“The iPod-iTunes combination is the very definition of a digital walled garden, at least so far as commercially downloadable music goes. Sure, you can rip music from your personal CD collection into unprotected formats like MP3, even legally make copies for personal use. But when it comes to iTunes, there’s no digital equivalent of buying a CD and taking it home, knowing it will work with whatever brand of CD player you have,” Arik Hesseldahl writes for BusinessWeek.
Hesseldahl writes, “Songs you buy from iTunes won’t play on your MP3 player from Toshiba, Samsung, Sony, SanDisk, or anyone else. Well, they’re not supposed to anyway. The fact is, you can burn the iTunes songs to an audio CD, then re-rip them as MP3s and make them freely available to any player you choose—not that I would advocate doing such a thing, of course.”
Hesseldahl writes how he thinks “the iPod should evolve over its second half-decade, and how iTunes and the rules that govern it should change. The company has sold some 70 million iPods and between two and three billion song downloads, and it’s time to consider the future of music delivery and Apple’s role in building that market… The world is clearly in need of a universally playable digital format that protects the rights of artists and recording labels. As the most successful vendor of digital music, Apple is currently in the position to start the discussion about how to get there.”
“Now may not be the time. IPod sales still account for 40% or so of Apple’s revenue, and let’s face it, the iTunes Store exists to sell iPods. But the time for a universal format is soon coming, because millions of frustrated digital music consumers, including some iPod owners, will demand that a downloaded song be as universally playable as a CD is today,” Hesseldahl writes.
Full article here.
Steve Jobs is many things, but stupid he’s not. Apple will license FairPlay when and if the time comes. For now, Apple’s iTunes ranks as one of the least restrictive services with relatively liberal usage terms and a system that, oh, by the way, doesn’t exclude tens of millions of Mac users. iTunes works for both Macs and Windows users, while the iTunes also-ran music outfits, those still in business, are restrictively Windows-only. If you don’t like DRM, blame the content owners, not Apple.
Apple should not license FairPlay until it makes business sense, not because some writer or competitor thinks it would be nice. This ain’t a commune, it’s capitalism; you’d think BusinessWeek would grasp the concept.
While Apple holds considerable market share in both devices and online services, it makes no sense at all to gift market share to competitors. When and if some competitor shows some meaningful strength, then Apple can use FairPlay licensing appropriately. Then FairPlay, already long the de facto standard for legal online music, will become the universal DRM standard.
When someone makes a real content service (with a desirable library) that includes Mac users instead of excluding them and also begins to take share from iTunes, then we’ll begin to think about the possibility of Apple licensing FairPlay.
Related articles:
Microsoft Zune intensifies chaos in Apple iPod+iTunes also-ran market – October 16, 2006
Apple’s vs. Microsoft’s music DRM: whose solution supports more users? – August 17, 2005
The de facto standard for legal digital online music files: Apple’s protected MPEG-4 Audio (.m4p) – December 15, 2004
What possible reason is there for these “break down the wall” types to publish these stories? What’s the motive?
fairplay is bad for customers. period. no amount of apple loving can justify the limitations it puts on music.
itunes files will be the eight-tracks of music distribution. one day we’ll all sit around and remember how we used to have those…
There will always be a groups of people, anarchist, socialist, school children, who think they deserve the gains from the toil of others.
I just purchased Lego Stars Wars for my son’s GameBoy. But we already own a copy of Lego Star Wars for the Mac.
Why do I need to buy two versions of the same game? Obviously Apple is not the only “restrictive” vendor in town.
As a consumer, you should know what you’re buying. If you don’t like the DRM on iTunes, go buy a CD and put it on your iPod. That way, when you lose your mind and switch to a Zune, you still have your music.
Oh, that’s right, if you buy a Zune you want to rent your music. Never mind.
fairplay is bad for customers. period.
No it’s not. Semi-colon. I’ve been purchasing from iTS since it started and I’ve yet to come up against the DRM limitations and DRM tracks account for about 40% of my collection.
