What might end Apple's open source pass
Summary: What surprises me is the silence of the music industry. If this breaks that silence, then we will have a turning point. My guess is they no longer love their Cupertino overlords. Time to show it.
Apple has replaced Microsoft as the chief foe of open source. (Picture from a student assignment sheet at Bodine High School in Pennsylvania.)
This was in part a matter of necessity. Apple had to put DRM on its iPod or it would get nothing to sell. It had to become a big advocate of the DMCA to keep its suppliers.
But now those suppliers have learned the only real beneficiary of DRM technology was Apple. It cemented their monopoly and control over the suppliers. Some are rebelling, in small ways.
Apple has embraced those moves, yet it continues to use the DMCA as a cudgel, aiming to kill open source competitors with claims of copyright violation.
Will the Electronic Frontier Foundation's latest slam of Apple, over its attempt to kill a BluWiki thread with a DMCA order, mark a turning point?
For those unfamiliar with the story, Apple began "protecting" its iTunesDB file (necessary for syncing) with a checksum hash in September 2007. This kept people from using other music programs like Winamp and Songbird, alongside iPod files.
The hash was quickly hacked. Apple created another. When a BluWiki group called iPodHash arose to find a workaround, Apple slapped BluWiki with a DMCA takedown.
Get it? Apple had a near-monopoly on music players over a year ago, and is now using encryption and the DMCA to make competition a crime.
It does not surprise me that those in the open source movement, or the free Internet movement, would protest Apple's actions.
What surprises me is the silence of the music industry. If this breaks that silence, then we will have a turning point. My guess is they no longer love their Cupertino overlords. Time to show it.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
First "free and open" music industry will win
Interesting times. The end of sick unabated controlling greed. I'm proud to be just a little part of it.
One day, we'll laugh in the face of landlords who own more houses that they can live in, but not in my time I suspect.
**** 'em. **** the greedy.
I agree completely
are screwed and greed seems to be a major motivator for
this kind of system.
Have you heard of the the Venus Project, which promotes a
resource based economy? Very compelling. Imagine
building products to promote the betterment of mankind
as opposed to turning a big profit.
There are companies that try to offer a balance and
perhaps this is the best we can hope for right now.
Amazing point of view
we are screwed and greed seems to be a major motivator
for this kind of system. "
Off topic, but you raise an important issue--and you seem
to have had an unfortunate economic education.
Profit is the earnings on investment that make it possible
to create companies, small and large--which provide jobs
(for you and me) and the goods and services that
consumers (you and me) want or need. If consumers don't
think the products provide "betterment" they won't buy
them and the company has to change or it will lose money
and go out of business--ending those jobs.
Now, if you choose to invest your money (and/or time) for
no return, that's great, noble, compelling, etc., but it sure
won't pay your bills, which is why the thriving economies
of the world are profit based.
BTW, the difference in socialist economies is that the
government thinks they know better than their citizens
how to allocate investment and reward individuals. You do
understand that governments have no money except what
they forcibly take from citizens (you and me) in taxes,
right? If not, I strongly suggest you read a basic Econ text.
Help me understand
more houses that they can live in, but not in my time I
suspect. **** 'em. **** the greedy."
Obviously off topic, but you raise some questions.
You believe that anyone who chooses to invest their
money and time in rental properties is automatically
greedy and you wish to **** 'em, right?
What exactly makes that business less honorable than
whatever it is you do, or any of us do? Granted, there
probably are greedy landlords, as there are greedy
software developers, IT technicians, etc., but your blanket
condemnation seems totally unwarranted.
It's fr0thy
Why Oh Why?
of view? Again DRM is a requirement imposed by the
record labels...get it? No DRM no selly music. Apple has
encouraged and welcomed the labels that no longer
require DRM for their music, EPIC for instance and sell it
without. Recently Warner, Universal, and Sony BMG have
been offering DRM free music in iTunes. Apple's offerings
are as open source as they can be and still be in business.
Strange you never mention these facts.
