Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Protesting Apple's DRM 148

Posted by timothy
from the while-babies-starve dept.
tedet writes "On the heels of the recent DRM news from Bruce Perens, the UK Parliament, and the Norwegian Omsbudman, Defective By Design is planning a flash protest this coming Saturday targeting Apple Stores throughout the United States. Defective by Design is targeting Apple because '[a]s the largest distributor of DRM infected technology, Apple has set a new low in the mistreatment of our freedoms.' We can expect more hazmat suits, and they created some art specific to this action. Hopefully these direct actions by Defective by Design will get the U.S. up-to-speed with its continental counterparts." (Of course, some people are happy with Apple's DRM as a compromise which helped legitimize online music sales.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Protesting Apple's DRM

Comments Filter:
  • Flash Protest? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by necro81 (917438) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:19PM (#15495735) Journal
    It can hardly qualify as a flash protest if you announce it to the world days in advance.
    • by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:37PM (#15495889)
      Well, it can, but I sure hope that's not what they're planning.
    • Why this is Dumb (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have a pretty good understanding of DRM and yes, APPLE is the market leader in online (drm'd) music sales. However, this is all due to the trickle down effect created by groups like the RIAA.

      No major label will sell drm-free music. Emusic, the number 2 online store sells mostly drm-free indie label and back catalog stuff b/c no major label will allow them to sell the next Britney Spears album without some alleged protection.. And- if they did allow this, it would cost a pretty penny.

      Apple just happens t
  • by HRH King Lerxst (79427) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:22PM (#15495755)
    Since Apple's implementation is the least obtrusive and most user friendly, does it make since to protest? Why not go after more draconian DRM?
    • by TheRealStyro (233246) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:50PM (#15495982) Homepage
      Apple's Fairplay DRM scheme is one of the best I've used. Apple allows you to make audio CDs and doesn't have a problem with file/image backup applications.

      Do I wish Apple's DRM were better and less restrictive - you betcha! The price per song should be lower and with public disclosure of how much each party receives from each sale. The bitrate should also be higher to handle some more complex pieces of music. The number of CD burn times for each song should also be increased, not decreased. Video content should be able to be burned onto a standard and/or HD/BD DVD.

      Too bad emusic cannot charge on per song basis; non-DRMed content is great (subscriptions suck).
      • When it first came out they did tell you what the breakdown was. Apple gets just enough to keep their servers running and to improve iTunes (less than 10% of the sale), the company gets all the rest but there was a requirement that a decent percentage of it HAD to go to the artist not like 50% of it, but enough that it was valid and not the artist was getting 2 cents when the label got 88.

        Unfortunaly I cant seem to find the old page on thier site that spelled it out.


      • "The price per song should be lower and with public disclosure of how much each party receives from each sale."

        That's going to be tricky, because it gets into myriad contracts the label has with performers, producers, and other people involved in production. Contracts that, I bet, none of them necessarily want exposed in that kind of detail.

        iTunes doesn't control how much money the artist gets, that would depend on their contract, and would vary depending on, for instance, whether they wrote the songs or no
    • by ElleyKitten (715519) <.kittensunrise. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:08PM (#15496113) Journal
      Since Apple's implementation is the least obtrusive and most user friendly, does it make since to protest? Why not go after more draconian DRM?
      Because they believe that all DRM is bad. Maybe it doesn't seem so bad now, but once people are used to the "friendly" DRM, then the less and less friendly DRM will be more palatable, and pretty soon everything you do on a computer is controled by the "content providers", kinda like in this scenerio [gnu.org]. I'm not sure if it'll get that bad, but a little DRM can go a long way.
      • Thanks for the link to that "Right to Read" story, it was fun.
      • by Millennium (2451)
        I agree with you that DRM is an inherently bad technology, but I can't help but agree that the protests are better directed at more draconian schemes. The RIAA doesn't need Apple: should Apple pull out of the DRM game, the RIAA will simply move to stores with even worse models; God knows there are enough of those to keep the RIAA satisfied.

