p2pnet - rss feed: Apple’s DRM dilemma
p2pnet.net news:- Tech Journalist Daniel Eran wrote an article describing Apple’s FairPlay DRM.
I believe he did a great job in explaining the underlying technology of DRM (”Since the point of DRM is to limit interoperability by using secrets, there is no open way to deliver a DRM system that does what it’s supposed to do.”), and in a language that less technical people should be able to understand. But I believe when he jumped to defend Apple and Steve Jobs he missed the boat.
Contrary to what he claimed, it would be trivial for Apple to upgrade the iTunes software to allow encrypted and unencrypted AAC files to co-exist. This is already the case for the iPod, and I’ve transferred unencrypted files to my parent’s iPod Nano from their Linux desktop without any encryption being involved at all.
Already the iTunes software is used to download and manage unencrypted files from various sources including Audio BLOGS (PodCasts), and I have to admit to being baffled why Apple evangelists don’t concede this point unless they recognize the flaws in their argument.
While it’s true that Apple (or other DRM vendors) can’t “openly license” a DRM as all DRM is built on secrets (Including “Open DRM” systems like AACS) designed to reduce interoperability, there’s no justification that can be blamed on third parties to adding DRM to files where the copyright holders are not insisting on it. Any vendor that is doing this clearly has an ulterior motive, with Apples being to create a platform monopoly so that they can eventually replace the recording industry executives as the gatekeepers of music.
Sorry Apple fans, but you can’t double-talk your way out of this issue.
When the iTunes store and iTunes software allow musicians such as the Barenaked Ladies to distribute their music unencrypted, I’ll stop saying Apple is an evil empire trying to replace the current evil empires of the major labels.
Currently, Apple is screwing those musicians who’ve recognized the massive harm of DRM to their music, and it’s well past time that Apple fixed their promotion of this problem.
Russell McOrmond - p2pnet contributing editor
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He’s also the CLUE policy coordinator.]
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
February 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I agree with the basic premise that you say (that Apple could most likely easily sell non-DRMed music along with DRMed) and said as much in a blog at MyMac.com (http://mymac.com/showarticle.php?do=something&id=1919). One of the responses I got implied that it was due to Apple wanting to keep the purchase of audio content the same no matter what the copyright holders allowed and I can kinda see that. However considering what Steve himself said in his “open letter”, I find that to be contridictary. If Steve has said that he doesn’t want DRM on files served up by Apple, then Apple shouldn’t DRM those files when they are allowed to. The only other excuse that COULD be possible is that the deals that Apple has made with the content copyright holders excludes serving files without DRM that are hosted on Apple’s servers. I’ve asked this question before and gotten no response.
My one complaint about your blog is related to podcasts. Apple doesn’t host those files so there is no need to go beyond whatever protection is native from the content creators.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Proper analysis would have highlighted the fact that Steve Jobs qualified his statements about non-DRM music by stating that only *after* the Big 4 capitulated on DRM will the iTunes Store embrace it. This makes sense, in context. Apple doesn’t gain anything from going through the hassle of selling a few songs without DRM. Yes, they can do it as a show of support, but to only limited effect: in the end it would mean nothing, ask Yahoo!. In fact, that is the position Yahoo! is in now. Are people flocking there to buy music?
Remember, Jobs did not base his conclusions on philosophical arguments relating to ownership, he merely pointed out how impractical and ineffectual the whole system is. That is why, when opinion blogs (and some music execs) state that his views are hypocritical, they are wrong. They say, ‘why not sell (your) movies without DRM?’ This is reading what Jobs wrote as a philosophical argument against all DRM. Which, of course, it isn’t. Also, some homework on the matter would have showed that even just a few months after the iTunes Store opened Jobs stated in a RollingStone magazine interview (in 2003) that they had early on reached this same conclusion, but were not able to convinced the labels.
Jobs isn’t stupid, nor is he an anti-capitalist hippie: he’s just that saying music DRM just don’t make no sense! And we can all agree. Allow yourself to admit it - you’ll feel better.
–nerdbrain
February 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Do those Apple brain implants hurt?
February 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
only when they were inserted through his anus, after a short stop in his wallet.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I think it’s sad that the musicians don’t band together ad try to change this. Without their music, the labels have nothing to sell.
I mean, there are clearly musicians — such as composer <a href=”http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/emmyadvancedmedia/2007/02/the_other_digit.html”>Shelly Palmer</a> — who have major concerns about DRM. Why isnt there more open dialouge?
The blogs are here, but I don’t the Big Four care enough to read them.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Proper analysis would have highlighted the fact that Steve Jobs qualified his statements about non-DRM music by stating that only *after* the Big 4 capitulated on DRM will the iTunes Store embrace it. This makes sense, in context. Apple doesn’t gain anything from going through the hassle of selling a few songs without DRM. Yes, they can do it as a show of support, but to only limited effect: in the end it would mean nothing, ask Yahoo!. In fact, that is the position Yahoo! is in now. Are people flocking there to buy music?
Remember, Jobs did not base his conclusions on philosophical arguments relating to ownership, he merely pointed out how impractical and ineffectual the whole system is. That is why, when opinion blogs (and some music execs) state that his views are hypocritical, they are wrong. They say, ‘why not sell (your) movies without DRM?’ This is reading what Jobs wrote as a philosophical argument against all DRM. Which, of course, it isn’t. Also, some homework on the matter would have showed that even just a few months after the iTunes Store opened Jobs stated in a RollingStone magazine interview (in 2003) that they had early on reached this same conclusion, but were not able to convinced the labels.
Jobs isn’t stupid, nor is he an anti-capitalist hippie: he’s just that saying music DRM just don’t make no sense! And we can all agree. Allow yourself to admit it - you’ll feel better.
–nerdbrain
February 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I agree. If enough artists come together in unison against DRM it could affect a change. But there needs to be enough of those who are signed to major labels joining in for deliver the blow.
–nerdbrain
February 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
DRM isn’t a dilemma for me. I won’t buy DRM products. Nor will I buy subpar low end quality bit rates and believe I’ve gotten a deal at the same prices I would pay for a physical product. Without the quality there it’s not the same even at a reasonable price, which 99¢ per tune isn’t.
Now the labels are saying they’ll consider taking out the DRM but have to raise the price? That sounds like the joke of the day to me. I mean their saying they want more to put it out without DRM when they have to pay more to put the DRM in the first place.
It doesn’t prevent the removal of the DRM files. Go to any p2p site and you’ll see the latest up for offer. So this is nothing but another attempt at blatant price gouging. Even though it would be in their best interests to drop the DRM and lower prices, they still cling to the idea of milking the cash cow for all it’s worth. The issue here is if the grass is green enough to attract the cow. For me it isn’t and I don’t think it will be for the majority.
I would encourage the labels to cling to the DRM like it was breath itself. It will be the fastest way to the funeral home.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:50 am
This is typical nonsense we hear on this: that every one of the labels has to stop demanding DRM before Apple will allow any of them to. This is a clear marketing tactic that seems to work on Apple fans, but doesn’t work on the rest of us.
If Apple had the slightest opposition to DRM (And I see no evidence that Mr. Jobs was trying to do anything than pass the buck), they would release DRM-free as each musician and label has been convinced. Today it might only be 5% of the music, but it allows a clear path for that 5% to grow to 100%.
Gates insisting that it is a binary decision between 0% and 100% is total nonsense. This is not a sound business decision, but the misdirections of a master marketing magician. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain — the scary noises you see may appear to be the labels, but the persons really controlling the debate are the hardware/software vendors like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc.
Canadians should sign: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/