“When you buy a song, an album, or a movie, are you buying the content only in the form it comes in? If you purchase a song from Apple’s iTunes store, should you be able to play it on any hardware you want? Not according to Apple, which bundles each download with a ‘digital rights management’ scheme called FairPlay. When you pay 99 cents for the latest Sheryl Crow hit, it’s stored on your hard drive as an encrypted file. Every time you play it on your computer with iTunes or on your iPod, it is unlocked with a random encryption key supplied by Apple. FairPlay allows you to load a song on up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods and burn as many CDs as you please. But you can’t e-mail a song to a friend, you can’t distribute it over the Web, and you can’t play it on anything but iTunes or an iPod,” Adam L. Penenberg writes for Slate.
“Companies like Apple claim that digital rights management—’digital restrictions management’ to critics—is a tool to dampen the threat of piracy, which the record industry claims has cost it billions in revenues. But DRM also locks consumers into using their technologies over those of competitors. The term ‘FairPlay’ is a classic example of technological doublespeak. Since Apple sells about 80 percent of legal music downloads in the United States, FairPlay effectively stunts competition and consumer choice,” Penenberg writes. “Besides Apple’s FairPlay, there are two other prominent digital-rights-management technologies on the market. On the software side, Microsoft has licensed Windows Media Audio, which comes equipped with a proprietary copy protection scheme, to Apple rivals like Samsung, the most popular digital music player in Asia. On the compact disc side is Sony’s “XCP” anti-piracy technology, which quickly earned a reputation as the most draconian system of them all.”
“While Apple stands alone and Sony self-destructs, Microsoft is practically giving away its digital-rights-management tool in an effort to pick up market share against Apple (so far with little success). We may even see a replay of the Apple-Microsoft battle over the desktop, which ended with Apple holding on to a tiny sliver of the computer market. There is, however, a big difference between then and now. Steve Jobs has a hefty market share and a massive content library made up of millions of songs at a price that people like. As long as the record companies license their content to Apple and consumers flock to the iPod, Apple is in a powerful—some might say Gatesian—position,” Penenberg writes. “What’s hardest for the consumer to swallow, then, is that anti-piracy schemes like DRM look like the subtle tactic of the monopolist. Neither Apple nor Microsoft is hurt by music piracy. Instead, they use it as a marketing ploy to force people to use their products. It doesn’t have to be this way. The companies could agree on one standard that allows people to play the music they lawfully purchase on whichever player they choose. The music industry is supposed to sell music, not the medium it comes in, right?”
Full article here.
Advertisement: The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Okay, Apple and Microsoft could agree on one standard. Let’s travel to that Bizarro Universe, shall we? Welcome, how was your trip through the black hole? Now, since the de facto standard is Apple’s FairPlay (MPEG-4 Audio or Protected Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), .m4p) with nearly 3/4 of a billion files sold and 80% market share), shouldn’t Microsoft admit defeat? It follows that Apple should then license FairPlay to Napster, Real, Microsoft, Yahoo, and immeasurably hurt their own iTunes Music Store while giving their competitors access to tens of millions of Apple’s own iPods, right? Do you think Apple shareholders will go for that one? It is not in Apple’s best interest to help competitors take market share away from them. What does Penenberg want Apple to do next, contract out Jonathan Ive to design music players for Creative?
This is business. Not a commune.
The consumer isn’t finding anything hard to swallow, by the looks of Apple’s iPod and iTunes Music Store sales. Apple’s competition, what’s left of it, finds it very hard to swallow, for sure. Does Apple demand that Microsoft license them Windows API’s so that Windows-only software can run natively on Mac OS X? Did Apple admit defeat and drop their Mac OS for Windows? No, thank God, Apple does their best to compete in a lopsided market. So, now that the shoe’s on the other foot, Microsoft, Napster, Yahoo, Creative, Samsung, and the rest need to figure out a way to make a better product. Apple has done it with the Mac and today they are gaining share against Windows.
