Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Media Businesses Apple

Hilary Rosen Gripes About iPod, iTMS 764

mijkal writes "Hilary Rosen, the former RIAA CEO and chairwoman, has spoken out against Apple's "lock-in" with iPod and the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's." Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hilary Rosen Gripes About iPod, iTMS

Comments Filter:
  • by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:05PM (#12481463) Journal
    "... the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's."

    I think Hilary Rosen might have encountered the concept of telling the truth at a party once, but didn't get beyond the cursory introduction.

    I went ahead and RTFA to make sure the above statement wasn't being taken out of context by the post. It wasn't, and it might actually kind of be true if one is absolutely insistent on playing only AAC files on the iPod. The actual truth, which Hilary Rosen would likely not be willing to acknowledge without the threat of slow torture death behind it, is that the iPod works with sample MP3s that you might legally download from a band's website or any one of a gazillion legal indie music MP3 sites, and also works with audiobooks downloaded from Audible.com. But Rosen probably considers any music by an unsigned band to be beneath putting on an iPod anyway, and probably isn't too interested in audiobooks, either.

    Other ridiculous ideas in the blog entry include: "He [Steve Jobs] is as laconically casually cool as Bono" and the idea that the iPod constitutes a monopoly. First off, Steve Jobs might be a little bit hip, but he's not cool except to the Mac faithful, the only ones who really care who he is (that's my opinion, though. I might be wrong). Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.

    The oddest thing to me is that no-one who would actually seek out and read Hilary Rosen's blog would be the least bit fooled by the misstatements in it.

  • well that's odd (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rebug ( 520669 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:06PM (#12481470)
    My bleep [bleep.com] downloads seem to play fine on my iPod.

    Should I file a bug?
  • The reason (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BlacBaron ( 875559 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:16PM (#12481612) Homepage
    "Hilary Rosen, the former RIAA CEO and chairwoman, has spoken out against Apple's "lock-in" with iPod and the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's." Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
    And now we know why she was the former CEO and chairwoman, she didn't see eye to eye with the rest of the RIAA's beliefs. :)
  • iTunes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Scruffeh ( 867141 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:17PM (#12481627)
    It's pretty sucky that if you want to buy music that you have to do it from iTunes but, at the end of the day it's DRM which is the big problem. Without getting into the ethics of it, why would anyone buy a crippled mp3 album for £8+ when you can buy an uncrippled cd for about £10? This is using UK pricing (which I understand is more expensive than US?) but nevertheless, considering you have to pay for the packaging and distribution for a cd then these prices are daylight robbery. This is especially true when considering that 95%+ of the music is available (illegally) elsewhere, without the DRM. It's not a hard choice, DRM vs Free non DRM'd music vs non DRM'd CDs - online music stores come in serverely lagging in 3rd place! I really hope something is done before we are given 'generous personal useage rights' on our audio cds. Online music stores could have been a very good move indeed but the implimentation has been totally shocking.
  • Re:Childish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) * <mark AT seventhcycle DOT net> on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:19PM (#12481647) Homepage
    See, the RIAA only wants DRM that is to their benefit. If a person is going to be encouraged to download an mp3 off the Internet in order to listen to their music unincumbered, it points the person in the direction of piracy (even if they do own the song under fair use).

    I'm absolutely sure that the RIAA would love people paying for 5 copies of the same song, but at least Rosen is coming to realize that people just won't do that. If a person downloads Kazaa in order to get an unlocked version of a song that they own and in turn finds 50 songs that they don't own, then it's flagged as a loss.

    Every spokesperson acts and rallies in their own company's best interest. It's a fact of business, and a fact of life.

