Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Favors DRM-Free Music Distribution
Another anonymous reader tips an essay by Steve Jobs on the Apple site about DRM, iTunes, and the iPod. Perhaps it was prompted by the uncomfortable pressure the EU has been putting on Apple to open up the iPod. Jobs places the blame for the existence and continuing reliance on DRM squarely on the music companies. Quoting: "Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."
Dear governments, please Gang-Bang the big studios for us. (Which I believe would be a very nice thing to see)
finally, somebody in the business had a shot of insight.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
But make it in proportion to the Gates/Borg icon.
It's too bad that Jobs says in the article that people who attack DRM have too much time on their hands and only want to enable copyright infringement. He doesn't want to admit that anyone might have any other motive. This is an oddly sour note in the course of an article that otherwise reasonably admits that DRM is problematic and that consumers would be better off without it.
What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
With public relation statements like this coupled with the DRM 'ed iTunes how can Steve and Apple lose?
Vista Help Forum
Windows Vista Help Forum
I actually read the complete commentary by Steve Jobs.
He is dead on.
The music industry (RIAA and their cohorts in crime) have completely botched the distribution of music in an internet-enabled world.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
Here's the parts I found most interesting:
Why?
/he's/ the one who has the power and weight to fight those companies, not us. We have to exercise our force through him and his company, and similar companies.
Because the only way we can fight DRM is through the DRM selling groups. We can't download music from BMG/Universal/etc. directly. So, we go through things like iTunes.
If he honestly gave a damn, he'd realize that
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Looks like I am never going to buy any games from Blizzard or Sierra again.
At least he understands what the rest of us understand, which is that DRM can never prevent copying. The most it can do is slow it down.
He does get one thing wrong in the article though: "No DRM system was ever developed for the CD". Not true. There are several DRM systems developed for Audio CDs. However, they all depend on the disc being placed into a computer that will pay attention to something other than CDDA tracks, which means they are ineffective on purpose-built CD copiers or computers on which the user has either disabled autorun or holds the shift key while the disc is inserted.
DRM doesn't have to be effective to be DRM...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apparently Apple was forced to put DRM up. If you remember correctly, a few years ago, Apple even promoted copying music as one of the things you could do with the (back then) new Apple with CDRW (G3's).
Steve Jobs and Apple have always been holding their leg stiff against the record companies as much as possible and now they're kicking back. I think the record companies and affiliates finally see that DRM is hurting them bad, worse than the so-called pirating going on.
I don't buy DRM'ed music, I refuse and I rather buy an MP3 from an indie artist or download a good song through BitTorrent. Well, I hope they finally start offering MP3's or any other codec (Ogg perhaps) without DRM.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Apple needs to give record labels the choice of whether they want their music to be sold with or without DRM on the iTunes Store. Keep the same prices, keep the same format and bitrate (128kbps AAC), and keep embedding the user's ID in the file, but give the labels the choice, and indicate it to the customer before they buy (a small icon next to the "Buy" button should be enough).
Obviously most labels will continue to choose DRM. That's OK. Let them. And let the market sort it out.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
So when will we be able to run MacOSX on non-apple hardware then?
Jobs could actually license the iTunes DRM to other companies and allow other devices to work with it. The Apple DRM really isn't that bad, if only other devices could be supported without jumping trough (license violating) hoops.
I am "sure" that Apple's lawyers didn't have anything to say about the DRM decision either. Let's face it. If iPod were an open and easy to use music player (from a technical/file system standpoint), they would have become the targets of all the big label music publishers out there. So I'm relatively certain the move was initially "CYA." However, the fact that their DRM scheme seems to lock everyone else out is pretty indicative of their attempting to turn a burden into an advantage.
They can have their DRM and not use it to monopolize after all. That said, let's take Jobs' lead and go after the music publishers!
It's probably ridiculous for me to say this, but dammit, this is Slashdot, so I'm gonna say it anyway:
Is it not possible, nay, probable, that this was Steve Jobs's plan all along with reference to interoperability? The iTunes/iPod Family of Devices gets locked up behind music industry DRM which we all know Apple would rather not have bothered with in the first place. They were slow to fix exploits of various versions of FairPlay, and fixed those exploits probably at content cabal insistence. On the side was a lack of interoperability with other devices/services that went along with FairPlay.
Now that people are up in arms about the iPod not playing fair with others, more and more Joe Sixpacks are starting to see that DRM is a bad thing. Here comes Steve Jobs, suggesting that if you want to point fingers at FairPlay's effect on interoperability, you should also be pointing fingers at the content cabal.
Could this have been his diabolical plan all along?!
Well.... Probably not. But it would sure make for a good conspiracy theory for all the Mac fansites out there.
About a year ago, I purchased and downloaded two tracks from the iTunes music store. This was before I realized the nature of the DRM that restricts such downloads. I noticed it after I purchased a new computer and had to authorize that computer to play those files.
The computer I originally downloaded them on no longer exists, so I have no way to deauthorize it. This means that I am down one of the 5 computers that I can authorize my songs to play on. When I realized this, I decided that I will never again purchase any music files that have any DRM on them whatsoever.
I still use the iTunes music store, but only to browse and hear samples. If I find something I want, I look it up on Amazon or head out to Best Buy and buy the actual CD. If the music companies will remove that asinine restriction of DRM, then I will go back to purchasing music downloads.
Note that I am against piracy. I think that people that distribute these things wholesale are the scum of the Earth. But I do not appreciate being treated like a criminal just because I happen to like music. I really hope that Jobs gets his way with this.
Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
That explains why they apply DRM even to music that is sold in DRM-less versions elsewhere...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
One thing that this really throws into stark relief for me is that DRM is also completely incompatible with allowing individuals to control their own general-purpose computers. If Apple's DRM keys are compromised, apparently their plan is to do a prompt, mandatory update of the iTunes software. This can only work if users don't have any way to prevent the update.
Find free books.
Say what you will of Steve Jobs, he whole-heartedly believes in Apple's products, and in their ability to compete on a level playing-field. How many other companies, owning the sort of market-share that Apple has in digital music, would even countenance changing it ?
And, he's not insane - Apple make their money on hardware, not so much on the iTMS itself - the risk is relatively low for Apple, conversely so for the labels. It is in fact likely to give SJ *more* power in his dealings with the record labels - Apple are the entrenched brand, the shining beacon over the dark landscape of pirated music . Once DRM is gone, the labels will need Apple to be even more on-side than they do currently, because they'll have lost the small measure of control they currently have.
As far as Apple is concerned, it's a win-win. Steve probably expects to lose sales on the iTMS, but that non-DRM'd files would become more-commonly shared, raising the number of people who want a DAP, and given the public's current opinion on which DAP is the best, he feels confident Apple will benefit overall. Still takes some cojones to suggest it, though... A bit like when they cancelled their best-selling iPod model (the original mini) because they had a better version. A traditional business would have milked the mini for all they could, first.
I think the whole RDF is simply that Steve *really* *really* believes in his companies products, that belief shines through in his body language, his tone of voice, his whole attitude. People pick up on that and empathise with it. It's a great sales technique, but it needs products that really change the world to do it. Apple strives to make that sort of product.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
True CDs never had DRM. Phillips wouldn't approve / license it as the Trademark holder on the Compact Disc.
There were forms of optical media that were created to be Compact Disc(TM) compatible with DRM, but they were legally distinct from a real CD. They also failed due to Sharpies and shift keys.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
"What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?"
Jobs probably said this knowing full well that the Music Industry will not stop demanding DRM. An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it. As long as one Music Company demands it, Jobs can have it both ways: iTunes and iPods will lock customers in and Jobs will blame **Apple's** lock in on the music industry at large.
the don't look at me defense. A classic to be sure.
.... Against the EU shutting down the iTunes Store. By appearing to shift the blame, he clouds the issue and makes it more difficult for them to shut him down.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
GPL Deconstructed
I don't believe it for a second. If he was really pressured into it by the record companies, then why does Apple refuse to license their DRM? Why do they have to be sued by European countries to open up access to iTunes bought music?
No, Apple LOVES the lock-in. This is all about playing the blame game, and trying to pass the buck to save Apple's reputation.
Every time there's a DRM article and Apple is mentioned, fanboys pop out of the woodwork and loudly proclaim that Job's is a saint and the evil RIAA twisted his arm into it. And yet they have no problem using it to try and lock iTunes users into the iPod. I'm sure their PR department is estatic that people actually believe that crap.
Apple also has a new Mac ad making fun of Vista's security prompts.
"Obviously most labels will continue to choose DRM. That's OK. Let them. And let the market sort it out."
And which market would that be? The "I'm not hurting anyone because I never would have bought it" market?* Or the present "iTunes is doing well" market?
*aka "monetary vote"? What the hell is that?
you could
1) open iTunes application
2) click on the "Account information" button
3) Find where it says "Deauthorize All" computer authorizations - essentially starting you over with all five machines
4) use your iTunes songs on 5 machines again
I'm not saying iTunes DRM is good or bad, but there is a way to get your music back to 5 different computers whenever you want.
Gates also said that DRM was evil for Microsoft customers and suggested buying DVDs and CDs instead of DRMed mp3s. This was discussed on Slashdot several weeks ago.
Now Jobs is doing similar announcement. I think this is the FUD from the big bosses: "Sorry guys if my employees hurt you. They just do their jobs well, you know... You should forgive them. I am above those dirty things they do with DRM, it's evil, I agree. Still, we have no choice..."
If your company does something you do not agree with, but can not change, either stick to your companys politics and shut up or protest and leave.
P.S. Sorry for the socialist slogans here.
