digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at guardian.co.uk

How Apple is changing DRM

guardian.co.uk — As more stores and record labels abandon digital rights management, Apple may have an alternative plan for subscription services

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Pottypotsworth, on 05/16/2008, -24/+56Death to DRM - Good on Apple
    • paloooz, on 05/16/2008, -18/+8Good on Apple?

      Why is Apple still selling DRM'd tracks on iTunes, then?

      No thanks.
      • Lyph5, on 05/16/2008, -4/+27Because the labels won't change overnight. Look at the DRM free tracks in the iTMS. First they started selling at over $0.99 but later the price was lowered down to the standard $.99/track. That's how it starts. You can't just walk up to a giant like the RIAA and go "IT ALL CHANGES OVERNIGHT RIGHT NOW." You have to show them that change isn't bad and they won't lose their ability to snort coke off a hooker's *****.
        • FlyingSpaghetti, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Dugg up for hookers, *****, and coke.
        • jerrycurley, on 05/16/2008, -14/+1Uhhh..hate to tell you, you dumb *****, But Apple is NOT pushing for those labels to go DRM-free. And Apple is selling DRM version of songs that other music sites are offering DRM-free.

          If you honestly are trying to suggest that Apple is anti-DRM, you are never going to be considered an intelligent human being again.
        • knightboat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12@jerrycurley: Other sites are DRM-free because the labels are upset at Apple's control of the market (fixed pricing and individual track purchases) and are trying to make Amazon into a competitor. It is not because Apple is forcing them to keep the DRM on (which makes no sense because Jobs was the one that wrote that public letter to really force the labels' hand on removing DRM in the first place, before there were any well-known mainstream DRM-free alternatives).

          This isn't new or hard-to-find news. Please try to keep up with what's actually going on before calling people dumb ***** because they actually know what they're talking about while you're just angrily ranting.
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4@ jerrycurly

          It is ONLY the stands Apple has taken against the RIAA that made the "Big Four" labels drop DRM. They were constantly pressuring Apple to either license FairPlay to everyone else, or to adopt Windows DRM on iPods as well (at Apple's own expense), and Apple did no such thing--going so far as to say essentially "You're already releasing everything on CD's with no DRM--do you honestly think it helps anything? We will happily remove DRM from all our titles."

          Then, they delivered DRM-free tracks from EMI first, starting the ball rolling. (First at an experimental surcharge, but then iTunes Plus tracks just became the same as anything else.)

          Do you honestly thing the RIAA would have dropped DRM if Apple HAD broadly licensed FairPlay? Or if iPods could play Windows DRM'd music? It is ONLY because Apple stood against them that Amazon MP3 exists at all, and it is ONLY because the remaining three major RIAA labels (Universal, Sony, and Warner) want to use it as a wedge against iTunes that all tracks aren't iTunes Plus right now.

          In what way has Apple NOT been pushing the move to DRM-free music?
      • TimmyGUNZ, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Because of the labels. Warner is pissed at Apple so it won't allow them to sell the songs DRM-free, but will allow other sites like Amazon to do so. This is the label's way of trying to take power away from iTunes. I know for me, if there is an album I want to buy on iTunes and it's got DRM, my next immediate step is go to go www.amazonmp3.com.
      • mike17032, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8Because the record labels make them.

        Next question with an obvious answer?
        • jerrycurley, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2How about an accurate one? Guess what...Steve Jobs does not give a ***** about you, or your family. he caers only for your money. He would step over your dying corpse to pick up a shiny nickel. Apple WANTS DRM
        • DanMiller, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7I don't for a second think that Steve Jobs cares about me. No company cares about me except for the money in my wallet. That being said it is ignorant to say that Apple wants DRM. DRM was the early answer to the P2P file sharing "problem". Apple doesn't care if it's DRM protected or not, they still make their tiny amount of money on each sale. iTunes Plus tracks have moved the store in the right direction but record companies are dragging their heels hoping to artificially create competition by giving consumers more attractive options at other stores. Quit acting like Apple has it out for everyone, Windows uses DRM as well.
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5@ jerrycurley

          Steve Jobs may not ultimately give a ***** about me, but he cares even less about DRM. Read the above posts, and follow the chain of events...

          Is there ANY way you think we would have DRM-free tracks now if Apple capitulated to the RIAA's demands? Do you honestly think Apple couldn't forsee the outcome of their standing against open licensing of FairPlay, putting any other DRM on the iPods, actively telling the industry music DRM is pointless AND saying they'd support any and all DRM-free music, and then going ahead and DOING it first with a major RIAA label...?

          o_O
    • Berrex, on 05/16/2008, -27/+0why drm get the bad rap? just you no what i mean ,thats so teribale, u no , when every gyu that some ***** does ,we all child of the world, thats all humans ok. est 1st date is da zoo. look at those monkeys n obsecure shaped faeces hahahahahaaa
    • sdipaola, on 05/16/2008, -16/+13good on apple? read the story - apple is one of the problems.

      yes they pretend that DRM is not the way they want to go, have a small bunch of non DRM songs to show 'they care" (while charge more for the privilege ) but keep their DRM plans and possibly (read the story) want to expand DRM with subscription DRMs (deeper evil).

      so not good on apple.
      • haydesigner, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2I'm confused... Which part of "possibly" ends up constituting as proof against Apple? Dern it, I knew I should have paid more attention in logic class.
      • DanMiller, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4You except them to give you a subscription service with no DRM? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? I would happily pay money for a subscription service. My ideal plan would be the following:

        A tiered fee which allows for a certain number of subscribed songs at a time.

        A discounted cost for purchasing tracks based on your tier of service, for example the higher tiered service might allow a user to purchase a $9.99 album for $6.99.

        Unlimited streaming of the entire iTunes library on your computer.

        DRM will be gone when the studios learn that DRM doesn't curb piracy, until then companies like Apple will have to do what it takes to sustain their library.




      • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Read your iTunes Terms of Service EULA:

        Apple doesn't promise your music will play,
        and Apple reserves the right to break into your computer and damage files and software if they think you might be copying files.

        Failure to play is reason enough to stop buying Apple DRM files -
        Amazon, Buy, WalMart, etc - most videos and CDs can be purchased for reasonable cost, and you'll not become the victim
        of the 'vanishing key' problems.
    • jerrycurley, on 05/16/2008, -13/+7What the *****? Good on Apple? Apple is the LAST company responsible for the death of DRM.

      This may be the dumbest thing (most inaccurate) that any Apple fanboy has ever said. And that is saying a lot.
      • wacomwacoff, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7Wrong. As the world's largest music retailer, Apple's been able to push harder than any other music seller to get labels to drop DRM.
      • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Read the above posts, then come up with something that actually--rationally--examines the series of events, rather than being kneejerk anti-fanboyism.
    • Radan, on 05/16/2008, -4/+10Apple has a number of times stated that they do not support the use of DRM. It's not Apple you are to blame, but the record companies who demand the strict DRM.

      As said in the article, if Apple wouldn't use DRM then no one would grant them the right to sell their songs. Apple has little say in how the content is to be distributed, and as you saw with NBC, if the corporations don't get what they want, they simply head elsewhere to someone who is more willing to crawl for them.

