DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at news.cnet.com —

What if Apple stopped issuing DRM keys?

news.cnet.com — It happened to Microsoft and Yahoo. Could it happen to Apple? The limitations of antipiracy software were dramatically illustrated last week when Yahoo Music announced the company would stop issuing authorization keys for the software that prevents its songs from being copied.

made popular 158 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Steve Jobs Makes Less Per Year Than You Do

  • 166 diggs
  • Made popular 1 hr 26 min ago
  • 69
  • tech.yahoo.com

Is Apple Really Happy to Let Go of DRM? Don't Bet on It

  • 483 diggs
  • Made popular 5 hr 46 min ago
  • 109
  • www.popularmechanics.com

Apple: Give Us Money And We'll Remove DRM From Your Music

  • 729 diggs
  • Made popular 5 hr 6 min ago
  • 237
  • consumerist.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lithera, on 08/02/2008, -3/+185Exactly the reason I refuse to buy music files with drm.
    If I pay for the music I want it to be mine and do whatever I want with it whenever I want to.
    • grumpyrain, on 08/03/2008, -1/+25That is a very important thing to do, even if you have to pay a small amount more per track. Voting with your wallet and rewarding those labels that do take some initiative is how you get change. Show them that DRM is unpalatable.

      I have been burnt once by DRM. I lost my hard drive (physical failure of one of the drives involved in a RAID 0), and although I had a backup of everything important, they stored the keys in a folder but I wasn't aware that they had tied it to an installation identifier that must have included information about the RAID (which I subsequently changed to a large enough standard hard drive). In short, it refused to play my music, and subsequent emails to the vendor failed to eventuate in any outcomes. Fortunately there were only about 20 tracks, and I had previously burnt them and re-ripped as MP3.

      The problem with this article (and others like it), is that we are not dealing with an "if". We are dealing with "when". If there is already multiple music stores switching off servers after only a few years, what chance do you honestly think your music has to be playable in 20+ years time?
      • aussieNickuss, on 08/03/2008, -13/+4iTunes isn't quite so bad. If you restore your music from a backup, you just have to re-authorise that machine online.
      • ibeetle, on 08/03/2008, -14/+2You learned the hard way there is a difference between backing up and archiving.

        People can shout Go Pirate Bay!, and Digital Downloads Forever! That is until they loose their entire collection of music.
        DRM maybe a pain but it is virtually nonexistent if one does two things.
        Back up the data
        Make an archival copy.

        Buy music from iTunes.
        Put music on iPod.
        Once every couple of weeks take exteranl hard drive out of important stuff safe; back up music library data.
        Burn copy of music onto physical CD.

        Obviously the DRM is still there, but if Apple ever turns the keys off you would have little or no problem transferring your physical media (DRM free by the way) back to your hard drive.


        Buying music from digitally online is not abolishing CD's. It is just more convenient.
      • adriaaan, on 10/12/2008, -1/+9@aussieNickuss,
        Yes, while their DRM servers are still online that is.
      • mrBitch, on 08/03/2008, -7/+3@grumpyrain RE: "I have been burnt once by DRM. I lost my hard drive (physical failure of one of the drives involved in a RAID 0)... "

        When you use RAID, it's really important that you understand how dangerous using RAID 0 is.

        Google it for the full explanation, however there's a great little quote from bash.org RE using RAID 0 :

        Q/. Whats the difference between Raid_0 and Raid_1?
        A/. In Raid_0 the zero stands for how many files you are going to get back if something goes wrong.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6jeeze, i hope everybody talking about burning lossy files to audio CD and then re-ripping it as a lossy file again is just joking. or, alternatively, that you never upload that crap anywhere on the internet without informing people of what you have done to it.
      • StillAnonymous, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5mrBitch: Go google for the word "backup" instead of going off on a tangent that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
      • grumpyrain, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3I am quite aware of what a RAID 0 implies, having configured machines for many different purposes over the years. RAID 0 is not dangerous - unless you could all drives as dangerous. It halves the mean time between failures, but every technology fails eventually. At the time I built that machine, I couldn't get the capacity I needed on a single drive and I wanted the performance gains associated with RAID 0. RAID 5 wasn't really an option without going overboard on a more expensive server spec controller then adding another hundred for a third drive.

        Keeping regular backups isn't just something one should do just because you are installing a RAID 1. Regular offsite backups should be a feature of every setup (but that is another of my hobby horses, I am sick of trying to recover files from corrupted installs because someone or other hasn't made a backup for 2 years).

        But I will make my point again for those that missed it:

        DRM servers were fooled into thinking it was a different machine simply by changing the hard drive over and not using the RAID controller anymore. It was the same CPU, same Mobo, same LAN, same audio card, same video card, same OS (it was imaged straight onto the new disk).

        Their license servers failed - within 2 years of buying the music. That has to spell fail in anyone's language. Why? Because who is going to bother going to court over $20 worth of music that you otherwise have in mp3 format?
    • ThePhotoBoy, on 08/03/2008, -6/+1No deal until Apple offers DRM free, higher bitrate, and cheaper prices. As for now, Amazon rocks.
      • streak, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Look for the (+) tracks on iTMS. They're usually the same price or 10 cents more than Amazon MP3s, but they are DRM-free and higher quality than Amazon.

