Bob, you mention iTunes/iPod users being able to use the Real Rhapsody music "rental" service in a post-DRM era. How would that be possible? Monthly rental services like Rhapsody are entirely dependent upon DRM controls--how else could Real enforce their monthly fee?

Addendum, and to put it more bluntly:

Fingerprinting wouldn't stop you for signing up for Rhapsody for a month, downloading 30GB of songs, and closing your account. Without DRM, those files keep working. Sure, they would be fingerprinted so that you couldn't share them widely, but they would keep working for you. Consumers can smell loopholes like this a mile away.

I would be tempted to say that: DRM is inherently flawed, and subscription services are inherently contingent on DRM, therefore subscription services suck.

Fingerprinting is relatively easy. Circmumventing fingerprinting is relatively easy too. Anyone with two distinct copies of a music track will be able to locate the differences and remove or scramble them. How many hours do you reckon a widely-used fingerprinting scheme will go without being cracked?

Fingerprinting will work if it is a public attribute.

Like provenance for any valuable piece of art, the origin of a music or video piece you share (or sell) will come to have real value for the receiver... Your music is all pirated: you're a scumbag and you ripped off the artist. Your music is paid for: you are a shining saint and the artist will name their children after you. The swells and troughs in between will be the balance of your cultural respect and, in the large, the character of popular culture.

You say:

---
...the ability to discriminate through subtle changes of a bit here or there between different copies of essentially the same work.
---

That won't come close to affecting a serious pirate planning to sell 100K copies afterwards.

1: Buy 2 or 3 legit copies and bit-compare to see where the flag bits are. Then jumble them up into a new combination not tracable to you.

2: Buy your tunes with a stolen credit card number never traceable back to you.

3: Profit!

It's not even hard to think up, or implement.

As such, some relatively clueless home user who had their credit card stolen, or just happened to match a re-jumbling of the flag bits gets sued by the RIAA, while the real pirate is off scott free.

Unfortunately the record companies are too invested in protecting their old model than building a new one. I for one will be dancing on their grave.

This was all a well thought out strategic PR move by Apple. They're the masters!

Wouldn't subscription services, like Real's Rhapsody be pointless without DRM? If I'm "renting" a file that isn't protected, there's nothing to "expire" my use of it.

This is probably why Apple has never considered a subscription model.

This is not Jobs trying to look like the leader (OK it might be). He is the leader because he said this at the announcement of the iTunes store. In the part of the announcement where he discussed the new DRM deal he struck he said that initially he tried to get all of the distributors to just skip DRM. Anyone have a copy of that video?






Its quite clear he felt that the only way to sell the tracks was to make it a better experience than pirating.

yeah, i agree with Daniel Morrison. Subscription services would simply die with no DRM. By definition, a subscription service, which implies you can get a limited amount of data, have limited rights to it when you have it, and rights which will expire when you stop paying, cannot function without implementing DRM.

In order for, for example, Rhapsody to be playable on an iPod, then the music would either have to be in an open format that iPod already plays (i.e. no DRM), or Apple would have to implement some kind of DRM on the iPod that is linked to Rhapsody's format. unless you think this is somehow possible with your qualification that "Real would make the technical effort for that to happen".

The open letter looked to me like a reaction to Apple's legal troubles over the iTS in Europe. Notice Jobs made no mention of DRM as it relates to the movies and TV.

As to an iTS subscription service, I've always thought that Apple doesn't offer one simply because there are not enough people asking for it. I have a couple of friends who swear by Rhapsody, but that's it — neither I nor anyone else I know are interested. Music is just something people want to own — even if it's encumbered by DRM. (If not, they rip CDs or hit the file–sharing networks.) However, I'm sure Apple has a subscription service all coded up and just waiting for the demand.

Finally, I'm no watermarking/fingerprinting expert, but I don't think it'd be trivial to just diff two versions of the same song — the same bits wouldn't be twiddled. And in the only scheme with which I'm even slightly familiar, I'm told the fingerprint is discernible even in an AM radio broadcast.

It seems to me (and probably a lot of others) that Steve Jobs has two primary objectives and you correctly identify one of them: his desire to be perceived as an industry leader - as an innovator.

His second objective, of course, is to attain world domination. In light of this, you failed to note the obvious irony of his suggestion for OTHERS to drop DRM. He plans to allow interoperability between iPod, iTunes, iPhone and non-Apple services when?

The whole watermark issue is moot. As the Jobs' letter says, 90% of the music sold is already totally free of any DRM or watermark and in a better quality than the mp3, AAC or .wma files from the services.

The bottom line is the insistence of the industry that DRM exist on audio files is idiotic. It's holding the industry back because the vast majority of buyers don't want DRM (that's why they still buy CDs). As long as most people buy CDs, the older, unprotected CD standard lives on. Which ensures that piracy will live on.

If the industry execs had the vision to find their own buttocks they could see that they need to get the audio CD format to die, and the only way to make that happen is to make digital downloading much more attractive to the consumer. Once all their media is distributed digitally, DRM could be reintroduced. (though likely not without the same revolt over DRM they're seeing today).

But we all know the DRM that exists today can't stop piracy anyway. What's it take a motivated pirate to buy the song, burn it to CD and then re-rip to an unprotected file?

I thought it funny that the RIAA challenged Jobs to remove DRM from Disney movie DVDs. When was it ever possible to buy a DVD without CSS? (but again has CSS stopped piracy?)

Fingerprinting songs is a nice idea and at first blush would appear to work. But in the long run I think that method is no more secure than our present DRM system. What happens when I loose my ipod or someone breaks into my car and steals my cd collection. If these songs hit the web am I liable? Would I be immediatly arrested/fined? How would I prove they were stolen from me. And what's to stop me from saying my music storage device got stolen and releasing all my tracks to all my friends?

Finally is there going to be a big clearin house of musical fingerprints so that when or if I tire of a track I can sell it. Or am I the first and last purchaser of any given track.

I disagree, in many respects. I have never found Apple's FairPlay system to be either (a) inconvenient, or (b) restrictive. I certainly do want artists and their "infrastructure" to receive good value for their work. Who doesn't?

I do know many "younger" listeners on more limited budgets who place themselves and their appetites ahead of fair play for artists. However, this should be solved NOT by eliminating the (convenient) DRM that Apple uses, but by Lowering the price of individual tracks. At 25 cents each, the volume of sales would go way up, as the incentive to steal music would mostly disappear.

What the big labels have to get used to is the idea of much lower revenues, tied to much lower distribution costs, combined with much lower theft. But it's either that, or end up with even less profit because of theft of Overpriced tracks.

DRM only inconveniences thieves. Overpricing drives theft.

Why use the finger printing to punish people distributing music? Why not use it to reward them?

If some amount of money is collected for the distributions, then a certain percentage can be kicked back to the originator. The content owners win as they get broader distribution of their goods (for no cost) and they still get paid for their precious IP.

I'll leave how the payment system will work, as well as how to protect against fraud, as an exercise...

Fingerprinting is not going to solve anything. If it's flipping a bit here and there, then the illegal distribution channels will add a routine to flip a few more. Maybe this new fingerprint will happen to belong to someone, but it won't be theirs.

How much money does an artist get from a cd sold, or a song downloaded?

Wish some good startup band would get a site, and let people download their songs for .25 a song.

Seems like people make music to be heard.
Then other people come along and try and keep it from being heard. Kind of like trying to hold a bubble under water.

Right On Bob!

I find working around DRM to be a hassle, but it is far less costly than buying albums. As a subscriber to Rhapsody, I know that all I have to do is start my free audio-out recorder and convert it while it plays to a MP3 file. I like the music, no big deal. I can then either burn a CD or import it into my iTunes collection. So far I haven't done this because at a buck a song I can buy what I like on iTunes or listen to it on Rhapsody whenever I want. Also, like the reader above, I want to reward the artists I like with a fair living for their efforts. It's like the saying about nuns or thieves driving cars, it's what you do with the technology not the technology itself which is bad.

Here are at least two ways fingerprinting could be circumvented; I'm sure devious people could think of more.

1. Buy an iTunes card at Target with cash, use a throwaway email account from a public access point to download music, publish it far and wide; can't be tied to you.

