France DRM Law Gutted In Committee

[MacRumors]

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

Boing Boing reports (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/28/french_drm_law_gets_.html) that the French DRM legislation that would have forced Apple and other online music stores to have their songs be interoperable with all portable media players in France has been gutted in committee.

The original law (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060313154218.shtml) was met by fierce criticism from Apple, who called the law "state-sponsored piracy." Many analysts believed that Apple would just as soon pull-out of the French market than to change their business model or allow free distribution of unprotected songs.

The latest version of the law removes the requirement for DRM publishers (like Apple) to give information needed for interoperability. In addition, "information needed for interoperability" used to be defined as being able to obtain a copy of the copyrighted material in an open standard; this is now defined as being able to obtain a protected copy of a copyrighted work.

[~Shard~]

Great news, I'm glad to see that they didn't rule against Apple in this case. It would have been a big pain in the ass for Apple to shut down the iTMS in France, yet keep it open in other European nations, so it's better this way. Plus, I would argue that they didn't really have solid grounds for this complaint anyway.

Well, now that this legal issue is resolved, Apple can focus more on the Apple Corps lawsuit... :eek: :cool:

[Doctor Q]

Either common sense prevailed or economic interests prevailed.

[JZ Wire]

I knew that wasnt going to last. Lets see what happens next... :D

[Lollypop]

I was very 2 sided on this piece of legislation, sure it would have been bad for apple, but do we as consumers really want to be restricted into one DRM format? If done right this could have been the end of any for of monopoly of any DRM, but seems that that is now not the case... just hope apple doesnt pull a M$ on itself!!

[SirROM]

Hey baseball fans!

It's the bottom of the ninth inning, Apple's in the outfield, and there are two outs with no one on base. Steve is pitching and is about to do another "Job" on the batter, Paul Somebody from London. Previously at bat for the Music Mad Hatters were The Music Companies and The French Legislature, who collectively earned the two outs for their team. "The Steve" as he is called by his adoring fans and teammates is best known for throwing his "Reality Distortion Field" fastball. The batter can't see it coming and by the time they swing, the ball is already WAY past them and it's too late for them to catch up. Even if the batter were to get a lucky hit that didn't go foul, Apple's ability to innovate from way out on the fringes of the field always gets the ball to first base before their runner can clear the bureaucratic and unCreative calls by their coaches to run straight to first base. A reminder for those of you just tuning in, the score is Apple - 1 Billion home runs and The Music Mad Hatters - nothing, but the visting team does get to go home with a hefty portion of the gate receipts as a consolation prize.

Welcome to the Diamond Apple Built

[nagromme]

I hate DRM, but I can see that without it there could never have been an iTunes Music Store.

I blame the pirates first, the RIAA second, and I don't blame Apple for having DRM. I do give Apple credit for making that DRM not be a pain to deal with, if we have to have it. (Although we don't... we can still buy CDs!)

[pknz]

Thats a good result for Apple.

[Staffroomer]

It seemed a somewhat idiotic idea from square one, I thought.. Silly Pierre... :D

[smartypantsguy]

Better luck next time...

[Spaceman Spiff]

*sigh* Yet another French surrender...

[(L)]

Not much of a French surrender. This would amount to Apple being able to do business well, not maintain a total monopoly, and there never was one in the first place. Nothing antitrust about forcing a corporation to support other corporations, as if that kind of thing is good. Glad to see they've also sanctioned private design that may be kept private, as opposed to open. The whole thing was totally socialist anyway.

[(L)]

I was very 2 sided on this piece of legislation, sure it would have been bad for apple, but do we as consumers really want to be restricted into one DRM format?

Digital music may be copied without significant loss in audio quality. That allows copying on many levels - from burning your favorite playlists to a disc and maybe even sharing it a bit with friends all the way to copying, reselling, distributing so that music sales are hurt. Plus, with Internet transfer rates going up, folks are afraid of P2P and all that shuffling illegal music around, as it does movies, for example. Many CD's don't have that kind of barrier, but then, getting a CD into your computer and then redistributing it, though possible, takes more work.

More importantly, though, Apple has a right to sell music that will only play on iTunes and on iPods, because if consumers did not want that, they would eventually go elsewhere. Other companies are also free to try to figure out a device that will play the music from iTMS - but they don't need to be given the instructions to do so by Apple. Ultimately, if you wanted cheap, easy, drm-free music, you'll have to hope for a competitor that will stay around. It's a restriction on consumer use, but my point is that it's absurd to purchase from Apple and then demand that the tracks play on a Sony. Talk to Sony about that, not Apple. People just don't understand that they are not buying away the ownership of art, but rather ownership of the data that would allow you to listen to the music, provided you can get the data to play on your end.

[Di9it8]

Either common sense prevailed or economic interests prevailed.
I expect Apple Executives lobbied goverment decision makers in no uncertain terms to bring this about;)

[aLbAn]

Digital music may be copied without significant loss in audio quality. That allows copying on many levels - from burning your favorite playlists to a disc and maybe even sharing it a bit with friends all the way to copying, reselling, distributing so that music sales are hurt. Plus, with Internet transfer rates going up, folks are afraid of P2P and all that shuffling illegal music around, as it does movies, for example. Many CD's don't have that kind of barrier, but then, getting a CD into your computer and then redistributing it, though possible, takes more work.

More importantly, though, Apple has a right to sell music that will only play on iTunes and on iPods, because if consumers did not want that, they would eventually go elsewhere. Other companies are also free to try to figure out a device that will play the music from iTMS - but they don't need to be given the instructions to do so by Apple. Ultimately, if you wanted cheap, easy, drm-free music, you'll have to hope for a competitor that will stay around. It's a restriction on consumer use, but my point is that it's absurd to purchase from Apple and then demand that the tracks play on a Sony. Talk to Sony about that, not Apple. People just don't understand that they are not buying away the ownership of art, but rather ownership of the data that would allow you to listen to the music, provided you can get the data to play on your end.


...well, this could go 2 ways: either you buy (and thus own) the data that enables you to play the song, in which case the data is yours to do with as you please, or you buy a copy of the "content", i.e. the entity that this data represents, in which case there can be legal regulations involved on the copyright of this data. personally, i think that it is a combination of both, since you are not allowed to freely copy the data around, but if you were to lose that data, you would be entitled to a new copy of that data at no/minimal extra costs, because you paid for the content already.

a bit off-topic, but i have to say this:

please people, i very often read all about this "piracy hurts the music industry so bad" stuff; i can tell you that this has a minimal effect on the amount of money that is involved in the music industry.
now, don't get me wrong, i too think that piracy is bad, but the amount of money that is being charged to customers for cd's/dvd's etc. is outrageous. i can tell you from years of personal experience (i'm a professional studio sound engineer - i record cd's for a living), that you could go a long way with, say, 50 grand for a complete, highly professional cd recording. That's nothing! relatively speaking ;-)
So why do all these new cd releases cost so much? because high-profile artists and label managers think that they should at least make 10 million dollars profit on each album release. i realize that i am biting the hand that feeds me, but this situation is enormously out of proportions. we pay a premium for a J-Lo album, so that she can have an extra hairdresser in her 40+ people travelling entourage. i still comb my own hair every day, and wouldn't have it any other way, lol :rolleyes:

what i want to illustrate with the above is, that although there is a lot of music being downloaded illegally, the actual salaries of managers and artists only went up instead of down. now, who can tell me how this is possible??