      For Apple, piracy is one of the least of their worries, as they don't even earn that much from the ITMS itself. Apple want people to buy iPods. Period. One of the greatest features of the iPod is the solid iTunes integration. As long as they buy iPods, Apple couldn't really care less from where you got the content from.
      • phoomp, on 05/16/2008, -9/+3Apple may say they don't support DRM, but they're certainly not going to open up iTunes purchases to platforms other than the iPod any time soon. That's simply another form of DRM.
        • bradbeattie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Uhh... iTunes Plus? DRMless mp3s at 256kbps.
        • haydesigner, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5"That's simply another form of DRM."

          Uh, no... no, it is not.
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Granted their purchases are by default AAC instead of MP3, but that doesn't "force" you to stick with iPods. You can buy iTunes Plus tracks, put them on your Zune, while paying for the Zune's subscription service, if you don't want DRM on your purchased music. Heck, you can combine iTunes Plus tracks, eMusic purchases, Amazon MP3 purchases... It's not DRM.

          Pretty much any modern player supports AAC, so the only thing that does is restrict you somewhat, and might force you to pick up something new.

          Alternatively, you could transcode the track to MP3, and the minor quality you lose is kind of a wash against the minor quality increase AAC offers you over MP3 at the same bitrate.
      • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1iTunes Terms of Service supports
        Apple breaking into your computer
        and destroying your files if, in their
        opinion, they think you copy files.

        That is unacceptable since many
        people legitimately copy their own files
        from CDs, TiVo / Dish / Cable TV recordings,
        etc - so they can listen / watch the files
        on their iPods...
    • jabberwolf, on 05/16/2008, -15/+5"Apple has a number of times stated that they do not support the use of DRM. It's not Apple you are to blame, but the record companies who demand the strict DRM."

      Only someone kissing the ASS of Apple would say that or either too stupid or young to remember!

      Do you remember NAPSTER? Apple rose in place of it's fall OFFERING RECORD COMPANIES APPLE's DRM SCHEME!
      It was not the record companies that came up with it, it WAS APPLE!

      Now after 1 billion dollars later, now that others are offering things without DRM, NOW... Apple says they dont want it.

      Well Golly Gee Wiz, aren't they soooo sweet now!
      • wacomwacoff, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Apple was forced to use DRM by the Big Five labels in exchange for flat-rate pricing and a common retail model.

        Apple was the first and largest music retailer to demand that the Big Five labels drop DRM.
        • MacParrot, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7You're wasting your time wacomwacoff. Trying to reason with jabbers is like pounding your own head with a hammer. It's a waste of time and feels so good when you stop.
        • javaroast, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2The problem with all these stories and the comments is that you get 1 side claiming Apple is the biggest fighter of DRM there is and the other side saying they are the most evil DRM purveyor out there. Neither is really true. Apple used there position to best benefit them as any business would do. It doesn't make them evil, just profitable, but if they were really the great fighters of DRM they would drop everything that is DRM'd. Of course that would hurt their store, so that ain't happening.

          The real deal is that as a consumer I just care about what is best for me. And I won't be buying any digital music with DRM. What I want is to be able to buy DRM free music from the store of my choice like I have been able to do with CD's, Cassettes, Albums through the years. I want to be able to take my music where I want and when I want with no hassles about authorized computers, players etc and not have to worry that my vendor's brand of DRM has gone belly up leaving me in the lurch. I want to be able to comparison shop for the best prices or deals. Until I can have that, I won't be buying digital music.
        • wacomwacoff, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Javaroast: You've got plenty of entirely DRM-free music available online.
          iTunes offers all music on the EMI and indie labels as DRM-free iTunesPlus files, which are higher-quality than DRM files, to boot.
          AmazonMP3 is entirely DRM-free.
          eMusic is entirely DRM-free. Plain vanilla mp3 files from independent musicians and labels.
        • javaroast, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Doesn't sound like plenty to me. 1 can get 1 label form iTunes, indies on another. Not exactly a whole lot of choice. Basically leaves Amazon if they happen to have the song I want. Unless if by plenty you mean a couple of limited options.
        • jabberwolf, on 05/17/2008, -4/+1APPLE WAS NEVER FOCED TO USE DRM !!
          DUHH!!
          Who went to the record companies with the vacume left behind by Napster? APPLE
          Other vendors for digital music had OTHER versions of DRM!
          Who wrote the DRM code? APPLE

          So you are saying Apple was FORCED to use their own DRM code?
          Say that outloud and try not to sound stupid, I dare ya!

          And Macparrot is the retard that can't stand actual facts. He wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up his ass and wriggled!


        • wacomwacoff, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3javaroast: EMI is the world's largest label conglomerate. It has hundreds of thousands of songs on iTunes without DRM... the same ones that are on AmazonMP3. If you don't like what you see there, you can just as easily buy CDs and burn them yourself. But don't pretend you don't have any choices out there.

          jabberwolf: you're being willfully stupid. Apple developed their own DRM (FairPlay) at the behest of the Big Four labels; what, did you think they were going to use Sony's or Microsoft's systems? Part of the arrangement to appease the labels in allowing the first ever online music store featuring major label artists (yes, iTunes developed this) was to add DRM to songs. So yes, I'll happily repeat it: Apple was forced to develop and use the FairPlay DRM system to make the major labels happy and allow iTunes to exist.
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3@jabberwolf

          Why must you continue to be so retarded? DRM was a requirement of the RIAA before they would allow ANY of their music to be purchased online, so certainly Apple (and everyone else) had to come up with a DRM scheme to sell anything.

          Difference is, Apple created the service, drove it successfully, which in turn drove their player sales, which in turn drove more music sales, which in turn... When they became big enough, they had the muscle to stand against RIAA demands, which included telling Apple to license FairPlay to anyone else, or putting WMV DRM support on the iPods... neither of which Apple did. While Bill Gates was busy saying that DRM was scattershop but necessary, Steve Jobs wrote a letter saying that all music is ALREADY released DRM free, that it is ultimately causing nothing but consumer aggravation, and that they would immediately support any DRM-free endeavors the labels choose. Then they actively courted EMI on the matter and started releasing their tracks without DRM, and... the other labels followed suit one by one.

          Which of these actions shouts "Apple LOVES teh DRMs!" to you? Which if them shows that Apple's been kicking the poor, beleaguered record companies around to force them to adopt DRM schemes? Which if them shows Apple taking stands that led to more and more severe DRM restrictions, rather than forcing the RIAA's hand on the matter?


          When will you actually take in the facts and make sense, as opposed to your continual, painfully illogical trolling?
        • javaroast, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Wacom how lost do you have to be. Of course I can buy CD's, it was part of my original post. I can buy CD's just about anywhere. I can also shop for the best price for CD's. I want the same for digital music and I want the freedom to play the music I PURCHASE anywhere and on what ever device I want.

          And EMI last I can find has only 13.4% of the market. Which mean limited choices.

          I don't even understand what the hell you are arguing at this point. You are talking 3 limited sources for digital music. I can find 100's or 1000's of time more sources for CD's or the conventional forms of distribution for music within the city I live in. So yes my choices for digital music are severely limited and can't even come close to CD's.
  • positron, on 05/16/2008, -34/+121The only thing worse than DRM is subscription-based DRM.
    • RudeTurnip, on 05/16/2008, -3/+71I disagree. Subscription-based DRM is the only time DRM should be used, if at all, because you're basically getting into a rental agreement. It's like on-demand or satellite radio, adapted for a portable device. DRM sucks if you are paying outright for a copy, but for a "fleeting" copy where I know I'm going to swap it out with new music on a regular basis, it doesn't matter.
      • dgaspard, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Except that I've been able to record movies onto my VCR for over two decades and the supreme court has rules it is ok to record and create mix tapes.
      • FSHero, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I agree, I don't like DRM one bit, but if it were to be acceptable to enforce DRM on something, it would be on something oke a stream or a rental agreement.

