Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM? 326
Steve Ryan asks: "The direction Microsoft are taking with Windows (for example, the DRM issues in Vista) have led me to believe Windows will soon be an OS which controls the user, rather than the other way round. I like XP, and I find it stable, but I do not want to upgrade to an OS (Vista) which is restrictive. This leaves me with either Linux or Mac OS X. I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it. OS X seems nice. I spend most of my time writing documents and surfing the web, so it should handle everything I want, and I would be happy to buy a lovely MacBook Pro. This leaves me with my question: Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead and implement a DRM loving policy?"
news to me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple already loves DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone that thinks Apple is better than Microsoft needs to take a history lesson. Apple acts exactly like microsoft, but is too small to be effective. Hell, the only reason we use PCs today and not macs is Steve Jobs wanted the whole computer pie and wouldn't settle for just controlling the operating system.
There's DRM and then there's DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite some kind of source before tossing this kind of explosive into the discussion.
Thank you.
D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple already loves DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
- Make sure you don't misplace your product key, in case you need to reinstall later.
- Cross your fingers when Microsoft phones home during activation to discover whether you're worthy of using Windows.
- Cross your fingers again as Microsoft checks whether you're a criminal every time you download patches.
- Cross your fingers yet again as you wonder whether end-of-life means your purchase will no longer activate.
- Remember to opt out of Windows Media Player's helpful tendency to DRM-infect files from CDs you rip yourself.
- Consider whether PlaysForSure or Zune DRM is more likely to be future-proof.
I don't deny that Apple might behave this way given the majority market share, but I think they're a long way from reaching that. If the tables are turned in ten years, I'll just do what I did to the Republicans: switch to the better candidate, even if that means Microsoft.A few mistakes in your post (Score:5, Informative)
2) Apple DRMed songs can trivially (in iTunes) be burned to a CD, opening up to a world of CD players and DVD players. If you choose to re-encode again you can transfer to additional devices other than iPods.
3) Apple has never acted like Microsoft. Microsoft has raised Windows license fees or withheld licenses from companies promoting or developing competing technologies (OS/2 and Netscape). The closest is when Apple withdrew licenses from clonemakers exactly because they did not want to only sell operating systems. Microsoft has also developed competitive technologies rather than endorsing existing solutions so they could extract more control (WMA instead of AAC, WMV instead of MPEG4, Direct3D instead of OpenGL, MTP instead of UMS, etc)
Maybe your point (Apple is a corporation, not an entity) would be better made as, "Don't trust Apple to be good by you unless it also helps them as well".
Apple already tolerates DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers, as Microsoft had been talking about.
and apple uses DRM on every tune or movie they sell.
That you can easily remove - even the video you can simply re-record with any number of video screen capture software. This is mandated by content providers, not Apple - remember Apple is the one that brought DRM to this loose state. Microsoft is the one giving you protected video paths with Vista.
You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD
You can if you simply copy it.
you can't transfer music from an ipod to a computer (easily)
Since iTunes recognizes ID3 tags it is childs play to copy a whole directory of music from any iPod you can mount into iTunes, and have the music all show up.
you can't transfer DRMd songs to any player but an ipod.
But you can also choose to move the songs to other formats that lack DRM and move them that way. There is an out.
People like you have been blasting Apple for DRM use for years when in fact Apple is the company that is slowly backing studios out of DRM use. the MP3 sales trial recently on Yahoo would never have been done if Apple had not locked up the popular use of DRM with Apple instead of an indsutry controlled company such as Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers''
The problem is that once you subscribe to DRM, TPM, etc. you cede control. After that, you can't say no anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ey? Microsoft is an industry-controlled company? If there is _one_ company that doesn't have to care what anyone else says, or even dictate where the industry goes, it has to be Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
"And if you've got iTunes Store purchases you'd like to move from one computer to another, iTunes syncs in reverse, too -- from your iPod back to any authorized computer." [apple.com]
You can authorize 5 computers. Do some research. Stop the FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but what about the music you didn't by from the iTunes store, but ripped from CDs (or whatever)? How do you get that back off the iPod (in a supported way)?
(Note: I have 2 Macs and an iPod, and I'm getting rather tired of Apple, in effect, punishing me for being a loyal customer by deliberately restricting its software in order to make it difficult for me to keep them in sync. With all Apple's vaunted "usability," my iPod should copy everything back and forth and I should be able to use iSync between t
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ [osxbook.com]
The important take aways are:
- TPM on Macs are NOT used to tie OSX to Apple hardware
- TPM module is not even used by OSX in any capacity
- TPM is user-controllable/hackable to perform what y
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the page you linked it's only assumed that that's the case, because the system no longer reports the presence of the TPM. If you read further, though, you see this:
Apple not as bad as Win, Linux not perfect either (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or are you running jaguar? if... it's time to upgrade... jaguar -> tiger is like windows 95 -> XP.
