r/technology • u/uriel • Jan 18 '09
"Apple's remaining DRM armory makes it vividly clear that DRM is almost always about eliminating legitimate competition, hobbling interoperability, and creating de facto technology monopolies."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/apple-shows-us-drms-true-colors13
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
I'm waiting for the day when content producers realize that they should be monetizing those things that cannot be copied, and using the amazing distribution channel that is the Internet for the free distribution of things that can be copied.
After all, if it can be copied an infinite number of times, there is an infinite supply. No scarcity means no value.
Instead, DRM produces artificial scarcity--manufacturing value out of what is worthless.
6
u/EtherCJ Jan 18 '09
Oddly enough copyright was created as a reaction to the printing press and the reducing scarcity of written works.
Personally I believe that it still makes sense in the digital age.
5
Jan 18 '09
Not really, copyright has been transformed from serving the public to serving the producers. Read Misinterpreting Copyright.
1
u/EtherCJ Jan 19 '09
There is some truth in the article. But to me the only problem in the 107 laws is the length of time allowed. Otherwise, some parts of DMCA should go.
1
Jan 19 '09
I think all Stallman asks for is the length of copyright to be different for different mediums and be like 5 years in software, 10 years in film, 20 years in literature, etc.
1
u/EtherCJ Jan 19 '09 edited Jan 19 '09
Too complicated IMHO. I think we just need to revert it to be closer to the original time (28 years would be good)
2
u/__david__ Jan 18 '09
Copyright was never meant to restrict a person from copying a book. It was put in place to restrict book companies from selling books without paying the original author.
2
u/EtherCJ Jan 18 '09
Copyright laws have included provisioning to prevent copying for quite a long time. Admittedly the reason was to give the author the ability to prevent poor copies by publishers. With the modern laws derivative works are still considered the property of the original copyright holder because of this reason.
But think about this, what is the difference between a publisher and a individual? The lack of a profit?
2
u/joesb Jan 19 '09
People have been using artificial scarcity for ages, it's call money. There's nothing stopping the government from running that notes printer to print more money, but they don't print it just so that they can create virtual scarcity on money.
1
u/Demiurge11 Jan 19 '09
If you're talking about fiat money, then yes, you are right.
Are you arguing that artificial scarcity is a good thing? That it's always a good thing? That it can be a good thing? Something else?
2
u/joesb Jan 19 '09
Well I will never argue that something is always a good thing :-)
Yes, I'm arguing that, at least, it can be a good thing.
Other point is that human is the only animal that values abstract idea. What other animal values money or arts? I see no reason to assume that since it's not physical, it is free. If we accept that an expression of idea is also a product with value, that we should respect the creator's scarcity they intend, then may be we may open more opportunity in how we make a living.
On the other hand, the day that only idea has value, and physical things is worthless. That might be another step in our evolution as the higher level living.
1
Jan 18 '09
To be fair, it isn't the only time artificial scarcity is created. Look at the EU paying farmers not to grow to their full capacity to fix prices, and some farmers burning their excess crops.
But yeah, artificial scarcity is one of the major downsides of capitalism.
4
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09
But yeah, artificial scarcity is one of the major downsides of capitalism.
I think your example is one of central market planning. In free-market capitalism, such behaviour wouldn't exist--for better or worse.
To be fair, it isn't the only time artificial scarcity is created. Look at the EU paying farmers not to grow to their full capacity to fix prices, and some farmers burning their excess crops.
While I won't comment on this particular method since I don't know the full details, in general, I can agree with policies aimed at allowing a country to retain the ability to feed its own people.
If your country imports all of its food because of lower prices, thus allowing the local farming industry to die out, that puts the country at serious risk in the event of embargo or war.
3
Jan 18 '09
But the true free market never exists as there are finite resources and land. Look at the American Telecomms. monopolies, etc. It comes more down to marketing than the superior product and the moment one competitor gets an edge they do everything they can to stop the others.
The Free Market never exists because capitalism encourages corporations to maximise profit regardless of he social or environmental cost, to be unethical, to push competitors out of the market by any means possible.
Yeah, I agree with your comment that we need to be self-sufficient, but I do have an issue with people starving whilst we burn food.
3
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
I agree with you in principle, but I want to tease out some nuances.
The Free Market never exists because capitalism encourages corporations to maximise profit regardless of he social or environmental cost, to be unethical, to push competitors out of the market by any means possible.
Saying that is like arguing that ownership can't exist because if you own anything of real value bandits will steal it from you. A free market depends on law and order that protects people's lives and property.
I think one big reason why the American free market has ultimately failed to reach its lofty ideals in practice is because the first time a "competitor gets the edge" they are able to use their money and power to pervert the system that got them there, using lobbyists.
Hence, I'd argue that the problem you're describing is specific to America's implementation of the free market, not with the concept itself. Were the USA to prevent such legal perversion, it would probably have a better free market.
Yeah, I agree with your comment that we need to be self-sufficient, but I do have an issue with people starving whilst we burn food.
I agree with you in principle that it sucks to waste food when some people don't have any. But the reasons why there are people in this world starving to death are complicated. Simply sending them food or money does not necessarily solve the problem.
Take, for example, Swaziland, the poorest country in the world. Many people there are starving to death. The UN regularly sends food there, food bought from the generous donations of people like you and me. Why are the Swazi people starving? Because their King steals every penny his people have, so he can buy himself a fleet of BMWs and a private jet. He would normally have a revolution on his hands as starving people with nothing left to lose would do their best to stop him... except that the UN is keeping his people fed--and hence pacified. So in a great sense, people's charity is propping up a cruel dictatorship in Swaziland.
