Filed under: iTS, Software, Odds and ends, iTunes
Anti-DRM demonstrations at Apple Stores
A site by the name of DefectiveByDesign.org has organized a series of anti-DRM demonstrations at Apple retail stores across the U.S. today. They aim to educate Apple Store visitors about the dangers inherent in DRM, such as being locked into one file format and device, the inability to pass along or share these songs (I guess they haven't found the 'burn' button in iTunes yet), and Apple's now-legendary crack-down on any significant 3rd party who tries to mess with the iTMS + iPod ecosystem by adding features or allowing the iPod to work with other content systems (think: the Real/Rhapsody debacle).DefectiveByDesign reminds attendees of these events to bring their cameras, so we'll be sure to keep our ears open for any news on how well these demonstrations fair.
[via BoingBoing]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Silver said 2:12PM on 6-10-2006
I wish people would wake up and realize that DRM isn't an Apple thing, it's a music industry thing. Without DRM, Apple wouldn't be allowed to sell music online at all. So if people want to protest, head down to the record label offices and picket there.
Ignorance is annoying.
P.S. I wouldn't mind seeing a non-proprietary universal DRM scheme that works across all hardware platforms though. No, Microsoft's "Plays For Sure" doesn't count.
Reply
tim said 2:19PM on 6-10-2006
we all know now that ipods work with only itunes. if you dont want to buy songs with drm, dont use itunes, if you dont plan to use itunes, dont buy an ipod. just because you see the billboard telling you to buy an ipod, doesnt mean you have to get one and use the drm (only to complain about it). and why does everyone fail to realize you can just load your own ripped (or...DOWNLOADED ILLEGALLY) songs!? it seems like people only think you can load itms songs on there.
this is the same with the MS anti trust, its like, if you dont want it, dont buy it! you dont HAVE to use it, no matter what you think.
Reply
prunejuice said 2:37PM on 6-10-2006
I couldn't agree more with the above posts, you can still buy CD's from stores and rip them, that way you get a hard copy and a rip without DRM, did anyone ever protest over Sony's rootkit? Companys like EMI, Interscope & Sony BGM should be targets, not the middleman.
Reply
Andrew said 2:43PM on 6-10-2006
iPod's also work with eMusic. So #2 should have written, "we all know that ipods work with only itunes and emusic".
Can we send these demonstrators to France where they would be more comfortable?
Reply
ChillyWilly said 2:51PM on 6-10-2006
The demonstrations are a bit too far. I understand their ideal, but as previous posts have said, they are barking up the wrong tree. I'm sure Apple would love to have more freedom that DRM-less music would bring.
But this is a RIAA thing. And something tells me that an organization that sues it's own customers isn't going to let a grassroots organization change their minds.
Still using iTunes 5.0 here, which helps in the process of having DRM-free music. ;-)
Reply
bt said 2:52PM on 6-10-2006
Holy crap, the iPod breaks your arms, bends them backwards, and possibly causes you to soil your pants? Mine must not be set to Evil because that hasn't happened to me in the 3+ years I've had mine, thankfully. *phew!*
The arguments for/against iTMS and all the "Plays For Sure" are getting really old. Anything with DRM is going to lock you into something without some workarounds.
Reply
David Chartier said 3:25PM on 6-10-2006
Wow, this is great stuff to hear guys. I was thinking about expressing some of the same sentiments in my post but I figured I'd stay away from such a hot topic this time around.
Reply
Jon H. said 3:32PM on 6-10-2006
Am I the only one that remembers the pre-iTMS days of legal music download services? It was not pretty...
Leading up to the iTMS launch, Jobs always said that digital music consumers need to be treated like customers and not criminals. He said that a legal music download site needed to make it "easier to buy than to steal." That's exactly what the iTumes Music Store has done, IMO.
I think its DRM is pretty generous compared to its competitors. You own the files, can burn them, even send them to 4 other people. Before the iTMS came out, most legal downloads servies charge you an extra fee for each of those privledges. Oh, and they wanted a lot more then 99 cents...
I agree when you say that Apple is not the enemy, the RIAA is. I believe Apple to be on the consumer's side of this argument.
Reply
Dave said 3:53PM on 6-10-2006
Wow, if only people cared so much about issues in the world that actually matter...