Re: (Score:2)
Lossier and Lossier (Score:2)
I keep hearing this, but it isn't really a freebie.
They allow this because it isn't a "perfect digital copy", it is more akin to taping an album onto a cassette.
Apple starts with the full-quality original digital file (.wav).
Then they encode it (which lowers the quality from the original), and they sell it to you
Writing to CD is not akin to taping to a cassette! (Score:2)
That's wrong. Writing an AAC file to a CD is pretty much a prefect digital copy. It doesn't sound worse. However, if you then re-encode the CD to a non-lossless file, you've lost some information. You're free to encode to a lossless format, of course, but even if you don't, most people won't be able to tell the difference between the original f
Re-encoding is akin to taping (Score:2)
Yes it is reasonably good digital copy of the less than perfect digital copy of the original that you would have gotten if you bought the original CD. It doesn't take an audiophile to tell the difference between an AAC and the original .wav file. So, to start with, Apple is selling you a less than perfect digital copy of the original song.
However, when you "rip to CD", that reasonably good digital copy of the AAC takes over 10 times as mu
Re: (Score:2)
What does it take, then? Personally, I can't tell the difference between CD, 192 kbps MP3 and 128 kbsp AAC. I can tell the difference between CD and 128 kbps MP3, though. I haven't tried re-encoding, but it's absolutely clear that it won't be bad enough for most people to notice or, if they do notice, care.
Umm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And OS X will? (Legally?)
Anyway, Linux or BSD is guaranteed freedom while OS X you have to trust a company. It's that simple. We can analyze Apple all we want but in the end it is a company that can decide to turn one way or the other at any moment. Not so with your average Linux distro.
Or play both sides and get a Mac and dual-boot. Keep your files in open or standard formats so you can easily move to other OSes.
It's not that simple (Score:2)
Linux supports TPM natively [computerworld.com.au]. Mac OS X doesn't (and more recent Macs don't even include the hardware anymore).
Maybe. (Score:2)
I've used all of them (Score:2)
Vista: it's okay (as of RC2). I'm not feeling the DRM though, and will probably remove it from my system in the near future.
OSX: This is what I'm using now. With Parallels/Boot Camp/VMWare, you should be able to use anything that doesn't have an OSX port.
Linux: I really wouldn't use it for a desktop machine. At least not yet. Of course, if you're going to use it for development and not for typical office stuff, it'd probably work perfectly for you.
Anyways, out of those three, I prefer
Not M$ (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel Macs now come with the beloved Trusted Computing module installed, and while most say that it is not used now, Apple is the only one deploying it widely to their user base. It will get used in the future.
Apple is now, and will continue the move to a media platform. Such a move is going to require very tight control over the content that is deployed to the platform. The only way that Apple can assure content providers that their content is "safe" is by deploying draconian measures to be sure that we cannot really "own" the content that we "borrow" from the rights holders, be it movies, songs, TV shows or newspapers.
Microsoft has less of interest in owning your content, sure they have to assure content providers that their content will not be used in improper ways - however their OS isn't targeted specifically to content creation and consumption. In reality, Microsoft can't really compete with Apple on completeness of media offering because they would be sued for anti-trust violations (and have).
While Microsoft has incorporated HDCP support for high-def content, the drives to play this content for pc's still range in the 000's. You can be sure when Apple starts to ship macs with blue-ray drives that HDCP will become a requirement. You also won't notice that it's there because with exception for the macpro and mac mini there is little need for external displays.
Interestingly, blue ray-discs may be encoded to play high def content via HDMI only at the studios discretion. Given that this capability exists today, Microsoft is not responsible for the movement to protect high def content.
To be clear, MS is not leading this charge. It has been built into the blue-ray standard, the hardware connections, and boards of a wide range of devices. This is a ground up attack at our ability to move content around. The MPAA and RIAA figure if you make the hardware aware of the content, then you can police the content better. They might be right... only time will tell.
If M$ does not deploy support for these standards then we will not have the ability to watch any of the content. The same will happen on OS X except that it will be less apparent due to the lack of HDCP compatibility issues across the most popular macs (MacBook, MacBook Pro). Apple will provide a better "user experience" because they control both the hardware and software that they sell to customers. Of course, Microsoft will look like the bad guy because they have little control over the hardware that ends up in consumers homes.
