What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
205 Comments
- positron, on 05/16/2008, -34/+121The only thing worse than DRM is subscription-based DRM.
- RudeTurnip, on 05/16/2008, -3/+71I disagree. Subscription-based DRM is the only time DRM should be used, if at all, because you're basically getting into a rental agreement. It's like on-demand or satellite radio, adapted for a portable device. DRM sucks if you are paying outright for a copy, but for a "fleeting" copy where I know I'm going to swap it out with new music on a regular basis, it doesn't matter.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+59Might not be 100% relevant. But i attended a MPAA speakers convention (wanted to know what those **** were up to). They said they were abandoning DRM and going for digital watermarking so that they could track file sharing and take file-sharers that way.
- MacParrot, on 05/16/2008, -9/+49It was kinda glossed over, but ask the question? Why does Apple use DRM? Not as a lock-in, but because it is required by the content copyright holders. Amazon has most of the studios allowing them to sell it without, but those same studios refuse to let Apple do so. Since the DRM DOES keep iPod users locked in as far as their purchased audio content goes, how hard is Apple going to push to get it removed? Apple has 70% of the download market in most places and probably could push for an ease of restrictions, but it really isn't in their best interests to do so.
You can wave the anti-DRM flag all you want, but if YOU had the kind of market-share that Apple does and was making an incredible amount of money from it do to the stupidity of content copyright holders, how hard would you push? If they really want to try and break Apple's dominance over the download market, remove ALL the DRM. Then if someone wants a player besides an iPod, they can move their entire library without having to go through the motions of burning it to a CD and re-importing it.
As long as the studios insist Apple use DRM, they will maintain their high market status. I'm amazed that they can't see this. - Pottypotsworth, on 05/16/2008, -24/+56Death to DRM - Good on Apple
- buffyangel108, on 05/16/2008, -1/+32The best way to change DRM? Remove it!
- WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+27That can't come soon enough. All I ask is that the content I purchase can be converted to the format I need and usable in the future no matter what happens to the vendor. Otherwise, it's just renting, and it's worth nothing to me.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -4/+27Because the labels won't change overnight. Look at the DRM free tracks in the iTMS. First they started selling at over $0.99 but later the price was lowered down to the standard $.99/track. That's how it starts. You can't just walk up to a giant like the RIAA and go "IT ALL CHANGES OVERNIGHT RIGHT NOW." You have to show them that change isn't bad and they won't lose their ability to snort coke off a hooker's *****.
- DarkDx, on 05/16/2008, -1/+16It's even better when you download over 9000 albums and strip the DRM from them :o)
- WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+15No, as long as they force Apple to use DRM, Apple will be hindered from reaching its potential, in favor of distributors that are more flexible on pricing (Amazon), allowed to sell DRM-free. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if it's the copyright holder or the distributor insisting on DRM, it's equally unacceptable to me. DRM'd content on iTunes is worth nothing to me, so they won't be seeing any of my money for it. I'll continue to encourage anyone else to do the same, regardless of the source of this problem. If Apple's image is harmed by the DRM on most of their store's content, then that's a good thing, as it draws negative attention to DRM in general.
- BigW, on 05/16/2008, -2/+15If its a watermark that should be fine. The watermark should identify you as the owner of the song and as the laws stand right now, making copies for your own use is perfectly fine.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -6/+18Yeah, wanna fight about it? iTunes is awesome as long as you stay away from the DRM'd content on their iTunes Store...
- knightboat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12@jerrycurley: Other sites are DRM-free because the labels are upset at Apple's control of the market (fixed pricing and individual track purchases) and are trying to make Amazon into a competitor. It is not because Apple is forcing them to keep the DRM on (which makes no sense because Jobs was the one that wrote that public letter to really force the labels' hand on removing DRM in the first place, before there were any well-known mainstream DRM-free alternatives).
This isn't new or hard-to-find news. Please try to keep up with what's actually going on before calling people dumb ***** because they actually know what they're talking about while you're just angrily ranting. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -53/+63Apple is still one of the biggest users of DRM in the world and yet they keep this halo effect bestowed onto them by the gibbering fanboys. Apple has chosen this "Lead role in a cage". Screw 'em.
