs2]

Who was asking why MS has to lockdown Windows with an absurd level of protection via WGA? Here is your answer.

[danp]

Bad news for iTunes Music Store.

Can only be a good thing for iPod and its users, tho?

[emotion]

Not sure why people think this is bad. Fair use if you ask me.

OTOH it's possibly open to abuse but i think it's worth the risk. I'm not overly keen on DRM stopping people doing what they like with stuff they've paid for. I wouldn't touch a DRM CD for example. All my downloads are from places that don't do DRM (and have at least 320kbps mp3 or better).

[iMeowbot]

Not sure why this is getting so much buzz again. Real Harmony has been out there for over two years now, and even news of this me-too implementation from Johansen already ran 3 weeks ago (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061002155354.shtml) on MacRumors. Nothing much at all has changed WRT the iTunes Store's market position.

[Catt]

One of the things that irritates me about iTMS is the fact that I can't play my purchased tracks on anything other than an iPod.

This doesn't currently affect me as I own an iPod but I would like to be able to use them on other devices as well (such as AAC compatible phones etc.) . This restriction means that I do not purchase as much from iTMS as I might otherwise.

I am wondering how much extra money Apple gets from locking users of iTMS into the iPod system.

Would 'de-regulating' FairPlay in this way encourage owners of other players to buy from iTMS and would this extra revenue offset that losses from lower (potentially) from iPod sales?

[Elijahg]

Apple will probably update iPods with a slight tweak to their DRM, breaking any music people have downloaded from anyone other than Apple.

[BornAgainMac]

He should discuss detailed and undisclosed information about Leopard on his website and to the media while he is at it.

[Digitalclips]

I may be wrong but I suspect that the success of iPod / iTunes is as much about ease of use and pleasant experience that comes from Apple's, hopefully patented, software and hardware interfaces. There was inevitably going to be ways around the system like this but I am not convinced this news will herald a disaster for Apple.

I don't see clunky interfaced Zunes and the like suddenly becoming more tolerable because they can now hack a tune from iTunes to play on it. Perhaps a hack that allowed an iPod user to buy and run music from a cheaper source might be more successful and that would damage iTunes sales but at the same time increase iPod sales maybe?

[iMeowbot]

One of the things that irritates me about iTMS is the fact that I can't play my purchased tracks on anything other than an iPod.
You can, with limitations. If you burn to CD, then rip to a lossless format, you can put an exact copy on anything. Right now the resulting larger files really do present a problem when moving to other players (unless you're willing to accept recompression losses), but time will erase this as storage density goes up and prices drop.

For example, the current high-end iPod can already hold more uncompressed audio than the original could hold in the iTMS compressed form, yet the newer model costs a little less.

[crees!]

I'm not overly keen on DRM stopping people doing what they like with stuff they've paid for.

Ah, but being the devil's advocate - When you purchase something containing DRM you are at that moment agreeing to the terms of that DRM'd file. So when you purchase from iTunes you're saying (generalized), "yes, I agree to only use this media in this particular manner, period."

[hvfsl]

Well this is going to have to happen sooner or later because of the massive share Apple has of the MP3 player market. It's only a matter of time before they become a monopoly in this area and be forced to allow other stores to sell music downloads for the iPod.

Although I personally hope that some online stores use DVDJon's tec to sell HD music to people. I would love to be able to buy 24bit/5.1 lossless compressed music online.

I know the current iPods wouldn't be able to take full advantage of it at this point, but in the future, they will.

[mrgreen4242]

I can only see this as a good thing for Apple. They don't make much, if any, money off of iTMS sales. They run the store at cost or near that to fuel the sale of iPods. If some other company (or companies) can offer either (a) similar content for a lower price, or under a different business model (rental type music, for example) that works on FairPlay devices, read: iPods, then it's a reason to go buy MORE iPods. This generates money for Apple without the expense of running iTMS. Alternatively, if (b) a company is offering content that Apple is NOT offering (indie music, other TV shows, etc) then it's incetive for someone who wouldn't otherwise want an iPod to buy one.

The only bad thing for Apple would be if they created a compatible player, so you could buy a low priced music device and then buy iTMS content, which is basically at cost, without paying the so-called "iPod Tax". It doesn't sound like that's what's happening, though.

[Rychiar]

DRM is so dumb, I don't see why these record companies are so obsessed with it. CDs don't have it, F iTunes. I'd rather buy CDs anyway and rip em:p

[cherrypop]

The point is, Apple needs to show labels that the ITMS is selling music in order to persuade the labels to sign and renew agreements. So if DVD Jon's SW, and other similar SW, weakens or cripples sales from ITMS then there is a problem.

I don't thing this will happen, however. As others have said, Apple's ease-of-use is one of their larger advantages. The richness of the ITMS, Apple's deep marketing pockets, etc, all play into the continued dominance of the ITMS.

Additionally, it will continue to be very difficult for any other company to kill Apple on price per track, as the labels are already pressuring Apple to bump the prices up. Newcomers will of course feel that same pressure.

I can only see this as a good thing for Apple. They don't make much, if any, money off of iTMS sales. They run the store at cost or near that to fuel the sale of iPods.

[RichP]

Can another company even sell music at less than $0.99? Apple has been tight with the record companies to keep the price that low. The only "competition" that could be considered cheaper would be a subscription model of music sales/rental. However, does Apples DRM even support the features necessary for a subscription model? DVD Jon can only break DRM, not add new features to it, and the devices it plays on (iPod)

[Porco]

I think the difference here is, with deCSS, once it was out there it was out there - DVDs, as physical objects, were beyond the reach of the studios, and all the various players/drives that were out there made it impossible to do anything about it for DVDs.

With FairPlay though, Apple can 'update' purchased music anytime users download a newer version of iTunes to make sure FairPlay keeps going for anyone who wants to keep buying from the iTunes Music Store.

iTunes update on Tuesday? :p

[MarcelV]

Most people do not seem to mind the DRM restrictions as long as they can easily move their files to the iPod. Just having the DRM and then copying manual songs to the iPod is not what most people do. They are used to the integration. So, unless he also build a iTunes equivalent with very similar functionality and has an integrated store, it is not going to pose a hread to Apple.
But then, they are going to sell DRM'ed songs from stores other than iTunes, probably fo rthe same price. What is the benefit to switch?
Unless.... he can make the subscription/rental model work with the iPod, which will have a small impact initially, but may have a larger impact long term.

[nagusjim]

Ah, but being the devil's advocate - When you purchase something containing DRM you are at that moment agreeing to the terms of that DRM'd file. So when you purchase from iTunes you're saying (generalized), "yes, I agree to only use this media in this particular manner, period."

well spoken. If you don't like the terms of the sale, don't complete it. If you buy the music, you've agreed to those terms, like them or not. Sure, I can see that there might be some people who need/want more flexibilty, but perhaps iTunes music downloads just aren't a good match for them. If you see something in a store that you like but you don't think is a good deal, do you buy it anyways? You probably shouldn't if you're not happy with the terms of the sale... Same thing applies to music purchases from Apple.

Now, if Jon hasn't done anything illegal in this, then fine...no problem there. If he has, then Apple has every right to pursue legal action. Like it or not, the license restricts your use of the product, and Apple has well over a billion agreements to that license so far.

[schatten]

Justification for DRM
I understand the need for DRM. Apple would never be able to sell us all that great music without the DRM. I have no problem with the DRM. I think it's fair. If I were an artist, I wouldn't want to make it so easy for people to freely distribute my music royalty-free. If a million people like my song enough to own a copy, then I should see a million payments on it. That's fair.

