October 15th, 2006
Is No DRM the Answer to iTunes?
By Michael Santo
Executive Editor, RealTechNews
It’s a theory that’s being proposed by several music services. Because of interoperability issues, only songs purchased at the iTunes store can be put on an iPod … unless they are unprotected MP3s, that is.
The issue, of course, is interoperability. The iPod remains the most popular digital music player on the market, and only music purchased from iTunes or copied from the user’s CD collection will work on the device. The exceptions are unprotected MP3-encoded files. As such, many Apple competitors would like to sell music in MP3 format so they can compete with iTunes and still be compatible with the popular iPod device. Source: Reuters
We Say: Hey, it makes sense to me. Incompatible DRM schemes means if you buy a particular player you’re stuck with buying songs compatibile with it. With Apple holding such a big share, it’s iTunes. Now, of course, the record industry isn’t going to like this, but let’s face it … DRM can be cracked anyway, so why not just facilitate things for your customers and maybe increase competition in the music download field?
Bob says:
I buy used CDs off of Amazon and ebay then rip em to MP3s. Most of the time it’s cheaper than itunes and NO DRM!
October 15th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
David Johnston says:
I agree. No DRM is the way to go if you want to attract people to your service. That’s one of the main reasons I still refuse to use online music stores.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Charles says:
Dear Michael, Bob and David,
Did DRM just spring up in a vacuum? Before DRM there was complete lawlessness and 12 year old kids being threatened with jail and fines. All because the wanted to get their grove on. Well, DRM isn’t perfect but it is the best that we’ve got. After all you just can’t give away (steal) someone else’s intellectual property.
You surely don’t need to download. By the CDs and rip them if you must. But for Pete’s sake… Stop whining!! Get over yourself already.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
David Johnston says:
Charles, as far as I know there never have been DRM-free, mainstream music download services. Before iTunes and DRM, there was nothing but illegal file sharing of copyrighted works. So, yes, I’d say that relatively speaking DRM did in fact spring up in a vacuum.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Charles says:
David Johnston,
Napster was DRM free. And it was mainstream. So mainstream that the RIAA had to put them out of business. And yes it was quite illegal. If iTunes achieves half of the popularity of Napster it will be a monster. Which, once again, I remind you is why DRM was born/created. To put an end to illegal downloads. Now your solution/suggestion is: Let’s bring back the good old days? Let’s NOT!
October 15th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
David Johnston says:
I was referring to legal services. You cannot count illegal services where users did not pay for the content. They’re not the same.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Dave Barnes says:
AllofMP3.com does the job for me.
No DRM and completely legal (in Russia).
October 16th, 2006 at 6:59 am
Charles says:
David,
DRM is the solution, it is not the problem. DRM means different things to different people. Microsoft’s DRM is quite different to/from Apples DRM. How do you create a single DRM. And why should Microsoft license it DRM to play on Apple’s iPod or vice versa? The world may be getting flatter, but it is not quite there as yet. There are many examples of incompatibilities in the real world that do not draw this much fire.
I don’t think that you’d want to buy your BMW or Mercedes replacement parts from Hyundai. Are Shick and Gillette blades interchangeable? Can you run Windows XP programs on a Mac?
Here in America, people expect a fair return on the investment that they make in creating value. It’s called intellectual property. The day may come yet when we will see universal DRM but we are not there as yet. This is still a very young technology. Let’s not kill it before it matures.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Improbus says:
Charles,
You sound like an industry shill, entertainment lawyer or someone that has money invested in the music “industry”. I will not pay anyone for lossy DRM’d crap. Like any decent computer geek I rip my own. You won’t see me sporting an iPod or one of those dreadful Zune pieces of junk because I WILL NOT have DRM on anything.
Oh, and yes you can run Windows XP programs on MAC and Linux.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Sk says:
David,
So you say you cant have different parts from diff. companies fit on each other…so i understand your analogy like this one song(parts) made by one band/group (Car Spares Maker) should not work on different devices(cars)?…well isnt that the exact mess we as consumers find ourselves in? So it doesnt matter even if ur ‘Play for sure’ song vanishes into the air cause now MS doesnt want to support it with their Zune devices, atleast the artists are happy that their fans love them so much that they will dish out any amounts to buy another DRM infection to listen to their songs again and again.
