...Just expressing surprise at Alan's recollection of what happened with the record industry / Apple and DRM......
My first mp3 player was from ebuyer and had no DRM.
I only endured a DRM laden on when the Sony NW hard drive players became sensibly priced. It wasn't too long after that that DRM was removed by both Sony and Apple.
The public were choosing DRM free machines so Apple had to act fast. People simply preferred the DRM free mp3 format, even when their device supported Windows Media DRM.
....If you were buying DRM free digital music from somewhere to play on your first mp3 player that would be different. But I'm guessing you weren't?
Few bought digital music back then. We bought the cheaper CD and encoded it ourselves. You could record at a higher quality and get the CD album at about half the price of a digital download then.
Apple deleting music from peoples devices. Right or wrong?
It just isn't as simple as that due to all the issues with DRM discussed already.
Apple did not remove DRM free music that had not been bought on iTunes, so that's a pretty big clue that the issue wasn't them only allowing music bought from iTunes right there.
Heck, Apple even, to all intent and purposes, went on to sort an amnesty on illegal downloads with iTunes match.
Few bought digital music back then. We bought the cheaper CD and encoded it ourselves. You could record at a higher quality and get the CD album at about half the price of a digital download then.
You do realise you could buy CDs and put the music on an iPod too?
So really your argument that Apple used DRM to screw people over is baseless, because the only reason you weren't affected by DRM was because you weren't buying digital music.
I really have no idea why you are trying to rewrite this particular bit of history, given that the actual facts are widely recognised and in the public domain. Its almost as though you have some sort of irrational beef with Apple.
I also bought CDs,converted to mp3 and put them on my Sony.
Sony, like Apple then put DRM on on top of them so as to restrict the user.
Of course,the court case here is about people emulating Apple DRM in order to copy an mp3 to the iPod, an Apple firmware then later deleting the tracks not fully managed by iTunes.
Is that not it, in a nutshell without spin ? I'm not even interested in 'right or wrong' of the past, it is quite irrelevant to the now or the understanding of the court situation.
It just isn't as simple as that due to all the issues with DRM discussed already.
Apple did not remove DRM free music that had not been bought on iTunes, so that's a pretty big clue that the issue wasn't them only allowing music bought from iTunes right there.
Heck, Apple even, to all intent and purposes, went on to sort an amnesty on illegal downloads with iTunes match.
They did remove music from the device which had not been bought from itunes. That is the issue. Nothing to do with DRM.
They did remove music from the device which had not been bought from itunes. That is the issue. Nothing to do with DRM.
Not bought, "synced". You could rip CDs with iTunes and add in your own MP3s. The issue was when you used a non-iTunes program. It was the same problem if you used a different PC with iTunes TBH.
I also bought CDs,converted to mp3 and put them on my Sony.
Sony, like Apple then put DRM on on top of them so as to restrict the user.
Of course,the court case here is about people emulating Apple DRM in order to copy an mp3 to the iPod, an Apple firmware then later deleting the tracks not fully managed by iTunes.
Is that not it, in a nutshell without spin ? I'm not even interested in 'right or wrong' of the past, it is quite irrelevant to the now or the understanding of the court situation.
What DRM did Apply add to music from a CD?
I thought it was only music bought from iTunes that had the DRM wrapper? What restrictions are you thinking of?
Non DRM music from a CD could be loaded onto an iPod and play without any restriction that I'm aware of.
Even with the restrictions imposed by the record industry, it seemed as though Apple created loopholes that were of benefit to the user. For example, there was a restriction to the number of times a playlist could be burned to a CD. But not a limit to the number of playlists a track could be part of.
Which is precisely why they did remove music with non FairPlay DRM, or DRM that had been reverse engineered to get around FairPlay.
But did not remove non DRM music such as that loaded on an iPod from a CD.
It had nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with apple wanting control over what people put on it's products and what they do with them. The fact is, its not up to apple what people do with their products once they buy them which is why they are in the shit.
It had nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with apple wanting control over what people put on it's products and what they do with them. The fact is, its not up to apple what people do with their products once they buy them which is why they are in the shit.
All of which then begs the question....
