Thank you MACWORLD
It’s 2am, can’t sleep so I decide to catch up on some reading since I had fallen behind on my magazine’s while I have been working so much. I came across this article in MACWORLD titled “Napster’s Bad Math”. I was happy to see it addressed one of my biggest pet peeves. Now I don’t mind ads that may be slightly misleading, because well, it’s advertising, the goal of commercials and ads are to entice you to buy a product, so you have to at least try to make a product look at interesting as possible. Now when i first saw Napster’s “do the math” commercial during the Superbowl I was livid. Mainly because I felt it went well beyond the line of even misleading to just fraudulent. To sum it up, Napster claims it would cost you $10,000 to fill an ipod with music purchased on the itunes music store ($1 a song X 10,000 songs fit on an ipod), here as for $15 /month on Napster you could download enough songs to fill your ipod. To your average non technical user this probably sounds like a sweet deal. The fine print… it’s the classic rent vs own argument except at least with rent vs own, most consumers know where they stand. $5 to rent a DVD at Blockbuster versus $15 to buy a DVD, you’d get laughed out of marketing if you tried to put together a commercial stating that you get 3 times as many movies by going with Blockbuster over BestBuy. Now the marketing folks over at Napster are praying on the fact most consumers don’t realize what DRM stands for or even how it is used. The “bad math” comes intos play because with Napster, you may get all the songs you want for $15 a month but as soon as you stop paying, those songs don’t play anymore. You are merely “renting” them, where as when you purchase a song from the Itunes music store, it’s yours forever. Now I won’t get into the “well if i crack the DRM protection on Napster’s downloads then I can keep it, because that’s illegal, I am only comparing this from a legal and legitimate business analysis. Again, some people may like the “all you can eat” Napster style plan and now care about keeping the songs, other’s like myself may prefer to buy each song, either way, I am glad someone called them out on Napster’s misleading ad.
Link to MACWORLD article: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/02/napstersuperbowl/index.php
16 Comments:
you tell ’em 😉
to_the_hibiscus
4:11 am
I thought you’d disappeared!
bubbleplastic
8:48 am
I get the feeling that most Napster subscribers can barely spell DRM, let alone crack it.
Napster = AOL for the ears. I GOT NAP! YAAAAAAAAY
BTW – there’s this really neat part of the keyboard. It’s right next to the apostrophe, I think you’ll like what it does. I know WE will.
jayfenster
10:39 am
Well thats 95% true 🙂 Just working lots trying to keep the bills paid, and working on a product release for my (own) company.
kevinblanchard
12:39 pm
An Ipod is an Apple computer patented invention right? No money going to PC whatsoever?
steve_savicki
1:12 pm
What do you mean by “going to PC” there are many companies who make non-apple computer and portable MP3 player products.
kevinblanchard
1:17 pm
Shucks. I was hoping only Apple was making money off of Ipods and any MP3 equipment actually.
It would give them more funding… and maybe possibly enough to find a particular team of gamers to make original studio quality games for the Macintosh instead of relying on PC portovers all the time.
steve_savicki
5:09 pm
DAmn straight screw companies who try to screw people over… you know how i feel about most business, so screw napster!
lauren3113
10:22 pm
Hrm, I think there’s still a bit of a fuzzy area when it comes to cracking DRM on music you’ve purchased. If music in digital form is subject to the same laws as music in physical media form, it’s completely legal to make as many copies of something as you want, as long as you own it. For instance, I could make a thousand backups of a DVD I bought, if I wanted, and it’d be entirely legal. I’m only breaking the law if I give one of those copies to someone else.
In Canada, the laws are even more arcane (though I think it’s same here–I’m not entirely sure, and have only heard about this in Canada): It’s legal to make copies of a CD or DVD while it’s in your possession, so if a friend lets you borrow a CD, you can copy it while you’re borrowing it and give the original back to them and you haven’t technically broken any laws. However, if you copy a CD and give it to your friend, you’re breaking the law.
There are also grey areas involving what, exactly, entails “ownership”. That is, if you live with someone (parents, girlfriend, whatever) and rip all their music, if you move out, do you have to delete everything that belonged to them? What if you filled a hard drive with their music, removed it from your computer, and just asked them to hold on to it in a drawer or something for you, with additional copies on your own computer?
And since music can now be copied so many times, which copy do you consider the “original” if the CD is lost? If a CD becomes damaged and can no longer play, do you have to hold on to it just so that you can prove you actually own it?
