DVD Jon Versus The Tyranny of the iTunes Music Store
Okay, before you all start attacking me for hating on Apple in this article and / or for not simply banning use of the iTMS outright, let’s get some things straight. I consider the iTunes Music Store, or something very close to it, to be the future of music sales. Also, I haven’t seen a legal alternative to the iTMS that comes close to carrying all the musicians whose music I want to buy and that sells me the actual songs without any sort of rent-for-life subscription nonsense. I just bought the new Queens of the Stone Age album today, and I doubt there is anywhere else I could have grabbed it so effortlessly (and legally).
However, there is a huge Achilles heel in the current set-up, at least in my eyes: Digital Rights Management / DRM. I outlined my basic beef with DRM in The Problem with the iTMS DRM back in August. At that time, I noted:
... I don’t really blame Apple for the DRM. Apple is stuck in the middle between the consumer and the-guys-who-own-the-rights-to-all-the-songs-in-the-world. These guys aren’t concerned with art or producing a good product; they just want to hoard as much money as possible and stick it in their ears. To hear more about why DRM is evil, make sure you read this wonderful piece by Cory Doctorow of the EFF, an organization which is concerned with your rights as a consumer and is fighting for these rights daily.
While I still think that the RIAA is behind the problem, as each day passes, I’m starting to blame Apple more and more for the DRM. I think recent events warrant a return to this subject.
Apple doesn’t seem to be taking a stand against the RIAA, but Jon Lech Johansen—aka DVD Jon, the guy who cracked DVD encryption, was sued for it, and acquitted of all charges—is taking a stand against the iTunes Music Store. Back in November of 2003, Johansen came out with QTFairUse, a program that stripped iTunes-purchased songs of their DRM. In July of 2004, he came out with FairKeys, a program for extracting your iTunes DRM FairPlay keys from Apple’s servers. From FairKeys, hymn was born, was chased off the internet by Apple legal, then re-emerged elsewhere and since then has given birth to JHymn and iOpener. These programs disable the DRM on iTMS-purchased tracks so that the songs can then be played outside of an iTunes environment, on operating systems and hardware, like Linux and various non-iPod music players, that are not currently supported by iTunes. The songs, stripped of their DRM, still have traceable IDs that point back to the original purchaser of the music, so no song stripped via these methods would be likely candidates for mass pirating.
Most recently, Johansen and a few of his colleagues released a new program, PyMusique. PyMusique offered a non-iTunes interface for accessing the iTunes Music Store, so that anyone with an already established account at the iTunes Music Store could launch PyMusique, pick, purchase, and download songs from the iTMS with the added benefit of having all these songs remain free from DRM. On Monday, Apple blocked PyMusique and any non-iTunes 4.7 program from accessing the iTMS. By Tuesday afternoon, Johansen had already decrypted Apple’s attempt to block the hole that allowed PyMusique to work, and a new version of PyMusique containing the decryption was shortly thereafter announced.
Most likely, Apple will again encrypt the hole and try to patch it, and Johansen will again decrypt and enable access to an iTMS free from DRM. This cycle will go on for a while, perhaps, and sooner or later, Apple will sue, as they are prone to do these days. DVD Jon has been sued for similar actions in the past and won. If Apple moves to sue him, there’s a chance they could lose. Since day one, the legality of the DRM has been questioned by some since it effectively interferes with existing fair use rights that we are legally supposed to have.
So why? Why is Apple taking this route? If someone wants to pirate and illegally resell songs purchased on the iTunes Music Store, all s/he needs to do is burn the tracks to an audio CD and then re-rip them to the computer. The freshly ripped tracks are all ready to be duplicated and sold as many times as the pirate likes and without all the pesky trackable purchaser information that is still embedded in DRM-stripped iTMS tracks. Music pirates know this.
What does the DRM really prevent? What does shutting down PyMusique benefit? If people buy music through PyMusique, Apple is still getting money for their music and the RIAA is still getting their cut. In fact, since there are numerous Linux users out there, and the iTMS doesn’t currently support Linux, PyMusique provides Apple with a larger market through which to sell their songs. If PyMusique is allowed to continue and thrive, then the iTMS and Apple will gain.
