U.S. Backs Apple's iTunes DRM 327
breun writes "The U.S. has asked foreign governments to consider the effects of interfering with popular new technologies, pointing to recent scrutiny of Apple's iTunes Music Store as an example of bad judgment. The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust chief Thomas Barnett cited recent foreign proposals to impose restrictions on Apple's iTunes service as an example of strict regulation which could discourage innovation and hurt consumers." From the Washington Post article: "In prepared remarks, Barnett said the scrutiny of Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.' Barnett said Apple should be applauded for creating a legal, profitable and easy-to-use system for downloading music and other entertainment via the Internet."
Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:2)
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:2)
Ummm.... Well doesn't that mean this is bad government in action.
For one Apple isn't their constituent and secondly DRM is not in the interest of the average American's list of problems or needs.
If corporations could vote at the ballot box, then I'd say it would be different.
As it is, they can only "vote" with their money.
Right makes might! (Score:5, Funny)
Ever since pirates were found to be way cooler than ninjas.
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:5, Insightful)
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM doesn't intrinsically interfere with fair use, because non DRM'd media is not affected. The license, not the technology, is what harms your rights.
Q. Since when is it the right of the company to do anything?
A. Since I agreed to it.
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, no contract is legally binding if you're not allowed to read it before purchasing. With a music even after you buy it you never agree to their terms since they are never presented to you. Besides that, it's a license not a contract which has to be signed by an individual one way or another. What if I'm a company and buy a bunch of cds with a company credit card. No identity ever signed a contract, no person is responsible.
DRM does intrinsically interfere with fair use as I'm explicity allowed to format shift and resample. The minute I have to break DRM to accomplish either of those then my fair use is comprimised without my consent.
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever your feelings on DRM (I personally won't buy anything DRM'd but do own an iPod; I use my CD collection) the regulation goverments are trying to do against Apple isn't whether they should or shouldn't have DRM, but rather whether or not they have to open the iTunes Store to competitors. The DRM would still be on every song.
So now that we are on the same page for whats going on and in Slashdot tradition, I am going to share my unasked for opinion on this subject.
Government to Apple: Hey apple, we know you put a ton of time and money into creating a fully integrated music/media solution for your users and were the first to really get consumers behind you...well how to put this, the other companies, nobody really wants to buy their stuff cause there are no integrated solutions for it. So do you think you could open up your online store and let everyone and their dog connect to it? We realize that this would lose you sales on your hardware which is where you make most (if not all) of your money. We also realize that when joe schmoe can't get his [insert brand] mp3 player to easily work with the store and automatically add purchased media to the mp3 player he is going to call you, despite that fact that you have nothing to do with the support of his mp3 player, thereby costing you more time and money in support. Further we understand that this will affect your image of "just works" because grandma will associate the hassle of getting her music she purchased through your store onto her [insert-brand] thereby causing damage to your image. So Apple, what do you think...you don't mind do you?
Apple to gov: Umm...how about no...
To me it just seems like the other companies (the ones too lazy to try to create their own fully integrated solution) are just trying to regulate their biggest competitor out of the business. What company would want to innovate like this in the future if they then have to open up everything they did to their competitors. It would be much easier to wait for the next guy to innovate and then force them to open up. Hence, resulting in further lack of consumer choice. And remember, if you don't like the choice, you don't have to take it (remember this isn't about DRM being there or not, the goverments aren't proposing getting rid of DRM).
Just my 2c (or 2p for you Euro guys).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing how the DOJ has the gall to point to this issue as an example of regulation hindering innovation; strict IP legislation has already held innovation in the field back for the last decade, and the US has been a prime example.
Imagine the applications possi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At least one federal court disagrees [bitlaw.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't in the iTunes license, but rather in the customer agreement to create an iTunes Store account. iTunes is fully functional without the ability to purchase music from the iTunes Store; it's not like Apple requires you to get an iTunes Store account... well, unless you want free tracks from them, or want to buy something from them. But that's definitely not a shrink-wrap or click-wrap deal.
That's Right! (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is the least restrictive DRM, and I don't doubt for a minute that they have fought a pretty tough battle against labels wishing for the most draconian of rights.
Contract Illegal (Score:2)
But don't look to the US government to watch out for its citizens like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure that applies throughout the EU?
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:4, Interesting)
What's stopping you from doing analog recording off the headphone jack to get your fair use? Or using a microphone if they eventually manage to close the "analog hole"? Fair use isn't the same as "convenient, unadulterated, pristine copies that preserve track info."
