The Pipeline: The press gets game, Mossberg ignites Apple frenzy

Welcome back to The Pipeline, a weekly feature where we dig through the mainstream media and see what the pundits, prognosticators and and pencil pushers have been discussing over the past week.

This week, not surprisingly the scribes from the mainstream press joined us at E3, checking out the latest from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft -- though, from the looks of things, many of our ink-stained cohorts seemed more interested in seeing how the "booth babe" ban was going. The Los Angeles Times, E3's hometown paper, had excellent coverage overall, but that coverage was somewhat overshadowed by the booth babe reportage, which included text, a photo gallery and videos. A few miles up the coast, the San Francisco Chronicle didn't have the Times' wall-to-wall coverage, but still managed to pay homage to the girls of E3, pointing out that the highly publicized crackdown on the raciest attire has had results: "Where once cleavage, upper thighs and midriffs were almost impossible to avoid, they have been more or less hidden behind baby T-shirts and more-modest tank tops. And it seems like there are fewer booth babes overall." Of course, the biggest E3 scoop by the mainstream media came from Time Magazine, with its exclusive preview of the Wii, which appeared in the magazine a full two days before the conference started. For those of us who considered ourselves lucky to get a chance to try out the new console without having to wait in line for an hour, it was a stark reminder that the MSM still have a lot of clout when it comes to getting scoops from big companies.

Elsewhere in the media, The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg caused a stir with a column on Apple Computer's "device model" vs. Microsoft's "component model." And, although Mossberg's assertion was that Apple's model of end-to-end control over its product line had, in the "post-PC era,"  benefited consumers more than Microsoft's model of allowing PC makers to sort out the details, that's not what caused a new cycle of debate in the blogosphere. Instead, it was one line in the column, where Mossberg stated: "Now, Apple is working on other projects built on the same end-to-end model as the iPod: a media-playing cellphone and a home-media hub." If any other journalist had written this statement, it would likely have been dismissed as a mere assumption based on Apple's current direction and rumors that have been floating around for the past year. However, given Mossberg's stature, and the care he takes at presenting information, the comment was instantly hailed as conclusive evidence that Apple is indeed working on such products. And given word that leaked out later in the week that Apple may be working on an iPhone with Japan's Softbank, and that the company plans to host the media at its New York store next Thursday, Mossberg's assertion may turn out to have been quite accurate, quite soon.

Mossberg wasn't the only one making controversial statements about Apple this week. Reuters reporter Duncan Martell dared to point out that you don't really "own" music you download from the iTunes Music Store, since "owning implies control and if you bought the tracks on iTunes you don't have complete control." That, of course, is essential to Apple's razor-and-blades model of linking the iPod to iTunes, but it pokes a hole in a major defense of iTMS vs. the PlaysforSure-based subscription model. After all, fans of iTMS have long stated that it's better to own music than to "rent" it, via the subscription model. However, Martell rightly points out that you don't really own anything you download from iTunes. You're licensing it, as you do with software, and Apple can change the terms of that license at will.

USA Today - Videogame makers unveil the fun to come
LA Times - E3 2006
San Francisco Chronicle - Nintendo's hot controller, booth babes under control
Time - A game for all ages

The Wall Street Journal - In our post-PC era, Apple's device model beats the PC way
Reuters - Do you own songs bought online? Well, sort of

[Simon @ May 14th 2006 4:22PM]

Reuters reporter Duncan Martell dared to point out that you don't really "own" music you download from the iTunes Music Store, since "owning implies control and if you bought the tracks on iTunes you don't have complete control."

***

This is idiotic. Under the law I can't tear down my house and build a parking garage, therefore, I don't have complete control of my property and, according to Martell, I don't really "own" it.

What a moron. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Apple and the ITMS model, but the notion that people don't own the music they purchase is insane.

[matt @ May 14th 2006 4:49PM]

I OWN my iTunes and have FULL control over it unlike subscription based services - in the fact that I copy all of my purchased songs to cds and re-rip them into iTunes as mp3s. I have the reciept to prove that I purchased the songs, but yet have them in unprotected mp3 files for my personal use and it's all completely legitimate.

my bet is that Apple unveils a number of things Thursday including a new MacBook (Pro or sans-Pro I dunno) and some sort of a new media device, whether it be new iPods (8gb nano please!) or some sort of media hub or something else.