The fact that a whole industry can press for something out a vendor is a sure sign of price fixing and various other crimes done by trusts. It's time to dust off the Sherman Anti-trust act, and use it on this horrendous industry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have obtained a copy of "Thoughts on Movies," a followup to to "Thoughts on Music," from sources inside Apple. I present it in its entirety:
"With the stunning global success of YouTube, podcasting, Rocketboom and Zefrank, some have called for my other company, Pixar, to "open" the digital rights management (DRM) system that Pixar uses to protect its DVDs and online movies against theft, so that movies purchased from Pixar can be played anywhere in the world.
"These people also point out that doing so would be in keeping with the principles I called upon the music industry to support in my previous essay.
"To which I respond: Suck it, frigtards. Do you honestly think I got here by being a 'nicer guy' than Bill Gates? This is the real world, not 'fantasy la la land' where 1st gen Apple laptops don't burn your crotch and mysteriously shut down, or where you don't have to pay a bribe to go to the front of the line in the Apple Store.
"Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go backdate some stop options, inspect the dormitories at our Foxconn company town in China and sue the pants off a teenaged blogger."
Please read the friendly article. Jobs says that Apple have considered it before, but they're in an interesting position: if FairPlay is cracked, and remains unpatched for a number of weeks, then the record companies can simply pull their content from the iTS. Now, at present, Apple can simply patch FairPlay and push out a new version of iTunes and the iPod firmware. However, with multiple players and stores all using FairPlay, the problem magnifies: if any one of those links in the increasingly-complex chain remains weak, and FairPlay is still exposed, it leaves Apple vulnerable.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Yeah I've already been modded troll for saying this exact same thing. Good luck to you.
now Feinstein and the other Senators who are trying to push the bill for mandatory DRM on internet music (streaming music for now but who knows....slippery slope to cover all digital music) should and need to read this from Steve Jobs.
An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it.
Because everyone knows that unnamed lawyers quoted in Slashdot postings know a lot more about a company's internal strategy than the CEO quoted on his own damn website.
It means what we knew already. Apple will blame anyone but themselves and try to spin it so that they don't look bad. For example, iTunes doesn't work on Vista at the moment and might cause data corruption on the iPod. Does Apple apologise to their customers for not having a Vista version of their software yet? No, they take jabs at Microsoft for breaking compatibility, instead.
Please mod parent up, and mod grandparent down. TFA is quite clear about why licensing DRM to others wouldn't work. I'm open to counterarguments, but not paranoid delusions.
Given that Jobs is a majority stockholder,
I will call this just a PR piece unless Disney , Pixar movies are avialable without any DRM on apple stores.
technically, cancelling autorun for your CD drive is bypassing the DRM no matter what OS you're using.
Or just plain old Steve Jobs RDF, but it's by far the most candid piece of "straight talk" I've ever heard from the CEO of a huge company like Apple. Well done, Steve-O, if that little piece doesn't sell an extra 10 million ipods, then I don't know what will.
Read the fuckin article. Then come back.
You say that as though it wasn't so....
It's not like Jobs is not on record for fighting against the major music studios interests - don't forget they wanted variable pricing (variable meaning, of course, "more") and Jobs refused - the labels then signed with ITMS again.
But some things the labels still consider non-negotiable, and DRM is one of them. If Apple took a stance before, all the labels would have dropped off.
It's in all of our interests for Apple to keep a stranglehold on online sales until such time the music industry accepts DRM free music, which they must do eventually to get out from under what power Apple does have over them. Major labels have started to expiriment with this, it's only a matter of time before either they fold or major acts start going to places like eMusic to distribute DRM free music.
Tactically, we should be supporting what Apple is doing in this space to rid the music industry of the notion that DRM helps them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nope, still don't buy it. Why doesn't Microsoft have the same problems? After all, lets face it, their security record is a whole lot worse than Apple's. I don't recall there ever being a case where the manufacturer of a DRM method was held liable when their protection was cracked. Otherwise, a lot of companies that provide DRM for PC games would be out of business right now.
And thats setting aside the fact that there are ways to manage such issues.
Believe Jobs all you want, but he's not some saintly good guy, and Apple aren't some doo-gooder company. You can look at their litigious history to confirm that.
Is it also the record companies that force Steve to sell OS X with DRM? Do not forget that OS X is tied to Mac hardware by a "Trusted Computing Module".
Steve Jobs has always had an anti-DRM stance. That is why the iPhone will have an open API available to any developer who wishes to write software for it. There wont be any onerous agreement required to receive the SDK. Right?
Could their be an advantage to Apple by locking ALL the music to their iPod?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Like everyone overjoyed that someone with some control actually has sense about the music market. The bigger point what can we do to ensure that the governments do hear him and instead of forcing Apple over a barrel to the same to the big four music companies?
the downside is a bit of quality lost in the conversion, remember, we're talking lossy formats here.
" Jobs probably said this knowing full well that the Music Industry will not stop demanding DRM. An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it. As long as one Music Company demands it, Jobs can have it both ways: iTunes and iPods will lock customers in and Jobs will blame **Apple's** lock in on the music industry at large." that is true. still, his 22/1000 argument highlights one reason for apple being not so concerned about DRM: - iPod hardware - being the leader / negotiation power ...
- halo effect
- itunes profit, as last issue
and, importantly, DRM is just a pain to implement + justify.
you have to be really stupid to push for DRM (but you may succed nevertheless with it...). so, as previously suggested, i am for an (atheist) halo for jobs, and for changing the gates borg into Darth Vader (actually, the Mel Brooks version).
If Steve Jobs is so eager to provide DRM-free music, why does Apple slap on DRM on even indie music and labels that don't mind selling DRM-free music. All music that sells on eMusic is DRM-free and yet the same music is DRM-infected on iTunes. Perhaps Mr. Jobs would try explaining that. It's all very fine to say that they are being forced to put DRM when they benefit from it themselves by creating a vendor lock-in.
Having music with different rights, opens up Apple to have each label demand it's own set of playback rights, which quickly confuses the end user. You just KNOW the labels are dumb enough to do it too.
How many places besides the iTunes store can you get Fairplay wrapped music? None that I'm aware of. So if iTunes didn't sell it, it's going to be DRM free on the iPod. So his numbers do hold up.
RTFA much?
Funny, I distinctly remember everyone attributing that in to typical Microsoft lock-in. I can't disagree with them on that point.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.
Again, its been managed in the past. I'm sure that they could come up with something. Barring that, the music industry didn't seem too broken up about current methods to remove or circumvent the DRM. Sounds like BS to me.
Microsoft releases an OS that won't run software that ran on it's own earlier operating system, and also tends to corrupt a music device which is in competition with their own music device and it's Apple's fault? Microsoft has pushed multiple DRM setups and then stopped supporting it's own damn standards but Apple is the bad guy?
I don't buy any drm'd music, but Apple's is surely the least abusive...It allows you to burn it to a cd, which can then be ripped back into an un-drm'd format...Pretty obvious that they did the minimum amount of work that would satisfy record companies that were so damn drm obsessed that they were shipping cd's with a free rootkit included.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Like battery life consumed in decoding wma files? After all, in itunes for windows, there is a built in option to convert non-drm'd WMAs to MP3 or AAC. Not that battery life is necessarily the reason they did it, but it already is pretty easy to convert WMAs to an ipod friendly format for joe blow consumer. Of course it's in Apple's interest to convince people to buy an iPod, but its not like they're preventing you from transcoding the files you've got to work on it (assuming they're not DRM'd).
Parent poster is right on the money - eMusic has a huge amount of non-major label DRM-free music available, so why isn't all that same music available DRM-free via the iTMS? Because Apple insists on applying their DRM.
Okay, poor choice of words. I just meant that they refuse to license it for use in other playback devices.
And why should they? Steve Jobs is obviously a smart guy; things he's said and written elsewhere make me think that he understands the inherent problems behind DRM.
In short, DRM doesn't work. It works, sort of, only by keeping the mechanisms out of sight, and changing them all the time, as people catch on and figure out what's going on "behind the curtain."
The more people you let see behind the curtain, the harder it is to make work, and keep working, even in the shoddy way that it does currently. Licensing means that specifications and technical documents need to be written, and such documents can be leaked (and are far more likely to be leaked when they're being sent to some licensee in Europe, than kept within a particular technical working group inside Apple US). So if Apple licensed out FairPlay, it would mean that FairPlay would get broken more often, and they would have to dedicate more effort to fixing it, and those fixes would be harder to roll-out, because there would be more users, and multiple online music stores, run by various licensees who might take their responsibilities for updates more or less seriously, etc. etc.
DRM isn't a single technology that you can sell. It's not a word processor. It really is defective by design; that's not just some dumb slogan -- that is reality. Anyone who buys a DRM system, thinking that it's a product they can just use, and then forget about, is a fool. A DRM system is an arms race. It can only work when you're committed to throwing a lot of programmers behind it; programmers who are constantly shoring it up, as people pull the bricks down from the outside. And the work that it takes to sustain is directly proportionate to the number of people who are working to crack it.
Licensing out FairPlay would be a losing proposition for Apple on all fronts. It would force them to lose revenue from the iTMS, which isn't exactly a huge profit center anyway -- as others have pointed out, Apple makes a lot more money on an iPod than they do on the average user's iTMS purchases. Plus, it would mean that they would have to spend a lot more effort constantly fixing FairPlay, and it would create a huge logistical problem -- how do you roll out those fixes to users who may be using some licensee's music store? If Apple doesn't keep FairPlay's facade of security up, the music labels will use it as a bargaining point in negotiations, but they'll be dependent on their licensees, who they don't have total control over, in order to maintain that facade. It's a lose-lose for Apple.
