guardian.co.uk— As more stores and record labels abandon digital rights management, Apple may have an alternative plan for subscription services
May 15, 2008View in Crawl 4
You know... no matter how many times you yell this out, in neither makes any more sense nor makes you seem less idiotic?If NO RECORD COMPANY FORCED THEM, then why did no other online retailer sell RIAA-produced tracks without DRM so that they could be played on iPods, which would increase sales? Why did the RIAA continually harass Apple about licensing FairPlay or adopting WMA/WMV DRM on their iPods so that media from other distributors would work on them, since seemingly they never forced anyone to use DRM, and everyone else was free to use them?You see why everyone says you make no sense...? Because you make no sense. As evidenced by your thinking that looking at the hardware instead of the distribution companies is a point, and even after that doing it in nonsensical fashion.Does Creative and so many other companies FORCE you to use DRM to use their devices? Certainly not. Neither do iPods. Does Creative and so many other companies SUPPORT DRM'd media? Of course; as do iPods.Now, until recently, did basically every legal only music distributor/retailer (sans eMusic and MP3.com) from Rhapsody to Napster (reborn) to Sony's CONNECT to MusicMatch to BuyMusic to Yahoo to Wal-Mart to SpiralFrog to the Zune Marketplace...? Yes. As did iTunes. Why was that, even when the iPods were quickly seen as the dominant player, and cross-compatibility with THEM was impossible, and even with each other was very fragmented?DRM was absolutely, positively, a requirement by the RIAA to sell music online. Just how on earth do you think it was NOT?
Alanr, rofl.Your a troll. You started this argument with a comment about murky pricing schemes and have answered each reply which points out how full of s**t you are with yet another bulls**t argument. Most of what's released today by "the industry" is garbage. The corporate music industry simply wants to fit prospective acts into an equation that results in profit. The music business is all about CONTROL. If the major industry players can't dictate the terms, pricing, and distribution they will cease to exist. Because of this, Apple scares them.If there's not enough iTunes "plus" content, it's because the major music industry players aren't giving Apple the go ahead.
Well, I don't really see their final conclusions being particularly valid (Apple has spoken out against subscription plans in the past, they haven't proven to be particularly popular anyway, and they are certainly more of a headache for Apple), but their other comments are pretty much the way it went down, and how Apple "changed" DRM... by getting it removed from music. (At least. Video will be a harder sell.)A subscription service would be no "change" in DRM, and certainly nothing that movie rentals hint at. It was always possible, technically, in FairPlay, but that's not the business plan Apple pursued. Not to mention a subscription would do nothing but attract people who like subscriptions--it would have no "lock out" effect, as there already ARE a number of all-you-can-eat possibilities out there, and you'll get way more than you can digest from all of them. While you can't use those on an iPod, chances are if that was a major concern of yours... you don't have an iPod--you have a Zune or a player that can use Napster, etc.P.S. No industry "change" is really going to remove what came before it, so magically expecting DRM-laden files to have that restriction disappear. It would be nice, however, if services making the transition would let you download the new DRM-free ones gratis.
Did you just decide to ignore every single comment in this thread on the matter, and continue spouting illogically?How was DRM _not_ forced upon iTunes by the RIAA? How did Apple's direct actions--and non-actions--NOT contribute directly to the removal of DRM? If this was all some lock-in trick from the beginning, wouldn't they have followed RIAA demands to avoid the abandonment of all DRM in general?
cthellisMay 17, 2008
You know... no matter how many times you yell this out, in neither makes any more sense nor makes you seem less idiotic?If NO RECORD COMPANY FORCED THEM, then why did no other online retailer sell RIAA-produced tracks without DRM so that they could be played on iPods, which would increase sales? Why did the RIAA continually harass Apple about licensing FairPlay or adopting WMA/WMV DRM on their iPods so that media from other distributors would work on them, since seemingly they never forced anyone to use DRM, and everyone else was free to use them?You see why everyone says you make no sense...? Because you make no sense. As evidenced by your thinking that looking at the hardware instead of the distribution companies is a point, and even after that doing it in nonsensical fashion.Does Creative and so many other companies FORCE you to use DRM to use their devices? Certainly not. Neither do iPods. Does Creative and so many other companies SUPPORT DRM'd media? Of course; as do iPods.Now, until recently, did basically every legal only music distributor/retailer (sans eMusic and MP3.com) from Rhapsody to Napster (reborn) to Sony's CONNECT to MusicMatch to BuyMusic to Yahoo to Wal-Mart to SpiralFrog to the Zune Marketplace...? Yes. As did iTunes. Why was that, even when the iPods were quickly seen as the dominant player, and cross-compatibility with THEM was impossible, and even with each other was very fragmented?DRM was absolutely, positively, a requirement by the RIAA to sell music online. Just how on earth do you think it was NOT?
centerblackMay 17, 2008
Alanr, rofl.Your a troll. You started this argument with a comment about murky pricing schemes and have answered each reply which points out how full of s**t you are with yet another bulls**t argument. Most of what's released today by "the industry" is garbage. The corporate music industry simply wants to fit prospective acts into an equation that results in profit. The music business is all about CONTROL. If the major industry players can't dictate the terms, pricing, and distribution they will cease to exist. Because of this, Apple scares them.If there's not enough iTunes "plus" content, it's because the major music industry players aren't giving Apple the go ahead.
dhalgrenMay 20, 2008
Dude, f**k you secrity, and learn how to find more current articles:<a class="user" href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080402-apple-passes-wal-mart-now-1-music-retailer-in-us.html">http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080402-appl ...</a>
cthellisMay 22, 2008
Well, I don't really see their final conclusions being particularly valid (Apple has spoken out against subscription plans in the past, they haven't proven to be particularly popular anyway, and they are certainly more of a headache for Apple), but their other comments are pretty much the way it went down, and how Apple "changed" DRM... by getting it removed from music. (At least. Video will be a harder sell.)A subscription service would be no "change" in DRM, and certainly nothing that movie rentals hint at. It was always possible, technically, in FairPlay, but that's not the business plan Apple pursued. Not to mention a subscription would do nothing but attract people who like subscriptions--it would have no "lock out" effect, as there already ARE a number of all-you-can-eat possibilities out there, and you'll get way more than you can digest from all of them. While you can't use those on an iPod, chances are if that was a major concern of yours... you don't have an iPod--you have a Zune or a player that can use Napster, etc.P.S. No industry "change" is really going to remove what came before it, so magically expecting DRM-laden files to have that restriction disappear. It would be nice, however, if services making the transition would let you download the new DRM-free ones gratis.
cthellisMay 22, 2008
Did you just decide to ignore every single comment in this thread on the matter, and continue spouting illogically?How was DRM _not_ forced upon iTunes by the RIAA? How did Apple's direct actions--and non-actions--NOT contribute directly to the removal of DRM? If this was all some lock-in trick from the beginning, wouldn't they have followed RIAA demands to avoid the abandonment of all DRM in general?