Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

OS X Conference DRM Panel Video Available Online 155

Posted by chrisd from the dorm-panel dept.
gnat writes "Tucked away on the O'Reilly Mac OS X Conference presentations page are links to Quicktime video and mp3 audio recordings of the Digital Rights Management panel featuring Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News, Cory Doctorow of the EFF, and others. (My apologies for the sometimes shaky video--three Cokes for breakfast is the anti-steadicam)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OS X Conference DRM Panel Video Available Online More

OS X Conference DRM Panel Video Available Online

Comments Filter:

  • MP3s (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ledora ( 611009 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:27AM (#4422150)
    MP3s are free to download about DRM something is amiss :P hehe

  • Poor slashdotted videos (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:33AM (#4422172)
    I guess I'll browse yesterday's edition [slashdot.org] instead, and see if anything there is now accessible. Maybe those "sodium in private lake" movies aren't slashdotted anymore.

  • Considering it's a OS X conference... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:43AM (#4422201) Homepage
    Are we surprised it's in Quicktime?

    I'm actually wondering if it's an mpeg4 video, or a sorenson3 video, myself :D

    I suppose my thought on the Mac as a true 'digital rights management' platform is that so long as the Mac targets creative endeavors such as video, music, print, and graphics... digital restrictions management have to take low priority. Being able to encode, manipulate, share, distribute, decode, edit, etc, is very crucial to the whole concept of... content creation.

    Still, it would be nice if Apple could make a public comment to that effect. In case you're wondering, now, I haven't been able to download the video yet! In the process, as we speak.

    • Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MalleusEBHC ( 597600 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:12AM (#4422292)
      When Apple received an award at the Grammy's, Steve Jobs said, ""If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own." (More info here [macworld.com]) So as far as we are concerned, Apple has publicly stated that people have the right to manipulate data, be it music, movies, or whatnot, that they own the rights to.

      • Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alfredo ( 18243 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:25AM (#4422325)
        Jobs said on CNN that DRM is futile.

        Remember The first product Steve and Woz sold was the blue box.
      • Steve Jobs said, ""If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."

        And at the same time, Apple implements a form of DRM by crippling the iPod - you can copy songs onto it, but you can't copy them off. I'm an Apple fan, but this kind of BS undermines my faith in them.

        • Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MalleusEBHC ( 597600 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @03:55AM (#4422503)
          And at the same time, Apple implements a form of DRM by crippling the iPod - you can copy songs onto it, but you can't copy them off. I'm an Apple fan, but this kind of BS undermines my faith in them.

          What is the purpose of an mp3 player? To transfer mp3s to it so that they can be played back later. The purpose of an mp3 (at least for legal uses) is not to take mp3s from one machine and move them to another machine. You mistake Apple's decision to not make piracy easy for a decision to implement unfair DRM against owners manipulating the music they legally own.

          Besides, if you want, there are many ways you can transfer songs from your iPod to another computer. There are hacks that allow you to do this. I know they have some for OS X; I'm not sure about the Windows version though.

          • The purpose of an mp3 (at least for legal uses) is not to take mp3s from one machine and move them to another machine.

            Oh, so even though my fair use rights allow me to make backup copies, I'm not allowed to put those backup copies on another computer that I own? That's news to me.

            I regularly use my iPod to transfer my MP3 collection between my home and work computers. (We're allowed to store them on our dev machines, so long as the directories aren't shared out.) It's a substantial non-infringing use, because I am a forgetful geek on occasion and leave my iPod sitting at home.

            • There is nothing wrong with making backup copies and putting them on other machines, but your mp3 player (the iPod) is not the tool to do it with. That's like asking that your discman can burn CD-Rs; it's not what it was intended to do. Lucky for you, there are hacks that allow you to take the songs off you iPod and transfer them to your hard drive, but you shouldn't get mad at Apple because they don't support this. They sold you an mp3 player, and lo and behold it plays your mp3's for you. Anything else is a bonus.

        • Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... (Score:5, Informative)

          by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Thursday October 10, 2002 @04:07AM (#4422515) Homepage
          Alright, I'm being careful with my use of words.

          I own an iPod.

          As such, it's designed to make listening to MP3s easy. That means it's trivial to update, synch, and upload music to the device.

          I did not use the word 'copy'.

          It's also trivial to copy music with an iPod. It is an external firewire drive, and you only need to enable that option within iTunes.

          If you're bitching because iTunes itself does not allow you to synch from an iPod->iTunes, then you're complaining that Apple didn't design music offload capabilities into an MP3 player, which isn't strictly a requirement of an MP3 player. Clearly it's useful for an MP3 player to be able to synch; iTunes->iPod is trivial, just plug and forget.

          Synching from iPod->iTunes is not a function of an MP3 player any more than allowing an MP3 player to open your garage door. However, the capability to copy music, as I mentioned above, exists.

          Drag files from computer->iPod.
          Drag files from iPod->computer.

