I am simply amazed that media conglomerates still think these kinds of measures will be effective in any way what so ever. Then again there seems to be little doubt this mostly boils down to NBC's incipient paranoia that Apple will become the goliath of the media distribution.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Refused to Build Copyright Filters for iPod
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great, I'm all for it. People should be paid for their work. But this fab copyright filtering software is not going to be able to tell the difference between the first 3 seasons of ER ripped from someone's retail DVD sets and distributed via P2P file-sharing and the first 3 seasons of ER ripped from MY DVD sets I PURCHASED at SIGNIFICANT cost for TV programs, and for convenience would like to play via my iPhod (iPhone or iPod) or AppleTV. So, good for Apple. That's not promoting piracy, rather that's just not crippling people who pay for their entertainment but refuse to pay for it over and again in seven formats to enjoy it as suits the circumstances of the day.
Considering how the people who bought music with Microsoft DRM pre-Zune have just been told "tough luck" and will no longer be able to authorize music they already paid for... I'll side with Apple against DRM for sure! I'll also happily shop at Amazon, if iTunes doesn't have a DRM-free version of a track I want.
Here's a take I found interesting (saw the link at DaringFireball):
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/05/why-apple-is-more-expensive-than-amazon.html
Sounds plausible to me.
(Mostly positive comments but mostly negative votes?)
Here's a take I found interesting (saw the link at DaringFireball):
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/05/why-apple-is-more-expensive-than-amazon.html
Sounds plausible to me.
(Mostly positive comments but mostly negative votes?)
You could also say not being able to make a dvd out of the digital copy violates fair use.
Excuse my narrow-mindedness, but I've never understood this argument. These TV shows (most of which from NBC aren't very good, anyway) are free to the public via television. While I realize that selling their shows via a medium such as iTunes or the Zune Store (god forbid) brings in extra revenue for them, why are they going to such lengths to "fight piracy"? I mean, how is it even really piracy when it's something that's offered to the public as free in the first place via their television? What's to stop me from hooking up my VCR and videotaping their shows? Would they consider that piracy?
I dunno... maybe I'm just missing the big picture... it's all so very odd to me.
I dunno... maybe I'm just missing the big picture... it's all so very odd to me.
MS stands for money.
I can understand NBC wanting to protect their product. But what was to gain from this? Look at the, dare i say thousands, of shows sold weekly on itunes.....why wouldn't they want a piece if that? I mean really, how many episodes do they think they are going to sell in the Zune store?
The fact that MS caved is simple. They want something
doesn't have...NBC. The networks are like the recording industry, they have ruled with an iron fist for so long now that having a retail outlet like iTunes dictate the trend and the pricing puts them off.
The reality is that they will come back to itunes, for the same reason they would sell to Walmart. Even though you are told what the price will be and what you will make, you will sell 30x more than any other place singularly.
They are playing hardball with itunes, like some others...and all are being sold their AGAIN. Wait for NBC's stock to keep falling, then the action happens. . . . .
I can understand NBC wanting to protect their product. But what was to gain from this? Look at the, dare i say thousands, of shows sold weekly on itunes.....why wouldn't they want a piece if that? I mean really, how many episodes do they think they are going to sell in the Zune store?
The fact that MS caved is simple. They want something
doesn't have...NBC. The networks are like the recording industry, they have ruled with an iron fist for so long now that having a retail outlet like iTunes dictate the trend and the pricing puts them off. The reality is that they will come back to itunes, for the same reason they would sell to Walmart. Even though you are told what the price will be and what you will make, you will sell 30x more than any other place singularly.
They are playing hardball with itunes, like some others...and all are being sold their AGAIN. Wait for NBC's stock to keep falling, then the action happens. . . . .
ms
Funny you say that - MS is absorbing the costs for higher priced content for unified pricing on the Zune. Another desperate move toward becoming a significant player in the market. This is not unlike the hundreds of millions they lose each year with each subsidized XBox sale.
This feels fishey;
Microsoft must have paid them to do this.
It could be the first Zune add that I see more than once.
Funny you say that - MS is absorbing the costs for higher priced content for unified pricing on the Zune. Another desperate move toward becoming a significant player in the market. This is not unlike the hundreds of millions they lose each year with each subsidized XBox sale.
