Apple & DRM

On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:34 AM, mmatty wrote:

> He's quite clear that Apple developed and continues to maintain
> FairPlay only at the insistence of the record companies (2.5 of the
> big four are European owned). It looks like a move to get Mrs.
> Kroes, et. al, off his back.

Not that any of it will work to change the attitude and intentions of
the E.U. agencies. I'm fairly skeptical of the motives of the E.U. in
this and even the Microsoft case, as I believe it is partially a 'tax
through litigation' method of raising revenue when local taxes and
lotteries are already overburdened. I am skeptical that the consumers
truly benefit, in the long run, because often the large multi-
national corporations will take years of negotiations with the
government agencies involved and wind up with some sort of 'mutual
agreement' that gives the corporation a competitive edge in the
market while allowing some politicians to look good in their press
releases. Pardon me for sounding so cynical. I hope that something
positive does result from all this, because it's such a pain to deal
with the DRM situation. I don't think it has resulted in any real
protection to the artists or labels, nor has it done much to stymie
illegal activities. It's done a marvelous job of confusing and
irritating the consumers, though.

Jeffrey

On Feb 8, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Jeffrey McPheeters wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:34 AM, mmatty wrote:
>
>> He's quite clear that Apple developed and continues to maintain
>> FairPlay only at the insistence of the record companies (2.5 of the
>> big four are European owned). It looks like a move to get Mrs.
>> Kroes, et. al, off his back.
>
> Not that any of it will work to change the attitude and intentions of
> the E.U. agencies. I'm fairly skeptical of the motives of the E.U. in
> this and even the Microsoft case, as I believe it is partially a 'tax
> through litigation' method of raising revenue when local taxes and
> lotteries are already overburdened.

According to the latest news on reactions to Job's declaration,
you're right about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08music.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin

What I don't buy about the EUs claim about opening FairPlay is that
Microsoft did license Plays For Sure to a number of manufacturers,
all of whom produced products and services based on it that were
spectacular flops.

> I am skeptical that the consumers
> truly benefit, in the long run, because often the large multi-
> national corporations will take years of negotiations with the
> government agencies involved and wind up with some sort of 'mutual
> agreement' that gives the corporation a competitive edge in the
> market while allowing some politicians to look good in their press
> releases.

The EU's attitude in this case, as well as with Microsoft and others,
seems to be oriented toward trade practices between companies rather
than consumers. In the US, where the regulators have been more hands
off, the music industry is focusing on copyright law and suing
individuals to maintain competitive advantage.


> Pardon me for sounding so cynical. I hope that something
> positive does result from all this, because it's such a pain to deal
> with the DRM situation. I don't think it has resulted in any real
> protection to the artists or labels, nor has it done much to stymie
> illegal activities. It's done a marvelous job of confusing and
> irritating the consumers, though.

Consider Detroit's big automakers, who for many years have not been
responsive to consumer demands, and how they continue to loose sales,
market share, profits, and whose workers have had to suffer as jobs
are eliminated, etc. Music sales have also suffered for I think the
same reasons, but can use copyright law to bolster its standing -
even to the extent of suing its customers in the US.

As far as I see it, DRM doesn't benefit the consumer or the artists.,
and least Steve Jobs is recognizing this. And if Apple is being
forced to use DRM technology to sell music, then I can see that they
want to use Apple developed technology to Apple's advantage.

Marilyn

On 8/2/2007 7:52 AM, "Riph van den Assum" <rvdassumknoware.nl> spake thus:

I refuse to purchase music on iTunes store as long as what I buy is not mine.

By that argument you should never buy CDs either. When you buy a CD, you own the *CD*, but you don't own the *music*, and you don't even have the right to play the music wherever or whenever you like (sound familiar?). Look closely at the fine print that has always appeared around the edges of CDs: you'll find that it generally prohibits you from making unauthorised public "performances", among other things.

What you're effectively buying with most CDs is the right to play the CD

for yourself* any time you like. If you run a shop, however, you're not allowed to play the CD as background music without paying royalties for the "performance". A couple of small businesses in New Zealand were fined over exactly this issue a couple of weeks ago.

Note that many countries also do not have fair use or format-shifting provisions in their copyright law. This includes New Zealand, although this is going to change in the next year or so. This leads to the somewhat ironic situation that of the 4,500 or so tracks in my iTunes collection (ripped from my legally-obtained 300+ CD collection), the only strictly legal ones are the 20 or so that I've bought from the recently opened NZ iTMS.