The answer to the title question from me is, yes its too restrictive. Before they started selling tv shows and movies I thought it was perfect, but now that iTunes actually sells tv and movied content I need, I want, to be able to burn at least one DVD of the movies or programs that I buy – period. When I can do that then my vote will change back to, NO, iTunes music store is NOT too restrictive. I realize that much of the way things are is based on what the content providers are willing to do, but still… I need to be able to burn at least one playable DVD of my purchased video content.
On one of MDN’s points: “…while the iTunes also-ran music outfits, those still in business, are restrictively Windows-only.” Exactly. And even the Windows only brands are not sure what parts and components of Windows they are going to be compatible with – Zune – Need I say more? What a nightmare for poor Windows consumers.
Hal, it doesn’t take Apple loving, it takes RIAA loving because thats why its there. If you can pry a buck out of a RIAA corporate exec’s hand, you’ve earned that dollar.
The answer is no DRM. Maybe one day the RIAA will lose their stupidity and realize DRM hurts them. With DRM, Apple has control. Without it, Apple will have real competition.
Effwerd,
You haven’t come up against DRM restrictions because you have chosen not to. Can you play your music on a ny other mp3 player? No. Ok, you’ll probably say you can burn them to mp3’s on CD’s. Ok, so why is the DRM there then? Vendor lock-in. Apple gives you the ability to move your music but they sure make it hard as hell to do it. Why do I have to burn it to a CD? Why can’t we export it to mp3 right on the hard drive? Because Apple wants to keep you locked in to their hardware.
Hey, I buy a few songs from iTunes. But I am not in denial about what the DRM is about. I know for a fact that I would buy more music from iTunes if it didn’t have DRM on it. I just wish the RIAA wasn’t as stupid as it is.
I tried to play a track I purchesed from iTMS the other day on my Mac. A message poped up saying I could not do so because it was not authrised!! Fsck Apple. I paid for that music. Thiefs.
Most MP3 players will not work with a Mac or a Linux OS. Millions of computer users are upset with their limited MP3 player choices. All MP3 player manufactures should be forced to ring out Universal MP3 players that work with every OS imaginable.
DRM is a necessary evil thanks to the RIAA. Windows Media DRM is even more restrictive than FairPlay is, so I don’t know where this Apple bashing is coming from. And like others have said, if you don’t like DRM, then rip your own CDs then. Apple builds that capability into iTunes, so there is nothing to stop you from doing that.
ALL DRM IS TOO RESTRICTIVE. NOT JUST APPLE’S.
period.
Of course, Steve Jobs is the one who stated:
“If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.”
So… well… um…
As the saying goes- “Compared to what…?”
Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, don’t people get it through their thick heads: the DRM is there because of the RIAA scumbag Mafia who delight in treating music loving customers like so much dirt.
Everybody who hates Apple’s DRM should be addressing their anger to the RIAA and NOT to Apple.
Is that so hard to understand? Really?
How long will the inaccurate flawed myth that Apple put the DRM there continue? Apple didn’t put it there cause they wanted to.
Restrictions are there because the record labels (RIAA) demanded it. Without restrictions the labels would have NEVER allowed any music on the iTunes Store.
Apple’s FairPlay is the least restrictive and most consistent of anything out there. That fact shows the clout that Apple/ Steve carries, and how Apple still (at least a little bit) watches out and pays some attention to consumer rights.
For the record, I hate DRM crap. Yes, burning a CD and re-ripping is possible, but we shouldn’t have to put up with it. On the other hand, .99 to get a single song I like instead of forking over $15-$18 for an entire CD keeps me in line coming back for more
HMMMM, consider reading the comments there.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Most of the people who comment were articulate and sensable, then there were the MS and “free” trolls. They are sounding more and more boring and stupid as time goes by.
Apple is making the complainers sound more and more like whiners.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Now all we need is writers who have a clue and who have used the services that they write about.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
N.
Fairplay ist quite ok. Remeber, when was the last time you could buy a single song on a cd for just 99c? So you cannot really complain.