        If the protests are to be truly effective, then they need to recognize that RIAA will always be as draconian as they possibly can. Thus, the protests should be focused to
        • The priority is publicity, gained as cheaply and with as little effort as possible. Apple is a convenient target, as they have many retail locations distributed across the country (and throughout the world). This will be much easier to pull off compared to a "million nerd march" on Washington DC, Hollywood, or on Redmond.

          So, I think they don't really care that they're not attacking the the worst offenders. They just want the attention, and they're going to get it.
      • Well put!

        What the grandparent asks is a little like "Shouldn't the police be going after the crack dealers producing the expensive, crappy crack noone wants, rather then the dealers with the pure, cheap crack?"

        (to extend the always brilliant DRM vendors / drug pusher analogy)
    • Unobtrusive, user-friendly DRM is the worst kind. When DRM is in-your-face and prevents the average user from doing something, the average user notices and realizes how stupid it is. With unobtrusive, user-friendly DRM, the average user will, most likely, never even know about it.

      Unobtrusive, user-friendly DRM lulls consumers into thinking that DRM is acceptable. It's not.
    • Apple uses DRM for vendor lockin purposes (and is on its way to monopoly), that is the worst kind of DRM imaginable. Which DRM is more obtrusive and draconian according to you? Play for sure? Anybody can licence it, it's not in any way good at all but it sure as hell doesn't have the restrictions Apple puts on the DRM.
    • Have you ever seen a baby cheetah? Awh, cute cuddly and barely able to stand upright let alone run. Yet within a year or two it will out accelarate a ferrari.

      Some people are worried about DRM and Trusted Computing. Not because of what it is today but of what it might become in the future.

      Examine your own words. You claim that Apples DRM is the obstrusive and user UN-friendly. Oh not as bad as others but what kind of recommondation is that? Sniffing pee ain't as bad as sniffing pure amonia. Do you want to

      • That's true except I can and do play non DRM'd mp3s on my ipod now. If that changes I'll reflash it with ipod linux (which does work on my nano I've tried it): http://ipodlinux.org/Main_Page [ipodlinux.org]

        Same thing for OSs if OS X gets over DRMed I'll reformat mt HD and install Ubuntu for PPC. Thankfully Dapper Drake is usable by ordinary non geek god human beings. I'm just grateful there are options now if DRM gets too onerous/
        • By the Trusted Computing hardware. Wich your mac might already contain. Notice how with game consoles we already seem to accept that the company tells us what we can and cannot do with our property.

          Most products you buy you are free to use them in anyway you see fit. With game consoles this is no longer the case. Wonder what will be next?

          Apple sure didn't seem to like people hacking their OS to run on other hardware nor for that matter people hacking their hardware to run other OS'es.

          Just because today y

          • You can still mod your game consoles. Even if the DMCA were somehow able to prevent the sale of mod chips, you could still hack your own mod chip together with some instructions a some experience with EE.
          • No trusted computing on my G5 tower or G3 ibook and I like it that way. I don't see myself "upgrading" anytime soon. If I really need to play Windoze games I'll get a Windoze box for less than 200 from the classified ads.
    • And at least Apple's is cross-platform. I can't watch AOL's "Go2TV" web-based TV shows because it uses Microsoft DRM, which is not only more intrusive than Apple's, but doesn't even work on OS X. Which is a shame, because I love Head of the Class.
    • Since Mr. Guillotine's implementation is the least painful and most user friendly, does it make sense to protest? Why not go after more draconian execution methods?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The problem's DRM, not Apple. Therefore, make sure you add Redmond to the flash mob as well, along with the various headquarters of the xxIA sites, etc.
  • Pipe dream (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hopefully these direct actions by Defective by Design will get the U.S. up-to-speed with its continental counterparts.

    Yes, a bunch of random people in hazmat suits passsing out flyers is really going to make a HUGE difference. Really!
  • by Shivetya (243324) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:28PM (#15495813) Homepage Journal
    Its obvious that this group complaining about Apples "number of copies" is making a point by not providing all the relevant information. As such their honest and integrity are questionable. Apple's number of copies only applies the number of times a specific playlist can be burned if that playlist contains protected music. Want to burn it again then make a new one.