        BTW: "DRM-free" here means you can play them without authorization or a key, but the files do contain an identifier that points to you being the purchaser and no one else is legally authorized to have a copy.
      • vault, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2I would be willing to pay for DRM-free lossless if Apple sold it, even if it was just in Apple Lossless format and not flac.
    • LeeSoong, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1All your iTunes are belong to us.

      Make your time.

  • Whitefort, on 08/02/2008, -2/+123Anybody who buys music with Digital Restrictions is, in effect, paying these companies to take away our rights. The more we say 'yes' to this stuff, the more freedoms we'll lose. If I buy music, I want to be able to play it on *any* equipment, as often as I like, and for as long as I like.

    DRM means that all you're buying is the company's permission to listen to it under their conditions, and until they change their minds or go out of business.

    • Murrabbit, on 08/03/2008, -2/+25Exactly - time was when you bought an album that was it - you OWNED a copy of that album and you could do whatever you want with all the songs on there - didn't matter what you wanted to play it on, where, or how many times, they were your copies and so you made the call.

      These days you're not actually buying your own copy of a song, instead you're just buying permission to play it for however many times or on those devices that the RIAA determines. What a crap deal!

      With recording and publishing as easy as it is today I can't wait 'till record labels finally melt away and lose their power and artist finally get the money that THEY deserve and consumers can get the product they deserve. All we've got now are a bunch of greedy and powerful middlemen struggling to hold onto their power in a system that no longer needs them.
      • feliks2, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5I still own mine. Its called CDs. Very usefull.
      • teaBagger, on 08/03/2008, -1/+12feliks2 - Have you every heard of CD rot? - Not helpful if you have only a CD copy of your purchases.
        Most of the CD's I purchased for incredibly expensive sums just when the home audio CD players came out exhibit CD rot - including my copy of Pink Floyd The Wall (my first CD ever purchased) and it was around AU$65 from memory because it was two disks.
        I have been downloading loseless versions of my original purchases from piratebay etc just so I have an intact copy of something I paid money for.

      • feliks2, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I don't see why you wouldn't just rip them to your computer (loseless if you want). GIves added convenience and safety.
      • reformation, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1teabagger - if you do own the CD then rip it yourself.
        Downloading it is stupid.
    • omgsoemo, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1I have lost hundreds of dollars to iTunes DRM back when I bought a lot of music there. They had great servers and all that crap, but then iTunes went and deleted every song I had, every game and movie, and I couldnt get it back.
  • btschul, on 08/02/2008, -19/+130http://www.thepiratebay.org
  • arctic, on 08/02/2008, -26/+88This is Digg, no one pays for music.

    ***** THE RIAA!
    • Subriot, on 08/03/2008, -6/+39I don't pay for crappy music that's run by the big labels, but if I really like a band, I buy their music or pay to go see them at a concert.
      • birch25, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5i hope you don't mean all music on big labels is crappy, cause then you're being just as ignorant that ***** who only listen to top 40
      • dragon76, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2No matter who the band is, you're doing them more of a service by going to their concert than buying their album. That's where they get all their money.
      • reformation, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1This is the most ridiculous excuse ever.
    • ibeetle, on 08/03/2008, -8/+1Try and find Cowboy Mouth on the Torrents.
      • bbqsalad, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2 Music Cowboy Mouth - Voodoo Shoppe [2005]
        rock
        4 months, 1 week 56.93 MB (Max) 10 1 0
        [DL | RP] » MP3 / 192 / CD 12 4 months, 1 week 56.93 MB 10 1 0
        Music Cowboy Mouth - Uh-Oh [2003]
        rock
        4 months, 3 weeks 57.25 MB (Max) 4 0 1
        [DL | RP] » MP3 / 192 / CD 13 4 months, 3 weeks 57.25 MB 4 0 1
        Music Cowboy Mouth - Are You With Me? [1996]
        rock
        6 months, 5 days 81.95 MB (Max) 16 6 0
        [DL | RP] » MP3 / V0 (VBR) / CD 14 6 months, 5 days 81.95 MB 16 6 0
        Music Cowboy Mouth - Mercyland [1998]
        rock
        6 months, 5 days 91.18 MB (Max) 10 4 0
        [DL | RP] » MP3 / V0 (VBR) / CD 16 6 months, 5 days 91.18 MB 10 4 0
        Music Cowboy Mouth - It Means Escape [1994]
        rock
        8 months, 2 weeks 74.85 MB (Max) 12 4 0
        [DL | RP] » MP3 / V0 (VBR) / CD 15 8 months, 2 weeks 74.85 MB 12 4 0
    • calenerd, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Good luck with the RIAA. They'll be appearing on your doorsteps soon.
      • SPECOPS, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Why would they? it's not illegal or copyright infringement to DOWNLOAD music for personal use (e.g. you're not selling it, or giving it away to others).

    • djdavetrouble, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Really? I have found that quite a few people are more than willing to pay for music as long as it isn't on the record industry's terms. Even if you pirate music, you would attend a concert, and that is paying for music. You would go to a bar or club where music is played, and you have paid for that as well (ascap and BMI collect royalties from all recorded music venues). I wont buy lossy drm music because I am a DJ and fidelity matters to me. I do download music that I have already purchased so I don't have to shift formats for home listening. I'd rather listen to music on my computer at home when I am busy, no need to change the record every time it plays out. Format shifting from vinyl is time costly also- there is no way to speed up what is essentially a real time recording session.