          Were you looking for something else, perhaps? Apple including a checkbox on iTunes, 'Download music from iPod'?

        • Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Melantha_Bacchae ( 232402 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @11:09AM (#4423945)
          seanadams.com wrote:

          > And at the same time, Apple implements a form of
          > DRM by crippling the iPod - you can copy songs
          > onto it, but you can't copy them off. I'm an Apple
          > fan, but this kind of BS undermines my faith in
          > them.

          The iPod does *not* have Digital Rights Management (restrictions management / rights manglement)! What the iPod has is very weak copy protection (its a FireWire hard drive, with a lot of third party apps enabling you to do what you want with it), and a sticker that says "Don't steal music." The sticker is really the important part, because Jobs believes that piracy is a behavioural problem.

          DRM is a different animal altogether. It maintains license records on what you are allowed to view/listen to. If you try to play a file whose license has expired, it will not let you (Microsoft's implementation will happily go out and buy you a license).

          DRM is a nasty beast, with dire implications for your fair use rights, privacy, and the security of your credit cards (in the case of Microsoft's version that spends your money for you, bugs in which might expose your credit card number or charge too much to it).

          The weak copy protection on the iPod is a logical extension of its use, easy to work around for fair use, and the bare minimum Apple needed to avoid having the record labels blast them for enabling piracy. It would be nice if it wasn't there.

          Really though, do you see keeping 20 gig of music files on every Mac you own?

          On December 14, 1996, Mothra resurrected a charred Apple sapling ("Mosura" 1996).
          On December 14, 2001, Mothra returned to see its fruit ("Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Ghidora: Daikaiju Soukougeki").
          OS X Jaguar: truly the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.

          G Countdown: 19 days (www.godzillaoncube.com)
          • " with a lot of third party apps enabling you to do what you want with it"

            Hell, you don't even need any 3rd party apps. Simply use the find file and turn the visibility option to off.

            Note: This should only be used to copy music that you legally acquired to transfer to your other computers, or whatever.

            regards,
            sean
            np: Nevermore, Next in Line

    • Format (Score:3, Informative)

      by 90XDoubleSide ( 522791 )
      The video is encoded with the H.263 codec, and the audio is encoded with the QDesign Music 2 codec.

  • Wise move? (Score:5, Funny)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:46AM (#4422208) Homepage
    You know I'm thinking that linking to a 49MB file from the front page of one of the biggest online community sites on the web may not have been the brightest of ideas.

    Someone's going to get one f*cker of a bandwidth bill this month...

  • Old business models (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markclong ( 575822 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:49AM (#4422219)
    Like the first speaker says....the entertainment industry has used their current business model for many years....and it has been VERY good to them. They won't give it up easily. But the big players will push this on people and hope it works.

    I sure hope Apple can resist the pressure to get on the DRM bandwagon.
    • markclong wrote:

      > Like the first speaker says....the entertainment
      > industry has used their current business model for
      > many years....and it has been VERY good to them.
      > They won't give it up easily. But the big players
      > will push this on people and hope it works.

      The old models won't work anymore, that's the problem. We are no longer in a golden age of prosperity where greedy companies can continue to milk their customers and discard them.

      > I sure hope Apple can resist the pressure to get
      > on the DRM bandwagon.

      Apple's only hope of long term survival lies in taking out the sharks before they can make DRM mandatory. Apple will do this by democratizing the tools used to create content.

      One of the best examples of this that I have seen recently appeared in today's Apple enews. It is a feature length documentary film called "Shanghai Ghetto" that has been playing in some New York and LA theatres. The page at Apple's site describing how it was made is http://www.apple.com/creative/videophoto/shanghai/ .

      The interesting thing is that the movie was made by two people, using an Apple Power Mac, on a shoestring budget. Granted, you will not find all their expertise and hard work in the Final Cut Pro box (not to mention their sneaking into China with a digital video camera). But Apple has made it possible for just two people to make a real movie and put it in some theatres. Add the other tools that Apple has since bought and plans to democratize, plus the falling prices of the major 3D tools, and movie making suddenly falls into the range of a reasonably funded small business.

      The question then becomes, who wants those sharks with their DRM and bad old business models based on excessive greed?

      More importantly, who needs them?

      Old business models can and will be replaced, if they are no longer viable. Their time is coming to an end. One fine day the market which can no longer bear them, will give them the thumping on the head they so richly deserve.