[HiRez]

It looks like Teh Steve's band of ninja assassins finally delivered their message. Eeeeeeggzelent!
46342

[bathysphere]

um...
... this is bad news for you and me (the consumer), in case anyone misunderstood...

[Redline13]

um...
... this is bad news for you and me (the consumer), in case anyone misunderstood...

You’re absolutely right. Anyone who is happy over this new doesn't really understand the issues in play.

[(L)]

...well, this could go 2 ways: either you buy (and thus own) the data that enables you to play the song, in which case the data is yours to do with as you please, or you buy a copy of the "content", i.e. the entity that this data represents, in which case there can be legal regulations involved on the copyright of this data. personally, i think that it is a combination of both, since you are not allowed to freely copy the data around, but if you were to lose that data, you would be entitled to a new copy of that data at no/minimal extra costs, because you paid for the content already.

On the first part, about doing with it what you please... Last I read there was a bit of a grey area, since for personal use you certainly can modify the data there...but sometimes doing so implies copying part of or a modified version of the DRM stuff, which itself may be copyrighted (?). I think that's what I read anyway. Bottom line is that you have tons of freedom to do with it what you will, as an individual. However, that's different from demanding that companies modify the data in your stead so that it'll play on your Zen or whatever - that's not Apple's responsibility.

As for being entitled to a new copy of the data, I think that's included in the price, which is not just a download fee. This is major because if you lose a CD, even with a proof of purchase, you need to pay to buy a new one. If you lose iTMS music but can prove you bought it, you don't have the same restrictions, right? I suppose they could be stupid and charge a fee for dowwnloading it again.

a bit off-topic, but i have to say this:

please people, i very often read all about this "piracy hurts the music industry so bad" stuff; i can tell you that this has a minimal effect on the amount of money that is involved in the music industry.
now, don't get me wrong, i too think that piracy is bad, but the amount of money that is being charged to customers for cd's/dvd's etc. is outrageous. i can tell you from years of personal experience (i'm a professional studio sound engineer - i record cd's for a living), that you could go a long way with, say, 50 grand for a complete, highly professional cd recording. That's nothing! relatively speaking ;-)
So why do all these new cd releases cost so much? because high-profile artists and label managers think that they should at least make 10 million dollars profit on each album release. i realize that i am biting the hand that feeds me, but this situation is enormously out of proportions. we pay a premium for a J-Lo album, so that she can have an extra hairdresser in her 40+ people travelling entourage. i still comb my own hair every day, and wouldn't have it any other way, lol :rolleyes:

what i want to illustrate with the above is, that although there is a lot of music being downloaded illegally, the actual salaries of managers and artists only went up instead of down. now, who can tell me how this is possible??

Well, even if their profit goes up, if it SHOULD have gone up higher, they deserve it. But don't get me started - I am thoroughly against so-called "artists" that make their living off of popular trends rather than the artistic value of their music, or at least I'm against such people as a personal issue. Still, they have a right to their money, since they don't sell music; they sell noise, and noise is in demand. Anyways, it's not about whether or not the piracy will cause the industry to collapse. It's about the moral right to defend against such immorality. In that sense, I'm all for DRM. But, I can understand that consumers may be against it in many ways, especially since several labels (cough...Sony...hack cough) often go too far. Apple, however, is just fine, from my perspective. It gets silly when people talk of DRM as robbing consumers of some right to do whatever they want with the data, when they were the ones to have purchased the DRM protected data to begin with. I personally buy CD's for the quality, so this is not even a concern for me, but it worries me to see people that have no clue act like this is a step against the consumer.

um...
... this is bad news for you and me (the consumer), in case anyone misunderstood...

Lol, how so?

[Silicon Jedi]

You’re absolutely right. Anyone who is happy over this new doesn't really understand the issues in play.

Of course, because there can only be one side to any issue, and if they were properly enlightened, of course they'd have to agree with you.

What are you, 15? You sure sound like it.

DRM is a thorny issue, there is merit to many different viewpoints.

[Redline13]

Lol, how so?

Less choice for you and I as consumers for one thing.

Of course, because there can only be one side to any issue, and if they were properly enlightened, of course they'd have to agree with you.

What are you, 15? You sure sound like it.

DRM is a thorny issue, there is merit to many different viewpoints.

Well I guess when the name calling starts that my queue to stop reading this thread. I love my Mac and my iPod but Apple's stance on this issue is bad for both of us as consumers. Have a nice day my friend.

[Grimace]

Let's get back on track....

[jzeiders]

While this is good for Apple in the short run, I gotta think that this evasion of competition is not going to work in the long term...

[freeny]

Apple needs to license its DRM.

[bokdol]

sorry i had to reply to all this because as someone who is ignorant about drm and stuff. i dont under stand how this prevents us from having choice. other then not being able to put itunes music on other players. you can just go through a few step and convert your music. even if you bought a cd you still have to convert them. plus there is choices out there. many choices. if you dont like the apple standard use someone elses.. i dont get it. apple did not buy out every other company. they just make a very good easy to use product. you dont want to be locked in it then dont use it. you cant say that we dont have choices when there is music match, msn ,rapsody and napster. plus the countless other web based music servers that sell music. maybe i am mising something but i dont know why this is bad.

i am a ignorant consumer too.. hehe

[whooleytoo]

um...
... this is bad news for you and me (the consumer), in case anyone misunderstood...

I agree. (It's strange how everyone is taking such a positive view on this when the original article is pretty pessimistic).

Many here have said the consumer has a choice, they don't have to buy from iTMS; and that's true, but consider this scenario:

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

Now, what do you do? You don't want to buy any more from Apple. Do you buy from another music store? Well then your music won't play on your iPod. Do you buy a new music player? Then your hundreds of iTMS songs won't play on that player. Do you want the hassle of burning all those songs to CD, and ripping them again to the new format? Not to mention, by transcoding you're reducing a low quality audio file even lower.

Many customers would simply accept Apple's restrictions because of the hassle of switching, and this is the problem. Apple are trying to keep customers, not through innovation, but through artificial restrictions to make it difficult for the customer to leave.

[DRMBothersMe]

I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

A year ago, I averaged perhaps 10 iTune songs a week. I liked the convenience and the price was right.

A year later, I think carefully about any iTunes purchase. I compare the 99 cent price and convenience against thge higher price and inconvenience of (once again) buying CDs. CDs now win more often.

