Yay France!
How France is Saving Civilization.
Take that RIAA. Take that Apple (you had to get into bed with the bad guys, didn't you? You wanted the payoff soooo bad, you couldn't resist...darnit...you could have been a contender).
Go France!
Take that RIAA. Take that Apple (you had to get into bed with the bad guys, didn't you? You wanted the payoff soooo bad, you couldn't resist...darnit...you could have been a contender).
Go France!
11 Comments:
Well, things seem to be going pretty well for Apple. They're actually working more for the consumer than I think people give them credit for.
The music industry wants to charge variable prices for music based on popularity. Older songs will be cheap and new songs expensive. Apple doesn't want to do this because they know that people will actually buy less songs but spend more money on music but not enough. Apple makes way more money on selling iPods than music. There is no reason a person is going to buy an iPod that can hold 10,000 songs vs. a 5,000 songs if they'll never be able to fill up the 10,000 song iPod because the music is too expensive. If Apple could, they'd give away the music for free but of course, you still wouldn't be able to play the music on any other devices.
Your enthusiasm for the commons has you cheering for the wrong group.
What if Apple could not protect it's invention. We would be left with cheap mp3 players, and idle and late promises from Microsoft.
The purpose of the copyright is for the world to share in development of these ideas, such that the developer is offered protection from stealing, reverse engineering and copying.
Do you fundamentally believe that iPods and iTumes grow on trees? If we percieve the world as easy to achieve anything, such as yourself, then we could make our own iPod's in the wood shop.
The commons is about free access, not about free to steal.
Well, that's really not as simple as it might sound.
The same law introduces some really big issues: repression for using or helping people to get access to file sharing software, or for people publishing an open source software playing DRM-enabled files.
The #1 sourceforge (a big OSS host) mirror in France has already stated that he will stop mirroring eMule and peer to peer software.
And all the DRM thing is really really not nice, since publishing source code might help people to bypass DRM protections, anyone doing so would be fined (and more).
A small link: http://eucd.info/index.php?2006/03/22/288-dadvsi-code-nirvana-or-nightmare
Boo! Hiss! *howl*
The Libertarian in me gets all crazy when I see things like this. Governments getting their fingers into young markets like this is something that we techie folks should oppose categorically. Information will become free, but let it take the natural road.
Hmmmm...
@paul m. & paul c. I never said I didn't want to pay for music. I just don't want any flippin' DRM crap on my music. All music sites seem to have them. No, Apple didn't ask for it, but dammit, they certainly didn't fight it and as the article said, they figured out pretty quickly that DRM works in their favor, too, locking people into their devices. Nice. I am, basically, against anything that would lock me into a single device, site or company. Period. DRM sux for that reason. And Apple DRM is pretty crappy for that.
@Mark - I'm not a big fan of the Libertarian model...each man for himself. You almost lost me there, but, hey...I don't think that we can consider iTunes as young anymore. They are industry leaders...setting the standards. That's why I said, "You could have been a contender" Hopefully someday they will stand up to the RIAA.
For all...I am totally okay with the paying for music thing. Hell, I've done it forever and I get it. I just don't want limitations to how I can listen to, port or use that music for my own pleasure.
@madflo - thanks for the link and the food for thought. It's good to know the whole story.
Ask yourself this question... Even if you weren't locked in to using an iPod to listen to your iTMS songs on the go, would you use anything else...?
The wonder of the iTunes-iPod-iTMS combo, is that it works so well together. I would love to see some real competition to this, a true alternative with the same kind of vertical integration, if it assured the same quality of user experience. Apple has created one cool product. Period.
Take a look at the other side of the Apple business: Macintosh. All macs provide the same kind of user experience because they've been designed in whole by the same company. Perfect software and hardware and integration, no driver problems. Total focus on the user experience.
Like I said before, I would love to see some real competition on the other side of the fence. Yes, I agree with you, DRM sucks, but Fairplay has to be one of the less restrictive schemes out there. What are the restrictions on other music stores? 1 pc, 1 portable player, no burning?
Just my 2 cents...
That's not a very good thing as we lost a lot of advantages with this law...
like having the right to share "legally" stuff(cd/files/video) betwen a close circle of people (like relative, friends).
I think that's a pretty uncharitable position.
Before iTMS, who was selling you music?
No-one.
Apple spent a lot of time hashing out terms with the recording industry for worldwide-acceptable downloading of music. You think Apple wanted to bring DRM to the masses? You think they wanted anything other than huge popularity for their player (which is why it accepts other DRM-less formats).
Remember - they have licensed their technology to others (HP, Motorola) but you're expecting Apple to license Apple technology on other people's terms. If Microsoft wants to pay for Fairplay, I'm sure they can. If Rio wants to license Fairplay, I'm sure they can. It just won't be as cheap as they're getting the bitter pill from Redmond.
Why is Apple DRM any worse than anyone elses? Because it's popular? Great argument.
An iTMS DRM'ed track can be played on an iPod, a Mac, a PC and a mobile phone all before you start to legally remove DRM by *shock* burning to an audio CD.
A MSMEdia DRM'ed track can be played on a PC or a Microsoft Console or on a MP3 player or a Microsoft OS phone.
Yes, Apple is so much worse. (PS. That was sarcasm)
I'm surprised by your stance. Just as much as I would like to not have my music locked up, I don't want the government interceding for those of us who want it that way (and there are many who don't). Our hope is in voting with our money and educating those who think otherwise.
LET THE MARKET DECIDE AND MOVE CHANGE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
If you let government move in on Apple, WHERE DOES THE LINE GET DRAWN?
"Let the market decide" ?
Currently, the market (and I presume by this you mean the consumer) in the USA is pretty much constrained by the DMCA and DRM. From your comment, I take it that you're happy for the market to make their decisions within that framework, and you believe their decision making ability has not already been moved in on by the government in a way that you object to.
:-) <---tolerant, patronising smile.
Post a Comment
<< Home