        But then I wouldn't have the priviledges that my dad did 30 years ago -- recording radio to tapes! (Replae tapes with hard-disk today)
    • Wakuko, on 05/16/2008, -6/+14The only thing worse than DRM is M$ implementation of it.

      PlayNotSure anyone?
    • DigiRaven, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1215 dollars a month with Microsoft zune for all the music you want to hear isn't bad at all. Like a particular album download and listen to it. Download 100 albums and still only pay 15 dollars a month. Not bad at all I say.
      • DarkDx, on 05/16/2008, -1/+16It's even better when you download over 9000 albums and strip the DRM from them :o)
      • DJCamCam78, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2The zune pass is awesome. You can't burn the music to Cd's but I can just plug my zune into the car and speakers at work and I'm golden.
    • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4DRM is the only way TO have an all-you-can-eat subscription. How else would you manage it, otherwise?

      Your comment is rather like saying "Netflix is horrible." Some people like being able to rent movies, and some like to rent music... In the end, their viewing/listening habits may make it much cheaper for them than pursuing all the music they want to in album-purchasing form. *shrugs*

      How is it "worse"? How would you offer an unlimited subscription plan without it? ("Limited subscriptions" can admittedly work, as seen with eMusic. But even that doesn't appeal to the major labels.)
    • pigfister, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2nope, the only thing worse than DRM is the RIAA/MPAA & sony's DRM.

      XCP Rootkit, BD+ (blu-ray), Rom-Mark(blu-ray) secuROM, HDCP HDMI(blu-ray), Broadcast Flag(blu-ray), Image Constraint Token(blu-ray).

      The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

      The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

      boycott anti-consumer ppl.
  • whiteeagle131, on 05/16/2008, -34/+17wow, you guys *still* use itunes?
    • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -6/+18Yeah, wanna fight about it? iTunes is awesome as long as you stay away from the DRM'd content on their iTunes Store...
      • brstilson, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Or you could just download from Amazon, where all their tracks are DRM free.
        • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6I do that now, when it's not available in 'iTunes Plus' format, which is also DRM-free, and uses the higher quality AAC format. But then I put those MP3s IN ITUNES!!! iTunes is a media management database, and it handles integration with my iPhone and AppleTV; iTunes Store is a separate entity, and it should be used with caution to avoid getting stuck with DRM'd content.
      • brstilson, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Or you could use Amazon. All their tracks are DRM-free.
        • mrsteveman1, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6I wonder if that has anything to do with record labels wanting to take back control over the online music market from apple?

          hmmmmm
    • brycelb, on 05/16/2008, -7/+14Sure do. I like ***** that works.
      • lnxfi, on 05/16/2008, -6/+5unlike this new stupid comments system...
      • StandardsDT, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7In case you didn't notice but the new comment system has been implemented and it works fine.
        • optimo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7http://userstyles.org/styles/7303
          I made this on a request, because the comments are too much whitespace
        • MonkeyFarts, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Well, except for the fact that when I bury a comment, it collapses the whole damn comment tree. Then I have to click "show" on the comment I just buried, and manually re-expand every single branch. This. Is. Annoying!

          It looks like the edit timer has improved though.
        • brycelb, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The new comment system is driving me crazy. Just as Monkey Farts said (did I really just type that) It is borderline unusable in it's current form. I don't know how much longer I can deal with it and it has been up for ONE day.
      • WarezAppz, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3right, then let iTunes manage/arrange/rename you entire music collection!
        • mike17032, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Already do.

          You ***** do it manually?
        • MonkeyFarts, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4So? It just does what I have already done before anyways. It's just automated with iTunes. I don't really have a need to manually organize my tracks anyways when I can find, play, and edit anything I want right within iTunes. And if it's really that big of a deal, turn off that feature. Preferences > Advanced > General; uncheck the keep itunes music folder organized and copy files when adding to library options, then keep your music organized however the hell you want, just as you always have with any other player. In short, I just don't see your point.
        • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Let's not get crazy, shall we? iTunes is a great music DB, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I let it rename and reorganize my music in its completely deranged ways. That 'keep iTunes Music folder organized' option is always the first thing I disable in a fresh install. In addition to that, disable copying to iTunes Music folder when adding to library, enable error correction on CD rips, change the import settings to high bitrate, and hide the ministore abomination, and you're good to go.
    • EwMo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Well with an iPod, you sort of have to. I have no problem with iTunes, but I haven't bought a song from the iTunes store in a LOONG time.
      • Lyph5, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8You don't HAVE to. There are 3rd party apps that work with the iPod.
      • RudeTurnip, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3There is a plugin to let you use an iPod with Windows Media Player. I tried it out, but iPods don't play WMA, so you can't use it with Rhapsody.
    • davidrools, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Mediamonkey is my program of choice and I highly recommend it. Works great to rip/tag/organize/play/aggregate podcasts/sync to ipods and mp3 players/play any format. CDs and Amazon MP3s win it for me.
  • alanr19, on 05/16/2008, -53/+64Apple is still one of the biggest users of DRM in the world and yet they keep this halo effect bestowed onto them by the gibbering fanboys. Apple has chosen this "Lead role in a cage". Screw 'em.
    Anyway iTunes is turning into the AOL of web 2.0. A restrictive walled garden that is popular by default with piss-poor customer service and murky pricing schemes.

    For the record I have 3 ipods and zero itunes accounts, and thats how it will stay.
    • jjustice, on 05/16/2008, -18/+9I tend to be an Apple fanboy, but that was actually a very helpful comparison with AOL.
    • centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -9/+9Apple was forced to implement DRM by the music companies. It worked out in their favor, but it's not like they're stopping anyone from going to a non-drm solution (look at EMI).

      I don't agree with your description of iTunes. The pricing is pretty simple IMO.

      If you think something else is better then go use it. MP3 has always been supported on the iPod.
      • alanr19, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Murky in so far as the same tune can cost up to 50% more depending on which international iTunes store you buy from.

        Can any of you explain why this is?
        • Balanced, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Different record company deals in different countries?
        • mrgreen4242, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Ask the record company that owns the rights to the sell the song in that country. The pricing for each nations iTMS is determined by contract with whatever agency/agencies control the rights there.
        • alanr19, on 05/16/2008, -7/+4I don't give a crap who's fault it is, the iTunes pricing scheme sucks.

          You're so intent on saying "Apple is innocent I tells ya" that you didn't even understand the point I was putting across.

          God damn fanboys. Lolz
        • centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5So you're angry because we don't have a global currency and Apple charges 0.99 of (insert currency here) instead of charging $0.99 everywhere and doing a live currency conversion to account for changes in the relative worth of each currency?

          Now that *would* be murky! Imagine if the price of a song fluctuated with the conversion rate. rofl.

          If iTunes isn't a "good deal" for you, then don't use it. But don't come on Digg and make some outrageous claim that iTunes pricing is complex, difficult, or "murky" when it's anything but.