Today, I might buy 10 iTunes songs a year. 99 cents a song is less attractive when the song has so many restrictions. For example, I have six media / web computers in my house (4 kids!!). I can no longer put iTunes on all of them even though I have legally paid for every iTunes song I have downloaded.

I am buying less iTunes content. And thanks to lower convenience of buying CD's, I am buying less music overall . Apple and the music industry as a whole would make more money from me with an open DRM strategy.

I am a buyer who is aware. There will be more of me as time goes on...

[Gasu E.]

I agree. (It's strange how everyone is taking such a positive view on this when the original article is pretty pessimistic).

Many here have said the consumer has a choice, they don't have to buy from iTMS; and that's true, but consider this scenario:

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

Now, what do you do? You don't want to buy any more from Apple. Do you buy from another music store? Well then your music won't play on your iPod. Do you buy a new music player? Then your hundreds of iTMS songs won't play on that player. Do you want the hassle of burning all those songs to CD, and ripping them again to the new format? Not to mention, by transcoding you're reducing a low quality audio file even lower.

Many customers would simply accept Apple's restrictions because of the hassle of switching, and this is the problem. Apple are trying to keep customers, not through innovation, but through artificial restrictions to make it difficult for the customer to leave.


Nice hypothetical scenario. In other words, Apple could take advantage of its monopolistic position to cause harm to consumers. You forgot the part about the subsequent class-action suit in which Apple is ripped to shreds, forced to open up DRM and pay a substantial settlement.

Under normal rules of juriprudence, action takes place after the offence, not because it could happen hypothetically.

[Gasu E.]

:) I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

A year ago, I averaged perhaps 10 iTune songs a week. I liked the convenience and the price was right.

A year later, I think carefully about any iTunes purchase. I compare the 99 cent price and convenience against thge higher price and inconvenience of (once again) buying CDs. CDs now win more often.

Today, I might buy 10 iTunes songs a year. 99 cents a song is less attractive when the song has so many restrictions. For example, I have six media / web computers in my house (4 kids!!). I can no longer put iTunes on all of them even though I have legally paid for every iTunes song I have downloaded.

I am buying less iTunes content. And thanks to lower convenience of buying CD's, I am buying less music overall . Apple and the music industry as a whole would make more money from me with an open DRM strategy.

I am a buyer who is aware. There will be more of me as time goes on...

And you are the only person in this thread taking an anti-DRM position that has made sense so far. Congrats! :)

[unfaded]

Another loss for the consumer.

[bretm]

Less choice for you and I as consumers for one thing.

Perhaps. But what right do you have to another choice? Tell ya what you do have. You have the right in this country to go out and build your own business. To go out and invent the next ipod. To go out and create another music store to compete with Apples. Nobody is stopping you. But if you want to use the force of government to ride the coattails of others successes like so many companies and people do then you're looking at the world as a socialist. And over music of all things! It's not even food water or shelter. Not that those are guaranteed to you either.

Somebody creates an industry of online music and players and now you want to crucify them. That certainly curbs my desire to go out and create the next great "thing" if I know the people and the government are just going to rape me and distribute it amongst others.

To be honest, I don't see why there isn't more competition out there. The ipod is snazzy, but it's a pretty basic device. And it has taken years to evolve. There are other players out there for less and they can't even make a decent web or software interface. Apple spends less on R&D than most companies per dollar of revenue. Some analysts say too little. Yet they keep cranking out the hits and they deserve the glory.

Oh, sorry it makes your music choces harder. Geez.

[bretm]

:)

And you are the only person in this thread taking an anti-DRM position that has made sense so far. Congrats! :)

Why's he making sense? A CD is a physical medium and he doesn't have the right to make 5 copies for all his kids. He has the right to make a copy for backup or his own personal use. For example it is illegal to buy a CD, load it into iTunes, then give the CD to your buddy.

This is the reason iTunes has negotiated with the record companies to allow the music on 5 computers or whatever. So that people can't make this argument. But of course if you're going to argue that it's easier to illegally duplicate store bought CDs vs. iTunes purchased songs, I guess he wins.

EDIT: Oh, and I guess I shouldn't point out that he could've saved a lot of money by simply burning his iTunes albums to CD which strips all the DRM. He'd then have the same thing he bought at the store for about 33% cheaper.

This guys argument definitely doesn't hold water. Apple argues all day "burn all the CDs you want of your iTunes purchases." I guess some people don't know that.

[whooleytoo]

Under normal rules of juriprudence, action takes place after the offence, not because it could happen hypothetically.


But the French law isn't punitive action. They're deciding the laws under which all companies in the French marketplace must play, and these laws must (rather obviously) be in place before taking action.

[bretm]

I agree. (It's strange how everyone is taking such a positive view on this when the original article is pretty pessimistic).

Many here have said the consumer has a choice, they don't have to buy from iTMS; and that's true, but consider this scenario:

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

Now, what do you do? You don't want to buy any more from Apple. Do you buy from another music store? Well then your music won't play on your iPod. Do you buy a new music player? Then your hundreds of iTMS songs won't play on that player. Do you want the hassle of burning all those songs to CD, and ripping them again to the new format? Not to mention, by transcoding you're reducing a low quality audio file even lower.

Many customers would simply accept Apple's restrictions because of the hassle of switching, and this is the problem. Apple are trying to keep customers, not through innovation, but through artificial restrictions to make it difficult for the customer to leave.

It's MUSIC! Do you have some right to license or own it forever? When you purchase a CD at the store do you expect it to last forever? Records certainly don't. Cassette tapes certainly don't. CDs don't either. DRM will change. iPods will change. Someday you won't be able to play you AAC audio on anything except your 20 year old iMac, which of course won't work. Should they replace them for you with another format? Nobody has replaced my scratched records with nice new AAC copies for my iPod. But I bought them! And my cassettes don't play on my CD player! Why not? Is that some sort of DRM?

You've purchased a piece of media whether it be DRM'd AAC, a Cassete Tape, a CD, or vinyl. You've given a little money so that you can listen to someone else's creation at your whimsy all you want.

But if you expect your purchase to guarantee it will work on every player, computer, system etc. forever forget it. You bought a copy of an original. A poster of the Mona Lisa if you will.

This freakin sense of entitlement people have is getting insane.

[Applespider]

I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

I agree with that and I can see your point that in your situation, the DRM doesn't work well for you. For me, the price and convenience work well and I haven't had problems using my iTMS music in movies/DVDs etc so I've been quite happy.

I suspect that Fairplay will be licensed but when it suits Apple. Currently most music on an iPod is ripped from a CD which is quick and easy. As Apple move to video (whether selling online or creating an iPod which is better for watching video), that ease of ripping isn't going to be possible. While Apple are widely expected to set up a movie store, consumers are going to want a way to rip DVDs that they've bought in an easy, legal format. The movie studios have said they'd include an iPod-ready movie as part of the DVD extras but they're not going to do it DRM free and at the moment the only licensed (it's not open) standard is WMP which rules out Mac owners and iPods.

