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."
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)
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;
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.
Not really. MS has just released a new OS that is more locked down with DRM than any other OS so far. They have been active in promoting the use of DRM and even saying it will be to the benefit of consumers. There is no way that they were forced by the industry to implement that much DRM at the heart of their latest product. I'm not hearing any info that Leopard is going to be similarly encumbered. Make no mistake, MS is a wholehearted supporter of DRM.
Jobs on the other hand is actually saying that consumers don't want it, and that they'd drop it in a heartbeat if they were allowed to. This is the complete opposite of what MS are saying, not the equivalent.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
Face it, Apple needs the studios worse than the studios need Apple. Without music to sell, Apple is in a far worse position. Without Apple, the studios still have CD sales and Zune sales.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
It's hard to say, but two immediate problems come to mind. First, and in my opinion most likely, is that they have in place agreements with the major record labels that involve giving the same treatment to all music sold via the iTMS, so that it all has to be FairPlayed. This strikes me as pretty likely, and something that the record labels would insist on; they must realize that online distribution closes a lot of the gap between a small record company, and them, and obviously they want to avoid direct competition as much as they can. So they'd want to suppress anything that a small, independent company could use as an advantage. Hence, demand that Apple apply the same "protection" to all iTMS-sold music.
The other problem, which isn't exclusive of the first, is that the DRM isn't applied once to each song in the store when it's being added to the database, but added at the time of sale (necessary because it's encrypted with a key that's specific to each user), somewhere on Akamai's servers. It might be difficult to the point of being cost-prohibitive to designate one song as being DRM-free, if the system wasn't designed with that capability from the beginning.
I've noticed that even songs that are free downloads (promo songs, etc.) from the iTMS have FairPlay placed on them, even when you can go to the band's or label's web site and download it as an MP3 (so it's obvious that the label doesn't care if it's protected); this makes me suspect that one or both of those problems exist.
It would probably be trivial for Apple to turn off DRM completely, for all the songs in the Store, but difficult both legally and technically, to disable it for just one.
(I'm not trying to sound like too much of an Apple apologist here, to be frank I think the iTMS is an abomination and I wish Apple had stood up to the record companies when they were screaming about the iPod and contributory infringement a few years ago, and remained a purely hardware company and stayed out of the music-retail business; however, at the time creating the iTMS was the best way of eliminating accusations of the iPod as a "piracy machine." It's ironic that Apple's own creation, created to soothe the record companies, is now coming back to haunt them. Well, that's what you get for dealing with the devil.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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?
Do they? I thought part of the issue is that a lot of people want digital downloads, and Apple is the only company that's doing it in a way that's profitable for the record labels. I know I feel guilty buying CDs-- all that plastic and paper when I'm just going to rip the CD and keep it on my computer anyway. On a side note, I feel more guilty for the waste of physical resources of buying a CD than I feel about "stealing" music by downloading it from P2P.
But really, how long do you think CD sales will last? Not forever. Internet connections are getting faster, hard drives are getting bigger, and people are getting more and more used to the idea that music is delivered to their homes instantaneously. And I don't think the two people who bought Zunes are going to make up for the loss of volume for iTunes sales.
My only complaint with the apple drm is the quality. I like everything to be 192+ as I can hear the difference in anything under 192.
5 5 ) it's 100% of the quality of the original file just shy the drm ... unfortunately the quality of the original file isn't great *shrug*. It works with the most recent versions of itunes too.
That being said, I buy some music from the itunes store and immediately rip it back to mp3 with myfairtunes -> ( http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15
Shadus
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."
"
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)
No, it's not piracy, but it's not easier than to be a pirate. That's what I wanted to say.
Are you aware that Apple is compressing all the Music from their digital masters which have a much wider frequency and dynamic range than a shitty Audio CD? I bet some of those 128 AACs actually sound even better than their CD counterparts, compressed or not.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
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