Apples iTunes and DRM

[Brian Austin]

This is rather interesting. I've been following the debate for some time:

http://news.com.com/Norwegian+watchdog+scrutinizes+iTunes+DRM/2100-1027_3-6101808.html?tag=nefd.top

Basically, Apple's iTunes downloaded songs are incompatible with other players (although you can export them and import them so I'm not sure what the big deal is). In essence, Apple controls the device, the music, and the ability to distribute the music.

Norway is telling Apple to change its tune (pun intended ) while Apple is saying it's our ball and we'll play how we want. I'm inclined to agree with Apple on this one.

I actually love my iPod and have no interest in changing nor playing the songs elsewhere. It's interesting to watch this happen, though.

Thoughts?

 

[jason]

As a general rule, I disagree with DRM. And the DMCA has done nothing to help matters.

For instance, when you buy a DVD from Wal-Mart, you didn't actually buy that movie. Because of the presence of DRM on that disc, you only bought the right to watch that movie on compatible devices. If you want to rip that movie to your iPod, you can't. Because of the presence of DRM on the disc, if somebody tells you how to rip the movie to your iPod, they are breaking federal law.

Frankly, I want to pay the creators of content that I consume...but I don't want them to tell me how or where I'm able to consume that content. When I pay for the content, I want to own the content. I don't want to own the right to the content.

Even if you are pleased with your iPod and iTunes, who is to say that there won't be a better product someday. When the time comes, you won't be able to take the content with you. BTW, burning a CD and importing it again is a violation of the DMCA, so in doing that you're breaking the law.

As more and more quality content is produced I think that it will really change things for the consumer...and I think Big Music and Big Movies are scared to death...and they should be. They're scared that they're actually going to have to produce quality content.

I'd much rather listen to an episode of Pilotcast than listen to 90% of the new CDs that are released. If they charge me $1 a month to listen to their show, I'd do it in a second. If they convinced 5,000 people to do that, they'd be scratching together decent money for that next tank of 100LL. They would also be motivated to provide a better experience to the consumer so that they could convince another 500 people to join. It's a win-win for both the content consumer AND the content producer. That said, if they tried to tell me that I was only allowed to listen on this one device, I would know that I truly didn't own that content. What if I want to go back 20 years from now and listen to those back episodes? Is the DRM scheme still going to be around? What about the devices capable of playing it? I didn't really buy that content then, did I?

I hope that in the future I'm able to pay $1 a month for the 20 shows that I watch rather than to spend $60 a month for a bunch of channels (shows) that I'll never watch. Not only are you directly paying the producers of the content that you consume, but you're not subsidising other 90% of the content that you feel is true crap. That will, in turn, motivate the content providers to stop broadcasting the "9-ball championship" to fill time in a channel that is being subsidised by people that really just want to watch Grey's Anatomy.

DRM is good for The BIGs (RIAA/MPAA/Apple) as it 1) locks you into their product and 2) it keeps the consumer from actually owning it. That way they get to sell it to you over and over again. (have you ever bought a movie on DVD that you already owned on VHS?)

DRM is very bad for the consumer.

Whew! Lookie there...you just got me going...

Can you tell that this is a hot-button topic for me?

 

[Brian Austin]

Frankly, I want to pay the creators of content that I consume...but I don't want them to tell me how or where I'm able to consume that content. When I pay for the content, I want to own the content. I don't want to own the right to the content.

According to the way I understand copyrights for other content, such as photos and books, however, you'll NEVER own the content. Only the publisher owns the content. So why should music or video be different?

As a photographer, if I sell you a copy of the photograph, I didn't give up my right to the copyright. I merely sold you a COPY. You can't then sell it to stock house as your own because the copyright is still mine.

I actually don't care too much about this one way or the other. I enjoy my music and videos but could easily live without them. I already do live without 99.99% of the TV out there and don't feel I'm missing something. I will admit to watching Norm's New Yankee Workshop with a wee bit of an obsession, however.

 

[jesse]

I'm with FlyNE on this one.

 

[jason]

How many other ways are there to use a book or a photo?

Also, I do put my money where my mouth is. Last year, when I was lucky enough to talk my wife into marrying me, I paid the photographer extra money and bought the rights to my pictures. He gave them to me digitally (on a CD) and he signed a letter saying that they were mine, and now I can print them out wherever and whenever I want (and have done so on several occasions).

 

[wsuffa]

According to the way I understand copyrights for other content, such as photos and books, however, you'll NEVER own the content. Only the publisher owns the content. So why should music or video be different?

Correct understanding. The copyright holder owns the content, they license the use of that content to others. When you buy a book or record -er CD, I'm showing my age - you own the physical device that holds the content, but you don't own the content.