It would be nice to get of DRM entirely but human nature being what it is with most people preferring 'free' over paying, I don't think any copyright holder is going to go with it. They did the work, they deserve the payment. The problem is that those who want something free/cheaper can always (so far) work around it. Those who don't mind paying a fair price and can't be bothered with the technical hassle of working round the DRM, get frustrated by it. The number of CDs that I couldn't play on my work PC (pre-iPod) in case I copied them used to drive me batty - and all I wanted to do was listen to them - not share them!

[whooleytoo]

This freakin sense of entitlement people have is getting insane.

There's a very, very good reason for "this freakin sense of entitlement".

Because it's possible. Records, tapes and CDs were the best that technology could practically provide at the time, but all were prone to wear and tear Now, with digital media, there's no reason why the music I buy can't have an 'infinite life'.

After all, the company that owns iTMS has gone to great lengths to emphasise the fact that yes, we do OWN the music.

[Transic]

*

[MacMyDay]

The problem that the normal consumer has to understand is the issue of copyright. When we design something for a client, they do not own the right to copy it and give it to their friends - that's not what they're paying for. If that was the case, we may as well work for free, let clients stick our work on templatemonster and just sit around moaning all day about it. Not one client has ever had a problem with this. They accept that it's our work, and they have an indefinite license to it. The difference is that they don't have the ownership license, so they cannot just do what they want with it. Same applies with music, films and so on. You're not buying the ownership to it, otherwise you could stop them from selling it to other people; instead you're buying the rights to owning a copy of it, which is only allowed within their terms and conditions.

Whether you like it or not is not something the law and copyright takes much notice of, and if I found that after all the work we'd done, someone just handed it away to anyone they pleased, I assure you I wouldn't be too pleased either.

[whoooaaahhhh]

I like cookies...






Sorry I had to break this thread up a little bit...people are getting crazy!:D

[DRMBothersMe]

Whether you like it or not is not something the law and copyright takes much notice of, and if I found that after all the work we'd done, someone just handed it away to anyone they pleased, I assure you I wouldn't be too pleased either.
Fair enough. Copyright owners deserve protection.

I am sure that we all feel that our Western democracies have risen beyond those ancient archaic regimes where you could lose your hand for stealing a loaf of bread. We have evolved beyond that, right?

But what kind of fair-mainded society allows a $250,000 fine for downloading a $10 song? That's on par with the penalty for armed robbery.

Sadly, I think DRM is cut from the same legislative cloth. It wouldn't hurt Apple - and others - to lighten up a bit. I think it is in their best interest, in the long run.

[bokdol]

Because it's possible. Records, tapes and CDs were the best that technology could practically provide at the time, but all were prone to wear and tear Now, with digital media, there's no reason why the music I buy can't have an 'infinite life'.

yes but no one is say you can't have your music forever depending on how long your computer last. remember you can make infinite copies you can put them on inifint machines. yet only play them on 5. and you can reset every year the 5 machines. so yes you could have your music aslong as you live. but like manythings you have to take care of it. also if your computer crashes, apple is not resposible to give you another copy. as nice as that is they really dont have to do that.

Less choice for you and I as consumers for one thing.

i am not understading how this becomes less choice. it has not changed. it is still the same as it was and is. it is not more, but it is also not less.

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).


i am unsure what you mean only because this seems like an extreme situation to happen. i understand your fears but this seems like an unlikely situation, and i dont understand how the ruling has anything to do with it.

and yes i would say apple would likley not do this becasue it would change their customer base. and yes they did change the restrictions, but for the better not worse. they allowed more computers not less.

to change the format to a more restrictive set would cause many consumers to complain. also it may cause loss of sales. stock holders and record comapnies would not like that. but the record companies and stock holders have a lot riding on itunes. to go such a drastic route would be odd and unthinkable. but i am not a stock holder or a record company exec. so i dont care about it.

But what kind of fair-mainded society allows a $250,000 fine for downloading a $10 song? That's on par with the penalty for armed robbery.

Sadly, I think DRM is cut from the same legislative cloth. It wouldn't hurt Apple - and others - to lighten up a bit. I think it is in their best interest, in the long run.

now this is something that makes sense. i agreefully that the penaty is to harsh. and the drm could be lightened. but i dont think either will happen. but thats is not a bad thing. well, the penalty is a bad thing as it is too huge for situations that sometimes is not in control of the user. ie: the grandparent that got sued for what the grandkids did. but the drm is something that most people can live with. but i can understand your situation because of how big your family is. i would even go on to say a 8 to 10 computer limit is not a bad thing. but beyond that i dont know... but i dont want my songs on other peoples machine anyhow. let alone having to type a password on those machines.

[ce34482]

Has anyone tried buying a track from one of the other stores? Will it play on your Mac? (If it doesn't play on my iPod, that's Apple's business.) But I'm guessing no and no one is saying that the other stores aren't playing fair. Real makes an application for the Mac. Microsoft, who has their own DRM, used to make an application for the Mac, and yet none of these work with their stores/their DRM. Am I right? Not licensing FairPlay and not creating Mac-friendly stores are business decisions made by these companies. Like it or not, they're free to do what they want. Even if they would do better business, they're free to do what they want. There's no law that says you have to do the best thing for you company. ;-) Competition between the companies and locking you into this and that are going to happen, it seems.

As for DRM ... it might be unfair, but you have to expect copyright owners to try to limit the mass distribution of their property. Besides that, it's the law in the US and weakening it in France isn't going to do anything here. The last time US lawmakers reacted to what the French thought on an issue, we lost "french fries".

[eatapc]

i dont under stand how this prevents us from having choice. other then not being able to put itunes music on other players.I agree.

When people here say that this hurts consumers, they have to define the period of time they're talking about. Almost any anti-business legislation will help the consumer in the short run. (Why not mandate a give-away of the operating system; won't that help consumers?) It's the long term we should be focusing on. Allowing businesses, big and small, to innovate and make a profit on those innovations has been proven to help consumers in the long run. Interference by populist politicians almost always sets in motion the law of unintended consequences.

The iTunes model is not monopolistic (yet). It ain't broke; don't fix it.

[Porco]

I hate DRM, it's stupid and bad and everything, yes.

But Apple didn't invent it. And as far as I can tell, if they wanted to sell music online like they have been doing the choice was either get the best, least restrictive DRM deal they could to keep the labels happy or give up. I'm glad they bothered to pour the time, money and effort into making the iTunes music store the best overall experience for buying music downloads so far.

The French proposals effectively said that all that time, investment and hard work should be for nothing because Apple's DRM sucks for people who don't want to buy an iPod. They were trying to move the goal-posts after the game had started - and that's why I think it's good that the proposals (as were) won't be realised.

I still hate DRM, I still think it's stupid and bad and everything. But I don't see why Apple should lose out just because they've done the best with the situation as it is. All this would have been was a market-share grab by Apple's rivals, it wouldn't have been a lovely happy-land where consumers didn't have to deal with DRM anymore.