Thanks arn.
That's just (insert word combination of stupid, bogus, crazy, etc. here).
I buy a DVD from anywhere. I paid $25 dollars for it. I play it in my DVD player, in my computer, but then I can't play it on my iPod because it's classified as illegal.
I have to say Apple made the right move here. Anyone who buys into this is crazy, unless they solve the problem of putting a DVD on your device.
Filtering
My guess is that this doesn't really matter to Apple. Their business model is to run iTunes at cost and use it to increase hardware sales. If Apple's performance for the last couple of quarters are any indication, people don't really care if NBC's content is available on iTunes.
There's no reason to believe that making their content available to the Zune Market will result in anything better. Zune is mainly for people that have irrational reasons for not liking Apple products (e.g. it's popular, etc). MS can appeal to these goonies all it wants but I doubt the strategy will make them much money.
It's unfortunate that NBC is making decisions based on fantasies and an anachronistic business model. Apple understands that cramming whatever filtering ideas NBC had into their products would probably significantly reduce the performance of the portable device and negatively impact the user experience for arguably no gain in the anti piracy war. This is purely a business decision by Apple and has nothing to do with protecting our access to content.
My guess is that this doesn't really matter to Apple. Their business model is to run iTunes at cost and use it to increase hardware sales. If Apple's performance for the last couple of quarters are any indication, people don't really care if NBC's content is available on iTunes.
There's no reason to believe that making their content available to the Zune Market will result in anything better. Zune is mainly for people that have irrational reasons for not liking Apple products (e.g. it's popular, etc). MS can appeal to these goonies all it wants but I doubt the strategy will make them much money.
It's unfortunate that NBC is making decisions based on fantasies and an anachronistic business model. Apple understands that cramming whatever filtering ideas NBC had into their products would probably significantly reduce the performance of the portable device and negatively impact the user experience for arguably no gain in the anti piracy war. This is purely a business decision by Apple and has nothing to do with protecting our access to content
.MS stands for money.
I can understand NBC wanting to protect their product. But what was to gain from this? Look at the, dare i say thousands, of shows sold weekly on itunes.....why wouldn't they want a piece if that? I mean really, how many episodes do they think they are going to sell in the Zune store?
The fact that MS caved is simple. They want something
The reality is that they will come back to itunes, for the same reason they would sell to Walmart. Even though you are told what the price will be and what you will make, you will sell 30x more than any other place singularly.
They are playing hardball with itunes, like some others...and all are being sold their AGAIN. Wait for NBC's stock to keep falling, then the action happens. . . . .
Well Microsoft does technically have a vested interest in MSNBC, similarly to that of Steve Jobs vested interest in Disney and thus ABC. This could partially account for the amount of sway and input they seem to have in NBCs digital moves, or in the least with them being the group chosen for distributing content.
Sure it will, MicroNBC says ..... You bunch of croocks, no longer can play content we think is pirated. Does not mater if you think the content is legal, prove your innocence, otherwise you are guilty.
A**H***s have a tendency of being Anal, they can't help it.
How can this be anything other than posturing considering NBC/Universal is allowing their shows in the UK iTunes Store?
http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/05/06/itunes.uk..nbc.universal/
http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/05/06/itunes.uk..nbc.universal/
Also, the issue of ripping DVDs being "fair use" in copyright terminology is still up for debate. In the CD realm, you never broke any encryption to obtain the content. In the DVD realm, you do.
Well said!
Studies have shown that DRM-free content generally does not end up in P2P traffic. Most of that content is ripped straight from a DVD or CD.
What I find most amusing about all this is that NBC broadcasts its content over the airaves for FREE. NBC take out the commercials and all of a sudden it needs to be protected like it's worth a billion dollars. Why not just play the shows on NBC.com with the commercials if they are so bent out of shape. Besides Thursday night what the hell is even on NBC worth downloading in the first place?
ahh, i almost forgot, nice catch. Now that you mention it, this is kind of seems like they slapped apple knowing they were going to sell (heh, play on words) in the Zune store. NBC can say that taught apple a lesson, but really just made sure that ONLY the 38 people who bought a Zune can play their stuff.
Like I said, this will change in time. . .
Wow and people were getting pissed at apple for locking itunes users to the ipod.