I guess they havent the clue yet that people buy music to listen to them where ever they are whether be that on their pc’s,cars or even their ipods, so unless the industry comes up with a ‘real solution’ which doesnt restrict a person from using the music he bought in the way he wants this market for ‘illegal ripping’ would always exist; and no DRM no matter how young it is isnt the ’solution’ its creates more problems to the consumer than it solves, for the industry i would say if you choose to remain blind(to the consumers needs) you would one day fall.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Sk says:
Sorry that comment was meant for Charles
October 17th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Charles says:
No Improbus, I’m not an apologist for DRM, the content providers, Apple or Microsoft. I guess you can call me a computer geek. and yes I do rip my own own CDs. I’ve ripped my CD library many times. My iTunes library is 27,699 songs or 107.6 GB and of that I’ve bought less than 10 songs.
I am an iPod owner though. But that neither here nor there. The real point is: Music producers - artist, musicians - need to be paid. Since there is no hard linkage between an iPod and iTunes Store. Buy and rip as many CDs as you want. Or download as many DRM protected songs as you like. But let’s ensure that the artist gets paid.
I thought you said that you were a decent computer geek, don’t you know that you still need Windows AND other software (Boot Camp, VMware, Parallels Desktop). Now we can enter into a much larger discussion of whether a computer running Windows is a Mac at all.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Charles says:
Sk,
I’m not sure I understand your post at all.
Let me see if I can re-state my position on DRM to clify any confusion that I may have caused.
DRM is a lock. Plain and simple. It is used as a deterent to file sharing. It may not be a perfect lock, but it’s the best that we have at the moment. DRM has certain other properties: It restricts where you can play the content; how many copies you can make; etc. etc..
And that really addresses two different issues.
1. Protecting copyrighted/interlectual property.
2. Users rights.
Quite a few of the post here seem to advocate getting rid of DRM. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. That would simply re-introduce rampant and illegal file swapping. Not that it ever went away. Just because you can buy DRM free music, dose that mean you have solved the issue of illegal music downloading. On the contrary, you may just have taken it to another level. Let’s not forget where the original songs that were illegally traded/swapped came from: Presumably legally purchased CDs. DRM protects the record companies/artists/musicans. Without this protection we would be without music in very short order.
The other side of the coin is: Users rights. And here there is a lot to be dissatisfied about. But the big caveat is: You don’t have to buy DRM protected music. You can always buy a CD and rip it. This give you the greatest freedom of all, because you can rip it to what ever format you want. If you do chose to buy Apple’s DRM protected music from Apple’s iTunes Store, you can burn that music to a CD, at which point it is DRM free. And you should be burning your legally purchased music any way as a backup. So far I do not see the infringement on users’ rights.
One of the major objections to DRM seems to be around the fact that most DRM schemes are not interoperable. I think that everyone is (or should be) aware that legally purchased downloaded music is limited as to which devices it can be played on. So, if you plan on acquiring your music from an online download service, make sure that it is compatible with your player. Companies make a huge investment in creating and maintaining an online download service and deserve to make a return on that investment. Or as the Godfather once said: Gentlemen, after all, we’re not communist. DRM schemes are not all the same, and are used to differentiate one online download service from another. So chose you service and hence your player accordingly.
The most ridiculous reason offered for abandoning DRM is because DRM can be broken. Locks on cars can be (and are) broken. Where is the hue-and-cry to get rid of locks on cars? Locks on homes can be (and are) broken. Where is the hue-and-cry to get rid of locks on homes? Locks on…. Well… I think you get the point.
USA TODAY says: Record labels have won court cases that helped close virtually every major file-trading firm. But the software that powered those services, such as Kazaa, eDonkey and WinMX, still resides on millions of computers. Online measurement firm BigChampagne says more than 1 billion songs are available for illegal trading each month.