      Resist the pressure?!? Ha! Apple and its blue eyed forever friend will be there to laugh when the sharks come tumbling down. ;)

      "Lightning shines on wavey beach, and all clouds are made right:
      Happiness Appears!"
      From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
      • Here's another example, a computer science student / musician / web designer who has his very own professional home recording studio:

        http://www.apple.com/education/hed/macsinaction/ uc cs/

        Sounds like he is having way more fun than I did as a computer science major. :(

        "His return is near..." Godzilla 2000 trailer
        G Countdown: 19 days (www.godzillaoncube.com)

  • O'reilly uses Sonic.Net (Score:5, Funny)

    by Perdo ( 151843 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:51AM (#4422225) Homepage Journal
    That's my ISP you jerks are slashdotting. I'll be lucky if I can even post this. Of course, locality has it's privlages. The movie is downloading ac 160kb/s

  • not just Mac OS X (Score:5, Interesting)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @01:56AM (#4422239)
    Mac OS X is becoming, whether by design or by accident, a Digital Rights Management operating system where the rights in question are the user's rights

    So far, most operating systems other than Microsoft Windows are giving DRM a cold shoulder. Windows is the exception, not the rule.

    In fact, it's hard to see how DRM could work if there were a lively, competitive market in operating systems, media software, and hardware. In some way, DRM can only work if Microsoft keeps 95%+ of the market, which is kind of scary, because it means that Hollywood is going to do what they can to support Microsoft's monopoly.

    • Excellent point, but while Microsoft's adoption of DRM may be the exception to the rule the adoption of Windows is not. Unfortunatly, Microsoft can force others to adopt DRM by their size alone.

      • And you can expect it on a Linux distro near you.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:30AM (#4422334)
        ..Because there are people out there who agree that producers of content have certain rights over it.

        That, and the fact that they may wish to be able to view five seasons of Babylon 5 (Or insert yer favorite show here), on DVD, in X.

        (Hmm, hope I don't die when I eventually go for a five season marathon. ;) "Sheridan *died* trying to watch five seasons in a row. No one who does that comes out alive!")

        Err, right. Sorry, I'm just all excited over the fact that they're finally putting B5 on DVD. 'bout bloody time. (Where's my Slashdot story about that? Huh?!) Erm, right, back to DRM.

        There are programmers out there who would make Linux work with DRM, simply because they a) wish to continue viewing content, and b) wish to continue viewing content legally.

        Think it won't be illegal to view DRM content on non-DRM hardware/software? Hmm, does DeCSS ring a bell?

        As for me, I'm all against the idea of DRM, but if it comes, I'm not going to be dressing up (down?) in woad and screaming, "They'll never take mah freedoooooooooooom!"

        I'm all for supporting independent artists, but you know, without the resources of MPAA-related companies, films like Fellowship of the Rings would never be made. (Of course, some of you may consider that a *good* thing..) There's a lot of good indie films out there, but there's far more 'Evil Empire' funded ones.

        Indie music is a bit different - it's a lot easier to find good bands whose labels aren't in step with the RIAA. Still, if I found an RIAA-supported band I liked, I'd buy their discs.

        Face it - if you're an indie nut and so anti-*AA, the few discs of any sort you stop buying won't even make a dent in their cash flow. Indeed, they'll just write it off as piracy and attempt more draconian legislation.

        In any event, their business models will eventually fail, and we'll get what we all want anyway. It'll just take time. All change takes time, save for that which is brought by the barrel of the gun and the point of the sword.

        And frankly, I don't think an extra bit of annoyance in terms of music and movies is worth spilling blood over.

        • An AC wrote:

          > As for me, I'm all against the idea of DRM, but if
          > it comes, I'm not going to be dressing up (down?)
          > in woad and screaming, "They'll never take mah
          > freedoooooooooooom!"

          Scream now, avoid the rush! ;)

          In the 1960's, a giant Moth screamed loud and long: the great media sharks of the 60's came tumbling down, replaced by studios run by the artists.

          At the Grammys, Steve Jobs screamed (politely), but the idiot sharks didn't listen very well. So he snatched their favorite media creation tools and ran off laughing. He wants to make it so anyone can master a recording, make a movie, or have their own TV station.

          Recently, some very insightful congresscritters stood up and screamed against the likes of Holling's bill. "People have rights!", they cried, and introduced bills of their own.

          HP screamed bloody murder at Microsoft. Their DRM in the Media PCs would keep HP from competing with DRM free Sony (miracles never cease when Mothra is about). The mighty Microsoft caved Tuesday, and came up with a clumsy compromise.

          See, screaming works! Keep it up!

          "Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
          From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).

          Mothra in a video game? Actually, two video games. (www.godzillaoncube.com)

    • Re:not just Mac OS X (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iomud ( 241310 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:43AM (#4422362) Homepage Journal
      The problem is that Windows is the defacto standard operating system thus becoming the rule. Until I can get something other than Windows pre-installed by a major hardware vendor it makes no difference that Linux or *BSD has no builtin nazi DRM scheme. Since there is no one to include those alternatives to Windows there is no real competition in the market that Windows exists in.

      I made a decision to no longer use Windows a while ago not because of DRM but its certainly another reason for me not to.

      • Windows is the defacto standard operating system

        For desktops, perhaps. Just keep that shit out of the server room, at all costs. You can keep your sanity, and as a nice side effect keep uneducated Windows weenies, who fell into "IT" somehow in 1998, away from you also.