      I spend around $400 a month on vinyl records. I bet the industry is wishing they never tried to drop vinyl now. They thought cassette tapes were a problem !
      • dragon76, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3OMG, a DJ talking about fidelity??? Most venues have ***** speakers where it's all bass and hiss and no midrange and the DJ's who consider themselves superstars all use vinyl, which is like playing a CD underwater.
  • miked123, on 08/02/2008, -14/+3This article is a little bit off.
  • adougy, on 08/02/2008, -28/+58I'm pretty sure Apple sells DRM because the big companies pressure them too. Steve Jobs is pro DRM FREE music.
    • Murrabbit, on 08/03/2008, -28/+54Yeah, I'm sure that's it. The most notoriously closed proprietary system in all of computing is actually against DRM but they just don't have any say in it. . . suuuuuure.
      • robzthird, on 08/03/2008, -12/+30Well they did introduce iTunes Plus right? And they brought it down to be the same price as regular songs with drm right? I'm not entirely sure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
      • santaliqueur, on 08/03/2008, -16/+35Stop your blind hate for Apple and why not accept a few facts? Steve Jobs, the one who most of you seem to think makes all the decisions at Apple, wants DRM abolished.
        http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/06/a-letter-from-s ...
      • dustinmacdonald, on 08/03/2008, -9/+20Actually it is. Apple introduced iTunes Plus a while back and while much of the iTunes catalog is still plagued with DRM, many new additions are DRM free. The reason some music still has DRM (apparently) has to do with the music labels being sick of Apple's dominance and instead giving DRM free tracks to competitors (i.e. Amazon).
      • javaroast, on 08/03/2008, -18/+12Stop your blind love for Apple and accept 1 simple fact. Apple and Steve Jobs, who you seem to think wants DRM abolished, could simply refuse to sell DRM infested tracks if they were truly so fervently against DRM. But despite your belief that he wants DRM abolished, he continues to sell DRM music.
      • Overcyn, on 08/03/2008, -11/+14@javaroast

        your argument fails. just cause apple would like to see DRM abolished doesnt mean theyre willing to let their company go out of business for it.
      • javaroast, on 08/03/2008, -13/+13@overcyn who said anything about going out of business. Last I heard Apple had a very successful hardware business including successful computers, Personal Media Players, and I hear tell they've sold a few phones as well. You can't keep making the argument that "Apple is against DRM." It's really hard to be truly against something like DRM when you are also one of it's biggest supporters.
      • PrometheusBorn, on 08/03/2008, -7/+9@javaroast: Perhaps going out of business is a stretch, but they would certainly destroy their iTunes model if they stopped selling all that was DRM.

        Perhaps if you were in charge of a successful company like Apple, you could let business flounder for the sake of standing up for your holiest of principles of being DRM free. But you're not, and I'm glad you're not.

        (Note: I also would like DRM to go away, but blindly hating Apple (Anti-Apple fanboy?) is pointless and even more stupid than being an Apple fanboy).
      • fyngyrz, on 08/03/2008, -4/+15Their iTunes model is anti-consumer and unfriendly. It would not be a bad thing if it was destroyed. They need a model that adequately addresses consumer's rights and the security of their purchases. Continuing to sell crippled tracks next to uncrippled tracks is weakness, not service. Apple's got 18 billion in the bank. They can afford to take these piratical middlemen on.

        I'm a huge fan of Apple and own an iPod; but I don't, and won't, buy music with DRM. High bitrate mp3s are just fine, thanks. if the iPod ever becomes unable to play mp3s, I'll just switch to something else. That's the only value it has to me.


      • DelMonte, on 08/03/2008, -5/+11If Apple refused DRM from the get-go, there wouldn't have been any iTunes store, and it wouldn't have been long until Microsoft's WMA DRM became the de-facto standard for online music because of its ties to the dominant OS (Windows), and not so long after WMA DRM would replace the unencrypted formats found on CDs.

        While the iPod was already relatively successful when the iTunes store open, the standardization toward WMA DRM without an obvious alternative for iPod users would have hurt the iPod sales badly up to the point where it would have stayed a minor player, unless Apple embraced MS's DRM.

        And if WMA DRM could play on every device sold, big labels would have ZERO incentive to remove DRM, they would only work harder toward eliminating piracy, doing things like outlawing (or forcing the removal of) MP3 support on new device sold. MS could easily do that as they would have a complete monopoly on WMA licensees, and could force them to remove MP3 support. The DOJ wouldn't sue them for that, as they would agree that it would be one of the only way to reduce piracy by a large amount.

        Also, iTunes and the iPod success helped greatly the adoption of AAC (the non DRM version) as a potential higher-quality replacement to MP3. AAC is not owned by Apple, and it's not owned by that other company that happens to hold 90% of the OS market. You would have never seen MS support in their devices (Xbox 360, Zune) for AAC if it wasn't for the iPod/iTunes success.

        The only reason we see big labels now allowing DRM-free music to be sold online is that it's the only (legal) way to get interoperability with the iPod, and Apple let the door wide open for that to happen by still supporting MP3 and drm-free AAC.