Now if you want to talk about the DRM iTunes uses, to
protect the music companies interest, that is a different
story. It may even be built on a open source DRM schema,
but only allows you to buy music through iTunes and not
other online stores. This protects Apple's intellectual
property represented in the iTunes ecosystem.
Because of it's popularity, rightly deserved in my opinion,
may be a monopoly in that sense, but hardly prevents
others from offering the same kind of services, which
many do. This is completely legitimate and promotes
competition in hardware, software and music retail.
Unlike a monopoly that uses it's monopoly to prevent
competition thus perpetuating it's existence regardless of
value or quality.
So Vista DRM is totally cool now?
record labels...get it? No DRM no selly music.[/i]
Glad to hear that you approve of Vista's support for Intel's HDCP DRM. Oh wait, let me guess, that's different, right? :)
What is Different?
APple use illegal DRM to prevent you d/L music from your low quality Ipod to your computer.
Apple is the whorst case of monopoly and ilegal business model since the down of man.
The only thing Apple is good at is selling hype,. That is why the Ipod is such a good seller even if it as been proven at every single revision to be of extrem low quality and way over priced.
Apple business practice are so bad that it is surprising that they are actually permited to continue to operate in the open and STEAL money from low IQ human sheep who think that owning a Apple product make them cool.
Nice opinion.
Wrong
and business model are certainly not illegal in the US or
any country in which they do business--or they would be
charged with a crime.
In our legal system, it is NOT illegal to have a monopoly; it
IS illegal to use a monopoly to unfairly harm consumers
that have no alternatives. In the MP3 world, as in the
"entertainment download and play" world, consumers have
many, many options so Apple does not, by definition, have
a monopoly.
If you happen to believe there are better quality and lower
priced options, you should take advantage of them, but
clearly millions and millions of Apple customers do not
agree with you. Get over it.
Different in only one respect.
It is different only in the agency demanding the DRM be implemented. In the case of Apple's DRM - it's on the behest of the RIAA whilst the the DRM you mention as part of Vista is by order of the MPAA.
Either way, if you want content that can be played on your computer (Apple or Windows - doesn't matter a bit which), for the moment we're all stuck having to put up with DRM.
You want to watch a movie on a Blu-Ray disc on your HDTV by way of your Home Theater PC and an HDMI connection? Fine. You need to put up with the DRM.
Yeah.. I suppose Microsoft could have pulled an Apple and NOT supported HD DVD or Blu-Ray - but then there would have been a LOT of whining about when they were going to support those formats.
Until the content overlords (RIAA and MPAA) go away or take some meds that make their rampant (and possibly justified) paranoia, DRM will be an unfortunate fact of life.
No, completely wrong on this point.
DRM, who really cares, if you are stupid enough to willingly purchase DRM infected content too bad so sad when Apple hoses you. if you don't (didn't in the case of MaybePlays) know what DRM infected content is, well, you only had one kick at the can to rip customers off, hence the DRM free offerings. All that aside, the hash DB has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with DRMed content.
TripleII
Exactly (NT)
Exactly
At the same time, I have never bought an MP3. Quality is too awful. My 160GB iPod is full of high quality non-DRM music burned from CD's. The fact is that most iPods are filled with music from this source.
RE: What might end Apple's open source pass
RE: What might end Apple's open source pass
More whining...
should they open up their ITunes DB files? It's their product,
and they obviously want people to use it alongside their other
products. It's called business and turning a profit. I'm all for
community based open source, but when an actual company
makes a choice regarding their products, you have a choice
as well: use it or don't use it. Or I guess, option 3, which is
whine and moan and wish they would sacrifice profit to make
you happy and comfortable.
The problem is systemic
I agree, what will they force companies to do next?
LOL, they didn't whine.
It is because of Apple's draconian ways, almost fascist control freak policies that I absolutely refuse to purchase Apple anything and always recommend against it. This is all in spite of any technology they produce.
Seriously, they are making MS look benign.
TripleII