“Sony’s rootkit, as bad as it was, isn’t the real story. The way the entertainment cartel is applying DRM as a whole is the real story. They’re applying DRM in a way that the Sony fiasco was inevitable. This wasn’t the first time lack of DRM interoperability manifested itself in the end-user experience in an ugly way, and it won’t be the last. Sure, the rest of the entertainment industry is rewriting its DRM playbook to keep from repeating Sony’s history. But rest assured, another DRM-inspired trainwreck will come along that will light the grapevine ablaze and some other content company will end up with egg on its face when, in reality, it’s Microsoft and Apple that we should really be angry with; two companies that are driving incompatible DRM technologies into the marketplace in a way that twists the royal (or should that be ‘royalty’) screws into the world,” David Berlind writes for ZDNet.
“And, it’s only going to get worse. Unbeknownst to most people, what started with music (let’s just say audio) already applies to video and it’s not going to stop there. Video that’s wrapped in Microsoft’s DRM has been in the market for quite some time already. The fact that video has been added to Apple’s iPods and that FairPlay-protected video will be sold through Apple’s iTunes Music Store (IMS) only adds insult to injury. Just like with music purchased at the IMS, the video you buy at the IMS can only be played back where Apple lets you play it back. This is different from the old days where you could buy a DVD knowing that you could play it in any DVD player,” Berlind writes.
Full article here.
Advertisements: The New iMac G5 – Built-in iSight camera and remote control with Front Row media experience. From $1299. Free shipping.
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Nonsense. Berlind writes, “This wasn’t the first time lack of DRM interoperability manifested itself in the end-user experience in an ugly way, and it won’t be the last.” Too bad it wasn’t “lack of DRM interoperability” that was the problem with Sony. The problem was installing a rootkit that opened security holes and phoned home each time a user played a song.
We should blame Microsoft and Apple? Well, one out of two ain’t bad. Apple has the de facto standard for online legal music DRM, FairPlay or protected AAC, with over 700 million (estimated) songs sold to date and a firm grip on 80% of the market. Why does Microsoft insist on trying and failing to propagate their proprietary DRM (as proprietary as Apple, granted, but without being the de facto standard) scheme on the world? It is Microsoft that’s responsible for the incompatibilities. Remember that Apple’s iTunes is free and works for both Mac and Windows, unlike all of Microsoft-based online music stores which are incompatible with Macs.
Apple will eventually license FairPlay to others, thus ensuring that Apple’s DRM becomes to unquestioned standard. But, the time is not now. It’s too early and there is no reason why Apple should hurt themselves for no economic benefit. Let the others try to compete with the iTunes+iPod juggernaut. After they fail, Apple can begin licensing what they’ve worked so hard to build wholly on their terms. If they miraculously begin to succeed, Apple would license FairPlay, too. It’s a timing issue more than anything.
To sum up, without some form of DRM, there would be no legal content online. The content providers demand it. Users should be angry with Sony for going too far and Mac users should be wondering why Microsoft can’t seem to make their DRM compatible with Macs, if they and their WMA-based online music store partners want to compete so badly.
We see Sony addressing the XCP malware-style ‘root kit’ issue for Windows users, but we see no mention of Sony’s other SunnComm-laced CDs that can install kernel extensions on Mac OS X which is what prompted our boycott of all Sony products in the first place. This is highly troubling, to put it mildly. Therefore, MacDailyNews and iPodDailyNews are continuing to boycott all Sony products until this and other “copy-protected CD” issues are addressed appropriately by Sony and recommend that our 2.2+ million unique visitors per month from 136 countries worldwide do the same.