If it had nothing to do with DRM, then why did Apple remove music with DRM but not remove music with no DRM?
You're right about one thing - it wasn't up to Apple what went on the iPod - when it came to DRM it was largely up to the record companies.
If there had been no DRM from the get go, this wouldn't even be an issue.
I assume they are only in the shit if they lose the court case and the following appeals.
As for some of the claims on this discussion, I didn't get an iPod until 2008 and I wasn't aware that Apple added DRM to music ripped from CDs. Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about can confirm.
As far as I'm aware, CD's ripped via iTunes never had DRM added. They could be copied and played anywhere, although by default iTunes used to save them as aac format but it had an option to rip them as standard mp3. However iTunes itself had some weird restrictions when it came to burning your own audio CDs using iTunes though. If I recall correctly it would only let you do it 7 times. But if you had ripped as bog standard mp3 it was easy enough to get around that but using other software to burn the audio CD's such as Roxio etc.
I assume they are only in the shit if they lose the court case and the following appeals.
As for some of the claims on this discussion, I didn't get an iPod until 2008 and I wasn't aware that Apple added DRM to music ripped from CDs. Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about can confirm.
They did not add DRM to CD ripped music. Apple, at the time, had agreements with the major record labels that required Apple to add DRM to digital downloads as supplied by those record labels to and sold through the iTunes store.
The argument is whether or not Apple had the "right" to remove digital downloads from iPods that did not conform to the agreements as agreed between the various music labels and Apple. At no time did Apple remove music that was ripped from CD's and then transferred to Apple devices.
They did not add DRM to CD ripped music. Apple, at the time, had agreements with the major record labels that required Apple to add DRM to digital downloads as supplied by those record labels to and sold through the iTunes store.
The argument is whether or not Apple had the "right" to remove digital downloads from iPods that did not conform to the agreements as agreed between the various music labels and Apple. At no time did Apple remove music that was ripped from CD's and then transferred to Apple devices.
So the claim they added drm to ripped music is not true. I imagine that was the case.
Apple deleting music from peoples devices. Right or wrong?
Well yes Stiggles, this was the question I tried to get answer to earlier in the thread.
Unfortunately, some posters are insistent on muddying the waters with this DRM nonsense, which to be honest, does not have much to do with the real anti-competitive practice here, which was that Apple was deleting consumer data obtained from other sources.
DRM actually has nothing to do with the anti-competitive practice here. It's a factor, not the cause.
DRM policies did not force Apple to deceive consumers and delete their personal data without their consent. Apple made that decision itself, and that is the problem here.
Well yes Stiggles, this was the question I tried to get answer to earlier in the thread.
Unfortunately, some posters are insistent on muddying the waters with this DRM nonsense, which to be honest, does not have much to do with the real anti-competitive practice here, which was that Apple was deleting consumer data obtained from other sources.
DRM actually has nothing to do with the anti-competitive practice here. It's a factor, not the cause.
DRM policies did not force Apple to deceive consumers and delete their personal data without their consent. Apple made that decision itself, and that is the problem here.
From what I have read so far, Apple claim that the music they removed breached the license agreements they had with record labels.
I don't know enough about the case (or the license agreements) to decide whether that is true or not. However, if it was true, then I don't think removing the illegal music was wrong.
I assume you think they shouldn't have removed it, whatever the circumstance?
Comments
I wouldn't describe it as vociferous defence though.
Just expressing surprise at Alan's recollection of what happened with the record industry / Apple and DRM.
Still, at least we seem to be in agreement for once!
Then I woke up and it had all been a dream
I only endured a DRM laden on when the Sony NW hard drive players became sensibly priced. It wasn't too long after that that DRM was removed by both Sony and Apple.
The public were choosing DRM free machines so Apple had to act fast. People simply preferred the DRM free mp3 format, even when their device supported Windows Media DRM.
You could put plenty of DRM free music on an iPod.
It was the music being purchased from iTunes that had DRM.
If you were buying DRM free digital music from somewhere to play on your first mp3 player that would be different. But I'm guessing you weren't?
Great - just in time to maybe say what you're disagreeing with still, instead of just making petty comments like those.
