Is Apple anti-Open-Source?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by princealfie, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #1
    A recent article of Apple vs. the French in http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ne...ch-law-will-result-in-state-sponsored-piracy/ apparently implies that Apple is not in line with open-source DRM. I think that it will be absolutely awesome to be honest. I think that Fairplay isn't really all that impressive.

    And by the way, I use emusic a lot! In fact, I prefer it for the alternative music scene. I love itunes too but the closed system and 5 authorized computers doesn't help when I own more than 5 apples!

    Come on, I love Linux's approach and open source everything. I think the French got it right this time again.
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    There's no such thing as open source DRM. DRM is there because the recording industry wanted to reduce piracy and Apple wants you to use their closed system, which has it's positives and negative for the consumer. Positive being an integrated system that generally works well, negative being you can't use any device but an iPod unless you rip to CD. France may mean well, but the recording industry there will not allow anyone to open source their music. This is beyond Apple BTW, they're targeting all of them. Sony's ATRAC and MS WMA too (neither of which work on Macs ironically enough, for all their complaining). This is why you won't see big names on emusic, it's unprotected mp3 files. The French version of the RIAA wouldn't go with it anymore than the US one.

    There are already a few threads on this subject though. ;)
     
  3. topgunn macrumors 65816

    topgunn

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
  4. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  5. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #5
    I don't know why it's in this thread, but he posted it four times in another thread. Every few months the pancake bunny rears its head. It was funny the first five or so times, but not so much anymore.
     
  6. Some_Big_Spoon macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #6
    They're not anti-open source, they're pro-profits. DRM's single, solitary purpose is control of corporate profits. Apple uses open source software and standards when it benefits them and helps them turn a profit and they cry foul when it impeeds their profits. They're no better, nor worse, than any other corporate entity, they just happen to make the best software/hardware.
     
  7. emaja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #7
    What would be the point of an open source DRM? If it was open, doesn't that mean that anyone could break it since they could have access to the source code?

    eMusic is a great service and proof that DRM-free music can work.
     
  8. link92 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    #8
    The only real reason why DRM exists is because the record companies are anus like that. I don't see the point of it as it'll get onto P2P networks anyway.
     
  9. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #9
    No. See the various PGP/GPG implementations for examples of this kind of thing. If the system is any good at all, only the keys need to be secret.

    Apple are for open source only if and when it benefits them. See, for a current example, the disappearance of more and more Darwin code as Apple try to obscure their current Intel implementation.
     
  10. howesey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    #10
    It can all be traced, but with DRM, it can be traced more effectivly and it also put a barrier between the users and the physical copy.

    Most of the P2P networks will be shutdown soon, the IFPI are making sure of that. As well as sites such as allofmp3.

    List of sites that sell legal music on this site - http://www.pro-music.org/. Any others are cons and the industry gets no money, the web site pockets your money for themselves.

    The record industry is on it's knees because of digital piracy. Companies are closing left right and centre, the four majors are feeling the brunt. It's hard for a new artist or label to make it onto the market because you cannot make money at the moment.
     
  11. emaja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #11
    Makes sense to me.

    All commercial software companies are the same in this regard, and I don't blame them. They do need to make money. Apple is unique in that it makes the hardware and the OS, so they benefit when either is sold. They get a piece of both where MS or HP only benefit when one piece is purchased.
     
  12. crackpip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #12
    I dispute the fact that the recording industry is on its knees because of piracy. In fact, I am not convinced the entire recording industry is really on its knees. What companies are closing?

    As I've posted elsewhere, there is not much evidence that piracy is the reason for the sales downturns, only loose correlation. But, correlation does not imply causality. Other equally logical explanations exist: economic downturn, increased competition from other media sources, changing listening habits of consumers, lack of diversity in promoted artists, etc.

    An artist is not entitled to make a profit from his work. They are subject economic factors just like other industries. It's hard to be a Mac developer for instance.

    Just to provide one site that is questioning RIAA supplied data...

    http://www.azoz.com/riaa/index.html

    crackpip
     
  13. captainbeefheat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    p2p networks only account for a small amount of piracy in the first place, it is strange why it's targeted so heavily.

    I also find it very hard to feel sorry for these artists (I use the term very loosely) when there still living millionaire lifestyles when some kid whos parents have no money but are still being sued for every last penny they have, it's just pure greed, they don't need it.