        --
        Reply, don't moderate. Read the moderation guidelines!
        • My point was mainly in the context of DRM which is targeted squarely at end users and will effect them the most. But even still the DRM scheme on a server might have to be different than that of an end user probably less restrictive I would guess.

    • Re:not just Mac OS X (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tshak ( 173364 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @03:30AM (#4422456) Homepage
      Accept that when the EFF and others have investigated Paldium etc. they've found that MS is essentially giving the user the right to choose. A non-DRM OS will not be able to play DRM-protected music (no big deal here since I don't plan on buying that crap). However, MS wants to give their users the CHOICE to buy DRM protected music, as well as the choice to rip MP3's or WMA's of their favorite CD. Just because Microsoft is supporting DRM compatible junk, doesn't mean that they are exclusively supporting it. I've been Beta testing WMP9 and not only do you have the option to disable DRM, you don't even have to install it in the first place.
      • So when you, want to open that DRM protected document or play that DRM proctected game with its DRM protected soundtrack and DRM protected graphics, just how are you going to be able to choose to switch of your DRM OS.

        • In the next release of Windows you will be able to boot into "trusted" or "DRM enabled" mode, or into "insecure" or "normal please don't infringe on my rights" mode.

      • you're wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

        by g4dget ( 579145 )
        What you describe leaves open the analog hole. Hollywood and the RIAA don't want that to happen, and Microsoft has given every indication that they intend to cooperate.

        Most likely, what will happen is that Windows will continue to be able to play non-DRM content, but it will refuse to create non-DRM content unless you buy very expensive "professional" versions of the software and hardware you use, software and hardware that puts your signature on everything you create. Windows may also simply start putting non-DRM content under DRM without even telling you.

        • Re:you're wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tshak ( 173364 )
          What you describe leaves open the analog hole. Hollywood and the RIAA don't want that to happen, and Microsoft has given every indication that they intend to cooperate.

          Please give me some evidence of this. True, when you've booted in DRM-mode there is no analog hole. And when you are booted in "insecure" mode you can't access the DRM'd files. However, you are still making a choice.
          • True, when you've booted in DRM-mode there is no analog hole. And when you are booted in "insecure" mode you can't access the DRM'd files. However, you are still making a choice.

            What that amounts to is that you agree with me: Microsoft intends to fully support and enforce DRM on their operating system. You are just trying to spin the situation favorably for Microsoft.

            In fact, most likely, there will be very little you will be able to do in any non-DRM mode: most media players, video input, and audio input drivers will likely refuse to work. Video playback and high-quality audio output may stop working, too. Probably, even most commercial application software will refuse to work because they will consider DRM a convenient copy protection mechanism. If Microsoft even bothers with a non-DRM mode, it will quickly fall into disuse because it will be useless.

            Also, this has to do with Palladium only peripherally. Palladium itself doesn't force anything on anybody, it's the uses that Palladium is put to. Palladium is, among other things, the mechanism by which Microsoft enforces the use of their DRM software, and that's where you lose your choice.

            • No, I'm not making a pro-MS spin. Claiming that Microsoft is going to cooperate and "close the analog hole" implies that there is no choice to stay away from MS technology. When the EFF* interviewed MS regarding Palladium, they made it very clear that the user had the ultimate control. It's in MS's best interests for users to be empowered anway.

              In fact, most likely, there will be very little you will be able to do in any non-DRM mode: most media players, video input, and audio input drivers will likely refuse to work.

              Again, please show me the facts supporting this theory. You should also reword your statement, "in speculation...", not "in fact", because there is no factual basis for your speculation (or, at least none presented).

              Non-DRM mode will not be useless because DRM protected material will not work in this mode. So, if the RIAA only releases "secure" music, then it has nothing to worry about. Once the cat is out of the bag (eg: someone cracks the DRM and makes an "insecure" mp3), then and only then can someone play it in "insecure" mode.

              I'll agree that the RIAA doesn't want Non-DRM mode, but come on - this means that I can't even make an Mp3 of a CD that _I_ created (yes, I am a musician. Drum 'n' Bass and Trance if you're interested). Quite frankly, DRM is the best thing that could happen to the industry. It will be so cumbersom that people will stop buying the crap that the RIAA puts out and finally look towards the independant artists who release their material on MP3, OGG, or "insecure" WMA's.
              • because there is no factual basis for your speculation (or, at least none presented).

                Ummm--those are the things a company would have to do to "plug the analog hole".

                this means that I can't even make an Mp3 of a CD that _I_ created

                First, you argue at length that Microsoft's DRM restrictions amount to nothing and leave users the choice, then you yourself point out that Microsoft is likely goig to restrict even operations that involve copying non-DRM content into a non-DRM format. I'm sorry, but I think you have no idea yourself what point you are actually trying to make.

                • Ummm--those are the things a company would have to do to "plug the analog hole".



                  Not necessarily. I've already explained the solution, and just because you can't think up of other solutions doesn't mean that they don't exist.

