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’ve had it with these panty-in-a-bundle privacy geeks trying to promote their views with unintellectual publicity stunts. They shouted in horror over Google’s inclusion of relevent ads in Gmail and the recent Browser Sync program. Now DRM is a privacy threat too? Here’s a tip: Don’t buy it. Don’t use it. And leave everyone else alone to make up their own minds.
Their paranoia has really gone over the edge - especially in the political realm. They’re constantly fear-mongering over every single bill in Congress that goes after (a) terrorists or (b) pedophiles, as if they’re all just attempts to institute a fascist dictatorship.
*Rips hair out*
They’re constantly fear-mongering
And yet the fear-mongering and paranoia by Congress telling you that you’ll be blown up by terrorists if you don’t give up your privacy rights is a-okay with you?
Let me ask you this, Oskar. If I said to you that had a choice between giving up your rights to privacy while not being any safer from terrorists, or you could keep your privacy rights and not be any safer from terrorists, which would you choose?
Because that’s essentially the choice you are being given by Congress. And it’s astonishing to me how quickly and easily people are willing to give up their rights and civil liberties simply because someone makes a reference to terrorists and pedophiles, as if that’s what NSA eavesdropping or DRM is really about.
I always thought the people now in charge were supposed to be for LESS intrusive govt and MORE freedoms. Not only is that a big fat outrageous lie, they are actually ridiculing the people who dare oppose their big govt security blanket as “panty in a bundle privacy geeks” (as if that’s a BAD thing) and worse --- traitors.
Well said, Beeblebrox. The trouble with Apple’s DRM and DRM in general is multiple-fold; I will go through them as objectively as possible.
- You are correct, everyone has a choice to not buy from iTunes or other DRM-protected services. But in the future, all music may be digital and all of it DRM protected. All these battles (of the FSF, EFF, etc.) are to make sure that we are not kicking ourselves in that future.
- DRM controls how you use what you have bought. In the past, this has rarely been the case- if you bought a book, the publisher did not control where you read it or how often. If you bought a CD or record, the music company had no control on which CD player you listened to it on or if a friend borrowed it.
- Apple users should understand this problem the best; these are tactics that Microsoft has used for decades to lock in their customers. Their proprietary document formats make it tough for people to switch from MS Office and their behavior with IE is legendary. With iTunes and the iPod, Apple is exhibiting similar behavior of control through monopoly which can be troublesome for the consumers in the future. Your argument that “if you don’t like it, you have a choice not to buy it” is fine, until you try to apply it to MS products. Most people don’t have a choice any more- price, lock-in, compatibility and inertia leaves MS in control. The issue is to make sure that the choices remain forever.
- Privacy issues never seem like a big deal until they add up. Simple listening habits on their own are fine. Apple doing it is fine. Google knowing a lot about us is fine. The NSA reading this message and my mail is fine. And all of this adds up to a society where it is impossible to avoid your information being available to the highest bidder.
- Besides that, privacy is more fundamental. I do not want anyone to know anything about me unless it is *absolutely essential* and even then only on my terms.
- Finally, you cited CDs as a viable choice. Not so. Many manufacturers of CDs are rolling DRM-like controls in to CDs so that they may control what you do with it and how many times. The software they include on CDs has been harmful, restrictive and goes against how people have consumed media for ages in the past.
For more: http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/
People must push back on every new restriction on our privacy and rights, because that is the only way these debates will occur.
The DRM problem is like games for Mac only.
People don’t throw protests when Half-Life and Battlefield 2 don’t come out on Mac. They just accept it. To protest Apple allowing their music to only be played on their products isn’t any different than Microsoft only allowing PC’s to play Halo 2.
Shouldn’t those people be protesting something more worthwhile, like say for Greenpeace who actually does have a real cause?
@Daevrojn, DRM doesn’t only mean that you can play your music only on a certain device.
It also restricts how many times you can copy it, how you can copy it, whether you can copy it at all, what devices you can listen to it on, and so on.
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.
Replace “iPod” with “Windows”, and you have pretty much the case for Microsoft, and yet the govt went after them anyway, much to the applause of Apple fans who now find themselves defending any and all anti-competitive practices by Apple.
And what the foundation is saying about DRM is all true. It is inspired by greed. It is meant to control what you do. And they do use it to monitor your actions.
And while the illusion of choice is nice and all, it’s quickly becoming the case that you have fewer and fewer choices. You can either listen to DRM music, and have big corporations spying on you, or listen to nothing at all. Even CDs aren’t safe; witness Sony’s botched attempt to install root-kits via CDs on home computers.