Not as good for Apple as it would seem
A long time ago, Jobs stated that the goal of the iTunes Music Store wasn't to turn a profit, but to market iPods. By providing a easy-to-use, cheap, legal way to sell iPod-compatible music, Apple is able to sell more iPods. It has clearly worked like a charm.

So you're asking "well, if other websites can sell iTunes-compatible DRM protected music, it will sell more iPods too, right?" Well technically yes; You're right. But let me ask you this; what separated the Apple User Experience from most? What sets Mac OS X apart from other OS's, or the iPod apart from other MP3 Players? What makes the iTunes Store so much more popular than any other online music service?

The answer: Approachability. A quick learning curve, ease of use, simplicity, elegance, suave, charm, style. Apple's core marketing gimmick, the reason Apple is still around today, the reason the Apple experience is unique is because Apple maintains strict control over their user's experience, and they make the experience as pleasant as possible. Forr example, it's one of the specific reasons Jobs cited for killing off the Apple-licensed clone machines (back in the day).

Now, we all know Real. I don't know many people who can honestly tell me that they've had an overall easy or pleasant experience with Real. Their software media player is nearly a trojan horse, their tech support is abysmal, their website is obnoxiously hideous, etc. And they're one of the better alternatives. If vendors other than Apple have the ability to peddle DRM-protected music for the iPod, then Apple loses a bit of control over the iPod User Experience.

It might get ugly
Suddenly vendors start changing the rules, right under Apple's nose. Instead of the simple .99 pricing, maybe it's tiered pricing, arbitrarily set up by the folks in charge to make an extra buck, but it confuses/aggrivates the end-user. (and maybe record labels like the better bottom-line & start selling exclusively with Vendor B rather than Apple, thus the Music Store loses marketability). There's no quality-control. Vendors can start ripping less-than perfect copies of the music (or worse, music laced with ads!), market it as "ipod compatible" unsuspecting users buy it & the iPod experience diminishes. In short, Apple loses control.

I've been an Apple user since childhood. I've followed the company closely. I can tell you one thing with certainty. They do not like to lose control of their end-user experience.

DVD Jon may think he's doing us all a favor, and maybe in a shortsighted way he is, but ultimately he's spoiling Apple's marketing strategy & thus risking the iPod's position as the top MP3 Player in market share. The DRM isn't his to license. Hopefully his scheme will be fruitless.

[hcuar]

Screw Dvd Jon. He's a moron. iTunes is popular because it's a simplistic kick ass store. It's easy to use, and well organized. It has a great selection for a price cheaper than most CDs.

[ITR 81]

Can another company even sell music at less than $0.99? Apple has been tight with the record companies to keep the price that low. The only "competition" that could be considered cheaper would be a subscription model of music sales/rental. However, does Apples DRM even support the features necessary for a subscription model? DVD Jon can only break DRM, not add new features to it, and the devices it plays on (iPod)


Walmart sells them for $0.88cents a pop.

I'm not sure why he tries to beat the DRM because Apple will just update it and add it in to next iTunes ver.

[brepublican]

It has a great selection for a price cheaper than most CDs.
Albeit at a lesser quality. But I agree with you.

I'm not claiming to speak for others, but I personally dont mind not being able to play my music on anything else, given there is nothing out there better than the iPod...

I really dont know what position to take on this :)

[Clive At Five]

I can only see this as a good thing for Apple. They don't make much, if any, money off of iTMS sales. They run the store at cost or near that to fuel the sale of iPods. If some other company (or companies) can offer either (a) similar content for a lower price, or under a different business model (rental type music, for example) that works on FairPlay devices, read: iPods, then it's a reason to go buy MORE iPods. This generates money for Apple without the expense of running iTMS. Alternatively, if (b) a company is offering content that Apple is NOT offering (indie music, other TV shows, etc) then it's incetive for someone who wouldn't otherwise want an iPod to buy one.

The only bad thing for Apple would be if they created a compatible player, so you could buy a low priced music device and then buy iTMS content, which is basically at cost, without paying the so-called "iPod Tax". It doesn't sound like that's what's happening, though.

Damn. Exactly what I was going to say... down to the letter. So I shall repeat with different words to those listening:

Apple makes pennies on the iTMusicS (the story might be different for shows and games). Some people want to own an iPod, but don't want to pay iTS store prices or use their $0.99/song, end of story, model. Solution: buy mp3, d/l mp3 illegally, buy FairPlay elsewhere. With exception of Real Harmony, the last option has not existed.

Where Apple makes the money is iPod sales. HUGE money. However, Apple can't promote the three aforementioned options outright, not when it has the largest FairPlay (and altogether) legal music d/l store on the 'net. So the only thing they can do is not dissuade people from using the other options... forcefully, at least. All I remember Apple saying about Real Harmony was "they're hackers with questionable methods," or something like that.

As Mr. Green said, the only risk I would see is if others tried to make a FairPlay compatible "mp3" player. I wouldn't see it going places unless sync'd with iTunes or a different phenominal jukebox. Thus, Apple likely writes that possibility off as someone else "pulling a Zune."

hehe. We don't even know how the zune will do in reality but we love to pick on it here. I must be on a Mac Forum. :p

-Clive

[Hattig]

Screw Dvd Jon. He's a moron. iTunes is popular because it's a simplistic kick ass store. It's easy to use, and well organized. It has a great selection for a price cheaper than most CDs.

If he is a moron, what does that make you? Could you crack DRM schemes when you were 16? Can you do it now?

This is a useful fair use enabling technology. It will mean that iTMS purchased songs could be played on any player that has licensed Jon's work. It will mean that the iPod can play music from any store that has licensed Jon's work. This is a good thing for consumers, it opens up the market (assuming other companies license it).

This only happened because Apple wouldn't license Fairplay themselves. Imagine where the CD would be today if Philips had never licensed it. DRM makes a digital format operate like a physical format - Fairplay is Betamax versus PlaysForSure's VHS for example.

[Queso]

Apple should think realistically now about allowing legitimate Fairplay licensing.

Here in the UK, websites are being forced to use DRM by content providers. The only option currently available, thanks to Apple's pigheadedness, is Windows DRM. So Mac users are being increasingly locked out of web services such as live broadcasts, radio stations etc. simply because we don't use Windows. Give the content providers another solution with Fairplay licensing and maybe Mac users won't get so marginalised.

They may not have noticed in Cupertino, but Windows DRM is locking people into Windows just as effectively as Fairplay is locking people into iPods. Apple are allowing Microsoft to get a foothold in a market that Apple should own by now.

[revfife]

As bad or as good as this seems, it is not going to affect the everyday iTunes/iPod user. Who just wants to buy his/her music and be done with it. Itunes has proved to be a very successful model for this. This FairPlay will only affect those of us who bother with looking stuff up, Downloading new programs, Tweaking the properties, and Then readjusting all of our files.

Not something I see the masses interested in doing.

[twoodcc]

i'm not sure what to think. fair use is fair use i guess.

[iMeowbot]

IThis is a useful fair use enabling technology. It will mean that iTMS purchased songs could be played on any player that has licensed Jon's work.
That isn't what this product does, and if it did it would run straight up against EUCD, DMCA etc.
It will mean that the iPod can play music from any store that has licensed Jon's work.
That is what the product is intended to accomplish.

[gnasher729]

Would 'de-regulating' FairPlay in this way encourage owners of other players to buy from iTMS and would this extra revenue offset that losses from lower (potentially) from iPod sales?

Absolutely not, because this is not what is happening.

What is claimed here is a method of adding the "FairPlay" DRM to music from other stores than iTMS, so that companies other than Apple can sell music with DRM that can _only_ be played with iTunes or an iPod (that is, 80 percent of the market) instead of selling music with Microsoft DRM as they do now (which plays on the other 20 percent of the market).