Reply
andy said 3:58PM on 6-10-2006
haha, try emailing them, i said most of whats above the other day and still no reply, i think theyre just more anti apple windows fanboys - wow feels good to call someone else a fanboy lol, i hate that word
Reply
andy said 4:06PM on 6-10-2006
i sent them this...:
hi, thought id just let you know that drm is enforced by record companies to let venders sell online, protesting to apple (and for some reason not microsoft?) is protesting to someone with no control over the matter, plus do you realize no one forces ipod owners to but from itunes store, the programme allows you to rip cds to your ipod drm free, and even if you do buy drm music you can still burn it drm free! this is a cause with no facts, i agree it would be nice to have no drm at all but it is not going to happen and i would rather have apples more open drm (that allows burning and syncing with unlimited computers (both mac and windows) and ipods as well as disk burning than be stuck with playforsure that locks you into one Operating System and drains your mp3 players battery because of bad encoding technology! I think your site / cause would be better if you released FACT and not made things up because of some apple grudge or just because your fed up with seeing white ear buds!!!, you can reply if you disagree with anything written here but it is all fact and it is not apple but you that is selling lies! - if you really are 'for the people' you should tell 'the people' facts!
Reply
Bridget Samuels said 4:37PM on 6-10-2006
I had to take my MBP in to the Cambridge, MA store to get the battery replaced this morning, and I was very surprised to see several anti-DRM guys in hazmat suits along with a few others carrying signs. It was really cool! The store was also hopping with security guards today, presumably in anticipation of the event, although I guess it could've been a coincidence. It's too bad I didn't have my camera.
Reply
Christopher Williams said 4:55PM on 6-10-2006
ChillyWilly and Silver:
Although you correctly point out the DRM is, in itself, not a proponent of Apple, but of the RIAA, you incorrectly confuse Fairplay, Apple's proprietary DRM scheme, with DRM as a whole. Yes, the record industry does require DRM, but not necessarily Apple's DRM. They would be happy with ANY DRM which gave them the control they so desire, but it is Apple, with its desire to retain control over the digital music player and digital music download arena, who refuses to share Fairplay with others so that music from any store would play on any device. So long as people have iPods, they must use the iTMS, and so long as people use the iTMS, they must use iPods. That is the very definition of a monopoly. They own the digital music space, and, because of their refusal to license (Un)Fairplay, no competition has a chance to even get a foothold, much less challenge Apple.
As a consumer, I don't want a company to give me a watered down choice of what I can do with the things that I buy. As it stands now, if, in 5 years, the iPod is a washed up piece of junk (unlikely, but possible) all of the hundreds of songs I have bought on the iTMS will be completely worthless short of burning all of them to CD and then re-ripping them (a completely unacceptable solution). I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like Fairplay is fair-play. I want to do what I will with my purchases. As of now, I can't use iTMS store tracks over any media streamer save an Airport Express, music player except an iPod, or any jukebox software except iTunes.
I want the ability to choose for myself what the best music player is, not be limited by what some company (even the beloved Apple) thinks is fair.
DRM needs to be standardized across the entire digital music space so that consumers make choices, not concessions due to their DRM.
Reply
Wheels said 5:23PM on 6-10-2006
And let's not forget that the iPod supports all these file formats:
"AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF."
So the argument of "being locked into one file format" is defective in itself. And, as Andrew pointed out, other music services can have access to all iPod toting consumers, if they choose to. So what's really defective by design is DefectiveByDesign.
If DefectiveByDesign wants to really do something constructive (which I doubt they do because that would take original thoughts) they could:
A.) Go after the record industry - which has already been mentioned - since they're the real motivating factor behind DRM.
B.) Go after subscription based music stores. That's the business model that really locks in, and screws, consumers.
Reply
Ian Murray said 5:33PM on 6-10-2006
To Christopher Williams:
1. If the trigger-happy record companies can be happy with Apple's DRM, why can't you?
2. As far as I and everyone else here are concerned (or anyone who retains enough knowledge to speak intelligently about all of this), Apple's Fairplay is one of the loosest DRMs out there. You can burn, you can give your files to friends (to an extent), you can do pretty much anything within the confines of legality.
3. People who have iPods do NOT have to use iTMS. You'd be remiss to think that. Apple is not FORCING anyone to download from their store. You can go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Target or where have you to purchase your music. And it's all yours. Just like iTMS music.
4. The very definition of a monopoly is Microsoft. Apple is simply upholding their end of the RIAA and DRM bargain. You seem to claim you understand the matter, yet your argument falls apart mid-cognizance.
5. Apple isn't stopping anyone else from coming out with their own music download service. They just haven't done it as easily, cleanly, or broadly as Apple. You can't blame apple for doing one hell of a job.