Apple deleting music from peoples devices. Right or wrong?
Few bought digital music back then. We bought the cheaper CD and encoded it ourselves. You could record at a higher quality and get the CD album at about half the price of a digital download then.
It just isn't as simple as that due to all the issues with DRM discussed already.
Apple did not remove DRM free music that had not been bought on iTunes, so that's a pretty big clue that the issue wasn't them only allowing music bought from iTunes right there.
Heck, Apple even, to all intent and purposes, went on to sort an amnesty on illegal downloads with iTunes match.
You do realise you could buy CDs and put the music on an iPod too?
So really your argument that Apple used DRM to screw people over is baseless, because the only reason you weren't affected by DRM was because you weren't buying digital music.
I really have no idea why you are trying to rewrite this particular bit of history, given that the actual facts are widely recognised and in the public domain. Its almost as though you have some sort of irrational beef with Apple.
Sony, like Apple then put DRM on on top of them so as to restrict the user.
Of course,the court case here is about people emulating Apple DRM in order to copy an mp3 to the iPod, an Apple firmware then later deleting the tracks not fully managed by iTunes.
Is that not it, in a nutshell without spin ? I'm not even interested in 'right or wrong' of the past, it is quite irrelevant to the now or the understanding of the court situation.
They did remove music from the device which had not been bought from itunes. That is the issue. Nothing to do with DRM.
Not bought, "synced". You could rip CDs with iTunes and add in your own MP3s. The issue was when you used a non-iTunes program. It was the same problem if you used a different PC with iTunes TBH.
It has everything to do with DRM.
Which is precisely why they did remove music with non FairPlay DRM, or DRM that had been reverse engineered to get around FairPlay.
But did not remove non DRM music such as that loaded on an iPod from a CD.
What DRM did Apply add to music from a CD?
I thought it was only music bought from iTunes that had the DRM wrapper? What restrictions are you thinking of?
Non DRM music from a CD could be loaded onto an iPod and play without any restriction that I'm aware of.
Even with the restrictions imposed by the record industry, it seemed as though Apple created loopholes that were of benefit to the user. For example, there was a restriction to the number of times a playlist could be burned to a CD. But not a limit to the number of playlists a track could be part of.
And this thread tells us exactly why users are unwitting. Users only find out when it goes wrong.
It had nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with apple wanting control over what people put on it's products and what they do with them. The fact is, its not up to apple what people do with their products once they buy them which is why they are in the shit.
All of which then begs the question....
If it had nothing to do with DRM, then why did Apple remove music with DRM but not remove music with no DRM?
You're right about one thing - it wasn't up to Apple what went on the iPod - when it came to DRM it was largely up to the record companies.
If there had been no DRM from the get go, this wouldn't even be an issue.
As for some of the claims on this discussion, I didn't get an iPod until 2008 and I wasn't aware that Apple added DRM to music ripped from CDs. Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about can confirm.
They did not add DRM to CD ripped music. Apple, at the time, had agreements with the major record labels that required Apple to add DRM to digital downloads as supplied by those record labels to and sold through the iTunes store.
The argument is whether or not Apple had the "right" to remove digital downloads from iPods that did not conform to the agreements as agreed between the various music labels and Apple. At no time did Apple remove music that was ripped from CD's and then transferred to Apple devices.
So the claim they added drm to ripped music is not true. I imagine that was the case.
It's quite an interesting case to watch.
Well yes Stiggles, this was the question I tried to get answer to earlier in the thread.
Unfortunately, some posters are insistent on muddying the waters with this DRM nonsense, which to be honest, does not have much to do with the real anti-competitive practice here, which was that Apple was deleting consumer data obtained from other sources.
DRM actually has nothing to do with the anti-competitive practice here. It's a factor, not the cause.
DRM policies did not force Apple to deceive consumers and delete their personal data without their consent. Apple made that decision itself, and that is the problem here.
From what I have read so far, Apple claim that the music they removed breached the license agreements they had with record labels.
I don't know enough about the case (or the license agreements) to decide whether that is true or not. However, if it was true, then I don't think removing the illegal music was wrong.
I assume you think they shouldn't have removed it, whatever the circumstance?