[Boone @ May 14th 2006 4:56PM]

Simon--

Your argument is a bit of a slippery slope one, although it raises an interesting point about ownership. If true ownership of something requires unlimited rights over it, probably no one owns anything, even his own body.

That said, the word 'own' probably *doesn't* imply unlimited rights, and thus it's interesting to ask exactly how extensive your rights have to be in order for your relationship with the thing to be considered ownership. And there is undoubtably a real difference in the extent of your rights as regards iTMS-downloaded music as compared to your parallel rights with the non-DRMed music you get on a CD.

Incidentally, I don't think it's at all obvious where this line, demarcating "true" ownership, should be drawn, since the idea of copyright licensure is relatively young (at least when compared to the concept of ownership). To a large extent, the question of when the word 'own' applies is an arbitrary, verbal one. A better question to be asking is when, to what extent, and for how much money it's justified to limit someone's rights to an object.

[tim @ May 14th 2006 5:01PM]

Isn't Mossberg a paid shill for Apple? His reviews are so lopsided that I just assumed he was a well placed sellout "journalist".

[Chris @ May 14th 2006 5:16PM]

#2 Matt -

You might be surprised, but by actively circumventing copy protection AND publishing how to do it, you are breaking the great piece of US law - the DMCA. Sound silly for such a simple idea, but what you are doing is illegal. And if the government pass the proposed chnanges, what you are suggesting could land you in jail for a maximum of 10 years.

Here in the UK, it was only made legal to rip CD's to your PC THIS WEEK. Fair use doesn't seem to exist in real life.

[Zadillo @ May 14th 2006 5:17PM]

Regardless of how we are defining ownership, the big difference I see is that with music I buy from iTMS, I do get to keep it and play it without having to pay anything extra for it down the road. With subscription models, my music would stop working if I ever cancelled my subscription. Again, both systems clearly have merits; if you download a ton of music, a subscription model would be more economical even if you do keep paying that monthly fee for years and years. But in my case, I probably only buy 2-3 albums a month, and I prefer to just have it and not have to worry about whether those albums will "stop working". And regarding the danger of Apple changing the licensing terms (although it seems unlikely they would do something that would actually prevent your music from working at all; more things along the lines of making modifications like how many devices your music can be played on at a time, etc.), the safeguard there would still seem to be in just burning your music to audio CD, thus completely stripping out the DRM. And again of course, these are both just alternate options; there's always the tried and true method of just going to the store and buying the physical CD if any of these other issues concern you.

[mike @ May 14th 2006 5:22PM]

Your argument is a bit of a slippery slope one, although it raises an interesting point about ownership. If true ownership of something requires unlimited rights over it, probably no one owns anything, even his own body.

---

It's like saying that you don't really 'own' software, because if MS released a new version of Windows with zero backwards compatibility.. the software wouldn't work with it..

Well.. MS would never do that, just as Apple would never release an iPod that couldn't play AAC+... Furthermore.. even if they did, you could play the AAC+ on your original iPod..

So for all intents and purposes you DO own the music, and barring any insanity in Cupertino, will ALWAYS be able to play that music on iPod devices

Which begs the question.. whats the difference between that and ownership? Copyright of course. You can't sell AAC music. Of course not.. mostly because it's a digital file that is braindead easy (without DRM) to COPY.. So selling illegitimate copies must be prevented.

In closing.. while you're worrying about not being able to do anything with iTunes music, you may as well start worrying about what happens to all your Windows software when MS (chuckles...) stops shipping Windows.

Get it? Never gonna happen.

[Carl B. @ May 14th 2006 5:23PM]

Simon-

your comparison is interesting, but flawed. I believe the terms of ownership under the circumstances are more of a comparison between the definition of ownership between music you buy at the store (IE on a record or CD), and music you buy on ITMS. If you base your definition of owning music by precedent, then you would in fact not own your ITMS music files, because their use is limited in comparison to other established avenues of music purchase.

In simpler terms, the comparison is between ITMS and your record store, not between your ITMS files and everything else you can "own".