    'your stealing from the artist' hmm, from that money you spend on a MP3/CD 2% goes to the artist, out of that 2% promotion for the album, tour costs and studio time is also taken. Your taking money from talentless manages and shareholders who sit around manipulating people.

    There so many open source type music communities around the net producing new original music I have no idea why people still buy into such poor repetitive music.

    It's also a very strange tactic by the entertainment industry this constant greed hasn't really stopped (slowed down maybe) illegal digital music sharing, it will just get smarter. What the entertainment industry has done is alienate consumers for no real reason.
     
  14. Uma888 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Birmingham, United Kingdom
    #14
    Didnt Apple just Screw over the Open Source community (thoses working on OpenDarwin) by NOT releasing certain tools?
     
  15. link92 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    #15
    Nope. Apple made a mistake, and some files were accidentally removed. They were put back in within 24 hours.
     
  16. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #16
    Such disinformation....

    A few artists are rich. A majority are just making ends meet.

    Stealing is not OK even if you try to justify it because you are stealing from greedy manipulative people.

    The greed is on the part of the music consumers who want something for nothing.

    From another post "Artists are not entitled to a profit"
    Artists are not guaranteed a profit from their work. They are ENTITLED to contol the distribution of their work in any way they choose, and they are ENTITLED to pursue a profit, if they can, through sales (whether independent or through the corporate music industry) and free from the threat of having their work copied by others without their permission.
     
  17. munkees macrumors 65816

    munkees

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    #17
    I don't understand why people want all this open source music, music is a product of the record company and some what the artist. The records labels /company. They record, market, then distribute the music, run promotions, advents, show etc. all this cost money, so when music is so open it will reduce the number of sales, and in the end, more and more poeple will have less choice of music, because the industry is not as profitable as it was.

    There is no problem with companies making profit. Apple has a great solutin and i agree with them to keep it tight and closed even close. even opening it up may not hurt apple, but it hurts the trust apple has built with the music instustry and in turn the artist.

    if linux is an example of how well open source is, then this industry sucks. Linux is ugly, and difficult and the code is full of lots of poorly writing code just hacked together. Apple has help the FreeBSD coumminty lots. and given lots back (BTW FreeBSD is one qualilty open source, has a core team to give QA).

    If linux had a company that developed a cool solution instead of this ugly distros, then you could compete with apple. Apple Solution of hardware and software is a good example of quality.

    It is a shame france is done what they have done.
     
  18. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    CanadaRAM pretty much covered what I was going to post. The "big name" artists in the music industry make up a tiny, fraction of a percent of the bands signed to labels. but they are a very high profile, tiny, fraction of a percent. To draw a parallel, there are about 90,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild and about 1% of them make a livable income from acting (my numbers are old, but the percentage hasn't really changed) If you include unsigned bands and non-muscians working in the recording industry (producers, engineers, equipment rental people, recording studio owners, etc.,) then the "super star" percent gets even smaller. It's like saying that everyone who works in the computer field is as rich as Gates, Dell, or Jobs.

    I don't work in the music industry, but in the TV/film industry and it is a major pet peeve to hear clueless people go on and on trying to justify not paying for music/movies by saying, "Well, so-and-so is super rich so it's okay." First off, I wasn't aware that after a person reaches a certain level of success it's okay to screw them out of money and secondly it's not the super stars you are going to hurt it's all the middle class "little people" working a base 50+hr weeks behind the scenes to make the TV show/film/record happen.

    Even though your pathic defense is, "Yeah, I'm screwin' corporate America" in reality you are screwing people just like you, your friends, and your family.


    Lethal
     
  19. howesey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    #19
    I work in the industry. I'm busy writing a report on the state of the record industry, and it's future. Should be finished by the end of the year.


    That web site is a very poor source. For a start, there is far more to copyright than just the RIAA. The RIAA only covers only the recording. Copyright is split into two parts, recording and publishing.

    A lot of indie companies are closing or finding it hard to compete. The majors are cutting jobs left, right and centre. Take EMI for example, they have gone from 34,638 employees in 1996, to 6,672 in 2005. All the other four majors are the same. Music is now more popular than ever. You can see and hear people listening to it all the time. You go onto a train, you see a lot of people listening to music, five years ago you may see one or two. It these things you have to think about. This huge increase in music has not come from mechanical or digital sales, it has come from digital piracy.
     
