This is a very informed opinion. If you ain't yet, you should become a politician (preferably in the equally tolerant ruling party). They have great use for people with a such deep understanding of things.hcuar said:
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.
Licensing FairPlay (Apple iTunes DRM)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kaafir said:I'm freakin sick of the ITMS.
I love iTunes and my iPod, but purchasing music that can only be put on an iPod is crap. There may be a better player out later which I want to go to and then *poof* my ITMS purchased tracks are crap.
www.allofmp3.com
It's (significantly) cheaper.
It's better.
'Nuff said.
Hmmn, have just tried 3 times to buy a PIN through Alltunes...card declined all 3 times, they SAY. Funny but it works everywhere else, including iTMS.
will be checking my bank balance JUST IN CASE!
So, it's NOT better in my experience.
i think it would be great if apple made it easy for others to make their own storefront within the apple itunes store.
i.e. Indie labels could set up within the online store and use the DRM...
the goal is to provide more content to consumers without destroying the experience.
i.e. Indie labels could set up within the online store and use the DRM...
the goal is to provide more content to consumers without destroying the experience.
That is kind of a silly statement.hcuar said:
What DVD Jon has done is made it possible for OTHER companies to get in on the action and offer content for US, the users of the iPod. I commend him and more importantly I look for other content that is better than 128 kbps and doesn't cost 99 cents per song.
RichP said:
Even if they could... would you pay $.79 for something that might not work in the next release of iTunes software?
Stop Him!
For sure, and hope sooner rather than later. I love what that guy did for the deCSS stuff but hate him for messing with my Apple
Apple leagal better kick the crap out of that guy until he stops for a little while at least.
The more he exploits it the worse it looks on Apple and the less content people will want to put on it. (In some ways)
But Apple should have the right to keep iPod/iTS closed from others is they want to.
Elijahg said:
For sure, and hope sooner rather than later. I love what that guy did for the deCSS stuff but hate him for messing with my Apple
Apple leagal better kick the crap out of that guy until he stops for a little while at least.
The more he exploits it the worse it looks on Apple and the less content people will want to put on it. (In some ways)
But Apple should have the right to keep iPod/iTS closed from others is they want to.
I'm an Apple fan through and through, but are you guys listening to yourselves?
It's fine when DVD John breaks Macrovision, but not ok when he messes with DRM?
Who's messing with the consumer more? A movie studio that offers you a phsyicaly DVD they have to package and distribute full of extras (sometimes more than one disc) for, like, $14.99? Or a record company teaming with Apple to charge $0.99 for intellectual property packed in ones and zeroes?
(If ever there were a less-of-two-evils situation, this is it!).
In any case, I think it's wrong and actually don't like seeing this happen to Apple, but I think it's just as wrong as messing with DVDs or or any other's companies products. They have a right to offer their produts with whatever protection they wish and lock out competitors, and if consumers don't like it, they shouldn't buy it.
As for the whole "how much does the iTunes make for Apple" debate, I think the person who calculated $1.5 million a year was way under. He assumed .5 cents per track, but I believe it's more like 2 or 3 cents per track Apple makes. Plus, saying $1.5 million is just a fraction of Apple's profit is a lame argument. How much do you think boxed copies iWork contributed to Apple's bottom line in '05? Less than that, I bet. Or how about the Mighty Mouse? Any one SKU in Apple's lineup isn't going to amount to much - when added together, it's what gives them their incredible sales figures.
It's fine when DVD John breaks Macrovision, but not ok when he messes with DRM?
Who's messing with the consumer more? A movie studio that offers you a phsyicaly DVD they have to package and distribute full of extras (sometimes more than one disc) for, like, $14.99? Or a record company teaming with Apple to charge $0.99 for intellectual property packed in ones and zeroes?
(If ever there were a less-of-two-evils situation, this is it!).
In any case, I think it's wrong and actually don't like seeing this happen to Apple, but I think it's just as wrong as messing with DVDs or or any other's companies products. They have a right to offer their produts with whatever protection they wish and lock out competitors, and if consumers don't like it, they shouldn't buy it.
As for the whole "how much does the iTunes make for Apple" debate, I think the person who calculated $1.5 million a year was way under. He assumed .5 cents per track, but I believe it's more like 2 or 3 cents per track Apple makes. Plus, saying $1.5 million is just a fraction of Apple's profit is a lame argument. How much do you think boxed copies iWork contributed to Apple's bottom line in '05? Less than that, I bet. Or how about the Mighty Mouse? Any one SKU in Apple's lineup isn't going to amount to much - when added together, it's what gives them their incredible sales figures.
dbassett said:
You see, that's the beauty of this scheme. They're not taking anything from anyone. They're *giving* companies the ability to play nice with iPods.
It's theft disguised as charity...
jobberwacky said:This is a very informed opinion. If you ain't yet, you should become a politician (preferably in the equally tolerant ruling party). They have great use for people with a such deep understanding of things.
Actually, I've read the same about "DVD Jon". Apparently he stole most of the code for DeCSS anyway, and the part he wrote was pretty pitiful. I've read some of his forum posts and he certainly doesn't sound like an intelligent guy. He might have had somebody else do the reverse engineering and just put his name on it so that the media would run a story along the lines of "Guy who cracked DVD encryption crack's iTunes encryption also!"