Personally, I don't think Apple will ever license FairPlay. I think they'll pull all DRMed music from the European market, and close the iTMS there, before they'd open the can of worms that licensing would entail. Exactly what would happen at that point is anybody's guess, but there are a whole lot of iPod-owning Europeans who probably want some type of online music store, and Apple is pretty good at PR. They might be able to turn it into some sort of a victory against the governments mandating the interoperability, or against the music labels who won't sell DRM-free music. Or it might backfire horribly and cause a lot of people to run out and buy non-iPod MP3 players in order to use competing online stores (though I doubt it; I don't think that the presence or absence of an online store is a huge selling point of most music players, except those linked to subscription services like Napster).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Jobs makes a pretty compelling point that Microsoft came to same realization described in the article, which is why they moved to the same DRM model Apple is using. To be able to meet the demands of the record companies, you have to have total control over your DRM scheme in the event it breaks.
"Sufferin' succotash."
"Exactly. And if you have average joe blow consumer with 30 gigs of files in WMA format, and suddenly he can play them on an Ipod...don't you think that might just increase the chance that he ::gasp:: BUYS ONE?"
If you use the Windows version of iTunes and import the WMA files into it then the files are automatically converted.
If you get modded down it's because you clearly didn't RTFA, dipstick.
All you need to do is some form of watermarking which ties the bought tune to a particular buyer, and so prevents copying and sharing.
While I agree with most of your comment in theory, the above line is simply not true. Being able to identify the original distributor would certainly help an RIAA lawsuit, it would do absolutely nothing to keep the thousands of people or downloaded or re-shared the file from playing or redistributing it.
Try this example:
Bob buys $10,000 worth of music. He shares it with the Internet and gets caught. He gets fined $4 zillion dollars and they take away his computer. But there's already $10,000 worth of music in the P2P networks, and it is all registered to Bob, who has already been caught. What does your scheme do to prevent re-sharing?
Or this one:
Bob buys some music, loads his iPod. Bob leaves his iPod on the bus. Alice picks up the iPod, copies all the unencrypted music off of it and shares it on the Interweb. The RIAA finds on these tracks and identified Bob. Bob is not liable for the distribution of the music (not that he'd win the case, but he's not liable) nor can Bob be tied in any meaningful way to Alice.
Or on a smaller scale:
Bob, Jim, Bill and Alice create a single fake account and each person funds $100 into the account. They buy $400 worth of music and make 3 extra copies. They never distribute the music to anyone else so they'll never get caught, but they have $1200 worth of illegally copied music files.
"iTunes is on the fast track to become a huge outlet of music, and the longer they can keep the FairPlay show on the road, the more powerful they'll get."
Yup, and this is the same tactic MS has used for its products. Set aside a kitty fund to stagnate lawsuits while in the meantime growing market share *and* making more than enough money to re-fund the kitty...
If the model ain't broke, don't fix it.
Two fish swim into a wall, one turns to the other and says, "Dam".
Did you even read the message from Jobs? Based on your response, I doubt it.
You're acting like people don't have any alternative to the iPod + iTunes ecosystem. They do. They've got plenty of alternatives. People buy into the iPod and iTunes ecosystem because it's well built, well maintained, and easy to use. The same goes for the Macintosh. There are alternatives. People aren't *forced* into buying iPods, songs off the iTunes Store or Macs. People buy these products because they work well and are intuitive.
Oh, and I've *never* felt "locked in" to the iPod + iTunes ecosystem. Why? Because most of the songs I've got on my iPod came off of CDs I own, and the ones I purchased off the iTunes Store have been ripped to standard Audio CDs, ready for reimport back into whatever format I choose. Even formats compatible with non-iPod digital audio players.
The lock-in FUD you keep trying to spread doesn't exist. It's that simple.
Take your FUD and go home. Nobody here is listening.
Everything Jobs has stated in his letter is information that has been publically known, but ignored, for more than 2 years. From the start Apple has been in the position of, if the industry says Apple can, Apple would sell music DRM free. I have even mentioned this in comments to other article's on the subject.
Sure, DRM works to Apple's favour, but remember, Apple is a hardware company, They are more interested in selling the iPod, and the iTunes Store is only a method of purchasing content for the iPod, there are already thousands of podcasts that are all DRM free, completely free ($0), and available in the iTunes Store. Apple's interest in the iTunes Store is purely a support mechanism for the iPod, for all Apple care, the content doesn't need DRM, it's just required by those Apple gets the "rights to sell" from.
In trying to evaluate whether Jobs is just making "not-my-fault" excuses, or is serious about saying that Apple would embrace DRM-free music, this statistic is also interesting (FTA): It's true, the people I know who use iPods with only legal music stick entirely with ripped CDs or legal mp3s.
I'd like to believe him, but I don't.
/. story). I don't see why this is any different, except as an attempt to deflect the blame.
Apple could _already_ sell some of their music without DRM - in fact they've been asked, and have refused (see previous
This is the same as with politicians: ignore what they say - it's usually bullshit. Watch what they do - that's how you judge them.
What if the rumored Beatles catalog will be DRM-free on iTunes? (And Mr. Jobs is building the momentum?)
(This comment is posted approximately 5 minutes after the start of the thread -- expect the comment to be appropriately buried. Just kidding.)
Synchronize your calendar and mobile phone via text messaging.
...and still spews some record-company bullshit, like equating the copying of music to stealing.
They just don't get it. If the music was unrestricted, I'd buy it even at $1 a shitty, uber-compressed song. But their business model actively sodomizes the legitimate customers while pirated music remains restriction-free. DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy, and it never will. In fact, it is such a thoroughly broken idea that I find DRM's continued use to be insulting on a personal level.
I blame both the recording industry cartel and Apple - It takes two to tango.
Yes, I read it. I just don't think the arguments hold much weight. Job's arguments are for why they aren't willing to try, not why it can't be done.
Being able to live up to the security and update requirements would just be a part of licensing the technology. Obviously not every device maker would be able to live up to it and Apple wouldn't work with them.
Having your device's support dropped by the latest required iTunes update because your engineers didn't get a bios update out in time would put a real crimp in your sales. Jumping through Apple's technical certification process in order to have your device supported, even going so far to pay Apple consulting fees for an Apple employed engineer to develop the support layer for your device, would be a huge boost in sales, at least in my mind. As much as I love my iPod, I'd like to see some other viable options out there.
All Jobs is doing is turning the blame back on the music industry (who certainly deserve a wake up call) and asking them to do something they are unwilling to do; release music without DRM.
Can someone sum it up for me in 3 sentences or less. Thank You.
" 'An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it.'
The CEO says differently. Guess who wins."
Indeed, the CEO would win--if he were being honest. I'm not convinced that Jobs actually wants to dump DRM. I mentioned the Apple lawyer's comments not as proof of what Jobs must do but as evidence that Apple's DRM scheme is *not* because of the labels but because Apple benefits from customer lock in. It is this fact that makes Jobs statements that Apple's DRM is only at the behest of the labels questionable at best.
Apple will do whatever it can to make the most money for its shareholders - just like any other company. I'm tired of xyz company is good, while abc company is evil - its all about profit.
If not, you did an amazing job of summit up. Dumbass.
or the iTunes help file and you would have seen that there's an easy way to de-authorize all the computers on your account and then you're back to having the original five computer authorizations available. It means a small hassle of reauthorizing the machines that you still want to have access, but it's not THAT hard.
Your new "no-DRM ever" stance is based on a misundertanding of something extremely simple.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Let's see what Apple does or doesn't do to their OS to support HD movies before we judge them less evil than MS in this regard.
Sorry dude, but 70% of music not being available through your store isn't exactly the best way to get people to shop there. the iTunes store would have flopped without this, I mean, look at the competetors to iTunes that are DRM free. Minor, minor marketshare.
I look at this essay as a major step, the owner of the largest online music store stepping out into public and saying, "Ok music industry, It's your turn to let go now." I hope that iTunes takes a allofmp3 approach, but on a scale that is sustainable (for the musicians and those involved). Charge me with size of file, and let me pick ogg, mp3, aac, or whatever the hell I want at whatever bitrate I want, and I'll pay $1 a song.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Did you even read the message from Jobs?
I did, and the parent's post makes perfect sense. Jobs gives some BS about not being able to license Fairplay because of leaks. What horseshit! Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have DRM and players are manufactured by several companies. Explain that Steve Jobs!
Take your FUD and go home. Nobody here is listening.
Is it because you are too busy jerking off to your poster of Steve Jobs? Idiot.
Yesterday we find out that Apple Inc and Apple Corps have settled their legal differences.
Today we get a letter from Steve telling us why the big 5 record labels are bad.
Could it be that Apple could be looking to become record label #6 and offering its music DRM-free?
Inquiring minds want to know.
1. The "big 4" want their music protected by DRM. Shame on them.
2. Many indie bands and small record labels don't care about (or even want) DRM.
3. Many bands, many records would just like to be listed by Apple and show up in the search results. Some of those artists would even want to give away their songs for no money at all.
So I ask:
Why not sell both DRM and non-DRM music?
Why not embrace the revolution and turn iTunes into a universal music search tool?
Why not have iTunes interpret CC licenses and automatically aggregate music found online without applying DRM to music licensed without such requirement?
And a nice touch: Why not create an ugly icon (a monster?) to indicate those songs protected by the hateful DRM?
...the Pigopolists are running a full-court press on Congress this week.
I have no doubt that studios are forcing DRM on a large portion of iTunes songs. But for Steve Jobs to claim that Apple plays no part in this is total bullshit. They happily slap their DRM even on songs *that don't require it*, to ensure that they can only be played on an iPod.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There's no doubt that Apple prefers to tie their products and software together, whenever possible. But I fail to see why some people (assuming you included, from the tone of your message post) see this as inherently "bad/evil"?
*All* computer manufacturers did things this way from day 1, until IBM's personal computer design got ripped off/cloned left and right by everybody under the sun, bringing it to the forefront as a new "standard".