      • unitedatheism, on 08/03/2008, -7/+2This is one more response thread that apple fanboys will try to bury at all costs and apple haters will digg.

        But anyway, ***** APPLE!

        People giving up their freedom just to have a cool looking mp3 player/computer is pretty much the picture of doom. "Idiocracy" anyone?
      • javaroast, on 08/03/2008, -4/+3@prometheus You miss so much trying to pin me as both anti Apple and as a fanboy. I am anti drm plain and simple. And my correction still stands. You can't claim that Apple is anti-drm because as you said their business model in iTunes depends on it.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -5/+7*****. If Apple was against DRM-free music, they wouldn't have put EMI music up without it. The only reason the rest isn't doing the same is that the other labels really don't like Jobs and iTunes having enough clout to call the shots on the record companies. So they give Amazon and others DRM-free music while forbidding iTunes to do so in the hope that they can break the so-called monopoly.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -7/+4@javaroast

        No, you idiot, he said that Apple needs to sell DRM tracks because three of the four record labels wont let them sell anything BUT DRM tracks. Sure, Apple could stop selling it...and lose about 2/3 of the iTunes catalog in the process. Those three labels are set against Apple getting any more clout with iTunes because they don't like Jobs and his insisting on things like uniform pricing.
      • javaroast, on 08/03/2008, -4/+3@thefinale Nice comment "idiot" way to go for the high road of discourse. But you do nicely prove the point that Apple is not against DRM. I really don't get you guys that have to defend Apple even in the face of common sense. Praise em when they earn it. And criticism when they don't can only make them better. Going to personal attacks and name calling when you disagree with a viewpoint, doesn't make your argument stronger.
      • mrBitch, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4@javaroast RE: "I really don't get you guys that have to defend Apple even in the face of common sense."

        I really don't get guys like you that just won't do a bit of background research and understand how wrong you are RE Apple's stance on DRM.

        It's even up on Apple's web site, if you care to read it:
        http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

        in case you have trouble reading more than a few paragraphs at a time, here's some highlights :

        " all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. "

        " ... the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. "

        " Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. "

        " ... a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store."

        " So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music. "

        " ... let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.

        The first alternative is to continue on the current course..."

        " ... research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. "

        " ... The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players.

        This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

        " ... Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

        Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD ... "

        " ... if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music.

        If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies. "
      • javaroast, on 08/03/2008, -4/+5Actions speak louder than words.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2So if the labels said "you can only sell our music on iTunes if you include DRM" and Steve Jobs said "screw off" then the labels would simply put up with being excluded from selling music to 80% of the portable audio market? If Apple simply refused to allow any form of DRM on the iPod then the labels would change their tune VERY quickly. After all iTunes isn't a big deal for Apple - they sell less than 30 songs on iTunes (total value ~$24) for every iPod sold (value a whole lot more than that.
      • DelMonte, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2@CarzorStelatis

        The iPod didn't have 80% of the market when the iTunes store opened. As for now, Apple may have 80% of the market in the US, but the market-share varies greatly in the rest of the world, Apple doesn't have 80% of the market worldwide. They couldn't say "screw off" to US labels and "well... ok" for labels in some other countries.

        Also, as you said yourself, Apple sells about 30 tunes per iPod on average, so it means that the great majority of songs on iPods come from other sources, meaning that it wouldn't hurt the labels "that much" if they were to remove their content from the iTunes store.

        Apple does have some leverage coming from the iPod and iTunes success, and that's why we have iTunes Plus DRM-free tunes in the store, but you overestimate their negotiating power. I'm sure the big labels would rather be forced to sell DRM-free music through Amazon to be able to reach the iPod market, than to have Apple dictate every terms of their contracts.


    • kent1146, on 08/03/2008, -20/+14@audougy: Careful that you don't pull a back muscle sucking Steve Jobs' d*ck too much.

      Apple has DRM because they WANT DRM just as much as the record labels want it. Apple's FairPlay DRM makes sure that every song you buy with FairPlay MUST come from iTunes, and that every FairPlay-managed song MUST play on an Apple iPod, a computer running Apple iTunes, or an Apple TV. If Steve Jobs is "pro DRM FREE music" as you claim, then FairPlay would be licensed out to 3rd party device manufacturers so that other portable music players could operate with iTunes.

    • waydee, on 08/03/2008, -5/+7I don't understand why iTunes plus exists then. Is adding a little extra cost per track to convince record labels to allow the songs to be sold DRM free all it takes?
      • Galaxylander, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5That's exactly why iTunes plus exists, but the big record companies want you to buy albums, so they give the small stores DRM free music because they know that they're too small to effect the album sales but they refuse to give it to Apple for iTunes because it's one of the most powerful forces in music sales.
      • lukelucas, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5there isn't an extra cost for iTunes Plus tracks; hasn't been for quite some time (i'm thinking shortly after the Amazon Music Store opened up).
      • supermanred, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1There isnt an extra cost for iTunes Plus tracks anymore. That was an initial demand by the labels, which they have since dropped.
    • artfuldodga, on 08/03/2008, -10/+13oh yeah, good ole steve ... so DRM FREE the majority of his companies catalog is infested with it to this day
      • djgreedo, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5To be fair, the record companies don't want DRM-free digital music out there. They are stupidly trying to hold on to their profits. Apple are not really at fault here.