Etc. etc. etc. In any event, as far as I know, according to U.S. law, it’s perfectly legal to make copies of media you paid for. So I’m not sure if cracking the DRM or producing a DRM-free copy of the music is necessarily technically “illegal”. It doesn’t work the same way as Blockbuster with physical media being exchanged.
iTunes is no angel either, by the way, when it comes to DRM. My girlfriend bought some music from iTunes and will never do so again: when she transfered it onto her new computer, she got a message about how the music can no longer be played because it existed on too many machines. Not only that, but music available from the iTunes store isn’t necessarily encoded at the highest possible quality, from what I’ve seen, and they tend to leave out bonus tracks and things.
Honestly, if they want people to have a legal alternative to pirating music, they’re going to have to try just a little harder to make their product, well, an actual alternative and not just a half-assed effort whose only benefit over the other options is that it’s “legal”. “You can either pirate a complete CD encoded at really high bitrates so you can re-encode it differently if you want, and play it on all the computers in your house, or you can buy it through iTunes, play it only on your one computer and iPod, and have the quality be not as good and the content potentially incomplete.” Hell, I’d still buy and rip CDs before buying from iTunes.
I heard the iTunes video store is even worse: the video plays on the iPod well on account of the small screen, but if you try to play it on any other video-displaying device (say, uh, a computer), it looks like ass. I mean, come on: buy tiny, shittily-encoded video from iTunes or pirate full-quality, high-resolution video from elsewhere?
T Steve Saricki: An increase in Apple profits does not in any way mean that more games uniquely for the Mac will become available. It’s like saying that if Microsoft gets more money this quarter, Square Enix will be able to put out some unique titles for Windows. Erm.
Also, from what I’ve seen, there are some fantastic non-Apple alternatives to the iPod. I mean, there are companies that have had 30 GB DivX players out for ages now. I don’t even think the current iPod is capable of playing DivX.
But most importantly, why do you think, Steve, that a monopoly would in any way be beneficial or good for anything or anyone but the company holding the monopoly?
etjabberwock
5:09 am
You threw me off there for a second, since I had to think when I wrote this post (almost a year ago). 🙂
Well DRM, fair use, etc is all very gray area and it’s hard to say “well if I do this, will I be ok”. In the past years the Record and Film industry has been overly aggressive and some say abusing fair use. Others feel “fair use” describes more then it really does but in reality they won’t end up in court for it.
I’ll try to address some of your points.
“If music in digital form is subject to the same laws as music in physical media form, it’s completely legal to make as many copies of something as you want, as long as you own it.”
Well the 2 stipulations for both physical and digital media is 1>you can make a copy as long as you don’t give it to someone else. The owner of the media is the only one allowed to have a copy 2> it must be a back up copy. Once you distribute your media to anyone other then the owner, you are breaking the law.
“There are also gray areas involving what, exactly, entails “ownership”. That is, if you live with someone (parents, girlfriend, whatever) and rip all their music, if you move out, do you have to delete everything that belonged to them?”
The quick answer… legally, YES, you have to delete it. Will you go to jail or court, prob not. But technically if you don’t own those CDs or never did then it is pirated music. Once you rip the cd onto your computer and maybe your sisters computer and you both listen to it, it is no longer a backup copy (which is what fair use dictates as acceptable copies).
kevinblanchard
3:09 pm
“And since music can now be copied so many times, which copy do you consider the “original” if the CD is lost? If a CD becomes damaged and can no longer play, do you have to hold on to it just so that you can prove you actually own it?”
The original is just that, the source of all the copies. I’ll have to go back and read through some of the copyright stuff I have but I don’t know if you are allowed to make copies or if it is just *A* backup copy of media. Legally, you might have to have proof you owned the cd at some point. The reality, the RIAA prob won’t be taking you to court over that one album so in reality it’s not worth worrying about. In the case, it’s sort of like jay walking. You know when you jay walk it is against the law but even cops rarely give tickets for it.
“So I’m not sure if cracking the DRM or producing a DRM-free copy of the music is necessarily technically “illegal”. It doesn’t work the same way as Blockbuster with physical media being exchanged.”
Two things to look at. 1> There is no reason to have to crack DRM to copy it. You can make backup copies of (non-expiring) DRM’d music you purchase, which is what fair use allows you to do. 2> To my knowledge and with past years legislation, DRM law supersedes fair use laws. Since there is no reason to crack the DRM to make your back up copy it’s already shaky ground but by defeating a copyright mechanism you ARE breaking the law also. I believe defeating DRM even on your own media is still something that will get you into court these days.