  • A simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:22PM (#12481693) Homepage
    Fortunately for Hilary Rosen, there's a simple solution to this problem. All she has to do is go download a copy of Hymn, which will peel off all the license restrictions from the ITunes file. Then she can play her music anywhere.
  • Re:Girlfriend (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:23PM (#12481697)
    No, she's openly gay. But I thought being gay was required to own an Apple product, so it should come as no surprise to anyone.
  • by petsounds ( 593538 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:32PM (#12481797)
    Don't be so naiive. Rosen is a professional shill. She's probably getting paid by Microsoft (since she namechecks them in her post) or whomever has the lack of wisdom to hire her to spin the iPod in a bad light in favor of "open" systems.

    I guess she wasn't aware of the fact that there is an option in the iTunes menu which says "Convert selection to mp3," instantly making your AAC files into cross-platform mp3s. And she probably didn't realize her statement that "even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars" is invalidated by going to the Apple website and seeing that the base iPod shuffle costs $99.
  • by Orne ( 144925 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:32PM (#12481802) Homepage
    Not that surprising, when you figure that the majority of Slashdot editors fall on the Democratic side of the fence...

    Ms. Huffington went to great lengths to insist that she's commissioned a multitude [latimes.com] of Democratic party aligned writers to contribute articles to her site.. There are 14 authors on the front page today, and we've got: Tips from Cronkite on how to fix the Democratic party, Sen Corzine blasting Bush on not supporing one of his bills, Huffington making fun of Tom Delay, Rep Markly criticizing the Bush administration over N.K. nukes, another critiquing Bush's foreign policy, a critique of the wildlife commission, a critique of the Republican religious base...

    Not bad! Way to change minds and win friends!

  • Re:yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skye16 ( 685048 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:33PM (#12481819)
    I noticed a bunch of problems with my emusic.com mp3s. The ends of songs were shifted over a second or so. The end of song 1 would be at the beginning of song 2, etc, etc.

    I stopped subscribing to them.
  • by promantek ( 866291 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:39PM (#12481890) Homepage
    Oh, and check out this quote from the article [wired.com](on page 3):

    "Hilary Rosen would prefer it if the world's youth didn't think she was hopelessly uncool. She has an iPod."

    Interesting to note the article where she has an iPod is from February 2003, but her recent article (from TODAY) says she just got an iPod!!!!:

    "The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap."

    Hillary, you have been dismissed as a non-credible witness. and a moron.
  • Re:Girlfriend (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:41PM (#12481928)
    Heaven forbid that said girlfriend may even have held a job at Apple! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Birch [wikipedia.org]
  • This is simple. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tthomas48 ( 180798 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:44PM (#12481961)
    If Apple controls the distribution of music then who does the RIAA represent? Apple becomes the music publisher. As Apple is not a member of the RIAA obviously this would be a problem. They want DRM management with fragmentation between services and without the inclusion of indy music. This creates "competition" and lets the Music Publishers pretend they still have a purpose.
  • The Solution (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pkinetics ( 549289 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:47PM (#12482013)
    Hilary has given us the solution to our RIAA problem. Give every RIAA executive member an iPod!!!

    Sure beats taking them to court.

  • Clarification please (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:48PM (#12482032)
    But those other music sites have lots of music that you can't get at the iTunes store. So, if you have an iPod, you are out of luck.

    To clarify, if you have an iPod (which plays mp3, wav, aac, and Apple's DRM aac version Fairplay.), you cannot download music from other websites like Wal-mart which uses the proprietary DRMed Windows format wma. So you want Apple to adopt somebody else's DRM?

    Remember this simple fact: The standard default file format for 99% of all portable media players is mp3 not wma not Fairplay. Apple supports that default format. They will not support somebody else's format that is not the standard.

  • Theory (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:50PM (#12482051) Homepage Journal
    I have a theory. Hillary Rosen at one time was the evil record executive we all love to hate. However, after being debated and berated by copyfighters she saw the light. However, she was still on the RIAA payroll and couldn't openly express her true opinions. I'm making an optimisted educated guess when I say she quit because she didn't agree with the position her employment forced her to take. Remember when she almost walked out the wrong door at that debate?