Related articles:
Texas sues Sony BMG for ‘spyware’ on CDs – November 21, 2005
Fingernail-sized piece of opaque tape defeats Sony BMG CD copy-protection DRM scheme – November 21, 2005
Retailers report Sony BMG, EMI copy-protected CDs turning off music buyers – November 20, 2005
Sony Boycott continues: Sony recalls XCP-tainted music discs, offers Red Book compliant CD exchanges – November 17, 2005
Sony BMG infected music CDs could be good for consumer rights – November 16, 2005
Microsoft to remove Sony BMG malware – November 15, 2005
Sony BMG infected music CDs could lead Sony into ‘big-league legal trouble’ – November 15, 2005
EFF publishes open letter to Sony-BMG calling for recall of all infected Sony-BMG CDs – November 15, 2005
Boycott Sony – November 14, 2005
Sony BMG ‘temporarily suspends’ production of music CDs with copy-protection scheme – November 11, 2005
Boycott Sony products: Sony music CDs can install kernel extensions on Mac OS X – November 10, 2005
Computer security firm: ‘Stinx’ virus hides within Sony’s copy protection scheme – November 10, 2005
Sony sued over copy-protected CDs – November 10, 2005
SonyBMG antics may well cause public to turn on them and turn many people onto Apple Macs – November 06, 2005
Report: Sony copy-protected CDs may hide Windows rootkit vulnerability – November 01, 2005
Analyst: Sony BMG’s boycott of Apple’s iTunes Music Store Australia won’t last long – October 24, 2005
Apple launches iTunes Music Store Australia – October 24, 2005
How to beat Apple iPod-incompatible Sony BMG and EMI copy-protected CDs – October 04, 2005
Japan music labels look to impose ‘iPod Tax’ while Sony, Warner still not signing with Apple iTunes – October 10, 2005
Why aren’t Sony, BMG, Warner, Victor making their artists’ music available on Apple’s iTunes Japan? – October 06, 2005
Sony and Warner holding out on Apple iTunes Music Store Australia – September 08, 2005
Musicians stage mutiny against Sony, defiantly offer music via Apple’s iTunes Music Store – August 10, 2005
Sony BMG and EMI try to force Apple to ‘open’ iPod with iPod-incompatible CDs – June 20, 2005
New Sony BMG copy-protected CDs lock out Apple iPod owners – June 01, 2005
Record company causes Apple to hit ‘pause’ on Australian iTunes Music Store – May 05, 2005
tyk,
It’s kind of a problem if you have purchased over a thousand songs from the iTMS and don’t really feel like going through the burning and importing process just to get a version of the song that is even worse than the mediocre one that was originally purchased.
No DRM, no iTMS.
Few iPods sold. No iPod phenomenon.
Apple still teetering…
Period.
Personally, I’ll never pay for music that is compressed to AM radio quality levels. I buy CDs, with vast variety of genres and releases available, then rip whatever I want using high bit rates.
I have one tune that I got from iTMS, but it was free. As far as I’m concerned the iTMS is only good for podcasts.
Buy an iPod and Get a life!
Worth reading slowly, this article is – particularly the latter part. Apple does have a window to (cough) license FairPlay, and no doubt they are bettering their hand before laying the cards down – hopefully not too late. But yes, a unified DRM is preferable to a mess of incompatible DRMs across platforms and devices.
The issue of DRM itself is a bit more difficult because it’s hard to argue monetary loss when something is copied instead of NOT copied AND not otherwise purchased. In the writer’s example, cut and paste makes the WSJ free for him, just as MDN’s cut and paste sometimes makes visiting the source unnecessary. So how is leaked text to be protected and should it be protected at all?
I think there will always be leakage just as there will always be a paying market. Rather than focus on the leakage, as Sony BMG did, companies should focus on increasing value for money for their paying customers. Stopping leakage will not necessarily increase business, but it certainly increases mind share for the product — something companies spend quite a lot to achieve. It’s probably too early to write a law to sensibly address the widespread practice of piracy, but in its absence, DRM is a weak solution.
I wonder if I made any sense.
Can’t be mad at Apple. The recording industry set the standards to have DRM embedded into all online sales of music. That was part of the deal before iTunes could be put in place. So David Berlind you got it way wrong! It is companies like Sony BMG and the others which cause us legal paying consumers so much grief. Apple has a great record with it’s online sales as shown by it’s 70% to 80% marketshare. The purchase of music and video’s is seemless.
