New Apple Computers have DRM

Seems like Apple wasn't content to only enforce DRM in its software; Apple has now put DRM in its hardware as well. New Apple laptops ship with HDCP, which disallows playing of video on all but approved devices (that is, devices that make certain types of copying more difficult). See the Ars Technica report on the subject.

Apple: turning into law enforcement, one step at a time

When Apple announced that it was going to sell DRM-free music, most people thought that that would be a good thing for the iPod-addicted masses. DRM restricts consumers options and freedoms, and is entirely unwanted on their end. Even though Apple was raising the cost 30 cents (for an increase in quality as well, not just for taking away a "feature" that customers didn't want in the first place), the announcement was greeted with general acclaim by those who hoped that Apple was moving away from the privacy-invasive techniques of Big Media.

The devil, of course, is in the details. Apple has traded in DRM on its EMI tracks for something even more insidious: a water mark that embeds the name and email address of the user that purchased it in the file, allowing Apple (or anyone else) to identify who the file was originally sold to. Of course, this can be easily circumvented by converting the file to mp3, overwritting the name and email (steve@mac.com, for a good laugh), etc. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of users either do not know, do not care, or do not care to figure out how to eliminate this data from their files. See for yourself:

dannyc@sf:~/Desktop/Music From Laptop/DRM (iTunes)$ strings 01\ Proper\ Education\ \(Radio\ Edit\).m4p | grep "name"
nameDaniel Colligan
name
dannyc@sf:~/Desktop/Music From Laptop/DRM (iTunes)$ strings 01\ Proper\ Education\ \(Radio\ Edit\).m4p | grep ".com"
dannycolligan@gmail.com
"com.
dannyc@sf:~/Desktop/Music From Laptop/DRM (iTunes)$

Apple's actions beg the question, why are they doing this? What possible benefit could Apple reap from putting identifying information in its files? Since they have the iTunes player on virtually every consumer desktop these days, is it so improbable that the next iTunes upgrade will include a spy that informs Apple whenever you have files that do not belong to you and/or deletes them and/or informs someone else (say, those labels that Mr. Jobs has been cozying up to lately)? Ars Technica points out that iTunes already feeds data back to Apple so that the iTunes client can recommend tracks that you might like. Put the dail-home feature with the identifying info feature, however, and you have a recipe for a copyright infringement detector. Just what we all need: now in addition to Big Media watching our every transmission over the network, Apple will be the overlord of our hard drive.

If it's not obvious to you already, avoid using iTunes for your own sake.

Who benefits from DRM?

It sure ain't the labels anymore... say hello to the new purveyor of DRM, Apple!!!! That's right, by enforcing restrictions in the code of their m4p format such as preventing you from playing your iTunes store-bought music on any music player besides the iPod, Apple has effectively locked you in to the Apple brand through DRM. DVDJon has a nice entry on the topic.

Don't just blackmail the little guy, do it to the big guy too!

Universal is considering negotiating a deal with Apple to get a cut of the profits from each iPod sold. Sound improbable that Apple would just choose to hand out money? Think again... Microsoft already does this with the Zune, as the article points out. Another classic case of the big media companies' most famous extortion trick: "Nice product... you wouldn't want a lawsuit to go with it, would you?" Except an RIAA member isn't suing a dead person or grandmother or ten-year-old this time... it is extorting a major multinational corporation.

What reason would any judge rule in Universal's favor in a case like this (besides their proven track record of incompetence on intellectual property issues)? Because of all that illegal music on your ipod, you criminal! At least, that is what Universal would surely argue: since all of the music on iPods is illegally pirated (possible, but highly unlikely and certainly not provable, and what responsibility does Apple have for the actions of its cusomers, anyway?), Universal deserves a share of the profits from the iPod to feed the poor, starving artists it represents. Anyone that buys this argument is need of a reality check: not only are large record companies certainly not on the side of the artists, they are a purely profit-motivated organization that cares not at all for freedoms of fair use.

As much as I hope that Apple sides with all freedom-loving Americans and tells Universal to take their deal and shove it, Apple has a history of dabbling in compromises with the record labels (the result of which is annoying DRM on the iTunes store). Still, I'm rooting for the little guy... er, I mean the multinational corporation. The one that sells computers, that is.