Im just missing one thing: The ability to transfer protected songs to your kids or friends if you should you want to do so.
I have yet to run across any DRM restriction in iTunes and I started buying from day one.
Thomas from Germany if you want to put the songs on your kid’s computer, you certainly have enough licenses within your houshold to do so.
Giving them to friends, um yeah thats the part where its basically stealing.
Yes, it is too restrictive.
However, although my initial reaction to seeing a message about how I’ve authorized my max of 5 devices is always a giant “Fuck you!”, I often think back to the good ole days when labels had their own stores. You probably missed it because the actual days were few (very very few) and the market penetrance was infinitesimal. The only thing worse than the price ($2-4 PER track) and the obscure audio formats (usually unique to the studio) was the beyond draconian DRM. Some of them were restricted to a single device. One. As Mac users, we really didn’t have much to worry about since the majority were windows only. Rip to CD? HAHAHAHAHAHA. No. Make a copy of any kind? You’re kidding, right? That’s piracy, asshole.
My point? Fairplay is fan-fucking-tastic. It still sucks, but it is difficult to get too upset with Apple because they had to do a shitload of work just to get us this much freedom.
My biggest gripe with Fairplay is not really the current restrictions, but the fact that they can change the rules at any point is irritating. Apple is going to be engaged in a battle with the labels over DRM and prices forever. I would be shocked if Apple caves in anyh time soon, but I suspect that, if Apple has to concede anything, Fairplay becoming more restrictive is more likely than prices going up. Oh excuse me. By “prices going up”, I actually meant to say “more creative pricing”. Same thing.
PS Burning a CD from a playlist is not “hard as hell”. I don’t like the fact that it has to be done, either, but let us not engage in hyperbole. In fact, the ability to burn a CD without residual DRM was probably a very difficult concession to extract from the studio dipshits.
“Giving them to friends, um yeah thats the part where its basically stealing.”
Uh, no. Posting on a P2P network is stealing. Sharing with thousands of people is stealing. Burning your entire CD collection for every one of your friends is stealing. Sharing tunes with your friends is a time honored fair use for music. Please, no lectures on the law here, I know that the “fair use” for downloaded songs is legally distinct from that for CDs, tapes, vinyl and every other format. That fact is fucking retarded.
Giving tracks to your friends to turn then on to an artist is something the labels and artists should encourage. It is a form of free marketing that has benefitted artists for decades.
Don’t buy into the bullshit. I totally and completely want artists to get paid. However, I am not so myopic as to believe the idea that giving up the “fair use” territory that consumers have had for years will help artists in the long run.
Restrictive is the fact that I still have 400+ pieces of vinyl (LPs, 7″s, and 10″s) that I can play on neither my cassette decks, my CD-players, my computer, nor my iPod.
Thanks for providing the link to the article so we can see how badly you misread (or is that misrepresnted) the article. Quite a hatchet job you did in quoting and discussing the text.
1) Entirely cutting out the news hook regarding DVD Jon’s announcement was a bad decision. Everyone knows about this anyway and I clicked through to BusinessWeek to try to figure out why they left this very important detail out. They didn’t — it was just you.
2) The point is that there is market OPPORTUNITY for Apple in opening the standard. There are examples of similar success in other standards provided, and this is BUSINESSweek. Something tells me they’ve considered the financial pros and cons.
I suppose you’ll say what you think Apple wants you to say, and so long as you link to the original text you’ll sleep well enough, but I encourage your readers to “think different” and go to the sources for all of your stories if this is representative.
As far as DRM goes (and I’m only talking about music here, not movies), are people telling me that they really need more than 5 computers to listen to their music? If you’re savvy enough to need 5 devices to hear your music are you telling me it’s THAT difficult to rip it to a CD (an excellent back up of your purchased material that will disappear if your computers crash) and then re-import it so it can go on your other multitude of devices?
The DRM is there for RIAA more than Apple. Fairplay is one of the least restrictive and straight-forward DRMs out there. What’s with the bitching?