In theory, you can physically photocopy a book, but it is a bunch cheaper to simply buy a second copy.

In the digital world, of course, there is no physical object to own, save for the storage device. Hence, there needs to be a method to either 1) raise the cost for making a copy so it becomes impractical, or 2) limit the ability to copy the content. At no time do you own the content. (Side note, the record companies generally don't own the publishing rights, they own the recording rights and, in certain cases, the performance rights. How the royalties are divided is the subject of recording contracts which are, overwhelmingly, stacked in favor of the record company).

As a photographer, if I sell you a copy of the photograph, I didn't give up my right to the copyright. I merely sold you a COPY. You can't then sell it to stock house as your own because the copyright is still mine.

And generally, as copyright holder, you have the ability to prevent the purchaser of said print from making additional copies. Again, quality suffers unless you make the original available in digital format, so copying is less practical (though the current breed of scanners is pretty good).

I actually don't care too much about this one way or the other. I enjoy my music and videos but could easily live without them. I already do live without 99.99% of the TV out there and don't feel I'm missing something. I will admit to watching Norm's New Yankee Workshop with a wee bit of an obsession, however.

I've elected not to go the MP3/iTunes route because I don't want to be limited in where/how I listen to music. CDs, while harder to tote about, allow me to listen on a variety of devices and places that I could never do with an iPod. And I run less risk of damage (e.g. a hard drive crash won't do me in).

Y'all should see the tech column in the WSJ today that discusses Verizon's "Chocolate" phone. One key point he made in panning the device was its total orientation to downloading from Verizon (and the difficulty using your own music) on the device. VZ charges twice as much as iTunes.

 

[Greebo]

How many other ways are there to use a book or a photo?

Photocopying of copyrighted material at universities is a major problem for the copyright holders.

 

[gkainz]

I will admit to watching Norm's New Yankee Workshop with a wee bit of an obsession, however.

Yeah! I wish I had Norm's workshop and half of his talent!

 

[wsuffa]

Photocopying of copyrighted material at universities is a major problem for the copyright holders.

Some universities try and use the "fair use" provisions of the law....

In general, though, at a lot of universities the use exceeds "fair use"....

Then again, I'd object, too, if an instructor only used a chapter or two out of a $120 textbook. My gripe might well be with the prof, though.

 

[jason]

Photocopying of copyrighted material at universities is a major problem for the copyright holders.

If you read above, I never recommend the theft of content. I believe that if you use content, the creator of the content should be fairly compensated (as long as they are charging for the content).

Along the same lines, I believe that if I pay for the book, I should be allowed to photocopy it for my personal use if I would like to do so. I don't want to be able to give a copy to all of my friends. Maybe I just want a backup.

Given the choice, I will always choose the less restrictive form of protection.

 

[jason]

Some universities try and use the "fair use" provisions of the law....

In general, though, at a lot of universities the use exceeds "fair use"....

Then again, I'd object, too, if an instructor only used a chapter or two out of a $120 textbook. My gripe might well be with the prof, though.

Imagine how much money the author could make if he/she sold you those two chapters that you needed at a fair price.

If the university is not going to buy the content because the cost is prohibitive...why not find a way to meet in the middle?

 

[wsuffa]

Imagine how much money the author could make if he/she sold you those two chapters that you needed at a fair price.

If the university is not going to buy the content because the cost is prohibitive...why not find a way to meet in the middle?

I agree.

My reference was to students that merely copy the content instead of each student buying the book. It's no bucks out of the university pocket, it's the students left holding the (book) bag.

 

[mikea]

According to the way I understand copyrights for other content, such as photos and books, however, you'll NEVER own the content. Only the publisher owns the content. So why should music or video be different?

As a photographer, if I sell you a copy of the photograph, I didn't give up my right to the copyright. I merely sold you a COPY. You can't then sell it to stock house as your own because the copyright is still mine.

I actually don't care too much about this one way or the other. I enjoy my music and videos but could easily live without them. I already do live without 99.99% of the TV out there and don't feel I'm missing something. I will admit to watching Norm's New Yankee Workshop with a wee bit of an obsession, however.

Actually that's not exactly correct. Under the Fair Use doctrine once you OWN a copy of the artwork in any form you are free to convert it to other forms for your own personal use. Not only that you do indeed OWN the DVD and the CD. You CAN sell the copy. That's how used CD stores work. You're right that you can't sell the music just like I can't reprint your picture.

You are not buying a license to the content. The MPAA and the RIAA are trying desperately to invalidate Fair Use but they haven't. Sony had in the EULA for the rootkit CDs that you only had a license. Any brave $$$ soul who took them to court over that would win in a breeze.
http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/

They love getting paid for the same content every thime they make available in a new form. You bought the record, the cassette the CD, ... you don't have the special editions or the Hi-Def audio versions do you?