Anyway iTunes is turning into the AOL of web 2.0. A restrictive walled garden that is popular by default with piss-poor customer service and murky pricing schemes.
For the record I have 3 ipods and zero itunes accounts, and thats how it will stay. - TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12Is it just me or does it seem the shadowy figure in the picture is maniacally laughing?
- Dhalgren, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Maybe my ears are *****, but when given a double blind test I was unable to tell the difference between 256 mp3 and FLAC... Or maybe you're one of those nutso audiophiles that buys $1000 wooden volume knobs for your receiver believe it will make your music sound "warmer"
- malcolmlo, on 05/16/2008, -7/+16Screw DRM and screw apple. I buy all my music from Amazon.com now. Same price or cheaper than itunes and 0 DRM. Apple wants to charge 29 cents more for DRM free. RIP OFF. They are just handing over the online music business to other companies (like amazon) who arent trying to rip people off.
89-99 cent songs on Amazon.com all DRM-free. Its the best, hands down. - TimmyGUNZ, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Because of the labels. Warner is pissed at Apple so it won't allow them to sell the songs DRM-free, but will allow other sites like Amazon to do so. This is the label's way of trying to take power away from iTunes. I know for me, if there is an album I want to buy on iTunes and it's got DRM, my next immediate step is go to go www.amazonmp3.com.
- GothAlice, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Well, first off, despite being a hardcore Apple fangirl, I loathe the iTunes store DRM. First, 128KBit files are ***** quality. I'll only ever pay for the iTunes+ 256KBit DRM-free files, and even they are few and far between.
FLAC FTW! (Which I promptly convert to Apple Lossless using XLD…) - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Dugg up for hookers, *****, and coke.
- Wakuko, on 05/16/2008, -6/+14The only thing worse than DRM is M$ implementation of it.
PlayNotSure anyone? - DigiRaven, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1215 dollars a month with Microsoft zune for all the music you want to hear isn't bad at all. Like a particular album download and listen to it. Download 100 albums and still only pay 15 dollars a month. Not bad at all I say.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10The assertion FTA that Apple is working on a subscription service is complete speculation, without a shred of support. They are arguing that since copyright holders are going to withdraw all their DRM requirements for the iTunes Store, that Apple will be encouraged to replace or supplement it with a subscription service, so that it can keep its customers locked in with the obligatory DRM that would entail. Well personally, as long as the purchased content is DRM-free, I couldn't care less what other services they might offer with DRM'd content, and I would still caution anyone thinking of using them of the limitations of DRM. If the price for the DRM'd service reflects its much lower value due to the DRM, then maybe it's a nice alternative. I'll reserve judgment until something tangible is shown. As for this article, however, they approach the situation like it's a good thing to coerce your customers into subservience, and they are completely talking out of their ass when guessing what Apple might do next. Don't give too much weight to this drivel.
- wacomwacoff, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Apple was forced to use DRM by the Big Five labels in exchange for flat-rate pricing and a common retail model.
Apple was the first and largest music retailer to demand that the Big Five labels drop DRM. - brycelb, on 05/16/2008, -7/+14Sure do. I like ***** that works.
- jeriqo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8In the Digital Age, everything still costs to produce, and needs money to pay back.
Nothing is free, not even digg. (you pay by watching the ads) - jimr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7dugg for pink floyd reference, and in preference of a walk on part in the war.
- DanMiller, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7I don't for a second think that Steve Jobs cares about me. No company cares about me except for the money in my wallet. That being said it is ignorant to say that Apple wants DRM. DRM was the early answer to the P2P file sharing "problem". Apple doesn't care if it's DRM protected or not, they still make their tiny amount of money on each sale. iTunes Plus tracks have moved the store in the right direction but record companies are dragging their heels hoping to artificially create competition by giving consumers more attractive options at other stores. Quit acting like Apple has it out for everyone, Windows uses DRM as well.
- inkyblue2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6how do you know he's from crete?
- briguymaine, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9murky pricing? seems pretty straight forward to me.
- Radan, on 05/16/2008, -4/+10Apple has a number of times stated that they do not support the use of DRM. It's not Apple you are to blame, but the record companies who demand the strict DRM.
