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.
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:
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;
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.
No, that's Vivendi UNIVERSAL.
The whole universe owns it.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
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.
That's completely different, that's Apple's fault. Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
And if you'd RTFA, you'd know that Jobs addressed that very option, and why Apple concluded that it wouldn't work.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
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.
There are problems with the approach you suggest. Jobs explains them in the essay.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
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.
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
Actually, I think he thoroughly explained in the letter why Apple doesn't want to go down that road and to IMHO to be a pretty reasonable explanation. Then again, people have accused me of being an apple fanboi, so what do I know. . . 8^)
"We" do have the power to fight the record companies through our governments. Something you Americans seem loathe to do, but Europeans are not. Right now a few European governments are fighting Apple, so naturally Steve'd want to redirect their attention to the source of the problem.
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.
Enough FUD (intentional or not) thank you. WE are the ones with the power to fight these companies. Just choose where you spend your money. And if you really and truly care, convince others to do the same. Convince them that they don't need the latest timberlake CD. Get them to buy non-DRM music. This is what companies pay attention to. "Hey, they're buying music without DRM over there! And our sales are falling! Quick, drop the DRM!" Anything else is just jerking off.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
It's called the goverment. It makes laws and can fight companies for you. People control it in most places.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you RTFA? He says why they can't do that.
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."
It's government that has the power, not him.
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
I believe you can try but it won't be supported but legal to do.
Running some versions of Windows Vista in a virtual environment won't be supported either and would break the terms of the license agreement. I'm not sure if breaking the EULA is an illegal thing or just that Microsoft can turn off the OS from afar and you're SOL.
Another way to look at it is that the MAC software accompanies the hardware like a fax machine has software. Would you want to run Brother's Fax software on a Sharp unit?
It comes boxed specifically to run with the Apple hardware brand no different than Palm Pilot upgrades Palm Pilots and not Windows CE devices.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Yeah I've already been modded troll for saying this exact same thing. Good luck to you.
You are both right and wrong...but mostly wrong.
You are right in that Jobs could refuse to sell DRM'd music. However, he tried to do this from the beginning. Unfortunately, Jobs does not control the rights to sell the music, the record companies do. The record companies allow Jobs to sell through iTunes as long as he adheres to some conditions. The record companies did not allow Jobs to sell DRM free music. Jobs resisted as much as he could, and iTunes users ended up with one of the least restrictive of the DRM policies, but nevertheless, it's still DRM'd. If Jobs really wants to stop selling DRM'd music, it is not up to him. It is up to the record companies. This is why he is issuing this statement. He is hoping that the record companies will see it his way and allow him to stop with the DRM.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
"Sufferin' succotash."
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's as much "fighting" those companies as he can in his position. He knows he can't sell his music non-DRM'd, but letting people know whose fault that is might trigger a reaction from the heavyweights in the industry.
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.
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.
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
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?
Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.
Actually, Jobs provides several alternatives, but says that banning DRM altogether is in the best interests of the consumer. Here's a question for you, what DRM scheme is used to protect most songs on people's computer's? Answer: PlaysForSure. There is only one reason for this, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OS's, with which they bundle Windows Media Player which adds that DRM when it rips CDs by default. Has any government stopped this illegal bundling? Nope. Now, however, there have been several governments trying to stop Apple from leveraging their near monopoly (possible monopoly) on portable digital music players, to promote their own DRM scheme, Fairplay, and keep it the second most common DRM scheme. Does anything about that seem odd to you? I mean MS was actually convicted in the EU of bundling this, but not stopped or punished in any meaningful way. Apple might have enough market to have a monopoly and government officials are making public statements about legislation and legal action.
Apple is the reason MS does not control the DRM market and use it to intentionally promote incompatibility. Apple's main concern was making sure this was not used to disadvantage macintosh computers. Now they have their iPod to defend as well. Making DRM go away results in a free market and both these products get to compete on their own merits in this market. Defanging Apple's ability to leverage the success of the iPod, while not doing the same for MS's ability to leverage the success of Windows has only one likely result and it is not good for anyone.