Apple has wandered in that same general direction whenever it becomes obvious it provides a concrete business advantage. (Today's Macs let you use industry-standard SATA hard drives, and pretty much anyone's peripherals that support standard USB ports, for example. They also migrated to Intel's CPUs across their entire product line, and even allow/sanction the use of Windows on them!)
But in general, I think Apple's products work so well precisely BECAUSE they believe in providing the "whole package" to the customer. This model is used by all the console game systems out there, and it works just fine for them too.
I'm lost on your comment that Apple is a company that "tries to make you buy hardware you do not want, to get software or tunes you do"? If this were really true, they wouldn't have developed the Windows version of iTunes at all. (EG. "Too bad, buddy. If you want to participate in one of the most friendly and more complete online music stores, you need to buy a Mac first!")
No... More and more, I think Apple is proving to be a media company. If anything, they see themselves in a market-space more like Sony. Sony makes computers (usually stylish ones at that), but they're also a media company, in the music and movie business, as well as offering consumer electronics goods that tie in with those areas. Apple in the past has sold digital cameras (the Apple Quicktake series), has a set-top "Apple TV" box going on the market, and a growing interest in selling movies AND music content via iTunes. Soon, they're going to offer cellphones too.
They certainly want you to LIKE and WANT their hardware -- and people who do buy their hardware rarely seem to regret it. Most of the negative comments I hear about Apple hardware come from people who haven't ever purchased any yet!
Mac OS X does not use TPM or trusted computing in any way to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. In fact, Apple doesn't use TPM for any purpose, at all.
I mentioned the Apple lawyer's comments not as proof of what Jobs must do but as evidence that Apple's DRM scheme is *not* because of the labels but because Apple benefits from customer lock in.
I don't know how you find this plausible. Yes, Apple benefits to some degree by the lock-in effect, but they benefit far more by being able to sell the music in the first place. It isn't as though Apple is having trouble keeping people on the platform -- that people would be migrating in droves to (say) Zune if only they could take their iTunes purchases with them. It's a convenient side-effect, not the root cause. If the cause isn't that record labels, television networks, and movie studios demand it, then why aren't there other stores with similar content that don't have content protection?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Steve Jobs is Disney's biggest shareholder. I wonder if he would also favour DRM-free movies...
If you think the media companies will go for digital watermarking as an alternative to DRM, I suggest you talk to some of the technical sales people at Digimarc. They will tell you that it is a hard sell. That is why their company has not done well financially.
This is NOT Apple's fault.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
You can either choose to believe Steve's reasoning that it is the same reason that he states for not licensing Fair Play, or you can believe that Microsoft is INCREDIBLE STUPID as the fact that Zune doesn't use Plays for Sure was a huge black eye for them. It added to customer confusion and isn't helping Zune succeed.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
So, one interesting thing about DRM is that it enables a particular business model that is completely unfeasible without DRM. Here's a hint: it's not the iTMS model.
The Zune store, and any other subscription business model requires DRM. You can buy DRM-free tracks. It's impossible to rent them.
Perhaps this is why iTMS hasn't offered a subscription option.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
If the music was unrestricted, I'd buy it even at $1 a shitty, uber-compressed song.
Here. http://www.emusic.com/
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
... and stop dicking around.
If iTunes is only 3% of iPods songs, why does Apple care ?
Close the store, let the labels and Microsoft figure out a way to sell songs online...
Meanwhile, we'll just Rip It....
But frankly, I think jobs is mainly posturing to shield himself from the lawsuits.
Funny he didnt mention other medium... DRM free video anyone ?.. What about DRM free iPhone ?
Well, on the conspiracy front, I am not the one to fall back. Actually, it's been nearly one year I think Apple is onto something like this. Actually since Steve Jobs publicly stated that to actually make a dent into the portable player maket, Microsoft would have to scrap the entire PlayForSure mess and go with its own, verticaly integrated solution à la Itunes/iPod. I thought it was a suggestion. And sure enough did MS follow this free, sympathetic to its cause advice with the Zune. Upsetting a lot of ex-partners on its turn-around.
Well, why on earth would Jobs throw such a bone as a bait to its archrival ?
The reason is there was no meat on it, and all along Jobs knew it. The whole thing is not about DRM, it's about the file format. And since the beginning, Apple uses the only real open format in the game, AAC. Which in all practicality is based on QuickTime. And that is an entire other ballgame. If suddenly AAC can be sold without DRM, the iTunes store being what it is, it becomes the instant, natural standard. And every portable player builder on the field will run to it. With the iPhone and what it indicates on the future of the iPod, Apple don't have to fear competition. That leaves Microsoft alone, on its ultra-proprietary format, in its own tiny niche, surrounded with burried little bones.
Its hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future.
BS. Who wants to just gratuitiously spend money, again, for something they already own? It doesn't matter if it's only 22 songs on average. That's 30 bucks more on average out of pocket to buy a non-ipod, not to mention the hassle of re-buying the music, if those songs are even available somewhere other than iTunes.
The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak
BS. As Steve himself noted, pirates routinely hack the existing system. What possible additional threat could come from a legitimate company, when the system is far from secure already? A single, centrally managed DRM system would be far more secure than many different systems.
If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
That's pretty much a bald-faced lie, since Apple presently encrypts ALL music they sell on iTunes, even when the copyright holder sells it elsewhere without encryption. (For example: They Might Be Giants and some other non-major-label bands).
Apple has NOTHING to gain, and a lot to lose, if DRM goes away. They are crapping in their pants. This is all PR designed to blame the music industry for their anti-consumer business model. But I can't think of a single proprietary standard in history that didn't go the way of the dinosaur before too long, and obviously the backlash is starting to swell.
This quote's at least a couple years old: Second, he gives an argument against licensing FairPlay to other vendors that I hadn't heard or thought of before
Yes, that was interesting: if their contract with the labels requires that kind of control, then they can't legally open up Fairplay and keep most of the music in iTMS available.
If DRM is on the way out Steve, then open source your DRM so others can implement it in their players so as to maximise compatiblity with already purchased songs.
I doubt there is anything technically preventing that....
The EU wants apple to allow other products made by other companies to work with itunes.
Jobs points the finger at the music companies while the EU want to use there (enter in mp3 player (other then ipod) here) with itunes. Either Jobs is totally clueless or he wants to keep the lock in since apple is a hardware company. If itunes was to work with other companies products then apple might start to charge for itunes? Ipods used to work with other music programs (digital juke box or something like that dell sold/sell it) so it is not unheard of to allow an ipod work with something other then itunes.
I have yet to buy a song/movie/tv show from itunes store. I only use itunes to sync the ipod. I don't even use itunes to rip the songs from CD. Itunes leaves out the cd album art. I thought with the newer version that album art would be included. It is if you sign in to the apple store.
If Itunes really make no money for apple, then why does itunes want to go to that store all the time?
I didn't interpret what Jobs said to mean that licensing FairPlay to other companies would make the actual keys less secure, but rather that it would make it more difficult to maintain the whole system, especially security updates, if breaches do occur. As it is, when FairPlay gets broken, a new version of iTunes is released (with new firmware for the iPod), and eventually you won't be able to use the iTunes store without the new version of the iTunes software. That's confusing and irritating enough for customers, but imagine if they license their DRM to 3 separate manufacturers. When PlayFair/hymn/whatever-it's-called-today breaks (or works around) FairPlay, 4 different manufacturers would now have to have updated firmware for each of their players, which may or may not be tied to a new version of their own music management software. Then Apple has to at least be aware of and give some support for (to the other companies, not the end-users) FairPlay on 4 different platforms. It makes sense to me.
Of course, I haven't really ever heard of Microsoft's PlaysForSure being hacked, even though pretty much every non-Apple portable player uses it. Why? I don't know, maybe I just haven't paid attention, maybe DRM is the one area where Microsoft has been consistent and solid... too bad even MS has abandoned PlaysForSure for the Zune.
It's funny to me that France, Norway, and many people on slashdot complain about Apple's DRM... then Microsoft turns around and does the exact same thing in tying their player and DRM together in one inseparable package, leaving the one viable multi-company DRM system out in the cold.
As far as campaigning versus advocating, what more do you want? He's already been arguing pricing with the companies ever since the iTunes store opened. He's already turned down paying a fee to the RIAA for each iPod sold, now he's made a very public statement on his company's (not his personal) website, explaining his feelings on DRM. Sure, he could be pandering to some degree to the anti-DRM crowd. I'm sure there's not an insignificant amount of strategy behind FairPlay not being licensed to other companies. Keep in mind, he's not only the CEO of Apple, Inc., he's also the largest individual shareholder and board member of Disney, which happens to be a very large content producer. For him to speak out against DRM, at all is a big move.
But I don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't want to see DRM removed entirely. Apple doesn't need the store to lock people into the iPod. The masses have already chosen the iPod as the portable music player. iPod has become a general term for mp3 players. Less DRM = more demand for players in general, the iPod in particular.
Of course Jobs is a businessman, interested in increasing market share and making money, so it makes sense to not completely trust him. But to say he must be lying just because he says what we'd like to hear is going a little too far.
... didn't France anticipated and even caused this a few month ago (and was subsequently bashed by /. for doing so) ? And before you say the linked article talks about Apple rather than the studio : read the articles, get in depth, they target DRMs, that disturb many people even in the aging political class.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Yes, I read it. I just don't think the arguments hold much weight. Job's arguments are for why they aren't willing to try, not why it can't be done.
I'm an AAPL shareholder. Why don't you try explaining to me why Apple should do it? Keep in mind, that SJ's fiduciary responsibility here is to make money for me and millions of other shareholders, not to do a major engineering, marketing and support undertaking just because it might be doable.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's not amazing at all. What is amazing is that so many people seem to think that the iPod's popularity is artificial and due to some sort of proprietary lock-in.