                  First, you argue at length that Microsoft's DRM restrictions amount to nothing and leave users the choice, then you yourself point out that Microsoft is likely goig to restrict even operations that involve copying non-DRM content into a non-DRM format.

                  All I was saying is that the RIAA doesn't want non-DRM mode, but MS is giving it to us. Just because MS is cooperating doesn't mean they are the RIAA's Yes Men. However, The analog hole is still plugged because in non-DRM mode I can't even play my DRM protected music through my analog speakers. No contradiciton here. RIAA!=Microsoft.
                  • I've already explained the solution, and just because you can't think up of other solutions doesn't mean that they don't exist.

                    That's like saying that "1+1=2" only because I can't think of other solutions.

                    Just because MS is cooperating doesn't mean they are the RIAA's Yes Men.

                    I have no idea what "being the RIAA's Yes Men" is supposed to mean. To Microsoft, the RIAA and MPAA are convenient allies for monpolizing markets further: if DRM becomes mandatory, Microsoft will hold the keys to digital media. That's why Microsoft would really like to see DRM become ubiquitous. However, because there is a possibility of a sharp consumer and legislative backlash against DRM, they are still keeping some options open.

                    Overall, this means that Microsoft should be considered a potent adversary to anybody interested in fair use and consumer rights.

    • OSS already has drm (Score:4, Informative)

      by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @05:46AM (#4422628) Journal
      Look here [sourceforge.net] and here [sourceforge.net].

      If the big software houses that support drm see these projects, my guess is the will demand that both the sdrm and openimpm libraries be installed to prevent fair use on linux. We need to boycott these morons who are writing these software packages since they are doing nothing more then hurting OSS then helping it. If Linux software needs drm then apple will fall next and then will sun, etc. Very bad.

    • Re:not just Mac OS X (Score:3, Informative)

      by hype7 ( 239530 )
      So far, most operating systems other than Microsoft Windows are giving DRM a cold shoulder. Windows is the exception, not the rule.


      In fact, it's hard to see how DRM could work if there were a lively, competitive market in operating systems, media software, and hardware. In some way, DRM can only work if Microsoft keeps 95%+ of the market, which is kind of scary, because it means that Hollywood is going to do what they can to support Microsoft's monopoly.


      You're looking at it the wrong way. At the moment, there are two OS vendors that make OSs designed for consumers to use with digital media - music, pictures, movies, etc. It's not MS vs all the other OS vendors - it's Apple vs MS. Those are the only two vendors that really count as far as DRM in the consumer space (which is what we're talking about).

      There's MS in one corner - pandering to the RIAA and MPAA - and Apple in the other, giving the beforenamed organisations the royal two-fingered salute.

      I know which side of the fence I'd rather be sitting on.

      -- james
      • You're looking at it the wrong way. At the moment, there are two OS vendors that make OSs designed for consumers to use with digital media [...]

        Gillmor didn't make those qualifications, so, no I am not looking at it "the wrong way".

        Also, at this point, there is no reason why Linux couldn't become very widely used with consumers. Technically and in terms of ease-of-use, Linux with Gnome or KDE is comparable to Windows and Mac OS X, and Linux has a full complement of media viewers and creation tools. All it takes now is for more vendors to ship it preinstalled on supported hardware. And if both Windows and OS X go over to the dark side, the fact that Linux is easy to use and available matters. Actually, an ill-advised adoption of DRM by Windows and Mac OS could really help Linux in the consumer space...

  • Anti-steadycam? How about an antidote. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by asparagus ( 29121 ) <koonce@g m a i l.com> on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:07AM (#4422282) Homepage Journal
    It's sorta OT, but here's a great link for DYI steadycams/dollies/whatnot. I'm pretty sure the /. crowd will appreciate what these people are up to.

    http://homebuiltstabilizers.com/

    -Brett

  • The iPod *does* have DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:14AM (#4422298)
    My iPod (which works great under linux *g*) does indeed have Digital Restrictions Management software on it. How does it work? Simple.

    It doesn't just play MP3s you copy to it. Instead, to get a song to play back, it has to be renamed to some 4-digit number, and the ID3 tag info is read from the file and stored in a binary database on the iPod, the "iTunesDB." Any song not registered in the iTunesDB won't play back. Sure, you can copy the MP3 named "2493.mp3" off the iPod any time you want, it's just annoying when you want to do it a lot and you don't have all the information laid out nicely. Also, you get used to the Artist/Album/Track/Genre info being accurate. It's much smoother to rip a CD you own than to put random tracks from the 'net on there.

    This is the iPod's DRM system. It works by highlighting the advantages of ripping your own music and encouraging Fair Use Doctrine, instead of forcefull taking away your rights. It encourages buying of CDs because ripping them gets all the info right, and copying the songs back off the unit just gets annoying to rename and look up the info per song.

