iTunes user sues Apple over FairPlay DRM

aidan_walsh

Yahoo! News link.

Thomas William Slattery has filed a class action suit against Apple Computer Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging Apple is guilt of violating federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law by requiring users who buy music from the iTunes Music Store to use an iPod if they plan to take their music on the road with them. Slattery's suit cuts to the heart of an ongoing issue related to Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology present in commercial downloaded music.

The flip side of the coin. Is DRM treating users like inmates, or is it necessary to keep online customers in line?

JohnK

I think DRM IS treating users like inmates. Because of this stuff you are no-longer free to listen to your music when and where you please. I like the idea of suing Apple but he doesn't have a chance. The terms of sale were well publicised and if he didn't like them he shouldn't have bought the music. Thats how any judge or jury will see it.

Peteee

Aye i agree. If he dosent like the terms of service he shouldn't have bought it

Slashdot are likening it to people buying gas, and it not working on their honda, but working on the Toyota!

To an extent I agree, I think you should b able to play bought files anyware (be it an apple, creative or sony player)

Can you imagine the uproar if a CD sold by Sony recordings (owner of BMG) would only let you play thier CD'S in sony CD players!!!!!!!

It's rediculous, but it seems to be the norm!

To an extent I agree, but to another one i Dont.... feel free to ignore me, i'm kinda drunk!

MrPinK

"FairPlay enables individually downloaded songs to be played back on up to five Macs or PCs, burnt to an unlimited number of CDs and downloaded to an unlimited number of iPods connected to authorized computers". There are some major problems here. In 10 years time, I'll most likely have gone through 5 PC's. Now I can't play the music I've legally purchased. What if Apple were go bust in a year's time? When the next version of windows comes out I probably won't be able to get a version of iTunes that works on it. Again I can't play the music I've legally purchased. DRM is a bad solution to piracy problems. Until they come up with something better I won't be using any DRMed media at all.

JohnK wrote:

The terms of sale were well publicised and if he didn't like them he shouldn't have bought the music. Thats how any judge or jury will see it.

That's not the issue being brought before the judge and jury. They will be looking at whether the terms of sale are "suppressing competition" and "denying consumer choice".

RobertFoster

I believe you can work around the DRM by burning the music to disc and re-importing it...?

Bri

MrPinK wrote:

That's not the issue being brought before the judge and jury. They will be looking at whether the terms of sale are "suppressing competition" and "denying consumer choice".

Competition law/economics is a complicated one, but first impression would be that it's hardly stifling competition. Apple may be successful but I don't see them having such market-share that its to the detriment of consumers. You may see plenty of white-earphoned commuters but I don't think the world is dominated by iTunes, unlike say, MS Windows in the OS market.

Apple have already won another case related to this I think?

Then again I'm not a lawyer.

Syth

I think Digitally Restricted Mechanisms (DRM) and ultimatly self defeating. All you need is one person to crack it and put it on the web. I think the people who make it aren't trying to stop mass piracy, but are trying to stop the average person copying it for a friend. That is wrong.

Having said that I don't think the MAFFIAA would have let Apple sell non-cripped music. So I don't really think going after Apple will win. If they had to start selling music that gave us customers more power, then the music industry would stop selling Apple their music and iTunes would probably be shut down. The problem is the music industry.

Bri

Good points Syth.

Can anyone confirm Ricardo's solution of re-ripping from a burnt CD?
I presume you could tediously record the song with cooledit, etc. whilst playing in iTunes?

robinph

I not done the re-ripping with any iTunes tracks, but I have with a couple of cd's I got in restricted WMA format from Virgin online. Windows media would only let you burn the tracks to 5 cd's I think, and was very limited in what portable players you could copy to, and would not let you get the tracks back off the player too.
Once youve burnt it to a cd though you can then re-rip it back to mp3 no problem.

Tom Dunne

Bri wrote:

Can anyone confirm Ricardo's solution of re-ripping from a burnt CD?

I can.

I've done it with Real.com's crappy service and Wal-Mart's quite excellent service. It is quite as simple as burning the CD, and then re-encoding it using Media Player or whatever.

Ok, you may lose some quality, but it really is not noticable. I firmly believe it is to stop the average Joe Soap swapping the files, but the sophisticated users, such as we have on Boards.ie, will be well able to re-rip the songs.

dangerman

Syth wrote:

I think Digitally Restricted Mechanisms (DRM) and ultimatly self defeating. All you need is one person to crack it and put it on the web. I think the people who make it aren't trying to stop mass piracy, but are trying to stop the average person copying it for a friend. That is wrong.

Having said that I don't think the MAFFIAA would have let Apple sell non-cripped music. So I don't really think going after Apple will win. If they had to start selling music that gave us customers more power, then the music industry would stop selling Apple their music and iTunes would probably be shut down. The problem is the music industry.

DRM = Digital Rights Management isn't it?, never heard Digitally Restricted Mechanisms, though it is fitting.