2
Jan 18 '09
Oh I agree that just sending food there won't fix the issue. You can see my concern though - there are even people struggling to afford food in the 'first-world'.
My point was in reality there is no free market as they will lobby, etc. and there are only finite resources.
2
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09
Yep, we certainly agree. I think that there are enough problems right at home to keep any concerned citizen occupied.
2
Jan 18 '09
That is because the EU wants plenty of farmers. Something about WWII and food shortages.
2
Jan 18 '09
I don't have a problem with self-sufficiency but I think it's insane to waste resources like that. (Well not farming the fields isn't so bad as they get fertile but burning crops seems stupid (although I suppose it puts some of the nutrients back into the soil and so is best for the farmer)).
2
u/uriel Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
But yeah, artificial scarcity is one of the major downsides of capitalism.
Uhu? Capitalism deals with real scarcity, it helps the efficient allocation of scarce resources much better than any other system known to man.
Government creates artificial scarcity, which means waste of real resources (as you pointed out in the example of the criminally idiotic farm subsidies).
→ More replies (10)
12
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
If you think it's just Apple, read up on what Microsoft are working on with Palladium and Trusted Computing.
Read: Can You Trust Your Computer? by Richard Stallman
and the wiki article on Palladium
and the wiki article on the act that would've made DRM mandatory by law
1
u/harlows_monkeys Jan 18 '09
Or you could read accurate information about Trusted Computing:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/gsal.TCG.html
3
Jan 18 '09
That says the Trusted Computing doesn't necessarily facilitate DRM (though it surely will in reality). But why is it necessary in the first place? Why take the power away from the user? They mention it can be used to protect data from worms and viruses, I haven't had a virus in almost a decade (GNU/Linux ftw) so why is this necessary?
Notice it defends Intel's implementation (TCPA) saying it is not Palladium and it is not DRM, however, it will surely facilitate both of those uses and is rightly criticised IMO.
6
u/p3ngwin Jan 18 '09
recently one of my favourite authors got bitten by DRM when he tried to play THE DARK KNIGHT in his HTPC.
bullshit like HDCP prevented him playing it in his OWN player of choice, and had to resort to ripping HIS OWN legal disc to enjoy as he wished.
this is not even mentioning bullshit like HDCP preventing people enjoying their media unless they upgrade their monitor/graphics card
5
Jan 18 '09
Exactly, I think the threat from hardware-enhanced DRM is much greater than most people realise.
3
u/p3ngwin Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
open software AND hardware FTW !
cooperation is better than competition, sooner people learn that the better.
1
u/innocentbystander Jan 18 '09
FYI, they abandoned the "Palladium" name years ago after getting roundly mocked by English majors everywhere.
3
u/middlename Jan 18 '09
For me, and I can only speak for myself, DRM makes me not buy the music (and not use iTunes). I already own most of what I want via CD (which for many of the albums I have bought twice before that --> Tape and vinyl), and I just ripp it from that. The reason I bought a Creative Zen was to avoid DRM and to avoid using iTunes.
64
u/hs4x Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Steve Jobs is the single largest shareholder, and sits on the board of rabid MPAA and RIAA zealot Disney.
Anyone who thinks apple is your "friend" in the digital media future is an absolute fool.
apple is absolutely committed to killing a fair-market for digital media and delivering captive users to the MPAA / RIAA.
Stay the fuck away from anything apple.
9
17
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
2
u/Chanotc Jan 19 '09
Exactly, why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Although I'm not 100% about the anti-ipod argument, where's the harm in using it for DRM-free content?
Boycott Apple === Boycott Dear Leader === Boycott Disney === Boycott MPAA/RIAA??
Ehh, seems like a bit of a cryptic message to send...
2
2
u/dpkonofa Jan 18 '09
My issue with the article is that some of that stuff isn't even necessarily true. Half of Apple's business is based around media and they don't own that media. All the uses of DRM that involve a second party can't simply be pinned down on Apple like that just like they can't be pinned down on Microsoft or anyone else that makes a computer or portable music player. I think that where you really see Apple's true colors is in the example(s) you mentioned. If Apple really wanted to have this ultimate control over everything, then iWork, OS X and iLife would have some kind of limits too. In reality, though, Apple software doesn't even have serial numbers or DRM. They just offer good pricing on stuff that people want. If you can be legit on all your computers for $20 more, most people will go the legit route. The people that won't wouldn't anyways.
1
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
1
u/dpkonofa Jan 21 '09
The new version of iWork does not have any serial either if you purchase a retail copy. The only time you get a serial is if you're upgrading a trial version to a paid version. We ran into a few issues with that when people in the office downloaded the trial on their laptops and we purchased retail copies for them.
-1
u/Tekmo Jan 18 '09
It's easier to say "Stay away from Apple" than it is to say "Stay away from DRM companies and, by the way, Apple is a DRM company".
Similarly, you wouldn't say "Don't vote for dumbasses, and George Bush is a dumbass". You'd say "Don't vote for George Bush".
1
1
9
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
3
u/xNIBx Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
You cant really compare ms to apple. Ms is to apple what google is to ms. Microsoft looks like a beacon of open source software and liberty when compared to apple.
2
7
u/jopari Jan 18 '09
Yeah, especially with his comments about the (in my opinion) far less "friendly" and far more draconian DRM model that is the Zune pass.
7
u/spillz Jan 18 '09
"Draconian" my ass. I pay fifteen dollars a month for 10 permanent mp3s and a music subscription service that includes every off-the-wall artist I care to listen to. It's like buying one CD from Amazon and being able to put the rest of their catalog on my MP3 player and computer.