Could someone get a hold of the one guy who actually feels locked-in to the iPod/iTunes "platform"? I imagine he'd like to make a statement on his impending freedom.
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
It's funny how if that's true, it shows that even "the big 4" realize that a lack of DRM would lead to success... even so much that it would still threaten their business model. Further proving that DRM is not to prevent piracy, but to give them control over all music, not just their own.
Steve, what happens if you simply remove the DRM from all the music on the Itunes store?
is it suddenly going to collapse?
They're using their grammar skills there.
It's not as if my time is worth something or blank CDs cost money.
Disney owns the rights to all of the movies Pixar produced. This was the case even before Pixar was bought out by Disney.
Pixar couldn't sell DRM-free DVDs of A Bug's Life than it could sell copies of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. They'd be sued into oblivion by the studio that actually owns the rights.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
I see a lot of people here stating that Bill Gates said the same, but they provided no reference. So I went looking.It all leads back to blog entry below. From reading this it sounds like Bill Gates is not against DRM, just the current DRM. His short term suggestion for music. Is to buy a CD and rip it, to avoid all that nasty DRM. That most of that nasty music DRM that you would be avoiding in the short term is Apples, is only a bonus I am sure.
n -the-future-of-drm/
Now it is hard to judge by these quotes that may have transcription problems, but this is in no way denigrating DRM on Bills part. Just current implementations, of which no doubt Vista is getting closer to DRM nirvana. Every time I see Bill Gates speak, he is exactly like a politician, trying to sound out on both sides of issues while ultimately saying nothing.
Steve Jobs OTOH, is posting clearly without reservation what his stance is on DRM. So this is refreshingly different that Gates comments.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-o
"
Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.
His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."
He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."
"
Why not embrace signatures....
It's relatively easy to install a unique signature into any file being sent to a target computer (i.e. a song for download). You can freely copy and move your files among any computer...... but it's easy to spot when a particular 'signature' owner (tracked back to the vendor & the purchase method if necessary).
Some people might care to hack this... but for the majority... why bother (if you can already do what you want!)
If you buy a CD -- then copy.... that's another matter -- but for a CD - DRM wouldn't apply.
Stop believing everything you read on the internet. If jobs didn't want DRM then iTunes would sell MP3s where they could, ie everything available on e-music. Apple isn't interested in selling music for profit. If they were they would push for vairable pricing, which they have stringently opposed as well. To them music is just a loss leader for iPods and iPhones. Its the same model as wal-mart and best buy with CDs. Jobs is pointing the finger at labels so that they look like the bad guy instead of him, and guess what... Its working!
If anyone reads DVDJon's blog, he has an excellent point: if DRM was ever about helping the music labels, the RIAA's strategy failed miserably: now Apple wants it because it locks people into their services: http://nanocrew.net/2007/02/06/steves-thoughts-on- music/ Now Apple gets to play the good guy by releasing us from the control of the evil labels even though they have been supporters of it all along!
Jobs repeats comments Made by Gates...
And yet, we have yet to see Gates' comments posted on SlashDot...
Biased? Na, neither is Faux News...
Hi, just a bit of a heads up re inability to know which is a track from the iTunes store and which isn't. In the far left hand column of iTunes where one accesses the store, try clicking on the word "Purchased". I think you will find that will reveal which items have been purchased from the iTunes store.
"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."
I'm skeptical that this will ever actually happen, but if the iTMS starts selling tracks without DRM, it seems that would re-open the doors for projects like pyMusique. I highly doubt Apple will release a Linux iTunes client, as they want to promote themselves as the alternative to Windows (can't say I blame them), but they wouldn't have as much incentive to break projects that provide alternative methods for buying from the store.
This will be modded into flamebait hell, but I wonder: How many of the "I don't want to give any money to the RIAA mafia" and "the RIAA screws artists" crowd have sent their favorite band a few dollar bills in an envelope for the non-DRM encumbered music they downloaded of a torrent? Not every band, but just a single dollar to the band that is most prominent on their mp3 player.
You can do it anonymously, just put a dollar bill in an envelope, wipe off the finger prints and drop in a mail box at lease a mile from your house. Maybe that would convince more band to see a monetary advantage in making their songs available for download outside the labels.
The best part of TFA was that an important CEO like Jobs is finally publicly telling the world what has been debated countless times in forums like Slashdot: maintaining DRM is a pain in the ass, high cost in research, maintenance, logisitcs, etc. More importantly it is useless against fighting piracy.
Will a DRM free (less costs in time and money) online store mean that songs can be priced at 50 cents or less? Meaning a benefit in volume of sales, revenue and in keeping the big four, online stores and consumers happy. Sure sounds to good to be true. Lets hope for it.
The files also have the extension .m4p for audio.
Because the record label will pull there music.
Don't forget, iTunes is running legally in the US, unlike some DRM free sites.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think you're very close to the truth - they don't want to become another record label - they want to destroy the concept of record labels.
Right now Apple shares their revenues with the RIAA 44/65. Apple's costs are on the order of 10 cents, leaving them 34 cents for a song. That's plenty.
The RIAA's 65 gets split something like 5/60 with the artists. They probably have a mechanism to book that 60 as all expenses...
The artist splits his share with his manager, probably like 3/2. So, to tally it all up:
Now, Apple has just done this deal with Apple. They're probably still splitting it 34/65. The Apple Records shell probably keeps 4 of that for management costs, spreading the remainder 8/8/8/6 (6 for Ringo) among the Beetles. Hey, not bad!
So, now Apple can setup a meeting with the newly reformed The Police and say, "hey, fellas...". Ditto every other major band that's coming time for contract renegotiations. They can point out:
They can then show them a different split:
and say, "even without Walmart you'll be making more with us". It's not insignificant that the manager is making 11x his current take in the new business model - he's going to be advising the band on what to do next.
So, you're right, the timing of this letter serves as the official "flipping the bird" by Apple to the RIAA. They apparently think their new business model is now proven and inevitable.
Good luck boys, have fun storming the castle!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Hundreds of thousands of iPods have been sold in countries that either don't have, or haven't had until recently, an iTunes Music Store.
The "benefit" is to the tune of $22 per iPod, notwithstanding the constant cat-and-mouse game with people trying to break FairPlay and the programmer-hours that costs. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead of maintaining FairPlay for each song was more than Apple's profit for each song. And you saw the numbers. The average iPod owner's music collection consists of 3% of protected-AAC files. If someone is really dissatisfied with the iPod and wants to switch, or if he's found something he likes better, he's not going to be swayed by 30 songs out of his collection of 1000, especially when he has the option of burning those songs and re-ripping them. The average consumer won't notice the quality drop. The benefit from this lock-in has been severely exaggerated.
Gates comments was about the current DRM and the need for better DRM, Jobs is about getting rid of DRM.
But I can see how someone like you wouldn't be able to figure that out...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
so you want to be charged by the size and pay a 1$ flat fee?
Besides, from a music industry stand point, charging by the size doesn't fit with the by the song model.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And once again, the Apple Fanboys demonstrate their amazing sense of humor.
Good work, fellas. The Steve will give you your reward in the afterlife, no doubt.
It doesn't make any sense to apply completely different legal restrictions to the same content just because it is sold in two different formats. Actually the higher quality version of the content (the CD) has less restrictions that the lower quality version (DRM protected compressed format of your choice).
Throughout the discussion here I've noticed one observation conspicuously and repeatedly being ignored for its subtle, but ultimate, relevance to the matter at hand.
Jobs noted the proportion of iTunes Music Store purchases on the average iPod... 2.2%. Note how surreptitiously his real point is being made...
People buying iPods are barely loading them with DRM iTunes.
I'll repeat that... People buying iPods are barely loading them with DRM iTunes.
This should be ringing off alarm bells in your head. Jobs is not a moron. He is very careful to position his RDF in direct relation to how much leverage he inherently possesses over the entity he's selling to... whether the music industry or consumers.
In this case, the data begs, no, screams the obvious... DRM iTunes are an insignificant factor in the usage of iPods. They are a loss leader that may attract some consumers to the concept, but practically anyone buying an iPod discovers, sooner or later, how absurdly easy it is to pop in a CD, rip it, and drop it to your iPod.
Apple stands to lose very little if the record companies fail, once again, to pay attention to the tea leaves that indicate the public isn't buying their artificial attempts at keeping a dying distribution monopoly on life support. Someone suggested Apple has more to lose because if they have no songs on the store, they won't sell iPods. I think the data suggests otherwise. Clearly they sell far more iPod capacity than is used to hold purchased iTunes... which is a good indication that they could continue to sell iPods like crazy without any iTunes Music Store because iTunes without the music store still facilitates a very aesthetically appealing, functional, integrated solution, quality controlled top to bottom by Apple without reliance on third parties for operability assurance.
There's an argument about interoperability but let me remind everyone that a device that doesn't like to talk to other devices still functions in and of itself. A device that doesn't even talk to itself or its own peripherals very well is, however, entirely useless. Interoperability isn't as critical an issue as operability assurance. If you buy a device, you expect that it works. Third party conglomerations of software and hardware very often fail this most basic consumer expectation in too many ways to count. Hence my absolute amusement whenever naysayers play down "it just works" as a superfluous requirement demanded only by design aesthetes. I presume there isn't a consumer of sound mind on the planet who wants their product to "just fail."
In that regard, iPod + iTunes still has strategic competitive advantages of tremendous importance against competing hardware and software.
Jobs isn't being philosophically altruistic in his statement. This isn't to say his action isn't admirable, but to fully understand just what kind of balls he has to come out and deliver such a bold ultimatum to the recording industry, one has to understand the confluence of factors that give support to his assertions.