As an example, the Beatles could use this to sell all their music on the Internet with DRM to iPod owners, without going through the iTunes Music Store. They could make more money that way; for the iTunes user or iPod owner there would be no difference.

[AdeFowler]

Who's going to buy this 'technology'?

My point is, that if for example Microsoft or Napster wanted Fairplay hacked, they'd have paid someone to do it long ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'd love to sell iPod compatible tracks, but not by the back door.

[Swarmlord]

Who was asking why MS has to lockdown Windows with an absurd level of protection via WGA? Here is your answer.

If they only spent as much energy locking their browser security down as they did with WGA, there wouldn't be any spyware.

[hokka]

What he's doing is not so bright, but that's what he's specialized in, crack DRMs, and he's old enough to want to make a buck or two, you can't blame him trying. Sure it's not a long term plan but like any full-on criminal, he will try to break into a bank before he get's caught (again) and send to prison - regardless how much people want to rally for him - it's not really legal (sure, flame me if you're a lawyer). Breaking into someone else's house and sell a copy of the key is not exactly bright not matter what you think about the house.

End of story, I hope he'll learn his lesson one day... but I doubt it. good luck but he won't survive the legal system.

[Queso]

Who's going to buy this 'technology'?
Creative for one. Mobile phone manufacturers too. Basically, anyone that wants to advertise their equipment as iTunes compatible.

And hokka, there is already precedent for this legally. Compaq reverse engineered the IBM BIOS back in the early 80s and kickstarted the IBM-compatible computer industry. They were able to prove that they hadn't hacked the BIOS, just got one team of people to find out exactly what it did and write a spec, then passed the spec to another completely different team who made a compatible chip from it. Providing Jon has also taken this approach, Apple will have a tough time winning the case.

[Kaafir]

I'm freakin sick of the ITMS. :mad:

I love iTunes and my iPod, but purchasing music that can only be put on an iPod is crap. There may be a better player out later which I want to go to and then *poof* my ITMS purchased tracks are crap.

www.allofmp3.com

It's (significantly) cheaper.

It's better.

'Nuff said.

[iJaz]

A hacker who is trying to make money of his hacks is a bad hacker, I think.
He's not inovating he's just trying to make money on some one elses inovations.
It was cool to brake the cd protection and making the hack free, this ain't cool.

[Clive At Five]

Imagine where the CD would be today if Philips had never licensed it.

Who still uses CDs? hehe

They're large, clumsy, rigid, and prone to scratching. So are DVDs. And HD-DVDs/Blu-Ray. When are content providers going to get some brains and start licensing on read-only solid state? How many MB is an hour of decently endoded music? 256? We're talking a couple bucks on flash chips here.

Hehe... just a long-time vision of mine... which has yet to be realized. And I couldn't help but make fun of poor old CDs. They're going the way of the Cassette Tape. Who ever thought Mr "Scratch me and I'm useless" CD'son was a good idea. ;) :D

-Clive

[JPark]

My roommate is a PC fanatic. He's an engineer, yet he still uses IE instead of Firefox for crying out loud. All of his purchased music is from MusicMatch, and he plays it on the cheapest player he could find.

He recently got a new computer and tried to get his MusicMatch songs to play on it. He has now devoted a couple hours every afternoon for 3 weeks to the project. In his weakened condition, I started showing him how my iTunes music could painlessly hop from computer to computer, and how if he used iTunes, he could stream all of my non-protected music. He was ready to cut his losses and switch to iTunes right there.

Unfortunately, iTunes songs won't play on his player so that was the end of it. There's no way he's paying more than $30 for a player, and there's no iPod that cheap. As a result, he'll never know how much better iTunes (and the rest of mac software) is. Apple had a chance to get their foot in the door, and instead they slammed his own door in his face.

[emotion]

They may not have noticed in Cupertino, but Windows DRM is locking people into Windows just as effectively as Fairplay is locking people into iPods. Apple are allowing Microsoft to get a foothold in a market that Apple should own by now.

Yeah this will leverage Zune sales too.

[iJaz]

I'm freakin sick of the ITMS. :mad:

I love iTunes and my iPod, but purchasing music that can only be put on an iPod is crap. There may be a better player out later which I want to go to and then *poof* my ITMS purchased tracks are crap.

www.allofmp3.com

It's (significantly) cheaper.

It's better.

'Nuff said.

AllofMP3 is exactly how all music selling sites should be. The possibility to choose exact what quality you want is great, no DRM is great, the price is of course also great.
If only the artists would get paid it would be perfect. :cool:

[AdeFowler]

Creative for one.
I doubt very much whether Creative would p*ss off Apple having just been given a $100m end of hostilities settlement.

How hard can Fairplay be to crack? If this guy can do it I'm sure most major software/hardware/telephone companies could find a way, but they choose not to. If they did, what would stop Apple from hacking WMA and basically declaring DRM dead?

[hokka]

dynamicvworking out the key from the lock and pass onto another locksmith to make an exact copy to open a house or allow others to tour your house for free is not wrong? gee, what's the point of the lock on you door? what's the point of any password on your keychain (access)?

Stop trying to fight DRM, ignore it or don't buy the crap in the first place

[emotion]

I'm freakin sick of the ITMS. :mad:

I love iTunes and my iPod, but purchasing music that can only be put on an iPod is crap. There may be a better player out later which I want to go to and then *poof* my ITMS purchased tracks are crap.

www.allofmp3.com

It's (significantly) cheaper.

It's better.

'Nuff said.


Not only is that site a pirate site but I personally know many people who run very small independent record labels that have stuff on there without permission.
Avoid these jokers at all costs.

There are legitimate drm-free places to buy digital music.

dynamicvworking out the key from the lock and pass onto another locksmith to make an exact copy to open a house or allow others to tour your house for free is not wrong? gee, what's the point of the lock on you door? what's the point of any password on your keychain (access)?

Stop trying to fight DRM, ignore it or don't buy the crap in the first place


It's a poor analogy because it's actually my door I'm trying to open (I bought the tracks).

Fair use!

AllofMP3 is exactly how all music selling sites should be. The possibility to choose exact what quality you want is great, no DRM is great, the price is of course also great.
If only the artists would get paid it would be perfect. :cool:

If you're going to "steal" music just use limewire or soulseek. Why pay someone to steal it for you? I don't understand.

[hokka]

AllofMP3 is exactly how all music selling sites should be. The possibility to choose exact what quality you want is great, no DRM is great, the price is of course also great.
If only the artists would get paid it would be perfect. :cool:

AllofMP3 is not doing too well now that VISA and Mastercard has blacklisted it, so download while you can before it's source of income is dead

[yojitani]

This guy's my hero. Not that I need any of this stuff, I just hate DRM with a vengence.

[iJaz]

My roommate is a PC fanatic. He's an engineer, yet he still uses IE instead of Firefox for crying out loud. All of his purchased music is from MusicMatch, and he plays it on the cheapest player he could find.

He recently got a new computer and tried to get his MusicMatch songs to play on it. He has now devoted a couple hours every afternoon for 3 weeks to the project. In his weakened condition, I started showing him how my iTunes music could painlessly hop from computer to computer, and how if he used iTunes, he could stream all of my non-protected music. He was ready to cut his losses and switch to iTunes right there.

Unfortunately, iTunes songs won't play on his player so that was the end of it. There's no way he's paying more than $30 for a player, and there's no iPod that cheap. As a result, he'll never know how much better iTunes (and the rest of mac software) is. Apple had a chance to get their foot in the door, and instead they slammed his own door in his face.
The Shuffle is $79 and will not cost $30 anytime soon, so I guess he's lost anyway.
This was an example when the price of the hardware was limiting, not the iTS incompatibility.