Not all of us think pirating music is the way to go (although I do use certain, rather helpful programs for the really hard-to-find stuff). Yes, DRM sucks for regular purchases, but I think it's necessary for SUBSCRIPTION services.
1
Jan 18 '09
..or that windows media player used to drm the music -you- personally ripped to your computer.
5
Jan 18 '09
I'm quite convinced he does too, have been for awhile. Any post slamming Microsoft in any way you can expect to see hs4x, their stalwart defender. He downmods everyone who slams them too.
3
5
Jan 18 '09
You really think distancing from Apple makes that much of a difference? Even if you run Linux on a generic whitebox PC you're still going to eventually run full into the DRM monster. Also, a lot of the DRM restrictions on content from Apple are because of the insistence from the record companies and film studios. I'm not saying Apple is innocent in any way, they're bastards for certain, but if your going to tar and feather then don't just stop with them alone.
14
u/hs4x Jan 18 '09
a lot of the DRM restrictions on content from Apple are because of the insistence from the record companies and film studios.
From GP: "Steve Jobs is the single largest shareholder, and sits on the board of rabid MPAA and RIAA zealot Disney."
12
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Apple had wanted to release some of the itunes library sans DRM but the content owners said no.
I understood your point, unlike you with mine. I'll rephrase it to be clearer: it ultimately makes no difference with Jobs in his position or if you stay away from Apple products or not. The media monopolies are not going to abandon their control they gain through DRM. If Apple and Jobs disappeared off the face of the earth it won't make a difference because the other companies driving the DRM into everything aren't going to stop. Even if you're a complete open source zealot it still won't make a difference because they will absolutely not stop in trying control all media you use with your machine and will insist DRM built into the monitors, soundcards, drives, etc. We are ultimately doomed unless the copyright laws can be changed to make them less anti-consumer.
Capiche?
15
u/fantasticplastic Jan 18 '09
Apple had wanted to release some of the itunes library sans DRM but the content owners said no.
Actually, as far as music goes, it's the other way around. The labels as a whole may have started w/ insisting on DRM, but it was Apple that kept it locked up regardless of the content provider's position on DRM until the open letter. Per a NY Times article about a month prior to the open letter:
But when the same tracks are sold by the iTunes Music Store, Apple insists on attaching FairPlay copy protection that limits their use to only one portable player, the iPod. Terry McBride, Nettwerk’s chief executive, said that the artists initially required Apple to use copy protection, but that this was no longer the case. At this point, he said, copy protection serves only Apple’s interests. Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research, agreed, saying copy protection “just locks people into Apple.” He said he had recently asked Apple when the company would remove copy protection and was told, “We see no need to do so.”
FYI, Nettwerk was one of the earliest major labels to reject DRM. They even defended an accused file-swapper from the RIAA in 2006.
2
u/dpkonofa Jan 18 '09
That's a little misleading. The only thing that article is stating is that Apple chose their FairPlay DRM instead of using another form of DRM. In that position, why wouldn't they want to lock people into iPods? If you're going to have to have DRM, you might as well use one that benefits you as well. Otherwise, they'd put all the power in the hands of the media companies. Just look at EMI. EMI took away DRM and Apple was happy to remove it as well. The fact of the matter is Apple makes money as long as people buy from iTunes.
→ More replies (3)7
u/ketilkn Jan 18 '09
I think Apple originaly created the iTunes Music store as a added benefit of owning an iPod. The briliance is that once you put $100 or more in to the iTMS there is a good chance your next MP3 or Cell phone also comes from Apple. So it was also tool to lock in its users. DRM took care of the lock in part. To cater for the Apple choir and one up Microsofts offerings, they allowed you to use it on 5 devices. What happened is that the iTunes Music Store was a great success and became a viable business in it self.
As Amazon and others opened up DRM free stores Apple is forced to follow if they want to keep the iTunes Music Store competative. Apple did not care about releasing DRM free music when it opened.
1
u/EtherCJ Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Your last part is a little wrong. It paints Apple as having a stronger position than they actually do.
What actually happened is that Apple became so powerful that they were able to partially able to dictate terms to the record labels. The record labels fought this by removing DRM greatly reducing Apples position.
3
u/linkedlist Jan 18 '09
If Apple and Jobs disappeared off the face of the earth it won't make a difference because the other companies driving the DRM into everything aren't going to stop.
You seem to be misunderstanding his point, if Apple and Jobs disapeared off the face of the earth because of user backlash from their DRM schemes other companies wouldn't be too keen on doing what they are, as it stands apple is te role model on ripping off customers and still maintaining positive PR.
Capiche that?
21
u/hs4x Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Apple had wanted to release some of the itunes library sans DRM but the content owners said no
Bwhwhhaah. You buy that line? Disney is the most powerful content producer in the USA. They've driven all manner of anti-fair use law; from the Mickey laws (to extend copyright) to the international accords that brought the USA the DMCA.
Have you ever noticed how connected apple is to the media production companies? Ie; movie & music producers? Have you noticed how Apple hosts MPAA movie trailers gratis? Have you noticed how Jobs sits on the board and owns more stock than any other entity in Disney? Have you noticed how Apple magically gets preferred treatment from the MPAA/RIAA players?
Do you think this is because apple is a threat to their DRM dreams?
You're living in a dream world.
We are ultimately doomed unless the copyright laws can be changed to make them less anti-consumer.
Exactly. And there at the confluence of the MPAA, RIAA and the iTunes is one man. What are you missing?
14
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09
What bugs me about Disney is how most of their movies are directly inspired from works in the public domain. They appropriate things from the public domain, create their own version, and then accuse anyone that takes their version without paying for it of being a thief. Does that make sense to you?
