iTunes 6 and FairPlay

There has been much discussion in the blogsphere about iTunes 6 and the fact that they have increased the copy protection that you could easily remove in previous versions. On Fred Wilson's blog he is essentially boycotting it because of this. Others have echoed his sentiment. I have long thought the concept of Apple's FairPlay sucked. Although the purchase experience could not be better and iTunes is fantastic in terms of navigation, the fact that I can only have 5 computers (or devices) licensed to use the product pisses me off. I have a lot of computers. In my house I have 4, including one dedicated for music. In our household we have two iPods and I also listen to music all day long at my office. Thus, I run out of licenses. It is MY music. If you can't use it as you wish, then legally speaking, you are merely leasing it, not buying it. I don't want to lease music. I want it on my own terms. I want to be able to control the bitrate, I want to be able to put it on any device and in any format. While I do believe that AAC is a superior algorithm to MP3, my TiVo wont play them, thus I use FLAC AAC encoding. I buy a lot of music and I spend a lot of money on concerts and other paraphernalia. I typically use allofmp3.com. I will be the first to say it is a gray area in terms of legality. However, this is how it works for me: if there is a new group that people are talking about (especially Fred Wilson) I will download it (if available) and if I like it, I go to my local store and buy it. I have tons of CDs that are not even opened as I already have the digital version. If I don't like it, I archive it. I would rather support artists directly (i.e. concerts) than go through the "proper" channels such as iTunes which only gives a dime to the artist. Concerts are where artists really make their money and I fully support those artists. But for this mechanism, I don't think I'd go to as many shows. Mike Doughty got three CD purchases via this system as did The Decemberists just this past week. One thing where I would agree with the RIAA is that sharing one's MP3s on a P2P network should be eschewed. But give us a better alternative and one wont have to go "underground" for music.

The RIAA needs to get a grip on reality. They are going after the people they should least go after; that is, people passionate about music. I have nearly 2000 CDs and I still buy more. I have contributed to many an artist coffers, but in reality, most of that was quickly absorbed by the record companies. People are not stupid. They know that most of what the RIAA does is total BS. The Lars Ulrich debacle with Metallica really made a lot of enemies of former fans. They were, in essence, selling out- and for what?. It is grossly naive to suggest you can stop illegal downloading. I argue that they should change the distribution scheme entirely in order so that people go through the proper channels. Apple demonstrated that it could be done. But, with FairPlay it really, in essence, made an enemy out of a company who championed the idea of legitimizing music downloading. I am not sure that it was completely Apple's measure however. I think that many have forgotten that the RIAA controls the distribution system and if they demand that artists on the Warner Bros label have DRM, Apple does not have much choice. However, instead of using their enormous clout, both in the computing field, as well as the entertainment business, and promote forward a new radical system, they have cowtowed to the labels. I think that only Apple can shame the RIAA to lay off on such aggressive DRM policies.

Heavy Metal Drummer from the album "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" by Wilco

[posted with ecto]

Technorati Tags: Macintosh, Technology

Comments

[breezie]

yep, i guess you really are leasing music then. then again, isn't there the concept of "first sale?" if i want to rip a book, i will and paste the pages all over my house. but see, with digital music, i can't. hehehe.

hi ted! :)

[breezie]

yep, i guess you really are leasing music then. then again, isn't there the concept of "first sale?" if i wanted to rip a book, i could and paste the pages all over my house. but see, with digital music, i can't. hehehe.

hi ted! :)

[Ted]

I am not aware of the overall concept of "first sale." However, why can't you rip music and do whatever you'd like with it? For example, under fair use doctrine, you would be well within your rights to photocopy the book you are about to shred for your archive; thus xeroxing is akin to ripping MP3s in this context.

Even the Draconian Digitial Millenium Copyright Act would not prohibit this as there would be no copy protection, thus there would be no thwarting the merchant's intention. If they start putting in holographic codes in books to prevent copying, then I would suggest that would trip the provisions in the DMCA.

Also, as I know that you are in the Philippines, if you were to purchase an iTunes song in the US on Holiday, when you go back home, what are your rights? Under who's law do we use? While you agreed to US law upon purchase, I would suggest that basic concepts of property rights in many countries would trump US copyright law, despite a treaty on the subject.