    Still its not like its hard to circumvent the DRM in iTunes. The easiest to understand for layman is to burn to music CD and rip back to MP3.

    On the point of legally purchased. You enter a contract with Apple when you purchase a protected track. You don't have to buy it from them if you don't agree to their terms. Go buy the CD. DRM rules are not applied to items you RIP yourself as the agreement of that purchase did not involve Apple.

    Now, should Apple decide to apply DRM rules to items not purchased through them, specifically CDs you own, then I can see a real reason to cry about it. My first action would be to not upgrade to such a version of iTunes and forever leave the service. My previously purchased music will still work fine, Apple will just be out a lot of customers until they change their tune.

    As for the other services, you are not required to use them either. Don't like the idea of a subscription, then fine don't use one but why in the hell must you bitch about products you won't use because you don't like them? Do you just have to be a victim?
    • Now, should Apple decide to apply DRM rules to items not purchased through them, specifically CDs you own, then I can see a real reason to cry about it.

      Doesn't Windows Media Player do something like this by default? I don't really use the program, but I know there's the checkbox to "Acquire licenses for music I rip myself" or something like that that's enabled by default. Knowing MS, I've always interpreted it as "Apply DRM to my own music so I don't accidentally let someone else have it." Or am I totall
      • I don't really use the program, but I know there's the checkbox to "Acquire licenses for music I rip myself" or something like that that's enabled by default.

        Actually, it's "Automatically acquire licences for protected content". It applies to content that you somehow obtain that's protected (ie already DRMed), not to music you rip yourself.

        The CD ripping functionality in WMP defaults to unprotected, fixed-rate WMA, with options (in WMP 10) for VBR WMA, lossless WMA and mp3. I've no idea how they compare, as
    • You don't have to buy it from them if you don't agree to their terms.
      Now it seems like a valid argument. But I think many people are afraid that if the DRM technology spreads they won't have a choice anymore.
      • That's an unrealistic worry. If all the labels that exist today went totally DRM tomorrow, it would be a matter of days before new companies sprang up to fill the market of providing un-DRM'ed media. Even if the RIAA got dozens of laws passed to try and stop it.

        Many different drugs are highly illegal, and their production and physical nature makes distributing much more complicated than digital files. Yet there's still plenty of market for them, because the demand is there.

        Wherever there is demand, capitali
        • Illegal — that's the keyword.

          I, too, think that the music is overpriced but still I'm willing to pay for the tunes I really want to listen to. I'd just like to be able to listen to the purchased music on all my devices, without paying for each new format invented. If I have to pay for each format/device then I'd rather choose to stop listening to new artists alltogether.

          For people like me all-DRM world is an end to our already limited freedoms. Being technically able to download mp3s from the In
    • Sorry in advance,

      I always use /. for cheap market research. I know the crowd, I am the crowd. I looked at this story and was very interested to see what the comunity thought. Not to hop on the bandwagon, after reading the initial write-up (and not RTFA) I was clearly marked "morally ambiguous" myself. But glancing over to "Read more.." I saw that there were only 35 or so comments.

      On an Apple post. On the front page. With all kinds of stories around and above it actually garnering attention.

      Its not that this
    • Apple's number of copies only applies the number of times a specific playlist can be burned if that playlist contains protected music. Want to burn it again then make a new one.

      That doesn't hold any water with me. If I buy the songs I should be able to burn them in any order I want, as many times as I want. I also shouldn't have to lose quality to play them on a device that doesn't support FairPlay, but does support mp4 audio.

      On the point of legally purchased. You enter a contract with Apple when you

      • On the point of legally purchased. You enter a contract with Apple when you purchase a protected track.

        You know, that's the music industry's argument, too. They claim you're purchasing a license to listen to the music, and that the license does not include the right to copy.

        No, there's a difference. The "music industry" sure wants people to believe that they license music when they buy a CD, but they're just plain wrong and they don't have the evidence to back it up, because licensing simply does not o

      • That doesn't hold any water with me. If I buy the songs I should be able to burn them in any order I want, as many times as I want.

        So what exactly is keeping you from creating a new playlist with the same songs in the same order? You blind hatred for Apple?

