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."
Feh, he's only saying the exact same thing ("don't blame us, they made us do it!") that Microsoft says. Actions speak louder than words. Of course, this is Slashdot, so it will be proof of Apple's godliness and Microsoft's perfidy.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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"
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.
Due to slashdot readers being the way they are, I know imma get modded down for this but I don't care. mod away.
::gasp:: BUYS ONE?
If Jobs truly cared about not implementing DRm and if he truly and honestly felt as strongly as he is trying to make it appear...why the fuck didn't he say something when they first started the store? Why do so many consumers still not know what this is? If Apple is so commited to interoperability, why can I not play a WMA file on an Ipod, DRM'd or not?
"You stupid poster, because WMA is Microsoft and that is their competitors!"
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
Seriously. Publicity bullshit. Nothing to see here, please move along.
Living With a Nerd
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.
Complete and utter bullshit. If he truly did so, then Apple wouldn't be using that DRM that they were "forced into using" to lock you into their hardware and software. They're getting sued over this in Europe for a reason.
I'll believe that line of reasoning when I'm able to use music bought and downloaded from their music store on anything other than iTunes and my iPod. And no, jumping through hoops and degrading music quality to remove the DRM doesn't count.
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".
posting this little diatribe on his company's website allows him to look all nice and anti-DRM, when, in reality, he's not doing anything active to fight the use of DRM. if he cared, he'd fight it.
please me, have no regrets.
Are you saying Microsoft DIDN'T break compatibility?
I have to say that it irks the holy living hell out of me that MS breaks backwards compatibility so often...Basically, if you upgrade windows, you have to accept that any software that wasn't written by Microsoft will probably not work in the new version.
It's especially annoying in the business world, because it means that you are forced to maintain crap legacy systems in order to maintain applications that cannot be ported to a better OS, and no, you can't always get a better version of a piece of software that's sole purpose is to diagnose sensor faults in a 1k ton piece of machinery.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I read it and it still does not make sense. If that is true, explain Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players that use AACS and are manufactured by several companies. Seems like the media companies can live with those. And Fairplay has been cracked several times, with many music companies accusing Apple of being slow to respond to fixing the exploits. So the line about being "quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak" is a bunch of bull. Face it, Jobs is a control freak. If you buy anything from Apple, it will be exactly what he wants you to have. Unlike yourself, I am not a fanboi of any company, which makes it hard for me to swallow this crap.
... 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 ?
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.
If Jobs wanted a consistent, all-or-nothing experience, he would make iTunes encrypt all music -- ripped CDs, MP3s from the intarweb, etc.
The current situation is inconsistent. If a user wants to make a MP3-CD for their car player, some of their songs can be copied (MP3s ripped from original CDs) and some can't (iTunes Store purchases). How the fuck is that consistent? The average user doesn't understand why there's a difference. They don't know that iTunes Store tracks are encrypted, and they certainly don't know how to tell which is which. They just have a bunch of music and want everything to work the same way.
Nice try.
... 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.