[anonicon]

Speaking as an avid music buyer, anyone who buys DRM tracks because of ignorance or expedience pretty much gets what they deserve.

FWIW, I bought an iPod Photo over some pretty good competition because it had U.S.-based, walk-in tech support, a pretty nice GUI, and a lot of peripherals for expanding its use outside of the shirtpocket and headphones. Whether the French leave iTunes France alone or not in the future, I hope this case has opened up some people's eyes to the benefits of the iPod, and the benefits of not buying from the iTMS.

Chuck

[aLbAn]

I hate DRM, it's stupid and bad and everything, yes.

But Apple didn't invent it. And as far as I can tell, if they wanted to sell music online like they have been doing the choice was either get the best, least restrictive DRM deal they could to keep the labels happy or give up. I'm glad they bothered to pour the time, money and effort into making the iTunes music store the best overall experience for buying music downloads so far.

The French proposals effectively said that all that time, investment and hard work should be for nothing because Apple's DRM sucks for people who don't want to buy an iPod. They were trying to move the goal-posts after the game had started - and that's why I think it's good that the proposals (as were) won't be realised.

I still hate DRM, I still think it's stupid and bad and everything. But I don't see why Apple should lose out just because they've done the best with the situation as it is. All this would have been was a market-share grab by Apple's rivals, it wouldn't have been a lovely happy-land where consumers didn't have to deal with DRM anymore.


It may not be so complex if you think about it; let me give a typical example analogue of the problem:

suppose i bought a copy of Windows XP. now, also suppose that i really liked working with it (boo hiss). at a given moment, i buy a ppc-based mac, but only to find out that WinXP does not run natively on that system. i will now sue Microsoft because they refuse to produce a ppc-compatible version of their OS. does this make sense?

Of course not. in this case, iTMS is a platform independent service (more or less), and it is perfectly useable as it is, i.e. for buying and listening to songs. That is the intended function of the application. However, there exists an extra function within this program, namely the ability to transfer data to a portable device. is it then Apple's fault that they support only iPods? Of course not. firstly, it is impossible to support 100% of the existing DRM standards and all music devices, and no online music service is able to do this. Secondly, it makes sense to support the device(s) with the biggest market share. that would be Apple's iPod then....

In short: if you want to transfer your iTMS music to a portable device, buy an iPod. if you want to run windows, buy an x86-based system. if you want to use cheap diesel fuel, then don't buy a ferrari. i could go on like this :D

freedom of choice is a very important thing. but as a consequence of this, sueing Apple because they do not support a certain minority of mp3 players, is quite ridiculous.

[Highland]

i am not understading how this becomes less choice. it has not changed. it is still the same as it was and is. it is not more, but it is also not less.
Fast forward a few years.

Digital downloads are king. CDs aren't sold as much, and the labels are pushing anything with DRM, and not releasing music without DRM (why would they?).

This is a real scenario and it WILL HAPPEN. Soon! iTMS already has about 12% of the market in the US, so we'll be in this situation in only a few years.

So... that means you'll only be able to use matched players and music stores. This is the first time in history this has happened. Don't sugar coat it, this really is a very ******** up situation. Anyone who can't understand that is either on the payroll from a label, or a complete idiot.

I don't blame Apple, but we all need to stand up against DRM in almost all forms it exists (especially HDCP). CSS was almost fair enough, but the newer, nastier DRMs really are an appalling abuse of power. Apple found a good middle ground, but we should all push for no DRM.

...well, this could go 2 ways: either you buy (and thus own) the data that enables you to play the song, in which case the data is yours to do with as you please,
Totally agree with that. Fair use should allow users to listen to music they've bought in their car AND on their computer AND on their portable player.

Btw, I'm an artist in the industry. I "suffer" from piracy, and I can tell you that it's not hurting the industry as much as they let you believe. What did hurt the labels was ignoring the need for digital downloads.

Listen to aLbAn, he knows where it's at :)

I'm REALLY sad that this decision has gone the way it has. For a second there I thought there was hope for the world (DRM in music is going to drive DRM in almost every field... count on it).

[d-fi]

Ok this was a bad result for consumers and i'll explain why

Everyone here is getting worked up about how this is about iTunes and Apple which is fine since this is MacRumors after all. But there was much broader implications about this legislation then just iTunes (Apple has just been getting all the media attention on this)

This was about all electronic media (video, music, print, etc) and how it's distributed. If this had of gone through how it was originally intended you wouldn't have had to worry about what device you had to download something. The provider would have had to provide something you could use, or provide a way you could convert it to something you could use. Maybe content owners would have come up with a universal DRM standard. If they had of had this kind of push it might have happened which would have worked as well (personally I'm anti DRM)

Now the following examples are some things you might have been able to do. (in France, the world later)

- Want to download a movie from any site to play on your mac, check

- Sony music site has an exclusive song on their site want to play on you iPod, check

- Want a content protected e-book that you can read on your mac, check

Now thats just a few examples of what you can't do now that you would have been able to do (in France, the world later) if this legislation had of gone through as it was intended.

I but i guess if you don't like these choices you can just buy a PC right? :rolleyes:

(for the record i love my powerbook and OS X and wouldn't trade it for the world, but i would like more choice)

[Highland]

Good point regarding a universal DRM. That's almost the only acceptable form of DRM that would be fair to consumers. I'm sure it'd still limit fair use in some way, but it'd be better than the current situation.

Btw, I'm a massive iPod and mac fan. I love them both and believe that they are the best in their category.

This isn't about taking sides though... it's about losing rights as a consumer.

[the-fish]

I don't know which side to choose - freedom or Apple? I remember when they were the same thing. :-/

[Billy Boo Bob]

I don't blame Apple, but we all need to stand up against DRM in almost all forms it exists (especially HDCP). CSS was almost fair enough, but the newer, nastier DRMs really are an appalling abuse of power. Apple found a good middle ground, but we should all push for no DRM.
You gotta push the music biz execs, then. I'm sure they told Apple (and the others)... "Lock in some DRM or don't sell our stuff. Your choice."

Suppose I bought a copy of Windows XP. Now, also suppose that I really liked working with it (boo hiss). At a given moment, I buy a PPC-based Mac, but only to find out that WinXP does not run natively on that system. I will now sue Microsoft because they refuse to produce a PPC-compatible version of their OS. does this make sense?Exactly. What's the French next step? Forcing Apple to open OS X to run on any PC? Force all the PC-only game developers to make a Mac version? Where does it end?

That's as bad as that crazy lawsuit that guy was filing because he had to buy an iPod to use his iTMS music. Well, if I buy iLife for GarageBand, Apple's forcing me to buy a Mac to use it. Give me a break.

[Highland]

You gotta push the music biz execs, then. I'm sure they told Apple (and the others)... "Lock in some DRM or don't sell our stuff. Your choice."
We all have to push everyone.