That's why they're trying so hard to buy new laws in congress.

Did you know that even Microsoft's EULA has never been tested in a court?

 

[Brian Austin]

Actually that's not exactly correct. Under the Fair Use doctrine once you OWN a copy of the artwork in any form you are free to convert it to other forms for your own personal use. Not only that you do indeed OWN the DVD and the CD. You CAN sell the copy. That's how used CD stores work. You're right that you can't sell the music just like I can't reprint your picture.

But you don't hold the COPYRIGHT nor the ownership of the artwork itself unless someone signs over ownership through a legal process. And, as Bill mentioned, it's pointless to copy said artwork since copies lose the same qualities that make the artwork unique (sharpness, colors, etc.).

They love getting paid for the same content every thime they make available in a new form. You bought the record, the cassette the CD, ... you don't have the special editions or the Hi-Def audio versions do you?

Different content in a strict sense, however. Simple remarketing of the same product, slightly changed, is a new product. Caveat buyer.

Did you know that even Microsoft's EULA has never been tested in a court?

I knew you couldn't stop bringing M$ into this. What, pray tell, does this have to do with Microsoft's EULA? It seems that Microsoft's WMA format is at least transportable to third party devices.

 

[mikea]

But you don't hold the COPYRIGHT nor the ownership of the artwork itself unless someone signs over ownership through a legal process. And, as Bill mentioned, it's pointless to copy said artwork since copies lose the same qualities that make the artwork unique (sharpness, colors, etc.).


Different content in a strict sense, however. Simple remarketing of the same product, slightly changed, is a new product. Caveat buyer.


I knew you couldn't stop bringing M$ into this. What, pray tell, does this have to do with Microsoft's EULA? It seems that Microsoft's WMA format is at least transportable to third party devices.

You really have a problem following my warped thought flow.

I went like this:

Hey Brian, Fair Use is legal. The Sony root kit license which denied there was Fair Use never got tested in court. It wouldn't have been good for Sony. BTW, Brian, Microsoft's EULA has never been tested in court either.

Now let's add more thought wanderings:

BTW, Brian, Microsoft WMA is just as closed as Apple's AAC DRM. It only plays in Microsoft SOFTWARE which may run on hardware that it licensed by Microsoft. Yes more than one manufacturer makes such devices.

Both of those DRM systems BTW are due more to the music industry's demands than to the manufacturers. At this point Apple is very happy about being thrown into the briar patch. The movie industry so far won't allow even as much as the music industry. The word is they want "rentals" of movies not "sales." They want to see it over and over again.

Now let's add more thought wanderings:


When I rip CDs, I rip to MP3 which does indeed play on any device, even though it's not open. The fanatics use OGG Vorbis which is open, but not a lot of palyers grok it.

 

[Brian Austin]

BTW, Brian, Microsoft WMA is just as closed as Apple's AAC DRM. It only plays in Microsoft SOFTWARE which may run on hardware that it licensed by Microsoft. Yes more than one manufacturer makes such devices.

So...while it's not an open standard, manufacturers have licensed the codec for their own systems and built digital music players that cost LESS than Apple's and, from a consumer's point of view, have the ability to move music amongst various players.

From the consumer's point of view...who cares? It does what they want it to do.

Both of those DRM systems BTW are due more to the music industry's demands than to the manufacturers. At this point Apple is very happy about being thrown into the briar patch. The movie industry so far won't allow even as much as the music industry. The word is they want "rentals" of movies not "sales." They want to see it over and over again.

Capitalist pigs! Expecting a RETURN on a $200M investment! How rude of them.

Now let's add more thought wanderings:

When I rip CDs, I rip to MP3 which does indeed play on any device, even though it's not open. The fanatics use OGG Vorbis which is open, but not a lot of palyers grok it.

Don't care. I live in my own closed up world of iTunes, Microsoft, and the odd DVD movie. I have no DVR, pay exorbinant prices for digital cable purely for one channel unavailable on standard cable (DIY...which I watch less than I should for shelling out that kind of money), and buy all my movies without (gasp) making an effort to copy them because, quite frankly, they play fine the way they are.

If you can't live without the entertainment, play by the rules of those doing the entertaining. It's their ball. Otherwise, don't buy it. Why is it that so hard?

What I REALLY find interesting here is that your beloved Apple is in the thick of it and you still can't bring yourself to condemn them in the same breath as Microsoft and Sony. If you substituted the word "Microsoft" for "Apple" in the articles, you'd be the one posting with a long diatribe on how the M$ conspiracy is making its way to our earbuds.