I disagree with MDN.
A defacto standard is not a benefit to people unless it it BOTH better than the competition AND available to ALL users. Apple’s iTMS is better than the competition. However, it is NOT available to all users. I know of no one who is shipping an online music store which supports FairPlay for the Linux OS or any of the UNIX variants (other than Mac OS X).
MDN saying people should not complain that FairPlay is not open enough because it is the defacto standard is like saying all Mac users should not complain because Windows is the defacto standard (with, at one point, over 95% of the desktop operating systems sold the Windows OS was clearly the defacto standard). However, the Windows OS defacto standard did not fit the criteria listed above.
Apple should license FairPlay. They should announce this at MWSF January 2006. Apple should allow anyone to build an online music store using FairPlay for a license fee of 15 cents a song (or 15% of whatever Apple charges in any iTunes Music Store, whichever is greater). This is much more than Apple’s profit from iTMS.
For companies that do a subscription service, Apple should charge a license fee 20% of whatever they charge the end user. If a company charges the end user $9.99 per month then Apple gets $1.998 per month per user.
In each of these cases Apple should have absolute and final approval of how FairPlay is implemented by any licensee — including approval of the licensee’s customer support program. The licnesee must reimburse Apple’s costs for the approval process and implementation monitoring. These costs reimbursements are above and beyond the basic per song or per month fee. Apple needs to have the right to cancel the license if the licensee does not comply with Apple’s requirements (including customer support).
With these fees and monitoring requirements there won’t be any cheap (in any denotation or even negative connotation) knock off versions of iTMS out there. Apple has final say about quality and gets paid to do the quality control.
Apple should NOT license FairPlay for hardware devices for at least a year and maybe not for two years. Maybe starting January 2008, Apple should license FairPlay to other hardware makers — for a stiff fee at first (10% of the cost of an equivalent volume iPod ???), but eventually [2015?] for very, very little (say, 1-2% of the cost of an equivalent iPod).
By 2020 at the latest, Apple should just open FairPlay as a public standard. FairPlay should eventually be public domain.
Long before 2020 Apple should have moved on to “the next great thing”.
just my 2 cents
Apple is not driving DRM the recording industry is along with the DRM laws passed by congress because there getting paid by the recording industry. This story is so full of FUD. Does this guy work for Sony BMG or get paid under the table. What Sony did was appalling and has compromised many PC’s, fortunately not Macs.
Grunt, you rock.
“Apple will eventually license FairPlay to others, thus ensuring that Apple’s DRM becomes to unquestioned standard.”
Where’s your proof?
How can a standard be sold in only place and played only on one piece of hardware. iTUNES is NOT hardware. BUrning to CD isn’t a REAL option… because then it no longer becomes Apple DRM… and instead, becomes the standard: AIFF Files.
A Standard is something that can be used by any vendor and is NOT proprietary.
MP3 is the standard.
MDN… how’s His Steveness big brown hole smell like?
Without DRM, the labels simply wouldn’t allow on-line sale of music. It’s there because they insisted on it, Apple didn’t want it in the first place. But now that Apple has been able to make it into a huge success, the labels don’t like the fact that Apple are becoming more powerful than they are. Ironically, Apple wouldn’t have had it all it’s own way if DRM hadn’t been put into iPods and iTunes, if iTMS sold MP3 or AAC files, anybody could have sold music as a rival to iTMS and it could have been played on iPods or any other player.
The situation with CDs is quite different. CDs are supposed to conform to the Red Book standard. If it doesn’t, it can’t carry the official “CD Digital Audio” logo.
Sony set out to sell something that many would assume was a CD, but in fact was something else. Many other music publishers also do this. Sony showed total contempt for it’s customers and must take the consequences.
My solution to this would be to insist that the CD charts are solely for Red Book CDs. Anything which doesn’t conform to the standard isn’t a digital audio CD and is disqualified from being listed. No logo, no listing.