6. Why do you think burning your songs to a CD is pointless? If they're yours, and you want them in a normal format so bad, I think you'd have a little more sway towards what happens to the money you invested in that music. Or perhaps you're strapped for cash. Even though a stack of 50 CD-Rs costs less than a movie ticket, I'd be happy to buy you one if you would end you incessant whining. Or at the very least, stop pointing the finger at Apple.
7. Let's role-play for a second. Let's try looking at Adobe. You buy their software. Then you give a copy of that software to your friend to put on his computer. Adobe doesn't like this, and why is that? Maybe because they're losing money from casual pirating like that. Which is why they have things like serial numbers, activation codes, registration processes and whatnot to stop that sort of activity. And this is exactly what Apple is doing. Can you blame them for only wanting YOU to have access to the music YOU bought? PErhaps you're mad because you wish you COULD just give music away illegally. Perhaps you'd love to throw us all back to the days of the original Napster.
Well good luck. Loads of intelligent people understand and respect Apple's DRM. And all of the protests and your post just make them (and you) out to look like no more than the dregs of society.
Reply
Magnus said 5:39PM on 6-10-2006
Any DRM is evil, the end.
Reply
Christopher Williams said 5:47PM on 6-10-2006
Wheels:
When you write "And, as Andrew pointed out, other music services can have access to all iPod toting consumers, if they choose to," you couldn't be more wrong. Any store which chooses to operate without lacing downloaded files with DRM, and hence suffer the wrath from the RIAA, can work with iPods. There is no other store on earth which has the RIAA mandated DRM (any scheme) which can work on iPods, except the iTMS. This is not by choice (what store wouldn't want to capitalize on the success of the iPod by being able to sell something that works on it?), but because Apple refuses to license out their own DRM so that other stores' music can play on the iPod, or so that iTMS tracks can play on other players.
Apple is dead worng in this particular situation. They ought to license out their own DRM, (Un)Fairplay, to the entire digital downloads industry so that DRM remains, as the RIAA demands, but also so that consumers can have absolute freedom on how they might use their files.
Having a company dictate how I might use my files, and with which devices I can use them, is not acceptable. It would be like Sony "protecting" their DVDs from Sony Pictures so that they would only play on Sony DVD players. Not good, and I guarantee that every Apple defender here would agree that one shouldn't have to own a Sony DVD player just to play a DVD released by Sony pictures.
DRM is evil. Unlicensed, proprietary DRM, especially when in use by the inductry leader, makes it even worse.
Reply
Michael Martin said 5:54PM on 6-10-2006
now, here's a question, at all of these demonstrations, why does no one suggest an alternative? Maybe because there ISN'T one.
Reply
Christopher Williams said 6:35PM on 6-10-2006
Ian:
"1. If the trigger-happy record companies can be happy with Apple's DRM, why can't you?"
I am the consumer, here, not an industry who has interest in locking everything down. The RIAA is not interested in freedom to use the music that I buy in any way that I see fit, I am.
"2. As far as I and everyone else here are concerned (or anyone who retains enough knowledge to speak intelligently about all of this), Apple's Fairplay is one of the loosest DRMs out there. You can burn, you can give your files to friends (to an extent), you can do pretty much anything within the confines of legality."
I will agree that Fairplay is looser than most when it comes to "sharing," but not so when it comes to how I use the music myself. I MUST use if iPod if I buy from the iTMS in order to listen to said music on the go. Conversely, if I buy an iPod, I MUST use the iTMS if I want to buy music online rather than in CD form. I MUST use an Airport Express if I wish to stream the music that I paid for across my own house. I MUST continue to use any songs that I bought from the iTMS in iTunes, even if I think that there are better alternatives that I would like to use.
That is not loose. Having to use Apple hardware and software at every turn is not loose.
"3. People who have iPods do NOT have to use iTMS. You'd be remiss to think that. Apple is not FORCING anyone to download from their store. You can go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Target or where have you to purchase your music. And it's all yours. Just like iTMS music."
I never once said that iPod users had to buy from iTunes in order to use the iPod. But if they want to buy online, they must, even if they didn't want to. You can go to any of those places to buy yor CD based music, not digital music. I don't like the iTMS or CD choice. It doesn't seem much of a choice to me. If I want the convenience, as an iPod user, of downloading the new Pearl Jam album at 4am, my only real option is the iTMS rather than any other of the dozens of music stores on the internet.
"4. The very definition of a monopoly is Microsoft. Apple is simply upholding their end of the RIAA and DRM bargain. You seem to claim you understand the matter, yet your argument falls apart mid-cognizance."
MS gained and held its monopoly position by not allowing any competition within the market space. Apple is doing exactly the same with their refusal to license out Fairplay. If, by means of business, you lock out other vendors from being able to compete within a given market space, and you are the market leader, you are a monopoly.
