Not Good: Jobs Changes The iTunes Rules
I don’t know about you but when I invest in a certain type of media I don’t expect the rules to be randomly changed on me. While Apple’s recent change to the Digital Rights Management (DRM) agreement may seem benign the changes, by their very existence, are a dangerous precedent.
Imagine, after building up a 100 odd CD collection being told that, from now on, the CD’s that you buy now cannot be played in your car? Absurd? By treating iTunes songs as software Apple has reminded all of us that the rules can, and will change. While changing the rules from 10 burns to 7 burns isn’t a big deal this isn’t the point. The point is that as consumers we cannot rely on the iTunes music store being a stable entity. What if the record labels start to get, as they are prone to, even more irrationally paranoid and decide that we can only use our songs on one machine, burn them once, and listen to them on an iPod? Irrational? Yes. Improbable? Perhaps. But entirely plausible.
Just like the Compact Disc was based on a series of standards the digital music file needs a standard set of rules and fast. Maybe this is a time when government intervention is necessary to corral the myriad interests together. The format shouldnŐt matter (although it would be nice if there was a standard format) but the rules should. How many times can a file be burned and how many devices it can be played on should all be established keeping in the mind the interests of the consumer and the music industry.
Steve Jobs has done a wonderful job monetizing and legitimizing digital music. However, by suddenly announcing that the rules are changing, albeit (for now) in a minor way, Jobs has reminded us that we are not buying CD’s. Indeed, while Jobs is proud to boast that people don’t like to rent music (a la the subscription model) by changing the rules us iTunes’s consumers are made to feel more like renter’s than purchasers. I’ll continue to purchase music from the iTunes music store because I have faith that Apple will do the right thing. I’m just a little less comfortable now that the rules have been changed on me.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
One more thought Jeff:
> Would you agree to such a contract?
I did, and so did you.
I plan to offer a reply to the previous posts, but for the time being let me enlighten you as to one provision in the ITMS Terms of Service, and I quote:
“b. Termination of the Service. Apple reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service (or any part or content thereof) at any time with or without notice to you, and Apple will not be liable to you or to any third party should it exercise such rights.”
So much for our “owning” music files (as Jobs would have us believe). Without an exit strategy, namely the ability to strip out the DRM, we could be left holding the bag—having paid for songs in good faith and yet with no product to show for it. I agree to no such provision or term that would allow me to pay for a service to be rendered and then to have that service cease to be rendered without a full refund. ITMS is not a rental or subscription service; I expect to own outright any files I pay for from ITMS.
as for the quoted section “b”
1) If you don’t agree then why did you click on the “I agree” button?
2) Apple could shut down ITMS today, stop development and distribution of iTunes tomorrow, and stop making iPods the day after that and your music files would be just fine. Much akin to having an 8-track and 8-track player but still just fine and playable.
Those music files which have been burned to a CD would be fine, but those purchased music files from ITMS which still reside on the computer would most certainly NOT be fine—because iTunes requires a network connection in order to verify whether a certain computer or user is authorized to play a given song.
I think you are a bit too cavalier about the possible repercussions here. Have you actually TESTED the playing of certain purchased music files on a computer with the network connection unavailable?
As for my agreeing to the ITMS terms of service, I maintain I did not agree. Yes, I know what you will say, but I simply don’t respect that way of “securing” another party’s agreement to something. If I sell a CD and in small print on the CD packaging it says that by opening the package the user agrees to forfeit his religion in exchange for the right to purchase this CD, if the music is highly sought, do you think for one moment anyone would actually refrain from opening the package regardless—assuming they even noticed or READ this small print?
But let’s assume we live in a “letter of the law” world—which you seem to be advocating here. Okay then. The problem is still that since Apple says it reserves the right to CHANGE the rules without notice, then in essence the ITMS user has no idea what he is agreeing to. The terms are ever subject to change. Apple could change all the terms tomorrow and—according to you—the paying customer would have no legal recourse because, after all, he “agreed” to this.
Not all courts are taken in by such shenanigans and cute legalistic devices. Supposed agreement by the parties is not the end of the story. A contract must still be legally enforceable. And that’s for a court to decide.
I have a question for Jeff. Let’s say I cancel my internet connection and a week later purchase a new Mac. After attaching my external hard drive with all my music files, will I NOT be able to play songs purchased through the iTunes Music Store?
If this is so, I feel like a dupe.
Point taken about the registration of a computer, assuming that you are changing the ‘status quo’ from the machine used to purchase the music (or that had been previously been authorized).
Right now the machine I am using is not permanently connected to the net and I have no problem playing purchsed music when it is off the ‘net.
OK, I can accept your saying you “do not agree” and “did not agree”. Good luck, and I hope you find a good lawyer.
Oxhead, I am not sure of the exact mechanisms used to verify that a computer is licensed so I do not know if your scenario would work, I suspect that it would not as a “cheat” would be to clone the disk image of an authorized computer to a non-authorized computer. Considering that the “authorization” is for the Computer (and not the boot/disk) is that really a dupe? (Since all that you need to do is deauthorize the “old” computer and authorize the “new” one.).