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
High performance cars artificially limit your top speed. Heck, 50cc scooters in some markets do this. There are workarounds.
But a more pressing example is how food is genetically modified so that the seeds of the produce you buy are infertile, so you can't plant those seeds and grow your own. Recently, I saw a bamboo tree for sale at a garden center with a warning that said that copyright law made it illegal to make offspring of the plant (however that is done with bamboo?). It makes me wonder why there is so much debate about mere entertainment.
car analogy alert (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>> ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
>> High performance cars artificially limit your top speed. Heck, 50cc scooters in some
>> markets do this. There are workarounds.
> Car analogies. They need to go, ok? We definitely need a car-analogy equivalent of Godwin's law.
It wasn't an analogy. It was an answer to a question. A car is another product which
Re:car analogy alert (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that listening to music in its original pristine quality is an inalienable right. When lps were king, as soon as you started listening to the music you bought, its quality started to degrade due to scratches and gener
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's a difference between inconvenient and illegal
When you (legally) burn your DRM-protected AAC-tracks to an Audio-CD (from within iTunes) they are converted (without loss) to AIFF-files. Still "pristine" (i.e.: there is no further degradation from the original compression). You can now (legally) convert the AIFF-file to any other (lossless) audio-format, whatever yor player (Zune or what have you) supports. Sure, it's a shlepp, but you're absolutely allowed to do this.
Now compare this to ripping a DVD: You could do something similar, but that would actually be illegal
So (to reiterate): it's not true that you're "not allowed to listen to those [songs anywhere else]" . It's inconvenient, but not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since corporations started to be able to heavily influence politics for their needs.
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, let me throw it back in your face: Since when is it your right to post bullshit to the public without having taken the time to learn or think about the area? ("Bill of rights" and freedom of speech is irrelevant - I'm talking about the moral issue, where you should be self-censoring out of a combination of responsibility and pri
Private sector verus public sector policy making (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The french itunes DRM fiasco, which spawned this whole debate, wasn't about stealing music. It was about buying some shit on itunes, then having the right, as a consumer, to play it on devices other than the freaking ipod. The original law in france was that companies (such as apple) would have to "share DRM secrets to allow competitors to create compatible devices, eventually allowing other m
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, all this is irrelevant because it ignores the fact that the French law was a bad law anyway, because what it really ought to be doing is outlawing the DRM in the first place!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple created Itunes and Ipod to work with each other, and people KNOWING THIS agreed to buy them. Property rights are causal. The reason corporations/peopel create things is because they can control them/profit from them. If they could not control/profit from them, the creation would have been nonexistent or greatly diminished.
Don't be so obtuse. These kinds of anti-intellectual property rights arguments so often come from those who create nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize if you were being sarcastic. Comments such as yours are so wrong that I have to believe you are being sarcastic. Have you ever actually met a real artist? My sister is one of them. I buy her lots of supplies and canvases because she is a truly talented painter. She produces incredible stuff and has no desire to sell any of it. We have an artwalk here in Scottsdale every thursday night where artists show off their work. Some make a little money to recover their costs but very very very few of th
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a sad, tired argument - and all you can hope with it is the 'repeat it until people believe it' strategy. 'Intelectual property' rights are granted by the state for a limited period of time to encourage creation. In return for this protection, when the time expires the protected content should fall back into public domain so that the state (as in 'society at large') can benefit from them (you know, cross-polination type, or as some say 'standing on the soulders of giants'). DRM prevents that, as it does not have a built-in 'expiry date', effectively preventing the society from receiving any real benefits from allowing DRM. And don't give me that 'no DRM, no creation' crap - culture started well before DRM and Gutenberg's press did not ruin it at all, quite the contrary.
I say that even in the hugely improbable case that the RIAA members go banckrupt from lack of DRM (although the fact that they didn't already should clue one in) - bring it on! It should lower the market access price for many producers of good music (aka artists) that nowadays have to go indie.
Re: (Score:2)
LAME.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make you a pirate. If all you want to do is play your music on alternative devices, make backups, post snippets for review, etc. then you're entirely within your legal rights. But currently, the technologies that allow you to do that also enable wholesale trading of music in vio
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean technologies like LPs, CDs and tapes?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a suggestion anyway: Offer quality content.
That includes good music, but other things as well - fantastic package art, fanclub memberships, entries in contests, points that could be redeemed for concerts, concert tickets themselves, ringtones, apparel, books, and things of that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one word makes a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you, Barnett.
bush quote on the subject (Score:2, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is mentioned, but you can add the hords of RIAA, MPAA and any other entity who has financial interests with regards to DRM. I thought the senate and the president ran the country, I should have remembered it is the lobbyists and those with deep pockets.