          All you have to say is, iTunes is expensive to use in (your currency of choice).
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Um... You do realize that CD prices are different from country to country, right?

          Along with... you know... everything else.
      • phoomp, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Can you play non-DRM music purchased through iTunes on any non-iPod mp3 players?
        • centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Yes, but only if the player supports MP4.
      • jabberwolf, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Apple was NEVER forced.
        They did so to get as much business as possible from the media companies when Napster fell.

        They were the leaders in implementing DRM!
        • centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3That's like saying I'm not forced to pay taxes.
        • DanMiller, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Napster fell because it was illegal! How can you be pissed that a company filled the role of an illegal service by offering a legal one. DRM was a compromise with the studios in order to carry the catalogue of music. If Apple hadn't adopted first then someone else would.

          At the very least we can credit iTunes with forming the pay per track sales system as we know it. Other companies like Amazon are now competing and this along with consumer demand will steer the industry in the correct way. Lets not forget that the vast majority of music purchasers don't care about DRM one way or another.
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2If Apple's use was all voluntary, why in hell didn't other music retailers sell their music DRM-free so that they could be played on iPods? Wasn't this the central issue that the RIAA was continually badgering Apple about?

          Can you ever make logical sense?

          The RIAA is the leader in "implementing DRM for music." Apple became the leading retailer of it, and it was only because iPods/iTunes was so strong and they took a stand AGAINST further RIAA DRM demands that Warner, Sony, Universal, and EMI started licensing it without DRM.

          Just what part of that doesn't make sense to you?
    • briguymaine, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9murky pricing? seems pretty straight forward to me.
    • jimr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7dugg for pink floyd reference, and in preference of a walk on part in the war.
    • kipmartin, on 05/16/2008, -7/+5the only thing worse than a 'fanboy' is to wield the word around as a scornful epithet directed at those of us who prefer Apple's way of doing things. i am a fanboy because so far, no one has come up with a better paradigm than Apple. its easy (murky pricing? come on! use your non-fanboy brain!), elegant, and Apple offers excellent solutions. not cool, but smart--which is cool.

      Apple is doing us all a service by forcing the anti-DRM solution. its coming, and Steve Jobs is part of the equation, like it or not.
    • superkendall, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6If Apple had nt locked in DRM control to themselves, you would have ZERO options for buying DRM free music today. That's the simple truth of why they have helped.

      Furthermore, Apple would be selling only DRM free music today if it were up to them, but the studios are still holding back.

      Why not get an iTunes account just for iTunes Plus music to show you support the concept? That's about all I buy from iTunes these days.
      • alanr19, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1iTunes Plus music is DRM free yes, but it come with a "Freedom Tax" that you must pay on top of the normal price for the privilege of playing your music wherever you want to. Apple's paradigm of "Its OK to be stupid" has its venomous defenders but they will migrate to the next Big Thing when it comes, as its what they do. ("they" being the people who constantly defend apple no matter what damage apple does to consumer rights, as Apple has offered what no other company has and that is honor and respect for not being intelligent, you know who you are.)
        • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4iTunes Plus tracks were initially offered at a an experimental premium, yes, but that was seen as not helping and was dropped before Amazon MP3 even launched.

          Can you find iTunes Plus tracks that aren't $0.99? Didn't think so...

          Album prices are somewhat adjustable, but all songs are at the same rate, be they iTunes Plus or not. If the top three labels licensed their DRM-free music to Apple, everything on iTunes would be 256kb non-DRM AAC, and no prices would change.
        • alanr19, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1@cthellis
          The Freedom Tax I spoke of was monetary but it is also a privacy tax as the name and account details of the purchaser are embedded in the file. Google it.

          iTunes Plus may be 99c a track nowadays but are there any new quality songs available on it?

          Yeah thought not. Its the garbage that gets released as Plus, but this allows apple to tell everyone that they are a DRM free retailer. Its manipulative spin that you fanboys lap up like its ***** flavored ice-cream.
        • centerblack, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Alanr, rofl.

          Your a troll. You started this argument with a comment about murky pricing schemes and have answered each reply which points out how full of ***** you are with yet another ***** argument.

          Most of what's released today by "the industry" is garbage. The corporate music industry simply wants to fit prospective acts into an equation that results in profit. The music business is all about CONTROL. If the major industry players can't dictate the terms, pricing, and distribution they will cease to exist. Because of this, Apple scares them.

          If there's not enough iTunes "plus" content, it's because the major music industry players aren't giving Apple the go ahead.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4iTunes is simply the software used to interface with an iPod. You can put your music on your iPod by buying through their music store or by ripping CDs you own.. or buying via Amazon, eMusic, etc. But iTunes is how you manage your iPod. It doesn't make you any cooler for working around it.
  • MacParrot, on 05/16/2008, -9/+49It was kinda glossed over, but ask the question? Why does Apple use DRM? Not as a lock-in, but because it is required by the content copyright holders. Amazon has most of the studios allowing them to sell it without, but those same studios refuse to let Apple do so. Since the DRM DOES keep iPod users locked in as far as their purchased audio content goes, how hard is Apple going to push to get it removed? Apple has 70% of the download market in most places and probably could push for an ease of restrictions, but it really isn't in their best interests to do so.
    You can wave the anti-DRM flag all you want, but if YOU had the kind of market-share that Apple does and was making an incredible amount of money from it do to the stupidity of content copyright holders, how hard would you push? If they really want to try and break Apple's dominance over the download market, remove ALL the DRM. Then if someone wants a player besides an iPod, they can move their entire library without having to go through the motions of burning it to a CD and re-importing it.
    As long as the studios insist Apple use DRM, they will maintain their high market status. I'm amazed that they can't see this.
    • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+15No, as long as they force Apple to use DRM, Apple will be hindered from reaching its potential, in favor of distributors that are more flexible on pricing (Amazon), allowed to sell DRM-free. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if it's the copyright holder or the distributor insisting on DRM, it's equally unacceptable to me. DRM'd content on iTunes is worth nothing to me, so they won't be seeing any of my money for it. I'll continue to encourage anyone else to do the same, regardless of the source of this problem. If Apple's image is harmed by the DRM on most of their store's content, then that's a good thing, as it draws negative attention to DRM in general.
    • sdipaola, on 05/16/2008, -8/+8if amazon can figure out how not to do it , but apple can't - it means apple is lying when they blame it on the studios - is it that simple and backed up by many media analysts. with apples clout they could stop drm in a heart beat - they obviously don't want to yet.
      • superkendall, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5You idiot, Apple ALREADY sells DRM free music today, from EMI. It's called iTunes Plus. Apple ALREADY figured out how to do so, the only reason they don't sell more music that way is the studios are holding back, trying to prop up Amazon as competition.

        • mrBitch, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2superkendall is correct. Amazon is being offered DRM free music from the very same companies that are saying NO to Apple's request for DRM free tracks (except for EMI).
    • alanr19, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5If apple wanted to get rid of DRM they could negotiate (read dictate) terms with the labels. When iTunes started out they had no permission to sell songs but (its true look it up) Steve Jobs made the bold decision to do it anyway and when the labels saw how much they were making they towed the line.

