Apple Planning Possible Unlimited Music Device

Having witnessed Nokia pay the labels to offer "Comes with Music" cellphones that let consumers in Europe download unlimited music from a limited catalog, Apple is apparently considering a similar approach.

The Financial Times reports that Apple is trying to lowball the labels for this device, proposing that it pay the labels $20 per device for the right to give the consumer unlimited music -- considerably less than the premium extracted from Nokia (a rumored $80 per unit).

Yet another round of negotiations between Apple and the labels will likely follow, and it's unclear when such a device might be released, if ever.

According to the Financial Times, "subscriptions would work only for its iPhone devices, where it has a monthly billing relationship with customers through the mobile phone operators offering the device, while the 'comes with music' model would work with iPhones and with iPods."

So the idea is you make everyone (who uses a connected device like an iPhone) pay for music, regardless of what they use. My question is, how much of this will actually be repassed to the artists? I doubt it would be a big percentage. Furthermore, what about consumers that don't want to use any music? What about other types of content? This would just be a desperate stopgap measure, not a real solution.

Music Industry Proposes a Piracy Surcharge on ISPs

Having failed to stop piracy by suing internet users, the music industry is for the first time seriously considering a file sharing surcharge that internet service providers would collect from users.

This is absolutely idiotic. So they want get a blanket surcharge, even from people that don't pirate anything? What about newspapers, should they get a blanket surcharge in case people copy and paste their news? What about photographers? Graphic artists? Where do you draw the line? How can this be enforced by the government?

Moreover, who wants to bet they won't be re-passing any of this to artists (or a very minimal part tops) if they get it?

More from Wired.

RIAA "can't run now"

Friday may mark a significant milestone in the RIAA's legal campaign against file-sharing, as it is the deadline for exonerated RIAA defendant Tanya Andersen to refile her malicious prosecution lawsuit against the record labels. Soon afterwards, discovery will begin, and all sorts of unsavory details about the RIAA's legal campaign against suspected file-sharers are likely to emerge.

Andersen is a single mother living in Oregon who was sued by the record labels in February 2005. She eventually filed a counterclaim against the RIAA, and when the labels voluntarily dismissed their case against her last June, she filed a malicious-prosecution lawsuit. In it, Andersen accuses the RIAA of fraud, racketeering, invasion of privacy, libel, slander, deceptive business practices, and violations of the Oregon state RICO Act.

Last month, a federal judge dismissed Andersen's original complaint, saying that she had "not adequately stated claims for relief," but gave her a one-month window to refile. Her attorney, Lory Lybeck, told Ars that he plans to file a new 80-page complaint tomorrow. "The focus of the amended complaint is essentially the sham litigation and abuse of the federal judiciary to operate this criminal enterprise that has harmed Tanya Andersen and thousands of other people," Lybeck said.

With a new complaint, the case is certain to move forward into the discovery phase, as the judge has told both sides that she would not entertain any further motions to dismiss this case. It's an uncomfortable place for the RIAA to be in.

The RIAA is likely to fight the discovery process tooth and nail, however, as the information that is unearthed could prove to be extremely embarrassing, if not problematic. "They've operated in this zone of secrecy for five years now, and we hope to put a stop to that," Lybeck stated emphatically, "because it will become obvious that their conduct is illegal an their whole scheme is flawed at its basic core."

The judge has barred further motions for dismissal, so unless the RIAA decides to settle—a move Lybeck believes is in the group's best interest—the case will proceed through discovery and to trial. Unlike the thousands of lawsuits filed so far, the RIAA does not have the luxury of walking away from this case if there's a real chance of embarrassing information being released. "Once discovery happens in the cases the RIAA brings, they run," Lybeck says. "This is our case now, and they can't run."

From Ars Technica.

BBC iPlayer Cracked

Hackers have cracked the DRM protecting the content on the BBC iPlayer, according to reports.

The breach in security means that consumers will now be able to download shows including Ashes To Ashes and Life In Cold Blood for unlimited viewing.

Previously content was only featured on the iPlayer for up to a week following its TV broadcast and expired 30 days after being downloaded to a PC.

"We've released a fix to prevent unrestricted downloading of streamed TV programmes on BBC iPlayer. Like other broadcasters, the security of rights-protected content online is an issue we take very seriously. It's an ongoing, constant process and one which we will continue to monitor," said a spokeswoman.

The BBC reported that 17m shows had been watched via the iPlayer by mid-February following its launch on Christmas Day.

This leads me to think that the DRM providers, companies that make money out of designing DRM are in the same situation as the Anti-Virus companies. The latter has been on a trend of seeding fear, including labeling harmless cookies as spyware just to sell more product. Why would DRM companies even ever want their technologies to be 100% effective (if it were possible), when it's more profitable to keep playing the cat and mouse game?

Moreover, does anyone think that there's a huge hacker conspiracy to break DRM just out of spite? Hackers are but consumers who feel swindled by artificial limitations on products they want, and respond by lifting those limitations. They don't even feel that they're doing something wrong, but rather that they were wronged.

From NMA.

Random House Going DRM-Free on Books

Could DRM-free audio novels make way for unrestricted electronic books?

They made it look so easy. In a letter dated 21 February 2008, Madeline McIntosh, Random House's senior vice-president of audio, let her authors know that the company would be releasing audiobooks free of digital rights management (DRM). For six months, Random House had been testing DRM-free distribution. "Based on the successful results of that test," she announced, "we are now comfortable broadening this type of distribution."

What does Random House's announcement, together with similar ones from Penguin and Simon & Schuster in the following week, mean for book lovers? In short, it means that those who download audiobooks can listen to them anywhere - on their laptop or on any MP3 player they care to own. They can even back up their collection on to, say, a removable hard drive.

They could also upload it to an illicit file-sharing system and deprive Random House authors of revenue. But McIntosh's research suggests that they won't. During the six-month trial - with the DRM-free retailers eMusic - Random House tracked all the audiobook files it sold without DRM. Not a single one ended up on peer-to-peer file-sharing. Which shows that honest customers, at least of the book-buying variety, are just that: honest.

So... when you treat consumers with respect and provide a better option, everything is just fine. Well... duh. More from Newstatesman.

Society of Automotive Engineers kills DRM on its journal following MIT boycott

MIT dropped its subscription to the database of past articles from the Society of Automotive Engineer because SAE had was using anti-copying DRM technology on the papers that made them less useful for scientists and researchers. After a presentation from an MIT professor about the boycott, the SAE publication board eliminated DRM for its papers

This is probably an example of what happens very often. Managers who really have no idea of what's involved make a decision to use DRM after someone who also has no idea of what's really involved presents the plan. At least in this case, the damage done by DRM was so bad that they had no choice but to reverse the situation.

Via Boing Boing.