2. Buy music legitimately, put it on your cheap MP3 player, arrange to have it stolen and file a police report, the thief publishes it far and wide; it can be tied to you, but you have an alibi, and it can't be proved you were the distributer.

But the real key here is: It only takes ONE person to think of a clever way to get the fingerprinted music out there without being prosecuted, and millions can use it. This is why even if an unremovable fingerprint could be developed (dubious) it will not help anything.

Good points. But how does a subscription based system work with no DRM?

Did I read today that EMI is going to start selling DRM free music?

If more record labels join in, there will be no choice but to compete.

The only way the record companies can get consumers over a barrel is to restrict access to CDs. One possibility: In short order the "big" stars will begin to release their music ONLY as DRM'd files. If you want the latest hot single or album, you can get it on iTunes... Or not at all.

I have thousands of songs in my iPod, all ripped from CDs. Despite typically being an early adopter, I have NEVER downloaded a file from the iTunes store. According to Apple the files they sell are only 128k-bit recordings. I prefer 192kb or higher and can hear a difference. My iPod hasn't made me deaf...yet.

The question then is, are there superstars with enough swagger to "push" us consumers to accept this and buy only a digital download? Getting an advance copy (different release dates, say two weeks or a month apart) is not enough. For this to work someone would have to put his or her career on the line and have their next releases be ONLY digital. Who's game?

I would surmise that NO label will leave the CD money on the table for other artists on other labels to capture. Remember, they're pimping their artists (and those artists' recordings) against the other labels'. Unless they act like a cartel (it's happened before), their greed as individual labels will keep them pumping out CDs.

For the music industry, interoperability is the answer, not DRM-free. CSS is a hassle but it hasn't stopped the DVD industry explode. However, compatibility silos would have had stopped it in it's tracks. You can't have a rental service without DRM, and slowly people are moving towards subscription services. Yep, some people really love them. Apple's concern over DRM is that they do not have the same level of control over the mobile device marketplace, where the action is going to take place over the next 3-5 years. iPOD+iTunes has had its day - thank god it's almost over.

Record companies should allow consumers to download all the songs they want. They should figure out a way to present consumers with a bill for the songs already on their computer.



Back in the heyday of of Napster 1.0, I downloaded several hundred songs, and still enjoy listening to them today. I was a responsible adult then, and am still one today. I'm waiting for the time when the record companies wise up and figure out a way of presenting me with a bill for all those songs. Many of the songs on my computer were ripped from a CD that I already owned -- I won't pay for those again, but I'm perfectly willing to pay for songs that I didn't buy -- even today.



So, record companies, here's wheat you need to do:

- Write some software that will scan my computer looking for mp3s. Make it open source and signed so that I know you're not being naughty.

- From the MP3 binary, figure out what the actual song is and fix up the tags for it -- also fix up the file name for me. Also, if I have a crappy 56bit version, offer me a nice 128bit version.

- present me a nice list of all the songs on my computer. With a nice ripper/player while you're at it.

- Let me tell you the ones that I already owned from a CD.

- present me with a bill for the ones I didn't already own

- I'll pay the bill.

- mark them all as "paid for". Water mark them so that they have a signature for me

- if you find my file on someone else's computer, don't punish me, pay me a percentage of the fee you charge that someone else -- I'm helping you distribute your music for crying out loud

- As I add more songs to my collection, repeat



I think you'll find that there are a lot of people out there who will end up paying for their music. Most of the ones that won't pay will eventually grow up and pay anyway. The people who will never pay in their lifetime are probably stealing from you with or without DRM anyhow. Have the artists make an impassioned plea to pay for the music -- it's only fair.

Music??? WHAT Music?

All there is out there today is NOISE. Good grief, I don't have to spend money for DRM'd NOISE, I can run out to the junkyard and find a bunch of old washing machine motors and other parts and put together something which sounds just as badly as all the DRM'd noise but without the DRM and so it's all free. Mozart, it ain't. I would't listen to it as I value my golden ears very highly, but the kids will and they'll all be deaf by age 30 if not sooner.

REAL music is that which requires a great deal of genuine talent to deliver -- years of practice on the piano, violin, harp, trumpet or any of the many other instruments which make up a symphony orchestra or even a Big Band.

We have about 50,000 LP albums here, the combined resources of five collections and I, for one, will never buy anything from these labels -- the way they are treating artists and consumers these days. The artists hardly get anything, but the suits in the executive suites get millions.

If you feel, as I do, that artists should be supported: beg, borrow, steal and rip the CD, and send the artists a donation directly, bypassing the greedy labels, particularly the Big Four.

Thanks for reading... G.N.

If someone has the time and is willing to go to the trouble, it isn't at all difficult to record a work into the analog domain - think tape recorder - then rerecord it as an MP3. Imprinting of almost any kind will disappear as it passes thru the analog world.

Do you really think DRM is the problem with online sales?

I've bought some iTunes. They don't sound bad, but they don't sound as good as a CD do they? The CD comes with actual (and all of the) artwork and liner notes. Not so iTunes (or Rhapsody, Zune, Music Match, or whatever). Real CD's have a larger catalog than any of the online stores. Do a little bargain bin shopping and you can get your favorite CD's for close to online prices with all of the goodies just mentioned; better sound, better artwork, and liner notes.

I've bought iTunes. I've burned 'em to CD and played the CD in my car, in my annoying Windows computer at work, in my daughters boom box (Halloween Mix) while handing out Halloween candy. They worked fine ... no real DRM hang ups. Personally, I think this whole DRM brouhaha is whining started by a bunch of tight wad techno geeks who like their music like they like their software - free and open source! Then media/bloggers looking for ratings/hits rolled this "terrible" injustice into a big deal.

If DRM was such a big, fat, hairy deal Apple's iTunes store would not be the decent sized hit it has become. If the digital download offered a more comparable package to the CD it would probably be an even bigger hit. I like my liner notes: Who is the sax player on that track? Is that Michael McDonald doing background vocals on yet another album? What are the lyrics on that song?

Trust me, it is the value equation. Saving only about five bucks on an digital album (especially when there are not the manufacturing, packaging, or transportation costs for the music labels when distributing online) in exchange for audio quality, nice & complete artwork, and liner notes is the reason downloads haven't completely destroyed the CD - not DRM.

Shane's comments are interesting - for five more bucks an album, he prefers to buy the CD for liner notes, better perceived audio quality, artwork, etc. Speaking as someone living on a limited monthly limited income, I see it from a different perspective. Do you supposed that's why the RIAA goes after grandmothers and 13-year-old girls? If they're too poor to buy a lot of CDs, after all, they're probably too poor to fight back and seriously challenge the RIAA's extortion.

As for Jobs, he's looking at monopoly challenges in some areas of Europe. If he thinks he's about to be forced to either abandon or license his DRM in selected areas near anyone with an Internet connection... and Microsoft has invested billions (and seriously damaged Vista's performance) to build DRM into its hot new operating system... well. It seems to me Jobs has a lot more to gain by abandoning DRM than by fighting governments and losing. Plus, he gets to be a hero. Plus, he can show European governments his heart's in the right place, it's just those nasty music executives causing all the problems. Plus, Steve Ballmer, who did NOT suggest going around DRM the way Gates did, looks like a poor strategist to stockholders.

Whatever one may think of Jobs, no one ever accused him of being stupid.

For me, DRM is the primary reason that I don't buy music through iTunes.

Once, I bought a song from iTunes music store while accidentally signed in to my girlfriend's account, then realized it wouldn't play on my computer, and had to instantly re-buy it again.

When you buy music that's DRM protected, there's always some small part in the back of your mind that knows, in some small way, that you're getting screwed. Especially because there's an alternative that doesn't tell where and when you can listen your music. And doesn't make you constantly fear that one day it will just, for some unknown reason, refuse to play anymore.

There's nothing more frustrating than having a product that you've bought not work properly. But it's even more frustrating if the reason it doesn't work is not because it's broken. But because the seller decided you don't have permission to use it. (Of course, after they've taken your money.)

I think any technolgy that is anti-consumer will ultimately fail, because the consumers know the difference between a "feature" that really makes a product better, and a "feature" who's only purpose is to bilk them out of more money.