  20. howesey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    #20
    Just an attachment so you can see how bad p2p and bit-torrent really is on the web. This is sourced from CacheLogic.

    The purple part covers p2p and bit-torrent. It shows the how much trafic is moving around the Internet in one day. That purple part is a hell of a lot of traffic.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. crackpip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #21
    Small studies, which are usually in support of iTMS, have hinted that this is inaccurate. Instead suggesting that consumers will do the right thing as long as it is not significantly more inconvenient and a good value.


    Artists are not able to control their distribution any way they choose. Unless they sign on to a major label, they are often unable to get air time on radio or TV. Nor are they necessarily able to get their CD's distributed in stores. This provides a great deal of pressure (which many artists can resist, good for them) to sign to a major label. If they sign, they no longer control the distribution of their music.

    Even if this were not the case, saying they should be able to distribute their content any way they choose is incorrect. Of all of the distribution methods, there is a subset of those methods which is legal. Physical coercion, for example, is frowned upon. Within this subset of legal methods, there is a much smaller subset of ethical methods. But, this is business, and business people consider it to be like war (which is why Sun Tzu is an often recommended read for MBA's). To them, the ends justify the means.

    But, my above sentiment really drifts from the original point I was trying to make, which is the recording industry seems to be manipulating the numbers to justify adding new restrictions to their media. I am not convinced that piracy is responsible for the retreating profits in the music industry. It is just the industry's excuse for more draconian controls. The most significant source of piracy are the factories churning out counterfit CD's and such. These have been around for a long time.

    To go back to the parallels of war, it's just like the american war on terror. Terrorism is bad, thus you must accept that the government might be monitoring your phone calls. Piracy is bad, therefore you must accept the recording industries new restrictions on usage of media content. It's not really combating the reason profits are down, but it will help them in other ways.

    What I really have is the faint glimmer of hope, that people have started to react to the recording industry's tactics, and have started to shy away from buying new music altogether (latest reports say that piracy is down, but the recording industry's profits continue to fall). I hope that some point the industry will have to accept that their current state of unethical and sometimes illegal practices have destroyed their golden age, and a coup, perhaps by the artists themselves, will occur.

    crackpip
     
  22. princealfie thread starter macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #22
    No diggity. artists don't control their distribution anymore to be honest. In fact, they are now slaves to the industry to be honest. No wonder all the good jazz is from 1940's to 1970's when the artists were free to explore without too much politicking. Now we have cookie cutter jazz artists nowadays, what's up with that?

    In fact, I think that Apple balances a good part of open source and a wonderful GUI/profiting. But the greed of the CEO's of major recording labels is rather evident. In fact, rap music (good stuff only) rails against the so-called industry and I appreciate the truth from the underground. Only the main stream will fail in the long run.
     
  23. munkees macrumors 65816

    munkees

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    #23

    I have to point out that went the artists start performing it is with the intent to make booty. They want to make money don't care what flavor of music, they main reason, is it is a job, a possible source of income. Yes, they might enjoy other aspects of performance, but even that is not possible with out booty.

    Therefore this artist sign with record labels, why, so the label can do the work for them, get them recorded, produced, distrube to radio etc, orgainise shows, and public showing to get names out.

    It a business music is a product. We are lucky that there are large companies, if the industry was ran buy smaller companies, music now would cost more.

    The artist is a small part of the industry, they are the product producer. priracy is killing the industry, regardless how the CEO of such and such is still lining his pockets with cash (all CEO line pockets with cash).

    I say keep music and movies secure, may be make a means to transfering the secure information from one format to another is a better appoach. I am all for freedom of platform for enjoying my media, but I don't care if it is protected, I pay for it, they for I don't care?

    Priracy is stealing, and it goes to show how many people today lack an morals that they complain about stealing. Shame on all of us, what a crap world we really live in, people are to dam selfess. I guess france like other nations are just whining babies that complain about every thing not being easy and on a plate for them. We all I have to say, EARN IT, PAY FOR IT, ENJOY IT. Nothhing is for free, well nothing really of qualilty.
     
  24. crackpip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #24
    That website is pretty well organized and has probably hundreds of pages of material describing how the RIAA has been misrepresenting their numbers. Two vague sentences will hardly convince me to discard the information contained in that website.