[Kelmon]

I'm in favour of this move. CDs were great (along with cassette tapes and LPs) because you could play them in any CD player and you could buy the CDs themselves from any shop. For some odd reason we don't get this with MP3 players and I do think that's anti-competitive. If I want to move to a different MP3 player or buy my music from another store to use on my iPod then that should be my choice and Apple should have to accept that. At the moment I am quite happy with my first iPod (aside from the frequent crashes when playing podcasts...) but if I decide to change to something else that is Mac compatible and beats the iPod then I don't want to have to re-purchase my iTunes music that I have bought. If DVD Jon has a way to allow reasonable consumer choice then FairPlay to him.

I have no wish to see Apple get walloped by the competition but the sort of consumer freedom that this offers should keep them honest since if they **** up then we can move some place else.

[hokka]

It's a poor analogy because it's actually my door I'm trying to open (I bought the tracks).

Fair use!

It's your track alright, but why is he selling the key to others so they can unlock your door as well?? like I said, he's trying to get rich via your house.

[iJaz]

If you're going to "steal" music just use limewire or soulseek. Why pay someone to steal it for you? I don't understand.

I didn't say I supported AllofMP3's way to do their shady business, I meant that legal downloading should be modelled like AllofMP3 AND that the artists should get paid.

[emotion]

I didn't say I supported AllofMP3's way to do their shady business, I meant that legal downloading should be modelled like AllofMP3 AND that the artists should get paid.

Ok fair enough iJaz.

[hokka]

I didn't say I supported AllofMP3's way to do their shady business, I meant that legal downloading should be modelled like AllofMP3 AND that the artists should get paid.

If only we live in the perfect world, every business is out there for it's own interest - Jon, Record Company and AllofMP3 included. time to wake up and smell the coffee guys!

[emotion]

It's your track alright, but why is he selling the key to others so they can unlock your door as well?? like I said, he's trying to get rich via your house.

Well if his approach is legal (as reported) he might not be doing this. Though I do take your point.

---
See, I get the impression that Apple are not that keen on DRM either. It's just that the big music and film companies need that reassurance so that they do business with Apple.

[Queso]

dynamicvworking out the key from the lock and pass onto another locksmith to make an exact copy to open a house or allow others to tour your house for free is not wrong? gee, what's the point of the lock on you door? what's the point of any password on your keychain (access)?

Stop trying to fight DRM, ignore it or don't buy the crap in the first place
Whether you agree with me or not, that's the way the legal world sees it. Reverse engineering is quite common.

[cecildk9999]

I dunno; the way these articles make it sound, people had to buy their iPods because they already had large iTunes accounts, and it was the only way to listen to their music. But of course it was the other way around, that the store was the result of the iPod. I suppose it would be nice to have the option to put my purchased iTunes mp3s on a different player (although I don't see myself doing it), but I agree with everyone about the integration and ease of use keeping the iTunes market strong. And unless other mp3 players can be easily synched with your iTunes playlists and music, the whole DRM thing seems pretty moot to me. The iPod is iConic (couldn't help myself :p ); it'll take a lot of great word of mouth and aggressive marketing by other companies to even take a real bite out of Apple.;)

[mdntcallr]

The point is, Apple needs to show labels that the ITMS is selling music in order to persuade the labels to sign and renew agreements.\

Additionally, it will continue to be very difficult for any other company to kill Apple on price per track, as the labels are already pressuring Apple to bump the prices up. Newcomers will of course feel that same pressure.

Apple has a lead because itunes / ipod system is the best.

That said, i have no problem with ipod, nor Itunes. if other stores want to sell product to be used on ipod, wrapped in drm? gluck to them. but i don't think illegally coming up with a workaround is right.

Apple has a right to a closed drm. it is free market, and other companies shouldnt be able to force the issue. BUT i do believe apple ought to open up more on it. Allow other companies to offer fairplay protected content. ie, record labels, to allow them to sell protected cd's, with software to allow NO COPYING, but allow albums to be ripped into itunes, but WITH DRM.

i do not believe drm is evil. Artists and labels need to protect against illegal copying. they have a right to their work being thought of as valued. and not something to be stolen or given away freely.

[donlphi]

IMPO This is a load of crap. The reason why iPOD works so well is because it does have limitations (not many). The next thing you know, everybody can create an "iTUNES store", requiring you to upgrade the firmware, software, etc. on your iPOD, computer, and whatever else you have attached to your "system".

When your iPOD stops working or seems bogged down, who gets the blame? APPLE, it's a crock.

As a high school music teacher (band and guitar) I see a lot of iPODs throughout the day. A student tells me he downloaded some bootleg copy of a Paul McCartney song from Limewire (which I don't use- I don't work for free, neither did my parents, neither should musicians), and when he goes to play it, it freezes and resets. OF COURSE, the kid blames APPLE. It's not the corrupted file he dropped into his iPOD.

Point being... it's an Apples product, they give the tech support. They shouldn't have to support every DRM on the market. EVEN IF IT GIVES ME MORE CHOICE, it's a huge step backwards.

Quality control... where's big brother when you need him. :D

There is a reason you can't put Chevy parts into a BMW.

[hokka]

Whether you agree with me or not, that's the way the legal world sees it. Reverse engineering is quite common.

we'll see...

[flipperfeet]

Damn. Exactly what I was going to say... down to the letter. So I shall repeat with different words to those listening:

Apple makes pennies on the iTMusicS (the story might be different for shows and games). Some people want to own an iPod, but don't want to pay iTS store prices or use their $0.99/song, end of story, model. Solution: buy mp3, d/l mp3 illegally, buy FairPlay elsewhere. With exception of Real Harmony, the last option has not existed.

Where Apple makes the money is iPod sales. HUGE money. However, Apple can't promote the three aforementioned options outright, not when it has the largest FairPlay (and altogether) legal music d/l store on the 'net. So the only thing they can do is not dissuade people from using the other options... forcefully, at least. All I remember Apple saying about Real Harmony was "they're hackers with questionable methods," or something like that.

As Mr. Green said, the only risk I would see is if others tried to make a FairPlay compatible "mp3" player. I wouldn't see it going places unless sync'd with iTunes or a different phenominal jukebox. Thus, Apple likely writes that possibility off as someone else "pulling a Zune."

hehe. We don't even know how the zune will do in reality but we love to pick on it here. I must be on a Mac Forum. :p

-Clive

Wow! "Does not make more than a few pennies." I do not think either of you appreciate the power of small numbers, when multiplied by millions of transactions and time. Soap companies have understood this for several hundred years, clearly Apple understands it as well. The individual unit profit on iPods is clearly higher, but each iPod sold acts as a multiplier of where the real money is made. What a dream to earn just one half of one cent of every iTunes purchase. If globally they sell a million songs a day, I'd receive $5k a day or $1,825,000 a year.

[spinko]

Not sure why people think this is bad. Fair use if you ask me.

OTOH it's possibly open to abuse but i think it's worth the risk. I'm not overly keen on DRM stopping people doing what they like with stuff they've paid for. I wouldn't touch a DRM CD for example. All my downloads are from places that don't do DRM (and have at least 320kbps mp3 or better).

Could you drop a URL ?

[emotion]

Could you drop a URL ?

Beatport.com, juno.co.uk, trackitdown.net, emusic (though they need higher bit rates).

Admittedly they're biased a little to electronics but that's what I listen to.

[Queso]

Could you drop a URL ?
Here's (http://www.artists-first.net/) one if you're interested in selling music yourself. Mostly indie acts on there, linking from their own web pages. 320kbps MP3 is common.

[ChrisA]

He should discuss detailed and undisclosed information about Leopard on his website and to the media while he is at it.