Beeb, let’s make this clear. Civil liberties are derivative rights, not fundamental ones. They include such procedural rights as “trial by jury” and “right to not be searched without a warrant.” The most fundamental of all rights is the right to life; without it, no other right can exist. So yes, during a wartime situation, the government may decide to prioritize and temporarily restrain certain civil liberties for the sake of protecting our most fundamental right of all.
And it’s astonishing to me how quickly and easily people are willing to give up their rights and civil liberties simply because someone makes a reference to terrorists and pedophiles, as if that’s what NSA eavesdropping or DRM is really about. -Beeblebrox (my bold)
Why is this hard to believe? We were attacked on September 11th, and pedophilia is a widespread epidemic. These aren’t made-up problems. Fascist dictatorship, on the other hand, is a made-up problem.
I always thought the people now in charge were supposed to be for LESS intrusive govt and MORE freedoms. -Beeblebrox
If you’re talking about fiscal conservatives like myself, we believe in LIMITED government, not vague terms like “small government” or “less intrusive government.” Limited means that they have one role: To protect individual rights, including the right to life. Within that limited role, they can and should do whatever it takes to accomplish that mission, including (in the case of World War II) vaporizing two cities and napalming several more.
That said, Bush is not my ideal. His horrific medicare bill is just an example of how far-removed he is from his free-market base.
(I probably won’t be able to reply for like three hours.)
So yes, during a wartime situation, the government may decide to prioritize and temporarily restrain certain civil liberties for the sake of protecting our most fundamental right of all.
The problem here is that it’s a war without end. We’re not talking about the war in Iraq. We’re talking about the “war on terrorism.” So you’re and the other big govt defenders are willing to give up my rights for pretty much no reason at all.
Limited means that they have one role: To protect individual rights, including the right to life.
That’s asinine. To say then that the govt has to right to take away any and all other rights in the name of “protecting life” then you could defend ANYTHING (as so-called conservatives have now done). Perhaps you’ll recall conservatives criticizing liberals for using the govt “to protect us from ourselves.” There is absolutely no difference between that and what you’re defending. No more freedoms, no more personal responsibility. It’s all about the govt doing anything and everything within its considerable power to protect “life,” even if it means giving up civil liberties to do so.
His horrific medicare bill is just an example of how far-removed he is from his free-market base.
To argue that you are now for the “free market” is laughable. The govt can take away rights in the name of protecting “life,” remember? And certainly one could argue that medicare provides life-saving medicines. So what’s the problem? Or should we only give up the rights of citizens and leave big corporations alone?
iTunes works fine for me… I have no issues with the restrictions, and I own a number of off-brand MP3 players. Personally, I think that the DRM is great. Imagine being the artist whose profit got cut in half when everybody decided to download… iTunes provides the perfect solution to this issue, and no truly comparable solution can be found.
@Oskar, this line: Fascist dictatorship, on the other hand, is a made-up problem. made my day. Clearly no society in history has ever suffered a gradual loss of liberties due to perceived threats until one day they have no liberties at all.
Oh those horrific made up problems… I will take my head out of the sand when they have all gone away.
I object to DRM because it impedes my traditional rights as a capitalist consumer. Traditionally, having bought something I can choose what I do with it - within a set of limits - limits that DRM seriously narrows to a frightening degree.
However, having bought a car, I can choose what kind of gas to put into it, where to get it serviced, and what roads to drive it on. I can customize it, knowing that certain mods might void my warranty. I can give the car away or sell it to whom I choose. I can give rides to anyone of my choice.
But look what DRM does. It tells me what kind of devices I can play the music on. It tells me how many devices I can play it on. I prohibits me from customizing my purchase. I cannot give it away nor can I sell it.
What is worse, having purchased music with DRM I have implicitly accepted a contract which allows the seller to chance the terms of my purchase after the fact. Imagine Chrysler contacting me two years after I’ve bought a PT Cruiser to tell me henceforth only members of my immediate family may ride in the car and I must buy gas only from Shell.
I’ll grant that the purchase of music, movies, and written material is different in some ways from the purchase of a car or a loaf of bread. However, denying me resaleability and retaining the right to change the conditions of sale after the fact or unacceptable.
Defective By Design engages in hyperbole when it calls DRM the single most important issue facing us, but it is very important. At present DRM affects only downloaded music. But in the future, if the industry gets its way, it will affect all content and the devices we use to with that content. I own an HDTV and tuner which could be castrated by DRM. My tuner and TV aren’t flag capable and in the future my picture could be down sampled because of that. Consumer friendly, that is not!
In the article you write:
“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.”
Burning a handful of songs to a cd and re-ripping to rid the tracks of digital handcuffs known as DRM may not bea big deal. But how about doing it to hundreds of songs? I have personally bought about 300 songs from the iTMS, or about 30 CDs give or take. Burning 30 CDs and then re-ripping them is not “difficult,” but have you any idea how long that would take?