Exactly. What's the French next step? Forcing Apple to open OS X to run on any PC? Force all the PC-only game developers to make a Mac version? Where does it end?
Firstly, I didn't say that, aLbAn did ;)

Secondly, That's NOT the same thing. We're talking about CONTENT here. Not an OS. We're talking about music, videos and digital books. This isn't about forcing a business to spend thousands of man-hours to rework their code, it's about NOT putting things in place to STOP people using the content on devices that aren't their own. MASSIVE difference. I hope you can see that. DRM is all about controlling markets and pushing certain products. There's no way you can twist it into something that benefits honest consumers except maybe the "oh, but it stops piracy" argument, which we all know is complete and utter BS.

[MacMyDay]

But what kind of fair-mainded society allows a $250,000 fine for downloading a $10 song? That's on par with the penalty for armed robbery.


I can't argue with that, but has anyone actually been fined that much? It's like those fines you see that basically say "Highest Possible Fine: XXXX". It generally means you won't even get 10% of that, but it tries to act as a deterrent.

[Billy Boo Bob]

Firstly, I didn't say that, aLbAn did ;)
Heh. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to replace the name as I copied/pasted the bracketed QUOTE bit.:o

Secondly, That's NOT the same thing. We're talking about CONTENT here. Not an OS.
The way I see it, it's all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter how long it takes to make it, or how much work it takes. Doesn't matter if you listen to it or use it hands on. It's all about the copyright. DRM protects the copyright.

Granted, it might not be exactly the same, but there's some parallels here.

Now, I'm not a fan of DRM, either. But in this case, I think the music biz screwed up by not insisting on a single, shared DRM for all from the start. It should have been a business decision, not become a legislated requirement.

[Highland]

Heh. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to replace the name as I copied/pasted the bracketed QUOTE bit.:o
No probs :)

The way I see it, it's all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter how long it takes to make it, or how much work it takes. Doesn't matter if you listen to it or use it hands on. It's all about the copyright. DRM protects the copyright.

Granted, it might not be exactly the same, but there's some parallels here.
Hmmm kinda of. I understand where you're coming from, but I think there's more at stake here. It's not about a computer company trying to link up hardware sales with a small online store, it's the future of IP for the entire world. This is such a big deal.

I changed my tune from "DRM is ok sometimes to protect IP" to "all DRM is evil and usless" after reading this:
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

It's long, but such as good read.

Now, I'm not a fan of DRM, either. But in this case, I think the music biz screwed up by not insisting on a single, shared DRM for all from the start. It should have been a business decision, not become a legislated requirement.
Definitely. I can't see it happening now though.

And... if there was one DRM, it'd be cracked in a matter of days. I'm shocked that Fairplay 2 (iTunes 6) still isn't cracked. The concept of DRM is completely flawed (please refer to Cory's presentation!).

[aLbAn]

Heh. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to replace the name as I copied/pasted the bracketed QUOTE bit.:o

The way I see it, it's all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter how long it takes to make it, or how much work it takes. Doesn't matter if you listen to it or use it hands on. It's all about the copyright. DRM protects the copyright.




i agree. it does not matter whether we are talking about an OS, another application or music data; it's all about the consumer buying a license to use that data. as you all know, every piece of software has something called a license agreement. this means, that although you are free to use the software in any way you see fit, it does not mean that you actually own the content. if you would own the content, then that would mean that you were the copyright holder.

on the subject of making a universal DRM system: i don't see it happen any time soon. there will always be several systems or options to choose from. think about the amount of different flash-memory cards: nowadays a printer has more connections and options for flashcards than it has for different kinds of paper. incredible.
now, some people think that this is a good thing because they are offered a freedom of choice. in practice, i think this is just all incredibly annoying.

we could just try to push a universal DRM system, but which one is it gonna be then? this would actually increase the chance of creating a monopolizing company in the DRM business. is that desirable?

[Billy Boo Bob]

On the subject of making a universal DRM system: i don't see it happen any time soon...... .......we could just try to push a universal DRM system, but which one is it gonna be then?
Oh, it's definately too late for that. And DRM has been in use long before iTunes and iPods... I had a home unit Mini-Disc recorder ages ago (I guess they had just come out), and there was DRM in play when using the digital/optical connections (first time I ever saw that in use, too). You could copy analog all day long, but not digital to digital, which would give you a perfect copy of the source.

[aLbAn]

Oh, it's definately too late for that. And DRM has been in use long before iTunes and iPods... I had a home unit Mini-Disc recorder ages ago (I guess they had just come out), and there was DRM in play when using the digital/optical connections (first time I ever saw that in use, too). You could copy analog all day long, but not digital to digital, which would give you a perfect copy of the source.

ahh minidisc, those were the days ;)
the funny thing was, that every pro minidisc recorder (i used those in the studios i worked in) never had this copy protection. also, there used to be converter-boxes that eliminated the protection signal from the digital datastream.

sorry, off-topic post :p

[Highland]

You guys are talking about SCMS (Serial Copy Management System). DAT had it too. It'd only allowed one generation of digital copies from the master on prerecorded material (your own recordings were fine). Now that IS fair use. It was also only found on consumer DAT and MD recorders (as stated), not pro gear.

That's an example of doing it properly.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much here is the fact that DRM will actually force people to pirate music/videos/whatever. Why? Because after being burnt by not being able to do certain things with legitimately purchased music, the user will turn to a "free" alternative... free in every respect. Free to be played on all their devices.

Seriously, this is a battle I don't think DRM can win. With each new tech advancement (Rootkit anyone?), the content owners are turning all their loyal and honest customers away as well as giving their critics more fuel.

[Gasu E.]

Why's he making sense? A CD is a physical medium and he doesn't have the right to make 5 copies for all his kids. He has the right to make a copy for backup or his own personal use. For example it is illegal to buy a CD, load it into iTunes, then give the CD to your buddy.

This is the reason iTunes has negotiated with the record companies to allow the music on 5 computers or whatever. So that people can't make this argument. But of course if you're going to argue that it's easier to illegally duplicate store bought CDs vs. iTunes purchased songs, I guess he wins.

EDIT: Oh, and I guess I shouldn't point out that he could've saved a lot of money by simply burning his iTunes albums to CD which strips all the DRM. He'd then have the same thing he bought at the store for about 33% cheaper.

This guys argument definitely doesn't hold water. Apple argues all day "burn all the CDs you want of your iTunes purchases." I guess some people don't know that.

He makes perfect sense in that he doesn't like DRM, therefore he is buying fewer iTunes. That's the way the market is supposed to work; if you don't like something, vote with your wallet. He's not making moral judgements, speculating wildly about what the markets will/will not do. He's making a simple statement about how he will act given DRM. The actual market behavior will be the aggregate of the behavior of individuals. And Apple will either maintain its current position or not, based on what actually happens in the market.

[Gasu E.]

But the French law isn't punitive action. They're deciding the laws under which all companies in the French marketplace must play, and these laws must (rather obviously) be in place before taking action.