DRM feels much more like the latter.

http://gfair.livejournal.com/8529.html

Here is my take on it: I think the labels see the power of DRM, but also see the power of Apple's position as a middleman. They want Apple out, only to replace FairPlay with their own proprietary DRM scheme enforced by the RIAA; one that restricts user rights and only serves to bring in more money from digital music.

http://gfair.livejournal.com/8529.html

My take is that the labels are trying to remove Apple as the middleman, so they can introduce their own brand of DRM that restricts user rights all the more, forcing people to pay the labels more money for the same music.

The labels tried to push Apple into variable pricing, but Apple didn't budge, proving it as a solid player. Now they are going after Apple again, trying to bust it's monopoly on the digital music market. Yes, Apple has a near monopoly in the market; the other competition is weak and uncoordinated. With Apple out of the way, the labels can just as easily reverse their stance on DRM to support it again, and impose it and a direct-sale scheme to bring in more money.

DRM is the reason that I won't be buying any Vista PCs! (I own six, or eight XP PCs).
Vista DRM will "copy protect" all audio and video that it touches - and if it doesn't, Win Media will!
I have 40GB of digitized 8mm/Super 8 movies from our family collection. If I put them on a Vista machine, my understanding is that I CAN NEVER SEE MY FAMILY MEMORIES AGAIN, except on that PC!
That is a risk that I will never take, but what about the people who don't understand that consenting to the Vista EULA equals surrendering all of you personal property and historical family heirlooms, on your "personal" computer to a monopolist, most often referred to with $ in its name?

Graham Fair's take rings true, at least in terms of things the RIAA is not above trying. As for whether it could work out the way they expect, I doubt it. They killed Napster and, with it, the sharing community that had been built up - and CD sales began their steady fall. If they're stupid enough to now try a DRM scheme that neither Apple nor Microsoft can license, they'll in effect invalidate the paid-for music libraries of huge numbers of people.

Okay, they didn't care about people hating them when they sued a 13-year-old and took her grandmother's house, or however that worked out. (I only remember that's what they tried to do, not the actual outcome, and I'll bet I'm not alone in that.) Given such antisocial behavior, they wouldn't care if people hate them over DRM either.

But I don't think they could get away with foisting off a new DRM scheme unless their bought and paid for politicians (such as Sen. Feinstein of California, unfortunately) give them new laws they can use to enforce an artificial monopoly. Would even Sen. Feinstein try to withstand the heat from that? Maybe.

A more likely outcome would be for increasing numbers of good bands to leave RIAA-shackled music companies in favor of where their fans are. Then smaller RIAA member companies that aren't fronts for the Big Four will begin to leave, and the RIAA will have choked itself off at its own roots.

If you're right, Graham, I really don't think it will work out the way the Big Four hopes.

It's about time someone figured out that DRM is more of an inconvenience to the buyer, and ineffective at stopping piracy on a large scale.

Think about it. It's not the kids 'sharing' songs and videos that are hammering the media company profits. If anything, this is bolstering sales - because buzz on the street is so much more effective when people actually get a taste rather than just hearsay.

The piracy problem is people copying and duplicating work wholesale, as in, sending the content to entire RACKS of burners at the same time. So pursuing ways to identify where a digital copy came from (the 'fingerprint' model) will definitely help there.

The main thing though, is that the entertainment media industry needs to realize that the majority of their customers are enthusiastic about what they like, and HONEST about how they go about getting it. The 'Renting You Your Music' approach is shooting the whole industry in the foot, because it's annoying the customers.

Steve Jobs doesn't pull the strings at Disney just yet, but if he convinced other board members and chairman to allow the DRM to be stripped from video and audio offerings from Disney on ITMS, then let rest of content industry see what happens, they may reluctantly follow. It took about five years to get so many content providers on board with FairPlay, to convince them to take the next step is going to be the most awesome display of the Jobs reality distortion field. But watch what happens next - once DRM is removed from digital audio/video files, Google will buy or reverse engineer the original Napster file-sharing technology, complete with chat features, allow it to work with YouTube and Google chat, BUT there will be Google-ID tags feature on files you trade, that works like electronic bread crumbs, showing trail of file. It'll be more powerful than cookies. Electronic crumbs will be the next powerful tool in advertising and surveillance industries.

The problem with DRM is that most people don't understand what it is or that it is holding their purchsed music captive. Countless people have asked me why they cant play their music purchased from itunes on X mp3 player.

Apple appears to be the bad guy holding music hostage & jobs declaration now makes the company appear to be the Robin Hood of digital content.

The way I understand it, Jobs is only talking about removing the DRM wrapper from the songs, but what about the DRM in their iTunes software? I'm talking about the fact that you can only sync your iPod to one copy of iTunes. Connect it to another copy of iTunes and you get two choices: erase it before syncing or do nothing. This is a horrible, unforgiveable inconvenience for no good reason at all that I can think of. Here I have a device which can store and play music, and the software that comes with it will also store and play that same music on my PC. But after ripping the CD's that I've already paid for and copying them to my shuffle, I find that I am prevented from copying them from my shuffle to another copy of iTunes on my PC at work so that I might listen to my own music at work when I don't have the shuffle with me. What is the point of this stupidity? I can easily circumvent this by copying my songs to a generic USB flash drive and importing them into iTunes at work, so why cripple my iPod by preventing me from doing the same thing in what would be a much more convenient manner?

The shuffle was my first Apple product, ever. I am highly impressed with the quality of the device - it sounds great, plays forever on a charge, can't skip, is small and lightweight, etc. The iTunes software does a great job of ripping and cataloging my music library and has an intuitive user interface that my computer-illiterate wife can easily use. I am more than ready right now to drop $350 on their top-of-the-line model so that I can carry around my entire music library and digital photos anywhere I want. Actually, I'd probably buy two because my wife wants one too. But I'm not willing to spend another dime on Apple products until they learn who owns a product after the sale. I refuse to spend money on products that are artificially crippled like this, and if I had known about this issue before I got the shuffle, I would have gotten something else instead.

I just read Gutman's warning. You all should too.

One area where DRM still has a place is the Subscription/Rental market. If I was a Uni student, I could buy a subscription to listen to all the music the fat pipes the Uni has to offer while there, kind of a customised radio station without ads or chatter. Some Unis in the US provide it for free, I understand. DRM is needed for this.
Also, for the emerging digital movie rental market, I can see a time when I go to a kiosk machine in a small Video outlet, browse through the available titles and maybe read reviews from IMDB or elsewhere, read the blurbs and look at movie images that normally go on the backs of DVDs, and when I'm ready, plug in my iPod, Sony Whatzit, Zune, USB stick or whatever, and rent it using a swipe card I've got from the video store where they have my credit card details. The available titles wouldn't be limited to shelf space or physical stock. Rare/Silent/Foreign etc movies could be as readily-available as anything else the distributors allow.
Go home and plug it into your Apple TV/XBox/PlayStation/Mac/PC/whatever. Now I'd have a week to watch it before it expires. No more 3-day rentals for new movies as stocks are limited.
Now, I know the letter was rather specifically about DRM on music, as music player interoperability is the issue in Europe, and that Apple doesn't subscribe to the subscription model, but as a Disney shareholder and board member, I'm sure Steve has thoughts regarding DRM on movies. But that's another battle, perhaps, unless the music DRM issue bleeds over. The encryption on HD-DVD and partially Blu-Ray has already been cracked, and they're not even widely available on the market yet. So they won't stop piracy, either.

I stopped buying CDs years ago when the price nudged $Aus30. I'd had enough of their gouging by then. CD singles were ridiculously pricey at between 1/3 and 1/4 the price of the whole album, just for one song. The remainder of the songs on singles are usually just techno remixes, none of them worth listening to. So I feel ripped off. Originally when CDs came out, I like others accepted the increase in price over vinyl; shiny new technology, surely it's mroe expensive to make. Years later I learnt CDs, complete with case and basic insert, costs about $3. So why was I paying $30, even with various costs, margins and royalties included? You can get bargain-bin CDs of classical or 80s music for as low as $5, as the overheads are low. Mostly I've settled for the Radio, even though I have to put up with ad breaks.
Digital downloads has brought an affordable alternative to the latest hit singles. CD singles don't have liner notes, booklets, or anything else beyond the cover anyway. And the music download store have the option of providing that too. iTunes does at any rate.