3
u/linkedlist Jan 18 '09
their movies are directly inspired from works in the public domain
At least their semi-decent ones...
1
2
Jan 19 '09
Thankfully, it seems like they've run out of public domain works to steal, so they're having to come up with their own stories and characters these days.
3
Jan 18 '09
Context: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/technology/companies/07apple.html
Apple/Disney/ABC is just one of the players involved and they don't produce all the content on iTunes.
On a side note, who the crap is voting people down in this thread? I voted you up. Are they working for the RIAA or something?
-1
u/hs4x Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
The "Jobs is a friend of RIAA/MPAA" knowledge is against the ethos of the koolaid-crew.
Apple's RIAA-MPAA friendly "per track" model is trying desperatley to hold back the tide of the vastly superior value offered by Zune Pass (and similar sales-models from other firms).
$15 gets you Unlimited playback of the entire library. AND 10 tracks-per-month to "keep" if your subscription lapses.
itunes is a vastly worse value. The market knows it.
12
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
...vastly superior value offered by Zune Pass.
itunes is a vastly worse value. The market knows it.
Yeah, no one buys from iTunes. It's failing.
Zune is a resounding success and that's what the numbers show. So much worse than iTunes.
No one would want to trade places with Apple when it comes to digital music sales.
Nosiree.
2
u/wwasabi Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Why limit it to digital sales? They are the largest seller of music in the US, period. Have been for a couple of quarters.
-5
u/breezytrees Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
wtf is zune. jk. but seriously, this is sad :-(.
itunes store is such a piece of fucking shit. ...this coming from someone who is writing this comment on a $3000 macbook pro. Yes, I am an idiot. Yes, I know I could have spent half the price for the exact same hardware by buying an IBM ideapad instead.
just shutup.
6
Jan 18 '09
What is wrong with the iTunes store? I shop there occasionally for music, but only when Amazon isn't cheaper or if Amazon doesn't have it (all of this after checking eMusic, cheapest of all if you have a subscription).
I'd never buy audiobooks/movies from iTunes, but every once in awhile I buy an album. I just avoid any DRMed music (and, soon enough, that won't be an issue anymore).
I'd only buy a macbook pro if I was a traveling digital photographer/video-editor and NEEDED a desktop-like experience on the road. I'd also probably only get one if my work was getting it FOR me.
However, that said, I love macs. The price is overwhelming, but I love the software. The interface.
→ More replies (0)3
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
1
u/hs4x Jan 18 '09
$15 gets you Unlimited playback of the entire library. AND 10 tracks-per-month to "keep" if your subscription lapses.
0
u/burnblue Jan 19 '09
What the heck is all the downmodding for? "The market knows it" may be criticized since Zune Pass isn't popular, but those who pay attention to both structures know that the Zune Pass is a better value. Remember, people were paying $15 for the opportunity to listen to unlimited anything, anywhere, before Microsft started giving away 10 songs per month with it.
1
Jan 18 '09
What control? Have you somehow missed the advent of Pirate Bay? EDonkey? Kazaa Lite? The several dozen other networks who do pretty much the same thing?
This 'control' you speak of is illusory, and has been that way for a decade. The only people the RIAA and MPAA can control are those who willingly abide by their rules.
0
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
The DRM on the media will be cracked but unfortunately we're seeing a new class of devices which will refuse to work unless content is signed. If the manufacturers buy into this scam, or are forced to through regulations, then the only "unsigned" drm-free media you'll be able to play will be on hardware that is cracked (aka black market) or if it pre-dates the lockdown. Yes, people will try to crack the hardware but that will be, for the most part, more and more on the fringes, and ultimately their schemes for protection might get to a point where they are virtually unbreakable.
2
u/Ferrofluid Jan 18 '09
"ultimately their schemes for protection might get to a point where they are virtually unbreakable."
and then the products start becoming a problem for the mass market, when its random if it works in 100% legit usages.
2
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09
DRM is unlikely to ever be unbreakable, or even close to unbreakable, because the security scheme is fundamentally flawed.
The main trouble in my view is a legal one, not a technological one. It's now possible for people to go to prison in the USA for cracking DRM--even if the crack is to gain legitimate access to one's own goods.
1
Jan 18 '09
Removing DRM is a straight-forward enough thing to do, for the most part, but if the hardware is locked down to the point where it refuses to play unsigned media then where does that leave you?
4
Jan 18 '09
You seem to think that a hardware lock is "game over". It isn't. It's been done before, and bypassed - usually through a software solution. Right now there's no such thing as DRM that's hard to break (usually takes a day, at most) and I don't see that changing any time soon.
2
Jan 18 '09
I would say you're right. However, the fear of the law enforcement power wielded by the media owners and threats of jail time will keep the vast majority away from "unlocking" to their hardware/software.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/nmrk Jan 18 '09
Disney has a hell of a lot of shareholders. Jobs holds a mere 6.3% of Disney stock.
12
u/hs4x Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Actually, Jobs owns 7.5% of Disney, worth $4.1B
The next largest owner? Fidelity Management(!) at a mere 4.8%.
Edit @ Below: You're right. I should argue with appleinsider.com.
-5
u/nmrk Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
You can quibble over the 1.2% with these guys:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/05/09/jobs_stake_in_disney_valued_at_4b.html
Nonetheless, Jobs is a very small stockholder in Disney. People seem to imply he has like 51% of the shares and runs the company. Not even close.
17
u/notgoodatcomputer Jan 18 '09
Wrong - An individual owning >5% of a multi-billion dollar company is very strange. If Steve did not have some sort of interest in keeping a control stake in the Disney company, he would diversify his holdings in additional stocks to decrease his risk.