Why DRM? Because the RIAA thinks it gives them back the power they have been losing for quite some time. In my opinion, Apple needs to rethink its DRM-shackled alliance with the RIAA, lest that decaying beast manages to somehow drag Apple down with its last attempts at controlling a market that has outgrown middlemen and unnecessary restrictions.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Well said.
The only area we differ is that I will NOT buy any DRM music. Doing so encourages its use.
I would not use this program either nor any of the DRM stripping programs, on the principle that I would still appear to be supporting DRM (as far as the labels can see).
Yep. I agree with this too. I’ve bought three songs so far on iTMS. These were songs my daughter needed to learn for her drama class, so I viewed them as temporary, and DRM is less of an evil than three albums worth of showtunes on CD !
But I continue to buy CDs for the stuff I actually care about. This is partly due to wanting a proper product for my money, with artwork and notes etc. But mainly it’s that I object to the DRM, which has already been changed twice, even for music bought before the new rules were introduced. Once to change the burns from 10 to 7 and the authorised machines from 3 to 5 and another more recent change to limit the number of daily streams (shared libraries with others on the network), though the latter is more itunes that iTMS I suppose.
But people steal. A DRM free world of downloadable music is utopian and far to idealistic.
We must let music evolve. The power is slowly shifting back to the artists who aren’t lazy and are willing to work at marketing themselves.
DVD Jon isn’t doing anyone any favors but ensuring that stronger methods of DRM will come.
Blaming Apple in this deal is shortsighted.
Apple HAS to close down any loopholes (especially the very public ones) to satisfy it’s contract with the record labels. That’s what the labels expect. And without that effort, things could change very quickly - and suddenly the tide in the online music war shifts. Apple doesn’t want that.
If Apple were in total control - the DRM would definitely look different.
The sad fact of the matter is that without DRM in place, people will steal music rather than pay for it. But with some method to do it legally, many people will avoid stealing and pay for their music.
Also, to think that Apple is out to make money on the iTMS - well, it’s just not accurate. They make very little on the store itself. It’s sole purpose is to sell iPods.
I’ve personally puchased over 500 tracks on the iTMS - and just like everyone who purchases tracks, I am aware of the restrictions.
If you don’t like DRM, go buy the CD. Fairly simple resolution.
“But people steal. A DRM free world of downloadable music is utopian and far to idealistic.
We must let music evolve. The power is slowly shifting back to the artists who aren’t lazy and are willing to work at marketing themselves.”
You need to see Magnatune, all the music is DRM free and the artists have far more power than with your DRMed stores. The music industry is evolving and DRM is a method of trying to keep those currently controlling it in power, not the artists or customers.
————————————————————————
Dave
As for the argument that if it is a"fact” (???) that with no DRM people will steal, I again point to magnatune. You can pay as little as $5 for an album or as much as $18 IIRC, its up to you, The average selling price is, again IIRC, about $9.
If your assertion that people will steal rather than pay for something, how come many (most?) people pay more than neccessary at Magnatune?
It is silly, people will pay for music just as they always have done before DRM, the people who used to copy music for free will continue to do so even with DRM. All DRM achives is to impose limits on ligitimate customers.
FWIW I buy music without DRM and I have yet to find myself making it available for people to “steal” (although I have reccomended it to many freinds), yet you state it is a fact that I will do so, I think you are wrong and I hope I know myself better than you do. I also assert that most people are just like me and are not criminals.
Vortigern -
Have you spent any time on Limewire lately? I’m sure I could log in today and download any or all of the music I’ve purchased on the iTMS - and none of it would have DRM attached. It’s all out there - and people are gobbling it up. So, when I say - the sad fact of the matter is .... - I believe I’m accurate.
The same argument has been around for years with software. The software developers put restrictions on software installs, activation, registration - but rarely do I run across a post on a blog somewhere that says “Damn these shareware developers, they make me register my software before it’s fully functional”. It’s the same thing. If shareware developers didn’t place certain restrictions on their software, they believe (and rightfully so) that people will illegally share their software. Nothing wrong with that approach.
But, because the big, bad record companies are involved, this DRM thing is terrible. That’s just bull. It’s a business trying to ensure that it’s customers - legitimate or otherwise - cannot unlawfully share their product.