Although I'm not the target market for digital music downloads, I suspect I would probably buy more if they were unencrypted, moreso if there was a choice of a higher bitrate, though I doubt I could tell the difference on my equipment. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I can't help wonder about what happens when my hard drive crashes, I buy a new computer, and restore my music from a CD backup. Is the bought music still playable? I don't know or care about the encryption keys that make them work, I just want to know they're safe. So P2P downloads at higher bitrates, even though still only MP3s, is still tempting. But even P2P can be a hassle with unknown quality, mostly for computer geeks. I would frankly be tempted to go back to iTunes or elsewhere if I could get unencrypted AACs, preferably at 160kbit, complete with the cover artwork and perhaps the lyrics, though in practical use it would make no difference to me whether they are 128kbit protected files. It would make the impulse buy of the latest hit, and the browsing of other music while there, that much more likely.

Convergence is still in its infancy... It will change the world in ways many are unable to see... IDIC (yes - a 'Star Trek' concept of 'infinite diversity in infinite combinations') could help many to see the future - 'infinite data with infinite connectivity'... With that (and ALL of that is a lot ) intellectual property, DRM, licensing, royalities, etc., will also need to be developed and complex enough to meet that challenge. Delivery mechanisms, distribution channels, client-server - you name it - will all change... Imagine... this is your brain on... neuralized content... DRM is not really capable for what is coming... leashing the beast is a waste of time until one knows its form, shape and status...

Something no one seems to see is that subscription models don't need DRM to remain useful and keep subscribers paying. If you collect mp3's from the net now, you get a bewildering array of organizational formats -- song name, album name, artist or the reverse or just track numbers, . . . IT IS A HUGE CHORE NOW TO DOWNLOAD AND CATEGORIZE MUSIC. I can't actually always find the music I want even though I already have it.

I would gladly pay $15 a month to have 1000 gigabytes or so of music available to me if I could find any song, artist or album quickly and then have it begin streaming.

Regarding copy protection, it's not needed under this scheme. You could download the whole catalog, but what would you gain? You again have to start searching your own collection in its fixed format, and new songs wouldn't be included. It's easier just to keep subscribing and getting what you want when you want it. There is no reason to copy it.

And your friends? They ask you to copy this album this week, that on next, . . . If they really listen to much music, you'd just tell them to subscribe as well.

No one needs the headache of organizing and continually updating music collections today -- no one except someone we pay to do this -- iTunes, Billboard, EMI, etc. Get DRM out of the way, and the mass of music becomes a commodity.

Greg Conquest

I am just sending a link to http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=24845 - an article about a company already doing the DRM free watermarked music business.

I think Jobs has played a superb game on the major record labels, the application on DRM on iTunes is unobtrusive to an ipod user, but is able to restrict the ability of the major labels to squeeze more revenue out of the users.


The foresight of this strategy is astonishing as it has been able to neuter a very powerful cabal while channeling the growth to apple.

The recent developments in Europe serve to hurt the majors more then it would apple, as the selling of hardware is still allowed so that apple's margins are protected while hurting the labels by taking away access to the most popular music site in these countries. Remember that apple makes very little from the actual selling of music.

I wonder when Apple will start to allow independent labels to release content without DRM?

That would be an affirmation that he is serious about this letter.

Bob's always going on about how the average Internet user is paying for the excessive user. Subscriptions the same thing.

Over 3 years ago I put up a website where it was possible to buy music by 'listening'. You pay as you listen, if you stop listening you stop paying. It's the ultimate User Pays system. I took it to all the music companies but none showed any interest.

The advantages are that the copyright owner as a promotion can also pay you to listen to their music. It also allows the listener to legally download as many music files as they want but again they only pay when they actually listen. Usually what they pay is small in comparison to outright purchase plus it gives the listener the incentive to try other unknown music because it is so cheap. Obviously the playing devices all have to be Internet connected.

I guess pretty soon just about everything will be connected to the Internet anyway, including car radio's.
http://www.cashramradio.com/

Google must break out of the browsing confined sandbox.
The present or near future is all about embedded browsing of connected devices, be it TV at home or your wireless entertainment device.

Currently, viewers just browse through TV channels, not searching for smut or the birth date of Britney Spears.
That's a real problem for Google since it reduces dramatically the quality of their analysis of the target audience. Even worse, they will not have an edge compared to market research done by the media companies.

Cables are the most vulnerable of all providers since they don't have any content of their own.
They will probably jump on any offer to extend their viability.
Google will offer cables new technology and a new source of income.

I'm really curious how Google will tackle wireless communications providers of all sorts.

My guess is that once data services will be commonplace, we'll start to see some competition to Google.
I see them as Google rivals since these providers have direct access to users and are able to offer unique experience with or without advertisement. In that case, who needs Google? Well, as I speculated previously, Google builds its infrastructure just for that - creating an offer no one would refuse.

First of all, Steve cares little about the issue of DRM on music. He would easily support either zero or infinite DRM controls, provided it increased the volume of iPods being sold and solidified the iPod market share.

The push from Europe for Apple to open up the iTunes DRM reflects the fact that 2-1/2 out of the 4 major recording studios are European. This is, pure and simple, a smack back at Steve Jobs, an attempt to loosen the lock that Apple has on digital music (and possibly soon digital video) distribution.

By licensing the FairPlay DRM technology to others, and making the iPod interoperable with other digital music distributors, Apple would give up its interlocking triumvirate of iTunes, iPods, and the iTMS.

Note that none of the parties are clamoring for Apple to remove DRM from the distributed content. Jobs is the only one who has pointed to that as an acceptable way to move forward, knowing that this is the last thing on Earth the record companies would agree to.

And in fact, removing DRM and freely selling music would in one fell stroke make the entire music industry a free marketplace, for the first time in decades. Jobs' manifesto is his response to the European lawsuits which aim to strip Apple of its interlocking monopoly machine by making iPods interoperable with other distribution systems (cutting iTunes and the iTMS out of the picture).

The thinly-veiled threat is that if the Europeans (who are merely fronting for their own domestic monopolies) persist in this attempt to kill the iPod+iTunes+iTMS money machine, then Apple will bring down the temple and start distributing Indie content -- and anyone else who wants the full force of the Apple marketing machine behind them -- sans DRM of any sort, and probably at a lower cost that the DRM-enshrouded content of the major labels. The producers who opt to sell their content via iTMS sans DRM would make more money and the consumers would pay less. Probably the 128kbps format would go by the wayside and become 160kbps or 192kbps (possibly with a slightly higher price - but still cheaper than the 128kbps+DRM from the major labels).

At this point we would have open warfare in the music industry, the first real competition in many decades. The iTMS would be selling DRM-free music at zero markup, losing money on every track but making it up in iPods.

We will see who shoots first, or whether the backers of the Euro lawsuits quietly fold their hands and withdraw.

> Currently, viewers just browse through TV channels, not searching for smut or the birth date of Britney Spears.

Some cable companies provide both TV channels and internet connection to their subscribers over the same wire. Thus, Google can track searches done from the client and adjust the ads.

Anyone who thinks DRM is dead isn't paying attention. Whilst Apple and the record companies are throwing blame at each other, all streamed content across the Internet is happily being wrapped in DRM that can only be decoded by Windows Media Player. Even the publicly-owned BBC will now be demanding a Windows purchase to use their free content online, so Mac and Linux users are locked out. This story is being repeated in every country and if Apple honestly think it's not going to hurt Mac sales, they are deluding themselves.

FairPlay should have been licensed to content providers two years ago. Instead Apple decided to limit it to an area where it would eventually be superseded.

Lets take the next step together. Cable television on the Internet with any/all programming available through a search of Google will be available. We select the show we want to watch, and it is streamed to our TV. Along the way to our house, it picks up the individualized commercials selected through our surfing/viewing habits these will fund the entertainment brought to our set. Individually we all get what we want, the advertisers, the entertainment producers, the cable company and of course Google

This should have been two articles, one for DRM and one for Google (although there is a relationship between the two).