If this means that I can burn iTMS DRM'ed video content to a DVD and play it back in my home DVD player, I'm all for it. I might actually purchase iTMS video content then. I have a 23 inch Apple monitor, but it's not the same as watching the movie in the living room. As soon as Apple lets me use my video content the way they let me use my audio content, I've got a long list of videos waiting to be bought.
But Can it...
Can DVD Jon's DRM be so similar to Apple's that when iTunes updates and goes looking for Firplay protected content, it finds content protected by DVD Jon's DRM and updates that too?
Porco said: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?
Can DVD Jon's DRM be so similar to Apple's that when iTunes updates and goes looking for Firplay protected content, it finds content protected by DVD Jon's DRM and updates that too?
Me too. I hope he does the same to Microsoft's DRM now. Force them, Apple and all the other providers to come up with and support a common DRM standard that no single company owns.KingYaba said:I applaud Johansen
No vendor lock in and no more Mac marginalisation. Great!!
i'm not sure if this has been covered already, but...
other companies being able to sell DRM'd content for use with the ipod = good for apple (sells more hardware).
other companies being able to use apple's DRM'd content on their devices = bad for apple (sells more software/content).
as always, apple makes money from hardware sales, not software. the at cost/loss leading software is there to lure people to the high margin hardware. this simple point often escapes people and leads to wild and inaccurate speculation.
other companies being able to sell DRM'd content for use with the ipod = good for apple (sells more hardware).
other companies being able to use apple's DRM'd content on their devices = bad for apple (sells more software/content).
as always, apple makes money from hardware sales, not software. the at cost/loss leading software is there to lure people to the high margin hardware. this simple point often escapes people and leads to wild and inaccurate speculation.
stoid said:
I did not say they were making a half cent on each sell, i said I could only dream of pocketing a half cent on each sell personally. I an not such an idiot to think 1.8 mil annually is enough for a company with $10 Billion in cash reserves to to be interested in . The point I was attempting to make, is small numbers with big multipliers are IMPORTANT and a revenue stream of greater importance than acknowledged. Further to my point it has been acknowledged by Jobs and his critics that the reason the iPod is a huge is because it is part of a complete system. Loose iTunes and you loose the dominance of the iPod, just ask the folks at Creative. Pennies on the dollar, or dimes on the dollar, iTunes is a big business supporting a much bigger business. Remember before iTunes and the iPod you could not shut the Apple doom sayers up and Apple stock was something someone making $50K a year could buy without dipping into the savings account. Apple wasn't a player in the personal electronics business either.
wkhahn said:
All I'm saying is, if you like to buy music from the iTunes Music Store, it's not a good idea to buy a non-licensed player [e.g. iPod] whilst relying on a hack. If Apple decide you need iTunes 7.2 to use the Music Store then you're stuck waiting for DVD Jon to work some more. Fine if you like waiting a few years to unlock your music, but then why not just buy the CD if you're going to wait that long?
I hate DRM by the way, but personally I think if you're going to this much trouble you might as well buy the music from another online store or just buy and rip the CD...
This has not really been the case, though. When VHS was replaced by DVD, you didn't get the new media for free. Being locked into a particular platform occurs all the time--toner cartridges for printers aren't standardized, for example. I can't use Comcast's on demand to buy programs, then switch to DirecTV and have them transferred. When I buy the latest video game, it doesn't come packaged with PS2, PC, Mac, and XBOX versions.Kelmon said:
See the theme? If you choose a limited hardware platform, you must accept the constraints of that platform. CDs are universal because the standard was universal (Sony, Philips, etc. formed a consortium from the get-go)--multiple manufacturers make CD players. Here, the content is the same but the packaging is different--cassette, CD, M4A. Only Apple makes M4A players.
By purchasing a song from iTunes, you are receiving the file with limitations. The reason for the price is bundling. If you want a product with no restrictions, which you want to use to the fullest extent of fair use (or beyond, if you so choose), you have to look elsewhere. You're not being denied fair use when you rent a movie on VHS for $2 when the DVD rental is $4...and you don't get to rent the VHS, then make a DVD just to save $2. Likewise, you're not paying for an unrestricted copy of the song on iTunes, and you aren't entitled to treat it as such using "fair use" as an excuse.
If you want unencumbered music, pay for the CD. If you want instant gratification and a lower price, then be an adult and accept the DRM. The option you want is out there and legally available--it's just that CDs are a "bad value." Likewise, iTunes tracks are probably a "bad value" to many people who think 99 cents should entitle them to DRM-free files. Should DRMed digital files be cheaper? I think so. But that's no excuse to go beyond the clear and publicized terms of my payment.
Nobody wants to buy things twice, but that's no excuse. I have piles of spare tools that fit cars I no longer own; toner cartridges for printers I no longer own; memory cards for cameras I no longer own; and floppy disks for computers I no longer own. Each time I switch companies, I have to deal with the consequences of my prior purchases.
dynamicv said:Me too. I hope he does the same to Microsoft's DRM now. Force them, Apple and all the other providers to come up with and support a common DRM standard that no single company owns.
No vendor lock in and no more Mac marginalisation. Great!!
Then why not do the same with Office and windows game companies and X360 (no mac support)
Their has to be a dominant player in every market... THATS LIFE
Marginalisation How so??? Apple has continually raised the bar for other companies online stores and players to be better so that they can even compete with the iPod and iTS.