Solution: Don't buy an iPod. One of the main things that can stop ridiculous DRM is consumer choice. If consumers only bought DRM-free equipment then competition will win out - hence the reasons the INDUCE act etc. is being pushed to make it illegal to sell tech. that doesn't have DRM. It's disgusting that technical innovation should take rights away from a user, and that the RIAA and MPAA should control technical innovation. How frightening is that?

But I better stop myself, because I'm not sure if there are MP3 players being sold without drm anymore. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Cory Doctorow (EFF, Boing boing) wrote a fantastic warning he believes should be put on all DRM-enabled goods.

WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE, ACCORDING TO TERMS SET OUT IN SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. YOUR INVESTMENT IS CONTINGENT ON THE GOODWILL OF THE WORLD’S MOST PARANOID, TECHNOPHOBIC ENTERTAINMENT EXECS. THIS DEVICE AND DEVICES LIKE IT ARE TYPICALLY USED TO CHARGE YOU FOR THINGS YOU USED TO GET FOR FREE – BE SURE TO FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF BUYING ALL YOUR MEDIA OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AT NO TIME IN HISTORY HAS ANY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY GOTTEN A SWEET DEAL LIKE THIS FROM THE ELECTRONICS PEOPLE, BUT THIS TIME THEY’RE GETTING A TOTAL WALK. HERE, PUT THIS IN YOUR MOUTH, IT’LL MUFFLE YOUR WHIMPERS.

- One of the most frightening thing is tech with DRM can change at any time, one day you're aloud make 2 copies of your itunes songs [or whatever it is] but tomorrow the RIAA or apple might decide this is too nice and revoke that technology...and there's sweet **** all you can do about it.

Syth

dangerman wrote:

DRM = Digital Rights Management isn't it?, never heard Digitally Restricted Mechanisms, though it is fitting.

Use words as a weapon.

And as far as I've heard you are able to burn to a CD and then rip it. That's what give it away. If you were a real pirate, then it's a piece of cake to do that and have a non-cripped piece of music you can put on your website or burn 1000 copies of in your eastern european fake CD plant. DRM isn't put there to stop piracy, it's there to make it hard for Joe Soap to copy it.

Bri

Sorry to ask but do you mean they can change DRM on future downloads or somehow DRM can remotely check what's today's restrictions are?! I can't see the later being feasible for loads of reasons but I'm not that up on the whole thing.

Has anyone used the Irish store? Is it very mainstream/current only? And what bit rate are the mp3s at?

skywalker

dangerman wrote:

DRM = Digital Rights Management isn't it?, never heard Digitally Restricted Mechanisms, though it is fitting.

em thats kinda the point.

dangerman wrote:

Solution: Don't buy an iPod. One of the main things that can stop ridiculous DRM is consumer choice. If consumers only bought DRM-free equipment then competition will win out

exactly. people need to start putting their money where their mouth is. and simply not touching ANY form of drm tech. personally i never have and never will. btw the ipod isnt the problem as such. thats just the hardware, its the files that are DRM

dangerman wrote:

- One of the most frightening thing is tech with DRM can change at any time, one day you're aloud make 2 copies of your itunes songs [or whatever it is] but tomorrow the RIAA or apple might decide this is too nice and revoke that technology...and there's sweet **** all you can do about it.

the fact that they can change the use rights after sale is just as big a problem for me as having use rights in the first place. mind you get rid of one and the other is a non issue.

skywalker

Bri wrote:

Has anyone used the Irish store? Is it very mainstream/current only? And what bit rate are the mp3s at?

im presuming you mean the irish itunes? there isnt one. due to some royalties row with IRMA or someone similar.

dangerman

skywalker wrote:

im presuming you mean the irish itunes? there isnt one. due to some royalties row with IRMA or someone similar.

it launched today according to the irish times. and if you look at the itunes.co.uk there's a little 'now available in ireland' graphic.

aidan_walsh

skywalker wrote:

im presuming you mean the irish itunes? there isnt one. due to some royalties row with IRMA or someone similar.

Its open here now, so I assume all thats been resolved.

Syth

Bri wrote:

Sorry to ask but do you mean they can change DRM on future downloads or somehow DRM can remotely check what's today's restrictions are?! I can't see the later being feasible for loads of reasons but I'm not that up on the whole thing.

Has anyone used the Irish store? Is it very mainstream/current only? And what bit rate are the mp3s at?

They don't sell MP3s, they sell some cripped foprmat called AAC. iPods are the only portable music players that can play songs in AAC format. That's the point of the original lawsuit, that Apple is trying to use it's power in the download music business to gain ground in the portable music player business.

aidan_walsh

Syth wrote:

They don't sell MP3s, they sell some cripped foprmat called AAC. iPods are the only portable music players that can play songs in AAC format. That's the point of the original lawsuit, that Apple is trying to use it's power in the download music business to gain ground in the portable music player business.