No, that would be breaking an NDA. The details of Fair Play are not under NDA. Not many of us signed an agreement with Apple so we are free to look inside a music file and tell the world what we see inside but no so with Leopard if there is an agrement not to.

BTW the developer's pre-release of Leopard contains no secrets. Anyone can get a copy and use it if they pay a fee to become a developer.

[Clive At Five]

Wow! "Does not make more than a few pennies." I do not think either of you appreciate the power of small numbers, when multiplied by millions of transactions and time. Soap companies have understood this for several hundred years, clearly Apple understands it as well. The individual unit profit on iPods is clearly higher, but each iPod sold acts as a multiplier of where the real money is made. What a dream to earn just one half of one cent of every iTunes purchase. If globally they sell a million songs a day, I'd receive $5k a day or $1,825,000 a year.

I said "Apple makes pennies" and I meant it figuratively:

Firstly, I don't think they even make a whole cent per song (source on that anyone?) and secondly, think of the cost of running the store! Millions of songs and millions of downloads means page construction (albeit probably database construction) and tons of bandwidth. That stuff ain't cheap. I meant that Apple makes pennies on the music store as a whole. I know they probably do turn a measurable profit, but a profit that is utterly DWARFED by iPod sales.

I don't recall the most recent statistics, but let's say Apple makes $25 profit per iPod sold (HUGE underestimate). Say, also that Apple makes $0.05 profit per iTunes song sold (huge OVERestimate). To match those two profits, every iTunes user must download 500 songs. Trust me, that is not how things go. I've downloaded maybe 8... and those were from Pepsi bottles.

-Clive

[ChrisA]

[QUOTE=flipperfeet What a dream to earn just one half of one cent of every iTunes purchase. If globally they sell a million songs a day, I'd receive $5k a day or $1,825,000 a year.[/QUOTE]

Yes but to a "capitalist" he thinks. If I invest my $10,000,000 here I will make a 1.5% return but if I invest it here I make 6%. Yes one percent of $10M is good money but if you are not making a competivie return then investors take their money and walk.

I used to work for Huges Aircraft company. It was a big aerospace company the made a pile of money and was owned by the Huges Medical foundation. Howard Huges set it up so that the profits from the company would flow into medical reasearch. Nice of him. But the medical foundation eventually decided they would make even more money if they sold the company and pt the money in the bank. They did just that.

[stoid]

$1,825,000 a year.

That's $456,250.00 a quarter.

Yeah, I can see that's where the majority of Apple's profit this last quarter came from. $546,000,000.

By your estimate, that's less than one tenth of one percent (<0.1%) of Apple's profits. Hardly a cash cow. Even if you underestimated by a full magnitude, it's not that impressive.

$1.8 mil/year may seem like alot to you or me that makes less than $50k/year, but to a company that does over $15,000,000,000.00 in sales a year it's little more than a drop in the bucket.

[BenK01]

This discussion has me a bit confused. I don't own an ipod, so forgive my lack of knowledge.

1. If I buy itms tracks, can I burn them to a CD and play them on a CD player?
2. If I own a CD, can rip it to itunes and then play it on an ipod?

[Catt]

Absolutely not, because this is not what is happening.

What is claimed here is a method of adding the "FairPlay" DRM to music from other stores than iTMS, so that companies other than Apple can sell music with DRM that can _only_ be played with iTunes or an iPod (that is, 80 percent of the market) instead of selling music with Microsoft DRM as they do now (which plays on the other 20 percent of the market).

As an example, the Beatles could use this to sell all their music on the Internet with DRM to iPod owners, without going through the iTunes Music Store. They could make more money that way; for the iTunes user or iPod owner there would be no difference.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

[iMeowbot]

1. If I buy itms tracks, can I burn them to a CD and play them on a CD player?
Yes.
2. If I own a CD, can rip it to itunes and then play it on an ipod?
Yes, as long as it's a real CD and not one of those wacky not-really-CD things with bizarre copy protect schemes. Even most of those can be brought into an iPod, though.

[BenK01]

Yes.

Yes, as long as it's a real CD and not one of those wacky not-really-CD things with bizarre copy protect schemes. Even most of those can be brought into an iPod, though.

Thanks.

[shawnce]

This discussion has me a bit confused. I don't own an ipod, so forgive my lack of knowledge.

1. If I buy itms tracks, can I burn them to a CD and play them on a CD player?

Yes. Review the following from the iTMS terms of use..

b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.

Usage Rules

Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.

You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time.

You shall be entitled to export, burn (if applicable) or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial use. You shall not be entitled to burn Video Products.

You shall be authorized to burn an audio playlist up to seven times.

You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod, at a time.

Any burning (if applicable) or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any audio or video content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

The delivery of Products does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Products.

2. If I own a CD, can rip it to itunes and then play it on an ipod?

You can rip any standard CD into iTunes (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93118) and move that song onto any number of iPods (or other supported players).

[Macula]

As Apple's market share increases, so will the fury of competitors, legislators, hackers and open source advocates alike.

OS X is already cracking open (see for example http://semthex.freeflux.net/), and it is now possible to run OS/X with very few glitches on any super-fast (if ugly) Dell machine or any other $300 x86 clone.

Likewise, DRM is beginning to leak.

I am curious to see for how long Apple will be able to safeguard its monopolies. Restricting its content (OS/X, music, video, etc.) to run only on its own hardware platform is a GREAT idea in principle, but I have serious doubts that it is technically VIABLE in the long term.

This may turn out to be for Apple the greatest cost of its transition from PowerPC to Intel.

[Queso]

This may turn out to be for Apple the greatest cost of its transition from PowerPC to Intel.
But for every person who runs the hacked version indefinitely, they'll be someone else who grows tired of the pirated OSX not giving the complete widget and buys a Mac.

Maybe it's already happened. Apple could already have 12.2% market share and not know it :p

[gnasher729]

dynamicvworking out the key from the lock and pass onto another locksmith to make an exact copy to open a house or allow others to tour your house for free is not wrong? gee, what's the point of the lock on you door? what's the point of any password on your keychain (access)?

He isn't selling keys.
He is selling locks.

[brepublican]

He isn't selling keys.
He is selling locks.
And I'm not buying.

it's little more than a drop in the bucket.
And as we all know, drops are what it takes to fill the bucket. I'd think sales from iTMS are far from insignificant for Apple. iPod wouldnt be were it is now without the Music Store (and vice versa). I'm not gonna pretend to know, but thats just my thoughts.

[jobberwacky]

Screw Dvd Jon. He's a moron.
This is a very informed opinion. If you ain't yet, you should become a politician (preferably in the equally tolerant ruling party). They have great use for people with a such deep understanding of things.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Shagrat]

I'm freakin sick of the ITMS. :mad:

I love iTunes and my iPod, but purchasing music that can only be put on an iPod is crap. There may be a better player out later which I want to go to and then *poof* my ITMS purchased tracks are crap.

www.allofmp3.com

It's (significantly) cheaper.

It's better.

'Nuff said.

Hmmn, have just tried 3 times to buy a PIN through Alltunes...card declined all 3 times, they SAY. Funny but it works everywhere else, including iTMS.

will be checking my bank balance JUST IN CASE!

So, it's NOT better in my experience.

[emotion]

Hmmn, have just tried 3 times to buy a PIN through Alltunes...card declined all 3 times, they SAY. Funny but it works everywhere else, including iTMS.

will be checking my bank balance JUST IN CASE!

So, it's NOT better in my experience.


Did you not know they were crooks before you did that?

[intlplby]

i think it would be great if apple made it easy for others to make their own storefront within the apple itunes store.


i.e. Indie labels could set up within the online store and use the DRM...

the goal is to provide more content to consumers without destroying the experience.