As said in the article, if Apple wouldn't use DRM then no one would grant them the right to sell their songs. Apple has little say in how the content is to be distributed, and as you saw with NBC, if the corporations don't get what they want, they simply head elsewhere to someone who is more willing to crawl for them.
For Apple, piracy is one of the least of their worries, as they don't even earn that much from the ITMS itself. Apple want people to buy iPods. Period. One of the greatest features of the iPod is the solid iTunes integration. As long as they buy iPods, Apple couldn't really care less from where you got the content from. - optimo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7http://userstyles.org/styles/7303
I made this on a request, because the comments are too much whitespace - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8You don't HAVE to. There are 3rd party apps that work with the iPod.
- Twelve-60, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7?
- Senturion, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6The irony is that in many ways the DRM that the labels insisted on is one of the biggest reasons for Apple's dominance.
By forcing DRM the labels locked people into the iPod ecosystem.
Now the labels are trying to break that lock by offering DRM-free tracks to stores other than Apple's when if they would have just kept consumers in mind from the beginning they might not be dealing with such a powerful player in Apple. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Already do.
You ***** do it manually? - secrity, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6iTunes is the third largest retailer of music
http://www.macworld.com/article/58548/2007/06/itun ...
google for largest retailer of music - haydesigner, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5"That's simply another form of DRM."
Uh, no... no, it is not. - cthellis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5@ jerrycurley
Steve Jobs may not ultimately give a ***** about me, but he cares even less about DRM. Read the above posts, and follow the chain of events...
Is there ANY way you think we would have DRM-free tracks now if Apple capitulated to the RIAA's demands? Do you honestly think Apple couldn't forsee the outcome of their standing against open licensing of FairPlay, putting any other DRM on the iPods, actively telling the industry music DRM is pointless AND saying they'd support any and all DRM-free music, and then going ahead and DOING it first with a major RIAA label...?
o_O - bradbeattie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Uhh... iTunes Plus? DRMless mp3s at 256kbps.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6I do that now, when it's not available in 'iTunes Plus' format, which is also DRM-free, and uses the higher quality AAC format. But then I put those MP3s IN ITUNES!!! iTunes is a media management database, and it handles integration with my iPhone and AppleTV; iTunes Store is a separate entity, and it should be used with caution to avoid getting stuck with DRM'd content.
- TimmyGUNZ, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Tell us how you really feel.
I for one don't have any problems with iTunes. It takes a long-ass time to load on my PowerPC Mac, but my library is over 100 GB. On my Intel-based Macs, it flies.
Also, they require that you install Quicktime because it is needed to play movies and videos from within the program. - WiseWeasel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6I won't bury you, as it's quite possible that it totally sucks in Windows, but I'll just mention that it doesn't suck in OS X, and maybe that's where some of the disconnect is coming from. Performance and stability are good, and we're used to getting hassled by the (OS default) auto-updater every week or two anyways...
- mrsteveman1, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6I wonder if that has anything to do with record labels wanting to take back control over the online music market from apple?
hmmmmm - Balanced, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Different record company deals in different countries?
- Flamancot, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5man, i do NOT know enough about DRM to be spending as much money as I am on iTunes...
- centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Yes, but only if the player supports MP4.
- centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5So you're angry because we don't have a global currency and Apple charges 0.99 of (insert currency here) instead of charging $0.99 everywhere and doing a live currency conversion to account for changes in the relative worth of each currency?
Now that *would* be murky! Imagine if the price of a song fluctuated with the conversion rate. rofl.
If iTunes isn't a "good deal" for you, then don't use it. But don't come on Digg and make some outrageous claim that iTunes pricing is complex, difficult, or "murky" when it's anything but.
All you have to say is, iTunes is expensive to use in (your currency of choice). - mrgreen4242, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Ask the record company that owns the rights to the sell the song in that country. The pricing for each nations iTMS is determined by contract with whatever agency/agencies control the rights there.
- hermes369, on 05/16/2008, -7/+12Does no one remember the open letter from Steve Jobs regarding DRM?
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
It was this letter that generates all manner of backlash from labels. Now, somehow, Apple is to blame for DRM? Wow, you Apple haters are having to reach pretty far. -
Show 51 - 100 of 210 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is