Licensing FairPlay (Apple iTunes DRM)

[mac4evan]

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.

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.

Bravo Bravo Bravo my friend!

 

[danp]

The option you want is out there and legally available--it's just that CDs are a "bad value."

I don't know what CD prices are like in the US, but here in the UK they are far from "bad value" compared to tracks on iTunes.

Most new CDs can be picked up for around £8 at the major supermarkets or online from places like play.com or cdwow.com. For this £8 I get a physical item (complete with inlay) that I can keep forever. I put it in my Mac, rip it to iTunes and I _also_ get a DRM-free mp3 version at any bit rate I require. Should I choose to ditch my iPod at some point in the future and move to a rival player, my ripped tunes will still work. And if they don't, I have the physical CD to fall back on.

For the same money on iTunes I get nothing more than a file on my Mac whose lifespan is subject to the whim of the hardware I use and the company that oversees it. I'm locked in to iPod.

CDs don't seem to be bad value to me.

 

[weitzner]

It's not like a hidden thing that iTunes purchases will only play in iTunes or on an iPod - every single person who buys from the store knows this beforehand. The justification is the exact same justification for locking Mac OS X to Apple's hardware. So if you buy from the iTunes store, you have agrred to accept the fact that the file will only play on iPods and iTunes and have no reason to be mad at Apple for this- if you don't like the DRM, don't buy from iTunes: buying the CD and ripping it is always a DRM-free way to get your music on whatever player you should choose.

Also, doesn't DMCA make reverse engineering this sort of stuff illegal? I'm no fan of the DMCA, but still, this plan of profiting off of a reverse engineered technology is not going to fly.

 

[WildPalms]

Bad news for iTunes Music Store.

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

No. Not a good thing for iPod users.

 

[WildPalms]

Enough whining about DRM

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.

Exactly. And at the end of the day, I dont understand all the whining from some people. This is directed at those people who keep whining about Apples DRM...

If you dont want to buy your music from iTunes, then dont, you can buy it elsewhere and still use it on your iPod. But dont you dare presume to start telling a company how they should and shouldnt be running their online store when you have a choice. Its real simple. If you dont like Apple's DRM, DONT BUY YOUR MUSIC FROM ITUNES.

 

[WildPalms]

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.

Its also illegal in our country.
You've definitely said enough.

 

[mozmac]

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

so double the killer delete select all

I am quoting you because I LOVE your signature. That is a classic video that I have shown to many people.

Apple is starting to get a taste of the medicine Microsoft has been dealing with for years. I guess it means that Apple is becoming even more mainstream. Why would people go through so much trouble to crack it if it wasn't so popular?

(And by the way...I also love the new spell checking feature in Firefox 2. Why did it take so long and why did I never realize how much I needed it?)

 

[Queso]

Then why not do the same with Office and windows game companies and X360 (no mac support)

If you mean the Office formats, then yes they should, since as with music Microsoft do not create the contained data, they just wrap a format around it. However there is a huge difference between DRMd media content and PC/XBox games. The games cost the companies millions to develop on each platform, and it is their intellectual property in the first place. Adding DRM to someone else's music takes a push of a button.

There has to be a dominant player in every market... THATS LIFE

I don't get your logic there at all. As I've just said, DRMd media isn't the same as software. If I didn't want a dominant Sony Walkman 20 years ago, I bought a Panasonic and my tapes still played. If I decided my Philips DVD Player was rubbish, I could buy a JVC and the DVDs still played. As far as I'm concerned, anything I OWN, I should have fair use rights over, even if I wish to change the make of my player. Steve Jobs makes a big deal about us OWNING our music when we buy from iTunes. If I truly own it, I should have the right to use it how I wish. Which is it?

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.

That part of the comment was aimed more at the Microsoft DRM. I've been locked out of two streaming services now that I used to pay for, simply because they suddenly started requiring Windows DRM. Flip4Mac want to add Windows DRM to their Mac product and re-open such services to Mac users, but Microsoft won't let them. There are Linux users similarly locked out of iTunes. Therefore I have to conclude that any one company having rights over my ability to access paid-for content on the Internet isn't in my or your interests, even if that company is Apple.

If DRM is necessary, it should be interoperable between different manufacturers. The aim of it should be to prevent illegal copying, not allow vendor lock in.

 

[iPie]

Yay!

I can only be too happy to see a system that limits my freedom to do what I want with the things that I buy falls by the wayside. I applaud those who contribute to my freedom!

Yes, I have heard that I can choose not to buy. And I have done exactly that for the reason above!