Thats true, but as far as I recall, with enough effort FairPlay can be reverse engineered. After all, Real Networks did it and rebranded it Harmony. Needless to say, though, Apple were less than impressed.

dangerman

Bri wrote:

Sorry to ask but do you mean they can change DRM on future downloads or somehow DRM can remotely check what's today's restrictions are?! I can't see the later being feasible for loads of reasons but I'm not that up on the whole thing.

This BoingBoing post illustrates the problem with DRM.
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/24/why_marketforces_can.html

Guy enjoys downloading Sopranos to his windows media centre, then burning them to DVD so he can watch em elsewhere/later/take up less space on the harddrive. Then halfway through the last season of the sopranos, the networks enabled a copy-once flag meaning he could only copy the show once - and that meant from the broadcast to the hard drive of the media centre - so he could no longer burn it to dvd. - Now you might say thats ok, they're protecting against illegal copying etc. but your missing the point - the point is when he bought it it had a certain capability, and then an external force arbitrarily decided to change the functionality of his machine! Without his permission! And there's nothing he can do about it. Disgusting.

Bri

Syth wrote:

They don't sell MP3s, they sell some cripped foprmat called AAC. iPods are the only portable music players that can play songs in AAC format. That's the point of the original lawsuit, that Apple is trying to use it's power in the download music business to gain ground in the portable music player business.

D'oh! I have a stupid iPod and everything, just ignore their format. Sorry about that. Anyway, what's the AAC kbps on the store? I would jsut go look myself but having reluctantly reinstalled iTunes it isn't happy with firewalls so...

If it's remotely changing something that's actually sitting on your HD surely you can just block it from contacting the outside world again? (over-simplified I'm sure)

secret_squirrel

Just to clarify - AAC is not 'a crippled format from apple'. AAC is part of the the mpeg2 specifications and can be licensed to anyone willing to pay for it. Its far superior in sound quality to mp3 at the same bit rate. (As of course is WMA, OGG and most other digital music formats)

Apple 'cripple' AAC files by adding their Fairplay DRM software to tracks downloaded from iTunes.

skywalker

dangerman wrote:

the point is when he bought it it had a certain capability, and then an external force arbitrarily decided to change the functionality of his machine! Without his permission! And there's nothing he can do about it. Disgusting.

pretty much, id say you'd enjoy a read of this site (if you havent already read it) on the whole trusted computing in general http://www.againsttcpa.com/index.shtml

and stallmans take on it
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

Funkygreendogs

Hey dont most mobile fones use the .AAC format too? and isnt there converters to change them to mp3 format? or maybe im just confused.....

Bri

I fear that in the same way as DRM isn't foolproof, but the majority of consumers arn't aware of its limitations - well that'll be the same mindset behind iTunes growing popularity despite the crap deal behind it. Sure I'm nearly tempted to give it a look even though I'm aware of the limitations, annoyances and fact I shouldn't support them.

It gets a lot of coverage in the media, and along with Apple's successful marketing...I don't see a minority boycotting them affecting their sales too much - unless a competitor comes along without DRM (unlikely given they need suppliers!) or the media suddenly turn on them.

Even then...

People didn't stop buying Lauryn Hill's album even though it wouldn't work in a PC, as with many others.

aidan_walsh

Bri wrote:

I fear that in the same way as DRM isn't foolproof, but the majority of consumers arn't aware of its limitations - well that'll be the same mindset behind iTunes growing popularity despite the crap deal behind it. Sure I'm nearly tempted to give it a look even though I'm aware of the limitations, annoyances and fact I shouldn't support them.

It gets a lot of coverage in the media, and along with Apple's successful marketing...I don't see a minority boycotting them affecting their sales too much - unless a competitor comes along without DRM (unlikely given they need suppliers!) or the media suddenly turn on them.

Even then...

People didn't stop buying Lauryn Hill's album even though it wouldn't work in a PC, as with many others.

But the difference between an mp3, aac and CD is that while you might not be able to play your CD in your PC, you can still go to your CD player, but if you don't have a correctly DRM enabled player for your music file, you're kinda buggered beyond belief...

Bri

Yeah I see what you mean. All I'm saying is it doesn't seem to have bothered alot of the general public so far, they're either not aware of it or don't care.

JohnK

I'd say most people are not aware of it. Any time I've mentioned it to people I just get blank stares.

I think the sh*ts really going to hit the fan in a few years time when people start getting new PCs and media players. Then they are going to wonder why they have to buy all their music again. Should be fun to see their reaction to that

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Syth

JohnK wrote:

I'd say most people are not aware of it. Any time I've mentioned it to people I just get blank stares.

I think the sh*ts really going to hit the fan in a few years time when people start getting new PCs and media players. Then they are going to wonder why they have to buy all their music again. Should be fun to see their reaction to that

Yep. there's people out there who barely know what a MP3 is.

The problem is the music industry will lose the moral battle. If someone buys some music they expect to be able to play it, to burn it, etc. If they are told they have to buy all their music again, they won't. They'll just download it. They will think that since they have already bought it, they have the right to download it.