      The DRM is there to force multiple purchases and boost revenue in the short term. By multiple purchases I mean having to buy your music again because for instance your laptop was stolen and your iPod music is now orphaned and must be wiped when connected to a new laptop. Many other scenarios exist. None of which benefit the consumer. And dont give me that crap about burning to CD, how many of you have burned all your music to CD "just in case"? Thought so, and Apple knows it. Its just something they point to when accused of lock-in. It needlessly cumbersome and impractical and nobody backs up all their music.

      So enough of the "Apple can do no wrong" mentality. You fanboys seem to love taking it in the ass and saying "Thank you sir may I have another"
      • MacParrot, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5"If apple wanted to get rid of DRM they could negotiate (read dictate) terms with the labels."

        You mean like they dictated terms to NBC? NBC pulled their content when Apple wouldn't let them pretty much increase prices across the board for them.
        I'm not saying Apple is the magic prince here to save us from evil, but allowing the studios to dictate the terms hasn't worked out so well in the past. Variable pricing is what they want so they can charge more for new stuff (which is most of what's purchased) and throw a bone to the consumers by charging a little less for the old stuff. Apple has given firm fixed pricing for content which now seems to be going away in order to keep most of the content on iTunes. Prices will rise and we'll be right back where we were before. enjoy
      • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Those terms would be things that Apple has stood against in the past, and approaches very tepidly right now (like with HBO). I'm sure the labels would be happy to let them sell DRM if Apple gave them all sorts of pricing controls, but that's exactly what would go against the grain, and what Apple believes has made them so successful so far. And considering they now sell more music than anyone else, it lends quite a bit of weight to their business plan.

        Meanwhile, the labels are perfectly happy to let their DRM'ed music sell by the boatload, and they're perfectly willing to work up less-favorable-to-them-right-now deals with Amazon so that Amazon can actually offer the music cheaper and the labels can try to prop up competition and reduce Apple's influence, so...

        No, this still isn't on Apple's head. It's the RIAA continuing to jockey for position. Licensing DRM-free tracks to Apple under the same terms would simply bring in more interest to their music, increasing their already-mighty sales, and any extra bandwidth expense would be coming out of Apple's share, so... it's just bonus points for the RIAA.
    • tadpoleontheweb, on 05/16/2008, -5/+8Obviously, a lot of people here never read Steve Jobs' open letter to the music industry to end DRM. So maybe that's convenient for those wanting to blame Apple and not the majors.

      Besides, Apple really doesn't make that much off of iTunes sales. The bulk of their revenue comes from iPod sales and removing DRM would only enhance the iTunes experience. So really, there's no financial incentive for Apple to keep DRM. They were bound to their agreement with the labels.

      The labels, in return, have acted hypocritically by letting companies like Amazon to offer DRM-free tracks to better compete with Apple to force them in a position of less power so that the labels can negotiate higher prices for consumers through the iTunes store.

      Blame the labels, not Apple.
      • mrBitch, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The open letter from Steve Jobs is titled "Thoughts on Music":
        http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
      • bmobile, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I don't know if this is even a good guess or not, but my thoughts were that the record industry was using places like Amazon to test how well DRM-free sells. Not saying I like the RIAA one bit but maybe they're, for once, smart businessmen and want to test their business theory(s)?
    • superkendall, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4Is no-one here aware of iTunes Plus? All EMI music is available on iTunes as DRM-free MP3 files. Apple can sell DRM free music, it's totally up to the studios to allow them to do so or not.
      • MacParrot, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Technically NOT Mp3s but non-DRMed AAC (MP4) files. Doesn't matter really I guess since most of the better players play that format as well. And before the Apple haters get started, Apple does not own the AAC format and does not receive a dime in royalties from it. It is an open standard unlike wma and wmv.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4NO RECORD COMPANY FORCED THEM YOU MACTARD!

      Apple wrote the code for their DRM... so did many other companies trying for the record company's business.
      Saying that Apple was forced to use the code that they wrote, is pure idiocy, that can only be accomplished by macparrot.

      The reason that media companies flocked to Apple and use Apple's DRM rather then others, was Apple had a killer app, the iPod and iTunes! Had Apple not cornered the market and implemented DRM along with the ipod and itunes, there would NOT be as many DRM problems as there are today.

      Creative, and so many other companies that had MP3 players and digital music distribution sites, DID NOT enforce DRM on their devices, and STILL DO NOT TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!

      So who is forcing Apple to apply DRM to music when others dont on their devices?
      NO ONE ! They do it to get the most business from record companies. Its for their benefit to make money.
      • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3You know... no matter how many times you yell this out, in neither makes any more sense nor makes you seem less idiotic?

        If NO RECORD COMPANY FORCED THEM, then why did no other online retailer sell RIAA-produced tracks without DRM so that they could be played on iPods, which would increase sales? Why did the RIAA continually harass Apple about licensing FairPlay or adopting WMA/WMV DRM on their iPods so that media from other distributors would work on them, since seemingly they never forced anyone to use DRM, and everyone else was free to use them?

        You see why everyone says you make no sense...? Because you make no sense. As evidenced by your thinking that looking at the hardware instead of the distribution companies is a point, and even after that doing it in nonsensical fashion.

        Does Creative and so many other companies FORCE you to use DRM to use their devices? Certainly not. Neither do iPods. Does Creative and so many other companies SUPPORT DRM'd media? Of course; as do iPods.

        Now, until recently, did basically every legal only music distributor/retailer (sans eMusic and MP3.com) from Rhapsody to Napster (reborn) to Sony's CONNECT to MusicMatch to BuyMusic to Yahoo to Wal-Mart to SpiralFrog to the Zune Marketplace...? Yes. As did iTunes. Why was that, even when the iPods were quickly seen as the dominant player, and cross-compatibility with THEM was impossible, and even with each other was very fragmented?

        DRM was absolutely, positively, a requirement by the RIAA to sell music online. Just how on earth do you think it was NOT?
      • MacParrot, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Did I hurt your feelings Jabbers? Keep screaming out your nonsense. You are your own worst enemy.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Apple uses DRM to sell more iPods -

      go ahead and try to play your iTunes files on a
      Zune or Creative ZEN player - Not gonna work.

      Proprietary lock-in, it's Apple's 1-trick pony from
      the very beginning of the company.
      • cthellis, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Did you just decide to ignore every single comment in this thread on the matter, and continue spouting illogically?

        How was DRM _not_ forced upon iTunes by the RIAA? How did Apple's direct actions--and non-actions--NOT contribute directly to the removal of DRM? If this was all some lock-in trick from the beginning, wouldn't they have followed RIAA demands to avoid the abandonment of all DRM in general?
  • macwac, on 05/16/2008, -1/+59Might not be 100% relevant. But i attended a MPAA speakers convention (wanted to know what those **** were up to). They said they were abandoning DRM and going for digital watermarking so that they could track file sharing and take file-sharers that way.
    • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+27That can't come soon enough. All I ask is that the content I purchase can be converted to the format I need and usable in the future no matter what happens to the vendor. Otherwise, it's just renting, and it's worth nothing to me.
      • BigW, on 05/16/2008, -2/+15If its a watermark that should be fine. The watermark should identify you as the owner of the song and as the laws stand right now, making copies for your own use is perfectly fine.
        • Zerohawk, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3The problem with Watermarking is that it introduced a liability. The *AAs haven't exactly shown that they can act with respect ( or even lawful conduct for that matter ) resolving litigation and by introducing a water mark how do we know that they won't hold you responsible for when that file is stolen from you?