 

[Greebo]

Kindly lets keep the techno-zealotry from causing us to depart from the conceptual and enter into the personal.

Or, in my more normal tone: Can the personal remarks - focus on the points of the post, not who's doing the posting.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'd much rather listen to an episode of Pilotcast than listen to 90% of the new CDs that are released.

Now that's something I like to hear!

I hate the DMCA, and I'm not a big fan of DRM, but I realize that without it there would be no iTunes Music Store at all.

I could go off on a huge rant, but ya did a pretty good job of it already!

Bad things are happening with net neutrality and the broadcast flag too.

 

[Greebo]

Speaking of DRM - I've recently signed up for the Napster To Go service - you download any music you like for a flat fee of $15 a month, you put it on your MP3 player, and as long as your subscription is paid up, you can listen to the music. You have to connect the player periodically to update the licences but thats it.

I've been getting exposure to a bunch of new music (and have discovered a surprising liking for Liz Phair...), plus rebuilding my old library of music that I had once, all for the cost of 1 cd a month.

Not a bad deal if you ask me.

 

[wsuffa]

Speaking of DRM - I've recently signed up for the Napster To Go service - you download any music you like for a flat fee of $15 a month, you put it on your MP3 player, and as long as your subscription is paid up, you can listen to the music. You have to connect the player periodically to update the licences but thats it.

I've been getting exposure to a bunch of new music (and have discovered a surprising liking for Liz Phair...), plus rebuilding my old library of music that I had once, all for the cost of 1 cd a month.

Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Satellite radio is cheaper....

 

[Greebo]

Satellite radio is cheaper....

Perhaps - but, and correct me if I'm wrong please, despite its multitude of channels, you still don't control the content on Satellite radio, right? So you can't skip songs you don't want to hear, or delete them outright, or jump ahead to the artist you've got an itch to listen to?

 

[wsuffa]

Perhaps - but, and correct me if I'm wrong please, despite its multitude of channels, you still don't control the content on Satellite radio, right? So you can't skip songs you don't want to hear, or delete them outright, or jump ahead to the artist you've got an itch to listen to?

Unless you get one of the new iPod-like receivers that allow you to pick and choose.

http://shop.xmradio.com/detail.aspx?pid=196&cat=36
http://shop.xmradio.com/detail.aspx?pid=293&cat=7
http://shop.xmradio.com/detail.aspx?pid=190&cat=36
http://shop.sirius.com/edealinv/ser...=&oldParentID=7870&catParentID=7870&scId=7875

I look at the monthly subscription fee that you pay as being not much different than pay radio.....

If I'm going to select the music I want to listen to, I'd rather buy the perpetual right to that music, as opposed to a monthly subscription fee. Just my choice, yours may vary (which is why the services coexist).

 

[Greebo]

I don't disagree - I think of it like pay-radio on-demand as well. But I'm content with what I have - at least content enough NOT to shell out a few hundred more dollars when I just got the player I have.

 

[Darrell111]

I hope the majority of the public catches on to the fact that Itunes and the IPod is not really that good of a deal. Sure the Ipod is a fantastic device but that is exactly why ITunes is so popular right now. ITunes is NOT a good deal by any means. Christmas comes around and because of Apple's fantastic advertising the majority of the public now refers to Mp3 players as an IPod. So parents or gift givers go out and buy Pods since it is the only thing they know. A subscription service is a much better deal IMHO but take Napster for example, they just dont advertise like Apple so people aren't aware of how good of a deal it really is.

 

[tdager]

I do not care if it is Microsoft, Sony, or Apple....

DRM is EVIL, as in EVIL. Did I say EVIL.

Again....I have no desire to "sell" the music, to rip it and make a buck, etc.

However, I DO want, no DEMAND the right to be able to listen to the song from a CD on my home CD player, my coputer, my PocketPC, or any digital audo player. Again...I demand the right to play it as I see fit, they can keep ownership of the music.

 

[Darrell111]

I do not care if it is Microsoft, Sony, or Apple....

DRM is EVIL, as in EVIL. Did I say EVIL.

Again....I have no desire to "sell" the music, to rip it and make a buck, etc.

However, I DO want, no DEMAND the right to be able to listen to the song from a CD on my home CD player, my coputer, my PocketPC, or any digital audo player. Again...I demand the right to play it as I see fit, they can keep ownership of the music.

Hey Cd's are soooooo old school man!! HAH j/k

On another note..

What compression type do you like the most.

AAC OR WMA ??

AAC sounds very thin to me. I think all compression files pretty much suck. WAV is nice but still not Vinyl right?!!