My band has our albums on iTMS, as well as Rhapsody, Napster, etc. As a musician, I have no problem with this method of doing business.
It’s a digital world - there is nothing wrong with protecting digital assets.
My comments on everyone’s comments:
The people who would steal the music are doing so in spite of the DRM. Most people aren’t thieves and I, for one, resent the implication inherent in DRM that no one trusts the customer. The DRM is a sham, so why have it at all? Since it gets in the way of our fair use rights it is technically illegal, and to a certain degree I think it is going to take someone making a much worse form of DRM before this all goes to court and is played out the way it should be.
Apple may have been at the RIAA’s beck and call when iTMS first launched, but now, there is enough of a iTMS brand in place, I think, where Apple is capable of pushing back some. I’m waiting for them to do this. And waiting…
Buying CDs in stores is no assurance of avoiding DRM / not supporting DRM, as the money still goes to the RIAA and CDs emerge every so often with anti-copy schemes built-in. Also, it’s not nearly as convenient.
People will steal with or without DRM. With DRM, it’s unnecessarily difficult to share temporarily (i.e send a song to someone and say “You have to listen to the, it rocks!”).
Limiting sharing may actually increase the costs of music and lessen the profits of the lables.
Which situation makes more financial sense ... ?
Sell 100 copies, no sharing because poeple are scared to due to the DRM.
Sell 50 copies, with no DRM, which are sharesd with 1000 people, 100 of which buy a legit copy ?
So you have 950 stolen songs, but you’ve also sold 50 more. Of the 950, most people won’t be playing those songs and will probably delete them at some point.
The 950 illegitimate songs are effectively free advertising.
In th UK, while the BMI were complaining about the effect of the internet and P2P and crying about the end of the world, the number of CD albums sold was actually rising.
They were losing revenue, but selling more CDs. The reason was that supermarket chains were selling the CDs and driving the price per unit down through the floor.
Consumers benefit from cheaper CDs, but only cheaper chart CDs. Other consumers, real music fans, suffer because the cost of the non-chart stuff goes up and is harder to find because small record stores, unable to compete for the chart sales, are going out of business.
I don’t think just not buying DRMed music, or not buying supermarket music is enough. I think in columns such as this, it’s legitimate to discuss why we see it as as something malovelent or equally why we might be ambivalent to it, or in favour of it.
The ‘if you don’t like it, don’t buy it’ argument is too simplistic. Sure, you can vote with your wallet, but plenty of people have probably not thought about the implications of DRM, which some see as closer to renting than to buying, and may be leading everyone else along a dangerous path where our music choice is limited and delivered with ever increasing restriction.
If you do buy from iTMS, I’d urge you to burn copies of all of that stuff. Not just as a back up, but so that you can retain fair use of it in case Apple further changes the fairplay rights to music you already ‘own’.
CK, tell me what would be different for you if there were no DRM?
How would it effect your music library. We know - because you are a legitimate customer - that you wouldn’t burn a DVD of all your music to share with all your friends. You wouldn’t burn unlimited CDs to sell to your friends. You wouldn’t illegally share your music, period.
So why does it matter? DRM prevents these things - if you are not doing them, then what’s the big deal?
It’s like regulators on cars. My car had a regulator that cut the throttle at 120 MPH - I tested it out once and it worked. It didn’t bother me that I couldn’t drive 125 MPH in that car because I never wanted to. So, the only argument left would be one of principle. If that’s the argument - the tone of this article would need to change to one picking on the record companies. “The Tyranny of the iTunes Music Store”—- a little misleading in that case.
Your software argument does not hold up at all.
Software is not the data, infomation or whatever you want to call it, It is the means of working with that data. ITMS and DRM put limits on how data. infomation is used.
I might not be explaining it very well but software is irrelevent to the argument here, the file formats used by software to exchange data are more relevent though. do you see. It is the infomation that is important this should be in an open format, what the person chooses to access it with should not matter as long as it conforms to those open standards. ITMS ties the infomation you are paying for (you are not paying for the format but the music) into a specific app/device.