It was evident as early as the birth of the world wide web that internet distribution of music was an inevitability. Record companies hurried up and did nothing. This is not for lack of foresight. They knew it was coming. But the implications go far beyond piracy. The real fear of opening up the distro monopoly has to do with the realization by recording artists that record companies are now superfluous. Once upon a time, record companies offered promotion, marketing and distribution resources that were largely unmatched. The internet has entirely changed this. The RIAA barrage of lawyers being hurled at every twelve year old and grandmother is not because piracy threatens their bottom line. Artist independence threatens their bottom line. The entire internet threatens their bottom line. But if we put the internet and RIAA on a scale, and factor in growth momentum, the scale tells us that the internet is unstoppable. RIAA also knows this. But t
Your countering points are flawed as well.
Flaw 1 - his exact wording is "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full." which must be the source of your claim that "his estimate requires that every iPod sold is still in use." Jobs' calculations would require about 90M iPods in use, but let's suppose it was 45M iPods still in use. The average songs per iPod rises to 44. Does that materially affect the argument? Especially when you consider that the newer iPods have much higher capacity than 1000 songs.
Flaw 2 - his exact wording is "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs..." You claim "his estimate requires that every iPod sold hold about 1,000, which is obvious nonsense" but fail to provide any link to your own point. The point made by Jobs is that the average songs per iPod are about 3%. Since many iPods hold much more information, the average proportion of iTMS songs on an iPod is probably lower than Jobs' estimate. This 'flaw' seems to strengthen Jobs' point, which he was probably trying to understate - if it's only a few percent of your total collection, where's the lock-in? (That's how I see Jobs' point here, at any rate)
Flaw 3 - No-one has an average iPod? So you claim that there is no iPod anywhere on the face of the planet that has 1000 songs of which 22 were bought at the iTMS. I can set one up in pretty short order, just to prove your point wrong if you like. I'm pretty certain that this combination doesn't cause black holes to form or the tidal forces of the planets to align and rip the iPod apart. Your point is meaningless here, as it doesn't affect your argument in any way other than to fail in your claim that Jobs' stats are wrong.
Now, if I were to use your argument style, I'd go out and claim you're *lying* over statistics, therefore your own statement is to be disregarded. I could even ignore the real point you made in your second paragraph, just like you ignored the rest of Jobs' comments.
Of course, I wouldn't go quite that far. I think you're arguing a point badly (and arguing the wrong point anyway) but I wouldn't necessarily claim you're a liar.
Your final point is a good one - why don't we have DRM and non-DRM tracks on the iTMS? I'd be very happy to see that, and I've criticised Microsoft in the past for adding DRM to every Zune song, even if artists didn't want it. I wasn't aware that Apple were doing this, and I agree with you - it's wrong to do it. I suspect the reason is because of the costs in maintaining two systems in the iTMS, which is run not for its own profit, but to provide an entire ecosystem for the iPods, helping sell them.
Apple shouldn't go against the wishes of the copyright holders. It should try to come to terms with the copyright holders (for example, keeping prices down) but DRM controls should be at the behest of the song's owners.
You are wrong; protected AAC has no unfixed flaws at this time.
...yeah, didn't think so.
See how easy that was? Now if you want to rebut me, try citing a source.
Jobs has refused to work with companies like Sonos, disallowing them from playing DRMed music from the itunes store. The media companies had nothing to do with this, this is all about Apple grabbing as much of the music market as they can.
I find it hard to like Jobs more and more every day.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Wrong. iTunes will simply convert the protected AACs to MP3's to create the MP3 CD.
Wrong. As your link reveals, if you actually read it, iTunes will not convert protected AACs to MP3s.
The workaround described in the article is to burn your DRMed AACs to a regular CD, and then rip that CD to MP3s. That works fine, but it's a pretty manual and slow process.
Google News has 1274 articles referencing Job's open letter. Many are front page news. Note to the big 4 music companies: flood waters are rapidly rising. Seek higher ground.
In any case, he's clearly telling both sides what they want to hear. What his own opinions are, I couldn't say, but this guy does not deserve our adoration as the embodiment of logical rational discourse on DRM.
It's worth noting, however, that everything he says about securing 'landmark DRM rights' for consumers through the establishment of iTunes' DRM is the most guffaw-inducing doublespeak I've heard in quite some time.
Kids these days.
Apple went out of its way bolster DRM and lock-in to iPod+iTunes for its own reasons, not just the music industry's. In this piece Jobs only addresses the explicit DRM controls that restrict which machine can play a DRM file. However, Jobs completely fails to address the true iPod lock-in features that are in Apple's best interests:
1. Why can't your iPod talk to multiple iTunes installations?
2. Why can't you access your iPod music files easily, like you would a disk? It's either a disk or an mp3 player for a particular file. Not both.
3. Why has Apple made it difficult to move files between iPods and iTunes installations in general?
4. Why can iTunes only stream files but not copy them?
Why has Apple restricted all this functionality for non-DRM files?
This piece is an attempt by Jobs to deflect blame from Apple onto the music industry. Judging from the Slashdot comments, it seems to be successful.
wow...Apple fan boys unite.
Poor steve does not want to excercise his monopoly in mp3 player market, but he has no other option!
He would so much like to give iTunes store customers option to move to other devices, and he is so sad that evil, evil, evil music companies dont want him to do so. He cries very hard every night to try and find solution to license his DRM protection to other companies, but despite crying himself to death, he can find the way.
Simply technology does not exist in this day and age where Apple can provide other companies access to their DRM engine. In fact, that would destroy all computers around the world, and every mac would be instantly formatted.
So he is forced to continue his monopoly, and not enable his customers to move their music to other devices, something that he is trying to do so hard. Silly europeans dont understand that technology of apple sharing technology simply does not exist in this day and age.
I mean, sure, he's right. The big media companies are the ones insisting on DRM, and they're assholes for doing so. But Apple is the one insisting on making their iPods incompatible with the DRMs of other music sellers, and refusing to license iTunes' DRM to makers of other music players.
Apple has the ability to satisfy the objections of European regulators, but Steve would rather just blame the media companies.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Apple is locking their software to particular hardware. This sounds like DRM to me.
coding is life
coding is life
I'm not making an argument either way, just wanted to add some numbers to the discussion.
According to Wikipedia, 88,701,000 iPods have been sold as of Dec30 2006.
According to Apple, more than two billion songs have been sold as of January 9, 2007.
That should come to about 22.5 songs per iPod, assuming that all purchased songs are loaded on iPods, no songs are loaded on more than one iPod and that noone has tossed their old iPod, bought a new one and transferred the 22.5 songs from the old one to the new one.
If we assume that iPods are replaced faster than downloads are lost, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say 30 songs average. Which also happens to be Jobs' 3% of 1000.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
The argument applies only with respect to licensing the DRM Decoder/Decrypter - they surely don't apply with respect to licensing the DRM Encoder. For example, if they licensed the ability for Real Networks' music store to sell FairPlay protected songs, then it is Real Networks that would have the contractual relationship with the music labels, and would need to provide some guarantee over the security of their system.
WTF, mods?
Wow. Steve Jobs is a god damn genius. He's cleverly set himself up with so many excuses for why the evil DRM which greatly benefits his bottom line is not his fault. I love it.
Consumers: DRM is evil! Sell us music without DRM!
Steve Jobs: But the labels made us do it! Blame them!
Consumers: Then license your DRM so other players can use it.
Steve Jobs: But the evil record companies made us sign this document! They were bad and mean and only gave us a short time to fix a compromise, so we couldn't license it and lose control! Really, we wanted to license it and lose all that extra iPod revenue, but they didn't let us! (sad face)
Consumers: Ok, at least sell non-DRM music from the artists and labels who don't require DRM.
Steve Jobs: But we must have a consistent experience! Selling non-DRM music would confuse people!
Consumers: That's bullshit and you know it. Doesn't your DRM just "get out of the way"? Isn't it so liberal?
Steve Jobs: Yes, it's insanely great!
Consumers: Then by your argument, there should be no difference in consumer experience between liberal DRMed files and non-DRMed files.
Steve Jobs: But that wouldn't be consistent. At Apple, we're all about a consistent user experience.
Consumers: Explain all the UI consistencies in Mac OS X?
Steve Jobs: It's the world's most advanced operating system!
Steve Jobs: Hey consumers, I'm on your side! I would sell DRM-free music in a heartbeat if I could!
Consumers: Bullshit, Steve. You know we can't prove you wrong because that will never happen, so you're free to lie all you want. Your vendor lock-in is a huge part of your iPod success, and you'll never give that up. Go ahead and keep blaming the eeeeevil record labels, Steve.
Steve Jobs: I am an evil genius.
Consumers: Yes, yes you are.
But Apple is the one insisting on making their iPods incompatible with the DRMs of other music sellers, and refusing to license iTunes' DRM to makers of other music players.
Which is completely fucking irrelevant as to why there's DRM in the first place, dickhead.
You're exactly right. As others have pointed out here, however, it's likely that the terms of the agreements with the big 4 require that all music sold on the store be protected with FairPlay. Still, I think this open letter may begin the process to a DRM-free world.
It was my fear—and probably the fear of many people here—that Apple's motivation for using FairPlay was twofold: one, that the music companies wanted it; and two, that they wanted to help strengthen the iTunes/iPod tie-in. Turns out, if Jobs is being fully genuine, that only the first reason is true. Which is a wonderful thing, because Apple is on the side of those who really get the future of music: savvy consumers and independent artists.
