Filed under: iTS, Odds and ends, iTunes, Apple
Video demonstration of anti-DRM group at SF Apple Store
One of our sister blogs, The Digital Music Weblog, dug up a video of an anti-DRM demonstration by that DefectiveByDesign crew we blogged yesterday. This demonstration was in San Francisco, and from the editing of the video, it looked pretty successful - if you count talking to roughly two people successful. Maybe the hazmat suits threw off potential anti-DRM converts, causing them to think the group was there for some kind of a real cause.
Does anyone else see the irony in the use of music they have absolutely no rights to? I don't think they're helping the 'we're consumers and we deserve
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jay said 2:59PM on 6-11-2006
Sorry David...I don't get your snarkiness towards the anti-DRM crowd. Just because Apple advocates it doesn't make it right. The fact that I actually have to burn any iTMS purchases to CD to make them portable among my Macs/iPod is a PITA and the main reason I don't shop at the iTMS. It's no different then only being able to play my Sony CD's on a Sony CD player.
Okay, hazmat suits may be a bit over-the-top in a PeTA way but DRM does suck. Even the way Apple has implemented it.
Reply
Christian said 3:03PM on 6-11-2006
well.. I think the article sounds slightly biased.. The DRM-solution apple uses IS highly restrictive, in the way that it doesn't allow you to change MP3-player or MP3-playerdevice if you wan't to still be able to play the music YOU'VE PAID FOR. They aren't protesting the fact that there is a DRM, to the same extent that they are demonstrating apples restrictive DRM-policy. ref. Real/Rhapsody
Reply
Chip said 3:04PM on 6-11-2006
This reminds me of the time a group of college kids came to protest the Apple store I used to work at. Their beef was with iPods not being recyclable. It was a group of 10 or so, and they sent one person in early to "bait" us. He told us a story about how his iPod died, and Apple refused to recycle it for him... we pointed out that if he wanted to bring it to us, we'd take care of it. We also pointed out that almost every big city has an electronics recycling drop off. His argument fell apart pretty quickly, and he left to join his friends outside. A few moments later, half of them left, and the other half pulled out their signs, protesting Apple's "irresponsible" stance on the environment. Nobody even looked their way as customers came in the store. After maybe 2 minutes, the last few gave up and left. 15 minutes after that a news crew showed up to cover the protest... it turns out that college kids at least had the foresight to alert the media to the terrible problem filling up our landfills named iPod. Needless to say, the news crew didn't even bother to unpack and left.
I think the funniest part of the day was our manager calling Apple PR about the whole thing, asking what he should do... and as he panicked, they panicked. He was in his office the whole time on the phone and missed the whole fall apart. He came charging out of the office with a note in his hand of the things Apple cleared him to say... only to find nothing going on. Mountain out of a Mole Hill.
Reply
Conrad Quilty-Harper said 3:05PM on 6-11-2006
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."
—Written by Guthrie in the late 1930s on a songbook distributed to listeners who wanted the words to his recordings
Taken from the Rocketboom comments on the below video. Definitely worth a read for a different perspective on the underlying idiocy behind DRM and copyright law.
http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2006/05/rb_06_may_17.html
Reply
stephen said 3:07PM on 6-11-2006
i don't get what the problem is! of course apple is going to restrict DRM...they need to make money, and the musicians have a right to have their music protected. Apple has very liberal DRM imho compared to other digital music resellers.
Reply
Adam Lange said 3:15PM on 6-11-2006
Am I the only one who thinks the real target of temonstrations should be the RIAA or even politicians. I understand Apple uses their DRM, but its not by their choice per say, otherwise no labels would sign on to the iTMS.
Reply
b. nystedt said 3:23PM on 6-11-2006
They're protesting something that people don't know about. Looks like they got totally ignored.
It's a lesser of evils thing... iTMS is the best music store, iPod is the best music player so there is a little compromise. However, I can use iMovie to put the music onto my movies. I can burn it to a CD and turn it into an MP3 and use it ad infinitum. What's the big deal?
Reply
Jon H said 3:27PM on 6-11-2006
Christian writes:"The DRM-solution apple uses IS highly restrictive, in the way that it doesn't allow you to change MP3-player or MP3-playerdevice if you wan't to still be able to play the music YOU'VE PAID FOR."
You got EXACTLY what you paid for. Apple sold you a song with certain restrictions (DRM, encoding rate, etc), you paid for it, now you want to get *more* than you've paid for, after the fact.
When a magazine buys an article or short story from a writer, they pay the writer for a particular set of rights; for example an American magazine would probably buy "First North American Serial Rights", which gives them the right to be the first publisher of the piece in North America in a magazine.
How would you feel if you wrote an article, sold FNASR rights to a publisher, and after the fact the publisher decided he wanted to publish it on the web too, when he didn't pay you for those rights?
If you want songs under different terms, then BUY THEM UNDER DIFFERENT TERMS. For example, on physical CDs you rip yourself into iTunes.
Reply
Daniel said 3:34PM on 6-11-2006
Their suits are open! they are gonna catch DRM!
Reply
Juan said 3:35PM on 6-11-2006
The problem is not DRM, the problem is the way that Apple has implemented DRM: music from iTunes only works on iPods and iPods only plays DRM music from iTunes: THIS IS A MONOPOLISTIC ABUSE (it is called Vendor Lock-in and it is prohibited by the antitrust laws. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in )
PS: Sorry for my english
Reply
mrtotes said 4:02PM on 6-11-2006
Let me make this clear I've never bought anything from iTMS (I do use it for Podcasts and Trailers) my wife's Nano is full of ripped CDs (I'm prepared to spend a few pounds more for the back-up and flexibility) however the Vendor-Lock-In Number 10 mentions is from the other perspective an "End-to-End customer solution" Apple's products are fantastic because Apple owns the software and hardware and in the case of iPod the hardware and music provision.
Reply
David Chartier said 4:04PM on 6-11-2006
I'm starting a senior multimedia thesis on DRM and the culture behind it, and I'm snarky towards movements like this or wide-sweeping judgements like "DRM and copyright law suck" because it's such a layered topic. Do I think people deserve choice? Sure. On the other hand, do I think every other solution similar to iTunes+iPod sucks because manufacturers and Microsoft don't know what they're doing (and believe me, I've used most of them)? You can bet your keester. Do I think artists have the right to retain copyright of their material and have the right to chose what THEY want US to do with THEIR material, whether it's release it free or put some sort of restriction on it? Definitely.
I just believe it's a very difficult topic, and movements like this that are targeting Apple - one of the smallest fish in the frying pan, so to speak, are wasting their time and exhibiting a fairly limited perspective on the greater situation. Is Apple's implementation of DRM crappy? Maybe. Is it less restrictive than other systems of DRM? From what I've heard, most definitely yes.
I feel the more important questions, the ones that DefectiveByDesign are completely missing with what I feel are pretty silly stunts, are: Is DRM an invention of Apple, or an imposition from the larger corporations industries that the iTMS is serving? What are the circumstances that brought about DRM, and how can we fix the situation? CAN we fix the situation? Do we, as consumers, have the right to demand to be able to do anything we want with everything we want?
Whether Apple's implementation of DRM sucks, or whether Microsoft's system is better because it's licensed, and other questions like these are looking at incredibly tiny slices of a much, much, much larger pie.
This is why my post was snarky.
Reply
randy said 4:05PM on 6-11-2006
"Does anyone else see the irony in the use of music they have absolutely no rights to?"
Not only that, but they chose an artist that is practically sleeping with Jobs. For christ's sake, they make a producted branded with the band's name! That's certainly not going to help their cause.
Reply
Justin Cash said 4:14PM on 6-11-2006
Even though I've at times, wanted to buy a song for friend (without sending it over itunes).. I'm not completely bothered by DRM.
I use a Mac, and an iPod, and really have no other reason to transfer my music anywhere else. Not sure how riduculous this sounds, but I wanted to speak my mind from THIS side of the fence. Once again, I'm not per se' FOR it, but in my daily life DRM very rarely ever effects what I do. So there.
Reply
Joseph Matt said 4:35PM on 6-11-2006
When am I going to expect red paint thrown on me for having white ear buds on?
j/k guys
To each their own, but I find some battles like this silly. While these guys were protesting Apple's DRM, congress didn't pass the Net Neutrality Bill, which has much greater consequences than this "protest".
Reply
Greg said 4:36PM on 6-11-2006
If people are willing to buy DRM'd music, let them. Let the market decide what's best.
I'll stick with ripped CDs until the format dies.
Reply
Ian Murray said 4:43PM on 6-11-2006
Juan:
The way Apple has implemented their DRM is just as every other company that's been distributing music has implemented theirs: they usually only work with one or two specific products (usually the company's own). It is merely good business practice to keep what made you a success a closely guarded secret, and they have no reason to license it out other than to help other companies along. But really, other companies need to help themselves and come up with a better (if possible) music store/music player strategy.
Reply
Ian Murray said 4:45PM on 6-11-2006
Juan:
The way Apple has implemented their DRM is just as every other company that's been distributing music has implemented theirs: they usually only work with one or two specific products (usually the company's own). It is merely good business practice to keep what made you a success a closely guarded secret, and they have no reason to license it out other than to help other companies along. But really, other companies need to help themselves and come up with a better (if possible) music store/music player strategy.
Reply
Alex said 5:02PM on 6-11-2006
Juan, you say iPods only play DRM'ed music from iTMS
This is completely false - iPods play almost any music that you chuck at it.
Reply
Alex said 5:07PM on 6-11-2006
My apologies Juan, I just read your comment the other way and I see what you mean - iPods won't play PlaysForSure music. Though as Ian Murray points out, this is across the digital music board.
Reply