Why should Apple, or any company for that matter, give up what they have built simply for the altruistic benefit of their competitors? What’s in it for Apple? There’s precious little in it for the consumer. Oh sure, you might be able to save 10-cents on a single here or there, but it’s not like Apple is charging $2.50 per song. It’s 99-cents, folks. If you don’t like it, get another portable music player and pick your WMA-based store. Hope you don’t have a Mac, because those stores don’t support Macs (even though Apple’s iTunes and iTunes Music Store supports both Mac and Windows PCs). Oh, some might say they want a music subscription service instead. Okay, so go buy a compatible player, make sure you get a Windows PC, and sign up then. Nobody’s stopping you. “But I want it on an iPod,” some whine. Too bad. iPods don’t do subscriptions. Apple has chosen not to compete in that market. You might want a Sony PlayStation 3 that plays “Halo,” but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. Microsoft bought Bungie Studios for Halo because it helps to sell their Xbox, not Sony PlayStations.
Eventually, we’ll arrive at a unified music DRM. But, it’s not time, yet. Apple, of course, needs to continue on with what they’re doing: adding features to iPods and their iTunes Music Store and driving competitors into the ground mercilessly. It is not illegal to build a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse that monopoly to hurt competition. Ask Microsoft about that one. There are plenty of portable music players to choose from and plenty of online music stores operating from which to buy music. Apple’s not forcing anyone to buy an iPod or use the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). If you buy an iPod, you can rip CDs all day long and never touch the iTMS. Conversely, you can buy from the iTMS all day long and never use an iPod. iTunes software is free and available to both Mac and Windows PC users.
Obviously, Apple has built the near perfect mousetrap with iPod+iTunes+iTunes Music Store and competitors will have to figure out how to build a better one or die trying. Welcome to capitalism.
Related articles:
Newsweek columnist describes Apple as ‘self-serving perpetrators of toxic incompatibilities’ – November 14, 2005
Apple’s roadkill whine in unison: ‘incompatibility is slowing growth of digital music’ – August 12, 2005
The de facto standard for legal digital online music files: Apple’s protected MPEG-4 Audio (.m4p) – December 15, 2004
Isn’t it true that Jobs didn’t want DRM but the record companies forced him to do it? Or is that a myth?
For once, a cogent take from MDN.
MW = good
The statement “If you purchase a song from Apple’s iTunes store, should you be able to play it on any hardware you want? Not according to Apple…” is totally bogus.
I can burn it on a disk, without any added DRM. And re-rip it if I so choose.
End of argument.
Moe says: Isn’t it true that Jobs didn’t want DRM but the record companies forced him to do it? Or is that a myth?
That must be a myth, who would ever want to accuse record companies of doing anything bad? That is so untrue… Record companies are only working for their musicians and their customers who want to enjoy the soul of music.
MW: ‘nuclear’ as in…that statement is is nuclear material, too hot to handle…
To: Adam L. Penenberg
Re: Recent iPod article on Slate.com
Dear Mr. Penenberg,
Thank you for you recent article degrading the iPod and Apple’s Fairplay on Slate.com. Your check should be arriving in 4-6 weeks. Unfortunately, we’ve discussed your request to be paid in iTMS Gift Certificates but have decided that’s not in our best interest to do so. Our offer still stands to pay you in “Plays For Sure” merchandise if you change your mind.
Sincerely,
Bill G.
P.S. In future pieces, please refrain from mentioning the DRM in WMA. We don’t want consumers to realize that we use it too.
In most geek’s bizzaro world, OGG rulez. And there is no DRM. Everything is open source, including AIM.
Look, we get DRM right now in DVDs. I firmly believe that Audio CD sales prices are totally jacked up. They should be around $9.99 for new releases. If they would cut the prices, people would buy more. What would be better? Recalling DRM crippled Audio CDs with Rootkits, or pricing releases a little less and selling more?
Oh, to expand on the DRM thing. We have serial numbers for software. Look at Windows XP, it PHONES HOME, and registers itself. OS X does not do that.
It’s a DRM world. I think Apple’s approach is fair.