[Queso]

Hmmn, have just tried 3 times to buy a PIN through Alltunes...card declined all 3 times, they SAY. Funny but it works everywhere else, including iTMS.
I take it you missed this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/allofmp3_attacks_visa_and_mastercard/) then. VISA and Mastercard are both refusing to process payments for allofmp3.com

[jessica.]

Screw Dvd Jon. He's a moron. iTunes is popular because it's a simplistic kick ass store. It's easy to use, and well organized. It has a great selection for a price cheaper than most CDs.
That is kind of a silly statement.
What DVD Jon has done is made it possible for OTHER companies to get in on the action and offer content for US, the users of the iPod. I commend him and more importantly I look for other content that is better than 128 kbps and doesn't cost 99 cents per song.

[Gasu E.]

Can another company even sell music at less than $0.99?

Even if they could... would you pay $.79 for something that might not work in the next release of iTunes software?

[mac4evan]

Apple will probably update iPods with a slight tweak to their DRM, breaking any music people have downloaded from anyone other than Apple.

For sure, and hope sooner rather than later. I love what that guy did for the deCSS stuff but hate him for messing with my Apple:mad:

Apple leagal better kick the crap out of that guy until he stops for a little while at least.:cool:

The more he exploits it the worse it looks on Apple and the less content people will want to put on it. (In some ways)

But Apple should have the right to keep iPod/iTS closed from others is they want to.

[mac4evan]

That is kind of a silly statement.
What DVD Jon has done is made it possible for OTHER companies to get in on the action and offer content for US, the users of the iPod. I commend him and more importantly I look for other content that is better than 128 kbps and doesn't cost 99 cents per song.

If you want a song with better quality and is less than 99 cents then go somewhere else! Use a Zune with M$'s new online store.

[puuukeey]

DRM infected mp3s: pay the same, get less. End of Story

[Unspeaked]

I'm an Apple fan through and through, but are you guys listening to yourselves?

It's fine when DVD John breaks Macrovision, but not ok when he messes with DRM?

Who's messing with the consumer more? A movie studio that offers you a phsyicaly DVD they have to package and distribute full of extras (sometimes more than one disc) for, like, $14.99? Or a record company teaming with Apple to charge $0.99 for intellectual property packed in ones and zeroes?

(If ever there were a less-of-two-evils situation, this is it!).

In any case, I think it's wrong and actually don't like seeing this happen to Apple, but I think it's just as wrong as messing with DVDs or or any other's companies products. They have a right to offer their produts with whatever protection they wish and lock out competitors, and if consumers don't like it, they shouldn't buy it.

As for the whole "how much does the iTunes make for Apple" debate, I think the person who calculated $1.5 million a year was way under. He assumed .5 cents per track, but I believe it's more like 2 or 3 cents per track Apple makes. Plus, saying $1.5 million is just a fraction of Apple's profit is a lame argument. How much do you think boxed copies iWork contributed to Apple's bottom line in '05? Less than that, I bet. Or how about the Mighty Mouse? Any one SKU in Apple's lineup isn't going to amount to much - when added together, it's what gives them their incredible sales figures.

[dbassett]

This sounds more like jail time to me. How is this different from me hacking in to someone's computer and then telling the world to come on in and take what you want.

[Unspeaked]

This sounds more like jail time to me. How is this different from me hacking in to someone's computer and then telling the world to come on in and take what you want.

You see, that's the beauty of this scheme. They're not taking anything from anyone. They're *giving* companies the ability to play nice with iPods.

It's theft disguised as charity...

[Queso]

It's theft disguised as charity...
It's not theft. He's reverse engineered the DRM and is now offering a Fairplay compatible alternative DRM to companies. You may as well say that Apple "stole" Adobe's PDF format when they reverse engineered it into OSX.

[savar]

This is a very informed opinion. If you ain't yet, you should become a politician (preferably in the equally tolerant ruling party). They have great use for people with a such deep understanding of things.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Actually, I've read the same about "DVD Jon". Apparently he stole most of the code for DeCSS anyway, and the part he wrote was pretty pitiful. I've read some of his forum posts and he certainly doesn't sound like an intelligent guy. He might have had somebody else do the reverse engineering and just put his name on it so that the media would run a story along the lines of "Guy who cracked DVD encryption crack's iTunes encryption also!"

[stoid]

If this means that I can burn iTMS DRM'ed video content to a DVD and play it back in my home DVD player, I'm all for it. I might actually purchase iTMS video content then. I have a 23 inch Apple monitor, but it's not the same as watching the movie in the living room. As soon as Apple lets me use my video content the way they let me use my audio content, I've got a long list of videos waiting to be bought.

[KingYaba]

I applaud Johansen :)

[wkhahn]

I think the difference here is, with deCSS, once it was out there it was out there - DVDs, as physical objects, were beyond the reach of the studios, and all the various players/drives that were out there made it impossible to do anything about it for DVDs.

With FairPlay though, Apple can 'update' purchased music anytime users download a newer version of iTunes to make sure FairPlay keeps going for anyone who wants to keep buying from the iTunes Music Store.

iTunes update on Tuesday? :p

Can DVD Jon's DRM be so similar to Apple's that when iTunes updates and goes looking for Firplay protected content, it finds content protected by DVD Jon's DRM and updates that too?

[Queso]

I applaud Johansen :)
Me too. I hope he does the same to Microsoft's DRM now. Force them, Apple and all the other providers to come up with and support a common DRM standard that no single company owns.

No vendor lock in and no more Mac marginalisation. Great!! :)

[xDANx]

i'm not sure if this has been covered already, but...

other companies being able to sell DRM'd content for use with the ipod = good for apple (sells more hardware).

other companies being able to use apple's DRM'd content on their devices = bad for apple (sells more software/content).

as always, apple makes money from hardware sales, not software. the at cost/loss leading software is there to lure people to the high margin hardware. this simple point often escapes people and leads to wild and inaccurate speculation.

[flipperfeet]

That's $456,250.00 a quarter.

Yeah, I can see that's where the majority of Apple's profit this last quarter came from. $546,000,000.

By your estimate, that's less than one tenth of one percent (<0.1%) of Apple's profits. Hardly a cash cow. Even if you underestimated by a full magnitude, it's not that impressive.

$1.8 mil/year may seem like alot to you or me that makes less than $50k/year, but to a company that does over $15,000,000,000.00 in sales a year it's little more than a drop in the bucket.


I did not say they were making a half cent on each sell, i said I could only dream of pocketing a half cent on each sell personally. I an not such an idiot to think 1.8 mil annually is enough for a company with $10 Billion in cash reserves to to be interested in . The point I was attempting to make, is small numbers with big multipliers are IMPORTANT and a revenue stream of greater importance than acknowledged. Further to my point it has been acknowledged by Jobs and his critics that the reason the iPod is a huge is because it is part of a complete system. Loose iTunes and you loose the dominance of the iPod, just ask the folks at Creative. Pennies on the dollar, or dimes on the dollar, iTunes is a big business supporting a much bigger business. Remember before iTunes and the iPod you could not shut the Apple doom sayers up and Apple stock was something someone making $50K a year could buy without dipping into the savings account. Apple wasn't a player in the personal electronics business either.

[Porco]

Can DVD Jon's DRM be so similar to Apple's that when iTunes updates and goes looking for Firplay protected content, it finds content protected by DVD Jon's DRM and updates that too?

All I'm saying is, if you like to buy music from the iTunes Music Store, it's not a good idea to buy a non-licensed player [e.g. iPod] whilst relying on a hack. If Apple decide you need iTunes 7.2 to use the Music Store then you're stuck waiting for DVD Jon to work some more. Fine if you like waiting a few years to unlock your music, but then why not just buy the CD if you're going to wait that long?