I completely understand why getting rid of DRM is good for both Apple and consumers. What I don't understand is why anyone would quibble about this and try to imly that just opening up Fairplay would do the same thing.
the downside is a bit of quality lost in the conversion, remember, we're talking lossy formats here.
Apple will blame anyone but themselves and try to spin it so that they don't look bad.
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?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
" 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.
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).
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."
There's no valid reason that Microsoft couldn't make their OS 99% backwards compatible. Plus if their past versions of Windows had proper security layers then a "fixed" version wouldn't break as many applications. On a new Mac you can still run apps that are written for Mac OS 9, so it makes sense for the head of Apple to take a jab at Microsoft for breaking compatibility. Apple handles it much better with their own competing OS.
Developers: We can use your help.
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."
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".
Have you considered checking your facts? The most recent Macs don't even have a TPM module and no version of OS X ever used it, although some third party utilities did, in order to do more secure encryption. Macintosh computers do check the motherboard to insure it is an Apple one, but no "DRM" is in use and if you look at the code that does that it contains a "please don't violate our license by installing on other hardware" message.
"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.
Er.
But Microsoft did break compatibility.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
>> If Jobs really wants to stop selling DRM'd music, it is not up to him. It is up to the record companies.
Yup yup, remember how succesful they were in pushing for selling songs at different prices on iTunes? Oh wait...
Oh, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/ 1349218 Apple being DRM's biggest backer?
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
Marvin the Martian
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.
When it becomes a subject of a european antitrust lawsuit? I don't see how though, given that Apple doesn't have a dominant position in computer software or hardware comparable to its dominance in MP3 and online music markets. The main thing Steve Jobs is saying is that he can not both open FairPlay to anyone who asks and fulfill his contracts with music companies. Therefore, if European governments want change, they should pressure music companies to change the terms of these contracts.
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.
Actually, that's only if your Mac has a PowerPC chip in it, and since Apple doesn't (to my knowledge) sell any PPC Macs anymore, this statement is untrue. Your sentiment, however, is absolutely correct. The operating system itself supports (through a virtualization layer) nearly any properly written application released since System 6; it's the hardware that makes the difference. (Rosetta itself is a compabitility layer to allow PPC apps to run, so piling Classic on top of Rosetta would be a marvel of softwrae engineering.)
Nevertheless, it is incorrect to state that you can natively run OS 9 applications on any new Mac. As Apple has wanted to phase out OS 9 for years now, I do not forsee this changing any time in the future.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
It sounds like you didn't read Steve Jobs' original message. He explains why licensing DRM to other companies would not work due to the stringent contractual requirements that the music companies have placed on Apple in regards to maintaining the integrity of the DRM system. He also explains that only 3% of the music iPods are capable of storing are DRM'd/from the iTunes store, the other 97% is likely pirated or legally ripped from CDs or other sources. So most people are not locked in since most if not all of the music on their iPods is not DRM'd.
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?
But there's already music on ITMS that's sold DRM-free elsewhere.
Why doesn't Jobs sell some DRM-free music right now? (hint: to shackle you to future ipods).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
As opposed to every other company/person/government agency/school/church/whatever than always blames themselves and spins things to make themselves look as bad as possible.
It's a western convention for companies to refuse to accept blame. In much of Asia (including the Far East and Asia proper), it's exactly the opposite; companies that don't accept blame - even if a problem is not their fault - end up facing major consumer backlash. Contrition is considered a business virtue and customers demand accountability. Companies apologize and look for an internal scapegoat at the first hint of a problem.
I'm not saying that's better or worse. But to assume the way we do business is the way everybody does business is wrong.
Now, that doesn't mean Sony's out apologizing for DRM in Japan either. But that's just because the public hasn't really woken up there yet. We're actually a bit ahead of Asia in challenging DRM (they're ahead of us in the technology itself; not that that's a good thing).
" '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.
Did you, by any chance, read the actual article? It discusses exactly the ideas you suggest, and presents a reasonable case for why those would not allow them to keep their obligations to the music publishers.