Re:Not M$ (Score:4, Informative)
That's pretty delusional. Firstly, Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS. And their OS is geared towards consumption of products and content. Like Microsoft applications, and third-party applications and games.
Microsoft doesn't just want to own your media - they want to oen your whole system and have the ability to shut your OS down remotely. Hell, Microsoft even tries to put DRM on your pre-existing content - for example, if you rip a CD with Windows Media Player. And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.
Just because Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with their plans, doesn't mean they aren't trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows media player is harmless. The verdict is still out on Media Center edition as the product used to have a direction, PC/TV Convergence however that is no longer the case. We will see how it turns out when it is rolled into Vista.
And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.
How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been ac
Macs have no TPM! (Score:4, Informative)
Geez, your post reads like you were just making it up as you went along, yet it got modded 5. Fascintaing.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 [osxbook.com] that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.
Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by defa
Re: (Score:2)
How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.
That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is m
Re: (Score:2)
It still exists as a hardware device - it's just hidden from everyone, why? Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY? There is no reason, unless there are plans to use it. As far as I know, no one else is including it.
That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.
And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies. Unprotected windows media files can easily be converted for the iPod. Why is it Apple's fault that the draconian MS DRM doesn't allow files to be converted for the iPod? I mean, your argument makes no sense at all. iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?
Dude, Microsoft's DR
Re: (Score:2)
As I pointed out in other threads, Apple's hardware is completely custom. They design their own pcbs. The TCPM isn't something that you just throw in there - it's a design decision that Apple made, and there is a reason for it. We just don't know what it is, yet.
And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies.
Guess what! You can go buy another device that plays quick time movies, AND your drm'd WMA files. But you sure as hell aren't going to find a
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so your point is that Microsoft's DRM is less draconian because more manufacturers create devices that incorporate that particular DRM?
That's just weird logic. If my music is locked, I don't really care if there's a dozen or 50 playe
Re: (Score:2)
With that said I think that Apple ends up giving consumers less choices, which is what I would consider "more draconian". I also think Apple's handling of the licensing situation for FairPlay is definatly draconian and anti-competitive.
But again, DRM is crap and when me
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Apple use their pseudo-mon
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different from the Zune or (ignoring the
Re: (Score:2)
And I've never said I'd ever understand how someone would buy something as ridiculous as the Zune, that something you dreamt up with your stupid fanboy logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, your post doesn't exist in a vacuum. You replied to my post, which claimed that the iTunes DRM is the most lenient you can get. Obviously, I'm not saying that iTunes is perfect. I'm saying that it's better than every other DRM solution. To that, you replied "Apple's DRM is draconian." Now either your reply was utterly pointless (as it now seems to be), or you implied that Apple's solution is worse than Microsoft's - which you now cla
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're telling me is "blah blah blah, I can't hear you, my rules only apply to Apple, not to Microsoft!"
If an iPod user can't easily transfer his music to a Zune, Apple's DRM sucks.
If a PlaysForSure user can't transfer his music to a Zune at all, well, he's the idiot for wanting a Zune.
I can see how that works.
Any device except the iPod. Which just happens to be the most popular MP3 player which owns 70% of the market, has a gazillion different add-ons an
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the rub, taking us back to the OP (and away from the Zune vs. iPod discussion this thread has taken):
None of the reasons given sugges
Re: (Score:2)
What is important is that Apple doesn't really give details about a) why it is included b) what it is going to be used for.
I think this is the most important fact: Apple's hardware is completely custom. The TCPM chip isn't just included "by acci
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you're free to pick a system without TC support, but that's like saying you'll be free to pick a system without a hard drive or processor.
Unless you don't care for music or movies or news or games or whatever, you've got no choice with Vista.
See this article for example (also posted on Slashdot recently):
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut0 [auckland.ac.nz]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/02/apple-drops-trusted -computing/ [tuaw.com] but it cites this site: http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ [osxbook.com] as the source of this information.
However, after reading the the second site, it does not say that the TCPM is not included (it states the chip included) it simply says that Apple is not currently using the TCPMs capabilities.
I think though that Apple is including an
Wake up (Score:4, Insightful)
They are very interested in making and maintaining sweetheart deals with studios and record companies, so that they can be the middleman who sells the movies and music that those other companies put out.
Only open systems can be expected to protect your freedom. Proprietary systems are by definition intended to take away your freedom to do as you wish with them. They are designed to remove your ability to modify them as you see fit. Your freedom is only guaranteed when source is available. Anything else is just a hope and a prayer.