        The funny thing is that people who are willing to pay for DRM-free music are not the ones uploading torrents. Why would they?

        It's also a shame that consumers don't understand the issues yet. The average consumer doesn't know the difference between MP3, WMA, and AAC. Nor do they know the implications of DRM.

        The one thing stopping me from buying any volume of music online is that no stores sell EVERYTHING in a DRM format. I've bought a handful of music from iTunes Plus, which works on my MP3 player and media center (Zune/Windows Vista), but I really would prefer MP3. Most music I want to buy is not available in iTunes Plus, so I can't buy it. I will only start buying music online in bulk when a store that suits MY needs is available. Until then I will buy the occasional CD and otherwise ignore the crap music industry we currently have

        Also, Zune Marketplace and Amazon are not available from my country.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4And you think he has a choice? The labels dictate whether or not DRM is available, not Jobs. Exhibit A: EMI tracks are DRM-free. Exhibit B: Indie labels can be DRM-free on iTunes if they want to be.

        In short, you're a dumbass.
    • Tyrghast, on 08/03/2008, -7/+17Steve Jobs is pro-money, whatever brings him more consumers.
      • PrometheusBorn, on 08/03/2008, -4/+8Last I checked that was the point of business.

      • j4200, on 08/03/2008, -6/+3He's also pro - awesome
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -4/+2Really? And all this time I thought Apple was a non-profit organization!
    • adougy, on 08/03/2008, -5/+7All the Apple hate -.-"
  • netneutrality, on 08/02/2008, -15/+12"What if Apple stopped issuing DRM keys?"

    Some clever hacker would write a little utility to strip the DRM and copy all your files out as MP3.
    • pintong, on 08/03/2008, -2/+13Wouldn't one exist already? There seems to be enough demand.
    • sockpuppets, on 08/03/2008, -5/+19They already did, it's called bittorrent.
    • chang3, on 08/03/2008, -0/+11Well until Apple interfered QTFairUse was doing a pretty good job of that.
      • HoboMaster, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2QTFairUse still works great.

        No encryption exists that crackers with enough motivation won't be able to break.
      • djgreedo, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Well, removing DRM is trivial. I was under the impression that it involves re-encoding the already lossless file, but I could be wrong there. I don't really care since I won't buy DRM media.

        I think Apple has too big a market to get away with stopping DRM support. There are simply too many people with iPods. And also, the average consumer won't know how to extract the DRM.

        Couldn't Apple theoretically just release a codec that automatically lets the files play regardless of DRM? I don't know enough about how the technology works, but I assume that would be doable.
    • teaBagger, on 08/03/2008, -3/+10Let us all sing a fine rousing hymn to Apple:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JHymn
      http://www.hymn-project.org/

  • supermanred, on 08/03/2008, -19/+3Steve Jobbs / Apple is pro DRM-free music, its the music industry that dictates iTunes' DRM...

    And to answer the question, I would consider returning to Windows if my iTunes library were rendered unplayable...
    • sockpuppets, on 08/03/2008, -2/+12Last I checked itunes wasn't a macintosh only phenomenon.
      • grumpyrain, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3Oh how I wish it was.

        Itunes is in all honesty the worst piece of Windows software I have used. It breaks every HIG rule in existence (both in look and feel as well as in function).
      • supermanred, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1I never said iTunes was an Apple only phenomenon. I said if they ***** up my DRM'd music making it unplayable, I would consider switching back to Windows...as a boycot of Apple product.

        Though I probably would never do that, unless Windows went the way of UNIX... which may in fact be their top secret windows project.
  • mattgilberg, on 08/03/2008, -1/+10Then on that day we will all be thankful for Jon Lech Johansen i.e. DVD Jon, and doubleTwist Ventures.

    http://www.doubletwist.com
    • consonance, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3It's true. As soon as you install doubleTwist, the program "liberates" your tunes automatically.
    • aceuk, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Requiem v1.7.3 would be a much better choice than DoubleTwist since you don't lose any quality i.e. it just strips the DRM leaving the audio intact. It also works with videos purchased from the iTunes Store and the latest version of iTunes.

      https://thepiratebay.org/tor/4264046/Requiem_1.7.3 ...
  • EtherGnat, on 08/03/2008, -5/+19This is one of the reasons I prefer subscription services if you're going to have DRM anyway. If the service you subscribe to goes out of business you just switch to a new service, nothing lost. You might as well go with the rental model, because you never own anything anyway.
    • kent1146, on 08/03/2008, -0/+10The only problem with subscription is that once you stop paying, all of your music goes away. I know subscription works for certain people with certain spending patterns on music... but if I only periodically buy music and listen to only my favorite bands, I'd rather just buy individual songs.
      • edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Oh contraire. Emusic FTW!
      • djgreedo, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Yeah, I have a Zune and it seems that everyone on the forums has the Zune Pass (i.e. subscription for unlimited music at $10 ior $15 per month). This service has absolutely no attraction for me. I really don't like the idea of renting music. Maybe it's because I'm old enough to have a CD (and vinyl) collection and am used to having the physical discs (even though I listen to all my music in digital format now and keep my CDs in a box in storage).
  • Yage2006, on 08/03/2008, -6/+10All the sucka's that bought DRM'd tracks would be ***** outta luck?
    • oneredeye, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Dugg down for use of the word "sucka."
    • supermanred, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1And if you get a legal notice from the MPAA suing you for 500,000 us dollars wont you be ***** out of luck?