        • My understanding was that it remembered the playlists you have created and will disallow a future playlist with the same tracks on it. I guess you could always just add a dummy track or something, but what a PITA, and there's no good reason for it to be necessary. I know it's part of Apple's deal with the RIAA, but like most anything from the RIAA, it's stupid.
    • Still its not like its hard to circumvent the DRM in iTunes. The easiest to understand for layman is to burn to music CD and rip back to MP3.

      This is why Apple's DRM is the most insidious. It exacts a lot of control, but is fairly easy to get by. It gets people used to the idea of DRM, and at the same time lulls them into complacency about DRM ("It's not so bad!"). It's obvious to someone circumventing it like you propose that it's a loophole - there are a few big ones, and they're easy to find.

      But in a
    • C'mon, you say their "honest and integrity are questionable" but then follow it with..

      Still its not like its hard to circumvent the DRM in iTunes. The easiest to understand for layman is to burn to music CD and rip back to MP3.

      ..as though destructively-lossy transcoding really counts as circumvention. By that same logic, any DRM on digital music or video is easy to circumvent, because a user can always make an analog copy and then redigitize it.

      FWIW, I agree with what you say that people choose to ent

  • apple not that bad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gaminRey (569220)
    IMO, apple has one of the least obtrusive DRM setups available. Sure the fact that it isn't open to other players makes things difficult, but compared to the rediculous systems the RIAA/MPAA has come up with, Apple's stuff is great.
    • compared to the rediculous systems the RIAA/MPAA has come up with, Apple's stuff is great.

      I'm not sure what you mean. Neither than RIAA or MPAA come up with DRM systems. I can tell you that at least with the RIAA, their member companies do have to evaluate and approve a DRM system before they'll let you sell music, but they themselves do not describe it. Certainly, the major record labels have to have approved of Apple's DRM just the same as any others'.

      In summary, members of the RIAA do not "come up w

    • RIAA/MPAA wants to rape your ass, Apple just wants you to give him a blowjob.

      Compared to what the RIAA/MPAA want to do to you Apple stuff is great. Right?

      DRM is an absolute. iTunes DRM is not complete. Steve Jobs realized that for now this is the maximum he could get away with. Question is, is Steve Jobs going to lessen the DRM as the RIAA/MPAA smartens up OR is he going to increase the DRM as the public gets used to it.

      What do you think? To invoke godwin, the consumer is poland during WW2. It doesn't re

  • It's a reasonable limitation. My only complaint about Apple has nothing to do with their DRM, but rather being locked into iTunes + iPod. If Microsoft did this, we'd scream bloody murder, monopology, technical hegemony, etc. Apple doing this is ok for whatever reason. Probably because their market share is paltry and when the underdog uses the overdog's tactics to score a victory, it's hard not to cheer. Anyway, I invite people who object to Apple's DRM to do so, and do so effectively, but if we send a
  • by ulysses38 (309331)
    i'm interested to see how they would set up a legal music downloading system with absolutely no DRM wrapper. also, does their language seem...well, a little orwellian?

    from TFA:

    "DRM gives them that power over you. Your devices will have to do their bidding. That is what DRM is about, taking the control away from you, and giving it to Big Media and companies like Apple. The hardware and software they sell you will enforce their rules, by removing your rights. As the largest distributor of DRM infected technol
    • "i'm interested to see how they would set up a legal music downloading system with absolutely no DRM wrapper."

      http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com]

      Non-DRMed VBR MP3s.
      • Even this service has quite a few flaws, here's what comes to mind while signing up for my 'free trial' an indie music catalog I can't search without giving them my credit card number, that's a huge red flag. Subscription service not a use based service, that's another. HTML newsletters, have another! Proprietary software, that shockingly requires an installer program on OS X yet another!