[Gil @ May 14th 2006 5:31PM]

Easy Simon, you're opnion is most likely of the minority and your name calling is unimpressive (immature). A Brittany Spears single is not a house my friend. Duncan Martell probably meant to simply say, when you own a DVD or CD you can play it on any device as often as you like and create a back up of it if you like (whether it's encouraged or not). iTunes, on the other hand, restricts all three of these basic rights in hope to increase profits. The usual.

iTunes quality has always reminded me of a burned MP3 disk your friends little brother made from Kazaa dowloads he loaned you for the week. The service is about impulse purchases; disposable music. Not ownership. Theres nothing "owned" or lasting about a 4MB MP3 on your PC, to me at least.

[Julian Bond @ May 14th 2006 5:38PM]

Anyone who buys low quality, over-priced, DRM infected music from iTMS is stupid. So there.

DRM is killing music. And it's a rip off.
http://www.voidstar.com/node.php?id=2686

Just Say No To DRM.

[anon @ May 14th 2006 5:43PM]

Boone,
You make a good point, but the RIAA would beg to differ with you copying --and format changing-- music you purchased on a CD. From a purely legal standpoint, music purchased from ITMS is allowed to be copied to a CD from Protected ACC. This can't be said for music purchased on CDs despite the lack of protection.

[Simon @ May 14th 2006 6:41PM]

#7 Carl -- Sorry, I thought "ownership" meant "ownership," not "ownership as the article's author chooses to narrowly define it in order to score rhetorical points."

#8 Gil -- I don't know how one would go about establishing a "majority" or "minority" view of the concept of ownership, but I'm pretty sure, legally speaking, I'm on much more solid ground than Martell.

On the idea in general: The idea that my use of ITMS music is more limited than that of a CD I purchased ultimately has little to do with the idea of whether I "own" either one. Condo owners in downtown Manhatten are much more limited on what they can do with their property than ranchers in unincorporated parts of Montana. But that doesn't mean that the former don't "own" their property.

Look, you can love ITMS or hate it, think that it's a great and useful invention or the worst sounding music in the world, but none of that is particularly relevant to the question of ownership. And on that question, unless one wants to suggest that "own" means something unique in the DRM world, which Martell does not do, or that millions of homeowners actually aren't, then I think that claiming ITMS prevents you from "owning" the music is bizarre.

[Jon @ May 14th 2006 6:57PM]

A fat lot of good it does me to "own" my Sony Beta format video tapes and my 33 1/3 rpm records... find something else to whine about. Apple bashing is tedious and tiresome. I own no Apple products, BTW.

[Dan @ May 14th 2006 6:58PM]

Ownership, to me, means that I can resell it (assuming someone has the desire to buy it). Therefore, everything I own, I have the right to resell. This isn't true with downloaded music or movies. Therefore, I have paid to license them, rather than purchase them.

[LongshotX @ May 14th 2006 7:11PM]

Fuck the iTunes store. I have Ares and BitComet. Fuck the iPod. WTH I need one for when I have a Creative Zen Micro. Anybody who actually purchases individual songs is completely dumb. Theres too many ways to get free music and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to find it. Google, Torrents, and p2p is your friend. Now go Educate yourself.

[Neoterix @ May 14th 2006 7:48PM]

Just for the record, we aren't using the "ownership" meaning of "ownership", but in fact the narrowly defined legal definition. We are speaking about intellectual property law, and as it is defined, we do not own the iTunes music we purchase. Whether it's realistic to think Apple will changes the TOS and licensing to screw us is somewhat irrelevant in the legal debate.

Part of legally owning something is the ability to sell it. You may not build a parking lot where your house is because of zoning regulations that exist outside the strict body of common law regarding real property, but you can sell it. Furthermore, given enough political clout, you could lobby your town legislative body to get a zoning change, a variance, or special permit that would in fact allow you to build a parking lot, all while never changing your legal status of ownership of said property.

Simon, I would say you're on weaker "legal" ground.

[dead @ May 14th 2006 8:12PM]

tim- what are you implying? so anyone that gives an apple product a good review is a shill... they get good reviews most of the time from various sources. They make good products but they fuck up every once in a while.

[James @ May 14th 2006 9:15PM]

Being able to sell something is _not_ the tried and true acid test of "ownership". For instance, property law has been invoked. Did you know that some kinds of property are regulated in terms of who you can sell them to? And that other kinds of property simply cannot be sold, to anyone?

Ok, maybe property law is too far from IP. Did you ever read the shrinkwrap on 99.9% of the software you buy? Did you read the license you get with your beloved physical CD's? Your use of the materials is limited in both cases, and in many cases specifically disallowes resale.