I hate DRM by the way, but personally I think if you're going to this much trouble you might as well buy the music from another online store or just buy and rip the CD...

[matticus008]

I'm in favour of this move. CDs were great (along with cassette tapes and LPs) because you could play them in any CD player and you could buy the CDs themselves from any shop. For some odd reason we don't get this with MP3 players and I do think that's anti-competitive. If I want to move to a different MP3 player or buy my music from another store to use on my iPod then that should be my choice and Apple should have to accept that.
This has not really been the case, though. When VHS was replaced by DVD, you didn't get the new media for free. Being locked into a particular platform occurs all the time--toner cartridges for printers aren't standardized, for example. I can't use Comcast's on demand to buy programs, then switch to DirecTV and have them transferred. When I buy the latest video game, it doesn't come packaged with PS2, PC, Mac, and XBOX versions.

See the theme? If you choose a limited hardware platform, you must accept the constraints of that platform. CDs are universal because the standard was universal (Sony, Philips, etc. formed a consortium from the get-go)--multiple manufacturers make CD players. Here, the content is the same but the packaging is different--cassette, CD, M4A. Only Apple makes M4A players.

By purchasing a song from iTunes, you are receiving the file with limitations. The reason for the price is bundling. If you want a product with no restrictions, which you want to use to the fullest extent of fair use (or beyond, if you so choose), you have to look elsewhere. You're not being denied fair use when you rent a movie on VHS for $2 when the DVD rental is $4...and you don't get to rent the VHS, then make a DVD just to save $2. Likewise, you're not paying for an unrestricted copy of the song on iTunes, and you aren't entitled to treat it as such using "fair use" as an excuse.

If you want unencumbered music, pay for the CD. If you want instant gratification and a lower price, then be an adult and accept the DRM. The option you want is out there and legally available--it's just that CDs are a "bad value." Likewise, iTunes tracks are probably a "bad value" to many people who think 99 cents should entitle them to DRM-free files. Should DRMed digital files be cheaper? I think so. But that's no excuse to go beyond the clear and publicized terms of my payment.

I don't want to have to re-purchase my iTunes music that I have bought. If DVD Jon has a way to allow reasonable consumer choice then FairPlay to him.
Nobody wants to buy things twice, but that's no excuse. I have piles of spare tools that fit cars I no longer own; toner cartridges for printers I no longer own; memory cards for cameras I no longer own; and floppy disks for computers I no longer own. Each time I switch companies, I have to deal with the consequences of my prior purchases.

[kuzelnik]

Actually, CSS stands for Content SCRAMBLING System. :p

[mac4evan]

Me too. I hope he does the same to Microsoft's DRM now. Force them, Apple and all the other providers to come up with and support a common DRM standard that no single company owns.

No vendor lock in and no more Mac marginalisation. Great!! :)

Then why not do the same with Office and windows game companies and X360 (no mac support)

Their has to be a dominant player in every market... THATS LIFE:confused:

:confused: Marginalisation:confused: How so??? Apple has continually raised the bar for other companies online stores and players to be better so that they can even compete with the iPod and iTS.

[mac4evan]

This has not really been the case, though. When VHS was replaced by DVD, you didn't get the new media for free. Being locked into a particular platform occurs all the time--toner cartridges for printers aren't standardized, for example. I can't use Comcast's on demand to buy programs, then switch to DirecTV and have them transferred. When I buy the latest video game, it doesn't come packaged with PS2, PC, Mac, and XBOX versions.

See the theme? If you choose a limited hardware platform, you must accept the constraints of that platform. CDs are universal because the standard was universal (Sony, Philips, etc. formed a consortium from the get-go)--multiple manufacturers make CD players. Here, the content is the same but the packaging is different--cassette, CD, M4A. Only Apple makes M4A players.

By purchasing a song from iTunes, you are receiving the file with limitations. The reason for the price is bundling. If you want a product with no restrictions, which you want to use to the fullest extent of fair use (or beyond, if you so choose), you have to look elsewhere. You're not being denied fair use when you rent a movie on VHS for $2 when the DVD rental is $4...and you don't get to rent the VHS, then make a DVD just to save $2. Likewise, you're not paying for an unrestricted copy of the song on iTunes, and you aren't entitled to treat it as such using "fair use" as an excuse.

If you want unencumbered music, pay for the CD. If you want instant gratification and a lower price, then be an adult and accept the DRM. The option you want is out there and legally available--it's just that CDs are a "bad value." Likewise, iTunes tracks are probably a "bad value" to many people who think 99 cents should entitle them to DRM-free files. Should DRMed digital files be cheaper? I think so. But that's no excuse to go beyond the clear and publicized terms of my payment.


Nobody wants to buy things twice, but that's no excuse. I have piles of spare tools that fit cars I no longer own; toner cartridges for printers I no longer own; memory cards for cameras I no longer own; and floppy disks for computers I no longer own. Each time I switch companies, I have to deal with the consequences of my prior purchases.

Bravo Bravo Bravo my friend!;)

[danp]

The option you want is out there and legally available--it's just that CDs are a "bad value."

I don't know what CD prices are like in the US, but here in the UK they are far from "bad value" compared to tracks on iTunes.

Most new CDs can be picked up for around £8 at the major supermarkets or online from places like play.com or cdwow.com. For this £8 I get a physical item (complete with inlay) that I can keep forever. I put it in my Mac, rip it to iTunes and I _also_ get a DRM-free mp3 version at any bit rate I require. Should I choose to ditch my iPod at some point in the future and move to a rival player, my ripped tunes will still work. And if they don't, I have the physical CD to fall back on.

For the same money on iTunes I get nothing more than a file on my Mac whose lifespan is subject to the whim of the hardware I use and the company that oversees it. I'm locked in to iPod.

CDs don't seem to be bad value to me.

[weitzner]

It's not like a hidden thing that iTunes purchases will only play in iTunes or on an iPod - every single person who buys from the store knows this beforehand. The justification is the exact same justification for locking Mac OS X to Apple's hardware. So if you buy from the iTunes store, you have agrred to accept the fact that the file will only play on iPods and iTunes and have no reason to be mad at Apple for this- if you don't like the DRM, don't buy from iTunes: buying the CD and ripping it is always a DRM-free way to get your music on whatever player you should choose.

Also, doesn't DMCA make reverse engineering this sort of stuff illegal? I'm no fan of the DMCA, but still, this plan of profiting off of a reverse engineered technology is not going to fly.

[WildPalms]

Bad news for iTunes Music Store.

Can only be a good thing for iPod and its users, tho?

No. Not a good thing for iPod users.

[WildPalms]

well spoken. If you don't like the terms of the sale, don't complete it. If you buy the music, you've agreed to those terms, like them or not. Sure, I can see that there might be some people who need/want more flexibilty, but perhaps iTunes music downloads just aren't a good match for them. If you see something in a store that you like but you don't think is a good deal, do you buy it anyways? You probably shouldn't if you're not happy with the terms of the sale... Same thing applies to music purchases from Apple.

Now, if Jon hasn't done anything illegal in this, then fine...no problem there. If he has, then Apple has every right to pursue legal action. Like it or not, the license restricts your use of the product, and Apple has well over a billion agreements to that license so far.


Exactly. And at the end of the day, I dont understand all the whining from some people. This is directed at those people who keep whining about Apples DRM...

If you dont want to buy your music from iTunes, then dont, you can buy it elsewhere and still use it on your iPod. But dont you dare presume to start telling a company how they should and shouldnt be running their online store when you have a choice. Its real simple. If you dont like Apple's DRM, DONT BUY YOUR MUSIC FROM ITUNES.