This seems to me a non sequiter. My comment wasn't a response to the French law; it was a response to the particular scenario of hypothetical future behavior by Apple described by an earlier correspondant.

But now that you point this out, it seems a given that government intervention in a marketplace is more likely than not going to cause inefficiencies and stifle innovation. Therefore government intervention should be reserved for cases of proven aggregious consumer harm. The "MP3" player market is still too young and embryonic for this to be the case. By all means, the government should go after Apple once they are a real monopoly with real monopoly power that they use to customer disadvantage, rather than continually churning out newer and better products that increase consumer choice. The government has the power to address monopolistic abuse at any time, and there is no reason now to fix some hypothetical future situation, especially one unrelated to global warming, disease, the end of the world as we know it, etc. Fortunately, sanity prevailed (for once) in the land of the mandatory 35 hour maximum work week.

[boncellis]

Either common sense prevailed or economic interests prevailed.

Funny, because those might be the last two things I associate with the French. ;)

I would have liked to see the effect of this should Mr. Jobs deliver a keynote in Paris later this year. Had the law gone through, would Apple have moved the Expo from Paris to, I don't know, London?

[whooleytoo]

But now that you point this out, it seems a given that government intervention in a marketplace is more likely than not going to cause inefficiencies and stifle innovation. Therefore government intervention should be reserved for cases of proven aggregious consumer harm. The "MP3" player market is still too young and embryonic for this to be the case. By all means, the government should go after Apple once they are a real monopoly with real monopoly power that they use to customer disadvantage, rather than continually churning out newer and better products that increase consumer choice. The government has the power to address monopolistic abuse at any time, and there is no reason now to fix some hypothetical future situation, especially one unrelated to global warming, disease, the end of the world as we know it, etc. Fortunately, sanity prevailed (for once) in the land of the mandatory 35 hour maximum work week.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes, it is (or rather, was) to some extent a pre-emptive move by the French, designed to prevent vendor lock-in. If possible/practical, isn't that a good thing? In this case, isn't it better to prevent, than to allow and punish?

In any case, I'd have considered Apple locking out Real's Harmony technology to be anti-competitive, and possibly an abuse of a (near) monopoly in the music player market.

Everyone country in the world tampers with its markets to greater or lesser degrees, the US 'school of thought' favours self-regulation, believing the less tampering the better. The European model is based more around 'self regulation is no regulation', and the view that companies need policing. Admittedly, the French system seems to be towards the extreme end of Europe.

All that said, I was still in favour of this law. It would be better for me (were a similar law to be introduced here), I would buy more songs, and I believe it would foster compeitition and growth in the digitial music industry.

The digital music industry isn't just a battle of piracy vs legal downloads, it's also 'free and listen anywhere' vs 'pay and be limited'. Interoperability would go a long way to enticing potential customers away from piracy.

Incidentally, does anyone know the Slattery vs Apple anti-trust suit in the US is progressing?

[min_t]

I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

A year ago, I averaged perhaps 10 iTune songs a week. I liked the convenience and the price was right.

A year later, I think carefully about any iTunes purchase. I compare the 99 cent price and convenience against thge higher price and inconvenience of (once again) buying CDs. CDs now win more often.

Today, I might buy 10 iTunes songs a year. 99 cents a song is less attractive when the song has so many restrictions. For example, I have six media / web computers in my house (4 kids!!). I can no longer put iTunes on all of them even though I have legally paid for every iTunes song I have downloaded.

I am buying less iTunes content. And thanks to lower convenience of buying CD's, I am buying less music overall . Apple and the music industry as a whole would make more money from me with an open DRM strategy.

I am a buyer who is aware. There will be more of me as time goes on...

So let's say you purchase 10 songs ($10 total) a year from iTunes. You could...
1. burn to cd and share with everyone 6+users.
2. burn mp3 cd and share with everyone.
3. buy songs on 2 machines, now you can share with 8 users, total cost $20.

Instead you buy cd's at $10.00 (being generous) each.
The 10 songs you wanted are all different artists, so that's $100.

Where exactly are you benefiting?

[Highland]

A few questions for everyone defending this decision (and DRM):

1. How does DRM benefit users?
2. How does DRM benefit society?
3. How does DRM benefit artists?

If it's not a positive for those three groups, then it's not something we should want. There's a lot of detailed arguments and speculation here, but this is the crux of the matter.

And again, please read this document: http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

[DRMBothersMe]

DRM is a viable way of ensuring that those who pay for the right to usecontent, get to use it. DRM also enables legal downloading in instances where downloading would otherwise mean a free-for-all for those who don't want to pay for a license...Fair enough...

DRM - like many things in life - may look good in principle, but in practice, is it subject to abuse. At one time, Napster allowed end-users to abuse media producers. It's payback time. With proprietary DRM, media providers are now abusing us. While never overt, iTunes restrictions tend to favor Apple's right's over ours.

What are some examples where Apple could be more friendly?

1. If you lose a song after you download it - too bad, so sad. It would not cost Apple much - if anything - to allow you download songs if you lose them. www.audible.com allows this type of purchase for downloaded audio books.

2. Please don't change the rules as you go along Apple!!! Paragraph 20 of the Terms of Service Agreement says:

"Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. ... Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms."

Honestly. How many of you knew about this clause?

[Highland]

"Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. ... Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms."
I did :)

And it's common for most DRM agreements. They basically say "we can change the rules whenever we like". It means that you might own a license for a song (yes, you do "own" the license) for over 20 years, then the content provider might suddenly decide that you can't play it on x device or use it in x way. This has never been possible in the past. You buy a CD, you can use it in a CD player until the disc falls apart. With fair use, you could potentially keep the CD alive by reburning copies for yourself, all legally. Some DRM schemes include self destruct mechanisms that remove the files after a certain period of time (BigPond movies in Australia has this).

Most arguments have two compelling sides, but honestly, this is not one of them.

One of the strongest arguments against DRM is the fact that no current DRM scheme can survive long term as the cypher, cypher text and key are always distributed as part of the content and/or player application. It's a flawed concept. All current DRMs can and will be cracked. It doesn't look like any new schemes will be able to get around this either.

[Highland]

1. If you lose a song after you download it - too bad, so sad.
It's also worth noting that if you aren't completely aware of the iTMS authorisation system you could potentially run through your 5 authorisations pretty fast. ie:

1. Sally buys an iBook & an iPod (or PC and iPod).
2. Sally buys loads of songs from iTMS.
3. Sally buys a new MacBook Pro and copies all her songs across.
4. Sally repeats step 3 every few years.

I'd say that 90% of the people buying music from iTMS or any other online store are unaware of the authorisation system. This means that the whole thing is one big ticking time bomb. People are going to find out that their entire music collection they've purchased isn't "licensed" for their new computer, and they can't do a thing about it.

What do you think will happen at that point?

I'll tell you. Class action suits everywhere and reversal of DRM on music.

