Apple to License iTunes Fairplay DRM?

[Rodimus Prime]

It would be nice for apple to do that. Right now apple is starting to push abusing its power and hurting competitions with its current actions. At some point in time if things stay like they are apple will be force to do it. Along with open up the iPod to play stuff from other music stores. Because either they are going to be forces to by the government do to monopoly abuse or they will be force to by competition moving in and taking to much market share from them and pushing them out.

I can see the first one happening because apple might see it cheaper to just take what ever possible damage there is by opening it up than deal with the legal cost that are more than likely on the horizon, and any current ones they are in.

 

[shamino]

I've NEVER understood the reasoning on why people support Fairplay. It's *SOLE* purpose is to lock you into a product for life. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Its sole purpose is to give in to the demands of the record labels. If they didn't do this, there would be no iTMS at all.

If that's OK with you, fine. Don't buy any tracks. The rest of the world obviously disagrees.

DRM destroys the possibility of public domain. DRM causes ENORMOUS issues in archiving. DRM ultimately prevents an artist to truly grow in a digital world.

Ummm.... Nobody is forcing an artist to release DRM'ed tracks.

If an artist was smart enough to retain copyright on his own work, he is perfectly free to sell non-DRM content on his own web site, or on eMusic, or any other service. Nobody is telling him not to.

The only entities stifling artists here are the record labels, who those same artists stupidly agreed to give all their rights to before they even recorded the music in the first place.

Sorry for this tirade, but all of these so called "excuses" are simply that: Apologizing for Apple. Doesn't play with me, and it never will.

Go ahead and be angry, but I suggest you point your anger at the right target.

Apple has no choice in the matter. If they insisted on selling unencumbered music files, they'd end up like eMusic - without any major artists.

The copyright holder always has the final say. If you don't like the policies they impose on their distributors, you have to complain to them, not to the distributor.

 

[w00master]

Its sole purpose is to give in to the demands of the record labels. If they didn't do this, there would be no iTMS at all.

If that's OK with you, fine. Don't buy any tracks. The rest of the world obviously disagrees.

I don't and I won't. Just because "the rest of the world" buys DRM'd tracks *DOES NOT MEAN* they "disagree" with me. Most people are *UNAWARE* of DRM until they try to play them (for example) on an XBox 360, try to stream them, etc.

Ummm.... Nobody is forcing an artist to release DRM'ed tracks.

You're right and I applaud those artists that don't DRM tracks. These artist are the INFORMED artist that have CONTROL of their work.

If an artist was smart enough to retain copyright on his own work, he is perfectly free to sell non-DRM content on his own web site, or on eMusic, or any other service. Nobody is telling him not to.

As I said above, I applaud them and I often find myself buying music from those artists.

The only entities stifling artists here are the record labels, who those same artists stupidly agreed to give all their rights to before they even recorded the music in the first place.

Wow, we agree on something? Surprise, surprise.

Go ahead and be angry, but I suggest you point your anger at the right target.

I'm angry at the tone. I'm angry because people are constantly "defending" Apple for the sake of "defending Apple." DRM is wrong, pure and simple.

Apple has no choice in the matter. If they insisted on selling unencumbered music files, they'd end up like eMusic - without any major artists.

The copyright holder always has the final say. If you don't like the policies they impose on their distributors, you have to complain to them, not to the distributor.

What about "thinking differently?" What about Jobs stating (before the birth of the iPod) that "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own?"

What happened here? Why did the number of "authorized" devices go down to 5?

Just because right now "Apple has no choice," it doesn't make it right. I understand that "they didn't have any choice" in the beginning, but guess what, it's been stated by a number of Apple folks (including Jobs), that now even if Apple *COULD* sell their music without any DRM, Apple WON'T CHANGE IT. Shame.

Again, let's hear the old Steve Jobs:

"if you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."

I guess a lot of things have changed. Sad. Very Sad.

Ultimately, I blame the entire tech industry. The tech industry (namely Apple, Microsoft, and Google) have more money and profits than the ENTIRE music industry. Shame.

w00master

 

[shamino]

What about "thinking differently?" What about Jobs stating (before the birth of the iPod) that "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own?"

