Whose DRM is it anyway?
ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wonders, will Apple every fully embrace DRM-free music?
Causing the Macalope to wonder, will this raging headache right between the antlers ever stop?
Musing on the recording industry's current penchant for only selling DRM-free tracks through stores other than Apple's Kingsley-Hughes says:
While I can't see this having an effect on iPod sales, a decline in iTunes sales could ding Apple's profits, which in turn might mean that it has to get with the 21st century and throw away the digital shackles and compete openly.
You really haven't been paying any attention at all, have you, Adrian.
Despite the iTunes Store's market share, it's still there to drive hardware sales, not the other way around.
Some have taken this post as a slam of Apple - it's not.
Uh, right. Implying Apple's living in the 20th century, that it has to use "shackles" to sell its products and stating it doesn't want to "compete openly" (as if everyone else does) certainly couldn't be misconstrued as anything other than complimentary.
However, Apple/Steve Jobs have in recent months claimed to be anti-DRM...
For the record, that was in February.
...but not managed to offer a complete DRM-free catalog and have blamed the music industry for this. However, Amazon's MP3 store shows that the music industry is obviously interested in offering DRM-free music ... so why not through iTunes?
Uh, because the industry won't let them? Because the recording companies woke up one day and realized they were no longer in the business of music distribution because everyone was using a new distribution channel and that their supposed "value add" of selecting which music would actually be distributed was now not only irrelevant but actually a nuisance because they continue to pick utter crap and, in a vain attempt to salvage some sense of their relevance, they're trying to knock the new market leader off its perch?
The Macalope has written of the willful obtuseness of the ZDNet blogger but Kingsley-Hughes turns it into an art form.
Back here on planet Earth, however, the simple truth is that the initial contracts between the industry and Apple were to supply DRM-ed music through iTunes. Now the industry is conspicuously avoiding renegotiating those contracts in a deliberate effort to reduce the iTunes Store's market position. As Michael Gartenberg said, they're trying to poke Apple with a sharp stick. They're not interested in sales -- they clearly haven't been for years -- they're just trying to be the biggest jackasses they can because that's the only thing they know how to do.
Is there any other rational explanation behind the brilliant ideas these clowns come up with? Message to customers: "We hate you!" Well, message received.
Now that the kid gloves are off and the RIAA has changed its story so that ripping a CD is no longer kosher, the Macalope looks forward to the RIAA's suit against some high-profile CD rippers. [UPDATE: Looks like the Washington Post story was bad. They've issued a correction.] Like, say, President Bush. In for a penny, in for a pound, right boys and girls?
Bring it on, indeed.
The RIAA is like an angry drunk who just got let go from the factory, lashing out at anyone and everyone in arm's reach. Only a ZDNet blogger couldn't see that.
Mythical beast and rumormonger extraordinaire, the Macalope writes about all things Apple for the CNET Blog Network. Read more at The Macalope: An Apple blog. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
"OK, put the DRM on one side for a moment, where's my ability in iTunes to rip a CD intp MP3? Not there. Why? Because each CD you rip into iTunes makes it harder for you to break free."
cheesus.
Apple has long used Apple-DRM to lock users into iPod brand MP3 players. If you have a decent collection of Apple-DRM music and want a new MP3 player, you will most likely buy another iPod, to preserve your collection.
(Yes, if you don't mind degrading the sound quality of your music collection, and don't mind inconvenience, you can go through a conversion process.)
It wasn't until the EU got on Apple's case about iTunes, that Steve Jobs decided to pretend to be anti-DRM, while continuing to cling to DRM as long as possible.
Wait, you were serious?
Look, Apple's own numbers indicate that over 90% of the music on any iPod is ripped from a CD. With no DRM on it. The chances that ANYONE is being "locked" into an iPod because of DRM are close to nil. It's a strawman arguement.
If he could get no DRM, Jobs would. Because people want no DRM and Apple loves making people happy. The happier they are, the better the RDF works.
The fact of the matter is, Apple already has embraced DRM-free music. Frankly, most iPod owners don't give a big sh!7 about DRM. Only a few screaming pundits spreading FUD on behalf of Apple's competitors care about DRM, and only Apple's DRM at that.
So, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, I have a question: Do you know your subject well enough to get your facts right?
There is no answer that will look good on your resume. "Yes" means you're disingenuous at best, if not outright lying ? or you're too frigging lazy to bother with researching the facts. "No" means you're incompetent to do your job.
I'm willing to buy either explanation.
I'm sorry to point this out, sir, but you are plain wrong on Apple's DRM posture.
Apple doesn't use DRM on any other product it sells. None. Period. Until 1991, with the introduction of System 7, Apple didn't even sell its OS. Before System 7 it was common to take a couple of disks down to the computer store and have them make you a copy of the latest System and Finder. For free. For the record, Steve Jobs didn't work at Apple when the decision to sell the OS was made.
The idea that Apple would add DRM to the lowest profit-margin item they sell is ludicrous. That DRM is there because the record companies demand it. No other reason. Apple told EU that if the record companies will let us, we'll sell unencumbered tracks. As soon as EMI allowed it, they did it. The recording industry looks like Alan Rickman's death scene in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, struggling for one last gasp of air. They're toast and they know it.
The thing that locks people in to iPods is that they are way cooler than anything else out there at any price. Have you seen Bang & Olufsen's mp3 player offering? More expensive than an iPod, and compared to an iPod it looks like an antique. Fugly and clunky.
You're 180 degrees out from reality, John. Sorry.
The RIAA's brief makes only the legally supportable claim that sharing your ripped CD to the world is a violation; it does not do what the Post's reporter said it does.
The RIAA may be vicious, evil, and bastardly. But they didn't do that.
John: I've used iPods since the first generation, and plan to buy a 160gig Classic in a few months. I own exactly zero iTMS DRM tracks; I buy CDs and rip them myself.
(Similarly, anyone who actually is pseudo-locked-in can use either third-party DRM-removing hackery (the stuff that uses iTunes itself to strip the DRM off of the AAC files), or burn to CD and re-rip in any format they want.
Inconvenient in the latter, but not that big a deal. Rip is correct; people don't buy iPods, in almost all cases, because they're "locked in", but because they're a superior product.)
Love the column, couldn't agree with you more. Just one thing about the president's iPod: I haven't got the patience to look at the moment, but aren't Beatles songs available for download on other DRM-free music outlets? I haven't got an eMusic or Napster account, so I can't check. The thing that bothers me about that BoingBoing post is the assumption is made that, if it wasn't bought from iTunes, and it's present on an iPod, then it must be ripped. These are the sorts of arguments you've criticized (quite correctly) in the past.
Thanks,
Jim
Legally. :-)
- by Papa Chango January 8, 2008 7:54 PM PST
- Dont feed the troll.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)I came here when a friend send me this great line about AKH (fans of Bill the cat know how to pronounce this):
The Macalope has written of the willful obtuseness of the ZDNet
blogger but Kingsley-Hughes turns it into an art form.
It seems like his willful obtuseness carries over not only in the Linux world but in the Mac world as well.
So treat click ****** like you do trolls: dont feed them.
This was a great rebuttal but it plays straight into his hands.