[gman71882]

pffft... didnt have a chance. tsk tsk tsk :D

[gman71882]

It's also worth noting that if you aren't completely aware of the iTMS authorisation system you could potentially run through your 5 authorisations pretty fast.

I'd say that 90% of the people buying music from iTMS or any other online store are unaware of the authorisation system. This means that the whole thing is one big ticking time bomb. People are going to find out that their entire music collection they've purchased isn't "licensed" for their new computer, and they can't do a thing about it.

What do you think will happen at that point?
I'll tell you. Class action suits everywhere and reversal of DRM on music.

Do you have any idea how the ITMS authorization actually works???
Once all 5 computers are authorized you have the option to deauthorize all of them and Start over.
They already thought of that... so no worries!!!! :D
UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN 5 COMPUTERS @ ONE TIME THEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE

[Highland]

Do you have any idea how the ITMS authorization actually works???
Once all 5 computers are authorized you have the option to deauthorize all of them and Start over.
They already thought of that... so no worries!!!! :D
UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN 5 COMPUTERS @ ONE TIME THEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE
I didn't realise that was possible. It helps, but Apple are going to need to make that pretty damn clear. That still doesn't change the main points in my argument. DRM can not survive long term, and I don't think it will.

Edit: Just had a look for the option... where is it?

[Doctor Q]

I didn't realise that was possible. It helps, but Apple are going to need to make that pretty damn clear.Apple has a web page (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93014) with all the details.

It's also explained in iTunes itself. Press command-? and search for "deauthorization".

[Billy Boo Bob]

I didn't realise that was possible. It helps, but Apple are going to need to make that pretty damn clear. That still doesn't change the main points in my argument. DRM can not survive long term, and I don't think it will.

Edit: Just had a look for the option... where is it?
You can de-auth any one computer at a time within iTunes. This is suggested and recommended if you are selling your computer or even reformatting and re-installing the OS (which the auth would see as a new computer). You don't have to use up your once-a-year auth bomb just to turn the auth off for one machine and turn it on for another. The menu in iTunes is Advanced/Deauthorize Computer... (Then, the "View Account" button).

If you have a number of user IDs authorized you'll need to de-auth each one at a time (have to enter the pass again for each account to de-auth). Unfortunately, it doesn't show you how many, or which accounts are currently auth'd on one machine. However, if you click on the account button (upper right while in the store in iTunes), and supply an ID and password, it will tell you how many different computers are currently auth'd to play music for that one given account.

It would be nice, at least, to tell you which accounts are currently auth'd on a machine before you reformat or sell, so you know which ones need to be de-auth'd before you wipe it out (unless someone who knows wants to chime in with a way to do that :)).

[aLbAn]

A few questions for everyone defending this decision (and DRM):

1. How does DRM benefit users?
2. How does DRM benefit society?
3. How does DRM benefit artists?

If it's not a positive for those three groups, then it's not something we should want. There's a lot of detailed arguments and speculation here, but this is the crux of the matter.

And again, please read this document: http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt


i'm not defending this decision, but i would nevertheless respond to this:

1. DRM does not benefit users.
users will not ever see a price drop due to a more or less successful copyprotection system. that is simply not how a profit-based business works.
the limited transferability of the data could also be a major nuisance.

2. DRM does not benefit society.
making something more complex and less flexible won't ever benefit anyone, right? also, the few people who actually benefit from DRM are maybe 0.0001 percent of society. probably even less. (remember, we are not talking about the fact whether these people deserve the money -even more than they already have- , we are discussing the benefit for society as a whole).

3. DRM does not benefit artists.
my guess is that artists will not really benefit from that little extra cash flow.
an interesting point is, that DRM is most effective with music from well-known artists, because these will probably get pirated the most. but these people do not really need the small increase on their huge paychecks.
more obscure artists -who could actually use the money- will not benefit at all from DRM, simply because they don't get downloaded illegally a lot. there have even been reports that piracy actually improves the public exposure of unknown artists....
looks like a bit of a trade-off to me.

[Highland]

Yet another point against DRM :)

DRM increases tech overheads. The battery life on your iPod is reduced due to the extra work involved in decoding files with DRM. More CPU power is used when decoding music and videos wrapped in DRM, and more importantly, the recent trend of embedding DRM onto motherboards and in in TV sets and monitors (HDCP) will mean more expensive hardware that also uses (even if it's only a bit) more power.

Crap.

[bokdol]

2. Please don't change the rules as you go along Apple!!! Paragraph 20 of the Terms of Service Agreement says:

"Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. ... Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms."

Honestly. How many of you knew about this clause?

i thought most software companies put this clause in. becasue they are the makers of the system. plus they need this clause wither to make it better or worse. this also allowed them to change the drm from 3 computers to 5. we have to rememebr it can go both ways good or bad. and so far when they changed the rules the added more features. so for them to change the rules is not a bad thing,,, sometimes.

[goosnarrggh]

Why's he making sense? A CD is a physical medium and he doesn't have the right to make 5 copies for all his kids. He has the right to make a copy for backup or his own personal use. For example it is illegal to buy a CD, load it into iTunes, then give the CD to your buddy.
That argument is not universally true.

For example, in Canada, consider the following situation:
- Jack buys a CD.
- Jack lends his CD to his casual accuantiance Jill.
- Jill loves the CD and decides to rip it and save it in iTunes.
- Jill returns the CD to Jack.
- Jill burns a copy of the CD so she can use it on her home stereo.
- Joe visits Jill and coincidentally sees the music in Jill's iTunes.
- Joe takes one of Jill's blank CD-R's (with Jill's permission).
- Joe places the CD-R into Jill's Mac, selects the tracks he likes, and presses "Burn".
- Joe removes the CD-R and takes it home with him.
- Jack, Jill, and Joe all have digitally identical copies of the music.
- None of them have violated Canadian copyright law.

How is this possible? Well, in Canada a tarriff is automatically charged against the purchase of every blank CD, DVD, audio tape, VHS cassette, etc. It is collected by the Copyright Board, for distribution as part of the same general royalty scheme that is used, for example, for broadcast radio.

- Jill then burns another copy of the CD and gives it to Jamie as a gift.
- Jill has just violated Canadian copyright law. Jamie is not a party to the crime.

[DRMBothersMe]

In the US:

- Buy a Sony CD with malicious rootdisk software.
- Have your computer infected with rootdisk software.
- Remove rootdisk software.
- Be liable to a $250,000 fine and 5 years in jail for violating the DMCA.

How ridiculous can these things get? Looking at - and removing if you wish - any software on your computer should be an unalienable right. It's no different than free speech or outlawing descrimination.

Media companies managed to lobby for something else. The rights of Sony (and their brethren) are now superior to ours. Why does this not bother more people? Does anyone think a $250,000 fine and five years in jail is the correct punishment for copying a 99 cent song? That's a harsher sentence than robbing a bank.

At least France is standing up for the rights of buyers. That's more than I can say around here :(