They are, if it makes them money (Score:2)
Actually, they are if it helps them sell their stuff. And it does: While Microsoft ads more DRM in each version of Windows, Apple can point to that and tell its users: What would you rather have, that mess or our relatively lenient DRM?
That's very much a competitive advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
It would help them sell their stuff if there were any real difference between them. But there isn't.
The end result from purchasing an iTunes song or a "PlaysForSure" (Microsoft DRM) song is exactly the same: unless you keep the same computer in working condition forever, you eventually lose all of the music you purchased and have to rebuy it for the next computer. There's nothing lenient or acceptable about that.
...and another thing... (Score:2)
I don't want lenience from Apple or Microsoft.
I want them to sell me software that works for ME, not for someone else.
The short answer (Score:3, Insightful)
The short answer is "Yes."
If you want to sell the Mac in the consumer market. If you want to compete with that Vista media PC from HP or Dell and it's 50 GB HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drive. If you want to sell that big HD wide-screen monitor.
If you want to sell HD content through iTunes.
The mwre title of the next and last Harry Potter novel became headline news worldwide. Think of what the video rights to that series alone is worth. Think of what it is worth to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Those shiny plastic disks are cheap, portable, durable, media.
50 GB today. In five years, ten years, perhaps 500 GB, 1000 GB, or more.
I'll take the odds that the FedEx van will still be able to deliver more and cheaper HD content to your door than fiber.
Laptop (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Laptop (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the precedent... (Score:2)
Considering that Apple is a hardware company, lost revenue from someone not paying for a license is not a huge issue. The same cannot be said for Microsoft -- they have negative hardware revenue (e.g. subsidies on Xbox and Zune devices) -- lost software revenue hurts their bottom line.
So what makes you think Apple would want a "DRM loving policy"?
-ch
Bullshit yourself (Score:2)
Oh. So how come every time I changed something on my Dell, I got to call Microsoft and explain myself to them, while I had never any kind of problem like this with my Mac?
Spend money, but only for OS X? (Score:3, Insightful)
You comment that you don't mind spending $2000 for a new Mac so you can switch to OS X, but you don't consider the same scenario for Linux. So, why not consider plunking down $2000 on a ThinkPad and running Linux on it?
Re: (Score:2)
If most of your time is spent writing and surfing (Score:2)
These activities are available to you without problems on Windows, Linux, and OS X.
It looks like you are doing a poor job of rationalizing your desire for a Mac.
Maybe because... (Score:2)
That won't be true anymore with Vista [schneier.com]
Eh? (Score:2)
One would think they would be so inclined (Score:2)
They effectively controlled their hardware for 20 years so it isn't like they don't support the mindset. Just an observation from someone who couldn't justify getting a first Mac but who could afford a 10 mhz PC clone XT.
Microsoft's non-AV DRM approach (Score:3, Insightful)
LINUX - Since it doesn't embrasce DRM, content providers are not interested in supplying their creative to it. This means only non-commercial or very small indy media would be available. Further, since Linux is more of a "hacker's OS" it isn't well suited for households where a non-tech may want to jump on the web or download photos from the family digital camera. No Thanks.
Windows Vista - "DRM isn't just for music any more." This should be the Vista theme. Actually it has started a while back. I love how MS office refuses to register becuase the key has been used too many times - no matter the computer hasn't changed, just been upgraded with more RAM and newer hard drive. But MS can't even decide on one DRM schema so they implemented "PlaysForSure" AND a non-compatible "Zune" DRM schema - THIS IS MORE FREIGHTENING! If the DRM provider stopps supporting the DRM content you are SOL. ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN - Either the Zune will fail or Plays FOr Sure will fail (is it too soon to think both have already failed?) and those who bought DRMed content and expensive players will have nothing to show for it. Which leads me to...
Apple OS X - Making a DRM choice is important. One thing I like about Apple is that there are no license keys to type in. There is no "registering with big brother" even for high end software. Plus Apple is REASONABLE - $129 for a single OS upgrade or $199 for a 5 license Family Pack! Apple doesn't rely on DRM to secure their software, only the media that Apple doesn't even supply. Apple fought for user rights when they negotiated DRM with the RIAA and in my opinion, the rights are pretty good. I can still burn mixed CDs to give to friends, I can play on my work, home, and laptop computers - be they Mac or Windows - and I can use on a variety of iPods. I don't pretend to have super human ears or need OGG support and since I find the convenience of iTunes out weighs the "quality" of buying the CD/DVD I have settled into enjoying the DRM Apple is selling.
