ecommercetimes.com— The Free Software Foundation petitions Apple to sell non-DRM products in the iTunes Music Store. CEO Steve Jobs called to be the first to set the "ethical example".
Mar 11, 2007View in Crawl 4
@ghardingNo, it doesn't. DRM is digital right management. Not Monopolistic Use Protection. A universal standard would prevent easy sharing between consumers but protect the labels. It would also allow manufacturers the ability to make products that work with the DRM.DRM should protect the content provider, not restrict the delivery mechanism.
Of course, even many indie labels like Subpop or their owners prefer to have their music DRM'd. FSF should be petitioning labels and independent labels, not Apple.
apple doesn't own the music, the big four do. And they can, and probably would pull their catalogs if any anti DRM law passes in the EU or any other place. in which case the EU or any other country is back to square one.and for those that say "I want my ipod to work with music match or any software I choose" well "I want halo 3 to play on my mac or any set-top box I choose," but it ain't going to happen.
Uh. Apple doesn't own the rights to ANY of that content. Shouldn't FSF be talking to, I dunno, the content owners? Oh wait, it's the FSF. Illogical is their middle name.
as I stated above in another comment. Me, being a content owner with stuff available on Itunes was not given the option to distribute it without drm(and I don't want my stuff protected with that crap, I want the few people that do buy it to enjoy it and share it as they see fit). You can look at all the artists who have stuff available on both emusic and itunes and draw the conclusion that there are plenty of artists who do not wish to have their stuff wrapped up in proprietary drm. Some probably do, but Itunes does not give you the option.I'm pretty sure this is what the FSF is lobbying for, the choice to distribute without drm. Apple has the power to enable that choice if they wanted to and Jerbs really was being genuine about getting rid of drm if he had the Labels blessing. Because in truth, some labels have implicitly given that blessing because they distribute without drm through places other than itunes.
"The labels will drop Apple like a hot potato if they drop DRM."Consumers will drop all other music services like a hot potato as soon as Apple provides a better service by dropping DRM. Non-consumers like myself will become consumers of Apple product.Labels will get very pissed, but can't do anything about Apple dropping INDEPENDENT artists' DRM unless they want to advertise that their real concern is over non-big-label-music having better offerings.
To those that say Apple can't remove the drm because it would make it seem inconsistence with using itunes because some of the songs purchased don't have drm and others do. Currently itunes has mp3 support and that doesn't have drm. And then you have the songs you purchased on itunes. So right now you have one group of files that have no drm and another group that has drm. So this thing about it not being inconsistent is BS. It already is this way. People get it.What will happen is that people will finally get sick of DRM for once. Because those who purchase nothing but itunes music, if some of those have drm and others don't, then they will notice the limitations of DRM finally. Plus itunes allows you to burn it onto cd's. The drm is completely pointless. And there are music players out there that can play aac files that itunes uses. The drm prevents the user from putting the original song that is in aac format on a player that is capable of playing it. That is why Apple is in trouble over in Europe. So forcing users to burn their music to an audio cd makes them waste a cd. Any song you buy in itunes allows you to do that. That is why this drm is pointless.You own the content. You can do anything with it that you can do with an audio cd as long as you don't break any laws. Fair use is mandatory.
grizMar 12, 2007
@ghardingNo, it doesn't. DRM is digital right management. Not Monopolistic Use Protection. A universal standard would prevent easy sharing between consumers but protect the labels. It would also allow manufacturers the ability to make products that work with the DRM.DRM should protect the content provider, not restrict the delivery mechanism.
winnchMar 13, 2007
Of course, even many indie labels like Subpop or their owners prefer to have their music DRM'd. FSF should be petitioning labels and independent labels, not Apple.
easy4lifMar 13, 2007
apple doesn't own the music, the big four do. And they can, and probably would pull their catalogs if any anti DRM law passes in the EU or any other place. in which case the EU or any other country is back to square one.and for those that say "I want my ipod to work with music match or any software I choose" well "I want halo 3 to play on my mac or any set-top box I choose," but it ain't going to happen.
michaelgregoireMar 13, 2007
Cheap??? At .99 per song?? Are you high?
Closed AccountMar 13, 2007
Uh. Apple doesn't own the rights to ANY of that content. Shouldn't FSF be talking to, I dunno, the content owners? Oh wait, it's the FSF. Illogical is their middle name.
dodzpozMar 13, 2007
Jobs opened the door, why don't he pass it ?
Closed AccountMar 13, 2007
as I stated above in another comment. Me, being a content owner with stuff available on Itunes was not given the option to distribute it without drm(and I don't want my stuff protected with that crap, I want the few people that do buy it to enjoy it and share it as they see fit). You can look at all the artists who have stuff available on both emusic and itunes and draw the conclusion that there are plenty of artists who do not wish to have their stuff wrapped up in proprietary drm. Some probably do, but Itunes does not give you the option.I'm pretty sure this is what the FSF is lobbying for, the choice to distribute without drm. Apple has the power to enable that choice if they wanted to and Jerbs really was being genuine about getting rid of drm if he had the Labels blessing. Because in truth, some labels have implicitly given that blessing because they distribute without drm through places other than itunes.
honoredmuleMar 13, 2007
"The labels will drop Apple like a hot potato if they drop DRM."Consumers will drop all other music services like a hot potato as soon as Apple provides a better service by dropping DRM. Non-consumers like myself will become consumers of Apple product.Labels will get very pissed, but can't do anything about Apple dropping INDEPENDENT artists' DRM unless they want to advertise that their real concern is over non-big-label-music having better offerings.
dreamcoreMar 13, 2007
EFF? WTF?The EFF is a little busy trying to get REAL ID repealed to be overly concerned with how Apple sells or doesn't sell their indie selections...
Closed AccountMar 13, 2007
To those that say Apple can't remove the drm because it would make it seem inconsistence with using itunes because some of the songs purchased don't have drm and others do. Currently itunes has mp3 support and that doesn't have drm. And then you have the songs you purchased on itunes. So right now you have one group of files that have no drm and another group that has drm. So this thing about it not being inconsistent is BS. It already is this way. People get it.What will happen is that people will finally get sick of DRM for once. Because those who purchase nothing but itunes music, if some of those have drm and others don't, then they will notice the limitations of DRM finally. Plus itunes allows you to burn it onto cd's. The drm is completely pointless. And there are music players out there that can play aac files that itunes uses. The drm prevents the user from putting the original song that is in aac format on a player that is capable of playing it. That is why Apple is in trouble over in Europe. So forcing users to burn their music to an audio cd makes them waste a cd. Any song you buy in itunes allows you to do that. That is why this drm is pointless.You own the content. You can do anything with it that you can do with an audio cd as long as you don't break any laws. Fair use is mandatory.