Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tpaetkau/public_html/connecthedots/index.php:51) in /home/tpaetkau/public_html/connecthedots/wp-commentsrss2.php on line 8
Comments on: Apple DRM Free? Only if you buy their proprietary model! http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/ Sun, 20 May 2012 09:10:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Haniel http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/#comment-2 Haniel Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:54:30 +0000 http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/#comment-2 Miles, You seem to have three issues: 1. Apple’s proprietary approach to the way it does business 2. That personal data is included in the new "DRM free" tracks 3. Apple’s EULA On the first. If you don’t like Apple stuff, don’t buy Apple stuff. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head and it’s hardly approaching monopoly status like windows/office? When school boards and corporations start outlawing any platform other than iTunes then you might have a point. On the second I actually completely agree that Apple made a huge mistake in not being up front. But let’s put this in perspective. If your computer / iPod does get stolen there’s likely more incriminating data on your hard drive than your iTunes user-name... which is all that I’ve been able to extract from my EMI tunes. It’s funny and ironic that the best form of DRM may turn out to be fear of identity theft. If the blogosphere was really just interested in being able to use the songs for personal use and not file sharing I doubt there would be such an uproar. Thirdly, have you ever read the EULAs for other software when you hit the “agree” button? Miles,
You seem to have three issues:

1. Apple’s proprietary approach to the way it does business
2. That personal data is included in the new “DRM free” tracks
3. Apple’s EULA

On the first. If you don’t like Apple stuff, don’t buy Apple stuff. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head and it’s hardly approaching monopoly status like windows/office? When school boards and corporations start outlawing any platform other than iTunes then you might have a point.

On the second I actually completely agree that Apple made a huge mistake in not being up front. But let’s put this in perspective. If your computer / iPod does get stolen there’s likely more incriminating data on your hard drive than your iTunes user-name… which is all that I’ve been able to extract from my EMI tunes. It’s funny and ironic that the best form of DRM may turn out to be fear of identity theft. If the blogosphere was really just interested in being able to use the songs for personal use and not file sharing I doubt there would be such an uproar.

Thirdly, have you ever read the EULAs for other software when you hit the “agree” button?

]]> By: Miles Faulkner http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/#comment-3 Miles Faulkner Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:10:28 +0000 http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/#comment-3 The point is that Apple has made a big deal of DRM free software - providing itself with almost an "open source" persona. To then make you use only their client to even see what content they have is very closed source thinking. I wasn't going to read the EULA stuff - but the process to get I Tunes requires you to sign off twice! -kind of to make their point? I would have thought I Pods had just music and maybe some pics - what happens if those files turn up in a file share and apple or EMI chooses to sue the original owner? How do you know that Apple isn't putting other stuff in the files too as it is suggested around the blogosphere? The point is that Apple has made a big deal of DRM free software - providing itself with almost an “open source” persona. To then make you use only their client to even see what content they have is very closed source thinking.
I wasn’t going to read the EULA stuff - but the process to get I Tunes requires you to sign off twice! -kind of to make their point?
I would have thought I Pods had just music and maybe some pics - what happens if those files turn up in a file share and apple or EMI chooses to sue the original owner? How do you know that Apple isn’t putting other stuff in the files too as it is suggested around the blogosphere?

]]> By: Thomas Marks http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/#comment-2406 Thomas Marks Thu, 15 May 2008 13:15:27 +0000 http://connecthedots.ca/apple-drm-free-only-if-you-buy-their-proprietary-model/#comment-2406 Further to your comment about DRM activity in digital image files, Bob Weber (www.managingrights.com) wrote a bit last February that posits how DRM might work with photography - --- begin quote If not already in existence then soon the technology will be available, and then the inevitable law, that would require all recording devices to access a license database of copyrighted material prior to allowing the photograph or video to be successfully recorded. In the near future all image recording devices could be required to determine if the the image or subject in the selected scene was protected by copyright or was restricted in some way. Anyone attempting to take a photograph of a work of art, something in public venue or otherwise protected subject matter would find their attempt blocked by the software of the recording device. Even today with little effort and varying success commonly available software can analyze a digital image for content such as in facial or shape recognition or in use for comparison for differences between images. The future camera loaded with restrictive software would otherwise function normally, but the software would block and spoil the image for the user unless a fee is paid to the owner of the copyrighted subject or an EULA is strictly adhered to. The recording device would simply not capture an image if something restricted by copyright is anywhere in the image field. --- end quote Further to your comment about DRM activity in digital image files, Bob Weber (www.managingrights.com) wrote a bit last February that posits how DRM might work with photography -

— begin quote

If not already in existence then soon the technology will be available, and then the inevitable law, that would require all recording devices to access a license database of copyrighted material prior to allowing the photograph or video to be successfully recorded. In the near future all image recording devices could be required to determine if the the image or subject in the selected scene was protected by copyright or was restricted in some way. Anyone attempting to take a photograph of a work of art, something in public venue or otherwise protected subject matter would find their attempt blocked by the software of the recording device. Even today with little effort and varying success commonly available software can analyze a digital image for content such as in facial or shape recognition or in use for comparison for differences between images.

The future camera loaded with restrictive software would otherwise function normally, but the software would block and spoil the image for the user unless a fee is paid to the owner of the copyrighted subject or an EULA is strictly adhered to.

The recording device would simply not capture an image if something restricted by copyright is anywhere in the image field.

— end quote

]]>