Discussion Outline
The Long Tail & “A Bite Out of Apple? iTunes, Interoperability and France’s Dadvsi Law”
· They relate to one another in their acknowledgement of the need for regulation in the digital world:
o Sobel notes a “struggle to define the proper scope of government regulation” and thinks governments “would do well to define specifically what DRM (digital rights management) holders can do with their DRM.”
o Similarly, Anderson writes, “I hope marketplace and regulation will more accurately reflect [that some creators care about copyright and some don’t, as the current law doesn’t distinguish between them].”
· Both cite examples of companies doing all they can to maintain copyrights in the digital age.
o “A Bite Out of Apple” uses iTunes as an example, and The Long Tail notes “Disney and Metallica may be doing all they can to embrace and extend copyright.”
· “A Bite Out of Apple” addresses France’s Dadsvi Law which:
o “establishing guidelines…to order companies to disclose source codes… and impose fines against copyright infringers.”
o Faces the challenge of simultaneously promoting interoperability, while discouraging unauthorized copying
· Sobel raises the question of who benefits from the law, as it seems to favor creators over consumers: “Is the real purpose of DRM really to prevent unauthorized copies, or is it to enable companies to limit the interoperability of their products?”
· Anderson agrees that there are varying incentives for companes to use digital rights management: “Once you think of the curve being populated with creators who have different incentives, it’s easy to extend that to their intellectual property interests as well.”
· Questions:
o
o New: Do you think such digital rights management practices support or hinder growth/development?
[...] – abstract, outline – A Bite Out of Apple? iTunes, Interoperability and France’s Dadvsi [...]
A couple thoughts on your question.
1. I-tunes users seem to have their own revolt against interoperability because so many of the tunes on their players are mp3 files rather than drm protected songs from the I-tunes store.
2. The companies that are trying to mount a challenge to I-tunes to date do not seem to have made inroads. Amazon and now Rhapsody offer drm-less music. And I-tunes is creating its own internal competition by beginning to sell mp3 versions of song (albeit at a premium)
Hi Christy,
I’m glad you chose this article. It’s quite dense, but I think Apple and its competitors’ implementation of DRM technologies is interesting because it demonstrates their need for an artificial standard to control their digital goods – much the same way they set artificial prices for goods that cost next to nothing to create. The digital marketplace has its advantages and barriers like any other market, I suppose.
Upon first reading the article, I didn’t find a close connection to The Long Tail but realized that the consumer battle against DRM, and Apple in this instance, is a byproduct of The Long Tail economy. That is, digital music companies are faced with a nearly endless demand for niche products, increasing competition and unprecedented piracy and are therefore exploring securities that may stagger the growth of the greater market to defend their digital goods.
Sobel’s article really picks up on the burden of states to intervene when DRM and other digital rights technologies prohibit interoperability for consumers. In more simple terms, Apple’s FairPlay DRM limits my ability to play a song I purchase on iTunes on competing MP3 players. I should be able to play a song I purchase on any device that is compatible with its file format, regardless of the DRM protection. Dadvsi’s Law is France’s attempt to reconcile this conflict. Sobel says Dadvsi’s Law is imperfect, favoring DRM holders, but also says “… the role of governments in limiting the reach of TPMs [technical protection measures] is inchoate.”
You ask in your discussion outline, “Can a model similar to The Long Tail be applied to online music sharing services?” I think the model already exists. For iTunes, its competitors and even illegal file sharing services, a few new, popular songs (and for illegal sites, those yet to be released) will draw the largest number of downloads, and all the other songs available will individually draw a few downloads – but these songs will add up to significant number of total downloads. DRM plays into how companies can monetize these downloads and retain and expand their shares of the market. Companies implementing DRM believe they are protecting their digital goods and increasing patronage of their services, but if their DRMs are limiting interoperability consumers will find alternative means of obtaining the same goods, legally or illegally. Even Steve Jobs recognizes this flaw. Sobel points to him saying that on average only 3 percent of songs on iPods have DRM, and he even shifted the blame for DRM to the music labels when facing legal opposition in Europe.
You also ask, “Do you think such digital rights management practices support or hinder growth/development?” I think DRM practices support growth and development of, in this case, music to a point. Artists do want to know they will compensated for their work, but if they think the resulting interoperability becomes so restrictive that it’s turning off their fans, they’d probably be better off without it. At the rate of hacking DRM technologies, (nearly every DRM created has been hacked) I don’t think it’s a very effective means of protection, and consumers are showing the true values of the digital goods their obtaining – paying for the artists they respect (think Radiohead’s In Rainbows) and taking everything else.
- Paolo
[...] iTunes, Interoperability and France’s Dadvsi Law” 10 07 2008 This is in response to Christy’s post about the same [...]
[...] – abstract, outline – A Bite Out of Apple? iTunes, Interoperability and France’s Dadvsi [...]
DRM has been an issue I have been following for a number of years now. While I never looked at DRM on the legal level that this article does I have considered it extensively.
At best, DRM severely limits illegal activity while allowing the consumer to legally enjoy the purchased product for their intended use. At worst, DRM is easily circumvented for illegal activities and severely hinders the consumers intended use of the legally purchased goods.
I tend to think that current DRM use falls closer to the worst scenario in practice. DRM is not difficult to circumvent by people with some tech knowledge. Apple knows this now, and probably knew it when they first developed the DRM for iTunes, but it is certainly a good selling point to the music studios who are more traditional and may not have known how easy it is to defeat DRM. For Apple, DRM does have the added benefit of selling ipods.
DRM has been overthrown for the mp3 format, but I guarantee that when the next format gets big, DRM will be front and center and the DRM battle will have to be fought again. When that does happen, I hope that the government does not get more involved with DRM than it already is. DRM technology changes so fast that legislation barely can keep up.
If you couldn’t tell, I am anti-DRM and avoid it at all costs. It is limiting and restrictive and when I spend my money, I should be able to use that product in a reasonable way.
[...] Correlation versus Causation Comment on Christy’s article: I-tunes users seem to have their own revolt against interoperability [...]