Now, the interesting thing to note here is that these are license agreements we're talking about here. License agreements, not laws. Saying "you can do XYZ with foo but you can't do it with bar" should really be parsed as saying that the vendor who provides you with the property requires that you enter into an agreement with them about what use you can make of that property. And there is _all_ kinds of interesting legal precedents showing that these agreements may not be valid, _even if you agreed to them_. Specific EULA's have been tested and found to have portions that were simply not enforceable, due to their not being common practice.

To bring it back to concrete examples, MS could put a clause in their EULA saying that by installing their software, you're agreeing that MS has the right to enter your home to inspect that you're using it in a validly licensed fashion. However, such a clause would be unenforceable, even if you clicked "Accept" after reading it.

So, do you own your ITMS music _more_ than you own subscription music? Well, if you stop paying for your subscription, the music stops playing, right? This is technology that does this, not law. If Apple were to for some reason try and revoke your right to play tracks you bought on ITMS, it doesn't follow that you would lose the ability to play them, because they would have to bring a case in court against you and get judges agree that this is a reasonable clause of their EULA.

IOW, it should be obvious on the face of it that there is a significant difference in the level of ownership you get from ITMS music and subscription music.

James

[Pal @ May 14th 2006 10:30PM]

"...pointing out that the highly publicized crackdown on the raciest attire has had results..."

Not racist, but sexist. Unless women are indeed from Venus.

[d3 @ May 14th 2006 11:30PM]

" That, of course, is essential to Apple's razor-and-blades model of linking the iPod to iTunes"

Why do people keep saying this? Apple does not run their iPod/iTunes business on that model. The have not been secret at all about using iTunes to drive iPod sales, not the other way around. They are not exactly "giving away the razor to sell the blades" here.

Oh, an #18, WTF are you talking about? It's "raciest attire" as in "racy attire"?

[Robert Macabre @ May 14th 2006 11:58PM]

it doesn't say "racist." it says, "raciest."

[Aaron @ May 15th 2006 12:36AM]

The problem I have with iTunes is that once you download something from the iTMS, you can't download it again. So if your hard drive dies and you want that music back, too damn bad. That, to me, is the real reason you don't really own it. Since it's not a physical copy, you should at least be able to download it again.

On an unrelated note... iTunes sucks. I have an iPod. Working with iTunes is a huge hassle.

[mike @ May 15th 2006 1:15AM]

he problem I have with iTunes is that once you download something from the iTMS, you can't download it again

---

After I eat a chocolate bar, i can't go back and get another one. If i buy a diamond ring and drop it down the drain, or flush it down the toilet.. wow.. i can't go back and get another.

[rip @ May 15th 2006 5:17AM]

Gil:

Just a minor point, the structure of the ITMS DRM is largely dictated by the music labels. Apple, like Microsoft, really have no interest in drm'ed music.

Apple is interested in selling hardware (iPods and Macs) and Microsoft is interested in selling an OS. Music ripping happens to help both of those goals. DRM does not (at least to a lesser extent than drm-free).

Apple in fact has a fairly liberal drm policy w/itms music. And it is about as transparent as a drm scheme can be and is fairly easily bypassed.

The issue of ownership is due to the music labels mafia-like attempt to protect it's turf. They would prefer that you never own any music, just paying them a monthly fee to have access to a music library. Kind of like the mafia "protection" fee.

Anyway, blame the RIAA. Not Apple. Apple doesn't make squat from the itms. Apple created a drm scheme purely for music label compliance. Not to increase profits.

[Sean @ May 15th 2006 10:04AM]

Well said rip. Know your enemy and in this case it ain't Apple.

Death to the RIAA!

[thispaceforsale @ May 15th 2006 10:45AM]

I don't know if own/rent is a simple dichotomy. To me, having something digital feels like I am renting the item, as opposed to owning an actual physical object. While I feel greater control than with a subscription service, I still think as follows that owning a copy feels like second tier ownership, that I am just renting the original.
If a buy a song off Itunes, am I allowed to sell it to someone else?

[Universe Man @ May 15th 2006 11:30AM]

Simon,

The fact that you cannot build a parking garage on your land does not imply that you do not own the house. It implies that you do not own the land, which is arguable.