Licensing FairPlay (Apple iTunes DRM)

[MacRumors]

CNN posted followup to the previous news that Jon Lech Johansen ("DVD Jon") had reverse engineered Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights Management (DRM) format.

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

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

DVD Jon had previously circumvented FairPlay's DRM in 2003, and since then multiple other tools have appeared to provide similar functionality for updated versions of Quicktime/iTunes. Jon is also credited for developing an algorithm named deCSS to strip a DVD of its encryption (called Content Scramble System, or CSS), hence his nickname.

 

[tvguru]

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

 

[nbs2]

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

 

[danp]

Bad news for iTunes Music Store.

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

 

[emotion]

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

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

 

[iMeowbot]

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

 

[Catt]

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

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

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

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

 

[Elijahg]

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

 

[BornAgainMac]

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

 

[Digitalclips]

Threat?

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

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

 

[iMeowbot]

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

You can, with limitations. If you burn to CD, then rip to a lossless format, you can put an exact copy on anything. Right now the resulting larger files really do present a problem when moving to other players (unless you're willing to accept recompression losses), but time will erase this as storage density goes up and prices drop.

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

 

[crees!]

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

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

 

[hvfsl]

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

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

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

 

[mrgreen4242]

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

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

 

[Rychiar]

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

 

[cherrypop]

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

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

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

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

 

[RichP]

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

 

[Porco]

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

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

iTunes update on Tuesday?

 

[MarcelV]

Not a thread....

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

 

[nagusjim]

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

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

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

 

[schatten]

What gives him the right, though?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hcuar]

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

 

[ITR 81]

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

Walmart sells them for $0.88cents a pop.

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

 

[brepublican]

It has a great selection for a price cheaper than most CDs.

Albeit at a lesser quality. But I agree with you.

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

I really dont know what position to take on this

 

[Clive At Five]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Clive