To say that cable bandwidth hasn't increased is just wrong. The problem is that it has not been managed properly. The typical cable system of 10 years ago was able to pass about 70 analog channels (6MHz bands of information). Most of today's systems are able to pass about 125 analog channels, and many are able to pass 160. Remember too, that digital cable allows anywhere between 6-10 standard channels to fit in that same 6MHz space.

However, that's just one part of the picture. The other side is that 10 years ago, most cable systems (remember MOST systems are outside the city), were based on having a cable run from the headend, split multiple times and finally end up at your house. This is known as trunk and branch system design and it was the only way to do it until fiber optic cable. Now, just about every cable system uses optical cable to get to an area covering a few blocks (depending on how many homes are in an area). For the most part, the same signal was sent to every fiber "node" except for services like video on demand and high speed internet. We are starting to see systems that use on-demand like methods to send ALL video, even the traditional channels that were usually sent to every node. That way, if no one is watching a channel, it doesn't get sent down the pipe. Eventually, the analog feed will be eliminated, and compressed, on-demand digital will be the norm. This will get bandwidth freed up for even more advanced services. The downside is that it will requre all TVs in a house to have a set top box (or 2-way cable card when they are available).

Finally, if the system runs out of bandwidth again, most nodes have several unused "dark" fibers going to them, it is a simple matter to add another transmitter or reciever and instantly double the bandwidth (or divide the service area in half). If no spare fibers are available, a mulitplexer and suitable lasers can be used instead. Somewhat more difficult, but possible is to change out the amplifiers on the coaxial cable parts of the system to increase the upstream bandwidth available. For historical reasons, the upstream bandwidth has been less than the downstream bandwidth. The only technical reason for this was because channel 2 transmits at 55.25MHz. Once all the analog stuff is gone, the need to keep upstream bandwidth as it is now is eliminated. Then, we'll really have something!

Shane's comments *are* interesting, if only for their short-sightededness.



While I (unlike he) admit there are many people unlike myself, who don't think DRM is a big deal, if he were a bit more open-minded, he would also realize there are ALSO a lot of people like me, who think that it is.



I am not a "tight-wad"; I can easily afford (and do) pay for music when its NOT DRM'd. That said, I hadn't purchased any major-label CDs (only local, indie, self-published CDs) or any digital music since 1998 when the parasitic music industry bigwigs propped up that buffoon Lars Ulrich in front of Congress regarding the original Napster. (I have recently begun purchasing digital music again, since I discovered EMusic).



For those of us old enough to remember, we don't think something that's "right" when its inconvenient (making mix-tapes of radio recordings and sharing with friends) should be "wrong" when its not (emailing music files to friends, or sharing them on the original Napster). I still bought CDs (a lot!) when I could download them on Napster -- the day they started trying to shut the service down is the day I stopped.



And I know A LOT of people like me who did the same; check the numbers -- for the years Napster was flourishing, so did the music industry. The year they shut it down is the year the industry's sales went into a tailsping -- this is the great untold story of digital music; the number of people who are still actively boycotting the industry because of their actions of their trade organizations.



My money will not go to support the music industry's attempt to create a pay-per-listen-per-person world.



That said, Shane is right about one thing -- the value proposition. The idea that we should pay the same price for digital (which the industry uses the bandwidth WE'VE paid for to distribute) and physical copies is ludicrous -- the industry execs are laughing happily at the screwing they're giving artists and us over that deal.



And then the record-company-weasel-coup-de-grace: They're still taking surcharges out of the minimal royalties they do (occasionally) pay artists for their work for things like warehousing, distribution of CDs via trucks, and so forth ... for DIGITAL downloads!

Screw 'em all.
I'm buying vinyl at the thrift store, 2 for a buck.
Though I can't figure out how to video on vinyl.

This is an idea from a friend of mine who is in the music business (artist manager). There is a system for artists (and labels I assume) to get paid when a bar or other establishment provides music (not sure if this is only for live music cover bands or any type of music played?). If I understand correctly there is a "tax" paid by the establishment and a physical, random sampling conducted of music played in bars (I want that job!). Then each artist/label is paid by how many times (statistically) an artist/song is played across the US.

If any one can explain better, verify and/or correct, please feel free.

My friend's suggestion is to add a nominal "tax" to you ISP bill and a much more accurate survey of music files going into each persons account would determine how much each artist gets paid. No DRM. It would be like a subscription meets Napster type service. EVERYONE pays a $5/month "music tax" and the artist's get paid respective of how many times their music is "swapped".

Something to think about.

Todd

Like the iPhone name rights issue, which was designed to gain additional attention for Apple, this looks like more of the same. I don’t think for a moment that Jobs actually supports a world without DRM. He’d never be willing to give up all that iTunes revenue. It’s like printing free money when his company sells me a copy of a song that someone else actually recorded and produced. He's intermediated himself into that process and future products like the iPhone and Apple TV only serve to further wedge Apple further into the process. Besides, if content such as music or video isn’t to be protected from theft, why should his OS X, or even the designs of Apple systems themselves?

No, I think Jobs is far more clever. He’s gunning for attention. Just drawing attention to himself.

What the world needs is a good, fair DRM solution. But Apple doesn’t want to open/share theirs. And recording / studio old-line firms can’t stand the thought of actually changing their business models to accommodate. So knowing that nothing will actually change, Apple is safe saying what the public wants to hear, all while continuing to charge for each song they send to our iPods.

User Profile:

Family of 5, ages 9 to 50, 6 iPods, 4 Macs and an XP POS, that I need for work, that takes 10 times as much to administer(keep working)as all 4 Macs together.

iTunes files built almost entirely from our existing CD collection. With an Airport Express steaming to the stereo, just click the dinner music file and light the candles. Greased Groove. Anybody want 300 CD's and a 400 CD changer cheap?

AND THEN: iTunes store downloads purchased by 3 kids with holiday gift cards.

NOT AUTHORIZED messages, failure to synch, dialog boxes popping up all over.

Who needs all this crap; like I don't have enough to learn and do already.

Just buy and rip a used CD from the local independent.

Fingerprinting? I'm sorry but if I know my music recordings are tracking me I would just by the CD. I'm not a tinfoil hat type of person but this would be going one step too far. I don't want to be treated like a criminal. It is unfortunate that the RIAA has been successful in framing the copyright infringement debate as "stealing." Because of this, ideas like fingerprinting are actually taken seriously.

I submit that the iTunes music store has been successful not because moral music lovers have flocked to it in order to keep a clear conscience, but instead because it is easy for novice computer users to find a relatively high quality digital recording of most popular music. It is certainly much easier than even using Limewire or other p2p apps which might require a novice to take a crash course in firewalls.

Without DRM, the ease of use of iTunes Music Store is uneffected. Suddenly competing subscription services (which are by common sense more dependent on DRM) would seem draconian and Apple would be able to play "good cop" to Microsoft, or MTV so long as they stuck to DRM. If other services followed suit it would not threaten the iPod. The average person would still want to buy an iPod to put their music on, regardless of where they purchased it.

So it would be a win-win for Apple and I suspect that Jobs is motivated by his inconoclastic personality and counterculture roots. Remember, the two Steves were making illegal "blue boxes" with Captain Crunch before they made the Apple I (these devices allowed anyone to make free long distance calls, and sometimes harass world leaders). Perhaps the success of the iPod and iTunes Music Store now provides Jobs with a coveted position from which to influence culture and music. Simultaneously, Jobs can threaten greedy, present day corporations like he did to AT&T and IBM.

Jobs is for eliminating DRM on music tracks. But what does he, the ceo of Pixar, think about doing the same for movie videos?

One little thing you're missing from your column: Almost all other music stores allow the use of unlimited subscriptions. That is, for $15 per month, you can download and listen to all of the songs you want with no other charge. iTunes is one of the few music stores without this service.

Eliminate DRM, and Apple will continue to merrily sell music at 99 cents per track. Your Fairplay'd songs will still play on your iPod. Your new songs will play on the iPod. The only difference is that -- if you really, really want to -- you could play those songs elsewhere.

But what about those users who use the subscription service at Rhapsody or Zune Marketplace? Eliminating DRM will be a big headache because the subscription service paradigm will no longer be valid and is going to get their customers very upset. What could Zune Marketplace and Rhapsody do? Remove DRM, sell songs only by the track (like iTunes), and then what about all those users who downloaded hundreds of songs for $15 per month?