        Look, I realize that in theory if you cancel before your trial period is up you don't get charged, and that you don't *
    • Also, TFAuthor really need to figure out how punctuation works. That was terrible.
  • ... to call it DRM. It's pretty simple to get around, and it was obviously meant to be that way. Any time I buy things from the iTunes Store, I back it up to a CD for two reasons. One, so I have a back-up, and two, so I can use it in my car. Once you have it on a CD, you reimport it to your HD and, voila. You've set the music free. It's not only inexpensive, but also prudent. I'm sure lots of people know this, but it's obvious that some still don't and the bad press that results from it is unfortunate for A
    • There are two problems with this solution:

      1. It sounds bad
      2. It takes too much time.

      Seriously, 128Kbps is bad enough as it is. To burn it and then reimport it is absolute murder. Of course, modern audio "engineering" and radio leaves very little detail worth preserving.

  • Why blame Apple? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People should be blaming the record companies who wouldn't put their music up on the store unless Apple implemented some kind of DRM. And fairly weak DRM at that.

    But nobody is forcing people to use the iTMS. If you don't like it, then just buy the CD which can be ripped and used in any device.
  • by therealking (223121) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:39PM (#15495901) Homepage
    DRM exists because the RIAA wants it there. Apple is contractually bound to sell thier music with DRM on it. They can't just remove it at thier own discresion.

    Go protest the RIAA membership companies, oh wait then you'd have to deal with the real problem. Nevermind.

    • The companies who make up the RIAA don't generally have stores themselves. Instead, they sell through quasi-independent dealers, or through Apple, in part to avoid being subject to sucg inconvenient things as customer complaints, protests or boycotts.

      One therefor aims one's protests toward the people who are the agents for the DRM'd music, and whose profits are directly affected by public picketing.

      --dave


    • TOTALLY. Apple pushed really hard for a liberal license, and got it. And now the world has embraced this liberal license.

      IF they want to bitch, they should bitch to the RIAA.

      I think this is really about people wanting to steal content and do so conveniently. Its not that hard to steal content, and Apple is at best providing an inconvenience to it.

      Talk about misguided, but then, its european socialists who think that profit is evil, so what can you expect?
      • I think this is really about people wanting to steal content and do so conveniently. Its not that hard to steal content, and Apple is at best providing an inconvenience to it.

        Please stop spreading this FUD. It has nothing to do with stealing content. I have bought DRM'd music from Apple. I have also ripped my music collection to AAC.

        I have a mobile telephone and a palmtop, both of which can play AACs. I can play the 90% or so of my music collection that I ripped from CD on either, but not the few

    • You don't think that, say, if you were to protest to the RIAA, they'd say "Nothing to do with us. We don't even sell music. Go and complain to the people who do."?

      And maybe that Apple might be grateful for the protest, as it'd give them more leverage next time they're negotiation with the RIAA?

      I've posted before [kuro5hin.org] that ultimately, no form of DRM can be reasonable. Apple's may be more lenient than most, for which kudos to them. But it's still going to prevent all sorts of fair, licensed and/or legal us

  • If it wasn't for consumers (who are at least semi happy about it) then this wouldn't exist and its popularity is growing. If apple did want to sell music that was not DRM'ed the recording cartel of america wouldn't sell it to them (RIAA).

    Is it possible apple is in a catch 22 here, they want to sell non DRM'ed stuff but the content cartels wouldn't dare let them ?
  • What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sakusha (441986) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:55PM (#15496009)
    If you want to protest, the usual method is by "voting with your feet." That doesn't mean marching in the streets, it means walking out and choosing another vendor. If you don't like iTunes DRM, then don't use it. Buy something else, like an unprotected CD and rip it yourself.
    • If you want to protest, the usual method is by "voting with your feet."

      You sir, have no idea what protest [time.com] means.

      Note that I am not likening this flash protest with Rosa Parks - just pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

      If you don't like iTunes DRM, then don't use it.

      DRM is coming, better to fight it early, raise the profile of what DRM means & attack its current most visible form.
      • You sir, have no idea what protest means.

        Note that I am not likening this flash protest with Rosa Parks - just pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

        Nice link to a story about the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott. Did you mean to imply that an iTunes boycott as I suggested, is not a protest?
    • If you want to protest, the usual method is by "voting with your feet."

      Yes, that's a good idea. But if you care about the issue and other people, rather than just yourself, then there's an even better way to protest. It's called "voting with your mouth" where your try to make the non-voters and default-voters aware of the issue, so that they'll vote with you.