Sounds like the zune will be labeled as device that plays only bought content.
Stupid if you ask me.
Sounds like the zune will be labeled as device that plays only bought content.
Stupid if you ask me.
It's such BS. When are these stuffy headed old dogs at the top going to understand that people are going to steal content no matter what? It's a waste of time, resources, and money to put all these useless DRM steps in place. The only people that get screwed are the people who are actually buying the stuff. Smarten up NBC.
i will say i am a HUGE fan of hulu just for that reason (they are nbc by the way). on demand shows for free with short commercials
another reason why i like apple. they see that this is not going to make it, and not going to make people happy either.
but something doesn't sound quite right about all of this
but something doesn't sound quite right about all of this
So... Why not?
I see a lot of posters praising Apple, saying it was good of them to make this decision. And I agree, from an average user's point of view it is. Even if that user doesn't download his content from free source, be they legal or not. But that doesn't explain Apple's reasoning. Why wouldn't Apple grant NBC's wish?
Yes, DRM has become an hot topic in recent months. So, creating a new DRM system could generate some bad press. However, it would by easy to 'blame this one on NBC'. Moreover, the loss of content from NBC generated some equal bad press, not to mention the loss of revenue. And, related to that, it would give them another 'free' tie-in between content and their one players, which could be lost if NBC complied with what now appear to ne Apple's own terms. Good news from a user point of view (Go Apple, defender of freedom!) but in my opinion it doesn't make much sense from a business point of view.
So, Apple, why not? Did they gamble and lose - for the moment, at least - on NBC backing down since iTunes has become too big to ignore? Do they really consider DRM to be so bad now that they won't touch a new version no matter what? Or did Mr. Jobs simply feel he couldn't back out of another promise since '3 Ghz next year'?
I see a lot of posters praising Apple, saying it was good of them to make this decision. And I agree, from an average user's point of view it is. Even if that user doesn't download his content from free source, be they legal or not. But that doesn't explain Apple's reasoning. Why wouldn't Apple grant NBC's wish?
Yes, DRM has become an hot topic in recent months. So, creating a new DRM system could generate some bad press. However, it would by easy to 'blame this one on NBC'. Moreover, the loss of content from NBC generated some equal bad press, not to mention the loss of revenue. And, related to that, it would give them another 'free' tie-in between content and their one players, which could be lost if NBC complied with what now appear to ne Apple's own terms. Good news from a user point of view (Go Apple, defender of freedom!) but in my opinion it doesn't make much sense from a business point of view.
So, Apple, why not? Did they gamble and lose - for the moment, at least - on NBC backing down since iTunes has become too big to ignore? Do they really consider DRM to be so bad now that they won't touch a new version no matter what? Or did Mr. Jobs simply feel he couldn't back out of another promise since '3 Ghz next year'?
That's dumb. What if I want to make copies of my DVDs I already own? How would it know that I am trying to play a legit copy vs. a downloaded copy? That also assumes that the quality NBC/Microsoft post is what everyone wants.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a mishap with music DRMs where Microsoft's MSN Music (I can't remember) stopped supporting the DRMs and all the users couldn't play their music anymore? I can't find the article, but I could have sworn something like that just happened. It would be hilarious if that happens again...
With all the effort going to developing DRMs for video, that cost has to go somewhere. Most likely be added it to the cost of the video you are purchasing. Probably end up costing as much as the DVDs. Yup, that'll stop people from pirating!
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a mishap with music DRMs where Microsoft's MSN Music (I can't remember) stopped supporting the DRMs and all the users couldn't play their music anymore? I can't find the article, but I could have sworn something like that just happened. It would be hilarious if that happens again...
With all the effort going to developing DRMs for video, that cost has to go somewhere. Most likely be added it to the cost of the video you are purchasing. Probably end up costing as much as the DVDs. Yup, that'll stop people from pirating!
Fair use must be the most misunderstood word in copyright law.
It has to do with how many notes in a new composition may be the same as notes in a previously copyrighted song. It has nothing to do with copying your copy of an underlying work. Remember, when you buy a song, you never own the song.
Only the songwriter, publisher, their heirs and assigns own the song. You own a copy of it, not the underlying work
Anyway... way to go Apple. The biggest problem with DRM schemes are the false positives.