If labels want their music to feature in the CD charts, they would have to release their music as proper Red Books CDs.
Grunt, you rock.
“Apple will eventually license FairPlay to others, thus ensuring that Apple’s DRM becomes to unquestioned standard.”
Where’s your proof?
—
Well, SJ said it would happen if it was necessary.
So to recap: 2 alternatives…
a) iTunes files are everywhere, by the markets own demand, no need to license
b)iTunes files start to lose ground to WMA files.. Apple licenses to combat WMA
So either it WILL happen, or it won’t need to happen.
Yea, leave it up to that rag, ZDNet to try to get everyone’s eye off the ball: $ony and their feeble attempt to own our computers under the guise of “protecting their content”.
Well, if it is $ony’s content, then why the fsk did I just plunk down $15+ tax for?
Nice take MDN; Rock on!
“Apple will eventually license FairPlay to others, thus ensuring that Apple’s DRM becomes to unquestioned standard”
Let’s hope so…
The Solution is simple, don’t use iTunes, don’t buy iPod and don’t use a Mac. Wait for something or someone to come up with the perfect solution for your online music and hardware needs.
In the mean time I will enjoy my iTunes and my iPod….
I agree with “almost a good take” and “Grunt” on this one.
Saying “It is Microsoft that’s responsible for the incompatibilities” is just plain wrong. Microsoft freely licenses its DRM. Apple does not. So anyone who wants to become compatible with the iPod cannot do so without resorting to hacks (and risk being sued) like Real did awhile ago.
Sure, Microsoft doesn’t have a Mac version of its software. But Apple doesn’t have a Linux version of its software either. So neither company provides a completely compatible solution.
What Apple needs to be careful of is becoming the next “Microsoft” of the digital music arena. Sure, it’s great that Apple finally has some decent marketshare for a change. But as Mac fanatics, we shouldn’t blindly accept everything that Apple does. For the most part Apple does great things; but we shouldn’t be afraid to the let the company know if (and when) it crosses the line.
Grunts argument works against itself. He says that since MS owns 90% of the market Apple should go with their DRM scheme. The amusing thing is that APPLE OWNS 80% OF THE MUSIC MARKET. So I guess it’s up to MS to cave in on this one.
I don’t mind DRM as long as I can accomplish what I want with the media. Apple (currently) supports all my needs: I can listen/watch media on my Mac/PC, my HDTV, and my iPod. If Apple locked down the number of listenings/viewings, put an expiration date on the media, or limited the categories of authorized devices, then I would have a problem. In its current state, DRM is completely transparent on Apple hardware.
Today I finally saw the enemy, and the enemy was us. There was a time that no one had locks on there doors too. If you all, including the dweeb ZDNet author, feel the need to point a finger of blame for DRM, look to the hords of individuals that can’t resist something for nothing. Well, there are no free lunches and DRM is the price we all get to pay for taking the fruits of other’s labor without compensation.
In case you haven’t noticed, this country (USA) has bet our future on the production of digital information– from financial to entertainment, that is our national product (witness yesterday’s mass plant closing by GM. We don’t manufacture hard goods anymore). The development of a successful DRM is quite imperative for the future of most of us that want to have jobs in the coming years. If we can’t protect and profit for our digital goods, we’ve got nothing to sell, hence, no income as a nation. You think the trade deficit with China is bad? Want to blame politcians? Okay, some of that is fair, but a big reason is that we BUY their manufactured goods and they TAKE our intellectual property— BECAUSE WE CAN’T PROTECT IT. If they paid for half the software they have running their manufacturing plants we wouldn’t have a trade imbalance. We are not talking about saving a few bucks on a CD, we are talking about $BILLIONS of lost revenue annually. China is just one (the biggest) example of the peril we face in what boils down to putting food on the table and keeping a roof over your head.
Rather than fighting tooth and nail against all forms of DRM, I recommend you all hope and pray that someone figures out a successful method of protecting our digital assets pretty damn quick.
