Double Twist iTunes Destroyer?
By now you’ve probably read that Jon Johansen, also called “DVD Jon”, has developed a system that enables music downloaded from iTunes to play on devices other than iPods. It also allows iPod users to download music from other stores.
According to Times Online, Johansens’ new company, called Double Twist Ventures, plans to license the code to iTMS rivals.
Whether this is bad news for Apple is still up for debate. An article at WashingtonPost.com suggests that it could be good news for rivals. Competing digital download stores could license the software, giving consumers the ability to purchase at their stores and still play the music on their iPods.
Competitors such as Zune could also profit. Consumers who like using iTunes could download from iTMS and put the music on their Zune player.
The question that comes up, of course, is how legal this is. Double Twist Ventures believes that it is. They are willing to defend themselves in court if necessary.
Apple has so far not said anything. They have threatened no court action. They might be waiting to see whether Double Twist Ventures really takes any business away before doing anything.
Double Twist might have more difficulty getting business than they think. Major players, such as Microsoft, likely prefer to have customers who use their devices also be forced to use their download site, just like Apple/iTunes. Smaller players might just play a wait-and-see game. They won’t want to be part of a potential lawsuit. This means they would not sign up with Double Twist until a decision has been made. If Apple doesn’t take this to court, there will be no legal decision.
Then again, it seems more likely that Apple will just work a way around this system. RealNetworks, Inc. has in the past offered songs that worked with iPods. Apple updated its software to block it rather than sue them. RealNetworks has restored compatibility again, just to have Apple update again.
Double Twist seems to think that this can happen with their code. That remains to be seen.
ScreenDigest.com points out another difficulty for Double Twist Ventures. Part of the success if iPod/iTunes is the tight integration that makes the device user-friendly. Most likely any service using Double Twist would not have that kind of tight integration. If it’s not easy to use, consumers won’t bother.
If you had your choice to download from any site using any player, would it make much of a difference to you? If everything integrates well, it could lead to even lower prices as consumers had the freedom to look anywhere for digital downloads.
Do you think Double Twist Ventures will take off, or do you think it’s one of those interesting ideas that won’t go anywhere? Do you think Apple will come up with an update that stops Double Twist in its tracks?
For me, none of this matters. My player is filled with music from CDs that I have bought. I don’t download. It’s not anything against digital download sites, it’s just a matter of personal preference.
For those of you who do download, though, would a system like this change your purchasing habits? What affect do you think it will have on iPod and iTunes?
So far I suspect that this is no real threat. I can perceive a time, though, when software can be made that offers easy integration for most combinations of players and digital download sites. At that point I wonder what will happen to DRM. It will also be interesting to see what effect it has on pricing and purchasing.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
You are totally forgetting your history, however.
Those online stores originally chose Plays For Sure to lock out Apple.
PFS was launched in October 2004. The iTMS was launched in April 2003.
I’m no mathemagician, but I think that makes iTMS a year and half OLDER than PFS, not two years YOUNGER.
Like I said, reality is not your strong suit.
And whatever Rhapsody did on their own five years ago hardly justifies Apple’s abuse of its monopoly today. Nothing does.
As to whether Apple is abusing their monopoly power at all, in your case that argument is moot. Whether they are or not, you really don’t care. You would defend them because, as a pathetic propagandist shill, that’s what you do. It’s about defending Apple at the expense of all else, including consumer choice and your own integrity (if you ever had any).
Those online stores originally chose Plays For Sure to lock out Apple.
Ah, but:
eMusic.com MP3s work just peachy with an iPod (they even advertise it in big bold letter on their home page).
It is only online stores that choose to use the Microsoft “PlaysForSure” DRM that can’t be played on an iPod.
Don’t confuse the issue by saying they’re “locked out”. They are not locked out.
I’m trying hard to keep up with your fatuous points, but it’s not always easy to juggle so much of your bullshit, and I’m only human.
In your (albeit invented) world, Apple was locked out of PFS (even though it didn’t exist yet). BUT, you go on to argue that stores can’t be locked out as they can simply choose NOT to have DRM at all, as eMusic has done.
But why then did Apple choose DRM (which they obviously did as DRM is a “choice"), if as you argue, it is not necessary in order to sell music?
If Apple had a choice, and implemented DRM anyway, and refused by choice to license it to competitors, and if they are a monopoly, then they are locking out competitors in the same way you claim Apple was locked out of early online music stores (which you also claim isn’t possible).
And then you accuse me of confusing the issues.