          You would be amazed at how many user machines are compromised and theft of digital music is one of the most casual forms of piracy going.
        • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4@Zerohawk: You do bring up an interesting point, but that's no argument for not having watermarks. I'm sure that in the case that a person gets sued for music that was stolen from them, that fact would be revealed during the trial, and handled on a case-by-case basis. If a watermark is what it takes to get these copyright holders to sell me their content in standard formats, then that's a good compromise. You can be sure someone will come up with a method of detecting and stripping the watermark during conversion for the truly paranoid...
  • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10The assertion FTA that Apple is working on a subscription service is complete speculation, without a shred of support. They are arguing that since copyright holders are going to withdraw all their DRM requirements for the iTunes Store, that Apple will be encouraged to replace or supplement it with a subscription service, so that it can keep its customers locked in with the obligatory DRM that would entail. Well personally, as long as the purchased content is DRM-free, I couldn't care less what other services they might offer with DRM'd content, and I would still caution anyone thinking of using them of the limitations of DRM. If the price for the DRM'd service reflects its much lower value due to the DRM, then maybe it's a nice alternative. I'll reserve judgment until something tangible is shown. As for this article, however, they approach the situation like it's a good thing to coerce your customers into subservience, and they are completely talking out of their ass when guessing what Apple might do next. Don't give too much weight to this drivel.
    • Raptor007, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Agreed. Their conclusion disregards all their actual sources.
    • mrgreen4242, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If I remember this rumor from the first time I heard it, which was several months ago, it was based on a comment made by someone involved with that Nokia device that has unlimited music downloads for (the devices) life bundled into it. Something about having "similar discussions with Apple".

      Personally, I'd probably pay $50-75, $100 would be stretching it, for unlimited access to the iTMS for the life of a device. I could see Apple further subsidizing the fees they paid to rights holders and making the license non-transferable. (So, for example the RIAA/music studios/whatever want's $80 per device with the unlimited access. Apple ups the price of an iPod with this feature by $60, eating $20 of lost profit but in turn makes people more likely to buy a new iPod rather than a used one since the new one has significantly more value per dollar, which in the end makes Apple more money).
  • TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12Is it just me or does it seem the shadowy figure in the picture is maniacally laughing?
  • HyperJack, on 05/16/2008, -17/+9iTunes can go ***** itself. It is the most sluggish program i have ever used. And you can't just install it. You have to install a pile of other crap (Quicktime). That is still not enough though. Because then, it wants to start doing updates every two minutes. Everyone seems to worship the bloody thing but it is probably the most horrible written program ever created (as least on Windows it is) in my opinion.

    /unnecessary rant
    /begin burying
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Tell us how you really feel.

      I for one don't have any problems with iTunes. It takes a long-ass time to load on my PowerPC Mac, but my library is over 100 GB. On my Intel-based Macs, it flies.

      Also, they require that you install Quicktime because it is needed to play movies and videos from within the program.
    • WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6I won't bury you, as it's quite possible that it totally sucks in Windows, but I'll just mention that it doesn't suck in OS X, and maybe that's where some of the disconnect is coming from. Performance and stability are good, and we're used to getting hassled by the (OS default) auto-updater every week or two anyways...
  • buffyangel108, on 05/16/2008, -1/+32The best way to change DRM? Remove it!
    • Bandit1000, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Requiem is a program for Mac that removes iTunes DRM without quality loss.

      There should be similar programs for other platforms.
  • BryanG412, on 05/16/2008, -14/+3In the Digital Age everything is free
    • jeriqo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8In the Digital Age, everything still costs to produce, and needs money to pay back.

      Nothing is free, not even digg. (you pay by watching the ads)
      • Raptor007, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7Digg has ads?
      • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Ads?

        What Ads?

        Digg doesn't have any ads.

        FireFox, FlashBlock and AdBlock Plus.
    • postalblowfish7, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4enjoy your compressed music, cretan.
      • inkyblue2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6how do you know he's from crete?
      • DarkDx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Lol, compressed? I don't see the problem in having your rock at 320kbps, but seriously, sometimes I get a "320kbps" mp3 off limewire (or 256kbps, whatver) and it sounds like *****.
    • Wakuko, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Software is free, Hardware is not.
      M$ is doomed while Apple soars.
    • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3"In the Digital Age everything is free" to those who push their costs off on others...
      • BryanG412, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2False, I am not pushing my cost on others, I am not allowing corporations to push their cost on me...unless it's something worthy of actual money.
      • DanMiller, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1You are an idiot. It's stealing, you can't spin it any other way. If it's not worth your money than you shouldn't have it. When you steal you push the cost on to the consumer that is honest enough to pay.
    • tadpoleontheweb, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1You mean easier to steal and get away with it.
  • comeradealexi, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1"Is it just me or does it seem the shadowy figure in the picture is maniacally laughing?"

    "muahahahha DRM!!!"

    Hahahaha!

    can't disagree with that!!
    • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3allow me to point you to the little blue Reply link on the right...
  • Tyrghast, on 05/16/2008, -9/+4Haha, DRM. I get my music for free, and if somehow theres DRM on there, I remove it.
  • Raptor007, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8Buried as inaccurate. The article quotes Steve Jobs sayng that Apple will NOT go with a subscription model, yet it concludes by saying that Apple will probably go with a subscription model.
  • pafboy, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3No more DRM please users have ahd enough

    http://www.reliablesource.org/
  • teh_techie, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8DRM - Don't Restrict Me!
  • postalblowfish7, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8sure, i've downloaded a few songs here and there because it's convenient - but who actually pays for digital downloads as their main source of music? seriously, you pay $9.99 for an album - but all you're really buying is the bandwidth required to transfer it onto your computer.

    if i'm paying $10 for music, i want to ***** hold it in my hands, and listen to it free of compression artifacts. i'd only even begin to consider buying digital music regularly if it were available in a lossless format (thank you NIN).
    • Raptor007, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2I would easily pay CD prices ($20/album?) for lossless downloads, as long as there's no DRM.
    • Dhalgren, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6256kbps is good enough for me. The convenience factor of going from wanting new music to having it 2 minutes later surpasses the need to drive to a store, deal with *****, and buy a $15 CD. Then I have to rip it to get it on my iPod and then the case takes up shelf space. I buy all my music off of Amazon, btw.
      • postalblowfish7, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2256kbps is not good enough for people who still sit down, and put on an album. you know - actually LISTENING to it, not just having it on while you drive/run/*****/etc...
        • Dhalgren, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Maybe my ears are *****, but when given a double blind test I was unable to tell the difference between 256 mp3 and FLAC... Or maybe you're one of those nutso audiophiles that buys $1000 wooden volume knobs for your receiver believe it will make your music sound "warmer"
        • postalblowfish7, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2haha no - i'm not a nutso. yes, i can tell the difference - it's like VHS to DVD if you listen to your music through decent speakers (i.e. not computer/car speakers) and ESPECIALLY when you listen to it through good headphones. it's not horrible - but it's not worth $10 either...
        • Dhalgren, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I was listening on nice Sennheiser ear buds (CX300B) and I couldn't tell the difference.
        • inkyblue2, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4i am an audiophile (though not the wooden knob type), i know what compression artifacts sound like, i have reference quality headphones, etc., and most of the time i can't tell a difference. if you want to try hearing it yourself, pay attention to cymbals. they have the worst time with compression.

          the person i know who was most irritated by compression noise was a musician and did his own audio production. this makes me think that with a bit of practice, you could probably learn to pick it out more clearly... although i have no idea why you'd want to.
  • ShortyR19, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5The vision described here already exists on the Zune. The Zune Pass subscription is available along with MP3 (DRM free) downloads from the same store.