He has to play ball, just like everybody else.

He has to decide "DRM or no music from major labels?" He decided "DRM, but with the least restrictive terms we can get away with." I think that decision was the best he could make. The alternative would be no iTMS, with WMA-protected media being the only download standard.

What happened here? Why did the number of "authorized" devices go down to 5?

You're remembering wrong. The number went up to 5. FairPlay started out only allowing 3 computers to be authorized.

The only number that went down was the number of times you can burn a playlist with a protected track - that dropped from 10 to 7. But that's almost irrelevant, since you can always destroy and re-create the playlist and get another 7 burns.

it's been stated by a number of Apple folks (including Jobs), that now even if Apple *COULD* sell their music without any DRM, Apple WON'T CHANGE IT. Shame.

Could you find a source for that statement that isn't just bloggers quoting each other? This is the first I've heard of this.

 

[Rantipole]

This is good news. Here's another link:

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/6280/7304/apple-may-licence-fairplay-drm.phtml

I personally don't like DRMs and still buy CDs, with only the rare ITMS purchase for a track every blue moon or so. BUT, I do think if DRMs are going to exist, Apple's got a good one and they should license it.

 

[Analog Kid]

I've NEVER understood the reasoning on why people support Fairplay. It's *SOLE* purpose is to lock you into a product for life. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Does Apple have the "right" to do this? Sure

Is it RIGHT? No. Hell no.

Not a big fan of DRM myself, but given a world where the labels won't release online content that isn't protected I'll support the least restrictive of the schemes, which is Fairplay, or buy my content on CD which I do most often.

DRM is simply bad for consumers. Does this make me a communist because I believe that media should be open to all? No, and it's extraordinarily silly to even begin to think that way. DRM stifles competition. DRM destroys the possibility of public domain. DRM causes ENORMOUS issues in archiving. DRM ultimately prevents an artist to truly grow in a digital world.

Wow, this is the second time that communism entered such a short thread...

You're right on all counts.

"So don't buy it!"

So I should be prevented in buying a product I deem cool?

"When you buy an iPod, then you are accepting Fairplay DRM."

No, I don't. I don't think I should buy an "inferior" product and deal with "Plays for Sure" just because so I can play my digitally bough music (which I do not do, btw) on my XBox360. I want to be able to play my IPOD on my XBox 360 without worry about certain songs *not* playing.

It doesn't matter how you twist the issue, but the reality is people view their bought music as music, and see things that it should be able to play on any medium that PLAYS music.

Here's where your argument goes wrong-- all iPod features come as a package and make it more or less cool. DRM makes it less cool, but it's still cool enough that you find it worth buying. The industry won't change until it hits their pocketbook and your buying an iPod extends the life of Fairplay.

"You bought tapes when they were big, then CDs, and now iTunes Music. How is this any different?"

BECAUSE IT'S DIGITAL. Sorry, but I can view my MS Word text files on my Mac, PC, and Linux boxes. HOW IS MUSIC ANY DIFFERENT? It isn't. It's a digital file on MY COMPUTER on MY IPOD.

First, you can't view Word docs flawlessly on other platforms, .doc is a closed format that others have found a way to display imperfectly.

Second, your Word doc is your content and music is someone else's. If someone password protected their Word doc, you couldn't display it even on Windows.

Digital has many advantages, one being that you can make flawless reproductions of content. Another being that you can distribute the content easily. A third is that you can more easily protect your content with encryption. You don't have to use all three advantages all the time, but they're there for those who want them. The labels want their content encrypted and have fought to do that ever since the advent of DAT.

Sorry for this tirade, but all of these so called "excuses" are simply that: Apologizing for Apple. Doesn't play with me, and it never will.

Do I love Apple? Yes I do, and still do. Do I think their draconian closed policy of DRM is good? Heck no, and never will.

w00master

My biggest concern is what will happen when CDs go obsolete. Right now they're our last backdoor to easy digital content. When that's gone, and I don't think that day is far away, this is going to be a much bigger argument.

 

[andyh2]

OOOPS! I didn't see this and I submitted it by accident