    Oh, the final component of the iPod DRM system: a small etching in the steel on the back of it which reads Don't Steal Music. Now, I surely don't believe Copyright Infringement is anywhere close to the crime that actual theft is, but that one little phrase permanantly engraved there sure does have a subconscious effect when you're loading it up with tons of music you didn't pay for.

    Thank you Apple, for DRM the right way, in a system which encourages Fair Use, encourages buying more music, and extends our rights, instead of negatively enforcing the agendas of the RIAA.

    • Re:The iPod *does* have DRM (Score:5, Informative)

      by Xenex ( 97062 ) <[moc.kcitsnoinipo] [ta] [xenex]> on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:46AM (#4422368) Journal
      "Oh, the final component of the iPod DRM system: a small etching in the steel on the back of it which reads Don't Steal Music"

      No there isn't. [monkeysoypants.org]

    • Re:The iPod *does* have DRM (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10, 2002 @03:46AM (#4422485)
      Begin quote:
      It doesn't just play MP3s you copy to it. Instead, to get a song to play back, it has to be renamed to some 4-digit number, and the ID3 tag info is read from the file and stored in a binary database on the iPod, the "iTunesDB." Any song not registered in the iTunesDB won't play back. Sure, you can copy the MP3 named "2493.mp3" off the iPod any time you want, it's just annoying when you want to do it a lot and you don't have all the information laid out nicely. Also, you get used to the Artist/Album/Track/Genre info being accurate. It's much smoother to rip a CD you own than to put random tracks from the 'net on there.
      End Quote.

      While there are a few OK points in the parent, the majority of it is serious nonsense and unreasonably dismissive of one particulary strong argument against the use of DRM (or, perhaps in this context, product crippling). I guess this is somewhat understandable because you have the Jobs cult who supports all of Apple's ideals and actions, including the utterly inane ones. He even goes so far as to "thank" Apple for the lesser of several evils; good grief.

      Crippling a product is crippling a product, make no mistake. I can think of a variety of different scenarios in which I might not be able to register something in Apple's proprietary software and thus have a difficult time with music playback -- ie. files spread out on various PCs and CDs I don't have the time to register. No other portable MP3 player has this intentionally placed shortcoming with the playback of MP3's; why should Apple's, one of the more expensive MP3 players on the market? Myself, I would be pretty irate if I found out a product I had spent a lot of money for had a limitation that was placed in the interests of a business that reeps grossly excessive amounts of profit.

      Ultimately, any measure intended to punish those who attempt to play "pirated" music is not without consequence to those who are playing legally owned music lacking a signature for whatever reason. Hell, even if people are playing back MP3's they didn't buy it's their business -- not that of the device or the manufacturer. It's totally uncalled for, no matter how strong the argument may be, since the customer should have unencumbered use of a device if they paid for it.

      • I can think of a variety of different scenarios in which I might not be able to register something in Apple's proprietary software and thus have a difficult time with music playback -- ie. files spread out on various PCs and CDs I don't have the time to register. No other portable MP3 player has this intentionally placed shortcoming with the playback of MP3's; why should Apple's, one of the more expensive MP3 players on the market?

        Not to be coy, but... have you actually used one? I only mention this because of the tells in your post; it contained the words 'Jobs cult' and 'proprietary'; it smacks of homebrew FUD.

        I'm not slamming you, really, but look, the iPod's 'DRM' consists of an invisible folder and a database file. If you really wanted to get something 'down' from the iPod, it's trivial. *Trivial*. Hell, you can download a program and put it on the iPod itself; then it can 'download' to any Mac.

        Apple has not built this ability in for you. That is not the same as 'crippled'.

        • Even better is that if you've got music on CDs and other machines, you're either going to have to network them or mount the CDs for the music to be available to the iPod...

          And once you do that, that means the music is available to iTunes, and if it's available to iTunes, then it's available to the iPod, which means his principle argument, that the iPod has a shortcoming...
          • Of course.. I just realized one problem is if you've got several PCs with different music libraries that *aren't* networked...

            Then the only feasible solution I can come up with is to copy all the music to the iPod (Hah! DRM that!) in order to consolidate it, and then use that as a basis for your music library.

            Hrm, and I do believe that iTunes will even allow you to store your music library on your iPod, though this is a horrendous waste of drive space.
            • You raise an interesting point, re: the multiple computers with MP3s on them. There was a demo at MacWorld where Steve used Rendezvous to have other Macs broadcast their libraries, which appeared in the left-side shelf in iTunes. Very slick. Now, if Rendezvous becomes a real standard...

              As for the non-networked PCs thing, I imagine you'd only have to gather the files once. It is an iPod, after all.

              I believe the iTunes Library file itself is quite small. Surely small enough to not make a dent on a multi-gig drive.

              • I believe the iTunes Library file itself is quite small. Surely small enough to not make a dent on a multi-gig drive.
                My "iTunes 3 Music Library" (which is an iTunes Database File) weighs in at 2.5MB and my "iTunes Music Library.xml" file weighs in at 2.9MB, and those are for a library of (currently) 1886 songs (7.7GB).