      Either way, we take a risk when buying or pirate baying music nowadays.
  • TheGuruStud, on 08/03/2008, -8/+1DRMRemoval, it's been out for a while. How many times must I post it.
    • dungbeetle, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Such a tool shouldn't even be necessary.
  • Typhoon2009, on 08/03/2008, -6/+3Screw DRM.
    And WTF, since when did Digg comments require CAPTCHAs?
    • artfuldodga, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2i've noticed that, i'm guessing if you comment alot... it kicks in, perhaps?
    • oneredeye, on 08/03/2008, -3/+14It only kicks in for trolls.
    • MrHooper, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2I think it's to try to avoid mindless one-line comments.
  • GregFD3S, on 08/03/2008, -6/+28See? This is a perfect example of why I download my music illegally.
    • waydee, on 08/03/2008, -2/+11Or you could just buy the CD, rip it and have DRM-free digital copies as well as the hard copy?
      • Chicken, on 08/03/2008, -4/+9But that would mean supporting the RIAA.
      • DesdinovaEL, on 08/03/2008, -4/+7And getting ripped off by the price.
      • rjc1187, on 08/03/2008, -6/+2$13+ for one good song? Hell no. Until they start making CD's with more than a couple of good songs on it, I'm going with P-Bay. Is it really that hard for them to make every song on the album good? I mean they get paid millions!
  • rebrad, on 08/03/2008, -6/+14It would be overwhelmingly received in the community as another demonstration of the genius of Steve Jobs and celebrated as a great move for Apple.
  • DuckFOO, on 08/03/2008, -1/+30In my opinion, any vendor deploying DRM should be required by law to support that DRM for at least fifteen years from the last time of use, or be required to provide a way to defeat said DRM to the consumer. Leaving it up to companies to decide this is stupid.
    • javaroast, on 08/03/2008, -1/+22No let's be fair about it. They should be required to support the DRM scheme for at least as long as the copyrights last.
    • grumpyrain, on 08/03/2008, -0/+9I disagree. They should only be required to operate the license servers until such time that they provide a free tool published in the public domain that strips the said DRM from their files.
    • TheShad0w, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Wait. I don't get it. If the company decides to stop using DRM. Why the hell don't they just offer a tool to REMOVE THE DRM?! Then it wouldn't matter. I think these companies were hoping to quietly step away with all the money and none of the fuss.
    • shauniedude, on 08/03/2008, -2/+0Right on, let's control the private businesses and keep them from making their own decisions! Capitalism sucks dick, people shouldn't have to go to another business to get what they want

      If you don't like it, don't buy it. Write them a suggestion and move on with your pathetic, controlling life.
  • RajAtWork, on 08/03/2008, -6/+53you have choice you know - Amazon MP3s have always been DRM-free
    • grumpyrain, on 08/03/2008, -2/+16* available only to people living in the USA.
      • unitedatheism, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4I don't know for sure, but I guess itunes is the same thing, just expanded to a bunch more countries where ipod is sold legally.
      • Smoozle, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1As opposed to all those countries, where the iPod is sold, um, illegally?

        Mocking you aside, the top execs at the Big Four seem to suck badly at strategic games like chess or poker. One would have thought that preventing Apple's expansion in the fledgling "online music distribution" markets, like anywhere outside the US, say the EU (especially the new EU member countries) where Apple is not slaughtering the competition or is even completely absent, would be Big Four's top priority. I would wager Amazon doesn't have technical issues holding them back from selling worldwide.
    • ibeetle, on 08/03/2008, -1/+8Or you could go to the original DRM free music store. eMusic.com. They have 10 times the library Amazon has.

      and no it not some ***** Russian MP3 site.
  • superkendall, on 08/03/2008, -15/+16That's why Apple sells iTunes Plus songs (DRM free). Or you'd just burn them to disc and re-rip them. Yes you lose quality. No, no-one really cares.

    And of course, I for one would feel fully justified in downloading an MP3 of any song I had already paid for.
  • Caled85, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8"In the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use products to the same extent...and that Apple shall have no liability to you."

    That means that if apple wanted to they could, more or less, remove all of your music, and then setup a new system and people would just go back and buy from apple all over again.
    • MtheoryX, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2"people would just go back and buy from apple all over again"

      Correction, people COULD do that. I sincerely doubt that anyone WOULD do that; I'm thinking that would be the kiss of death for ITMS.
  • spartan92290, on 08/03/2008, -4/+25If Apple stopped issuing DRM keys, more people would use requiem 1.7.3 to strip it off entirely.

    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4264046/Requiem_1.7.3_ ...
    • NaziHatinChimp, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Don't know why people are digging you down.
    • spartan92290, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Didn't know they were, Doesn't matter much, as long as people know that there are ways DRM can be cleaned off your songs.
    • Lukesed, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5Useless if there are no keys.
      "You must be authorized to play the content you want decrypted."

      • MtheoryX, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1So people need to get started stripping their collection now, right?
    • MtheoryX, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3@spartan92290:

      I didnt know about requiem, but for anyone wondering, or who thinks they're too busy RIGHT NOW to do this, I implore you, do it RIGHT NOW!