2008 (Score:2)
There... fixed that for ya.
I Smell Something Fishy... (Score:2)
Re:I Smell Something Fishy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Smell Something Fishy... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I Smell Something Fishy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Music Industry demanded DRM in order to prevent piracy. Apple went right along with that because it means that if people want to use the biggest (legal) online music store, they have to get an iPod if they want a portable music player. Apple won't allow their music to be distributed without DRM any more than they'll license Fairplay to their competitors (which I believe is what was bein
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? If they had a choice? Umm, newsflash: They have a choice. There is a side effect to that choice, but choosing to do something that is wrong because you make money at it is not the same as not having a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you drank a bit too much of the Apple-flavored Kool-Aid.
DRM doesn't just protect the interests of the RIAA. It also locks you into Apple's product. That benefits Apple, perhaps even more so than the record companies.
Call me stupid.... (Score:4, Interesting)
How TF can restricting DRM then harm consumers?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's simple. Only Hollywood can create entertaining things. Hollywood is expensive, Jennifer Lopez's shirts cost $500 apiece at least. To pay for those kinds of threads, entertainment must be paid for, extensively, on a per-copy or better yet per-view basis. By restricting DRM, people can see entertainment without paying per view or per copy, which means that Hollywood will have to stop releasing digital entertainment or go bankrupt. And if that happened, Jenni
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem to be the poor trying to starve themselves in Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Because then the RIAA/MPAA can say electronic distribution systems aren't doing enough to protect their IP, pull their material, and sue the distributors into obscurity.
Until artists stop signing away their souls to the **AA, DRM will be a necessary evil for legal non-physical distribution schemes.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM-free e-music has now got the second-biggest market share for download stores [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
yer stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like Apple's DRM, go buy a CD. It's not like Apple is a label and is keeping music from being released for other platforms (yes, I meant it that way).
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong - is Apple Computer doing exclusive media deals with anyone?)
Finally, if you don't like Apple's DRM, then burn the tunes to a regular CD and do whatever you want with it. (someone is going to say "yeah, but that's not really CD quality audio", to which I say "yeah, but CDs aren't vinyl quality audio")
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried to purchase a Stan Ridgway CD. I could not find it in Australia anywhere. I could not find it on Amazon. Eventually I located the artist's personal website which said he was no longer pressing CDs but selling all his back catalog through the iTunes store.
Excellent, I say. The iTunes store is due to open any time now in Australia (this happened a while back - I had been trying to buy the albums for some time). The iTunes store is finally launched, I find the album and try to buy it.... Unfortunately
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because most media companies won't release media unless it is DRMed. So no DRM means no media.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It discourages risk taking. If you have a neat idea that could take the world by store, but it will cost a bunch of money to create, why would you want to take that risk if you're going to be forced to give that technology away once it catches on?
It encourages copy-cats. Why spend the R&D effort developing something unique and original (something that may or may not be successfull) when y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you don't believe much in that one then, as it's all about restricting the rights of the consumers for the benefit of consumers. Now, I'm not saying I buy into this argument but: DRM => People buy, not pirate => Authors and Inventors are compensated =>
No sovereignty for you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only the USA can liberate things, people and oil.
No country is allowed to break USA-created-DRM.
Too easy to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "protection" of DRM by law has produced a new monopoly right to those who produce DRM. only they are legally allowed to produce playback devices for the DRM'ed format.
Since apple's IPOD is the most popular device, the inability to support competitor formats, only apple's is an abuse of a monopoly position via product tie-in.
they refuse to license their format, and also (but with good reason) refuse to license WMA playb
Now I've seen everything... (Score:4, Insightful)
I call BS (Score:3, Insightful)
How does openness and interoperability between different devices discourage competition? Of course it discourages Apple from donating money to "a top U.S. antitrust official"
And how exactly am I as a customer being hurt by being able to play your music where I want? I'll probably get a heart attack from overenjoying myself.
Re: (Score:2)
They're right (Score:4, Insightful)
You, the consumers, should have no obligation to go into contract with anyone if you don't like the conditions. But the people offering stuff have exactly the same right. So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like. But this is your CHOICE.
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services. It's not like we're talking food or other essential stuff, just ignore their offering and they'll learn by themself. Any other behaviour either encourages them or weakens your standpoint.