This calls for a grassroots effort to get Apple to alter its contracts with the music companies to allow copyright holders to specify that their music be sold without DRM. If enough consumers and artists start shouting loud enough, this just might happen. If Apple's hands are tied because of contracts, I seriously wonder if a lawsuit by an artist against Apple could force Apple's (willing) hand.
Ideally, of course, the music companies will just wise up, realize their old business model cannot be preserved with encryption technology, and give up the gun. But I'm not holding my breath.
Are there any existing activism efforts by artists to get Apple to sell DRM-free music on iTunes? If there isn't one, consider this post a statement of intent to start such an effort. I happen to be in a band that just released a a cd under a Creative Commons license. If nobody else is on the ball, I will contact people at Apple, start an open letter/petition, and hopefully get this first step—letting copyright holders decide if they want DRM or not—going.
It's a simple concession to prevent casual sharing of user IDs across a large number of systems. If you have extenuating circumstances requiring you to use the service more than once per year, you can communicate that to Apple, and they will reset your account for you. I have, in fact, used the "deauthorize all" feature THREE times in one year, because one of my Windows machines kept eating iTunes authorizations, because it kept forgetting all the system drivers and starting from scratch at each boot, making it appear to be a new computer.
As always Jobs can lie extreemly well... If he really thought DRM-free music would be best, then he wouldn't have iTunes have all the restrictions it has now... infact, iTunes has got the worst DRM lockin..
Well quite apart from the fact you're wrong there's nothing to stop a "Purchased - Protected" and "Purchased - Not crippled" category.
Nice move on personally insulting the grandparent poster though. Really drives your point home.
If Jobs really thought that he could win on an open playing field, why doesn't he let other music services use FairPlay?
Too hard to license? Bullshit. Real figured out how to make FairPlay tunes on their own; all Jobs had to was not deliberately break Harmony.
Similarly, if Apple's making no money on iTMS, why would it object to somebody else selling FairPlay-compatible downloads? All that does is expand the download choices for someone buying an iPod, making the iPod an even more attractive choice of music player.
Apple has deliberately and systematically acted to maintain iTMS lock-in by blocking iPods from using any competing music service.
Now that Apple's getting hammered by the Europeans for that lock-in, Steve Jobs is spinning a line about how nasty RIAA makes him use DRM and how FairPlay can't be licensed. But if that were all, he'd have never blocked Harmony.
Actions speak louder than words. Lock-in is a deliberate Apple policy.
I don't agree with parent, but there's no way it should be modded -1. It's a valid opinion.
Don't blame me - this
So does this mean that Jobs also supports selling software with no anti-copying protections?.... Or is that different somehow?
{It's like comparing Apples and oranges. As in "orange you glad we're fighting for your music rights?"....}
~
I actually work on a DRM product, although not in the consumer (music, video, etc) sector -- Jobs's comments are certainly spot-on.
The reality of DRM is that it's a door lock. I'm willing to bet that everyone here locks their doors regularly, knowing fully that even the dumbest thief can break in. A locked door is primarily a social signal -- "don't go here." Consumer DRM is a locked door that every smart thief is trying to break into. And it sends the wrong social signal -- "don't play this music" -- to the people who purchased the music.
I do not fully understand what brought about this square-peg-in-a-round-hole application of technology. Music executives -- while perhaps not the best sort -- are not dumb. They know what Steve Jobs knows, and has expressed here. These shortcomings have surely been expressed behind closed doors; and if not, the Sony DRM fiasco fully drove the point home.
Perhaps the decision to demand DRM has simply been a Cover-Your-Ass operation at the highest level. Record-label executives are subject to politics just like any other public figure. By selling their boards on the virtues of eminently breakable technology, they cannot be accused of violating their fiduciary duty by letting music freely leak onto P2P systems -- all while knowing that it will, inevitably.
Consumer DRM just manifests the fundamental structural problems with music ownership and distribution in this country. It's a political wedge; the technological equivalent of the Federal Marriage Amendment. As with the latter, the fixes for these problems can only come from the grassroots -- but Steve Jobs's advocacy certainly helps us all.
And Now I learn that the Biggest RIAA company is 100% owned by a French Company. Figures.
Now I can understand what is happening. The RIAA is scared about the monopoly power that iPods wield. This is the only power standing against them. They want them down, and so are using the governments against them. Now I know not to rejoice if Apple is forced to loosen its DRM control on iPods. The RIAA will sooner or later come to the understanding that they don't own DRM, the company that writes it owns it. Only then we will get our MP3s and OGGs.
When serious flaws in the OS for security are met with "don't connect to the internet"?
I've read a few comments that think Steve just did this for good PR or out of greed or that he's just trying to lay blame elsewhere. Have we really become this cynical? Can't someone actually do something good anymore? Sometimes people in positions of influence feel the weight of their responsibility and actually do the right thing! I think this is one of those times.
Let's look at his history of digging his heels in and publicly fighting the labels on tiered pricing and give him the benefit of the doubt. No one else in a similar position of influence has stuck their neck out for a fair deal for consumers. Not Microsoft, not Yahoo, not Amazon, not Napster, not Real, nor anyone else. He's asking in a very intelligent, mature and public manner for what we have all begged and pleaded and complained about. Let's just be mature and grateful rather than pissing all over him for what we assume are his motives. My Science 10 teacher taught me that when you ASSUME you make an A** out of U and ME. Ungrateful behavior like this makes me sick. He's doing what we asked him to.
I for one will do what my mother and father taught me to do when someone does something nice and/or what I asked them to. I will say:
Thank You, Steve Jobs!
It would seem that the music publishers/distributors, record companies, whatever you want to call them, are shafting the artists right royally and are just throwing their toys out of the pram because they can see their gravy train ride coming to an end!
From the other end of the argument comes Sellaband who have setup a method for indepent artists to reach a wide audience of believers who can choose to buy parts in the production of a CD in advance (others have done this before off their own bat, like Marillion, and I thing Dodgy did it too!). The difference here is that a bunch of music industry savvy people have gathered together to offer a real alternative. Sellaband also only tie the artist in for the first year after the CD is created, so rights to the music is returned to the artist and they can choose to stick with Sellaband or decide to move on elsewhere.
OK, I am a Sellaband Believer myself, and I have believed in a number of the artists, most of whom I don't know. Artists from around the world, one of which, Cubworld, has made the $50K and is in the process of making his first album!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Tell us how would you sell music for which you don't have the copyright and the holders demand to protect their wares.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sharing (as in licensing) DRM would mean that it would be broken faster than you can spell RIAA.
RTFA for once please.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That must be why they are dumping the DRM they licensed to many players in favour of the une used in the Zune.
Stupid me.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Tapes and CDs were different mediums in the most physical sense: you can't stick a tape on a CD player,
Now, with digital formats, any "change of medium" as described by you is a complete artificial constructs, since the data is nothing but 0s and 1s arranges in accordance to a format that is documented.
To change to a new format (or medium, as you incorrectly equate it) is a programatic task, no longer physical objects are involved but the clever handling of information.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A minuscule amount of music is bought in shops.
The enormous majority of music on digital music plaoyers is non DRMed, either ripped from CDs ro downloaded from sharing networks.
And to say that the Zune is selling music, when the Zune itslef is not selling, is well, lets be nice to you, naive.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or make a smart playlist: "Kind contains Protected" (you might have to add another word - I haven't bought any TV Shows or Movies)
"You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
Bose crap doens't count
-1, Idiot.
Oh, wait... he misspelled "doesn't": -2, Idiot.
Lies about crimes
Microsoft's DRM is used by a large number of companies without any problems so there's no reason (except vendor lockin) that Apples couldn't be used by a large number of companies without any problems.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
OK, here's maybe a better appproach to the same point:
Apple made a huge deal about having the same rules for all music in iTMS. If they make an exception for some independant or some small label then they weaken their case for keeping the contract the same when time comes to renew it with the big labels. Podcasts, though, are a new service. They can release them without DRM, or with DRM, because they're not on the big flat-rate contract they fought so hard for.
So there's a big downside and not much upside to cutting a special deal with some indie musician or small label, especially when eMusic is handling that part of the market so effectively.
Because all those things cost money with no way for Apple to recover the costs?
.... of music shops selling DRMed music compatible with the iPod?
None?
MMMMOk.
Thanks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What about if the music labels play ball with Apple only if all music on iTunes is DRM crippled?
They have the upper hand, they surely would not allow a competitive advantage for any other music producers or copyright owners...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... between a visionary and Bill Gates....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Apple went out of its way bolster DRM and lock-in to iPod+iTunes for its own reasons, not just the music industry's.
Apple has definitely made the iPod and iTunes more limited than they should be, and while I have some quibbles with some of your points I'll agree for the sake of discussion that they're to lock you in to iPod and iTunes.
However, I don't see how any of it bolsters DRM. Your fifth (unnumbered) point, "Why has Apple restricted all this functionality for non-DRM files?", is key: these restrictions are unrelated to DRM, and aren't any indication that Apple is trying to bolster DRM. Steve Jobs position on DRM is already well-established.
Did you RTFA? Not only was this point acknowledged there, but it was addressed at length. Now it may be that you've got a reason to believe that Jobs is being economical with the truth, but if so simply restating the point does nothing to explain that reason.
How many of the "I don't want to give any money to the RIAA mafia" and "the RIAA screws artists" crowd have sent their favorite band a few dollar bills in an envelope for the non-DRM encumbered music they downloaded of a torrent?
I've paid full price for every song I've downloaded from a torrent.
And I've also spent more money at eMusic than iTunes.
Like eMusic.
I don;t need to send money that may get lost, when there are perfectly good alternatives to pay for music that you like that is not cirppled with DRM.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Did you RTFA? Their contract with the labels obligates them to have enough control over the client software to close any exploit within a certain number of weeks.
While the majority of music sold from iTMS must have DRM for contractual reasons, not all of it does.
