...to his blog page but it hasn't shown up yet, so...

1) iTMS purchased music can be copied onto any media you like for backup purposes. It can even be copied onto other computers. In fact Apple's FairPlay DRM is not a fact in this at all. IIRC Apple latest Backup.app supports the assisted/incremental backup of iTMS music to CD/DVD/etc.

2) iTMS purchased music can be burned to a standard audio CD, one that can be played in any CD player. This can be used a form of backup or to take your music with you (if you don't have an iPod).

3) iTMS purchased music can be played on up to 5 authorized systems (you can change which systems are authorized). Again this is just for playing, doesn't affect storage of iTMS purchased music files (see point 1).

4) iTMS purchased music can be played on an unlimited number of iPods. Also with 3rd party products you can pull music back off of an iPod to any computer.

5) The iPod supports Apple FairPlay DRMed music (what you get from iTMS) but it does NOT require it. The iPod (and iTunes) works with DRM-less ACC, Apple Lossless, MP3, AIFF, etc. music files. Again both iTunes and iPod existed long before the iTMS and FairPlay did.

6) Several software products exist that allow you get around FairPlay if you so desire just like you appear to do on Windows. Of course just like on Windows the EULA doesn't really allow you to such things legally.

"I reserve that (possibly irrational) anger for MS Office and Windows, two products that are so restrictive in their licensing and user set-ups that I have never been able to bring myself to buy either."

I have purchased a total of maybe 8 tracks from iTunes music store. My iPod is instead filled with mp3/m4a taken from my cds (an ocassional international song from limewire - really). No DRM on 99% of my music library.

I think Apple/Jobs will hold on as long as they can. When it is no longer financially adventageous, they will license more freely DRM. I don't think even Jobs knows how long that will be.

"I have never been able to bring myself to download the software to purchase music through iTunes or pony up the cash to by an iPod."

...then you're not really in a position to criticize now, are you?

...Steve has said that it isn't time YET to adjust to a tiered pricing structure... My gut tells me Apple wants to reach a density of users where they will control the market & convince CD producers the jig is up...

Itunes works wonderfully with my CDs ripped in lossless format & played via airtunes.

If you don't want DRM or lossy music - buy CDs!!!

ps. I don't yet own an iPod...

The iPod preceeded the ITMS. Has Brad King ever tried to license music? Cause I have. Don't "blame" Apple for licensing music with a DRM; "blame" the music labels. But then you gotta blame Microsoft, or any software publisher, for requiring reg keys. How you gonna sell bits without getting ripped off? Remember Napster? Were people buying those songs? Ridiculous.

I'd like to know why this journalist seems to ignore the fact it is the music industry that insists on DRM and that Apple was one of the first companies to give consumers a legal option for downloading music. I find the DRM on iTunes somewhat restrictive, but other than pirating the music there isn't much choice as a consumer than to put up with the music industry's insistance on cripling the usage of their legitimate costumers.

This journalist should at least acknowledge the fact that until iTunes owns the copyright on the content it does as good a job as the music industry allows in delivering content to its consumers.

Also, the comment I saw on hear about your hard drive dying and losing all your music. What do you think happens if you lose, have stolen, or damage a CD? You can't go to the music store and demand replacements, why should digital media be any different? Back up your valuable content, when does this message finally stick???

Steve/Apple should not be the target here. He's lashing out at the one company that pushes the music companies around, not vice-versa as he thinks. Steve stood up for 99 cent pricing across the board, the ability to copy songs to other computers, the ability to play the songs on an unlimited number of iPods, and the ability to burn an unchanged playlist 10 times to CD-R.

Other companies force you to subscribe at a monthly rate, charge extra for burning CDs and sometimes copying to music devices, and expire the songs when your subscription runs out.

Tell me who's more lenient, again?

I don't know what the h*** he's talking about -- add to that the fact that he hasn't even ponied up a measly $1.00 to try out the iTunes Music Store or fiddled with an iPod at any one of many Apple retail stores worldwide.