      Or as I said in another post, it's ok for someone who is not a cracksmoker, to try to persuade other people to refrain from smoking crack.

  • Hypocrites (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:56PM (#15496017)
    Take a look at the bottom of the defectivebydesign.com webpage:

    DefectiveByDesign.org is a campaign of the Free Software Foundation Empowered by CivicActions.com Copyright © 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. Verbatim copying and distribution of site content permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.

    That's right, there are restrictions to using the contents of their website!!! Doesn't matter how "friendly" these restrictions are, the very fact that there are restrictions is EVIL! Heck, I can't even modify their copyright block, that's right, there is content on their site that I can't modify! I suggest they send some guys in hazmat suits over to their own offices and start the cleanup pronto.
    • That's right, there are restrictions to using the contents of their website!!! Doesn't matter how "friendly" these restrictions are, the very fact that there are restrictions is EVIL! Heck, I can't even modify their copyright block, that's right, there is content on their site that I can't modify! I suggest they send some guys in hazmat suits over to their own offices and start the cleanup pronto.

      I think you miss the point. The point is not to abolish all rights to one's own work; it is to prevent the ado

    • If your web browser prohibited you from removing the notice that would be DRM. As such, it doesn't. So what does that mean if you violate the terms of this license? It means that a person will have to enforce the license, by prosecuting you in a court of law.
  • Very stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:12PM (#15496150)
    What the FSF is trying to do is raise awareness of DRM and call attention to things that might lead more people to oppose DRM.

    The problem is that Apple's unobtrusive approach to DRM is, by itself, the best argument for DRM one is likely to find, so by bringing this to everyone's attention the FSF is only hurting their own case. Those people who see that protest are going to walk away with that message "oh, so DRM is that thing that the iPod has. well the iPod's never kept me from doing anything I want to do, so I guess that means DRM isn't that bad". Then the next time they see something about an unambiguous abuse of DRM, the drm==ipod association the FSF created in their mind will rear up and they'll go "oh, but drm is just that thing the ipod has. surely this isn't that bad."

    I was hoping the FSF would finally be the one to force the DRM problem into the consciousness of "normal america" but it's clear that no, the FSF still has no idea how people's minds work. I guess we can write this protest campaign off as ineffectual from here on out, and the best we can hope for is that it will manage to avoid hurting the digital freedom cause.

    Why the heck isn't the FSF using their time protesting Apple to complain about and call attention to Apple's use of TPM/TCPA/Palladium [google.com] in the new macs? That's:
    1. A real issue
    2. One that precious few people are aware of, and there's precious little information available about even for the people who are aware
    3. Irrelivant to trust of Apple-- Saying "but DRM lets Apple do terrible things to you later!" will get immediately brushed off as "oh, Apple wouldn't do that". But once TPM is present, it can be abused by anybody. You can get people to believe "TPM will let people do evil things to you later" without broaching the impossible task of convincing them "Apple is doing something evil to you now".
    FSF, where is your brain?
    • I was hoping the FSF would finally be the one to force the DRM problem into the consciousness of "normal america" but it's clear that no, the FSF still has no idea how people's minds work. I guess we can write this protest campaign off as ineffectual from here on out, and the best we can hope for is that it will manage to avoid hurting the digital freedom cause.

      I'm a bit torn on this issue. I think they did choose a good target for publicizing DRM. Everyone knows what an iPod is and anyone can understand

    • No, DRM is that thing that the iTunes Music Store has, and when iPods aren't so cool anymore, people are going to quickly realise that all the music they bought from the iTunes Music Store is useless for their new music players.
  • by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacbe l l .net> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:12PM (#15496152) Homepage
    They are much more numerous than iTunes tracks, and are equally DRM restricted!
  • ...buy products using other people's DRM. It's that simple.

    Protesting that a company selling a product that you are at liberty to buy (or not) is a restriction of your freedom has got to be just about the most bizarre thing I've heard since, well, at least 6am this morning.