    Don't knock a subscription model until you've tried it for yourself. Having an entire library available to you is liberating.
  • malcolmlo, on 05/16/2008, -7/+16Screw DRM and screw apple. I buy all my music from Amazon.com now. Same price or cheaper than itunes and 0 DRM. Apple wants to charge 29 cents more for DRM free. RIP OFF. They are just handing over the online music business to other companies (like amazon) who arent trying to rip people off.

    89-99 cent songs on Amazon.com all DRM-free. Its the best, hands down.
    • Kyan, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2That's exactly what the labels want and why they are letting Amazon sell w/o DRM while forcing Apple to use it. They want to weaken Apple's 70% death grip on downloaded sales. Once enough people like you opt for "anyone-but-Apple", then the labels will feel more able to negotiate higher prices and then Amazon will be selling for $1.25 and not 89¢. And Apple will no longer have to use DRM, but they'll have to sell for $1.25, too.

      So, all I can say to you is get it while you can for 89¢. I don't blame you a bit for going to the cheaper source, but don't think the labels have not (tried to) think this through.
    • tim710, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Apple charges $.99 for itunes plus.
    • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1A) Apple dropped the iTunes Plus surcharge before Amazon MP3 went live.
      B) All music on iTunes WOULD be DRM-free, but Warner, Sony, and Universal are only licensing it to others right now to try to force competition, so you're basically rewarding them for continuing to play the same kind of service/access bull that they were with DRM to begin with.

      Buy from Amazon all you want, but why support the top three RIAA labels while they're still playing monkey-***** with the industry?
  • Dhalgren, on 05/16/2008, -9/+4I don't trust a single thing in this article because their facts are wrong... Apple is the largest retailer of music, not the 3rd largest...
    • secrity, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6iTunes is the third largest retailer of music

      http://www.macworld.com/article/58548/2007/06/itun ...

      google for largest retailer of music
      • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2You do realize that article is from a year ago, right?

        Apple passed Best Buy at the beginning of the year, and was recently reported as being higher than Wal-Mart, though there is some confusion on the matter as far as sustainability goes because they may have been getting higher-than-usual bump figures from people using holiday gift cards.

        ...but regardless, their January and February sales figures were higher than Wal-Mart in the U.S. We'll see how it goes with continued figures.
      • Dhalgren, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Dude, ***** you secrity, and learn how to find more current articles:
        http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080402-appl ...
  • Jorin, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1In the future music will be completely free. Everyone will be able to put all the music of their life on the Internet, where it will flow as freely as water and enrich the lives of anyone who wants to listen. What a world that would be! *cough*
  • SSCrow, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1meh, I don't care either way. DRM can't stop me, any new technologies they come up with to try and make me pay for their stuff will only be hacked in time and so its pretty futile to try and keep anonymous from getting what we want.
  • homesickalien, on 05/16/2008, -8/+5iTunes is ***** and is monopolizing online music sales. I had to uninstall quicktime because it kept trying to sneakily "update" iTunes back onto my computer every week.
  • coffeerox, on 05/16/2008, -6/+2I don't know why you guys are hating on Apple. They are the biggest players in the game, and it is not their fault that they had to include DRM in their MP3's. The DRM itself is what's preventing me from buying from Itunes, because I have a Creative MP3 player and not an Ipod, but if I had an Ipod I'd gladly buy from Itunes b/c of how vast the library is compared to everything else.

    Buying MP3's online isn't about owning a product, buying mp3's online is about customization, accessibility and convenience. What if I wanted to build up 14 separate tracks to download but not all from the same artist (or CD) and only wanted to spend 14 bucks? You can only do that online. What about, in my case, have 3 different versions of the same CD, and each has tracks not found on the other? Downloading MP3's helps curb the import costs, cause its very pricey to not only import one CD, but two CD's just for 3-4 songs that can easily be bought for 4 bucks. Different region Itunes store could really help with getting those tracks but unfortunately its still DRM'ed, so I can't use them on my MP3 player.
  • Flamancot, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5man, i do NOT know enough about DRM to be spending as much money as I am on iTunes...
  • sdipaola, on 05/16/2008, -5/+8Apple supports DRM, while they blame it on the studios and have a 'whitewashed' token area where they can say we have some DRM free songs ( which they charge extra for - the arrogance!) - they let DRM happen. Stop letting them off the hook, they are to blame for their DRM. Amazon can do it DRM free with the same studios, so could they. The data supports DRM doesn't stop piracy ( or support it), with that data and their clout, itunes DRM would be a thing of the past in a month. They don't want to. Which means anyone who uses iTunes (except getting free songs/podcast) is supporting an evil unfair system - in which you are told you are purchasing songs, but in fact you are giving them your money to borrow songs, not purchase them. They could in theory change or break the DRM hook, breaking all you songs while they have taken your money. If congress had a technology clue they would see this as illegal and unfair consumer practices. I guess all the corporate money in their back pockets does not allow them to see a corrupt system.
    • MacParrot, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Apple should take off DRM from all the music they own the rights to! Oh wait...
  • GothAlice, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Well, first off, despite being a hardcore Apple fangirl, I loathe the iTunes store DRM. First, 128KBit files are ***** quality. I'll only ever pay for the iTunes+ 256KBit DRM-free files, and even they are few and far between.

    FLAC FTW! (Which I promptly convert to Apple Lossless using XLD…)
    • DanMiller, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1What a ridiculous waste of space, FLAC FTL
      • GothAlice, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2A waste of space is defined as something that takes more space than necessary to achieve the same ends. Thus, uncompressed AIFF, WAV, or CDs, all qualify as a waste of space.

        A whole CD, compressed using Apple Lossless or FLAC, takes up (usually around) one half the space as the equivalent uncompressed AIFF. Thus, it is not a waste of space. 128kbps is not equivalent to lossless, as I can hear a distinct difference between 128, 160, and 256kbps MP3 and MP4 audio, and lossless.
  • Senturion, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6The irony is that in many ways the DRM that the labels insisted on is one of the biggest reasons for Apple's dominance.
    By forcing DRM the labels locked people into the iPod ecosystem.
    Now the labels are trying to break that lock by offering DRM-free tracks to stores other than Apple's when if they would have just kept consumers in mind from the beginning they might not be dealing with such a powerful player in Apple.
    • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2The labels couldn't imagine one player dominating the market that much, as they're typically just front-ends for their content. They also couldn't imagine NOT being able to influence any of the companies to do exactly what they wanted to continue to GET their content, which is exactly what Apple did.

      Thankfully it's at least led to DRM'd music purchases going away. It may or may not translate that well to the visual media... and that still really needs some centralized sense-making.
  • hermes369, on 05/16/2008, -7/+12Does no one remember the open letter from Steve Jobs regarding DRM?

    http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

    It was this letter that generates all manner of backlash from labels. Now, somehow, Apple is to blame for DRM? Wow, you Apple haters are having to reach pretty far.
    • tadpoleontheweb, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Applephobes have selective hearing.
    • archer75, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8Steve Jobs wrote that letter to better his image. He never expected the record labels to take it seriously. For years Apple has been approached by independent artists to sell their music on itunes, DRM free, and apple has always refused.