    Thank you for a few more hard facts. But I am again reminded that this was during a serious recession in the US, one that we have not come out of yet, where a lot of companies closed and a lot of people lost their jobs. It's not unreasonable that even more people had to tighten their entertainment budget. Also, the music industry has come under considerable pressure from the perceived value of other media choices (e.g. the often less expensive DVD's).

    I agree that there has been a huge increase in music listening and that it has not come from physical or digital sales. The increase has come because listening to music is much more convenient. People can take their favorite songs from 1000 CD's and carry it with them in a device the size of a cigarette lighter. But, I dispute the fact that most music that people have with them on mp3 players is illegal. People on the train have been alive long enough to have amassed a CD collection. It is not illegal, at least in the US, to encode your CD's and put them on your iPod. However, this will not lead to more sales. Also, maybe people aren't enamored with the current music scene? Preferring instead to listen to things they like.

    It's these things the music industry needs to think about.

    crackpip

    Since you quoted me, I will respond to a few things.

    First of all, I am not an advocate of piracy. I do not feel that the unethical/illegal practices of the content distributers justify piracy. I believe the adage two wrongs don't make a right. Civil disobedience is another commonly used justification and is equally lame. If I was going to protest using civil disobedience, you would see a website with my real name address, phone number, and a list of every song that I've ever downloaded. I would also send my URL to every law firm representing the recording industry, as well as every newspaper, at least once a week.

    Second, as I've stated already, I dispute the claim that piracy is the cause of the recording industry's woes.

    Third, so you're admitting that the oligopoly is unethically "lining their pockets", but everyone else does it so that makes it ok? This is similar to an often used rationalization used for pirating music files. You don't think this might be a long-term problem for companies? Ever heard of Enron?

    You're for locking down of media, but then in the next line you talk about the freedom to use your purchased media the way you want. This is exactly the kind of thing they are trying to forbid, all in the name of combating piracy. What they want is for you to have to buy a product multiple times for different uses. "You want that movie for your Blu-Ray player? Great, $25 please. Oh and you want it for your iPod Video? No problem, that will be another $10."

    And what economics crackpipe are you smoking? (Maybe we should exchange logins.);) Monopolies, or in this case an oligopoly, and the associated lack of competition do not lead to lower prices. Since you seem to have forgotten, in the US and EU, legal action against the five major record labels (resulting in a $480 million settlement in the US) was taken for price-fixing.

    crackpip
     
  25. DeeJay Dan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #25
    This is what I think of DRM..

    I don't like being treated like a criminal. You download a song from Itunes, then burn it to a disc, and move it on to your ipod after that it won't transfer again. (I'm not sure of the numbers but you can only move a DRM "protected" file so many times)

    Here I would doing the right thing paying for the song which at .99 cents is a rip off. If you were to buy a whole album song by song it would cost more than a CD would and the record company isn't paying to produce a CD, print artwork, for CD cases, nor are they paying to ship it all over the world to various distributors.

    So I pay for a song, I supposedly own the rights to play that song, be it on my computer, iPod, home stereo, car stereo, or at a friend's house. Not so with DRM you can only copy it so many times.

    The bottomline is if I'm paying for something I should be able to use it again and again. I can buy a CD and play it anywhere, copy it over and over again (if I wanted to). If you download a song from say Itunes, it's tied to your Itunes account, say you buy a new computer you have to go through a hassle to get the music back.

    There will always be work-arounds to disable DRM, they simplest way is to burn an audio CD and rerip. As DRM gets more advanced and complicated so will the piracy experts.

    I'm a DJ and buy all my music on CD, yet I use Limewire to download music. Mainly because it's easier to throw on my MP3 player, did I steal the music? No I own most of it on CD already it's just easier for me. I don't have to rip and encode which can be a time consuming process.

    Another thing is labels re-releasing records. You hear a song on the radio that you really like so you buy the album, you think it's the song you want but the song that's playing on the radio is a remix. 2 weeks later the label releases the same album again but adds that popular remix on as the last track. Now if you want the song you thought you orignally bought you have to go buy another CD with the same exact songs on it. Labels do this frequently, it's nothing but a slight-o-hand trick. I will never buy the same album again for a remix. I'm luck though I get most songs the same time the radio does though a subscription service.

    The labels have been screwing consumers for years. Now that labels were blind sighted by P2P they're crying. As the saying goes do on to others as you'd want done to you.
     

Share This Page