Beware of applying simple arguments to complicated realities.

-- Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND. http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

On 2/8/07 15:45, "Nigel Stanger" <nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

> On 8/2/2007 7:52 AM, "Riph van den Assum" <rvdassumknoware.nl> spake thus:
>
>> I refuse to purchase music on iTunes store as long as what I buy is not
>> mine.
>
> By that argument you should never buy CDs either. When you buy a CD, you own
> the *CD*, but you don't own the *music*, and you don't even have the right to
> play the music wherever or whenever you like (sound familiar?). Look closely
> at the fine print that has always appeared around the edges of CDs: you'll
> find that it generally prohibits you from making unauthorised public
> "performances", among other things.

For that matter, you wouldn't buy software of any kind, including operating
systems.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Jeffrey McPheeters wrote:
>
>> I am skeptical that the consumers
>> truly benefit, in the long run, because often the large multi-
>> national corporations will take years of negotiations with the
>> government agencies involved and wind up with some sort of 'mutual
>> agreement' that gives the corporation a competitive edge in the
>> market while allowing some politicians to look good in their press
>> releases.
>
> The EU's attitude in this case, as well as with Microsoft and others,
> seems to be oriented toward trade practices between companies rather
> than consumers. In the US, where the regulators have been more hands
> off, the music industry is focusing on copyright law and suing
> individuals to maintain competitive advantage.
>
>> Pardon me for sounding so cynical. I hope that something
>> positive does result from all this, because it's such a pain to deal
>> with the DRM situation. I don't think it has resulted in any real
>> protection to the artists or labels, nor has it done much to stymie
>> illegal activities. It's done a marvelous job of confusing and
>> irritating the consumers, though.

Generally, consumers are better off when they have more choices
available to them, so on the surface, the EU's claim about standing
up for the consumer seems plausible. However, in the case of music,
the situation is complicated by the presence of monopolies. Apple
with its market dominance essentially has a monopoly on the online
music industry and can use its position to force the music companies
to play along. So far, this seems to have been a good thing. The
problem is, if the EU is successful in forcing Apple to open up
FairPlay, what happens next? If Apple loses its dominant position,
power shifts back to the other monopolies, the music companies.
History suggests that that will not be good for the consumer.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the pressure on Apple is
primarily coming from Europe, where 2.5 of the Big Four reside.
Perhaps we are too cynical and too suspicious of the EU's motives,
but we have good reason to be.

>By that argument you should never buy CDs either. When you buy a CD, you own the *CD*, but you don't own the *music*, and you don't even have the right to play the music wherever or whenever you like (sound familiar?). Look closely at the fine print that has always appeared around the edges of CDs: you'll find that it generally prohibits you from making unauthorised public "performances", among other things.
>
>What you're effectively buying with most CDs is the right to play the CD
>* for yourself* any time you like. If you run a shop, however, you're not allowed to play the CD as background music without paying royalties for the "performance". A couple of small businesses in New Zealand were fined over exactly this issue a couple of weeks ago.
>
>Note that many countries also do not have fair use or format-shifting provisions in their copyright law. This includes New Zealand, although this is going to change in the next year or so. This leads to the somewhat ironic situation that of the 4,500 or so tracks in my iTunes collection (ripped from my legally-obtained 300+ CD collection), the only strictly legal ones are the 20 or so that I've bought from the recently opened NZ iTMS.

You are right.
But also you are right when you say that it should be anytime I (=me) like to play the music.
And that's not the fact.
If one time Mr. Apple decides that I (=me) should not listen to the music anymore it will be.
And that's the reason I am not buying from the iTunes Store.

And what's fair use? It's law in NZ so it is legal. All your 4,500 tracks are legal, because you are not supposed to obey the law in the US but in NZ.

[OK, let's not devolve into a general copyright discussion yet again. These questions all have answers in copyright law, and we've been through whether or not we agree with that law many times. -Adam]

If I own a painting, everyone that comes in, can see it
Is that tp be charged??
If i sell that painting should the painter get a commission??
The Music business is not only complicated, but corrupt
If you listen to a musician you should pay If you go to a concert you
should pay for it
The whole chiboom in music is rubbish. It's the business man that
makes money not the composers and musicians

Some of the European discussions are about on which device you can
play the music, you have paid for.