      All of Amazon's downloadable music is DRM free. FAR more than what apple has. Now why doesn't Steve have that deal?
      • jonshipman, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Apple sell independent artists' music? And essentially become a music label? Apple Records wouldn't like that... as I recall they sued when Apple released Quicktime or something like that.
      • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2It could have been tongue-in-cheek marketing, but not when they actively pursued the first deal with an RIAA label and started offering it before any other services came along. And not while their stances against RIAA demands concerning DRM (that Apple license FairPlay to everyone else, or adopt WMA/WMV DRM on iPods) can easily be seen as forcing the RIAA's hands on the matter.

        "Steven doesn't have that deal" because the labels, having dropped DRM, are not licensing those DRM-free tracks to iTunes, and are--in fact--pursuing more favorible terms with Amazon to prop them up as competition, rather than letting them compete over things like price, format, and bitrate... And they're trying to use it as a wedge to get more label-desired pricing terms from Apple, which they don't have with their original contracts.

        It was already mentioned how much power and influence Apple has gotten, and how it was the RIAA's own stance on DRM that led to it... Well, this is the last card they have to play. Why DON'T you think "Steve has that deal...?" Because there's not much else they see themselves able to do.
    • hermes369, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Never expected the labels to take it seriously... So, the Apple had to scramble like mad to pull the iTunes plus store out of its ass because, holy *****, the labels did take it seriously.
      Come on, of course he did it to better his image, plus it was the right thing to do; and, he got slammed by the RIAA. I remember a video with one of the RIAA's lawyers calling Steve's letter disingenuous.
      I don't know about the DRM free independent artist problem: that wouldn't be the first problem Apple's had with independent artists. I'm thinking of the time an independent artist found his work on iTunes; but hadn't given his permission, and wasn't being compensated for it. That seems like a real problem.
      Amazon's store is DRM free?! Great! Bully for them! As for why Steve doesn't have that deal; I really don't know. I do know that he/Apple has caught hell from the major music and film labels for insisting on things like price. It'd be interesting to know.
  • fritzbrown, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3When is everybody going to realize that it is the consumer that wields the power. It was the consumer that complained about DRM's restrictions and the record companies finally started listening.
    Don't be thanking Apple, Amazon, Sony or EMI because if YOU didn't raise the issue nobody would be offering non-restricted music.

    Now if the movie and games industries would follow suit...
  • taradisiac, on 05/16/2008, -9/+1People actually pay for music? lol
  • sbga420, on 05/16/2008, -9/+2paying for music online = ignorance
    • Jorin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I'd change that a bit to "paying for music on the terms of big media conglomerates is ignorance."

      There's nothing wrong with paying for music. Artists can live and make more music that way. What's wrong is that in this day and age the media (Internet) is controlled by us, and big businesses are trying to screw us over and take back that control. We just have to exercise that control and not buy into these ridiculous systems. We can support artists and spend our money on our own terms!

      You cannot force people to buy something when they can get it for free. It's that simple. Music is free now
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Stealing music = stealing.
  • monkeyrun, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4The article is stupid.
  • ryanhutto, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1there are utils to remove DRM anyway and even the dumbest user can find and use these with Google. DRM has always been nothing more than the hassle of an extra step to pirates. The record industry fails yet again.
  • enforcerpsu, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5Hey Apple. I have a good solution to fixing your DRM issues. How about removing it completely and going with a standard like mp3? Now thats a solution.
    • jonshipman, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3And AAC isn't a standard? AAC is probably more of a standard than MP3 because a group of companies approved AAC as opposed to the Franhofer people.
    • Kyan, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3You don't even have a clue what this is all about, so you?
    • jwdav, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3mp4 (aka AAC) is a standard too
    • cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2AAC isn't as common a standard, but it's pretty universal at this point, and is a better option in many ways than MP3. (And a "who cares?" one, otherwise.)

      They would have gone with MP3, I imagine, if you could attach DRM, but... since it couldn't, they went with the strongest-supported open format that could.
  • CarnivalOfDust, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0QTfairuse or Requiem, anyone? No, seriously. Since Hymn got their cease & desist, I can't find a Rapidshare link anywhere :(
  • zantos420, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2FTA: "As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of licence keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers,"

    I guess everyone who bought DRM media files are about to be hosed! Serves ya right for joining the dark side in the first place!!
  • nardokid, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5where in this article does it say anything about apple changing DRM? The title is misleading
  • jbuberel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3The most interesting idea put forth by the author of the article is the notion that Apple's near-monopoly position in DRM technology, which is a side effect of their near-monopoly status in digital media players, is what triggered the record labels to reconsider the very notion of DRM. If they wanted to break Apple's strong position, they had to weaken the tools that enabled Apple to achieve that position - the iTunes DRM lock-in which they themselves required Apple to invent. Very interesting.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4 Buying CD's cheap online and ripping into what ever format you want is still the best way to go if you pay for music.
  • atroxodisse, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Buy the CD. Rip it to whatever format you want. No DRM. No problem.
  • slcseifist, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Apple should beat up SONY.
  • qpdb, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1There is so much music. It costs to much for people experience new music.
  • pigfister, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2whats worse than DRM well imo the RIAA/MPAA & sony's DRM.

    XCP Rootkit, BD+ (blu-ray), Rom-Mark(blu-ray) secuROM, HDCP HDMI(blu-ray), Broadcast Flag(blu-ray), Image Constraint Token(blu-ray).

    The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

    The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

    boycott anti-consumer ppl.
  • ftw420, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Down with DRM!
  • justusbruns, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1If Apple would be more open to developers it would be the best operating system, don't keep people in a prison Apple
  • acidbathfan, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1There will never be a perfect solution.
  • alphadog, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I like Apple, but lets be real. They are not changing DRM. They are getting us to change to their DRM. If Apple had killed it, then any song that I purchased in the iTunes store would play on any MP3 player and not just the iPod. Talk to me when that occurs.
    • cthellis, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Well, I don't really see their final conclusions being particularly valid (Apple has spoken out against subscription plans in the past, they haven't proven to be particularly popular anyway, and they are certainly more of a headache for Apple), but their other comments are pretty much the way it went down, and how Apple "changed" DRM... by getting it removed from music. (At least. Video will be a harder sell.)

      A subscription service would be no "change" in DRM, and certainly nothing that movie rentals hint at. It was always possible, technically, in FairPlay, but that's not the business plan Apple pursued. Not to mention a subscription would do nothing but attract people who like subscriptions--it would have no "lock out" effect, as there already ARE a number of all-you-can-eat possibilities out there, and you'll get way more than you can digest from all of them. While you can't use those on an iPod, chances are if that was a major concern of yours... you don't have an iPod--you have a Zune or a player that can use Napster, etc.


      P.S. No industry "change" is really going to remove what came before it, so magically expecting DRM-laden files to have that restriction disappear. It would be nice, however, if services making the transition would let you download the new DRM-free ones gratis.
  • CircaSurvive, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Give me a Vinyl LP copy and a download code for a V0 or 256+ encoded mp3 and I'm happy.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.