Allow those customer downloaded song to expire? What would a customer who downloaded a few hundred songs feel when all of their songs simply disappear? Maybe allow those customer to still pay $15 per month to keep their old songs, but not download any new songs? Customers who use the subscription service wanted the latest songs. Paying $15 per month to listen to yesterday's hits won't sit well with them. Maybe still have the subscription service without DRM? That'll be great for anyone who buys more than an albums worth a song per month. However, I don't think the recording industry will accept a mere $15 when someone downloads a couple of hundred tracks.

Jobs also sees this in Apple's call to eliminate DRM music. It not only eliminates the one advantage that other online music stores have over iTunes, but it turns it into a distinct disadvantage.

Jobs doesn't really care about selling songs through iTunes except where it could help drive iPod sales. If Europe insists that Apple share FairPlay among all of the other MP3 players and music stores, he'll simply close down iTunes in those countries. It probably won't make much of a dent in iPod sales.

On the other hand, sharing FairPlay with all the other MP3 manufacturers is a distinct Apple disadvantage. Let's say I manufacture MP3 players and Apple (under European orders) told me how to make my MP3 FairPlay compatible. What if I sold that secret to some hackers? The music industry could get an injunction against Apple selling iPods until they fix FairPlay. Meanwhile, without the iPod, my MP3 player would gain more sales.

For Apple, getting rid of DRM is the best move. It won't do anything to hurt iPod sales, it will wreck havoc with Microsoft's Zune Marketplace, and it will get rid of the European pressure to share FairPlay's secrets.

Well, I didn't read all the posts, but I did want to say fingerprinting is easy, and it won't make a difference if you buy the CD instead of downloading it. Individual CD's can be fingerprinted too.



A song has 44,100 16 bit samples per second. If I flip the lowest order bit of every 1000th sample, it is impossible for anyone to hear the difference.



So in a one second sample I can store a number from 0 to 17 trillion.



Or alternatively in the first minute of the song, 330 bytes of any data I want. This is plenty to spell out even in plain text the name and address of the store I am shipping too, and an individual serial number for the disk.



That is enough to help law enforcement or private detectives significantly narrow the search for pirates. If you are a pirate, make sure you deal in cash so you don't leave a credit card trail, and stay off the store security cameras while you are at it. Big brother is watching you, dude.

Hey, I want to be ethical and do the right thing and be fair! Does that mean not giving music you purchase to the world for free?

AHH HAHAH!

It means you can't just "take" from the emule network, you also have to upload music you purchase (if any--and that leaves ME out!)

It means hooking the "line out" of your player to the "line in" of your PC, and digitally rerecording analog versions of all your purchased songs, thus erasing the fingerprints,and making THOSE versions avail for upload!

The difference in audio quality is undetectable except by laboratory instruments, since the song is never transduced as sound. You loose FAR more fidelity by listening to it on teeny little headphones. -- Faye Kane's little contribution to civilization

To Faye Kane - I hope you realize that your comment about the line-in method is a full violation of the DMCA since it describes a process for bypassing DRM.

Please assume the position and wait for the authorities to arrive.

"Fair Use" apparently is what is fair for the companies that lobbied to get DMCA passed.

Cringe, you should read the whole DMCA ( something tells me you already have, knowing you ) and report some of the interesting things in it...

Fingerprinting for purposes of determining the origin of music or video is impossible. Just as the original software encodes the fingerprint into the song anyone can alter the fingerprint with their own encoder. At the very least just lower the quality slightly and all the bits change.

It may be possible with some sort of analog fingerprinting but that also could be defeated by comparing analog signals of two copies removing the differences.

This obstical actually is much easier than defeating DVD encryption.

The described client/server distribution system providing content and temporal personalization is already here: it's called "TiVo"

"Information wants to be free!"

Remember when only the monks, highly skilled and trained, reproduced important works? Mostly for the rich or privileged, unfortunately.

The printing press changed all that.

Most people couldn't read anyway, but many throughout history could hear though. It is our second longest form of communication.

Are we doomed to repeat?

I for one, certainly hope not,
Dave

"Dropping DRM would probably mean iPod users could subscribe to Real's Rhapsody music rental service, for example. Real would make the technical effort for that to happen because reaching those 90 million iPods might (but probably wouldn't) explode demand. Same goes for every other music service, including any directly sponsored by the major music labels. The lure of all those iPods is simply too strong."

And HOW do you propose runnin a SUBSCRIPTION service without DRM? 'Download as many tracks as you like and please be so kind as to delete them as you unsubscribe'?

Fingerprinting for purposes of determining the origin of music or video is impossible. Just as the original software encodes the fingerprint into the song anyone can alter the fingerprint with their own encoder. At the very least just lower the quality slightly and all the bits change.

It may be possible with some sort of analog fingerprinting but that also could be defeated by comparing analog signals of two copies removing the differences.

This obsticle is actually much easier than defeating DVD encryption.

Rob,

Yes, users do what they want and that is the way it should be. The practice of letting users to do anything with their music that they bought has created this industry to begin with. Did you buy the music or just the medium? That is the real question under law. Under the current rules, you bought neither the music nor the medium. Without changes to the industry, BitTorrent continues to rule the world as it should.

People like me and many others have spent a LOT of money on movies, music and software only to find out we can't keep it by the current rules. My CD's from 80's 90's, etc. are just sitting there unable to be copied to a better medium.

The market needs a removal of an *uncontrollable* externality called "pirate-control" focusing on creating better content.

I've proved that "pirate-control" cannot be solved in a previous post about figerprinting. DRM of course doesn't work economically.

Wade - there are fingerprinting systems resistant to the kind of modifications you describe - check out the system Photoshop uses, for example.

I think most of the video bandwidth and interactivity issues can be handled by local caching. Most of my video watching is easily described by an RSS feed and I only care about watching it when I click Play, not if it's today, tomorrow, or saturday. So, download it when the Internet is less busy and put it on my DVR list - I'll get to it eventually.

What about fingerprinting a creative commons license on media? Then the rights implied would be distributed with the media. Reputable players (i.e. iTunes, Rhapsody, Windows Media) and devices (i.e. iPod, Zune, SanDisk) would enforce those rights. Make tagging the media with intended rights easy and accessible by anyone. This provides for finer distinction in usage (personal, commercial, educational). It also provides a mechanism for syndication (next big thing INMHO). The Creative Commons license is very flexible and allows for both commercial and non-commercial distribution. Legit players honor the license and keep the honest people honest. Software that tampers with or removes the fingerprints are covered under current laws (it's illegal in the US).

As far as subscription models: I'd say the labels have more to gain by collecting data from their customers. "Subscribing" would get you cheaper music - at the expense of sharing the contents of your library and listening habits with the labels. No need for DRM here either.

This is just Apple covering itsself. By announcing the end of (their) DRM they clearly try to woo the governments currently procecuting (and trying to ban) the iPOD/iTunes combo.
Stripping the DRM will stop the lawsuits and is purely reactive.

DRM protection is a total nonsense simply because all one has to do is record the audio directly as it is being played from iTunes into any reasonable audio editing application, save the result as a *.wav and then re-encode to whatever compressed file type one prefers. The loss in quality is negligible.

DRM protection is a total nonsense simply because all one has to do is record the audio directly as it is being played from iTunes into any reasonable audio editing application, save the result as a *.wav and then re-encode to whatever compressed file type one prefers. The loss in quality is negligible.

It just struck me that "watermarking" and "fingerprinting" are just special cases of steganography. In this case, you're not trying to hide secret blueprints or anything quite so complex. What you're really trying to hide is essentially billing information - who "bought" this piece of music or video - identity, really. When you hear "watermark" or "fingerprint" you worry about fidelity and audible/visible side-effects. When you hear "steganography" you think "hidden" and assume that any possible side-effects will be minimal and inaudible/invisible.