Re:They're right (Score:5, Insightful)
thin end of the wedge. GM foods are basically IP, and I see no reason you couldn't try to make the precedent from one area fit another.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Music just isn't the same. It's not that important. And if it's as important to you than make you're decision by voting with your money (which would be a good idea IMHO)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, but it is, in the way I'm talking about. They're both intellectual property. Why should the IP laws that apply to one be different than another? Music and software are pretty different too, but we're still stuck with the same IP laws applying to both.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the free market doesn't solve everything. The world would be a nice, clean, logical place if it did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Bold statements considering you couldn't put such a clause in contracts. Believe it or not there are limits to what a contract can do. The one exception is military service but that contract isn't your standard intellectual property license. They do not have the right to restrict my fair use of their product no matter what their license agreement is. I never signed a contract for any music I've ever bought so we don't even have to worry about that.
The solution to the problem would be pretty simple if everyone would just stop purchasing content that is DRM protected. This is not a realistic goal however so please, find another method. Getting 300 million people to agree is impossible. Hell, even getting a million people to agree on something is quite difficult. This method would never work here in the real world. The solution is to break the DRM time and time again until they realize the method won't work and they actually need to give people an incentive to move to new formats when the old format is not deficient. Why should I pay for music in digital format when I already have a cd with music stored in a digital format? It doesn't make sense. If I vegetable oil I am not required to use it to grease a pan or use in a cake. I can do whatever I want with it including throwing it into a diesel engine. I don't need their permission to render in into another substance. It's a reasonably bad example in terms of copyright but fair use exists and DRM is a blatant violation of that fair use.
Are massive boycotts impossible? (Score:2)
How many Indians boycotted English cotton?
I think the whole ipod fad is insane, I'll stick with mp3s.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I overexaggerated. It is possible. Getting 300 million people to agree that murder is wrong without cause is easy as well. I don't think this is on the level required to achieve that unanimity required to accomplish the goal the parent made out as so simple. Utopia sounds great and that is something 300 million people can agree on too. Of course the definition of Utopia for those 300 million will be different.
Personally I don't see the ipod as a fad that is going away anytime soon if ever. I'm with
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't accept anything. I am not informed of what I am getting into before I get into it. Thus the agreement is not legally binding.
The simple solution sounds great but as I said, it is not realistic, I can say for certain it will not happen. That is why you should consider a different solution. The simple solution to all computing problems is for every one to use Linux. It's not going to happen though. There will always be alternatives and some will pick some and some will pick another. It is a complex
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right with that. But there is a simple solution for everyone who really thought about DRM. Boycott it. So 80% of people will accept it and major corporations will continue to use DRM to screw those 80%. SO WHAT? They'll have to live with it. Maybe the other 20% can make up a new market where you don't have to accept those terms (and probably we'll have much, much better music. I don't see losing the opportunity to listen to Britney Spea
Re: (Score:2)
I think 20% of the consumers are already doing this and it only leads to them blaming piracy for all of it.
I will agree that losing Britney Spears isn't a bad thing but what about the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Aerosmith, hell, even Guns N Roses? There is a lot of music already out there and a lot of people like them. You're going to get people to give up this music for alternatives which might be better and often are a lot worse.
Of course that ignores the fact that most people don't even understand w
What about the "other" DRM? (Score:5, Informative)
This works in theory and practice with itunes: You still can buy in other online music stores or even buy the CD
It's very different in the case of DVD, though. Because the companies who make movies are the same companies who control the "electronics" market, consumers didn't have a choice, they were imposed what format they should use, like if they were living on Russia when Communism was still there. I just don't understand why companies are allowed to be big enought that they control EVERYTHING on a given market. It's like the companies who make petrol would also make cars and would make their petrol compatible only with their engines, and if other company tried to build a car compatible with their petrol would get sued. IMO this is anti-liberal and goes against capitalism. Should people be allowed to create big enterprises that create jobs? Hell, yes. Should those companies be allowed to control the market and lock out competitors? Hell, NO.
Remember that the ONE reason why you can see DVD in Linux is because someone broke the DRM protection. In the case of Itunes, it's clear that its DRM isn't dangerous, since you can buy other players and use other music stores. But if itunes would got 99% of the online music market, it WOULD be a problem. So DRM can be both good and bad - it's up to the government to make laws to stop it from being bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're right (Score:4, Interesting)
These battles have been fought countless times in the past, this is nothing new. Corporation X gets big and gets lots of power. The executives use that power to get what they want leaving them even more power.