    • The protest is there to get people asking "what is this DRM thing?" and to bring about awareness of DRM. Most people don't realise it exists yet, or if they have been obstructed by it, they assumed the problem was something of a technical nature as opposed to something that Apple did on purpose.

      Buying other DRM products is a stupid way of "getting back at Apple".
    • I agree with you. I think that if MS wants to stop you installing any other WP than Office, they should have that right; you don't have to buy from them. I think when they did that nasty stuff with DR Dos, that was fine too. You didn't have to run Windows. I think that charging schools for all their computers, not just for the ones running Windows, and OEMs the same way for all the machines they ship: well, fine, they don't have to deal with MS if they don't want to. Its a free country. And Explorer.
  • The bigger problem with this whole DRM mess is that consumers don't really understand what they're buying. They don't understand that Apple controls everything about what they can do with the content that they're buying. They don't know that they're giving up rights that they have always had in order to get music on to their iPod.

    To answer the poster who said that this protest is misdirected and that it should be targetting the RIAA, if the RIAA had stores set up in malls that gather lots of foot traffic
    • To answer the poster who said that this protest is misdirected and that it should be targetting the RIAA, if the RIAA had stores set up in malls that gather lots of foot traffic we might be targetting them as well.

      In other words, you are acting like a corporate whore. You don't care about the real issues, you just care about getting attention, and the most foot traffic. Nice one.

    • They don't know that they're giving up rights that they have always had in order to get music on to their iPod.

      If I buy a song from the iTMS and burn it to an audio CD, I can do anything with it I could do with the same song bought on an audio CD from the nearest music store.

      What rights am I giving up?

      It's not like I bought a DVD from France and wanted to play it on my DVD player in the US.

      if the RIAA had stores set up in malls that gather lots of foot traffic we might be targetting them as well.

      Every books
  • I'm pretty sure my high school debate teacher told me that, if I want to win an argument, I don't want to alienate the audience. By claiming that the software is "infected" you pretty much loose before you can make your pitch.
    • Well, they may not be lying. They may be terminally clueless. Nobody who's even just been following the debate could have missed this stuff:

      They claimed that Apple limits the number of copies you can make of a song. That's not true, you can burn as many copies of a song as you want. You just have to make a new playlist now and then (which is pretty easy, it's about 3 clicks and a drag).

      They claimed that Apple was the biggest distributor of DRM in the world. Not even close. Microsoft beats them hollow, and t
  • In my mind, you show up at an Apple store dressed in a Hazmat suit and you are just begging to be mistaken for the Intel bunnysuit [jeffbots.com] guys. Most people will probably see this and think it's advertising the new Intel chipped computers!

    In fact that would be pretty hilarious, find some of the protesters outside the store and slap them on the back to let them know what a good job they are doing... with an Intel Inside sticker in hand.
  • Really good even. Somebody should tell these guys that you protest a corporation's actions by not doing business with them. Which obviously would mean not buying songs from iTunes. I'm not sure that not buying an ipod counts, most mp3 players support one drm format or another these days.
  • I'm a big Apple fan, but I'm strongly against this DRM.

    I bought some tracks from the iTMS. Before a trip to South Africa, I dumped them to my laptop because I figured my dad would get a kick out of hearing them.

    9000KMs from home with no 'net access, I realised I had forgotten to ask Apple for permission to play the audio that I had bought from them on the specific device I was taking with me. I hadn't authorised those tracks for my laptop.

    Sure, I paid for the bits with real money, but because I forgot to as
    • Thank You! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nuckin futs (574289)
      That was the first and last purchase I made from iTMS.

      THAT is how you protest DRM!
      Seems like these guys want to hang around Apple stores and bitch to every customer who walks in trying to buy an iPod.
  • There's actually a couple of good things about Apple's DRM.

    Here's two HUGE advantages of having Apple in the DRM market that more than make up for all the disadvantages of FairPlay.

    1. Competition in the DRM marketplace is good for consumers, because the more complex and difficult DRM is to use, the less acceptable people will find it. I like the fact that I have to jump through extra hoops to unlock my music to play on a generic player, because if it's extra work for a geek it means it's a lot of extra work

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...