[WildPalms]

I'm freakin sick of the ITMS. :mad:

I love iTunes and my iPod, but purchasing music that can only be put on an iPod is crap. There may be a better player out later which I want to go to and then *poof* my ITMS purchased tracks are crap.

www.allofmp3.com

It's (significantly) cheaper.

It's better.

'Nuff said.

Its also illegal in our country.
You've definitely said enough.

[mozmac]

Who was asking why MS has to lockdown Windows with an absurd level of protection via WGA? Here is your answer.

so double the killer delete select all


I am quoting you because I LOVE your signature. That is a classic video that I have shown to many people.

Apple is starting to get a taste of the medicine Microsoft has been dealing with for years. I guess it means that Apple is becoming even more mainstream. Why would people go through so much trouble to crack it if it wasn't so popular?

(And by the way...I also love the new spell checking feature in Firefox 2. Why did it take so long and why did I never realize how much I needed it?)

[Queso]

Then why not do the same with Office and windows game companies and X360 (no mac support)
If you mean the Office formats, then yes they should, since as with music Microsoft do not create the contained data, they just wrap a format around it. However there is a huge difference between DRMd media content and PC/XBox games. The games cost the companies millions to develop on each platform, and it is their intellectual property in the first place. Adding DRM to someone else's music takes a push of a button.

There has to be a dominant player in every market... THATS LIFE:confused:
I don't get your logic there at all. As I've just said, DRMd media isn't the same as software. If I didn't want a dominant Sony Walkman 20 years ago, I bought a Panasonic and my tapes still played. If I decided my Philips DVD Player was rubbish, I could buy a JVC and the DVDs still played. As far as I'm concerned, anything I OWN, I should have fair use rights over, even if I wish to change the make of my player. Steve Jobs makes a big deal about us OWNING our music when we buy from iTunes. If I truly own it, I should have the right to use it how I wish. Which is it?

:confused: Marginalisation:confused: How so??? Apple has continually raised the bar for other companies online stores and players to be better so that they can even compete with the iPod and iTS.
That part of the comment was aimed more at the Microsoft DRM. I've been locked out of two streaming services now that I used to pay for, simply because they suddenly started requiring Windows DRM. Flip4Mac want to add Windows DRM to their Mac product and re-open such services to Mac users, but Microsoft won't let them. There are Linux users similarly locked out of iTunes. Therefore I have to conclude that any one company having rights over my ability to access paid-for content on the Internet isn't in my or your interests, even if that company is Apple.

If DRM is necessary, it should be interoperable between different manufacturers. The aim of it should be to prevent illegal copying, not allow vendor lock in.

[iPie]

I can only be too happy to see a system that limits my freedom to do what I want with the things that I buy falls by the wayside. I applaud those who contribute to my freedom!

Yes, I have heard that I can choose not to buy. And I have done exactly that for the reason above!

(Even though I have two apples and an ipod).

It's really not my problem if the iTune store suffers, it should!!!

:)

[savar]

Actually, I've read the same about "DVD Jon". Apparently he stole most of the code for DeCSS anyway, and the part he wrote was pretty pitiful. I've read some of his forum posts and he certainly doesn't sound like an intelligent guy. He might have had somebody else do the reverse engineering and just put his name on it so that the media would run a story along the lines of "Guy who cracked DVD encryption crack's iTunes encryption also!"

To followup on my own post, that was very close to the headline which CNN QuickNews sent me only a few hours later. I doubt DVD Jon had much to do with this at all. It's just branding.

[matticus008]

The games cost the companies millions to develop on each platform, and it is their intellectual property in the first place. Adding DRM to someone else's music takes a push of a button.
Which costs tens millions to operate and to license. Keep in mind that it's not any given music service which elects to use DRM, it's the recording companies that insist upon it. The reason why Fairplay is relatively lenient compared to other schemes is that it is locked down to a narrow set of compatible devices. You can copy your music to any number of iPods, for example--which goes far beyond "fair use" under the law. Win some, lose some.


I don't get your logic there at all. As I've just said, DRMd media isn't the same as software. If I didn't want a dominant Sony Walkman 20 years ago, I bought a Panasonic and my tapes still played. If I decided my Philips DVD Player was rubbish, I could buy a JVC and the DVDs still played.
You bought into an available open standard. There were competing proprietary ones as well--just none as popular as CD or DVD. There is still an available open standard (albeit often at a higher price per track). The availability of more limited music doesn't limit you one bit. You chose the limited version over the unencumbered one because it was faster, easier, and/or more customizable.


As far as I'm concerned, anything I OWN, I should have fair use rights over, even if I wish to change the make of my player. Steve Jobs makes a big deal about us OWNING our music when we buy from iTunes. If I truly own it, I should have the right to use it how I wish. Which is it?
You do own the DRMed music file. You can use it without continued payment and without time limits. Ownership of the intellectual property of others has always been nuanced. There's ownership of content (lyrics, performance, etc. can all have different owners), of distribution (including licensing for public performance), of a license to the media (on a CD belonging to you or in a digital file under your control), and of course various forms of renting and leasing. When you buy music from iTunes (or any other pay-once service), you have indefinite (timewise) usage rights and control of that license. You do not, nor can Apple legally grant you, total control over the file.

If DRM is necessary, it should be interoperable between different manufacturers. The aim of it should be to prevent illegal copying, not allow vendor lock in.
There's nothing wrong with vendor lock-in so long as an easily attainable, universal solution also exists. Since you are not obligated to buy anything from iTMS if you own an iPod, there is no justifiable harm. What I would like to see is a service permitting you to assemble custom CDs from individual tracks (instead of being forced to buy entire albums) and lower prices from iTunes. Both of these require the recording industry to embrace the Internet, rather than fight it.

[danp]

No. Not a good thing for iPod users.

As a fairly typical iPod owner, I fail to see why.

For those that currently use iTMS, the presence of other music providers supplying and actively marketing "iPod compatible" tracks will create competition that Apple currently don't have. This will drive prices down, or force Apple to add value to their own offerings. (For those that don't buy via iTMS, instead choosing to rip CDs or use P2P networks, it makes no difference either way).

For the broader market, increased availabilty of "iPod compatible" tracks from various suppliers can only enhance the iPods appeal. Clearly it would be preferable for Apple to licence their actual DRM to other suppliers, but they won't. This is a happy workaround.

Either way, I see this as a positive for iPod users. If you, personally, have an objection to the competition or prefer the integrated approach offered by Apple, keep on using iTMS. Simple.

[matticus008]

For those that currently use iTMS, the presence of other music providers supplying and actively marketing "iPod compatible" tracks will create competition that Apple currently don't have. This will drive prices down, or force Apple to add value to their own offerings. (For those that don't buy via iTMS, instead choosing to rip CDs or use P2P networks, it makes no difference either way).
This assumes that Apple sets prices and controls content. It really doesn't--the store is barely above break-even, and Apple owns none of the content. Competition only weakens Apple's bargaining power with the RIAA, which in turn will drive prices UP. We've already seen them try.

For the broader market, increased availabilty of "iPod compatible" tracks from various suppliers can only enhance the iPods appeal. Clearly it would be preferable for Apple to licence their actual DRM to other suppliers, but they won't. This is a happy workaround.
What is the inherent "good" in being able to buy Fairplay tracks from other vendors? Purely that lower prices might happen on other websites (with high startup costs and bad licensing positions with the RIAA, making this "lower price" for mainstream music almost impossible)? The only advantage I can see is for small indie labels, who might provide high-quality DRMed files for good prices. This of course would be good for everyone, but it's not exactly a huge market.