Moe
Nov 14, 05 – 11:52 pm
Isn’t it true that Jobs didn’t want DRM but the record companies forced him to do it? Or is that a myth?
Its true Moe, Jobs didn’t want DRM it was the greedy barstard music execs that wanted to protect their huge salaries and profit margins.
“Does Apple demand that Microsoft license them Windows API’s so that Windows-only software can run natively on Mac OS X?”
Thus ends the “Apple’s DRM/FairPlay lock-in users in and they need to open it and not be a monopoly” discussion.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act is to blame for the incompatibility of DRM protected digital music, not Apple. Welcome Mr. Penenberg to the world of corrupt (oops) I mean digital politics.
Welcome to MDN’s editorial blog. Not so much a comment as a diatribe. The original article was 1096 words. MDN’s manifesto went for 643 words. This is way too long. I think I’ll read the article and ignore MDN’s monster blurb. Am I alone in this outlook?
This consumer finds it hard to swallow and will continue to buy CDs (but obviously not Sony ones!).
The good thing about iTunes is that it’s not at all tied to iTMS, so if you can get your music DRM free from somewhere else, then you don’t have to use iTMS. I got a few songs from Wippit, but the buying process was so painful that I’ve not been there for months. So full quality CDs are still the sane option for most people who have access to a decent record shop.
I don’t like DRM, but if you were able to play your purchased songs on any device then how do you do that and maintain copy protection? The ability to play a song on any device is a de-facto non DRM system. It is the record labels, not Apple or Microsoft who are pushing that. Given that Apple is being forced to adopt DRM if it wants to sell the labels music I think it is unfair that they should then have to support it for devices they don’t even manufacture. An open DRM scheme would not be worth the paper it was designed on. So, we are left with the choice, propriety DRM or open source. Eventually I think you have to go open to stay viable.
Sooo long …
Yes.
great take MDN. stick it to the man!
That MDN take was spot on. But I miss Triumph’s takes! They’re so frickin’ funny. He only seems to be making random, guest appearances
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”hmmm” style=”border:0;” />
The problem with DRM is that if for a second you accept that digital content must have it for the record companies to be happy to sell it then the ideal solution would be to have one standard. You can’t have open source or free DRM since it would then be easily hackable.
The record companies as an industry should have settled upon a single DRM scheme which could be used on the three major platforms (windows, mac, linux) and then had a central organisation to license it on a fair basis. Instead they left it to the sellers to do it themselves. Windows Media doesn’t work on a mac so apple couldn’t use that and Fairplay works on windows and mac but apple won’t license it (yet) because, well they’re not stupid. You’re then left with the market leader facing off against the biggest company on the planet who can afford to fight a losing battle.
Ultimately the customer loses out. Personally I buy my albums on cd and use iTunes only for occasional songs I would not otherwise buy so am willing to take any slight risk there may be in the future with incompatability.
Nicely said MDN.
The problem for Apple is avoiding the fate of Netscape… once the market leader but effectively destroyed by Microsoft’s predatory marketing schemes. MS gave away Internet Explorer to gain market share and (more importantly) crush Netscape. Now Apple faces a similar situation with Bill Gates et. al. planning schemes to repeat what they did to Netscape (and other competitors).
How will Apple avoid the fate of Netscape? When does Apple take the next step and license FairPlay to lock in its market advantage?
MW: cent (Just my two cents worth)
“”Welcome to MDN’s editorial blog. Not so much a comment as a diatribe. The original article was 1096 words. MDN’s manifesto went for 643 words. This is way too long. I think I’ll read the article and ignore MDN’s monster blurb. Am I alone in this outlook?”
Probably not alone, but regardless why bother to write a response to the MDN take? I dont get it. This is what MDN does. If you don’t like it no one is forcing you to read it. Why get your underwear in a knot over it?
“The music industry is supposed to sell music, not the medium it comes in, right?”
Uhm…LP, 8-track, cassette, CD…
>Why should Apple, or any company for that matter, give up what they >have built simply for the altruistic benefit of their competitors? What’s in >it for Apple? There’s precious little in it for the consumer.