Bbx, give it up! Your points are shamelessly confused (as always the case) compared to VB’s very good knowledge of DRM history. And that’s a compliment, I might add.
Bbx, you always retract to your uncreative ways when you are cornered like a rat with no hole in sight.
Calling intelligent, creative beings (who are obviously more knowledgeable at the subject) names do not add value to your credibility in this forum.
Sometimes, you do make some infinitesimal sense when you don’t get too slapped around like what VB has done in the previous posts. Heh, heh, I admit those things that VB has said about you are one-of-a-kind and I am still belly-laughing my farts off!
As for this article’s premise, Apple will let DT have fun with their new code. After all, DT’s entire reasons for existence is to spread the gospel of Fairplay music and the iPod+iTunes experience to other DAP devices.
If DT can attract PFS users to take a look at iTunes Store and <gasps> actually buy and download tunes from there, they might eventually become regular customers. Add to that, that they, in the future, will become iPod customers and further enhancing the already massive market power of the iPod over every DAP device.
So, I can’t foresee anything negative on Apple’s part for DoubleTwist’s technology. Apple will stay mum. Apple can do the same by licensing FP to all comers but they will only do this when the time is right. The time will not arrive unless the Zune can muster a good fight. And this time ain’t it. Poor Zune. Poor Balmer.
Additionally, I still think that it is illegal per the DMCA’s provisions for “tampering or disseminations” of copyrighted materials but I am not a legal expert or a court to say that.
It is my opinion then that Apple will not move or act against DT’s anti-DRM codes. Apple is doing this to keep themselves from exacting a legal precedence. They know, and this article claims, that just thinking about the legal possibilities of the DMCA (we’ve heard how ruthless the provisions are), companies will have cold feet to even look into DT’s offerings.
DRM doesn’t really affect me too much for me to care. >90% of my music is through legally purchased, retail CDs.
So, if CDs will disappear not long in the future then either a universal DRM or, better still, the most universal DRM there is - DRM-free music.
Affect is a verb, not a noun.
so the question really is “how would this affect your buying habits” or “what effect would this have on your buying habits”.
This is kinda a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize for nit-picking.
Also there’s a typo where you say ‘if’ instead of ‘of’. I almost let that one go.
Beeblebrox,
I did not get the facts wrong… The “Plays For Sure” logo program was launched in 2004, but the Windows Media DRM Version 1 was released in April 1999… Two years before iTunes and 4 years before the iTunes Store.
If you don’t believe me, read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_DRM
“Plays For Sure” was just the marketing logo for Windows DRM enabled devices, but you probably knew that and were posting the misleading information to make it look like you were correct when you were actually DEAD WRONG.
“Version 1 was released in April 1999 and supported basic business rules such as expiration dates. Version 2 was released in January 2003 and is also known as version 7.x and 9, to keep in sync with the equivalent versions of Windows Media Player. Version 3, better known as DRM v10, was released in 2004.”
The only “mistake” I made was using “Windows Media DRM” and “Plays For Sure” terms interchangeably. I am sorry I did that, but most intelligent readers would understand when I said “Plays For Sure” in the previous posts that I was referring to the Windows Media DRM since “Plays For Sure” isn’t actually a DRM at all, but a marketing program.
I should have said “Windows Media DRM” partner companies where I said “Plays For Sure” partner companies. Happy now? No one else seemed to get confused.
What I said was all true… When Apple and the other MPEG-4 partners were working on open standards, Microsoft and Real were trying to force their own “standards” on the rest of the industry… and now those companies that didn’t side with open standards are whining that someone else’s closed system doesn’t work with their closed system. Boo hoo.
I shed no tears for them.
So, again, I ask… How could Apple have used its “iPod monopoly” to shut out other online music stores BEFORE 2003 when iTunes store first launched? And why should Apple be forced pay for the Windows DRM?
You never answered those questions.
No one else seemed to get confused.
The only person who’s even responded to you besides me is a robotic press-release regurgitator like you.
DRM naming schemes aside, what I’m arguing is that DRM lock-outs are wrong across the board. I’m not in any way defending anyone, let alone Microsoft, from creating a singular proprietary system.
But YOU are. You clearly believe that while it was wrong for MS and others to create a closed system at the time, it is now perfectly okay for Apple to not only have its own system, but to refuse to license it despite its monopoly power in the market at the expense of consumers.
Although you did not address your own contradiction of how it is possible for a company to be locked out of a DRM system but not possible for any company to be locked out of a DRM system.