If you read TFA you'll see that Jobs explains exactly why they don't license their DRM. It's because a requirement of their license to sell the music of the record companies is that any holes discovered in the DRM are patched within a certain time limit. He says that by licensing the technology to a bunch of 3rd parties, that there is more chance of a particular implementation of FairPlay leaking out, yet it would still be Apple's resposibility to fix the holes - but this time for more devices and software platforms. The effectively makes it impossible for Apple to submit to 3rd party licensing because they don't have the resources to be able to take on that level of responsibility.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
It's obviously an all-or-nothing deal. He wants a consistent user experience so that the customer knows what he's getting every time. Microsoft caught shit for pimping the Zune's squirting and then turning around and selling tracks that certain artists didn't want to be squirted. That kind of inconsistency adds complexity. The iTunes store is supposed to be simple. There's no conspiracy here. On average, barely 3% of the music on an iPod is from the iTunes store, so if a customer really wants to move to another player, he's not going to feel "locked in" by 3% of his music collection. If you'd read the damn essay, you'd know that.
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.
So did Microsoft Office run immediately on each Mac OS release or is there some amount of lag between support when the OS isn't the main platform for your application? Would listing the reasons your application won't run on a new platform be considered a "jab" or is Apple simply indicating the problems an existing version of their software will face on the new OS?
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
"Then again, people have accused me of being an apple fanboi, so what do I know. . . 8^)"
Some people will accuse ANYBODY of that for even the most specious reasons. For some you either hate Apple totally and say so regularly or you are a fanboy.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
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.
- MP3
- OGG
- FLAC
- WAV
- CDDA
???--#voxlator
Dude, if you RTFA you would see that the points you brought up have already been addressed.
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
Did you ever own a cassette player? Perhaps buy a cassette tape? When you switched to a CD player, did you buy a CD version of that music? Remember that while CD's were available for sale in the mid-late 80's, recordable cd-rom wasn't mainstream unitl mid 90's, so this [no, I just burned my own cd's] argument doesn't fly.
If you buy iTunes music today and switch platforms later, you now have to buy a different format of that same music. How is this different?
The only things that shackles you to an iPod are the headphones. That and perhaps your inability to read the article.
What? This is no open source DRM that anyone can just start to use. Any DRM needs a license to be payed for so Apple just went out and created their own so they didn't have to pay someone else. The only reason why Apple doesn't license it out is probably due to the same reason, why license something you don't want to begin with. Hope that this comes to light and that the EU makes iTunes become DRM free. How do you know that Apple didn't do this on purpose. What else comes with licensing is also making sure that the players that can read Apples format work with iTunes. MS already has trouble with all the players out there that just can't seem to work with their software even though they are licensed to do so. That might be another reason, the same reason why Apple doesn't allow cloning of the Macs, to keep quality high when it comes to iTunes and the plays that work with it. As soon as other players have the ability to work with the Apple DRM, problems with syncing devices are going to happen all because the player makers can't seem to get it right.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
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.
Please name this fictitious "interoperable DRM"? Or do you consider anything from Microsoft to be the de facto standard?
As for licensing FairPlay, I've never understood why they haven't. Perhaps no one has approached them as Microsoft has most manufacturers safely in their pocket, just as they have PC manufacturers locked into Windows.
Jobs has been vocal since the beginning that DRM will not work, and is ultimately doomed to fail. Music labels have insisted on it from day one - not Apple.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
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?
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.
Oh come on... why would they lie about that?
Apple freely acknowledge that the money they make from the iPod is on the hardware. The music is just there to give people a reason to own the ipod in the first place.
Can you work out just how long they would have stayed in business in the states *without* drm? Weeks? Days? It would have ended in a very loud lawsuit, I can work out that much.
Besides, how many well organised online music stores were there before iTunes? I can't think of a single one. Plenty of promises, but no decent existing stores.
And how many that exist now are as good as iTunes? Um... None comes to mind..
