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
“I don’t care about the artists. I care about the property rights of the corporations.”
You really are a piece of work, you don’t care about the artists who are creating the “property” that the corporations then claim they have the “rights” to. The best thing would be for artists to do an end run and publish directly on iTunes, and screw the greed ridden corporations. I suggest that you rent “The Corporation” the premise of which is that corporations exhibit the same “character traits” as psychopaths.
“Adults using drugs doesn’t hurt anyone; stealing intellectual property emphatically does hurt people, so legalizing it is wrong-headed.”
Adults who drive while under the influence, or commit B and E’s or mug others to support their habit definitely hurt many. Sorry Oskar but from where I sit you are part of the problem, not the solution.
What is the future of libraries? I really don’t see how the RIAA can be happy about all those people listening to music for free. Will they force libraries to add a surcharge to take out CD’s and Videos?
I suggest that you rent “The Corporation” the premise of which is that corporations exhibit the same “character traits” as psychopaths.
MacGlee, Oskar believes that the govt can spy on every aspect of our lives with no accountability, no court order, and no limits, that they can torture you and hold you indefinitely with no charges or trial, and that all Muslims should be eradicated from the Earth. Oh, and regulating corporations is socialism, but comparing huge unaccountable executive power to “fascism” is offensive. And if you disagree with any of this, you’re a traitor (although I’m assuming this only applies to US citizens, but in batshit-crazy world, who knows).
All that said, I don’t think his watching a documentary is going to accomplish very much. Do you?
You have a choice to get your music in other ways. You have your choice of MP3 players and download services. In the limited downloading I have done, I have used other services. If I wonder whether or not to buy an album, I look at reviews and listen at places like Napster.com.
I also have a choice in computers. I’ve never argued about Windows monopoly. Our family uses both Windows and OS X. I like Apple products much better.
I also defend the rights of the demonstrators, but I believe that the bottom line rules in most companies. DRM will go away if people refuse to purchase products with DRM.
“I don’t think his watching a documentary is going to accomplish very much.”
You’re right Beeb, from what we have witnessed of his mindset he would probably applaud those “character traits”. He says he is an atheist, but it sounds like he has replaced GOD with CEO. It’s been an interesting but frightening look into the mind of a future corporate schill, or worse, leader.
I’d just like to add one thing to one of my previous posts, that being about the notion that property was left off the declaration of independance, whereas it once read life, liberty and property, this was changed to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As for DRM, I don’t buy it. I buy albums, particularly to discover forgotten songs (such as simoriah, an Aerosmith song from Permanent Vacation, an album I bought and lost and cannot seem to easily replace as I did A Little South of Sanity) as the file sharing networks don’t carry every song, just the popular ones and those that the completist collectors can find.
And there are some crazy videos online like this. I remember finding an old Doors music video from a television appearance for Moonlight Drive, and it was great. Now was I supposed to pay someone 2 dollars for the right to download it, or buy a compilation of musical appearances by a ton of different bands, do you really need to sell everything?
With Pro Wrestling, they have a business model which basically amounts to charging you once a month for the pay per view that they’ve been building up on their weekly show for however long. The tv show is free, the ppv costs money. Even with a dropping viewership, they are still profitable even if the network airing it isn’t (spike recently dropped WWE RAW in the states I believe).
We are moving in the direction of net distribution, finally. In fact, I’m about to watch the latest episode of Fishbowl over on Amazon. The reason why Bill Maher isn’t viewable in Canada is that he apparently doesn’t have the broad appeal of Jon Stewart. Either that or it’s the fact that while the Daily Show airs daily, Maher’s new show airs once a week on HBO, which is almost always aired 6 months afterwards on the canadian cable networks (uncut more often than not, which is nice).
Still, I’d love to be able to watch some old Dennis Miller Live somewhere, I just don’t think I’d be willing too dish out 50 bucks or more for a dvd set of him, although I probably would if given the chance as it’s a better deal than 30 bucks for a 1 hour special, though most people wouldn’t be willing and so it’s not going to happen in that way. Again, this to me begs for a subscription model for television as the new way of distributing content for mass consumption, but I’ll take what they give freely for now.
Damn, I did it again. Oh well I’m done
how is this for digital rights management:
A few people have mentioned about how DRM protects artists with song downloads, ensuring that they are getting their just dues for their hard work. Being an artist myself, and having my music on iTunes, I can voulche that iTunes downloads yeild about a $.20 to $.30 greater pay to the artist than any other digital music provider. This is excellent for any artist, emerging or established. 20 or 30 cents per a download, multiply that by 100,000., it adds up. That, I am grateful for, even though I haven’t and probably won’t see numbers like that for my songs; One aspect of digital media control that works to the benefit of the artist.
Now, going back to the topic of sharing and trading music, an emerging artist NEEDS this in order to succeed. I don’t know how many copies of tapes and cds I asked for and received from friends growing up. Not being able to hear something before you buy it is like buying a painting stricktly on hearsay. To a certain degree, the right to share music with others needs to be preserved. It’s hard to say exactly how this will pan out, but not allowing it at all isn’t necessarily the greatest of ideas and may hurt more than it helps.
Now I can’t speak for the honesty and integrity of the general public when music so easily available to steal through peer to peer clients, but I own every album that I’ve been turned on to and care enough to listen to more than a couple of times. Not for the support of the artist necessarily, but for the higher sound quality and artwork. Or maybe it’s just to have something physical in my hand… Something I can let somebody borrow because they want to hear it, and something that will eventually make that person become a life-long fan.