The bottom line is that one of us (me) is on the side of consumers in this argument and the other, for reasons I’ll never fathom, is defending a giant greedy monopolistic corporation.
How could Apple have used its “iPod monopoly” to shut out other online music stores BEFORE 2003 when iTunes store first launched? And why should Apple be forced pay for the Windows DRM?
I haven’t answered these questions because they are largely rhetorical and worthless. Apple didn’t abuse its monopoly before it had one just as MS didn’t abuse its monopoly before it had one. But upon attaining defacto monopolies, both companies have resorted to unethical, exploitive, and anti-competitive practices. Does such a fact really need to be stated?
And I have not suggested that Apple should be forced to pay for Windows DRM. Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that Apple ALLOW other online stores to pay Apple for Fairplay.
Now I have answered your question, why haven’t you answered mine?
Microsoft has with Zune shown themselves worryingly willing to kowtow to the greed of the music industry.
Say what you will about DRM schemes in general, and I agree that the whole system is reprehensible, but Apple’s track record is impressive in resisting bending to the greedy, consumer-shafting record labels’ aspirations. For this reason I’m currently back at “undecided” over exactly what I think of iTunes, ethically speaking.
I am suggesting that Apple ALLOW other online stores to pay Apple for Fairplay.
This couldn’t happen though, without hurting the consumer, because iTS is not profitable. (Hence requiring increase in prices.) In effect you ask Apple to run iTunes as a charity for the good of its competitors. Which isn’t going to happen any time soon, although it would be nice.
What we really need is a not-for-[much]-profit digital music store foundation. With the leverage of iTunes. Can anyone say “subsidiary”?
A bear can dream.
I agree that the whole system is reprehensible
No you don’t:
I’m currently back at “undecided” over exactly what I think of iTunes, ethically speaking.
Pathetic, Ben. Pathetic.
Apple’s DRM does no more or less than Microsoft’s by ethical standards. They are both restrictive and anti-consumer and both are concessions to the studios (if one is to believe Steve Jobs).
The only additional concession from MS, aside from the nitty gritty involved with subscription services that Apple doesn’t have, is paying Universal a piece of Zune sales, which has nothing to do with DRM.
In effect you ask Apple to run iTunes as a charity for the good of its competitors.
Was MS running a charity when it was operating an online store AND licensing its DRM technology to competitors. I’m sure that would news to them and the world.
If Apple can TRULY compete and if customers TRULY prefer them and not because of the lock-out, then Apple would have nothing to lose by opening its DRM to competitors. In fact, they would make more money, as the iTMS would lose very few customers, but Apple would make money from licensing.
If you believe Apple can compete, which apparently you don’t.
What we really need is a not-for-[much]-profit digital music store foundation.
Btw, I think the ideal solution (aside from no DRM at all of course) is a CSS-style solution. A standard used by all stores and all players for universal compatibility.
Having a universal DRM agreed upon by every player is even more remote than the farthest speckle of light in the universe.
In other words, a pipe dream of impossibility. Have a good time dreamin’ though, Bbx. You need them for next year’s Apple onslought. Your fundamental principles and superstitions regarding Macs, iPods, Apple, and The Steve, will no longer hold my coffee kettle.
Back to the universal DRM, it is technically possible but the end result would be a mish-mash of incompatible ideas from every party. The result, an almost useless DRM like the ill-fated CSS. DVD Jon made that fact a reality for the studios, didn’t he? We might as well call him DeDRM Jon, for he’s at it again with FairPlay.
Now, the studios and their hw partners are devising AACS to stop people like Jon Johansen from cracking it. And like before, the studios and partners will surely fail since all encryption methods are not foolproof. They all have flaws and those will be be taken for granted and soon.
So, why keep devising ways to lock-out your customers when they are rightfully paying for their fair-use rights? I have not the slightest clue why the content owners keep doing this? CDs have no DRM and they were such a huge success in retail back in the 80s and 90s.
I don’t think embedding DRM on content is a sure business way to expand their market reach. It is surely working in the opposite direction - imploding sales. DVD sales the past few years have been flat or bottoming out for this reason.
The trouble with CD retail sales (also lackluster recently) is the flawed entry into electronic distribution, namely the internet. They were late to embrace openness and greed got in the way. Plus, they are treating their loyal customers like the next pirate by embedding onerous DRM after incompatible DRM.
Conclusion, DRM is not the solution to your business failures Mr. Content Owners. You have to rethink your business models and place your greed in the back burner. For once, you thought of your faithful and honest customers that you are blaming for your troubles. Is DRM the way you treat us?