What would DRM free music do to stem that tide? DRM did not just spring up in a vacuum. Before DRM there was complete lawlessness and 12 year old kids being threatened with jail and fines. All because they wanted to get their grove on. Well, DRM isn’t perfect but it is the best that we’ve got. After all you just can’t give away (steal) someone else’s intellectual property.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Sk says:
Charles,
Just two points…
1.No, Buying cd’s dont mean you would necessarily be getting DRM free music which could be then used to rip and play on any device. In fact there is a market out there in the software bylanes where its advertised that they could ‘remove’ any audio cd protection employed. So that being said how is it that you say that cds are a sure way to getting DRM free songs?
2.Have you ever thought that the companies who sell cds(if they are infact DRM free) could also have sold them as DRM free downloads online?. Infact that would mean lesser cost for distribution and also reaching a different market altogether. Also this would eliminate the interoperability issues between devices as it would be just as in a cd, DRM free…right.
Also you mention that DRM’s are like locks yes i agree locks are required but how the locks are operated is the whole issue, you say there is consumer rights about the issue, i say which right?
IS it the right to ‘choose’ your kind of lock…meaning do i have to just buy a song based on whether i like it or not OR should i be first checking if the said song plays on my device or not?
Infact i believe if the songs were sold online legally at cheap rates DRM free it would make the whole need to go through the hack trf manner of ripping songs today very uneedful.
Also where is the right to use the lock for the consumer?…did i fail to mention the Zune issue, notice how the said lock was suddenly changed and the customer lost the right to enter his own house…or in this case play his legally purchased music.
What rule book says this wont be happening again with another time by another company?
October 18th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Charles says:
Hi again Sk,
Buying CDs don’t guarantee DRM free music. Let’s not forget the Sony fiasco! But by and large, for historical reasons, CD mean DRM free music. The day they add DRM to CDs is the day I stop buying them. I think that is a fair part of the CD contract. I don’t mind what DRM they want to add to CDs. My only demand is: It MUST be clearly labeled as such.
Yes, music producers could provide downloads DRM free. That is well within their prerogative. But it is also within their prerogative to add DRM. They own the content. They have the right to say how it is packaged. Your money is your own. No one can make you spend it on something that you do not wan or something that does not suit your needs. You get to vote with your dollars! If you like it a little: spend a little. If you like it a lot: spend a lot. If you don’t like it at all: don’t spend at all. Quite simple.
There are many ideas competing in the market today and I think that is good for consumers. It is not perfect, not by a long shot. You have everything from DRM free, to subscription services, to single price ownership. Why not let the market decide? Provide consumers with the necessary information and let them decide. Who says that the is only one solution? All of these models may be able to coexist.
So anyone planning on buying an MP3 player should be asking themselves this question: How am I going to be acquiring my music? Am I going to be ripping from my DC collection? Or am I going to be purchasing from some download service? If your answer is the former, then I think you have the greatest flexibility. Except in cases where the music is available only as a download. Then you are SOL. If you choice is the latter then you need to assess the service that you chose. Is the price right? Is the quality of the music to your liking? Are the songs that you are likely to purchase contained in that library? Is the library growing? Does the DRM work for you? Etc. etc… Once you have chosen you service you can chose you player. This has always been the way you purchase a computer. Decide what software you’d like to run… then choose the computer. And all an MP3 player is a small, highly specialized computer.
Sk, you never had a right to play anything on a Zune. It is brand new (or New Brand, I don’t know, but no matter…). PlaysForSure was/is an unfortunate marketing stunt that seem to promise compatibility. And rather than Apple, Microsoft is it first victim (or is it the other guys left holding the bag? I’m not sure… only time will tell.) At this point, there are no guarantees! If Microsoft/Zune starts to cannibalize the PlaysForSure market you might very well see PlaysForSure players unsupported or under-supported. I see lots of work for lawyers out there. But like I said, it is not a perfect market. So that should also contribute to your decision-making process. Is the service you choose going to stick around?
It wasn’t part of this discussion, but the Europeans seem to want one ring to rule all. It’s a very quaint idea but quite impractical and unworkable. I don’t see the players voting to select one scheme as the standard and licensing it. Or even combining schemes and cross licensing it. We need to let this thing run its course. Maybe down the line we’ll all have a clearer idea of what we want and what is possible
October 19th, 2006 at 12:03 am
xeokgutuwh says:
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! orlnjjaeeruuue
June 21st, 2007 at 5:27 am