Re: [tlug] iPod considered harmful

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com> writes:

    Josh> My biggest objection is that most DRM implementations do not
    Josh> run on all the pieces of hardware I want to use.

That's never going to be completely solved.  Even if you had a
universal standard for DRM, the vendors are going to want to price
discriminate.  Eg, one-play rentals vs. time-limited rentals vs. a
permanent license.  Also, you can imagine bundled deals where you get
10 free iTunes from iTMS when you buy an iPod.  Integrated hardware
and content vendors are going to try to lock you in.  The standard is
going to have to allow for that, or vendors with strong incentive to
bundle hardware and content will simply refuse to use the standard.

    Josh> Even if I could purchase music, my computer cannot play the
    Josh> music without first removing the DRM (which is a DMCA
    Josh> violation, as far as I know).

No, it's not.  Circumventing copy protection per se is *never* a DMCA
violation.  However, (1) making the copy may be copyright infringement
depending on the terms of your license, and (2) circumvention won't be
cheap (ie, the necessary tools will not be part of *any* software
distribution, let alone a free software distribution), because
distributing technology to circumvent copy protection *is* a DMCA
violation.

    Josh> So I want DRM that can be implemented in all the places I
    Josh> want to use my legally bought (or "licenced") media.

But there's no reason to suppose that the licenses will give you the
same degree of freedom that buying a CD does today.  *And you may want
that "restriction".*  For example, suppose that iTMS changes its
pricing policy from $1 per tune to $0.50 per one-play tune plus $0.50
to upgrade to a permanent license.  How about a "party pack" where you
pay by the hour for any series of one-play tunes you like?  It is
extremely likely that Apple can tune its pricing policy to make
substantially more profit while you get more entertainment for your
buck.  You pay much more for your actual use (thus Apple's profit);
you pay nothing for the option to use it when you don't want to use
it (thus your net benefit).

Similarly, there could be license restriction to a specific player,
and this might turn out to be desirable for similar reasons.

Note that this is made possible by the combination of DRM and online
distribution; it's an inherent option in that case.  Of course, we (society)
have the option to *not* use it, unlike the case of multiple
incompatible standards.

Finally, it seems likely that (unless we succeed in abolishing
software patents entirely) there will be multiple practical patentable
technologies.  It seems rather unlikely that such a standard can be
agreed through the usual bodies (which have heavy industry
participation) without including some patented technology; the patent
will be licensed according to the usual "fair and reasonable royalty"
standard, which will mean that free implementations are impossible.
Network effects (ie, the kind of thing you're complaining about)
suggest that convergence to a standard will happen on the proprietary
side whether there's an attempt at an open standard or not.


-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.