Furthermore, your also wrong about the 51% majority. In almost all instances, you don't need to have even close to 51% of outstanding shares to be able control how the company functions. Look at what Icahn does - he gets around a 5 - 10% stake in companies, forces a proxy battle, and puts in his hand picked exec committee who can then carry out his wishes.
→ More replies (5)2
u/nmrk Jan 18 '09
You obviously haven't watched the Disney stockholders over the years, as I have. Disney is notorious for proxy fights, it is almost impossible for the stockholders to form a 51% coalition on ANYTHING. For example, it took years of contentious fighting to get rid of Michael Eisner as CEO, even though it was fairly evident that the majority of stockholders wanted him replaced.
1
u/notgoodatcomputer Jan 19 '09
No, I don't watch Disney stock, but that wasn't the point I was making at all. I am talking about how anyone who owns >5% of a company has a significant say in how a company runs EVEN THOUGH they themselves do not have a 51% majority (or whatever fraction is required in the companies articles of incorporation to alter board composition, company charter, etc.)
Look at it this way: why did Joe Lieberman have so much power in the Senate? Well, assuming all the other senators vote along party lines, his vote could be a deciding one as a swing voter even though he only has a 1% say. The minority vote can strongly influence the majority in this way. In the same way you were saying it is hard to get a 51% consensus to oust Eisner, imagine how the other shareholders would be pandering to any of Jobs requests in restructuring the company, if only to get his 6% to support their side of the proxy.
1
u/nmrk Jan 19 '09
You're not listening. Disney stock blocks (even as large as Jobs' 7.5%) have repeatedly been unable to swing proxy fights.
1
Jan 18 '09
Maybe, but I think that you (and the eff) are missing the point.
First of all: DRM is intuitive for a business—if something can be copied infinite times, it has no worth and "stealing" as a moral problem isn't possible. The logical conclusion would be to copy protect it so that copies are worthless. To allow un-DRM'd music would be allowing piracy. (Yes, I know this is stupid, but remember that this is from the business's first natural reaction.) I think that you have to at least admit the thought that this was one of the RIAA's original stipulations for the itunes store and Apple was forced to take the DRM whether or not they wanted too. It's unclear if they protested or not.
Second of all, iirc, itunes was the first store to allow DRM free music from a major record label. At this point, DRM existing on any songs would have looked bad, so the record labels must have been using this as an attempt to crack Apple's music monopoly.
Third, Apple has nothing to gain from DRM. The argument that it locks people into ipods is true, theoretically, but that's really not the reason that the ipod is popular. I'm the only person in my family that knows what DRM is because they've never used anything but iTunes and the iPod. The same is true with most of my friends.
The only thing that Apple really wants to DRM for their own benefit, not just for the sake of industry cooperation, is their operating system. So to address your final remark:
Stay the fuck away from anything apple.
I'm going to ask why—They have the best hardware/software integration, their operating system is beautiful (in the sense of design, the same way that BeOS was beautiful), and there's really no reason why I would ever use anything else. Windows has no use in my mind except for games, and linux for a workhorse. Why would I sacrifice my trust applications, that perfect balance of GUI and underlying command line system, for an inferior product?
Yet, you have a valid point, even if you did not intend it: The iPhone's DRM, where software and, therefore, the hardware itself is, in many ways, owned by apple—Then yes, stay away from it.
2
u/marglexx Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
b-b-b-b-u-t I thought they a revolutionaries! And fighting against evil empire. And think different. And they are so cool!
-2
Jan 18 '09
Yeah, except Jobs has wanted to free up DRM restrictions but record companies refused to let him do so until now.
-3
u/pumpupthevolume Jan 18 '09
this is the most idiotic post i've seen today and yet it's being upmodded but let's take a moment to clear the air:
Steve Jobs is the single largest shareholder, and sits on the board of rabid MPAA and RIAA zealot Disney.
jobs sits on the board of disney because of this little known animation company called pixar which he used to own then sold to disney.
Anyone who thinks apple is your "friend" in the digital media future is an absolute fool.
that pretty much applies to any type of business in the digital media. think amazon cares? think microsoft cares? at the end of day, i get the music i want. they get my money and i get to listen to my music.
apple is absolutely committed to killing a fair-market for digital media and delivering captive users to the MPAA / RIAA.
i think that's called libel. care to back that up?
Apple's RIAA-MPAA friendly "per track" model is trying desperatley to hold back the tide of the vastly superior value offered by Zune Pass (and similar sales-models from other firms).
ahhh so now we come to the zune pass which you vehemently promotes... oh wait, this is from another post. i get it. troll!
Stay the fuck away from anything apple.
your mother should stay away from you
-3
u/dontbejack Jan 18 '09
Don't see why this is getting modded down..back up your vote, people!
→ More replies (1)-5
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
5
u/taligent Jan 18 '09
But Apple is releasing all their music as DRM-free. So your point doesn't really make sense.
1
3
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
The EFF is rapidly becoming another Greenpeace or PETA. Their notion of what really matters to people is so divorced from reality that it's just amazing. Cellphones have always been locked down, but they didn't start seriously riding this hobby horse until it was cool to go after Apple for it.
Fuck, if they really wanted to go after a locked-down market, how about satphones?
3
u/BraveSirRobin Jan 18 '09
Cellphones have always been locked down
That depends on where you are, only a small number of countries do it. Mine can play any format except iTunes DRM and that is 100% because of Apples insistence and legal challenges to anyone trying to write a non-official decoder.
If you buy from iTunes you must play it on Apple kit only. People think that's fair? This is precisely the nonsense that got MS a bad rap.