    It seems rather likely considering that everything she said while she was in charge was evil and everything she has said since her resignation is singificantly more sane.
  • by Scruffeh ( 867141 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:53PM (#12482084)
    Ahh. Bless MS and their iPod bashing! Let us not forget gems such as, 'Let a professional make your next playlist.' and '...some come with extra accessories like high-quality headphones, a belt clip, or an armband. Because most of these features are included at no additional cost, make sure the device you choose is filled with these fun extras.'

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/devi ces/flash.aspx [microsoft.com]

    I felt so much more educated after reading that! I wish my iPod had fun extras and I wish a professional would make my playlist for me because I miss adverts before, after and during my music!
  • Re:A simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Soul-Burn666 ( 574119 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:57PM (#12482132) Journal
    "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's."

    She said the iPod only accepts iTunes tracks and songs she ripped from her CDs, but not from OTHER stores.
    That's what she's complaining about!
    She doesn't care that people rip music from their own CDs!
  • by oldwolf13 ( 321189 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:01PM (#12482188) Journal
    That's why I believe the success of the itunes music store is a double edged sword... it's good because it tells the RIAA that they CAN change their business model to our brave new world, and succeed.

    The problem is, it also shows them that a lot of people WILL put up with their crazy DRM schemes in order to get they music they love.

    This is why I will not use the itunes music store, and with the levy on blank media in my country (Canada), I feel free to download as much music as I can for free... hell I've already been convicted and paid the fine anyways.

    I do however want an ipod.. because of the levy, I feel justified in downloading, which means generic mp3s, and I can use the ipod for my tunes. Once again doing the "wrong thing" is the better way. (serial keys, dongles, online authentication, CSS, DRM, etc... all make it harder for the person WHO WILL PAY for their software/music/movies to use it the way they like.)

    Guilty until proven innocent? What planet has this?
  • WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:38PM (#12482576) Journal
    Everything in that article is a load of crap, "viruses of the pirate sites" what? iPod plays mp3's and thats pretty much the single most popular (lossy compressed) digital audio format on earth right now (not including audio CD's, DAT, MiniDisc and the like). If the most popular format on earth is not good enough for this woman then what the hell is? The absolute fact of the matter is a) ripping from CD is not hard and b) if you own the CD you are entitled to fire up a decent P2P client and type in the song/album name and see as it easily and speedily downloads, without a single virus in sight, and probably at a higher bit rate than iTunes etc.
  • by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @07:16PM (#12482996)
    She is not complaining about DRM, she is complaining that Apple doesn't support Microsoft DRM. Why would they? They have the number one player and the number one service. Now if there was an Open DRM they might support that. But they are certainly not going to pay microsoft a licence fee for each IPOD.

    Does anyone really think she is interested in using all these other music services. Or is she just acting as a paid mouth piece?

    I wonder who is paying for her opinions these days.
  • Re:Damn Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot.2 ... m ['.ta' in gap]> on Monday May 09, 2005 @07:44PM (#12483211) Homepage Journal
    Are we now advocating that all content must be available for all platforms?

    About ten or twenty years ago it was looking like we were headed that way. Common formats, common APIs for convertors (EVERY modern OS can run almost all straight UNIX command line tools, without more than a thin wrapper to change the names of the calls... that was sure as hell not true 20 years ago), the whole world was on track to tear down every last barrier between communication, at least for computers. And then it ground to a screeching halt, all in the name of "intellectual property". Proprietary undocumented file formats, digital rights management, even laws against reverse engineering. And it's nuts. It can't possibly work. It's science fiction.

    Back about 10 years ago I had a real long talk with a fella who was real hot for DRM, so he could publish his e-books without worrying about people ripping them off. I didn't see the point, I figured the only way you could get a DRM mechanism that would keep people from copying his eBooks was to have the whole bookreader sealed in epoxy, with some kind of mechanism to tell when there was a scanner pointed at it so it could keep people from reading the pixels and reconstructing the book that way.

