Is Big Brother on Your iPod?
There is no more important cause for electronic freedoms and privacy than the call for action to stop digital rights management (DRM) from crippling our digital future. This is what I read on the Defective By Design website this weekend. I was browsing the site to learn more about the flashmob campaign against iPods.
The stated goal of this particular protest is to warn customers of the dangers of DRM within the iPod and iTunes, and to eliminate DRM in general. They have a problem with DRM because they feel that inclusion of DRM in products sold by Apple and other companies is inspired by greed and the desire to control us. To accomplish their goals, companies want to monitor, report, and regulate your every interaction with your computer and electronics.
They want to monitor and report on my every interaction? I had no clue. I thought the iPod was designed for entertainment. I didn’t realize it was a monitoring device.
If you’ve never seen a Defective By Design protest, check the video from their Chicago demonstration here. When they protest, they go to sites wearing yellow hazmat (hazardous materials) suits and displaying protest signs. They talk to anybody who will listen about the dangers of DRM.
This group, from the Free Software Foundation, is concerned about the choices DRM is taking away from consumers. Darcy Richardson and others have noted the pressure on Apple from other countries to loosen restrictions on iTunes. They want DRM policies changed so consumers can play music on any MP3 player. Freedom from Software would rather have it elminated altogether.
I don’t have a real problem with Apple’s policies on the iPod. It does what it feels it has to do to stay on top, and consumers know what they are getting into when they buy an iPod. They have other choices, but overwhelmingly iPod is the MP3 they choose.
Music lovers have the freedom to burn their iTunes purchases to a disk. From there they are free to do what they want with it, including playing that music on another type of MP3 player. This involves extra steps, but it’s not all that difficult.
Of course, there are several other choices. Though purchasing online is convenient, nobody is forcing music lovers to do this. Download purchases are a convenience, not a basic constitutional right. Consumers can buy a CD online or from a brick-and-mortar store. It takes a little more effort, and they won’t get the music quite so instantly, but anybody concerned about DRM has this right.
There is also competition. Though iPod leads the pack by a wide margin, there are plenty of other options. In fact, many individuals own more than one iPod. If iPod/iTunes presents a problem, they can choose to purchase an iPod and a different MP3 player.
iTunes made it easy to own music almost instantly. For those who wanted to download but disliked the thought of not paying royalties, iTunes gave them a good option. Three years and a billion downloads later, it seems that Apple made a decision that benefitted a lot of people.
There are many arguments for and against DRM. The Free Software Foundation, however, appears so vehemently against it that I wonder what’s really going on. With all the true digital privacy rights that are invaded every day, the claim that this is the most important issue in that area seems a bit excessive.
I’m one of those people who love to own CDs. It’s not because of DRM, but more because of things like sound quality. Habit also plays a role. I was buying CDs long before there were download options. (I even admit to remembering when CDs were new.)
For my purposes, DRM policies are loose enough. For those who find them too restrictive, it might be a good idea to buy CDs. If it didn’t work for the majority of people and they stopped purchasing online downloads, the industry would change.
If I was worried about privacy and being monitored, I wouldn’t connect to the internet at all. Spyware is a much bigger threat to privacy than iTunes. There are also phishing and other identity stealers to be concerned with. If you’re on the internet at all (and obviously the Free Software Foundation is) you should be more worried about your moves being watched and reported while surfing than on iTunes.
I can’t seem to find any news about how the protests went. Even the Defective By Design website is quiet on this. They show a couple of videos, but at the time I am writing this there are no written reports. Since they aren’t teling and the media is overall pretty quiet about it, I have to think that it didn’t amount to much.
Would it change your mind if somebody approached you at an Apple Store to tell you about the dangers of iPods and iTunes? Do you have any concerns that Big Brother is lurking in your music? I’d love to hear from you.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Oh Oskar. Take something and lie down…
Beeb:
You should see the argument that I was involved in over the weekend concerning DRM on TUAW (epically long--possibly 80 comments). The debate went quickly from “Apple deserves all the success they get with Fairplay” (somehow thinking that because Apple got screwed in the OS wars by monopoloistic actions, that it is okay for Apple to do with digital downloads now) to “your argument is so bad that it s easier for me to call you names and attack you on a personal level.” It’s quite comical actually to see just how willing Apple fans are to stand by their company, even when it is doing the very same thing that they accuse MS of doing during the OS wars (in the same breath sometimes even). I was the lone (with very few exceptions) voice against Apple, and it was a long day.
Check it out at http://www.tuaw.com/2006/06/10/anti-drm-demonstrations-at-apple-stores/1#comments I think you’ll find it easy to see who I am.
Personally, I think that the DRM is great. Imagine being the artist whose profit got cut in half when everybody decided to download
One of the many big scams about DRM is how the record labels are using it to screw over artists as well as customers.