                So, at worst, you might have to leave out 2 or 3 .mp3 files if you want to store your library file on the iPod...

                Though I am still unclear on exactly why you would want to...

      • I think that you understand the way that the iPod works, and how this could be construed as DRM or what-have-you. The iPod does not work as a DRM device. It does work as a digital hub device. That is, a device that is designed to add value to the computer it is used along side. You can play any song you want, legally or illegally acquired with no difference between them. You do not need to name them by numbers or whatever, unless you are trying to play them without importing them into your music library. You have probably never used iTunes, so I won't continue the point except to state that the way the iPod works is nothing but an encouragement to use iTunes. Apple wants you to import your music into iTunes because that means that you are using an Apple computer! Try not to fall over from shock that Apple wants you to use Apple hardware.

      • This annoying "DRM" (oh please) system of renaming the files and registering them is just how Apple is making their i-products these days. Go try out iPhoto, and you'll notice all the pictures you import are given a random number and stored in a bazillion different randomly named directories.

        Hmm.. I guess that's DRM for the photos I've taken?

        Please people. It's just their stupid way of making you use the interface (iPhoto/iTunes) more than just browsing around your hard drive. I don't really like it, but its hardly DRM.
    • Actually, in iTunes 3, it will "organize" files based on mp3 tags, meaning it will rename the file and group it into directories based on id3 tag info. That kind of shoots your whole arguement to hell.
    • I ran into the same problem with my Nomad player. An easy way to circumvent it was to reconvert the downloaded mp3 within iTunes, so the player couldn't tell the difference between a file ripped from a CD and one that wasn't. It's a little lossy, but you get what you pay for...

    • Are you sure about this? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward wrote:
      My iPod (which works great under linux *g*) does indeed have Digital Restrictions Management software on it. How does it work? Simple. It doesn't just play MP3s you copy to it. Instead, to get a song to play back, it has to be renamed to some 4-digit number, and the ID3 tag info is read from the file and stored in a binary database on the iPod, the "iTunesDB." Any song not registered in the iTunesDB won't play back. Sure, you can copy the MP3 named "2493.mp3" off the iPod any time you want, it's just annoying when you want to do it a lot and you don't have all the information laid out nicely. Also, you get used to the Artist/Album/Track/Genre info being accurate. I


      Huh?

      I just plugged in my iPod (Mac version), and looked in the hidden folder iPod_Control/Music/, and located in various folders are my regular MP3 files, happily sitting there with their original names. Each of the folders has a generic name like "F01", but that's probably because of the way the iPod accesses the files.

      It's pretty trivial to get the songs off of the iPod once you open the hidden folder. Now maybe the songs have to be registered in the iPod database (or maybe that's just used to track the playcount for each track), but the files themselves don't get renamed to a generic four digit number. Maybe it's different when you get it running under Linux, but on the Mac, no problems there.

      And I applaud Apple's stance in not assuming that its customers are all would-be crooks. The way iTunes and the iPod work together discourages casual music copying (by preventing music from the iPod from being automatically copied back to iTunes), but it doesn't affect what I can do with music I've bought. And that's what DRM should be.
    • I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this story. "Apple does DRM right." "Of course you can't copy MP3s off the iPod." "It encourages fair use."

      Tell me, oh Jobsians, what exactly is is non-fair-use about me stuffing an iPod with MP3s, taking it to work and copying them off to my work PC? Fair use means to me playing in my car, my house, my work, or any other place that has a machine I can play music I bought.

      Forcing a "no copy off the iPod" is such an annoying bunch of BS that has nothing to do with encouraging fair use, although its kind of funny/pathetic to watch all the kneejerk Mac apologists *rush* to defend something so idiotic.
      • Forcing a "no copy off the iPod"

        Er, you CAN copy off the iPod. You just have to do it yourself, you can't have it automatically happen.

        Considering that most of us have a single PC that is our "main PC," their move makes sense. Plus it ensures that if you DO move an MP3 illegally, YOU'RE doing it, not Apple.

        • Er, you CAN copy off the iPod. You just have to do it yourself, you can't have it automatically happen.

          Errm. The parent post I replied to said that copying off the iPod is a huge hassle and requires legwork to get the songs back into normal format (eg, "some band - some song.mp3"). It "can" be done, and the software makes every attempt to thwart you from doing it are two different things.

          Furthermore, what's this talk about "automatically"? The iPod starts dumping all its music or grabbing all the music it finds without any user intervention?

          Considering that most of us have a single PC that is our "main PC," their move makes sense. Plus it ensures that if you DO move an MP3 illegally, YOU'RE doing it, not Apple.