(Note: This has probably been proposed by Bob or someone he referenced. Or it may already exist.) Is there any way to build a media business model with a financial incentive to not pirate media? How about price break points that lower when a certain number of downloads have been reached. How about in combo with that, a monthly subscription fee that fluctuates (even goes negative e.g. rebates) based on the number of paid downloads. With something like that (or better) in place, there is a financial incentive for me NOT to share my music with someone else. It is to my financial advantage to tell my friends to go buy their own copies. The media industry needs to learn that the market can be a hell of a lot more powerful than a bunch of attorneys armed with copyright infringment lawsuits.

A million years ago, Nicholas Negraponte, then at the MIT Media Lab wrote (in his column at the back of Wired Magazine) that people won't pay for bits. The music industry has pretty clearly demonstrated the truth of that.

He went on to say that people will pay for a relationship. Apple and iTunes have pretty much demonstrated that as well.

Despite the DRM I despise, I continue to buy from them purely because I they remember me at their store, because I like the playlists and other social networking functions, and because they continue to improve my technical experience. That is, I have a nice friendship with them and I am happy to pay for the service.

The record industry screwed themselves when they broke Napster. I continue to believe that the RIAA will be the case study for grad students of the future as they laugh themselves silly trying to understand the foolishness of an industry that would find a cohesive community of fifty million enthusiasts (as I believe the count was for the peak of Napster) and make a concerted effort to disperse them.

Their only hope is to, finally, start trying to do things that satisfy their customers. Forget about the bits. Start working on the relationship.

It's a fascinating time.

tqii

There should be a much bigger concern about DRM than just music and CDs. I'm sure you and others have heard about Peter Gutmann's paper on "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". See:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

According to his analysis, we, the consumers are going to get hit with the price tag for new equipment with built in capabilities to enforce content protection. Along with the bill for the equipment, you will get performance degradation, the disabling of any equipment that has not certified to Microsoft's specification, equipment that probably won't work due to the significant increase in complexity, all for the sake of the entertainment industry. Microsoft has attempted to 'explain' why they are doing this in: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
and Peter has provided corrections and an additional rebuttal:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#response

While legitimate customers will pay a high price (not just Windows Vista customers) the pirates will continue to do business as usual.

As a beginning salvo, a recent article claims that Wal-Mart has opened their digital entertainment store and will only allow content to be accessed using IE. Wonder how their Linux PC customers feel about that? See: http://www.centernetworks.com/walmart-in-bed-with-microsoft-no-to-firefox

I like the idea of the fingerprint or some form of passive personal identification, versus this attempt to control both the content and the equipment. I see no reason why I should have to pay for content more than once, and given the fast-paced change in formats, and equipment, I feel I should be able to upgrade equipment at my pace, rather than be forced into it by Microsoft, Apple, or the entertainment industry.

Jobs is right, DRM is bad, especially for the legitimate user. I won't try to second guess why he said that. Microsoft's intention is very clear.

Bob, thanks for an interesting read. Thre is, to me, one glaring contradiction, though:

"Dropping DRM would probably mean iPod users could subscribe to Real's Rhapsody music rental service, for example"

As far as I see it, Music Rental is enabled by DRM, and fully depends on it. How would a music rental service work without it? Threfore, I see no way how abolishing SRM would lead people to subscribe to Rhapsody - as that service still would rely on it.

-ch

The problem with trying to mark songs is not only that, yes there is a way around it, but its a very easy way. Re-Codecing has become much easier and a lot faster. So recoding the output of the marked song (even if the song is marked with something similar like md5 or another layer beneath the audio data) is very easy and takes little time.

I feel that the DRM system needs to be more open, yes there will always be piracy, like there will always be theft. But if we open up the data, the chaos at first will subside down into something we can all work with.

This is the reason Steve Jobs thinks we should get rid of DRM:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/13/bluray_and_hddvd_bro.html

DRM does not work.

Having a fingerprint embedded in a song does not work at all. All you need to do is to get two copies of the same song bought from the same source (iTunes Music Store) and run diff on them. The difference is the watermark, delete that or change it, and you have no way of tracing those 100.000's of stairway to heaven song.

I still don't know why the music industry doesn't simply work with Congress to put a surcharge on media. It worked with cassette tapes. It can work with CDs and iPods. It's only about money. the individual artists still own the copyrights, so they wouldn't be losing anything.

if i were to buy an ipod, the first thing i'd do with it is reflash its eeprom with the rockbox.org firmware ... so much for removing drm.

While the poster below may be correct about water marking, I have to wonder how many non programmers would even know what a "diff" is. I work at a job where people yell at me and criticize my work because they can't be bothered to learn how to turn their computers on. I'm not being facetious, it happened last week. I also happen to know for a fact that there are more of them than us. So it seems to me that it would work, if for no other reason than because the majority of people out there are too willingly ignorant to even know it's there.

Dear mr. Cringely,

How much does Microsoft pay you exactly? Would they pay me too if I started saying asinine things? You are very transparent - the living embodiment of an Aero interface.

Best regards.

Dropping DRM would probably mean iPod users could subscribe to Real's Rhapsody music rental service, for example. Real would make the technical effort for that to happen because reaching those 90 million iPods might (but probably wouldn't) explode demand. Same goes for every other music service, including any directly sponsored by the major music labels. The lure of all those iPods is simply too strong.

If Real's DRM was in use I don't think this could happen without their being a firmware update for the iPod, the technology doesn't exist within the Fairplay DRM to do rented music (at least not in the version we know about!). So Real couldn't make it happen nor could any other Music service.

DRM may well be dropped from music that is purchased but it sure won't be dropped from any of the music subscription services, their model depends on like we breath air!

Dear Simon,

Unless you have any specific arguments to accompany your flames we are all just going to dismiss you as a random raving lunatic.

Best Regards.

Dear Daniel,

I realize that while you have secretly pledged to be a Microsoft fan boy, the world doesn't need to know about it. There are 85 comments above you, and I find it hard to believe that you can't find a decent argument with merit that cringely is a ignorant pos, who doesn't brother to spell check or do 2 minutes of research before opening his mouth (case in point:"Appeerances Can Be Deceiving", obviously, if the guy brothered to watch the keynote, or do 2 minutes of research on wikipedia, he wouldn't need to randomly rave about something so pointless). while I am glad that you've found someone who also posts random ravings like there is no tomorrow, I think the community will benefit if you just STFU and RTFA and comments.

Best Regards.

Dear "Bill jobs" [sic.],

Obviously, "Appeerances" is a pun. Duh.

I do not believe for an instant that Steve Jobs wants to drop DRM in the ipod/iTunes equation. Without DRM he may never have gotten to the dominance that he has. Despite the fact that possibly only 10% of anyone's iPod library was purchase at iTune and the rest was either ripped from CD or pirated from someone else, the fact that the 10% that you paid for cannot be used elsewhere keesp you as an iPod user and upgrading regulalry. Were that to be dropped, even better iPods would come into the market fromall points of the globe because they could compete against Apple. Today that doesn't happen mainly becaue noone is intereste as long a the music is locked to the iPod. Jobs' argument is flawed and he knows it. WHat I see is JObs mainly trying to blame someone else (the record labels) for his cleverly crafted monopoly. He has real trouble in France specifically and the EU in general and hence he neede to make such a bold appearl knowing it would never happen. But it gives him cover in his Euro legal battles. he can now say "I tried, its not my fault that we're not an open platform". Clever, yet again. DRM is here to stay for a long time. The fact that it often suck is not that DRM sucks its that most implementations suck, and the silly rules that are imposed by the copyright holders suck. WIth good implementations (these do exist) and with reasonable rules, no one would be bitching.

I call Steve on his BS since this is nothing more than posturing.
I agree with you that DRM has been dying and Jobs wants to position himself as the choices guy even though his company is about everything except choices.
The word for that is a poseur.

If Jobs was serious about DRM, he could have proven it by doing something symbolic like releasing the hostages he has: the independant bands and labels who DONT want DRM.
There are non-DRM online music stores but if you want to be on iTunes, its his way or the highway because Steve knows what people want better than others.

Freeing everyone who wants to seel DRM free music would have been a drop in a bucket for iTunes but he could have somewhat undercut the critics who said this was all for show.