If you bye a record or cd, they are not restricted to only play on
SONY or PIONEER devices.

Music bought at the iTunes store can be played at - well you guessed
it - at Apple branded devices (or PC's with iTunes installed).
(Unless you muck with it, which is not legal)


[Or unless you burn it to audio CD, at which point it's a completely unprotected MP3 that you can play on anything. -Adam]


No problem for me, but for many others which have other players,
phones etc. than an iPod, or which iPod has died.

Andreas

--
  N A T F I L M F E S T I V A L
  --------------------------------
  St. Kannikestr. 6
  DK-1169 Copenhagen K Denmark
  --------------------------------
  <mailto:asnatfilm.dk>
  <http://www.natfilm.dk>

On 2/9/07 10:51, "Andreas Steinmann" <as-listsnatfilm.dk> wrote:

> Some of the European discussions are about on which device you can
> play the music, you have paid for.
>
> If you bye a record or cd, they are not restricted to only play on
> SONY or PIONEER devices.
>
> Music bought at the iTunes store can be played at - well you guessed
> it - at Apple branded devices (or PC's with iTunes installed).
> (Unless you muck with it, which is not legal)

So?

Try playing music from Sony's online store on an iPod.

Try playing Windows Media 10/11 DRM tracks on any computer not running
Windows.

Try playing Zune tracks on a playsforsure device, even if it's made by the
same manufacturer that OEM's the Zune.

Try making an MP3 OF YOUR OWN, with no DRM, put it on a Zune, then "squirt"
that to another zune, and playing it more than 3 times.

Try not connecting your PlaysForSure or Zune to your computer for a few
months.

It's fun to point the finger at apple, but when every.single.online.store is
doing the same thing that iTunes and Apple are, with slight variations in
the implementation, there's obviously a common element, and it ain't the
computer companies. They don't own or make the music. They just sell it.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Andreas Steinmann wrote:

> [Or unless you burn it to audio CD, at which point it's a
> completely unprotected MP3 that you can play on anything. -Adam]

No, it's a completely unprotected music CD. You can't burn protected
files to MP3 CDs in iTunes.


[Right - I misspoke. It's an unprotected audio CD which you can then re-rip to MP3. -Adam]


Kirk
             Author of: Take Control of Customizing Microsoft Office
                       http://www.mcelhearn.com/tcoo.html
                - - - - - -
              Read my blog: Kirkville -- http://www.mcelhearn.com
           Musings, Opinion and Miscellanea, on Macs, iPods and more

On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Conrad Hirano wrote:
> Generally, consumers are better off when they have more choices
> available to them, so on the surface, the EU's claim about standing
> up for the consumer seems plausible. However, in the case of music,
> the situation is complicated by the presence of monopolies. Apple
> with its market dominance essentially has a monopoly on the online
> music industry and can use its position to force the music companies
> to play along.

Apple is the dominant market player but it does not have a monopoly;
in the US, a monopoly is defined by an absence of products and
services in the playing field due to the restraint of trade. There is
plenty of competitive handheld portable music devices and online
music stores and music management systems; to date, consumers have
not wanted to buy them. FairPlay is widespread because it became
successful in the marketplace; it became the 800 lb. gorilla
naturally. Apple did not force other manufacturers to use give it
precedence, as Microsoft did with IE, or build it so that all Windows
based computer operating systems could not function without it.

There's an interesting development in today's news - EMI will open up
its catalog for sales in MP3 format. They've already tested selling
Norah Jones & Lilly Allen MP3s:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-emi-web.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin


> So far, this seems to have been a good thing. The
> problem is, if the EU is successful in forcing Apple to open up
> FairPlay, what happens next? If Apple loses its dominant position,
> power shifts back to the other monopolies, the music companies.

This is what is so surprising, but very crafty, about Jobs' statement
calling for MP3 to become the standard for online music sales. The
record companies are insisting on DRM, and forcing online music
retailers to comply. If the requirement for DRM is removed, then the
consumer can choose whatever player or store they want. At the
moment, Apple has what is acknowledged to be, by far, the best
players and the best store.

Though they are the dominant online retailer to date, according to
Jobs' statement:

  "Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million
iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s
22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and 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. And since 97% of the music on the average
iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly
not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music."

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


> History suggests that that will not be good for the consumer.