And, before you flame me, I don’t mean through the use of egregious privacy/property invasions such as Sony’s rootkit fiasco. I frankly don’t know the answer, but don’t be so naive as to think this is solely about preventing your bud duping the latest Green Day CD for you.
Yes I am exaggerating. I will concede that it might be possible to make a fair DRM, but I contest that FairPlay is absolutely not it. Just because it’s from Apple doesn’t magically make it OK.
Apple have the right change the usage terms of your iTMS bought music AFTER you’ve bought it. They’ve already done this once. They could potentially restrict it to one computer and one iPod, and what could you do ? Nothing.
Nothing about the music you already ‘own’. And if you have any sense, abstain in the future. Or you could just carry on giving them more money for more restrictions. BOHICA
To buy single tracks from iTMS because you don’t like the whole album is not really the answer. That gives in to the DRM peddlars and signals to them that they can get away with putting restrictions on you.
This might sound like a hard line to take, and maybe it is. But it’s something I happen to believe in. One of the main sticking points is that I’m not allowed to buy or copy somthing they own, but aren’t willing to sell to me. Particularly deleted stuff that has no economic value any more. That stuff should just be put into the public domain and shared freely (but obviously not for profit).
talking about DVD, what do you call the region codes on a DVD then? To inure DVDs bought in one place won’t be playable in another place… This tradition have been in place for a long time.
MDN is right, Apple should license fairplay only after they have killed off their competitors through their corrupt behavior. Indeed the time is not ripe yet.
Is is absolutely absurd to think that Apple wants DRM on the music sold at iTMS. IF they were pro DRM you would see it on OS X and other software that Apple produces. That is not the case.
It is the labels that want the DRM. Apple made the best deal they could with the labels. The deals that got the Apple music business did mean a significant amount of work on Apples part, that includes untold R&D, infrastructure, management, and negotiations.
That is the extra work that Apple put in. Letting others piggy back this effort and make money off of it would be just silly on Apples part. These other companies did not put in the initial efforts, did not risk significant capital to get this model to work and are not entitled to “tag along” on the iTMS and iPOD bandwagon.
Before Apple licenses Fairplay to either a hardware vendor or a music distributor there are many considerations that need to be made. On the hardware side Apple needs to consider how a competing player that can play iTMS music would effect their iPOD sales.
Can they license for enough to mitigate any sales loss? There might be room for other hardware devices in spaces that Apple doesn’t currently and isn’t looking to compete in.
An example might be a true running MP3 player that includes a heart monitor and a distance calibrator. None of the iPods are great for running, even the small ones. This is simple because they are no significantly sweat resistance.
I know many an iPod that have died from the build up of salt and nitrates in sweat. Since there is some R&D that would need to be done to make a great great running MP3 player and there are already some great ones out there, it might just be easier to license to these.
On the distribution side Apple has to consider ease of use. The iTMS/iPod model works because it is so easy. Other music stores are not as easy so Apple has to consider how this will effect the customers experience.
Will Apple and the iPod experience be negatively effected if a user has a bad experiences at a different store? Consumers in the digital world very often to not distinguish these types of things.
Also Apple needs to consider the increase cost associated with customer service and support when different vendors are considered. As much as they wouldn’t want to, there would be support minutes associated with it, even if those minutes were arguing with a customer to get them to call the appropriate music distributer.
The best model I think would be to not only license Fairplay but the whole iTMS store and hardware.
“You want a music store to sell to iPod users, ok here ya go, we will sell you the Macintosh servers, and license you Fairplay at x amount a song and your store will be accessible through the iTunes interface and all the songs will be stored in the customers iTunes music library. Also we will charge you x per incident anytime a customer calls our support with a problem with a song or their account at your store.”
These stores would then have to complete on look and feel, organization, selection and prices. These stores could negotiate pricing with labels but not user rights.