"5. Apple isn't stopping anyone else from coming out with their own music download service. They just haven't done it as easily, cleanly, or broadly as Apple. You can't blame apple for doing one hell of a job."
No, I can't blame Apple from doing a great job with the iTMS (I never said that the iTMS wasn't a great store). And no, Apple isn't stopping other online music stores from opening. But, because the iPod leads the digital music player market by leaps and bounds, Apple is keeping any other music stores from fairly competeing by not licensing their DRM so that music from said stores can play on iPods. Again, the very definition of a monopoly.
"6. Why do you think burning your songs to a CD is pointless? If they're yours, and you want them in a normal format so bad, I think you'd have a little more sway towards what happens to the money you invested in that music. Or perhaps you're strapped for cash. Even though a stack of 50 CD-Rs costs less than a movie ticket, I'd be happy to buy you one if you would end you incessant whining. Or at the very least, stop pointing the finger at Apple."
I never said that burning to CD was pointless, but unacceptable under the circumstance the the iPod may not be the best music player forever. What I was aiming at, and may have missed, is that if in 5 years I no longer want an iPod, the ONLY way that I can use the music that I have bought and paid for on another digital music player is to burn all of my iTMS tracks to CD, and then re-rip them (which may take days or even weeks of my time) so that they can be DRM-free and then transferred to the new player. How is this an okay alternative? Why should I not simply have the ability to copy these songs to a new player? I bought them didn't I? Why does Apple, or anyone else for that matter, get to make the decision as to how I use my files?
"7. Let's role-play for a second. Let's try looking at Adobe. You buy their software. Then you give a copy of that software to your friend to put on his computer. Adobe doesn't like this, and why is that? Maybe because they're losing money from casual pirating like that. Which is why they have things like serial numbers, activation codes, registration processes and whatnot to stop that sort of activity. And this is exactly what Apple is doing. Can you blame them for only wanting YOU to have access to the music YOU bought? PErhaps you're mad because you wish you COULD just give music away illegally. Perhaps you'd love to throw us all back to the days of the original Napster."
Who said anything about pirating? I don't pirate. I bought all of the music I have (with the exception of 1 album which is no longer produced and cannot be bought--only 500 copies ever made). When protecting from illegal actions becomes a higher priority than allowing legitimate customers from enjoying the products they have paid for (and good money I might add), there is something seriously worng. When a company dictates how I might use things that I have paid for so that others don't break the law, I get upset. And besides, how can "Fairplay" and "protects from piracy" be said in the same sentence with any sense of realism? You can play iTMS tracks on an unlimited number of iPods (which controls ~80% of the digital music player market), but not any others (a combined ~20% market share). So, in essence, what Apple is saying is that it's okay to pirate music bought from our store to our music player, just not any others.
When looked at from this point of view, is it obvious that Fairplay is not at all about protecting intellectual property, but about retaining control on the emerging digital music market, both on the hardware and software end of the business.
"Apple and Fairplay: protecting piracy from 2 of 10 music players."
Perhaps if you weren't so interested in tyrying to put me down in your post, you may be able to think clearly about these issues and what it means for consumers. And, just so you know, you used "cognizance" incorrectly. if you're going to use big words, at the very least use them correctly.
Reply
Derek said 6:42PM on 6-10-2006
I sent them an email...
Ok, number 1...
About not being able to pass along/share songs...
THAT IS ILLEGAL! SHARING SONGS IS ILLEGAL! It is like downloading
illegally! And, you must have forgotten that there is a BURN button in
iTunes. YOU CAN BURN THE SONGS TO A CD!!!!
Number 2...
Who is making you buy iPods? If you don't like it, you don't have to buy
it. I have been using iTunes and burning/then ripping the songs to .mp3 so
I can use them with any device. It isn't that hard to remove the DRM. Do
some research before you start a protest.
Number 3...
Protesting doesn't do anything. It isn't like Apple is going "Hey, these
guys are right. Let's go against the RIAA (who require Apple to use DRM)
and do what these guys say. We were stupid about trying to keep customers
from breaking the law, anyway."
Number 4...
You can still buy from a CD or eMusic.com. iPods can work with many songs,
not just iTunes songs.
Number 5...
Your protest is completely unprofessional. The iPods tying people's arms?
Mine has never done that. You must just have a defective unit. Send it
back to Apple, they will get you a new one. Or, make sure it isn't set to
"Evil" in preferences.
Number 6...
If you want to protest, protest the RIAA. They REQUIRE Apple to use DRM.
Reply