With an even playing field, free of drm, the iPod+iTunes combo would almost certainly win hands down. The only people I know who don't like iPods are tech snops who won't like it just because its made by apple, even though its a very competant little player.
I got one a couple of months ago. Thus far I haven't found a single urban myth about the difficulties in using them to be true.
File transfers? Check.
Copying music back off it? Check, nicely organised by artist too.
Plus the interface is easy (yes yes, I know it's like Creatives one who gives a crap, the clickwheel rocks), and the sound quality is great. Thats just about everything I want right there.
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.
1. The music industry forced us to use DRM (FairPlay) with iTunes
2. We can't license FairPlay to others, because if it gets cracked we are required to update it everywhere very quickly or we get in trouble.
3. Since the record companies sell 90% of their music free of DRM anyway (on CDs), they should let us drop DRM for iTunes.
4. If the record industry would let us drop DRM, we would do it "in a heartbeat".
5. My Reality Distortion Field pwnz U all! Mwahahahahaha!
Steve Jobs is Disney's biggest shareholder. I wonder if he would also favour DRM-free movies...
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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
I concede that Jobs is probably just trying to convince the record companies to drop their bullshit charade and release their catalogs unrestricted in full. Toward that end, this whole essay is a good step. It certainly articulates the correct arguments against DRM.
Now sod off you little git.
So how about you fight the record companies and not the store?
1. iPod is not your only choice for portable mp3 players.
2. iTunes is not your only choice for mp3 playing programs.
3. If you have an iPod, ITMS is not your only source for music.
4. If you do not have an iPod, ITMS is still not your only source for music.
5. If you want ITMS music you need either:
a. an iPod
b. a computer with iTunes
c. access to a computer with iTunes and a cd burner. This option will let you play ITMS music through any interface capable of playing whatever format you rip to.
I would love to see Apple pull a Barrett and not do any ITMS or iPod sales to Europe.
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
Do not forget that OS X is tied to Mac hardware by a "Trusted Computing Module".
It isn't now, nor has it ever been. Most if not all current Macs don't even have a TPM. Earlier models that did didn't use the TPM in any way. Where the hell do you get your information?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Oh, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/ 1349218 Apple being DRM's biggest backer?
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...Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Part of the deal with the big four music publishers (and probably movie and television publishers) is that all content sold through the online store gets the same protection scheme. So they couldn't actually sell Disney content sans drm without abrogating their deals with their other content providers.
Oh, and he's the plurality stockholder, but very, very far from being a majority. He is leagues away from being able to make such decisions unilaterally for Disney.
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.
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.
Why?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
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.
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.
The 3% argument falls a bit short. While it's true that on average 3% of the music on iPods came from the iTMS, it's by no means evenly distributed. In my experience, I've found the majority of people have either little-to-no iTMS music (usually far less than 3%), or a significant enough percentage that they wouldn't want to give it up and buy it all over again on a new platform. People are certainly still being locked in, but it's good to see that that's not Steve's goal.
Not more than you need, just more than you want
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.
The problem here is that Steve is lying
You won't know that until and unless the labels say "Ok, let's ditch the DRM", and Apple renegs on selling non-DRM music.
, Apple would either use a DRM that operates with other music players, or would license their DRM to others
This doesn't follow at all. If you actually READ the statement SJ just issued, you'd know that Apple has a contractural obligation to keep the DRM working, and if they license it to every tom, dick, and harry who wants it, they can't maintain that duty.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's different because our expectations are different. CDs can't play in cassette players for the obvious reason that they have a different form factor. You point out that recordable CDs were rare/expensive/not yet invented - so literally it was impossible to format shift. However, if you bought a different brand of CD player, all your CDs would still play on it.
Digital audio files are just that: files. We expect that PDFs will be readable on any computer, we expect that pictures will be viewable on any computer. Files have no form factor restrictions, and we expect that they should play on any device that can play digital audio files.
Apple are in a dominant position in this market now. If they want to start selling DRM free music, they surely can demand it of the labels themselves - why are they whining to us? Also, there are a lot of indie labels ( such as Warp et al. ) who already sell DRM free MP3s - does iTunes offer these DRM free?