Something to consider - people tend to like iPod, but they tend to be
highly aggravated by DRM and music companies suing file sharers.

The iTunes store was developed to sell iPods, which it has. Apple
doesn't make much money off of it. And clearly, DRM hasn't done much
to stop people from loading music on to multiple devices and sharing it.

The irony is that the record companies have been selling CDs without
DRM, though they have tried and failed for both legal and technical
reasons to date, and CDs are still command the vast majority of
market share for music.

>
> I don't think it's a coincidence that the pressure on Apple is
> primarily coming from Europe, where 2.5 of the Big Four reside.
> Perhaps we are too cynical and too suspicious of the EU's motives,
> but we have good reason to be.

BTW, I haven't noticed that Microsoft contributing or commenting on
Job's announcement.

Marilyn

On 2/9/07 19:40, "Marilyn Matty" <mmattynyc.rr.com> wrote:

> There's an interesting development in today's news - EMI will open up
> its catalog for sales in MP3 format. They've already tested selling
> Norah Jones & Lilly Allen MP3s:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-emi-web.html?
> _r=1&oref=slogin

SORT of...they want a multimillion-dollar "guarantee" payment up front from
any store that is wanting to do this.

It's like a mud pie with frosting. It's only good until you dig deep.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> Apple is the dominant market player but it does not have a monopoly;
> in the US, a monopoly is defined by an absence of products and
> services in the playing field due to the restraint of trade.

Actually, restraint of trade has little to do with being a monopoly.
"Monopoly" literally means "single seller." A company can become a
monopolist for various reasons. It could just be good at what it
does, or as in cases like the gas and electricity companies, it could
be due to the nature of the industry it's in. It is, in fact,
perfectly legal for a company to be a monopolist. What's not legal is
when the company uses its position to engage in anticompetitive
behavior, which is what Microsoft was accused of doing.

In the online music industry, Apple is not strictly a monopolist as
there are others selling downloadable music, but it dominates the
market. Apple's dominance is what allowed Jobs to resist pressure
from the music company to allow higher prices, for example. If Apple
had even a single serious competitor, the outcome may have been very
different. Apple's position gives it considerable leverage over the
music companies, which is why I said Apple essentially has monopoly
power in the online music industry.

On 10 Feb 2007, at 01:40, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> BTW, I haven't noticed that Microsoft contributing or commenting on
> Job's announcement.

The Zune marketing director gave a confused response here:

http://tinyurl.com/3b8jla NYT article, doesn't seem to need
registration.

-=-=-

Jason Reindorp, marketing director for Zune at Microsoft, said Mr.
Jobs’s call for unrestricted music sales was “irresponsible, or at
the very least naïve,” adding, “It’s like he’s on top of the mountain
making pronouncements, while we’re here on the ground working with
the industry to make it happen.”

“He’s certainly a master of the obvious,” Mr. Reindorp said, adding
that “the stars were already aligning” to loosen the restrictions.

-=-=-

        f

I never used iTunes because Canada was not in the picture for
some time; then eMusic came along with what seems to be a better plan.

Now they have a temporary Multi Level Marketing plan that should be very
successful: "Introduce a friend who subscribes and get 50 tunes free;
no limits to the number of friends." Levels below that pay in warm
feelings and reputation.

If someone really did a Relationship MLM with digital music online... A
decent multi-purpose data-base could be designed and built because we
would all profit from it. Superb software would be developed, too. We
would have to teach the MLM not to be proprietary: Free Software, Open
Source. People would learn not to copy irresponsibly because it would
hurt their own earnings --- freedom to manage your own music combined
with a sense of social responsibility. You can't believe it, can you!
Well, think about it...

Harvard won't lead the way but Chicago might well do so?

George

On 10/2/2007 5:51 AM, "H. van den Assum" <assbelbvxs4all.nl> spake thus:

> And what's fair use? It's law in NZ so it is legal. All your 4,500 tracks are
> legal, because you are not supposed to obey the law in the US but in NZ.

Um, no, it's *not* law in NZ (yet), that was my whole point. It is currently
technically illegal in NZ to rip a CD to MP3 (or any other format), and
possibly even to record TV shows on a VCR. As far as I'm aware, all of these
are legally allowed practices in the US. The reality in NZ, however, is that
only people who make money out of it (i.e., the true pirates) get
prosecuted, hence "technically" above. Format shifting provisions are due to
be added to NZ copyright law sometime this year, I think.