He just doesn't like the "idea" of the DRM that Apple chose to implement and struggled with the music companies to get approved. In reality, if he'd try it, he'd likely find it the most transparent DRM of all of them... unless you do something outside of the limits (which is not likely), for all intents and purposes you can manipulate the music as if it were non-DRM'ed with a few small exceptions.

""owever, that's not what really, really sticks in my craw. I reserve that (possibly irrational) anger for the iPod and iTunes, two music products that are so restrictive in their licensing and user set-ups that I have never been able to bring myself to download the software to purchase music through iTunes or pony up the cash to by an iPod."

I guess 36 million iPod buyer are getting screwed then. Yet they keep coming back and buying more. And what about the 500 million songs purchased from ITMS? I guess the author has conveniently not bothered to account for those.

I blame the editors at MacNN as much as these blathering fools who keep writing their own opinions and try to get the public to believe that they are really credible authors. MacNN needs to stop linking to these self-serving stories.

Considering how supposedly few we Mac users are, we sure seem to wield amazing power over the marketplace.

Apple's FairPlay DRM scheme is more lenient than the competition, but it still sucks. Yes, most people don't mind the restrictions, but I do have a serious problem with being charged the same $10 I'd pay for a CD, not getting the audio quality (no matter what Steve says, 128k AAC is NOWHERE near CD quality), not being able to resell it or give it away when I don't like it anymore, and not getting the artwork. To me this is a great scheme to wring more money out of the consumer while killing the used CD market which has always been a thorn in the labels' side. I'm thrilled to see the phenomenal success of the iTunes music store, and I'm absolutely convinced that it's way better than all its competitors put together. Still, I don't understand WHY people would buy there when Amazon or DeepDiscountCD often sell the same music on CD (much better quality) for the same price or less. I guess it's Steve's reality distorsion field working full steam ahead.

MSFT, Real and Sony seems to have no interest in supporting their DRM'ed stores on OSX so we mac users could not use their services even if we wanted to.

MSFT obviously wants to lock users into their platform and the others simply under estimate the influence mac users have on trends in the industry.

"King notes that the company has towed the music industry line in terms of licensing and digital rights management (DRM)."

It's TOE the line

as in, if you are in boot camp you have to line up with your toes on the line, ie, follow orders.

If you're gonna use a clichè, at least use it correctly.

Argh. Don't even get me going on it's and its.

I think the media is getting paid to write these articles in attempt to reach and scare an audience that doesn't know anything about it to boycott apple to help secretly promote Sony's savage software and the Realplayers' runts worthless product line.

But thats my opinion.

drms are good if you like renting your music from apple...

yes, yes... i know... everyone says that you buy your music from apple, not rent it... but if you really owned it you could do what you want... but you don't... you have to abide by their terms of service... which they can and do change at any time.

keep renting.

Uh, road dog,

If you RENT from someone, you pay them on a periodic basis to keep using the commodity. At the ITMS, you pay ONCE, then you take it and use it as long as you wish. You can copy it to a CD, and take it anywhere!

At the subscription stores, you pay periodically, and when you stop, the music stops.

Not the same, sorry!

"If you're gonna use a clichè, at least use it correctly."

You make a good point, but I find it amusing that you can't spell cliché (wrong accent). ;-)

One thing that you and most journalists forget is that those 128k AACs are made from the master tapes, not from a CD. They are noticeably better than if you made a rip yourself. Regardless, for most people who listen to their music on an iPod or crappy computer speakers, they couldn't tell the difference anyway. Even many audio snobs pretend they can, but really can't.

Does it really matter though? Physical CDs are still available for those with higher end systems and better hearing.

I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that one. Do you honestly think Apple has been going through hundreds of thousands of reel to reel tapes, transcoding them to 128K AAC files?

only Microsoft fanatics who believe anybody who chooses a product not made by a convicted monopolist felon is some kind of loon.

It's a normal human reaction to refuse to use products made by a monopolist mafia like Microsoft who attempts to shove inferior, generic, insecure, unreliable, unimaginative and non-innovative copycat products down our throats; and one of whose sales tactics is an attempt at inciting guilt in those who resist its marketing message.

Sounds like hate due to ignorance to me, of course he could just be an M$ fanboy :shrug: