Filed under: iPod Family, iTS, Internet, Blogs
EFF technologist on DRM, Apple's role and the bigger picture
Seth Scoen, an EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) staff technologist, has an interesting blog post in which he analyzes some of the arguments surrounding DRM, Apple's role and how DRM affects the market in more ways than simply locking down content. He also hopes to remind those who have gone astray from the meat of the topic that getting caught up in the Mac vs. PC (and Apple vs. Microsoft) debates in the DRM world only serves to muddy the issue, much like many political debates get too caught up in 'Democrat vs. Republican' rivalry.
One of the more important arguments that Seth examines in terms of DRM as a whole and how it affects market competition is that of 'it's the record labels, not Apple who are to blame for the use of DRM'. Seth cites an EFF post from May, 2004 in which their own Fred von Lohmann wrote about his chance to ask the iTMS head lawyer as to whether Apple would stop using DRM if the record labels
Seth's post offers some interesting perspective on these DRM arguments, and it refreshingly delves deeper than the "Apple's solution is terrible which means you should use Microsoft's" banter. Check it out.
[via BoingBoing]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
xploraiswakco said 3:18PM on 6-17-2006
"it's the record labels, not Apple who are to blame for the use of DRM"
so true, I have even tried to start an article, or thread on slashdot to that effect
Reply
Anthony said 5:05PM on 6-17-2006
Ur, xploraiswakco, I think you missed the point of the post.
Reply
Reg said 9:59PM on 6-17-2006
I think the argument that the record industry may have required DRM to allow the ITunes Store to operate, but Apple is very happy to use it as platform protection for the iPod is a fair comment.
However...
When you consider that the average iTunes user has purchased 60 songs from the store, but most people's iPods have FAR more than 60 songs, the argument that Apple is deliberately using it to promote iPod sales is diminished.
I actually think Apple would sell more iPods if songs bought from other online stores - including and especially subscription based ones - worked on the iPod.
And I certainly think the iTunes Store would sell more songs if they worked on devices other than iPods.
The real driver of iPod sales is the explosion of digitally available music, whether from ripped CDs or free downloads, where people can fill up a decent percentage of their 10,000 song capacity iPods without breaking the bank.
I think Apple encourages the view that they like DRM largely to keep the record companies happy. Their internal numbers must show that the ITunes Music Store is not the prime source of iPod popularity.
My 2c solution (assuming DRM is here to stay):
1. Apple should be required to license FairPlay to any manufacturer who wants it, for say, $5 per unit cost, thus allowing Toshiba, Creative, etc to produce players which accept iTunes purchased content.
2. iTunes Music Store should introduce an all-you-can-eat subscription service, for say, $14.99 per month, while retaining the 99c permanent purchase option.
Reply
Mac Diva said 12:37AM on 6-18-2006
EFF has lost any credibility it ever had. Increasingly, it seems to be taking the sides of whatever corporations are funding it. (Information that it keeps secret, btw.) EFF's non-profit status should be legally challenged.
If people like simpleton Seth Scoen or clueless commenter Reg were able to run a successful music download business they would be doing so. Apple has achieved what its critics never could with iTMS. I can't think of any reason it should give a flying F what they think.
The mere fact Apple lawyers may have (we have no actual proof) said it would not be interested in ending DRM does NOT mean that Apple is driving the existence of the technology. More likely it means that Apple is not interested in going against a status quo that works well enough.
I see nothing that would convince an intelligent person that EFF's attack on DRM makes sense in Scoen's flackery at all.
Reply
Ken said 12:39AM on 6-18-2006
If one day record labels "lift their requirement of" DRM, iTMS would have to follow or die.
Why would someone choose iTMS over other stores, if other stores start selling DRM free MP3s? Exclusive content or low prices wouldn't be enough to let iTMS survive.
This would not harm the iPod, though. It will even allow it to use content from other stores and remove worries for having to use only iTMS.
Reply
Stephen Keese said 2:42AM on 6-18-2006
All iTunes content, even iTMS exclusives, is available immediately on the file sharing services thanks to the burn-to-CD ability in iTunes, according to Seth's blog. Since technology has already routed around the iTunes' DRM, what's the problem? iTMS purchasers have to do a little extra work to move content to another platform? No big deal. Use of almost all technology requires some work. Look at Windows. Seems like a non-issue to me.
Reply
Sir Not Appearing in this Blog said 9:43AM on 6-18-2006
"Apple should be required to license FairPlay to any manufacturer who wants it, for say, $5 per unit cost, thus allowing Toshiba, Creative, etc to produce players which accept iTunes purchased content."
Why? No, seriously. WHY? It's not like it's impossible to get music onto other players. There are other music stores which DO work with the other guys but which DON'T work with the iPod. You have options.
Put another way, if you own an iPod, you have two basic options for getting music on your iPod. CDs and the iTunes Music Store. You wouldn't buy music from Urge, for example, and expect it to work in your iPod.
If you buy an iRiver you can get your music from one of several music stores or, again, via CD. If you're buying music from the iTMS and you've got an iRiver, you're either stupid or you're clever enough to know how to strip the DRM and convert the files to another format for use on the iRiver.
I don't see anything there which would require a government mandate that Apple divulge its technology to other companies and thus lose its competetitive edge. If Apple controlled the ONLY means of getting music into your computer, THEN you'd have a valid argument. But they DON'T.
Reply
brotherStefan said 2:06PM on 6-18-2006
OK, let's force Apple to allow iTunes music to play on any other manufacturer's mp3 players. What's next? Compel Apple to make the iLife suite of applications work seamlessly on other computer platforms? How about the iWork bundle of applications? What about Exposé? Ooh, better still... why not OS X? Where does it stop?
Maybe we should instead force Apple to license the DRM in the same way Microsoft is forced to license Windows™.
Discuss.
Reply
brotherStefan said 2:24PM on 6-18-2006
"The real driver of iPod sales is the explosion of digitally available music, whether from ripped CDs or free downloads, where people can fill up a decent percentage of their 10,000 song capacity iPods without breaking the bank."
Reg,
Your own observation is at odds with your earlier statement ("I actually think Apple would sell more iPods if songs bought from other online stores - including and especially subscription based ones - worked on the iPod.")
And as far as your "I certainly think the iTunes Store would sell more songs if they worked on devices other than iPods."... I would have to ask, how many more songs would they sell? The iTunes store is already responsible for 70-80% of the music download sales, isn't it?
Everyone seems to have been whipped into an emotional frenzy over this subject, and the resulting froth seems impenetrable by rational thought.
Reply
motech said 3:24PM on 6-18-2006
whered you get the "technologist" term?
Reply