Where were you when all the buzz and drama about iTunes applying the same terms for all songs was going on? Jobs has repeatedly insisted on contracts that apply exactly the same terms for all songs, regardless of the source. It may not be possible for him to set aside this part of the contract for a small label without violating his contracts with the large ones, but even if it is... it would be extremely unwise for him to hand the big four a wedge to attack the flat rate.
Now it may be that you don't care about all the songs being 99c. That's fine, you disagree with Jobs on that point. The thing is, disagreement doesn't imply deception. It's possible for you and Steve jobs to have differing opinions on the importance of some point without either of you being a liar.
I'm not familiar with pyMusique so I won't comment on that, but I do think you're perhaps a wee bit off in the reason whythere's no iTunes for Linux.
:)
I see no DRM-related reason Apple couldn't produce iTMS for Linux right now. The DRM in iTunes doesn't rest on any special capabilities of the XNU/Darwin kernel and doesn't to my knowledge use any of the hooks Microsoft put in Windows to implement strong DRM in Windows Media Player.
I highly doubt Apple will release a Linux iTunes client, as they want to promote themselves as the alternative to Windows
And yet they provide a Windows client.
They didn't originally. The reason they made one was that for every Mac user buying an iPod there were at least 10 Windows users NOT buying iPods.
But for Mac user buying an iPod there's maybe, oh, 1/10th of a Linux user not buying one: not only are there fewer Linux desktops, but there are even fewer Linux-exclusive desktops, and after the Intel switch and Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion it's hard to imagine anybody at Apple is unaware of the workarounds available to their friends in the Linux community.
Add that to the fragmentation in Linux and in Linux sound systems, and there's no reason for them to do more than glance at the risks and rewards and walk away.
What do Sonos need? Direct access to the DRM specs? Ain't going to happen. Jobs explains very clearly why. Apple is the gatekeeper of the RIAA's basket of golden eggs, the cartel put onerous terms for them to fix any breakages, you don't want to keep a gate that anybody can leave fully open.
This gatekeeping would be close to impossible if the DRM implementation is licensed. MS realized this the hard way and now is mimicking the Apple model with the Zune (leaving in the cold all its licensees of their previous DRM scheme, how surprising, MS stabbing in the back bussiness partners), the movie companies learned this also with the debacle regarding DVD protection and stupid region coding (everybody and his dog now have multiregion DVD players).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Certainly the fragmentation of Linux is a discouragement, however projects like Google's Picasa and Google Earth, as well as Mozilla Firefox and Adobe's Flash have exhibited that if you make packages available, people can either install them on their own, or individual distros will find a way to distribute it - the vendor doesn't have to do a lot to support the distribution of the package. The sound system would also take some work, and a Linux version of iTunes probably wouldn't yield much (if any) profit, especially as Linux users tend to be adamantly anti-DRM. As far as virtualization as a workaround for iTunes on Linux, it really isn't practical to virtualize an entire Windows machine just to listen to your music, and presently it's not possible to update an iPod using VMWare.
To fill you in on pyMusique, it was a client written in Python which allowed users on Linux or Windows to create an iTMS account and download music. Initially, the developers assumed the DRM was implemented on Apple's servers, but actually found that the DRM was applied to the music as it was downloaded. They simply piped it to a DRM-free container. They also did not mark the download as completed, which meant the music store thought the user hadn't completed the download successfully, and would allow them to re-download at any time. Apple obviously had to protect their investment in Fairplay (and bandwidth), so they made changes to the iTMS protocol, breaking pyMusique. If DRM weren't an issue, I see no reason for Apple to disallow programs like pyMusique, or perhaps iTMS plugins could become available for clients like Amarok and Rythmbox, perhaps even WinAmp.
I feel that there are numerous reasons Apple won't be developing a Linux iTMS client, but I'm hopeful that Apple will ultimately drop DRM and allow third party clients so I could expand my music collection legitimately and easily.
I don't understand how this organization can demand that Apple open up it's DRM so music from iTunes can be played on other MP3 players --- but not also demand that Microsoft and pc softward developers open up the Windows APIs so that applications designed to run on Windows can be played without modification on Linux and Mac OS X computers...
The way I see it it really is the same thing. I have a Mac (sub non-ipod MP3 player) that doesn't run Windows applications (sub Apple DRM music files), I really, really want to be able to run these applications (music files) on my Mac (non-ipod Mp3). Why doesn't this organization demand that all Windows applications be able to run on other platforms?
- dj
- it's a quote from fakesteve
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/
the frigtards done given him away
# ~: no sigs today
Boy, the Internet seems to be missing the article itself in favor of "oh boy, Jobs is getting rid of DRM!" whoops and hollers. A summary of the whole article
It is likely that Steve Jobs understands the nature of digital consumers in a way few other individuals do, thanks to the access he has to years of data about consumer habits. He may be fully aware of the potential benefits of eliminating DRM in a way that music companies are not. I myself can see myriad ways for musicians, music companies, Apple, and various software companies to profit almost immediately from the removal of DRM. But the old way of doing anything can be a barrier to the new way, even if that new way is as inevitable as global warming.
You've only got 100 years. Don't spend it all in one place.
Enter iTMS, Apple insisted that labels provide universal rights to all songs sold on iTMS. This meant that all songs had unlimited burns available, all songs could be transfered to the iPod and all songs could be streamed.
Apple achieved such widespread and consistent rights because of Apple controlled the entire stack and it was only available on the mac in the beginning. It was an experiment to see if that approach could work. Once iTMS had proven itself, Apple bargained hard to ensure that windows users could get the same rights in the windows version of iTunes.
Apple's entry into the windows marketplace forced competitors to bargain hard for similar universal rights for their customers as well. It was a big win for windows consumers on the other services.
I do not believe that Apple would be able to maintain that level of leverage against the labels if they licensed the DRM system to other stores.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I said a consistent experience with the store, you blitering idiot. Why the hell would Jobs forcibly have iTunes DRM legitimately-ripped CDs? Hell, this is an argument in favor of Jobs' comments today, not against them. iTunes doesn't even offer the user the option of DRM'ing their rips, unlike Windows Media Player.
Even if what you say is true, that would still make Steve Jobs a liar when he says that the songs are DRM'd because the labels make him put the DRM on them, when in fact some labels are trying to get Apple to remove the DRM.
Really I don't think it's about a consistent experience with the iTunes music store (a stupid argument if I've ever heard one), but more about lock in, something Apple has been doing for years.
If the cause isn't that record labels, television networks, and movie studios demand it, then why aren't there other stores with similar content that don't have content protection?
Actually, there are. Some of the music offered on iTunes from smaller, independed labels is available elsewhere without DRM. Some of these labels have even asked Apple to remove the DRM from these files, but Apple refuses.
Some of the music offered on iTunes from smaller, independed labels is available elsewhere without DRM.
Which only serves to confirm my point that the major labels don't play ball without DRM -- if they did, it wouldn't just be indie labels selling DRM-free. The GP's contention that Jobs is lying when he states that the labels demand it is
Some of these labels have even asked Apple to remove the DRM from these files, but Apple refuses.
I think this has more to do with Apple's policy of giving all labels (and customers for that matter) the exact same take-it-or-leave-it deal than any nefarious scheme to lock people in. Apple just doesn't negotiate these things -- they do it one way. They only sell one quality (128kbps) of one format (AAC); all tracks are $0.99; all tracks have the exact same DRM limits (i.e., there is no "you can burn this, but not that" as in other stores) -- the labels are given comparatively little flexibility already, so it's not terribly surprising that choice of FairPlay or not is not part of the deal. That may change in light of Jobs' statements (i.e., they may begin to offer the option of no DRM), but I wouldn't expect it.
I'm not saying that this is totally awesome for those labels that would like to sell DRM-free through iTunes -- I'm just saying that Apple has it's reasons, which probably don't include a strong desire to lock people in.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
At least one RIAA exec has read Steve Jobs's letter. (Source is on Infoworld, or else AP; I reached that article via Yahoo.)
His response was to ask Apple to open Fairplay so that other music players could use it. Paraphrase: "Apple is a smart and capable company--you can find a way to make it work!"
Apparently, the RIAA is willing to sacrifice some security&reliability in their DRM to avoid absolute hardware lock-ins. That must be why they tolerated Plays4Sure for so long.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Some of the people who buy a lot of music prefer genres where more recordings are exceptionally recorded compared to the loudness war bullshit going on in pop genres.
So what happens when your iPod battery no longer holds a charge, or the iPod otherwise becomes non-working, and Apple has discontinued the product (as it has the Apple II, Newton, home eMac, and Classic-compatible Mac)?
From the other end of the argument comes Sellaband who have setup a method for indepent artists to reach a wide audience of believers who can choose to buy parts in the production of a CD in advance
I've read through this, and it looks a bit like the street performer protocol. But from the TOS: The Artist will provide SellaBand with the repertoire for the CD, exclusively written and composed by the Artist. These Track(s) shall not contain cover tracks. So if I do write my own songs, what should I do if these songs eventually turn out to be cover songs because I unintentionally copied something that I had heard a decade ago into my own songs? I seem to remember that George Harrison ("My Sweet Lord") and Michael Bolton ("Love Is a Wonderful Thing") got burned by this.Isn't that what .NET, managed code, and XNA are for?
Until recently we were still using maps that were designed under Aldus Freehand 3.1, which was released in 1991 before the PowerPCs came out. It runs just fine and dandy on my G5 under Classic in OS X.
Write Only Memory: Another pointless blog.
I have no idea, but I would assume that going with a major music publisher gives a songwriter access to professional musicologists familiar with its repertory and those of some other major publishers. For all I know, they also make available some sort of group composer liability insurance (or was that MusicPro?).