    Now, things like the Baen Free Library were way in the future, so I didn't have the argument that DRM-free content actually improved sales, but I really couldn't imagine a tough enough DRM to keep the book from being stripped and passed around... so it at the very least wouldn't hurt them. The people who wanted a "free" copy could get one anyway.

    And that's more or less what's been happening.

    So DRM doesn't work. But in the meantime, well, we'll just have to put up with barriers put up by the music industry, the computer industry, and well-intentioned but poorly-advised lawmakers. If some of these folks don't like the barriers others are putting up, there's a REAL easy solution that would let 'em tear them ALL down...
  • Is she serious? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jimohagan ( 550045 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @09:23PM (#12483793)
    I have been downloading music from various free sites for months, and understand the concepts of finding files in folders and putting those files into places where my iPod looks. Ignorant cusomer chick....
  • It would be beneficial for the RIAA and online sales of DRMed songs if all players could support all DRM formats. This is not the case currently. Currently it sucks that the DRMed songs you pay for today for one player may not work for another player you may buy in the future. An audio format that cannot be played by third party hardware is probably historically unprecedented. She puts the blame on Steve Jobs for not adding DRMed WMA support to iPods. She attempts to describe this as if it would be something great for consumers, but I think this is an exaggeration, since in the end it is the RIAA that has Intellectual Property rights and control to the songs.

    She doesn't explain whether or not the problem goes both ways. I.e. non-Apple players (save the HP iPod clone) can't play DRMed AAC, just like Apple players can't play DRMed WMA. How much of the current situation is the result of companies' can'ts and how much of it is the result of companies' won'ts? Also, which format -- AAC vs WMA -- is more open?
  • The implication is that if iTunes dished out WMA, then she'd be happy, because MSFT are already bum-buddies with the RIAA.

    You also have to consider the fact that WMA is harder to break because it runs only on Windows and Microsoft has embedded Windows Media Player's DRM component (as of version 9) deeply in the kernel where it's much much harder to patch than iTunes, which is just an application.

    This isn't really a problem, because it doesn't really matter whether DRM is breakable or not, because building a DRM that's really unbreakable is a fantasy. DRM can never be more than a token effort on any system that isn't embedded in epoxy from the data to the cortex, with a self-destruct charge wired into the data that'll go off if it thinks you're trying to break into it. Anything less can at the very least be intercepted between the metal and the meat.

    And with the internet, once one person, anywhere in the world, has beaten the DRM... it's beaten everywhere. All DRM can do is slow things down. So stopping piracy isn't the real point to DRM. Now the people who push DRM may honestly believe it is, but it's not... it can't stop piracy. But... it DOES have an effect.

    What DRM does is increase the control the people peddling the DRM have over the people using the end product. And control can ALWAYS be parleyed into money. DRM doesn't actually have to work to make this control possible, people just have to go along with the DRM. So, it just has to be strong enough that people go along with it, without being restrictive enough that people are forced to try and break it anyway. And iTunes seems to be doing a pretty good job of that, actually.

    Anyway, the big problem for a lot of us who oppose DRM is not that it makes music cost a little more or be a little less convenient, it's that DRM depends on keeping a part of the system you sell to a user secret from the user you sell it to. To build a really strong DRM mechanism you really do need a tightly controlled proprietary system... an "open source" DRM is a contradiction in terms. In fact, even having a DRM plugin or component in an open-source application is impossible. Hell, even having openly documented hooks for the DRM module would render it irrelevant. Any place you let the user control what his own hardware and software are doing you provide a place to strip out the DRM. And putting that control in the hands of the user... not the vendor... is what Open Source and Open Systems are really all about.

    Now, a little bit of openness isn't really a problem for the DRM advocates. After all, they started out by complaining about the impact of 'piracy' on a system that had no DRM at all. But over the years they have convinced themselves that it is.

    And Microsoft's DRM is "better" than Apple's.

    And that's why I don't want Apple using WMA, anywhere. I don't want the DRM pressure groups to push Apple to reduce their commitment to Open Source and Open Systems.

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...