This is my opinion. I have switched from Windows to Linux to the Mac and I don't see myself switching again until Windows, Linux, or another OS make radical advances.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know when you last used Linux, but that is a common and utterly incorrect misconception. With any modern distribution, you plug in a digital camera and IT JUST WORKS. With Windows, you have to find the driver disk, load the driver, then load the proprietary software. The Linux experience is far simpler. Also,
So What you are saying... (Score:2)
OSX may not run on your current laptop -- I doubt you want to risk it. No -- lets be clear... OSX WILL NOT RUN.
On to your question: yes, Apple is DRM friendly. May I recommend that that you just stick with XP? Really, its your best bet. Since you are incredibly biased against Linux, I would rather you NOT try that.
Ratboy
The State of DRM (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know it boils down to this:
Windows XP
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).
Mac OS X
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).
Linux
Kernel-level support for TPM.
Vista
DRM is a fundamental part of Vista. You can't get around it. [schneier.com]
Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still call shenanigans on the original post
Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (Score:2)
More importantly, if you're willing to buy new hardware in order to run OS X why wouldn't you be equally willing to buy new hardware in order to run Linux? It's possible to specifically pick a laptop that is fully compatible with Linux, you know!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No thanks. I'm perfectly happy with my iMac. No problems. However, my Windows XP PC......that is a whole other story.
And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM. You can burn unlimited copies of the music (you are limited to a certain number per playlist, but you can make a new Pla
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My 20" iMac is the best PC gaming machine in my house (out of two "real" pcs and 2 macs running Win XP). My PC's have better video cards, and faster cpu cycles, but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's not a great gaming platform, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. I'm about to replace my 3-year-old iBook with a Thinkpad X60 tablet. I would have gotten a Mac, but Apple doesn't make a tablet so I couldn't. I may very well try to run OS X on it anyway, though (and, given that I do own two Macs already, I have absolutely no moral qualms about doing so). It's not my fault Apple wouldn't build what I need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Step Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon my bluntness, but that's really no different than asking what's wrong with lethal injection because it's, by far, the least painful method of execution. But regardless of the method you're still dead, just as regardless of the DRM, you're still restricted.
Wrong! You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't. And that mere possibility is more than enough to make it entirely unacceptable.
Like you, I'm happy with my iMac. However, that does not mean I think Apple can do no wrong, and neither should it mean such for you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I will leave you wi
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! I'm as big an Apple zealot as they come, and I honestly do believe the company can do no wrong. But just because we haven't seen any "beleaguered" headlines in a while doesn't mean their troubles are behind them. What if the next time Apple needs a Microsoft bailout, MS decides to just buy Apple lock, stoc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeez, sorry! I wasn't trying to make a social statement about the death penalty or anything; that wasn't the point. Think of it from the person-to-be-killed's perspective, or better yet, replace it with dying in your sleep. "Whether you die in your sleep, drown, get shot, or catch a horrible, painful disease, you're s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting fact-I'm tone deaf. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even though the signal is all internal, you don't see
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you load up a JPEG in Photoshop, it's stored internally as a bitmap... if you change a couple of pixels and save, you take a quality loss because of the original digital artifacts.
When you burn an MP3 as a CD, you're doing the equivalent of a JPEG->Bitmap conversion... since the song is stored as an uncompressed PCM waveform in the CD. When you recompress it you take a quality loss, s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Once, Microsoft rebooted everybody who had auto reboot turned off but Windows Update turned on. That's when it became clear who was in control.
Re:Does it really matter that much in reality? (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to all the FUD, the only DRM you have to worry about is on "next-gen" media, and it looks like until they put the analog protection flag up it can apparently be broken (if this article is correct).
You can still rip all your mp3s or FLAC (with a supported player) off CDs and copy DVDs (with DVD shrink or similar programs). So I really don't see what all the fuss is about [yes, I would prefer no DRM, but at this point it is not very likely. For instance, you are unlikely to see a commercial HD-DVD/blu-ray player (that supports the copy protection flag) for linux, unless linux can provide some means of a protected path for content].
Re: (Score:2)
You seem not to understand what the word "automatically" means. If you have to take some action -- such as selecting the MP3 option -- to prevent it, it's still automatic!
Re: (Score:2)
As someone else said, use something else. I use iTunes to rip CDs and organise my music, but I don't use it to play it because it's a cloggy laggy mess.
Re: (Score:2)
riiiight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, *you* are uninformed. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you understand just how much DRM there is in Vista. Read this and weep [schneier.com].
Apple simply can't compare with this.
Be less stupid, check your facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, no. Somebody working for Apple was leaking Apple's trade secrets, and Apple wanted to find out who it was. This had nothing to do with bloggers (Mac rumor sites usually aren't even blogs), freedom of the press or first amendment rights. Don't be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)