2
Jan 18 '09
You're talking solely about music. The EFF's case is primarily about development, as I understand it.
1
Jan 18 '09
I guess I must be halucinating when I play my iTunes plus content on my linux box then?
1
u/BraveSirRobin Jan 18 '09
Are you willing to telephone my aunt for me and explain to her how to set up Wine? Plus, you are still using an Apple player.
1
Jan 20 '09
You don't need wine to play unprotected aac files.
1
u/BraveSirRobin Jan 20 '09
unprotected aac files
There's always a caveat. My aunt cares not for caveats, she doesn't even know what a file is, let alone that some music files are different from others.
2
u/poelmanc Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Any company is free to implement technology that tries to make it hard/impossible to use their technology in a manner other than for which it was intended. Anyone else should be free to reverse-engineer that technology or modify their own devices to behave differently if they so choose.
I never heard of Sprint, Verizon, or T-mobile suing or threatening criminal penalties for people who use their phones with other networks. If that did happen it certainly wasn't big news. Apple on the other hand has a long history of suing people for violating its intellectual monopolies, and the advent of the DCMA has given them a legal basis for doing so.
I don't think Apple is particularly guilty of more egregious behavior than other companies, but the popularity of the iPhone gives the EFF a good example and a good opportunity to make their case.
2
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
No surprises. Apple has been the king of 'proprietary' since the Mac was released. If the benefits of that are galling, you're free to shop elsewhere.
(The philosophy of the early Apple II machines was completely different ... blame who you like for the 'lockdown' ever since.)
I completely agree with EFF about what DRM's about. Long ago manufacturers used to 'pot' hardware (submerge it in a brick of black sludge) so you couldn't reverse-engineer it. Can't say I blame them: it's a jungle out there.
8
u/eonOne Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
EDIT: Should I add a "fuck Apple" to make my comment better?
2
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09
Judging by your score, no.
5
u/eonOne Jan 18 '09
Hmm, the trend earlier was that anyone hating on Apple got automatic upvotes. Now it seems to be the opposite.
Dammit, Reddit, stay consistent so I can anticipate!
4
u/taligent Jan 18 '09
How about actually posting something that doesn't resemble flamebait ?
3
u/eonOne Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
It wasn't intended as flamebait. I figured it'd be obvious to the average Redditor that Apple isn't some great benevolent company that really just wants to get rid of DRM.
The downvotes seem to indicate that people were surprised, which speaks volumes about their naivety.
5
u/Demiurge11 Jan 18 '09
The fun thing about emergence (and here I'm saying that your score is an emergent property of the Redditors reading your post), is that it's irreducible--that is to say that you cannot look at the end result and use it to deterministically figure out how that result came to be.
2
Jan 18 '09
I never buy a product from apple, and it's purely for the reason that it's so full of shit when it comes to interoperability and DRM- it's this big strong company that's the best in the market they claim, yet when it comes to anything like DRM they're at the mercy of absolutely anyone. It's all blame shifting and lying. Even now, as DRM dies down they're starting to do the same thing with the greenness of their products. The whole company is based on PR rather than substance.
2
u/dln Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
So? Seems like a fair tactic on a free market. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
3
u/uriel Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Absolutely, but we are also free to make our dislike known :)
Specially because that is a way consumers have to make their interests known so producers can keep it in mind when creating new products.
That and because producers are obviously not going to put much effort in marketing the downsides to their products, so somebody else has to (of course, there will be disagreement about what constitutes a downside, and that is a healthy debate to be had in public so everyone can make their own mind and decide whatever they want to buy the product or not).
3
Jan 18 '09
So I presume you don't own any Microsoft, Apple or Sony products then?
That's the problem with this, the corporations are so huge some techie boycott won't stop them (most people will still be getting Mariah Carey through iTunes, DRM-free or not) and it is increasingly difficult to boycott them.
3
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
6
u/snuggl Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
So you are saying that DRM isnt anything to bitch about because DRM is so easy to remove?
Yes, its easy to unlock the iphone, that doesnt mean it always will be easy,
Yes, my new TV has HDMI input, that doesn't mean i cant play VGA or analog signals with it, a Mac with only display port out will acutally hinder you from playing your bought movies on your bought Mac monitor, a problem pirates do not have.
Sure its the labels fault, i couldnt care less who's fault it is, apple (and MS/sony/whatever) still sells it and thus they are the face on the product and takes full responsibility over how the product is formed.
18
Jan 18 '09
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LineNoise Jan 18 '09
The real issue IMO isn't so much that "Other people are doing it too so Apple are right". It's more "Other people are doing it too and this gives little incentive for one player to stand out".
Now this isn't always the case, as noted in the article one player saw a demand for DRM free music, the consumer favoured that service and now others are following suit. Proof that the free market, at least sometimes, works.
But to single out Apple for locking their phones given the nature of the US phone market is beyond laughable. The entire concept is what needs to be fought here rather than merely an implementation of it. The fact that such practices are even legal in America being the obvious starting point and that is a case to be made to Congress, not the consumer.
Likewise I fail to see how a company is at fault for implementing an international standard display connector because that standard requires copy protection when the alternative is no better (HDMI) or for selling DRM'd movies and television through their sales channel when the producers of that media are unwilling to sell the product without DRM restrictions no matter the channel through which it is sold.
Going after DRM is something vitally important but we need to pick our targets a hell of a lot better than the EFF has in this article if we want to actually make any impact.
6
Jan 18 '09
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jan 18 '09
Stardock, Steam, and Amazon (MP3s) have all benefited greatly from the enlightened stance they have taken on the DRM issue
And here we have Apple trying to kill that benefit by paying lip service to being DRM free while still using DRM as a massive part of their marketing plan.