(Even though I have two apples and an ipod).

It's really not my problem if the iTune store suffers, it should!!!

 

[savar]

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!"

To followup on my own post, that was very close to the headline which CNN QuickNews sent me only a few hours later. I doubt DVD Jon had much to do with this at all. It's just branding.

 

[matticus008]

The games cost the companies millions to develop on each platform, and it is their intellectual property in the first place. Adding DRM to someone else's music takes a push of a button.

Which costs tens millions to operate and to license. Keep in mind that it's not any given music service which elects to use DRM, it's the recording companies that insist upon it. The reason why Fairplay is relatively lenient compared to other schemes is that it is locked down to a narrow set of compatible devices. You can copy your music to any number of iPods, for example--which goes far beyond "fair use" under the law. Win some, lose some.

I don't get your logic there at all. As I've just said, DRMd media isn't the same as software. If I didn't want a dominant Sony Walkman 20 years ago, I bought a Panasonic and my tapes still played. If I decided my Philips DVD Player was rubbish, I could buy a JVC and the DVDs still played.

You bought into an available open standard. There were competing proprietary ones as well--just none as popular as CD or DVD. There is still an available open standard (albeit often at a higher price per track). The availability of more limited music doesn't limit you one bit. You chose the limited version over the unencumbered one because it was faster, easier, and/or more customizable.

As far as I'm concerned, anything I OWN, I should have fair use rights over, even if I wish to change the make of my player. Steve Jobs makes a big deal about us OWNING our music when we buy from iTunes. If I truly own it, I should have the right to use it how I wish. Which is it?

You do own the DRMed music file. You can use it without continued payment and without time limits. Ownership of the intellectual property of others has always been nuanced. There's ownership of content (lyrics, performance, etc. can all have different owners), of distribution (including licensing for public performance), of a license to the media (on a CD belonging to you or in a digital file under your control), and of course various forms of renting and leasing. When you buy music from iTunes (or any other pay-once service), you have indefinite (timewise) usage rights and control of that license. You do not, nor can Apple legally grant you, total control over the file.

If DRM is necessary, it should be interoperable between different manufacturers. The aim of it should be to prevent illegal copying, not allow vendor lock in.

There's nothing wrong with vendor lock-in so long as an easily attainable, universal solution also exists. Since you are not obligated to buy anything from iTMS if you own an iPod, there is no justifiable harm. What I would like to see is a service permitting you to assemble custom CDs from individual tracks (instead of being forced to buy entire albums) and lower prices from iTunes. Both of these require the recording industry to embrace the Internet, rather than fight it.

 

[danp]

No. Not a good thing for iPod users.

As a fairly typical iPod owner, I fail to see why.

For those that currently use iTMS, the presence of other music providers supplying and actively marketing "iPod compatible" tracks will create competition that Apple currently don't have. This will drive prices down, or force Apple to add value to their own offerings. (For those that don't buy via iTMS, instead choosing to rip CDs or use P2P networks, it makes no difference either way).

For the broader market, increased availabilty of "iPod compatible" tracks from various suppliers can only enhance the iPods appeal. Clearly it would be preferable for Apple to licence their actual DRM to other suppliers, but they won't. This is a happy workaround.

Either way, I see this as a positive for iPod users. If you, personally, have an objection to the competition or prefer the integrated approach offered by Apple, keep on using iTMS. Simple.

 

[matticus008]

For those that currently use iTMS, the presence of other music providers supplying and actively marketing "iPod compatible" tracks will create competition that Apple currently don't have. This will drive prices down, or force Apple to add value to their own offerings. (For those that don't buy via iTMS, instead choosing to rip CDs or use P2P networks, it makes no difference either way).

This assumes that Apple sets prices and controls content. It really doesn't--the store is barely above break-even, and Apple owns none of the content. Competition only weakens Apple's bargaining power with the RIAA, which in turn will drive prices UP. We've already seen them try.

For the broader market, increased availabilty of "iPod compatible" tracks from various suppliers can only enhance the iPods appeal. Clearly it would be preferable for Apple to licence their actual DRM to other suppliers, but they won't. This is a happy workaround.

What is the inherent "good" in being able to buy Fairplay tracks from other vendors? Purely that lower prices might happen on other websites (with high startup costs and bad licensing positions with the RIAA, making this "lower price" for mainstream music almost impossible)? The only advantage I can see is for small indie labels, who might provide high-quality DRMed files for good prices. This of course would be good for everyone, but it's not exactly a huge market.