Which is why Sony and Philips never licensed the CD to anyone, or allowed any labels other than their own to release CDs.
Ooops…they did do that, didn’t they?
And they make money off of every CD, CD player, CD-ROM and CD-ROM player sold, don’t they?
Kinda worked out for them, a little, I guess.
abqMac –
“How will Apple avoid the fate of Netscape?”
Hmm…if Netscape sold hardware that could make webpages portable and you had to purchase them from a Netscape Store then you may have an analogy here…
…But Netscape didn’t do that…
Apple’s music content library is the largest in the market, their player and music stores dominate their nearest competition by ten fold, and with every passing day, the iPod/iTMS lockset makes it more and more expensive to switch to non-Apple solutions.
MDN word: miss
‘Sooo long’,
This is MDN’s website. They have the right to editorialize whatever they want.
If you don’t like it, start your own website and say whatever you want to.
Otherwise, StFU.
That said, I agree with MDN’s take.
‘Nuff said.
MaWo: ‘given’.
>fandango wrote:This is MDN’s website. They have the right to editorialize whatever they want….That said, I agree with MDN’s take.
Spoken like a true sheep.
>fandango wrote:This is MDN’s website. They have the right to editorialize whatever they want….That said, I agree with MDN’s take.
Spoken like a true sheep.
>fandango wrote:This is MDN’s website. They have the right to editorialize whatever they want….That said, I agree with MDN’s take.
Spoken like a true sheep.
>fandango wrote:This is MDN’s website. They have the right to editorialize whatever they want….That said, I agree with MDN’s take.
Spoken like a true sheep.
“Spoken like a true sheep.”
Spoken like a true troll…
fandango…. great response and on the mark.
Sooo long….MDN’s take was one of the best they’ve ever done.
There is just too much noise about this. If the writers who whine about Apple’s locked system want to buy some other player and use other music stores, just do it. and shut-up about it.
quote: “You might want a Sony PlayStation 3 that plays “Halo,” but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. Microsoft bought Bungie Studios for Halo because it helps to sell their Xbox, not Sony PlayStations.”
That sums it up. For any company. But only Apple is taken to task as a rogue. Thye’re more like Microsoft, etc…
Why is this. It’s beyond me. EVERY PC owner & writer is just envious of the Mac user experience. They want to the Apple way, but are scared what people will think of them if they use Apple.
Go away already.
“It follows that Apple should then license FairPlay to Napster, Real, Microsoft, Yahoo, and immeasurably hurt their own iTunes Music Store while giving their competitors access to tens of millions of Apple’s own iPods, right?”
So you’re admitting that those companies have something to offer that Apple can’t provide? If nobody wants what they have to offer, why should Apple be worried?
“EVERY PC owner & writer is just envious of the Mac user experience. They want to the Apple way, but are scared what people will think of them if they use Apple.”
Don’t flatter yourself. If you need to keep reassuring your own self worth by deluding yourself with idiocy, then by all means keep reading 98% of the posts here at MDN.
“If the writers who whine about Apple’s locked system want to buy some other player and use other music stores, just do it. and shut-up about it.”
Um, apparently you don’t understand the issue, because that’s exactly the problem.
I actually though Penenberg’s article was semi-interesting, but I mostly agree with MDN’s take. I noticed this sentence in the article:
“But you can’t e-mail a song to a friend, you can’t distribute it over the Web, and you can’t play it on anything but iTunes or an iPod.”
So, I wrote this to Penenberg:
——————-
First, how is that different from the license you are granted when you purchase a CD? Remember that the purchase of a CD is also a purchase of a medium, and that it does not generally grant unfettered right to do the things you describe in your article. The license incorporated into CDs makes it clear that the buyer does not own the song. If that were the case, the RIAA would not be able to sue people for sharing songs. In reality, isn’t DRM, Apple’s or any one else’s, just a semi-effective enforcement of similar restrictions that the law already imposes?
