What do iTunes and open source have in common?

Normally, you’d have to wait till the end of the story to get the answer. I can’t stretch it that far. They have NOTHING in common. In fact, they’re more than that – they’re like Microsoft and Linux.

We all love our iPods. Who wouldn't pay 0.99 for Coldplay's new single? It’s all good until you try playing your now $500 collection on anything BUT your iPod. One problem is Apple’s DRM license (called FairPlay) is very flexible and can be changed on fly by whoever is in charge. If they decide tomorrow that you need to pay a monthly fee for your collection, guess what, they could do that. They’ve already decreased the number of times you can burn your play lists from 10 to 7.

In addition, Apple is not happy licensing its FairPlay to just anybody. Motorola is the only company who sells a device (new iTunes phone) that plays FairPlay music.

Music is just the first step. The new video iPod is too small to play movies but it plays all sorts of low-rez videos fine. Soon our collections will grow with tens of TV shows and music videos and we’ll be even more reliant on Apple for future access to OUR collections.

As a result, the tech community has growing concerns about creating another monoculture (a discreet way to refer to a monopoly). A recent “editorial” blog at ZDnet, issued a Declaration of InDRMpendence – effectively a big NO to DRM-protected content. To sign the declaration, all you need to do is post a comment on the blog. As far as I’m concerned, MP3 is all the encoding I need.

AUTHOR: Krasimir Koichev, iConcertina Creative

Comments

[Guy Howard]

"We all love our iPods. Who wouldn't pay 0.99 for Coldplay's new single?"

Hmmm.

Perhaps the limited copy protection implemented by Apple is doing just enough to prevent the Recording Industry from really meddling in the sphere of multimedia downloads?

Would they tolerate mass market open source? They have already complained about iTunes pricing policies.

[Krasimir Koichev]

Thanks for bringing this up. Indeed the power has shifted from Hollywood's content players to the technology players: Apple's "FairPlay" and Microsoft's WMA (Windows Media DRM).

A recent articles in Business Week focuses on the stand-off between Steve Jobs and
Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of Warner Music.

"There's no content in the world that doesn't have some price flexibility," Bronfman pointed out. "Not all songs are created equal. Not all albums are created equal."

Steve Jobs simply disagreed and the prices will stay at their current levels. It's clear that Warner Music has lost [part of] its control over distribution channels as they can no longer put pricing on their content. Here's the article in full:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2005/tc20050929_4235_tc056.htm

More power to Apple and Microsoft is OK for the short-term. It'll be only a matter of time though before we as consumers start to pay twice as much for an Apple-licensed CD player or a Microsoft-licensed car stereo just so we can play OUR songs that we've already bought.

[Павел Кънев]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

[Krasimir Koichev]

I wonder if Paul's some kind of Catholic evangelist :)

I guess his point was that all was created by God, ergo, the FairPlay and WMA formats are God's way to say: "Pay them!"

I'm all about natural selection so let the best format win.

[Павел Кънев]

I'm sure you wish I was a Catholic nun but truth is stranger than fiction. I'm an open source developer.

What I meant is that MP3 is not open source either. It's just not a DRM-protected format.

If you'd like to get music without DRM, while supporting independent artists (as opposed to media companies), you should go to:
Magnatune.com

Enjoy!

[Павел Кънев]

In addition to my previous post:

Follow these two white rabbits, Krasimir.

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/drm_crippled_cd.html

It makes dull reading. It answers the question why DRM and proprietary software is evil.

Cheers

[Krasimir Koichev]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the links.

I think the majority of consumers are accustomed to paying for something once and any "hidden" charges (or changes) are always upsetting.

For the most part DRM is providing content/media company with exactly that - a way to either charge you more or change the rules.

An example, if you stop your subscription to a magazine, do you have to burn all past issues? Or maybe, lock them in a safe and do not open it till you renew your subscription.

In the DRM world, it's perfectly OK and in fact the norm for you to LOSE access to all the content you've accrued if you terminate the membership.

THIS is something that needs to be addressed, if DRM technologies are to be accepted by consumers as anything but a nuisance.