      I d/l from pirate bay: 4 seconds
      Followed instructions: 2 seconds
      Ran it from the CLI on Mac OS X Leopard: 5 minutes running in the background.
      Done. Everything I have is DRM Free.

      Thank you so much spartan!
  • CJChesterson, on 08/03/2008, -1/+9I wish they would stop issuing DRM keys. Only an event of this magnitude would convince the average consumer that DRM is complete *****. Far fewer would buy anything from iTunes if they realized they had absolutely no insurance that item will continue to be usable in the future.
  • wackattack, on 08/03/2008, -7/+3What would happen is that the songs with DRM would still be playable until you decide to drop iTunes. Yahoo and MS used subscription based DRM. It's a totally different story with owning the song or renting the song.
  • coreyb, on 08/03/2008, -3/+27The last argument in the article is the stupidest thing I have heard today...

    "Tennant says he doesn't want to sound unsympathetic but reminds digital-music buyers that CD owners don't demand a refund from stores when they lose their discs. As for backing up songs to a CD, people should just accept the loss of quality because the only other alternative is to lose the music entirely, he said."

    Well, dumb ass, that is because the guy at the checkout counter did not come over and steal my CD collection. If he did, I would have punched him in the face and then called the cops and sued the store. And if he offered to sing them to me like show tunes I would loose it.

    Same argument, it is just a little more plain that we are being screwed...
    • DrDrrae, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3A more accurate comparison would be if the store took the CD back from you. I would definitely be demanding a refund if they did that.
    • edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3That guy sounds like the world's biggest Douchebag.
    • unitedatheism, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3He'll be promoted Apple's consumer policy manager next month.
  • harveywalbanger, on 08/03/2008, -10/+5Just buy the CD and rip into iTunes as MP3 instead of the iTunes default. Then you can play your songs on any MP3 player, even old WinAmp. Only suckers buy from iTunes and anyone who says they can tell the difference between an iTunes download and a ripped CD is a loser who needs to get laid

    Buy the damn CD, rip it yourself and keep the original in comic book bags along with your Atari 2600.
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 08/03/2008, -2/+23The difference is Apple's store is making money.
  • imjustintime, on 08/03/2008, -3/+9What about itunes Plus? Isn't that considered DRM free?

    One question, is it possible to get around the DRM by burning a CD bought from the iTunes Store then ripping it back into iTunes?
    • deadbaby, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6Yes, it is although you would lose some theoretical quality doing so. Not sure if it's enough to be noticeable or not. Stripping the DRM is more effective.
      • edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Depends on what your speakers are and how good your hearing is. Honestly, I can tell a difference, albeit slight.
      • Smoozle, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2If someone was to perform a double blind test, it would turn out that 8 out of 10 people would not be able to detect the difference. And given today's crappy music, crappily mastered for loudness, I really would not blame them.
    • Lukesed, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4You're missing the point. If there are no authorization keys, is no cd burning. The songs are freaking encrypted.
  • sysop073, on 08/03/2008, -0/+19"Tennant says he doesn't want to sound unsympathetic but reminds digital-music buyers that CD owners don't demand a refund from stores when they lose their discs."

    That's almost a fair analogy. Losing the disk is your fault; companies no longer issuing keys is their fault. The equivalent analogy is if enforcers from the store kicked in the door to your house and snapped your CDs in half
  • Myztry, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7That's where fair use legislation comes into play into countries like Australia. We have a right under law to take measures to obtain fair use of products we have purchased despite technical restrictions.
    Sony encountered this with the playstation and modchips. The courts ruled that modchips provided fair use as although they removed copyright protection measures, they also enabled the fair use of imported products. They removed an anticompetitive measure.
    It may surprise some Corporations, but licensing contracts are only empowered as far as contract and other law allows. Using the system of law, and creating the law are too things quite distinct.
    So if Apple unfairly removes the right to use a legally aquired product, then I would feel quite at ease obtaining the same title through any other means, and the law would support that. That's in addition to the fact that products acquired through retail means are governed by retail and copyright law, and not contract law which requires proof of consent such as indentity verification and signatures.
    • edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1But this is the US, the government is owned by the MSM (and the oil companies).
      • Myztry, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't quite say owned but a Lobbyist does seem a rather polite term for a corruption broker.
        Some serious money is exchanged in the process of being heard, and nothing is louder than a mutlinational bankroll.
  • roebeet, on 08/03/2008, -1/+13The article is really not a "What If?" as much as a "When", imo. Granted, it could be 10+ years from now, but eventually technology will change and Apple's music strategy will change with it.

    Maybe no one will care, by then. However, as a comparison - I still have my first purchased audio CD circa 1987, and it still sounds great and works on my PC's DVD drive. I wonder if I'll be able to say the same for my iTunes purchases, 20 years from now?
    • wonderchemist, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Physical media also goes out of date. There are a host of media types from the 80's and 90's that would require effort to read. The 3" Mitsumi Quick Disk, the 3.5" Floptical, etc.

