Cory Doctorow on Steve's 'Thoughts on Music'

> Most people aren't fans of DRM, but
>view it as a necessary evil in a world
>where it is very easy for one person
>to copy and distribute your 'product'
>without one red cent going into your
>pocket

I hope "most people" aren't stupid enough to think that DRM solves this problem. DRM only hurts your honest customers, while pirates couldn't care less about it.

I merely mentioned the CD trick as a way to get around FairPlay, and frankly it is a point for FairPlay in regards to usability. The very fact that you can get that DRM'ed music out of iTunes in a format that'll play on almost any CD player doesn't sound like lock in to me.

I think you just don't got it. What is the point in decreasing the quality of your purchased music, just to - depending on your home country illegaly - rip it back? You even mention Ogg Vorbis, fine. But how dumb has someone to be, to buy low bitrate music, burn it on CD, rip it back and even further lower the bitrate. Do you think really think, it sounds better, because you use Ogg Vorbis for that final step?

Cory's partly right, Jobs is just talking crap. If he is so against DRM, why not sell music, that other shops sell without DRM, without DRM as well? Selling music from indie labels, that asked to sell their music without DRM, selling music with DRM that was released under a Creative Commons license and then telling the world how bad DRM is, is nonsense.

Maybe Steve really thinks, that DRM is bad. But it is good for him, as long as people in iTunes store. 'Nuff said.

What colour is the sky in your little world, Cory?

And does anyone else think it's ironic for someone who believes that information should be free to have published an article in a for-pay publication? Information wants to be free, Cory!

Can someone tell me how this statement of Doctorow's makes any logical sense?

>Although Apple's DRM is wholly ineffective at preventing copying,
>it does manage to raise the cost of switching from an iPod to a
>competing device.

If it is ineffective at preventing copying how in the world does it raise the cost of switching?

It's like saying "you're not locked in, but because you're locked in..." Ridiculous!

Apple is not the bad guy. A month ago you could argue that Apple wanted lock in but after Steve's letter you cannot. They're okay with using an open standard. Check. Now go after the other players in this game -- the record companies.

Walkerjs:

Oh, I agree, the DMCA IS stupid. So is DRM.

But, the fact is the author of this blog post said that Fairplay was easily and leaglly circumventable. The law says , basically, you cannot legally circumvent a DRM. At all. EVER.

It doesn't matter how "easy" it is to get around. It's NOT LEGAL. That's the PROBLEM.

I think you're giving your readers a poor idea of the article's contents.

Doctorow makes it clear that DRM doesn't represent a significant technical barrier for the determined copier. DRM is significant for its legal effects.

Here's the crucial section: "DRM's principal effect is legal, not technical. Since the passage of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's been illegal to break DRMs in this country. It doesn't matter if DRM restricts access to something you have every right to use (for example, a DRM that region-locks a movie you've bought so that it won't play in the U.S.). You're not allowed to break DRM... So if you shellac a one-atom-thick layer of DRM over a product, you get the full power of the American legal system as a weapon to use against competitors. Apple may have created a successful "Switch" campaign by reverse-engineering Microsoft products like PowerPoint to make Keynote, an Apple program that lets you run old PowerPoint decks on your Mac, but Microsoft can't create a "Switch to the Zune" campaign that offers you the ability to play your iTunes Store songs on a Zune, Microsoft's latest abortive iPod-killer."

What about playing the tune and recording it with, say, a mic in front of the speakers? Or maybe with a virtual mic straight off the sound card? What about playing an encrypted tune and recording it with a cassette recorder? What about singing along with the song while the song is playing?

Is all that a violation of the DMCA? Or is it an example of Fair Use?

Hint: one law is stupid.

Umm.. excuse me..

The Burn and Rip method is NOT within the letter of the law. It is a Circumvention of Copyright protection methodologies, and thus is a direct violation of the DMCA.

It's illegal, and it's CRIMINAL.

Stop pretending that the "burn and rip" method is a legit way around fairplay. It's not. It is a way that WORKS. It is EASY. But it's NOT legal.

Some people have challenged the numbers Steve presented, saying he kept them artificially low. The idea being this "proves" an Apple monopoly if more than 3% of your music comes from Apple's iTunes Store. That's crap. Consider an iPod with 4 GB, loaded to the gills. If it is 50% full of iTS songs, at 4 MB per song you're talking about around $500 in purchases. I've been using iTunes since the DAY it was launched, and iTS since it launched, and I've only bought about 200 songs. I haven't used p2p in ages either. FUDdy duddys indeed.

IS there anyway to burn an audio DVD and reimport your songs from there? Is that possible?