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."

Comments

So tell me then

[Budenny]

This is the standard Apple explanation. If this is true, why is it that Apple sells DRMd music whose owners do not insist on it? Music that is available without DRM from other online stores?

Its simply not true. Apple could have introduced a form of copy protection for those labels who insist on it which did not lock iTunes to iPods. 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. But it chose not to, because that is Cupertino culture. Cupertino culture is lockins. Lock the OS to the hardware. Where possible, have non-standard interfaces. Lock the store to the purchasing software. Lock the tunes to the player.

The point, which is usually admitted in other forums than when you are putting out this weird propaganda, is to increase hardware sales. That's to say, to make people buy hardware they would otherwise reject, so as to get either your software or your tunes. Its a crazy and utterly repellent strategy. But if you are in Cupertino, it looks a lot easier and more palatable than making hardware people want to buy on its merits.

And the Party Line, or spin, which you then arrange to have sprayed all over the web by your adherents, goes "repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company". Yes, its a company that tries to make you buy hardware you do not want, to get software or tunes you do. That is what "Apple is a hardware company" means in practice. Nothing to do with being a hardware or a software company, but about being a lockin company.

At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

[babbling]

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.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

[Reality Master 101]

Apple's CEO just said that they will make all the music they sell DRM-free if the labels allow them to. Where is the spin here?

The problem here is that Steve is lying -- again (*sigh*). If Apple was really having their arm twisted by the record companies into using DRM, even though Steve doesn't like it, Apple would either use a DRM that operates with other music players, or would license their DRM to others. Since they know that users are locked in once they use iTunes, that's what they do, even though they could be *much* friendlier to their customers.

It's just another lie from Apple.

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

[Lars T.]

Oooh, maybe because "parvenu74" claimed in his submission title something that isn't in the article? Nah, nobody on Slashdot would do that, nor not actually RTFA himself. Well, maybe not bother to understand it...

You're right, parvenu74 did make an assertion in the submission title that does not actually appear in the article. And maybe parvenu74 didn't actually read the article or maybe s/he did and didn't understand it. I can not speak to that. But I did read the article and I believe I understood the article. One paragraph that stands out is;

Apple stands to benefit greatly by keeping the FairPlay DRM system up and running. The lock-in afforded by FairPlay creates an Apple ecosystem that essentially ties the iPod to iTunes and to Apple, at least for commercial transactions. Someone has even launched an antitrust suit against Apple over this, though the suit's specific claims are rather broad.

Now, maybe I'm missing something but that statement gives a very strong impression that, no, Apple would not sell DRM free music. A bit further down we get this little tidbit;

Yeah, you are missing that over 90% of the music on iPods don't come from the iTS. You wishing for something to be true based on a sentence in an article doesn't make it so. Hell, if Apple sold non-DRMed music, they could sell to people who have a non-iPod portable music player. Pretend THAT sentence stood in the article.

If Apple opens its DRM, that walled-garden experience could be degraded as customers migrate to other stores with lower prices but more technical problems. This creates a scenario in which we [Arstechnica] think Apple can work its influence to keep DRM alive and well in the face of labels showing doubts--and we're not at all sure that the labels' doubts are that strong. Oooh, if Arstechnica believes that Apple could force the labels to make other stores only sell DRMed music, then it must be true. I mean they've never been wrong, have they?

Again, I must be missing something because again I'm left with the impression that Apple likes their DRM served up with fava beans and a nice chianti.

But the part I really like is;

And Apple's toehold in the movie and TV business is rapidly becoming a beachhead. The only way to bypass Apple and still reach the massive iPod demographic is to throw open the digital gates and begin offering content in open MP3 and MPEG-4 formats that can still be played on Apple's devices--but losing control this way is just as scary to content owners as losing control to Apple. Ahh, so Apple is forcing people to use DRM because they would actually have to not use DRM to not use DRM. Yeah, that makes sense.

And if there's anything we know, it's that the content owners and Apple really like to be in control. Having actually RTFA I think it's quite fair to summarize it as "Apple is DRM's Biggest Backer".

Yeah, the RIAA is absolutely opposed to DRM, it's all Apple's fault. You certainly convinced yourself.

Jesus Christ, if Apple suddenly dissappeared, do you actually believe so would DRM?

Re:At least Apple is consistent, I guess...

[un1xl0ser]

You are either kidding, or a troll. I'm going to assume that you are kidding.

I can tell the difference with either the stock buds that came with my iRiver (low-low grade Sennheisers) or the ones that came with my iAudio. I do understand that the fact that I normally spend more money on headphones than the mp3 player itself tags me as an audio-snob, but this is a joke. My girlfriend has a pair of E2Cs, which she can easily tell the difference betweek 192k VBR mp3 and lossless.

Either they are using really shitty headphones, are not experts, or are lying.

Disney, Pixar movies are DRM-free right?

[Utopia]

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.

Re:mod jobs up

[pla]

Jobs comes off as sounding level headed and well thought out

Heh... Good one!

Wait, this didn't get modded "funny"?

Jobs Lies.

[ChaosDiscord]

First some manipulation of statistics to tell a lie: Jobs claimed that just 3% of music on the average iPod came from iTMS, and since 3% is so small, clearly there is no lock in. Flaw one: his estimate requires that every iPod sold is still in use; it ignores ones that were broken or died. Flaw two: his estimate requires that every iPod sold hold about 1,000, which is obvious nonsense. Flaw three: no one has an "average" iPod. No one has an average iPod. I expect there are a large number of iPods with zero DRMed music on it, and a fair number with lots. Those people who are Apple's best iTMS customers are locked in. I know people with several hundred dollars of Apple-DRMed music. To suggest that they're not locked in is nonsense at best and a lie at worst.

As for his claim that he'd love a DRM-free world? While the majority of music sold from iTMS must have DRM for contractual reasons, not all of it does. There are songs in iTMS sold from other sites that don't have DRM. iTMS could easily have no DRM. It would add zero complexity for end users (simply don't advertise the functionality, just bury it in the details of the track for the subset of users who care). Doing so would create real value for users who cared. But Apple doesn't do this.

That anyone would take this seriously suggests that the famed reality-distortion-field is so powerful it can extend through a simple text web page.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I said a consistent experience with the store, you blitering idiot.

No, you did not, you lying bag of festering puss.

Why the hell would Jobs forcibly have iTunes DRM legitimately-ripped CDs?

Who knows. Why would Jobs forcibly have iTunes DRM tunes that don't require it?

iTunes will simply convert the protected AACs to MP3's to create the MP3 CD.

Wrong, you clueless fuck-tard. Why don't you keep your ignorant fucking mouth closed when you don't know what the hell you're talking about?

Bullshit, Steve

[godless dave]

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.