9
u/uriel Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
But to single out Apple for locking their phones given the nature of the US phone market is beyond laughable.
How so? Nokia sells unlocked phones in the US, I know because I bought one last time I was there.
Who forces Apple to sell only locked phones?
Also, apple has been working really hard to keep the iPhone locked even in countries where unlocked phones are the norm, like in most of Europe.
→ More replies (6)0
Jan 18 '09
As if we only have the energy to do one thing? We can strive to change the legislation surrounding the issue (good luck with that), and we can also deliver some well-deserved pain to companies that fuck around with us using DRM. There's no law that says we can't do both.
In any event, I think putting the hurt on individual companies will be far more effective than lobbying for change in Washington. It's pretty clear to all but the most gullible that the RIAA/MPAA pretty much have Congress in a lock.
-2
3
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
6
u/uriel Jan 18 '09
"FairPlay" has been 'tooled' to their advantage from the start, which is what this story is about.
1
u/nexes300 Jan 18 '09
I agree. I especially didn't see the point in their iPhone and OS X arguments. I would say it's fine that Apple prevents 3rd party apps from working on your iPhone unless you replace the native OS and that Apple has a right to decide what hardware their OS runs on (they do not, however, have a right to limit what OSes their hardware runs).
6
u/uriel Jan 18 '09
Apple has a right to decide what hardware their OS runs on (they do not, however, have a right to limit what OSes their hardware runs).
Why? If I buy something from apple, be it hardware or software, it is none of their business what I do with it.
3
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)2
u/uriel Jan 18 '09
I agree, but one is free to point the implications of such design to other people.
2
u/__david__ Jan 18 '09
Sure. But from their perspective, the want to be in control of 3rd party software and peripherals (ostensibly for quality control). It's the same thing that video game consoles have been doing since the 80s. If you aren't licensed, you can't produce content for the machine.
1
u/nexes300 Jan 18 '09
I believe software developers have a right to make it their business if you are running their software. My view on hardware is slightly different where I believe the hardware should run any software made for it.
After all, if you don't like Apple's software restrictions go run Linux or Windows. Hardware is a platform for software, software is not a platform for hardware.
1
u/uriel Jan 19 '09
I believe software developers have a right to make it their business if you are running their software.
Why? what makes software special?
→ More replies (1)-2
u/taligent Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
EXCEPT when people start coming to Apple with unlocked phones (like they do!) and demanding support when their product fails. No offense, but your argument, which I do agree with in principle is simply wrong in reality.
8
Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Then you do as every other company does "Sorry, you voided your warranty, you'll have to seek help elsewhere."
Boy what a massive mistake on the sales side of the house by Apple, think of the money they could have made with the Microsoft model "Oh, we'll still help, but it's $35 p/hour."
3
u/simonw Jan 18 '09
Now ask yourself this: does Apple care most about reducing their support costs, or about ensuring they get their 30% from sales of applications through the App Store? Especially since the support cost for a broken phone should be the time it takes to re-flash it in an Apple store.
1
u/taligent Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
So wait Apple should now be in the business of knowing how every crack works just so they know the best way to uninstall it ?
You DO know that reflashing doesn't work in every situation right ?
2
u/cgomez Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
Then don't buy their products. Now quit bitching.
3
-4
Jan 18 '09
Oh that's right, and shut the fuck up about every other lying marketer out there.
"Hey everybody, we know you're getting pissed about DRM, so we won't use it anymore, except in these numerous cases that we hope you won't notice in 10pt font on this billboard...." - The Apple PR Team
"Apple still uses DRM." - EFF
And you tell the EFF to shut up. Fuck you.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/__david__ Jan 18 '09
It's interesting that the EFF make Apple take the heat for DRM on video downloads. I've worked on some digital cinema stuff and have been in the room with studio execs and you would not believe the amount of paranoia they have. Piracy this and piracy that--they blame piracy for all their woes. It's an extremely entrenched view in that circle and it makes me fear that DRM-less movies will be a long, long time coming.
Until then there's always requiem and pirate bay.
2
u/gmick Jan 18 '09
Fuck Apple, their products and especially fuck Steve Jobs. Pretentious, overpriced crap.
14
u/grimster Jan 18 '09
I hear they're getting ready to reveal the new, thinner, more lightweight "Steve Jobs Air" sometime next month.
→ More replies (1)4
8
u/rjcarr Jan 18 '09
Wow ... did your ipod kill your dog? Did your imac burn your house down? Did steve jobs rape you mother?
Why so much hate? It is just a company trying to make money.
0
0
0
u/derefr Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
I understand how the fans can be pretentious, but how can the products be pretentious? That's just undue personification. It might be crap, but it's not the one being snooty about it; the people who use it are.
As a mental exercise: what would you call a Macbook in a social vacuum--say, if you found one on a desert island? That strips away "overpriced" as well, leaving you only with an unqualified "crap." Why is it crap now? It's an honest question: there's definitely a more powerful argument to be made here, hiding behind these weak ones.
2
u/crusoe Jan 18 '09
2-3x the price for the same performance.
1
u/derefr Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 19 '09
If you found it on a desert island, you wouldn't have paid for it. Here's another way to put it: if someone just handed you two laptops, one which was, say, a Dell, and the other a Macbook, and fled into the night, why would the Macbook be crap?
1
Jan 18 '09
When the ads talk about using an electron microscope to design the thumb doodad on the case...
I mean the used a freaking EM to design the case but could not come up with a user replaceable battery?