Second, it’s also not true. Nothing in Apple’s DRM prevents you from burning a CD, and then re-ripping the song if you are inclined to piracy. No extra hack software needed. Any CD you burn can be played in any home, auto, or portable CD player. And in fact, you can email those songs. Takes an extra step or two, but it’s not that hard.
Would I love a uniform DRM standard? Maybe, but only so long as it does not come at the expense of the one key innovator in the computer and music industry. There is a reason Apple is doing well with consumers–who seem to have no trouble “swallowing” what Apple is doing–and the markets. Apple innovated an offering that is reasonably priced. I believe that the relative uniqueness of Apple’s FairPlay DRM is a key part of holding Apple’s ground until it can be in a position to open up the market it created to competitors who so far have had little success convincing consumers they have anything to offer.
————
MW: “power” obviously
Welcome to the Apple Moron community!!!!!
Apple is doing this just to sell more hardware.
Imagine if in the beginning that there were restrictions that different records only played on different record players or turntables or there were 10 different types of cassette tapes or 3 different types of 8-track cartriges or different CD formats for each music label, the music business would have died back then and not have grown to what it has become.
What is missing in the discussion is what is best for the creator´s, the muscians and the growth and evolution of music. Right now it seems to be de-evolving.
Monopoly. monopoly. Let´s trade one for another.
were there any idiots here that actually read the MDN Take?
Bravo, MDN. Great take, excellent commentary, and the FULL description of the problem that needed to be addressed. Whiners and fanbois both can complain and carp at each other, but the point is obvious – that Apple has no logical business incentive to open up Fairplay (which it is forced to use by the record companies), just as Microsoft has no incentive to let Xboxes play Playstation discs or make sure its music store can be used by Mac users.
And just because we think Apple is better in so many ways, doesn’t mean it’s not a business. Duh.
DRM is the record companies not Apple. Apple followed the record company guidelines so they could start the iTunes Music store. So don’t blame Apple, blame the record companies. Get rid of DRM and then you can talk total compatability otherwise pick a store like iTunes and enjoy.
John,
Gosh you’re an idiot. No one said anything about removing DRM.
blucaso,
That’s a poor analogy. Fortunately for you, you didn’t think of it all on your own. A better analogy would be if cassette tapes played on a Sony but not on a Panasonic, or DVDs that would only work in certain DVD players, etc. Now do you understand? Didn’t think so.
DRM is demanded by and regulated by the labels not Microsoft or Apple. The labels are responsible for any perceived problems.
The vast majority of files on any brand of music player were ripped from CD or illegally downloaded from P2P sites. The small percentage of files that contains DRM protection, regardless of the source, can easily be converted into DRM free files.
There are competing players that play AAC files, almost every player including iPod, can use WMA files and all players use MP3 files.
There is no lock-in regardless of who makes the player.
The writers whole premise is total bullshit.
In most geek’s bizzaro world, OGG rulez. And there is no DRM. Everything is open source, including AIM.
—
and nobody gets paid and there is no R&D and no patents.. moron
Pale Rider:
Yep, yup and amen
gee: “…Imagine if in the beginning that there were restrictions that different records only played on different record players…”
That is how it started.
the whole premise for drm is nothing to do with protecting anything..
..music creators/writers get a pittance from the sale of cd’s – they get money from airplay on radios, in bars, on tv, etc [via ascap or bmi]
there’s been some discussion on other ways to generate revenue for music creators, and with a monthly fee of about $5-7 music creators would get more money than they do now.
not as a subscription, per se [like napster]..
..actually being allowed to download as much music as desired – and keep it.
“Spoken like a true sheep.”
Typical chicken shit copout remark. Someone disagrees with you & they are sheep. Spoken like a true politician.
From the article:
As long as the record companies license their content to Apple and consumers flock to the iPod, Apple is in a powerful—some might say Gatesian—position,” Penenberg writes.
Gatesian position? I think that’s something that even the most taboo of porn directors wouldn’t have in their flicks!
thats gotta be one of the longest MDN takes i’ve seen in awhile.