“Tunes is no angel either, by the way, when it comes to DRM. My girlfriend bought some music from iTunes and will never do so again: when she transferred it onto her new computer, she got a message about how the music can no longer be played because it existed on too many machines. Not only that, but music available from the iTunes store isn’t necessarily encoded at the highest possible quality, from what I’ve seen, and they tend to leave out bonus tracks and things.”
I wouldn’t let that sour her usage. She was just misinformed about how the technology works. It’s easy. When you download an itunes song it’s authorized for the copy you download it on. If you get a new computer or want to TRANSFER the song then you deauthorize it, and reauthorize the new one. If she was trying to make a playable copy on both computer simultaneously then ,that’s illegal. (yes I know people do it but I’m discussing letter of the law, and why it has to be set up that way). As I said before, fair use allows for “backup” copies. She can still make a copy of her itunes DB and restore it if she ever needs to reformat her computer, and she still has her legal backup copy. Also, from what I understand most people don’t rip above 128. I think itunes does 128 or 160. Even though I tend to rip a little higher then that, from the numbers I have seen 128 is still the standard, as it’s the best mix of “good” quality without filling up your player with large files. Most people are content with that. For audiophiles or people who like to rip at higher bit rates, then buying the cd might be a better alternative. Considering the amount of sales Itunes have done, I’d say most people are happy with what they are getting, for variety is there in other service and choice for everyone else 🙂
“I heard the iTunes video store is even worse: the video plays on the iPod well on account of the small screen, but if you try to play it on any other video-displaying device (say, uh, a computer), it looks like ass. I mean, come on: buy tiny, shittily-encoded video from iTunes or pirate full-quality, high-resolution video from elsewhere?”
I can’t speak for the video store. As I have not downloaded any. I do know the size and codec limitations on it,and by definition if you download a video made to run on a 300X280 (don’t have the actual number in front of me right now) of course it will look small and bad on a full blown computer. The ipod does not take full rez videos and shrink them, they are already reduced to work on the ipod hardware. So I imagine it looking not so hot on a full display would be an anticipated result all things considered.
kevinblanchard
3:10 pm
“Also, from what I’ve seen, there are some fantastic non-Apple alternatives to the iPod. I mean, there are companies that have had 30 GB DivX players out for ages now. I don’t even think the current iPod is capable of playing DivX.
“
Apples <-> Oranges. No pun intended. Apple has always been clear with the fact that the new Ipod is not the “video ipod”. It is the newest generation ipod with the ability to play video but it is NOT a video player. Much like the ipod photo (despite the name) was not a photo reader that plays audio. It was still an audio player which could display photos. The newest generation Ipods have the ability to show video but as it’s been said by Apple, it is still an audio player, video is just a new feature, not it’s main feature. If you want to watch videos on the go, then you shouldn’t be looking at an Ipod anyway. As you said some great Divx players out there and even the PSP has a great screen. Now if you have lots of music and think you might want to catch an episode of a tv show you miss and want to watch it on the bus on the way to work, then the ipod is good for occasional viewing but they have been very clear in saying it is NOT a video player. If/when Apple decide to go into the video player arena I image the screen will be more like the PSP.
kevinblanchard
3:10 pm
And after replying to your post, I remembered, the whole point of the original post was that Napster was tricking consumers with that commerical. You don’t own anything from Napster. You pay a montly fee to rent music from them. There DRM has a time expiration. With Itunes you pay $1 per song but it’s your song. You can keep it on your ipod for 100 years if you want. So the “it would take $10,000 to fill your ipod” commerical is very misleading as if you spent $10,000 to fill your ipod you’d at least have a full ipod. Where as with Napster , sure you’d have listen to lots of music but after all isa said and spent, you still have an empty music player 🙂
kevinblanchard
3:14 pm
Er, sorry, what I meant was that there are some MP3 players available with a much greater range of capabilities, especially for video. (I’m thinking, specifically, about recent product releases from Creative Labs. Which, by the way, to address Steve again, holds the patent on mp3 players–something Apple was denied when they requested it.)
I’ll reply more later–we have to get to a party. Sorry about replying to a year-old post; I didn’t check the dates when I was browsing through last night.
etjabberwock
3:36 pm
Heh, yeah. And not only that, but they don’t take into account the fact that, erm, many people also rip their own CDs. If you already have a pretty extensive CD collection, you can get into the 100s and 1,000s of songs pretty easily.
etjabberwock
3:46 pm
No worries. 🙂
Don’t take anything I say as defensive either. I always enjoy being able to have a good technology discussion with out people getting all upset. Sometimes hard to find. 🙂 Since you took the time to write the long reply, I wanted to make sure I addressed anything that popped out at me thoroughly and completely.
kevinblanchard
4:00 pm