In the end it is not Apple’s issue it is the labels. Is Microsoft’s a bigger conspirator then A=pple’s? Yes, they are a member of the trusted computing group, that restricts the ways we use content AND DRM is part of their business model. So they think it is a good thing.
LOL. Yet more MDN hypocrisy.
When Microsoft uses its 90% market share to promote “de facto” standards incompatible with other systems, it is (quite rightly) vilified.
When Apple uses its 90% market share to promote “de facto” standards incompatible with other systems, it is a Good Thing (TM).
This has got to be the most biased site on the net. I do enjoying visiting it for the laugh though.
<stands by for fanboys to scream and shout>
Much of this angst over Apple’s behavior in regards to DRM results from this being all part of His Steveness’s business plan. As a business, Apple is perfectly justified in doing whatever it can to increase sales of it’s products. Absent an industry imposed standard, DRM becomes just another tool to use in furtherance of that goal. Both iPods and music from iTMS became market leaders not only because they were better than the competition, but because proprietary DRM scemes kept customers from wandering away from the carefully crafted, mutually reinforcing hardware/software ecosystem that Apple had created.
It’s great and important that Apple hasn’t skimped on product quality and value, but lets face it – Sony’s hardware isn’t too shabby either, and the only real reason it’s been kept at bay is this proprietary DRM fight all sides are engaged in. The ideal world would have had these companies sit down and work on a reasonable set of standards years ago, but greed won’t allow that to happen. So, the bloodbath will continue. Meanwhile, Apple will wait for the day when their iPod and iTMS sales plateau, at which point they will start shopping Fairplay around to both hardware and software vendors. Since they won’t make anymore money from increasing sales with proprietary DRM, the risk free alternative of taking in royalties will take precedence. That’s the end game for Apple.
The larger issue that the author makes however is that DRM itself is bad. I don’t agree. Technological advances will eventually make even basic rights protection impossible, at which point a new paradigm will have to be devised (lest the entire population become criminals), but at this time it is still a good idea to have it. The problem is that it’s just being badly implimented by conglomerates that want DRM to be a perpetual cash cow. That is what’s fueling the problems and incompatibilities we see today, as well as the very real potential for abuse.
We consumers really must wake up to the dangers here. I’ve said this before here, and taken my lumps for it, but it bears repeating because it’s true: Apple moving to Intel had little to nothing to do with CPU performance or manufacturing issues; it is almost entirely a DRM (hardware) related issue. Intel’s got what the video content providers insist on before they’ll allow their stuff to be sold and stored via computers, and Apple had to dance to that tune in order to have any shot at the same success with video as they’ve had with audio. Now, if DRM in it’s present embrionic state has the power to make a big company like Apple do something like that today, there really is no telling what kind of hold it will have over all our ‘little lives’ in the future.
Don’t be complacent.
Hey, as a sometimes artist who creates artistic content that sometimes
takes me weeks to create, I should know that I am just creating it in order to make the world a better place, and that just knowing that no talent idiots think enough of my work to believe that they are just doing more good in the world by copying it and distributing it to their no talent idiot friends, should be good enough for me.
I apologize to all of you who think that everything you want should be free.
Do some record companies and movie companies charge too much?
I don’t know. If it is too much for you, don’t buy it.
What I produce and what the record companies and movie companies is a luxury, not a necessity. Live without it, if the price is too high.
If more people think the price is too high, they will stop paying that price, and then if the companies think they can’t live without the sale, they will lower the price.
If there are some of you out there who can’t live without music in your head 24 hours a day, too bad, you have my sympathy. If you have to have it, pay for it.
No one owes you anything just because you live, and even less so if you confuse the definition of luxuries and necessities.
After a quick scan I don’t think anyone, including MDN and the original article author, has the blame directed the right way.
The big culprit: human behavior. If we were all honorable, there would be no need for DRM. Greedy music execs wouldn’t need it, and we wouldn’t have to deal with it.
I mean, what the heck does everyone expect anyways? Put yourself in the other’s shoes for once and take the really big picture view.
I’m not surprised at all by everything that’s happened.