Release the hostages Steve and maybe we will be less inclined to think that you speak with forked tongue.

garment wholesale
月子中心
office relocation
china relocation
寵物殯儀
meet new friends
孕婦攝影
table for six

It is definitely not impossible to obtain adequate relief from the grip
of depression, erectile dysfunction, anxiety and other related
disorders if requisite guidance is available for the men and women afflicted
with these ailments. A range of href="http://www.pill-care.com/testimonials.html">testimonials depicting
how the diseased have countered these ailments with suitable medicinal
products as well
as other related tidbits are available at http://www.pill-care.com. As
you access this website, you would come in touch with the href="http://www.pill-care.com/about_pillcare.html">about us section that
contains informative material on what the site is meant for and how it
can help you out from the clutch of diseases and disorders.

Sometimes it happens that for the same ailment different treatments are offered by different doctors. This confuses the patients to a great deal. Which treatment to go for, which doctor to follow etc, etc. Under these circumstances people can refer to the patient info sites where they can get all the information regarding the disease, its treatments, prices etc.

One of the best ways to the cure of ED is to see the disease in its
correct light. It should merely be seen as a disease, and disease it is,
that has affected the male sex organ. Correct and proper href="http://www.besthealthmed.com/ed_assessment.html">ED assessment is
necessary to do away the disease from one�s life. People attach a lot of
other factors like shame, embarrassment, fear, low self esteem etc and
these make the treatment of erectile dysfunction all the more complex
and difficult.

One of the best ways to the cure of ED is to see the disease in its
correct light. It should merely be seen as a disease, and disease it is,
that has affected the male sex organ. Correct and proper href="http://www.besthealthmed.com/ed_assessment.html">ED assessment is
necessary to do away the disease from one’s life. People attach a lot of
other factors like shame, embarrassment, fear, low self esteem etc and
these make the treatment of erectile dysfunction all the more complex
and difficult.

The anti-impotency treatment you are going to adopt just after being identified with erectile dysfunction is not likely to yield any fruitful result if you do not abide by the precautionary instructions recommended by the physician. For instance, after procuring viagra online if you administer cheap viagra without providing the necessary details to the doctor with regard to your medical history then there are chances that viagra intake might prove disastrous for you. Most particularly, if you are taking nitrate based medicine such as nitroglycerin patches to treat a specific medical condition you should inform the doctor immediately so that he doesn�t suggest you to buy viagra. The usage of Viagra by any person using nitrate-based medicines can trigger off health disaster and so to avoid the imminent harm explain your medical history to the doctor and avoid to buy viagra online if the drug is not meant for you.

This is an age when people are growing more and more health conscious and are becoming more aware about their bodies. The health info sites on the internet are the best guides to these kinds of people.

Interesting article!
Thanks

It’s very good article. Great site with very good look and perfect information.

Interesting article!
Thanks

lineage ii adena
granado espada gold
granado espada money
ge vis
ragnarok usa
ragnarok gold
ragnarok money
lineage i gold
lineage i money
lineage i adena
hero online gold
hero online money
scions of fate gold
scions of fate money
rf online gold
rf online money
rf online cp

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow items
feelingame.com
wow tips
Most Valuable WOW Power Leveling Service
wow power leveling faq
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl

It’s very good article. Great site with very good look and perfect information.

IT外包
物流软件
胶带机
胶带机械
胶带机器
封箱胶带机
塑料胶带
胶带设备
胶带生产设备
短信猫
代发短信
短信群发器
电流传感器
电压传感器
电流变送器
霍尔传感器
功率变送器
电流变送器
电压变送器
隔离端子
伟哥
阴茎增大
注册美国公司
美国公司注册
注册英国公司
英国公司注册
注册香港公司
香港公司注册
注册BVI公司
BVI公司注册
注册美国公司
美国公司注册
注册英国公司
英国公司注册
注册香港公司
香港公司注册
注册BVI公司
BVI公司注册
装修污染
装修污染治理
室内装修污染治理
室内空气污染治理
室内空气治理
室内环境治理
室内空气净化
空气治理
空气污染治理
mba
mba
空气检测
环境检测
wire mesh
除湿机
抽湿机
工业除湿机
空气净化器
空气净化机
五金配件
藏獒
藏獒
利郎
领带
衬衫
丝巾
物流软件
针孔摄像机
窃听器
Beijing Tour
无线网桥
无线监控
渔具
废品回收
产品设计
工业设计
投影机灯泡
投影机维修
加盟连锁
性用品批发
成人用品批发
成人用品
成人保健
性用品
夫妻用品
情趣内衣
藏獒
物流认证
物流认证
物流认证
景观水
景观水
景观水
癫痫病
精神病
移民
移民
技术移民
移民加拿大
加拿大技术移民
投资移民
投资移民
加拿大投资移民
美国投资移民
匈牙利留学
澳大利亚技术移民
移民签证
探亲签证
加拿大移民
加拿大移民
美国移民
成移民美国
澳大利亚移民
澳大利亚移民
移民澳大利亚
移民澳大利亚
出国留学
出国留学
留学中介
加拿大留学
留学加拿大
美国留学
留学美国
英国留学
留学英国
日本留学
留学日本
马来西亚留学
留学马来西亚
澳大利亚留学
留学澳大利亚
留学新加坡
新加坡留学
新西兰留学
留学新西兰
留学签证
商务签证
商务签证
美国签证
美国移民签证
澳大利亚移民签证
澳大利亚签证
留学
出国
签证
服装印花
服装印花
货架
java培训
精油
芳香疗法
Google左侧排名
Google优化
Google排名
Google优化
Google排名
网站建设
平面设计
电子杂志
Google左侧优化
Google排名优化
Google左侧排名
程序开发
电子杂志制作
电子杂志
论文发表
日语培训
日语学校
升降机
模特衣架
模特衣架
高血压
Google优化
Google排名
股票行情
股市行情
wow gold
wow powerleveling
电子签名
数字签名
电子签章
电子印章
移民
加拿大移民
投资移民加拿大
投资移民
移民加拿大
商业移民
出国移民
技术移民
留学
加拿大留学
澳洲留学
荷兰留学
新加坡留学
韩国留学
美国留学
英国留学
新西兰留学
瑞典留学
马来西亚留学
日本留学
红外线测温仪
红外测温仪
无纸记录仪
红外线测温仪
红外测温仪
无纸记录仪
吸塑机
纸管机
浪涌保护器
上海翻译公司
上海翻译
CDMA无线路由器
CDMA路由器
北京礼品公司
痛风
液压机
生物安全柜
油压机
压力传感器
散热器
光纤收发器
触摸屏
触摸屏
everquest 2 power leveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
everquest 2 power leveling
太阳能路灯
英语培训
英语口语
灭菌器
神经性皮炎
皮炎
湿疹
湿疹
荨麻疹
慢性荨麻疹
藏獒
热电偶
补偿导线
铂铑热电偶
风幕机
合金管
乐泰
乐泰胶
loctite
液压缸
油缸
液压缸
油缸
融资
贷款
抵押贷款
商铺抵押贷款
别墅抵押贷款
写字楼抵押贷款
房屋贷款
房屋抵押贷款
住房贷款
住房抵押贷款
短期借款
临时贷款
快速放款
房产贷款
房产抵押贷款
土地贷款
土地抵押贷款
外籍人贷款
流动资金贷款
五金工具
无缝管
合金钢管
网络交换机
深圳室内环境检测
移民
投资移民
加拿大移民
破碎机
反应锅
不锈钢反应锅
列管式冷凝器
螺旋板式换热器
清洗
清洗公司
管道清洗
空调清洗
中央空调清洗
锅炉清洗
化学清洗
中央空调风管清洗
北京旅游
北京旅行社
海南旅游
云南旅游
北戴河旅游
条码机
条码打印机
条形码打印机

buy lotro gold
cheap lotro gold
buy cheap lotro gold
buy cheap wow gold
no waiting wow gold
instant wow gold

双城世达国际咨询集团,为客户提供全方位的移民、加拿大移民、澳大利亚移民、投资移民、商业移民、发展综合咨询和法律服务。

tsau

العاب تلبيس بنات

即会いメルトモ掲示板

thank u very match

صور خلفيات جميلة  
صور وخلفيات وايضا
العاب بنات    
صور كابرس اس اس  
العاب بنات للجوال .

���d�–��@���k

ألعاب تلبيس
العاب تلبيس
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب تلبيس فقط