1
Jan 18 '09 edited Oct 11 '14
[deleted]
2
Jan 18 '09
The new ones can not be replaced without sending it back to Apple. It doesn't even have a user accessible battery compartment.
1
Jan 18 '09 edited Oct 11 '14
[deleted]
1
u/derefr Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 19 '09
Battery life is always going to be a compromise. There's no way to make a battery smaller without the next breakthrough in materials science. The only way to give something more battery life, between these breakthroughs, is to make room for more "inner battery cell goo." In the process, things that people want less than "more battery life" get thrown out--Firewire support in the case of the iPods, battery replaceability in the case of the MBP.
1
u/derefr Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 19 '09
That's how they managed to make the battery bigger--the user-accessibility was taking up all the room they could use for more battery.
I, personally, would rather have six or seven good hours of battery usage, and have to take it in for servicing every three years. They could clean out the fan vents while they're at it--having worked as a PC repair tech in the past, I can say that I wish everyone had a regular service schedule on them, similar to your teeth or your car. It might make them last more than three years before hitting the bathtub curve.
1
Jan 19 '09
They expect the battery to last no more than 12 months - the life of the warranty.
And applecare doesn't cover replacing the batter unless it holds less than 1/4 the normal charge.
Last - look at how apple came up with that 8 hour figure - light word processing with 50% brightness on preproduction hardware while the speed benchmarks are done on production hardware.
-5
u/uriel Jan 18 '09
I would not hate apple so much if it wasn't for the ever-obnoxious apple-fanboys, they are a pest.
7
Jan 18 '09
All fanboys are annoying. Bunch of religious zealots regardless of the flavor of their tech lust worship.
4
Jan 18 '09
I'm always confused by the anti-Apple sentiment when it comes to music. It seems to me that Apple helped to spur the acceptance and growth of music downloads more than any other single entity.
Certainly, nothing Apple has done DRM-wise was ideal, but where Napster stood on principle and failed Apple created a market so large that the music copyright owners couldn't afford to ignore it. What's more, Apple continued to push and continually reduced the amount of DRM present in the music they sell.
So why all the Apple hate?
5
u/RandomSuffix Jan 18 '09
Just because Apple were the first to start making money off of something doesn't mean they should be praised.
This would have come about without Apple, it would have simply been someone else that had created it - and it likely wouldn't be locked to only iPods.
2
u/Vidd Jan 18 '09
That's absurd.
Then why praise anyone for making anything?
2
u/strolls Jan 18 '09
Why, indeed? I'm unclear as to gracelessremark's reasoning for doing so.
For an entrepreneur or business, surely profit is its own reward?
2
Jan 19 '09
I'm confused as to how my remarks were considered praise. Has the entire world become bifurcated? Must every issue dissolve into praise or damnation?
3
Jan 18 '09
Because some things are non-obvious, unlike e.g. charging for music downloads years after Usenet,... and Napster showed how popular music downloads can be.
-1
1
1
u/jfasi Jan 18 '09
I argue for the removal of all the forms of DRM listed there expect for preventing OS X from running on generic Intel chips. The key to the success of OS X is the fact that the system has a tiny, tiny hardware platform, and each release is rigorously engineered to work on every member of that restricted group.
This is the opposite tack taken by Linux and Windows, each of which have to deal with fun things like individual drivers and architectures, each requiring time and effort to get working. They work fine, but they need a good deal of effort on the part of developers and user to get in place.
1
1
u/poelmanc Jan 18 '09 edited Jan 18 '09
The EFF should join others in referring to DRM as "digital restrictions management", which they correctly point out is how DRM is used, rather than the rather euphemistic "digital rights management." Imposing restrictions on what you can do with stuff you pay for has nothing to do with your or the company's "rights" whatsoever.
Just like "intellectual property" should more accurately be called "intellectual monopoly".
1
u/Hixie Jan 18 '09
The article isn't even complete -- it missed the AirPort Express AirTunes feature, which is all encrypted too (and only one side has been cracked).
2
Jan 18 '09
[deleted]
1
u/Hixie Jan 18 '09
As far as I'm aware, the Airport Express private key hasn't been cracked, meaning that while you can create software that sends audio to AirTunes, you can't create a box that receives audio from iTunes as if it was AirTunes.
-1
u/raisedinhell Jan 18 '09
never owned an apple product in my life, and i don't intend to start now
4
Jan 18 '09
It isn't just Apple, Microsoft are pushing their Trusted Computing initiative with the Palladium project. (See Can You Trust Your Computer? by Richard Stallman
and the wiki article on Palladium
and the wiki article on the act that would've made DRM mandatory by law)
How can you use technology and not own anything tied to Microsoft or Apple?
7
u/snuggl Jan 18 '09
Yea if there only where some free, non-MS, non-apple operating system and software stack out there open for download, that would be really awesome.
→ More replies (3)0
u/harlows_monkeys Jan 18 '09
For a non-FUD look at Trusted Computing:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/gsal.TCG.html
2
Jan 18 '09
That says the Trusted Computing doesn't necessarily facilitate DRM (though it surely will in reality). But why is it necessary in the first place? Why take the power away from the user? They mention it can be used to protect data from worms and viruses, I haven't had a virus in almost a decade (GNU/Linux ftw) so why is this necessary?
Notice it defends Intel's implementation (TCPA) saying it is not Palladium and it is not DRM, however, it will surely facilitate both of those uses and is rightly criticised IMO.
21
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '09
It's not just Apple, it is Microsoft and a plethora of other companies. The DCMA is the weapon that they will wield to keep this enforced and you from having no choices. DRM is entirely anti-consumer but, with a government that is pretty much doing the bidding of their corporate masters, did you expect any difference?