DRM is evil. Although Apple itself cannot be blamed for the use of DRM per-se (the record companies require it for their own purposes), but they can be blamed for not licensing it to others so that DRM ca, at the very least, be standardized.
Although Apple did not attain their posistion in the downloads market via monopolistic actions, maitaining it, if they are to keep (Un)Fairplay closed, will be.
“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.”
Can I? As I staed before, I have over 300 iTMS songs that would then have to be burned and re-ripped before I could transfer them over to another device. If there was a compatibility problem I could understand, but DRM restrictions is not a compatibility problem. Fairplay is an active way to lock iPod and iTMS users into the Apple ecosystem for good, despite the fact that the AAC files, before being laced with the DRM in iTunes, are fully portable and can play on any digital audio player which is capable of playing AAC files. It is ONLY the DRM which prevents them from doing so.
And it has nothing to do with “protecting the intellectual property of the artists” either. Apple’s stance is that Fairplay protects from piracy. If this were the case, why is it then that these files can play on an unlimited number of iPods, yet completely incompatible with any other brand music player? If Apple had a paltry share of the digital player market (as it does with the OS market), keeping the iPod and iTunes a closed environment would be acceptable. But since it controls ~80% of both the digital player and online music downloads market, keeping it closed only makes them more MS-like with every passing day. Potential competitors have little chance of gaining any kind of success (especially when one considers that the profit margin in the audio downlods business in slim) because they can’t work on the most popular player on the market (and gaining marketshare with each passing month). How is this fair?
“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.”
Perhaps not. But if I do buy music online, should I be able to do what I will after I pirchase it? Should I be able to move to another player later down the road? Buying from the iTMS is betting your hard earned money that the iPod will be the best music player for good. That is not a good bet. Also this whole “if you don’t have an iPod buy from a brick and mortar store” argument is simply mind bogglingly stupid.
In short, Apple is only out to protect their lead in the digital audio market. What needs to happen with DRM (since I highly doubt that the RIAA would ever license their music if there is no DRM) is what happens with other standards in the computer industry. A body of interested groups and companies need to get together and form a standard that is acceptable to all parties. A scheme that will protect artists and their profits, as well as the consumer from being locked into ultra-proprietary ecosystems. Consumers should be the ones who cotrol what we can and cannot do with the products that we buy, not companies. Fairplay doesn’t provide for any real choice, unless you choose to go with Apple hardware and software across the board —iPod, iTunes, and Airport Express, because anything beyond those choices have been completely removed. Not because of the format, but the DRM alone.
Personally, I don’y buy any music from iTunes anymore, and most of the music that I have purchased has been de-DRMd by JHymn. I choose http://www.allofmp3.com which, although under attack by the RIAA (hardly a surprise considering they don’t receive a cut of the profits), is perfectly legal, much cheaper than iTunes, has higher quality files, and no DRM to be found. And yes, the artists get paid.
Clearly no society in history has ever suffered a gradual loss of liberties due to perceived threats until one day they have no liberties at all.
It was extremely difficult for me to even dignify Oskar’s non-sensical point, so I appreciate your doing it. And that’s not taking into account the so-called conservatives comparing every single new social program to socialism and communism.
Although Apple itself cannot be blamed for the use of DRM per-se (the record companies require it for their own purposes), but they can be blamed for not licensing it to others so that DRM ca, at the very least, be standardized.
Although Apple did not attain their posistion in the downloads market via monopolistic actions, maitaining it, if they are to keep (Un)Fairplay closed, will be.
Absolutely positively agree.
The other irony here is how Apple fans seem to believe they “think different,” but when it comes to Apple they are ready, willing, and enthusiastic about towing the company line.
Beeb,
1. I agree completely that the war is ill-defined and so could go on forever. No politician today has the guts to admit that the enemy is Islamofascism, and that the war will end precisely when the center of this ideology (Iran) is neutered. Instead, they vaguely call it a “war on terrorism.” But the solution is to explicitly state when the end is, NOT to go on a screaming rampage over the NSA’s latest attempt to institute “fascism.”
2. I did not say that the government should “protect life”; I said it should protect the right to life. It’s a negative right, not a positive one. It means the right to provide yourself with sustenance, NOT the right to have it handed out to you. Therefore, no, the government should not provide people with life-saving medicines, and yes, I am for the free market.
3. I fully believe in personal responsibility. That, however, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. 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.
Devanshu,
Fascism has indeed existed before, but please don’t make a lowly college student like myself educate you on the myriad differences between the United States today and pre-Nazi Weimar Germany.