I am not advocating “Letter of the Law”, but rather “Informed Consent”. We agreed to a contract and we signed up to it (and we were under no coercion) to then act surprised and indignant when they are doing what they reserved the right to do seems… odd.
I strongly recommend everyone get very familiar with all the rights that a person can sign away with voluntary contracts. It’s not just Apple, do you have a credit card? Banks change their terms of service on those quite often.
To Oxhead, I’m inclined to agree with Tony that your scenario would work—provided your hard disk included the OS and a bootable partition. If instead it is, say, an external Firewire drive for the purpose of storing documents, music files, and other data, (or even if it is an internal drive installed in a spare bay in a PowerMac), then I’m highly doubtful it would work. Of course, speculation is all well and good—but there is no substitute for actual tests. Alternatively you could pose such questions on Apple’s own discussion forums devoted to such things.
Tony, I appreciate the distinctions you are making in your post above. But I want to get back to Hadley Stern’s original thesis—which was not to establish what now exists in respect to Apple and ITMS policy but rather to call into question whether the WISDOM of it. If Apple shakes up its terms very often—and especially if it does so in a direction the consumer will perceive as a contraction of features, options, or capacity (rather than an expansion of them), then it could well spark a backlash—especially as more and more online services are representing competition to Apple.
the issue seems pretty simple to me.
I trade off freedom of format and playback with convenience of immediate access to music.
Compromise - its inevitable, and I just don’t understand why there is an issue when it comes to digital files - why would they/us be immune to compromise?
It’s always wiser to listen to your customers and change aspects of a service that they want.
To Nathan—why should we have to make this compromise for the sake of “convenient access to music”? Are we not already making compromises enough? For the sake of what you call convenience, here are the trade-offs:
1. Inferior sound quality.
2. No output on iPod to hi-fi stereo system.
3. We must pay extra for our own CD’s.
4. We must pay extra for CD (jewel) boxes.
5. We must perform the labor of burning the CD’s.
6. No artwork or liner notes to speak of.
7. Insufficient data about the musicians involved in the music.
That is trade-off ENOUGH from my point of view. So, sure, we get “flexibility,” and albums cost $9.99. But then, as I say, we must bear the cost of portable media and provide the labor of burning the CD’s and even then, at the end of the day, we have no liner notes—which is especially problematic for fans of classical and jazz music.
So don’t tell me the customer is unwilling to sacrifice anything; we are sacrificing quite a lot already. And to insist that the “terms of service rug” will not be pulled out from under us seems a modest enough place for customers to draw the line.
The concept of selling music online is still a work in progress and we should expect some tweaking with the terms of service.
As far as sacrifices being made by consumers in order to use iTunes, well, I think the overwhelming success of iTunes shows that most users don’t feel they are making sacrifices when purchasing music online.
There are some drawbacks… but from the numbers it appears that consumers think iTunes is a good thing.
As most laptops become the preferred computer to buy (laptops now comprise almost 50% of Apple’s computer sales) you’ll find that iTunes offers major convenience, time savings and money savings.
DF - Boston
I would just like to say to Jeff Mincey:
It’s unfortunate that you don’t like iTunes or the iPod (the tone in your agressive writing shows that). The good news is you will fetch a very good price on eBay for. Shall I start the bidding at $100
Lighten up, have you ever read the licence agreement for software you downloaded for free…........of course you have iTunes is free.
Wisdom? IMO. Very wise. It was an improvement to the service.
Tony, I’m glad to see you regard this latest change in the rules as wise. Let’s hope tomorrow’s change will be wise too—and the one after that, etc.
To JeffyC, I’m at a loss as to how you characterize my writing as aggressive. From my point of view, I’m conducting myself with a civil tone. I’m respectful of people with whom I disagree—even as I’m assertive about my own point of view. I suppose you are having a visceral reaction to my phrasing above in which I say, “So don’t tell me the customer is unwilling to sacrifice anything; we are sacrificing quite a lot already.”
I use this just as a rhetorical device—I don’t mean to be aggressive or defensive. It’s just my way of saying that the customers of ITMS are manifestly already making compromises in order to use the service. Are the compromises worth the advantages of ITMS? Well, that’s a judgment call. For my part, I would say in some cases, yes, while in other cases no. I admire Apple as a company and I admire it for innovating with ITMS and paving the way in this regard. I don’t think you will find any statement above to the contrary (on my part). But this doesn’t mean Apple walks on water either or is infallible. And I think people who respect the company are within their rights to call some of its policies into question—don’t you?
I probably won’t agree with all the changes in the future, as I have not agreed with all changes in the past.
I’ve been “burned”, by Apple and others, on these types of agreements.
I have a Newton 2000. Apple exercised their right to stop development and the Newt is still working to this day.
Jeff, you asserted that the changes were “willy nilly”, and I asked if you saw no positive intent. Could you answer the question?
Also consider that Apple is also under contract with the record labels. They have far more leverage than the individual ITMS consumer and can afford better lawyers. I believe that Apple is trying to negotiate the best deal possible for us, within the constraints that they need to make a profit (selling iPods).