          Now we're getting down to brass tacks. Apple isn't doing anything, the user does everything. Apple supplies ripping tools and PCs, why doesn't that make them liable for all other forms of copying? Why would moving an MP3 from Computer A to iPod B be "legal" but from iPod B to Computer B be "illegal"? As long as A, B, and C are all owned outright by the same person, it just sounds like fair use to me, as fair as watching a video tape I made in the VCR in the kitchen, the bedroom or the living room.
          • When you plug an iPod into a machine with itunes loaded, it by default, will copy your entire music folder onto the ipod, if the folder size is small enough to fit on the ipod.

            I wouldn't be suprised if this "DRM" that people are talking (files given a number that refers to their ID3 tag stored in a database, etc.) is really just an effort to speed up the navigation process. Instead of having to traverse the filesystem to find songs, many with different naming conventions, and present them in a readable format. The Database is probably loaded into memory to reduce the amount of disk access to save battery life.

            I would say that if anything, the "DRM" is the result of the best design that met their requirements (fast, consistent navigation, low power usage). The only implementation of DRM would be making it so one ipod wouldn't sync among many computer music libraries, storing all the music for all computers (since that could be a headache in itself). And the files being stored in an invisible folder is really just something they did so they wouldn't have to worry about people causing the database to eat itself.

            If you want to use an iPod to transfer files back and forth between machines, you can throw the songs onto the drive via the finder, but you wont be able to play them on the iPod, since the files would not be entered in the database.
      • As the rest of the discussion notes, it's trivial to copy MP3's off the iPod with standard, included tools; there are plenty of freeware third-party solutions to do it, if you don't like the included tools.

        The only catch is that the included iTunes application only syncs _to_ the iPod, not _from_ it. This is a simple design decision, and hardly an unreasonable one. For example, iPhoto only syncs pictures _from_ a digital camera, not _to_ it. I can think of situations where it'd be nice to send pictures to a camera, but it's hardly common and they didn't choose to support it.

        The point is, no one "Forced" a "no copy off the iPod". It's trivial to copy from the iPod. One included application doesn't copy from the iPod, that's it.

      • The iPod is a FireWire Hard Drive. You can USE IT as a FireWire hard drive.

        If you really want to move your MP3s to your work machine, copy the files to it in disk mode. Copy them to your work machine when you get to work.

        Obviously since you're so quick to flame and bitch instead of thinking of the friggin' obvious, you dont' have the brains to figure out how to use a hard disk.

        Sad, really.

  • DIY QuickStream - QSS (Score:5, Informative)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @02:31AM (#4422336)
    QT streaming from OS X [apple.com] only takes a few minutes to set up, BTW.

    Find out for yourself why these files are surviving the legendary /. effect? :)

  • End Quote (Score:5, Informative)

    by Perdo ( 151843 ) on Thursday October 10, 2002 @03:29AM (#4422453) Homepage Journal
    "Technologies that can modified by end users, that is to say Open source are explicitly not allowed in contexts where digital streams are allowed to come into contact with them because you could change them to geek around the restrictions that are being put in by Hollywood. So this is also a proposal to ban open source.

    The technology companies, by and large going along with it. And this is why we are here today. We want to find out how it is we can shift the technology companies from a sort of duck and cover perspective to going on the offensive. Because when technologists, who are part of a 600 billion dollar American industry, go on the offensive against Hollywood, a 35 billion dollar American industry, THEY WIN.

    "Two really important things you can do, one is you can tell five friends. Cause most people don't know this is going on. Most people don't know that there are three separate onslaughts on the ability of technologists to build any device that they want to. right now, internationally, in congress and in the FCC. Right now, going on, that if they succeed will be the death of their industry. And tell five friends in the technology industry just let them know so they can tell five friends. So we need a burgeoning consciousness of this. We need a million Slashdot readers to actually care about it and not just natalie portman or hot grits. And the last thing you can do is... um.. you can.. Boy! I just blew my buffer. What is the last thing you can do?"

    ~ Cory Doctorow, Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • The day Macs use DRM is the day the company loses 90% of its customers. Why? The majority of Macs are used by creative professionals (if anyone has real statistics i would love to see them). The majority of Mac users see their computers as a tool they use to create their dream or artwork, as a way to express themselves. (come on flame me for sounding like a gay mac user) The day a Mac user tries to open a piece of stock art or a quicktime movie or aiff or mp3 and the computer says "I'm sorry you have already used this piece of swip X times, using it again or putting it on another device will violate its copyright! To obtain further rights to use this piece, contact blah blah blah" is the day most mac users will switch platforms (to what viable alternative i dont know, but im sorry linux is NOT an option for creative professionals, and I would rather switch careers then go back to using pcs and dealing with the draconian microsoft). I'm sure Apple knows this and for that reason will never include any DRM besides the basic and easily hacked DRM similiar to the ipod. Just wait for Apple to release a small tivo type device that is portable with firewire capabilities for transfering and SYNCING to a mac, just like the ipod.
  • ...three Cokes for breakfast... Ahhh... THE Breakfast of Champions!

Slashdot Top Deals

System going down in 5 minutes.

Close