Your shareware argument would need to be altered to something like “once you had paid for the shareware it still was not fully functional” just to be even in the same ball park as DRM, if this was the case you might see the odd blog entry. The ITMS is still restriced EVEN AFTER you have paid for it.
The fact that most music is available on P2P is taken as fact, however as I said DRM or no DRM it will still be there for those that choose to infinge to do so, DRM only affects people who actually paid for the music.
Your actual statement was:
“The sad fact of the matter is that without DRM in place, people will steal music rather than pay for it.”
It makes no sense as it stands as EVEN with DRM in place those people that are currently “stealing” music will do continue to do so. Your statement implies that due to the DRM people are now paying for music who at one time “stole” it, the fact that limewire is full of tracks does not in the slightest back this statement up, as these were likely the same people who were sharing tracks prior to DRM.
If the number of tracks were to go down on limewire this would be some small evidence that DRM is stopping the infringers, at the moment though you seem to think that is not the case:
“I’m sure I could log in today and download any or all of the music I’ve purchased on the iTMS - and none of it would have DRM attached. It’s all out there - and people are gobbling it up.”
As I said DRM harms no one but the ligit purchasers
“So why does it matter? DRM prevents these things - if you are not doing them, then what’s the big deal?”
How can I use a ITMS track on my in car MP3 player at the quality and size I paid for? It runs Linux BTW. If Apple used an open standard then I could play it back on any device I wished at the size and quality I paid for.
Thats one example but the more worring fact is that once DRM is accepted then the terms will get more restrictive, Apple has already changed the terms a few times on ITMS purchased music and it seems to apply retroactivly.
mightyDave, here’s one answer to your question:
My wife has a Powerbook and I have a Powerbook. Her Powerbook used to be my Powerbook, and when it was mine, I purchased some songs via my iTMS account that were for her (specifically a few Brittany Spears songs that I want nothing to do with). When she inherited my machine, she set up her own iTMS account. As a result her copy of iTunes is no longer associated with my account, so every time she tries to play the Brittany songs I bought for her and which I do not have a copy of, she gets a “This computer is not authorized blah blah blah” message. We’ve been meaning to copy the song over to my computer, so that I can burn it for her, she can rip it and then I can delete it from my Music library, but we keep forgetting as that is a big pain to do although it shouldn’t be.
This is one example of DRM being an inconvenience to me; if you want more, let me know and I’ll type them all up for you. There are many.
But even if it didn’t really inconvenience me, I still don’t understand why we have it. It flies in the face of fair use laws. It inconveniences the consumer. It costs Apple more money than not having it would, both in customers and in maintenance. Considering all of these reasons, can you make a clear argument for why we should have DRM? That’s what I really do not get.
“So why does it matter? DRM prevents these things - if you are not doing them, then what’s the big deal?”
DRM from ITMS prevents anyone who doesn’t have an Ipod from playing songs on any other portable mp3 player. That’s a RIDICULOUS restriction and seems designed less to protect you as a musician than it does to protect sales of Ipods.
And that’s really the trick with DRM. You as the musician are being bamboozled into thinking this is all for you when really it’s about maximizing profits for Apple and the record labels. The customers lose. You lose. Apple wins. The labels win.
You know the old saying, “If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.”
That’s DRM. It doesn’t do ANYTHING to stop piracy. All DRM does is unnecessarily inconvenience customers who’ve actually bothered to pay money for music from ITMS.
CK, it’s simple.
The iTMS store does not exist without the backing of the record labels. The record labels don’t back the iTMS unless there is something in place to give them peace of mind. Apple is providing a method to give them peace of mind.
That’s why DRM should exist. So we can have an iTMS. Because without the peace of mind, it’s my opinion that the record companies would run for the hills.
If we didn’t have another legitimate way of purchasing our music, then I’d understand the frustration. But we do, buy the dang CD. Avoid DRM altogether.
“DRM from ITMS prevents anyone who doesn’t have an Ipod from playing songs on any other portable mp3 player.”
That’s the idea. They want to sell iPods. The SOLE purpose of the iTMS is to sell iPods. That’s business. The iTMS isn’t intended for people who don’t have iPods. It drives people to buy the iPod. And if you don’t think it’s working, walk outside right now. It works - and that’s called “a sound business strategy.”