Labels pay a much lower percentage of revenue for sales (around 4%) than they do licensed music (around 30%). So when they pay revenue based on iTunes songs, they argue that the transaction is a “sale” so that they can pay the artists the 4% (which translates to a few pennies of an iTunes download).
BUT...when it comes to the DRM agreement with customers, the labels turn around argue that they are licensing the music, not selling it, which means that they can severly restrict what you can do with the songs you download as opposed to buying a physical CD.
You are defending a practice that rips off both you as the customer and the artists, all in the name of maximizing record label revenue.
No politician today has the guts to admit that the enemy is Islamofascism...blahblahblah...NOT to go on a screaming rampage over the NSA’s latest attempt to institute “fascism.”
I love how when YOU complain about fascism (Islamo- or otherwise), it’s okay. When someone else does, it’s a paranoia and fear-mongering.
Typical.
It means the right to provide yourself with sustenance, NOT the right to have it handed out to you.
One could just as easily argue then that you are responsible for your own safety in your home or where you travel within the US, and not have it handed to you. If you’re not guaranteed the right to privacy, certainly you are not guaranteed the right to go to Walmart hazard-free.
I’m not advocating taking away all freedoms, but rather performing “triage” during a time of war by putting a priority on protecting everyone’s right to life over protecting derivative, procedural rights at the expensive of the more fundamental ones.
Again, you have drawn no line. You have simply argued that all non-fundamental (as you define them) freedoms are negotiable in a time of war, even an ill-defined war that will literally never end) and that the government can basically use “protecting life” as a means to do pretty much whatever it wants.
And since conservatives are defending everything from govt snooping, wiretapping without a warrant, torture and denial of right to trial (as in Getmo), then there is NO line at which you are not willing to give up everyone’s civil liberty in the name of false security.
But Medicare is somehow over the line? What a joke.
And I’m also willing to bet you’re not willing to extend that “right to life so the govt gets to do anything it wants” policy to, say, environmental legislation either.
It’s quite comical actually to see just how willing Apple fans are to stand by their company, even when it is doing the very same thing that they accuse MS of doing during the OS wars (in the same breath sometimes even).
The same exact thing happens in political discussions, which is why I think Apple fans are more comparable to political partisans than “fanatics.” Witness how in one breath Oskar fear-mongers about Islamofascism and then berates as “fear mongers” anyone who compares unfettered govt power in the US to fascism. Or how the govt can take away any and all rights in the name of protecting the right to life, but Medicare goes agains the “free market.”
This is the mockery that is politics. It’s not about making cogent arguments. It’s about defending your “team” and your ideology no matter what.
Beeb: While I may agree with many points that you have here, there is at least one that I have serious qualms with . . .
“One could just as easily argue then that you are responsible for your own safety in your home or where you travel within the US, and not have it handed to you.”
If I am not responsible for my own saftey in my own home, who is?
I’m a firm libertarian, and strong supporter of the right to bear arms, and think that we’re all personally responsible for our own saftey while we’re on our own properties. I don’t trust anyone else to adequately protect me, nor is it anyone else’s responsibility to do so. If we can’t even bother to protect ourselves in our own homes, why should we have the right to protect ourselves against DRM fraud (in an attempt to keep on topic in the crudest sense)?
I also agree that Americans don’t have the right to have everything handed to us through government action, but that the governmenet exists so that we can all do for ourselves without impediment. Living in a babysitter nation where I depend on the government to provide me with everything I need is not a good alternative. When we let the government into our lives any more than is absolutely necessary, we all lose.
e:leaf, you don’t believe we should have police departments or fire departments? What about building inspectors and building codes? Are we truly on our own when it comes to safety, or do we have a reasonable expectation for the govt to provide for our “general welfare” as the Constitution stipulates?
I’m a firm libertarian, and strong supporter of the right to bear arms,
Does that mean that, if I could afford it, you’d defend my right to buy as many nuclear weapons as I wanted and keep them in my garage next door to you?
I love how when YOU complain about fascism (Islamo- or otherwise), it’s okay. When someone else does, it’s a paranoia and fear-mongering.
That’s because I’m actually using the word “fascism” correctly: Iran has de facto government ownership of private property and actively restricts freedom of speech. When liberals use the word “fascism” to describe America, the freest country on the planet, they either don’t understand the term or are attempting to say we’re morally equivalent to a nation that hangs fourteen-year-old girls for showing their ankles. Those who make such an offensive comparison are indeed fear-mongers and traitors.
If you’re not guaranteed the right to privacy, certainly you are not guaranteed the right to go to Walmart hazard-free.
Why not? The right to life is fundamental; the right to privacy is derivative. You can’t conflate the two.