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

On Feb 10, 2007, at 5:28 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote:

>
> On 10 Feb 2007, at 01:40, Marilyn Matty wrote:
>
>> BTW, I haven't noticed that Microsoft contributing or commenting on
>> Job's announcement.
>
> The Zune marketing director gave a confused response here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3b8jla NYT article, doesn't seem to need
> registration.

And according to Forbes, "Microsoft: We Like DRM," an interview with
the president of Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices division:

http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2007/02/08/zune-drm-itunes-
tech-media-cx_df_0208bach.html

Marilyn

On 12-Feb-2007, at 13:48, Conrad Hirano wrote:
> What's not legal is
> when the company uses its position to engage in anticompetitive
> behavior, which is what Microsoft was accused

Let's not be revisionist, they were convicted.

[And let's also not get too far afield... -Adam]

There's a bit that everyone seems to miss:

If Apple can get rid of DRM, they can go right ahead and sell music
through iTunes just like they do now. No difference for the customer.
No difference for Apple.

However, both Rhapsody and Zune Marketplace offer "subscription"
service. You can download and listen to as many songs as you like as
long as you keep paying $15 per month. You stop paying the $15 per
month, and your music goes bye-bye.

What happens to subscription customers if DRM is removed? Do these
customers get to keep all the songs they've downloaded forever (I'm
sure the music companies would go for that!). Or, do they have to
keep paying $15 to listen to the music they already downloaded, but
cannot download any more songs through their subscription? That's a
great way to make customers happy. They certainly can't keep their
$15 per month subscription without DRM. Otherwise, anyone who
downloads more than an album and a half per month would simply switch
to "subscription" service and save big.

Anyway Rhapsody and Zune Marketplace attempt to resolve the
subscription dilemma would hurt their reputation and will make a lot
of customers very miserable. No wonder Microsoft is so much against
the idea.

David Weintraub
davidweintraubworld.net
davidweintraub.name

On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:36 AM, David Weintraub wrote:

> There's a bit that everyone seems to miss:
>
> If Apple can get rid of DRM, they can go right ahead and sell music
> through iTunes just like they do now. No difference for the customer.
> No difference for Apple.

It would be a big difference to the consumer, in terms of how they
consume music, and to Apple, in terms of sales.

>
> However, both Rhapsody and Zune Marketplace offer "subscription"
> service. You can download and listen to as many songs as you like as
> long as you keep paying $15 per month. You stop paying the $15 per
> month, and your music goes bye-bye.
>
> What happens to subscription customers if DRM is removed?

I don't think the revenues from the subscription services are of much
consequence to the music companies. There has yet to be a successful
digital subscription service, or one that has turned a profit.

And Microsoft developed Plays For Sure and opened its arms to
hardware manufacturers to develop hardware based on it. And none of
these products were exactly successful either; this strategy was
abandoned with Zune. And Rhapsody has failed to hook up with a
hardware manufacturer that has made a handheld device that's been
desirable in the marketplace. And people haven't exactly been
breaking down the doors to by Zunes.

> Do these
> customers get to keep all the songs they've downloaded forever (I'm
> sure the music companies would go for that!). Or, do they have to
> keep paying $15 to listen to the music they already downloaded, but
> cannot download any more songs through their subscription? That's a
> great way to make customers happy. They certainly can't keep their
> $15 per month subscription without DRM. Otherwise, anyone who
> downloads more than an album and a half per month would simply switch
> to "subscription" service and save big.

I wasn't pleased to have to spend more money to replace many, many
albums I had already purchased in vinyl, but I did because I saw the
benefits in replacing my scratched and warped records with CDs. So
did many millions of other consumers. And I happily ditched Walkman
for iPod.

>
> Anyway Rhapsody and Zune Marketplace attempt to resolve the
> subscription dilemma would hurt their reputation and will make a lot
> of customers very miserable. No wonder Microsoft is so much against
> the idea.

Apple doesn't even make a significant profit on iTunes; it exists,
and was developed, to sell iPods. The Zune service was created under
the same premise, and it renegged on the concept of Plays For Sure.
And I agree with Adam's idea that part of Jobs' DRM statement was
meant to tweak Microsoft, who spent the last few years whining that
Apple should open Fair Play.

Marilyn