      • roebeet, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Totally agree - even CD's will go the way of 8 tracks and reel to reel, eventually. However, you can still rip them to whatever digital format you like, as long as the hardware still exists. And given that every PC comes with a CD/DVD drive that reads audio CD's right now, I'm not too concerned, yet.
  • artfuldodga, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5why would I want to rent my favorite music, movies and tv shows... i say rent because with DRM/TPM, thats what you're doing, f*ck iTunes
    • Balanced, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2Rent tends o assume that I have to keep paying for the songs I've purchased a license to... Apple hasn't tried to collect more money from me to keep my stuff current... Except for when I voluntarily upgraded everything I could to iTunes PLls.
    • alphaterminus, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2I use Rhapsody and a Sansa music player and have thousands of songs available all the time. I'm watching a show on Netflix streaming right now. The rental system works well, as long as you know you are renting.
  • lead2thehead, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4I would like to believe that there would be a consumer revolt. But let's be honest... the average person is too lazy to fight that battle.
  • farmerbb, on 08/03/2008, -2/+7Absolutely nothing would happen to me.. I immediately run anything I buy through the iTunes music store through QTFairUse6 so no DRM troubles for me :)
    • grumpyrain, on 08/03/2008, -2/+6By purchasing through iTunes you are indirectly supporting DRM. Apple have no way of tracking how many users follow such a procedure. I suggest that quite a significant proportion of customers do a burn-to-cd-then-re-rip process, the outcome is the same (or similar enough).

      You send a signal to Apple and the labels that you are willing to let them control the devices you play your purchased music on. Unless there is a grass roots rejection of anything smelling slightly of DRM, the will push and push.
  • ocellnuri, on 08/03/2008, -0/+9When I've brought up the stories about MS and Yahoo closing down their DRM servers to people, their first reactions are always "Those stupid companies! I'm glad I use iTunes!"

    It never seems to sink into their heads that Apple could do the exact same thing. I'm glad to see the issue get some voice.
  • gaiserrc, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2I burn them to disc and the import them back again...
  • macmangb, on 08/03/2008, -7/+1Apple isn't like M$ or Yahoo, they put their customers ahead their profits, so this situation would never happen.
  • reechme, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4I'd do what I don't do at the moment - find one of those 'un-DRM' tools, and run it on *my* purchased music.
  • kahrytan, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Nothing. Apple DRM was cracked. I hope people are finally burning their purchased drm music to cd. This way, there is no problem in the future.
  • sarchosis, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1It's not like getting around a DRM is terribly difficult. As has already been mentioned, FairPlay has been cracked, many times. Otherwise burning an audio CD removes all DRM, at the cost of potentially slight loss of quality, but nothing anyone besides a serious audiophile would notice.
  • ericdano, on 08/03/2008, -8/+2Ah, Cnet. Now I remember why I don't go there anymore. Simply put, Apple will support DRM for however long they are in business. Period.
    • Travelsonic, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3No, apple will support whatever will maximize profits, whether that is DRM, or NON-DRM content, genius.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1Except for the whole EMI/Indie label tracks in iTunes going without DRM.
  • benitojuarez, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1tunebite.com, I run all my purchased music through it. Ill never have to worry about key revocation again. Its kinda slow though but its the easiest way around drm ive found. Sure drm get cracked but then they update it and you sit around waiting months for a new crack to come out.
  • jbond, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Just Say No To DRM
  • geminister, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3As a DJ, I buy music for $80-$100 per month. But I would never dream of buying songs crippled with DRM. The DJ music stores know this, and don't practice that bullsh*t. They know that trusting the consumer is the only way to really sell music. (And believe me, they sell A LOT of music!)
  • edwartica, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3I'll admit, I have pirated more than my fair share of songs, but I'm trying to play by the rules now. But its ***** like this which makes me think that maybe I should reinstall a bit torrent client on my computer.
  • localzuk, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2I'm not 100% convinced that the clause to allow them to pretty much remove your rights to the music you've bought would be legal. It's all well and good saying that their contract says that, but what would a lawsuit result in?

    I have a sneaking suspicion that a judge would side with consumers on this.
  • P5ycHo, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3Everything I buy from iTunes gets burned to cd's so I can rip 'em drm free right back into iTunes.
    • roebeet, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Quality loss, if you do that. If you buy an album off iTunes and do this, you're better off buying the physical CD and ripping it, instead.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2Not if you rip it to Apple Lossless or keep the AAC/MP3 bitrate high enough.
      • roebeet, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Incorrect - once it's in a lossy format, anything you do after that is moot - you've already lost information in the data that you cannot get back.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Yes, but if you rip it to Apple Lossless, you lose no additional quality from burning it to a CD and re-ripping it.
  • ibeetle, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2This is why Apple allows you to archive your media. Unlike some of those other companies.
    The purchase price allows you to make up to 7 copies of the music you purchase. Which is why physical media will really never go away. Whether you buy it on CD in a store or buy a digital download then burn your own copy a CD is still a CD.
    Remember, when backing up the data there is a difference between backing up and archiving.
  • Rudegar, on 08/03/2008, -4/+1i only buy itunes plus from itune store

    of cause even if they closed shop like yahoo
    then one could illegally remove the drm
    or just keep it on the computer is was bought on
    and cut ones losses if one changed computer
  • jewbird, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1I fear I may run into said problem as an iPhone developer.
  • palewook, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1*shrug* then everyone would just d/l that program we can't speak of because of the dmca. and remove the drm.
  • 808ethan, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Dont care, I will never use DRM music unless it is 15 seconds away from being decryped.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    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. 2009 — 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.