And since conservatives are defending everything from govt snooping, wiretapping without a warrant, torture and denial of right to trial (as in Getmo), then there is NO line at which you are not willing to give up everyone’s civil liberty in the name of false security.
I’m not sure how you can judge them to be “false security,” since you clearly don’t know what information they’re gleaning from the “snooping.” If they’re getting valuable information to protect Americans, but are doing so at the cost of derivative privacy rights, then they’re performing the very “triage” I speak of. Gitmo is an oddball for you to mention - they aren’t Americans, they are enemy combatants, so I don’t care if they’re being tortured or having their diaries read.
But Medicare is somehow over the line? What a joke.
Medicare violates fundamental rights by redistributing income - so yes, it’s “over the line.” Wiretapping, properly done, protects fundamental rights (sometimes at the expense of derivative ones) - so no, it’s not “over the line.” There’s my line. If you’d like me to define “fundamental,” I can do so, but we may drift even further off-topic…
Iran has de facto government ownership of private property and actively restricts freedom of speech.
But you’re not talking about war with Iran. You’re talking about war against Islamo-fascism, which is an ‘ism like the war on terrorism, not a war against a country and not a war that has any definable victories or end. You’re for abdicating civil liberties more or less until the world ends.
they either don’t understand the term or are attempting to say we’re morally equivalent to a nation that hangs fourteen-year-old girls for showing their ankles. Those who make such an offensive comparison are indeed fear-mongers and traitors.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to what’s the tattered shreds of conservatism in America.
Those who use hyperbole against those who lobby to take away our civil liberties are TRAITORS. Get that? Traitors. And since those who use hyperbole are traitors, one must assume then that Oskar isn’t simply making an offensive comparison (god forbid he get offended at something), then he must really think they are traitors and subject to the laws against treason. The punishment for treason, of course, is death.
So Oskar advocates DEATH for those who make political comparisons Oskar is offended by. That’s treason (and much more like Iran than Oskar would care to admit --- oop! Oskar must now advocate my imprisonment and execution).
So those comparisons are treason. But actively lobbying for and/or advocating the removal of any and all unessential rights and priviledges to a huge unfettered and unaccountable government, all in the name of defending “right to life”? Oskar finds this so acceptible that those who oppose it must hate America and should be executed.
And I’m ignoring what must be undoubtedly a huge moral dilemma for Oskar, whose fellow ideologues have compared liberals to communists countless times. Execute them all, I guess. There is no place in this country for offending Oskar’s sensibilities.
But you’re not talking about war with Iran. You’re talking about war against Islamo-fascism, which is an ‘ism like the war on terrorism, not a war against a country and not a war that has any definable victories or end.
And since Iran is one of the ideological centers (if not the) for Islamofascism, taking them out would deal enough of a physical and moral blow to the movement to vanquish it to the dustbin of history alongside Nazism. But that’s a debate for another time.
So Oskar advocates DEATH for those who make political comparisons Oskar is offended by.
Um, I hate to put an end to your opportunistic deducations, but the word “traitor” has many different contexts in the English language, and you conventiently chose the wrong one. The word can simply mean someone who is intellectually betraying his country.
So no, I don’t advocate any legal punishment at all for the aforementioned offensive comparisons.
The word can simply mean someone who is intellectually betraying his country.
Fine. Then you’re a traitor.
And since Iran is one of the ideological centers (if not the) for Islamofascism, taking them out would deal enough of a physical and moral blow to the movement to vanquish it to the dustbin of history alongside Nazism.
Wow. You actually believe this crap?
Shall I educate you, the lowly college student, on the VAST fundamental differences between (what you are calling Islamofasicsm) and Nazism, and why yet another collosally stupid (and expensive) war on yet another Muslim country would be beyond fantastically moronic (which means it must be coming from the mouth of conservatives)?
I’ve mentioned no parallels between Islamofascism and Nazism, other than that they both will one day (God willing) be in the same dustbin. And no, I don’t need another lecture from a liberal on why we shouldn’t go to war (or on what betraying one’s country means, for that matter).
Remember: I go to college. I’m surrounded by you guys all the time. You could fit the entire GOP club in a Prius (not that you could convince them to go into one). I hear your arguments from my profs every day - and if I skip, I can catch them in the textbooks we’re made to buy. I even commit them to memory, less my papers get points deducted for displaying indecent viewpoints.
God bless America!
“They are enemy combatants, so I don’t care if they’re being tortured or having their diaries read.”
I guess this means you support violations of the Geneva convention.
I’m not sure what they are teaching in College these days, but I sincerely hope your opinion isn’t a reflection of it.
I guess this means you support violations of the Geneva convention.
No, I support withdrawing from it so such is impossible.