What is Digg?6 Comments
- rickardl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think Mr. Doctorow's article does say something new, or at least says something in a new way. It's been argued before that DRM is bad for business, but Cory's article isn't speaking to you and me. He's speaking directly to big record companies, arguing that their decision making power now plays second fiddle to Steve Jobs, because he's the only one with a functioning online music store. Doctorow plays to the egos of the record company execs who don't like the idea of being at ANYBODY's beck and call, much less an aesthete like Steve Jobs.
- stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He makes a few good points that man, and it should be pretty clear to everyone that DRM is not only bad for everyone involved but also an impossible battle. Still, I think Apple could have done this without DRM and gotten the record companies with them, but I don't think they wanted to. They don't really have any track record of wanting to play fair or be consumer friendly no matter what their ads say. Just ask OpenDarwin or KHTML... and now they've taught an unknowing public that DRM - taking away the consumers right - is ok.
No matter what you think of the subject, at least read the whole thing, it's worth it. Personally I will not buy any music with DRM, ever. Not that I'll buy any Jessica Simpson either, but... hehe. ;-)
DRM must die. - rickardl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@hurtle24
I don't know the ins and outs of the FairPlay agreement, but Wikipedia tells me that FairPlay is actually part of Quicktime, and thus Quicktime-enabled apps like RealPlayer can play the files in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
Based purely on my foggy memory, I seem to recall that Apple has chosen to restrict their FairPlay license from other hardware vendors. That is, it's Apple that doesn't want other devices playing iTMS songs, not the record labels. If anyone can find a citation that supports this, please post it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure I have good responses to the two different issues you raise. Right now I don't buy music from iTMS, and I make that choice for two reasons: because I'd rather have my music sans DRM, and because I like going to the record shop. At this point, the only incentive for Apple to open their tracks to other players is a moral one. But if more music lovers started piping up, letting their views be known in a good-natured way, maybe Apple would start to see a monetary incentive.
I strongly agree with you that letting other music stores' files play on an iPod could help those other stores' sales. However, greenlighting other vendors' DRM seems like a bad business move for Apple. It's worth noting also that niche markets like http://www.bleep.com are doing pretty well without DRM, because of their loyal audience.
For the sake of full disclosure, it should be noted that I am both a fan of Cory Doctorow, and an admin over at http://defectivebydesign.org. That means I like encouraging people to talk about these issues, and think about how they want their voices to be heard. DRM is pure science fiction. It's scary and weird and totally worth investigating for yourself. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Doctorow's rant became obsolete the moment Yahoo started offering unrestricted MP3 downloads. iTunes isn't the entire online music business. There are many competing stores, at least one of which lets you do whatever you please with the music you paid for. Competition will decide which model is best for the average consumer. Reference this previously frontpaged story on Digg:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Yahoo_Offers_Unrestricted_MP3_(non-DRM)_Download - hurtle24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I can't claim to have read the whole thing - I got bored. But I read enough to know that this is the normal FUD that has been written many times before.
These people always talk about vendor lock in, lack of choice etc, what they always seem to miss is the fact that Apple's DRM scheme is there because that is the only way Apple was able to strike a deal with the records labels.
If you're interested here are two articles that explain it much better than I can.
http://daringfireball.net/2006/06/drm_interoperability
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/818227B3-157E-4C2D-9C1C-F503C2B7A227.html - hurtle24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@rickardl
OK, I've read it now and you're right, this diatribe is a little more thought out than most. However, there is something that I'm not clear on - this article seems to assume that Apple's deal with the record labels allows them to license fairpaly to hardware vendors like Creative, Sony et al - is this actually the case?
Also, there are at least two different issues here:
A. Allowing ITMS tracks to be played on non iPod players
B. Allowing WMA, (Real?) DRM tracks to play on iPods
I'm not sure that A. would really help to sell more music, but it could hurt iPod sales
I'm pretty sure that B. would hurt the sales of non-iPod hardware, but could help other online music stores, where (apparently) no one is making much money at the moment.
So, what's the point?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is