Apple Threatens To Shut Down iTunes Store?
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
Well, isn't what this "threat" that they're making trying to do? Force the labels' hand?
I definitely think it's why Amazon can sell DRM-free music for a buck and Apple has to sell DRM-free music at like 1.49 or whatever it costs now.
I definitely think it's why Amazon can sell DRM-free music for a buck and Apple has to sell DRM-free music at like 1.49 or whatever it costs now.
This doesn't make sense to me - if what you're saying is true, I shouldn't be able to play songs I bought on iTunes when my computer is not connected to the Internet, which I do all the time.
That's only the DRM'ed songs. The ones without DRM are encoded at 256.
Yeah, it's basically how the Spore DRM works. iTunes gets info from your computer and sends it to the server. The server authorizes your computer and sets iTunes to allow it to play songs you've downloaded from the store on that particular computer and on that particular installation of Windows.
So, it's not that each song checks with the server to see if it's allowed to play. The DRM on the song checks to see if the device you are using has been authorized by the home server.
With the Walmart store shutdown, what will happen is that all currently DRMed songs that you buy will still play even after the servers are shut down. However, you will not be able to burn them to CD and if your computer dies, the files are useless because your machine will not have the "authorization flag" set anymore.
Don't compare it to Spore/EA. With Spore you do not get to deauthorise computers. The list of five computers you are allowed to use your music with is a list managed by you. You can also wipe the list clean once a year in the event you lose access to one or more of your authorised computers.
With Spore once you use up an activation it's gone forever. Go over the limit and you're making begging phone calls to EA.
They are adding a deauth tool shortly. Except for that, it is exactly the same as FairPlay and the comparison is totally valid.
That's like saying to someone you just shot that except for the being dead part he's still alive. It's a huge difference.
So... the systems are identical except for the lack of a single feature which will soon be added and thus they are completely different?
The ethos behind both of them are the same. The reason there was no deauth tool for Spore initially was mostly, I think, because EA didn't think it would be a big deal. Games and music are different types of media with different expectations but the idea behind both systems... authing a computer once, limited number of auths available at a time... are the same. Clearly it is a big deal and they're responding to it.
^It's a single but very important difference that changes my view of the whole thing. Authorisations cease to be a finite resource. I don't have to phone Apple and beg to use something I've paid a fair price for once the authorisations run out.
With Spore (and other EA games since) the authorisations do run out and this deauthorisation tool does not yet exist. EA's promises mean nothing to me, they have to back them up with actions before I believe them.
With Spore (and other EA games since) the authorisations do run out and this deauthorisation tool does not yet exist. EA's promises mean nothing to me, they have to back them up with actions before I believe them.
I for one welcome the end of this download music era. It's gotten to the point where something aren't released on CD at all and are "iTunes exclusive"s.
PASS.
PASS.
But Apple's promises do?
Apple has never done any DRM scheme that is as utterly draconian as EA's. It is easy to authorize *and* to deauthorize under Apple's method.
Just as it will be with EA's as soon as they add the ability to deauth. They will then be entirely equivalent.
This has a lot less to do with the actual DRM details and a lot more to do with people hating on EA and giving Apple a pass. In fact Apple's is worse as it ties you to their hardware... Spore can be played on any computer you happen to own regardless of who made it. And as has already been pointed out in this thread once you buy songs from iTMS you're either stuck with an iPod for life or you have to circumvent their DRM scheme, which many people don't know how to do.
I'd say it's more to do with the fact that no one had a clue before buying it that the DRM was there on Spore, so had no choice in the matter. And the deauthorision option wasn't, and still isn't there. And EA saw no problem with that, and practically called anyone who did have a problem with it a pirate.
Well, not *any* computer. Say, a PowerPC Mac.
Definitely saw some Slashdot uproar about it well before release. EA didn't exactly publicize it though.
You can't run it on a 386 either
Um, no? They've gone as far as to publicly admit that they messed up and have been very reasonable in their PR about it. Once the deauth tool is out, there will be zero reason to complain when compared to other DRM schemes.
Now like I said before, I don't like DRM. So to clarify my position I'm not defending the fact that DRM exists in Spore, but pointing out that in terms of how bad it is it's pretty much equivalent to the sort of thing you see on ITMS. And lampooning one and praising the other is hypocritical.
I haven't seen the be "very reasonable about it" they may have started to backpeddle, and offer more authorisations on new games, but I wouldn't say they're exactly being reasonable. Maybe I just haven't been keeping up, but I know at first they said that the only people bothered by it were pirates.
I agree, but I don't think EA are being upfront enough about their DRM to make it acceptable, if people know then they have the choice, if they don't then they have no informed choice.