Take childeren's factories in third world countries. You could say "hey, they didn't have to work there you know," but it shows that you don't get it. In the west it's illegal to hire small children to work because we've learned the hard way that even if they have a "choice" not to work, the choice to actually do it is always a bad one and thus shouldn't be legal in the first place. It's illegal in order to protect those who can't make that decision/don't know any better/don't think they have a choice etc.
The same thing goes here. Some european countries are putting their foot down in order to protect their citicens. They're not idiots, they understand that agreeing to the terms of Apple (in this case) will always leave the consumer loosing. By forcing the corporations to not play that game, you've automatically protected whoever that would have agreed to those unfair rules. In doing this, it's not possible to do business which are unfair to the customer, and as such those business pratices simply disappear: It's illegal.
What's left? Business that treats the customer fairly. Instead you want less fair business, traded away in exchange for more yet unfair choice.
The playing field is equal for everyone. If Apple can't survive without treating the customers unfairly, they're doing a shitty job, since it's no problem for everyone else to play nicely and still have a pretty fine profit.
It's better like this: (Score:3, Insightful)
Third party manufacturers cannot make Wi-Fi or UPNP streaming devices since they can't decrypt the DRM, programmers can't write plugins to dynamically mash-up your favourite tracks, etc etc etc, since Apple impedes your property rights with their digital restricitons.
Necessary (Score:2)
Funny, isn't it (Score:2)
Can someone explain this to me? I'm just not getting it.
Cheap, fast, good (Score:5, Funny)
I get to pick two, right?
Riiiiiiiiiight... (Score:2)
???Net Neutrality??? (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, certainly (Score:2)
The DMCA "discourages innovation" by preventing people from referse engineering their software, even for the purpose of interoperability. Why doesn't congress reflect on that for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I am on the fence on this one. Yes, on the one hand you want stuff to work with everyone else, but to me it's also same as
Re:oh, certainly (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, sampling is legal under copyright. A copyright owner does and should have limits as to how many specifications they can set on the use of their work.
but to me it's also same as getting pissed at GM because a Ford transmission doesn't hook up to it.
To use your metaphore, to me it's like saying that it's illegal to hook a Ford transmission up to a GM car, or to own the tools needed to even open the hood since by opening the hood someone might very well copy the technology inside. Because of course we didn't actually buy a Ford, only the license to drive one, or somthing along those lines. If GM wants to make transmissions for Ford cars, it has every right to do so, even if that means taking apart a Ford to do it. As long as they don't start making Fords, they're in fair territory.
When one company has a near monopoly on Operating Systems or any other tool, then of course it has an unfair advantage in the realm of software production or the production of any product which relies on that first tool. The DMCA is the legal mechanism which secures that advantage.
the right to restrict rights? (Score:2)
This argument in favor of DRM sounds rather like an old argument over slavery. Did a slave owner have the "right" to bring slaves into free states? And once there, did the slave owner have the right not be deprived of his "property" should said property escape? Indeed, the state might be obliged to assist the owner in recovering his property. Anyone who saw a fugitive slave and didn't report it might even be in trouble for negligence and dereliction of duty. Any state that granted such property rights
Irony can be pretty ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. When the DMCA was passed, it open a floodgate of lawsuits by the recorded music manufacturing industry against its own consumers. This consumed valuable resources, and stifled the market's ability to force the recorded music vendors to innovate and come up with new products that their consumers wanted to buy.
I can't find any fault with this statement of his.
iTunes DRM allows us to legally download music (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of you will claim that the solution is to purchase non-RIAA music, which is fine. There are some RIAA bands I enjoy, however, so for me that's not a solution. Obviously in the case of iTunes, DRM is actually helping consumers. It may not allow us to do everything we want, but it gives us one additional choice in how we get our music.
Without DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
If RIAA, did not want to profit from this, there would be many that would.
The younger generation would buy/download online, not get CD's, whether or not the RIAA was selling.
Eventually the RIAA would sell online without DRM like everyone else.
DRM allows the RIAA to keep the old disposible media model (LP-8Track-Cassette-CD), where the consumers keep re-purchasing the same media. Consumers being able to have a "permanent" copy is scary to the R
monopoly DRM format support == innovation ?? No (Score:2)
From the nature of DRM, you cannot compete directly, by creating compatible products, especially when DMCA type laws attempt to make such competition illegal.
Also, by the nature of current DRM, there is no expiration, so this leads to infinite copyrights, which ultimately lead to less inovation, and more disposible information/data/discoveries/art.
DRM, if mandated by the US Government violat