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?
The only people I know who don't like iPods are tech snops who won't like it just because its made by apple, even though its a very competant little player.
Personally, I don't like them because I have to use gtkPod or iTunes ( if I had a windows or mac ). I want an mp3 player where I can just add folders and songs and let the player handle the rest.
Sorry, but IMO ( and I'm obviously NOT the majority ), iPods are overblown hype and don't really offer me anything that I'm interested in.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So being consistently restrained by stupid DRM restrictions is a good thing for users? WTF?
Zune got bit because the "squirt" feature is one of the prominent selling points of the player. If it doesn't work with your music, then people feel ripped off. So long as Apple is open that most of the iTunes music is DRM-encumbered, the only "inconsistency" is being occasionally surprised by extra functionality. That can't hurt Apple and it's good for users.
IMO alltunes, the allofmp3 store frontend is a better music store than iTunes, particularly for offering a great deal of choice over codecs and bitrates, and being DRM free. If only they weren't probably/definitely illegal! I'd pay iTunes prices for alltunes content.
Actually, it is even worse than your puny nightmare. In fact, every french, male, female, child, work at Vivendi. Socialist pacifist cowards as we are, there were too many companies to brutaly nationalize. So we decided to incorporate France. We called it Vivendi, thought that was nice sounding, and we went public.
And now we are after you. Capitalist warmonger pig.
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.
Here's a question for you, what DRM scheme is used to protect most songs on people's computer's? Answer: PlaysForSure. There is only one reason for this, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OS's, with which they bundle Windows Media Player which adds that DRM when it rips CDs by default.
Is that really true? And if so, does it mean that a Windows user that ripped a bunch of CD's to the default format can't import those songs even to their Zune? Somehow, I doubt it - though I wouldn't put it past Microsoft's brain-dead Zune DRM switcheroo.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Did you not read the article? By comparing the number of songs bought from from ITMS with the number of iPods sold (and assuming that most iPods are nearly full of music), Jobs estimates that about 3% of music on the average iPod is DRM-protected. In other words 97% of music on the average iPod is *not* DRM-protected. Jobs' estimates are probably a bit off, but iPods are clearly selling well enough that he doesn't need to shackle you to future iPods with DRM.
If you buy iTunes music today and switch platforms later, you now have to buy a different format of that same music. How is this different?
+4 Insightful? I can tell you how it's different. Understand, first, that I don't have a personal stance on whether Apple "uses" DRM to lock-in customers or not.
But your example isn't valid for the following reason: CD players and tape players are different hardware. You either purchased a tape, or a CD. You could try to stick your tapes in the CD player, but it will never work. Apple's songs are restricted from working on other players by software. You can put iTunes music files on another Mp3 player, they just won't play because of a software incompatibility. So you can't make the comparison between differences in hardware and an issue of software restrictions. Switching between two CD players that both will only play their own copy-protected music CDs would be a much better comparison.
Whether or not Apple should or should not allow iTunes music to play on other players is a much more complicated issue.
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!
Is that really true? And if so, does it mean that a Windows user that ripped a bunch of CD's to the default format can't import those songs even to their Zune? Somehow, I doubt it - though I wouldn't put it past Microsoft's brain-dead Zune DRM switcheroo.
I haven't tested the newest version of WMP that ships with Vista, but it is true for the version of WMP that is on my XP install. Also, I've read that the Zune plays some PlaysForSure music, although I have not seen an authoritative write-up on what plays and what doesn't.
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.
Speaking of critical mass and Vista, industry is expecting a far longer time gap between users upgrading from XP and Vista, than 2000 and XP. It's already been suggested at more than 5 years until the majority of windows users are running on Vista.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Well, if it's all-or-nothing he wants, it's nothing he gets from me. I buy my MP3s from emusic, bleep.com and so on.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
....So when will we be able to run MacOSX on non-apple hardware then?.....
That is such a stupid sentiment. Apple is the ONLY PC maker who produces their own OS and they should let Dell, Hp and all their other competitors have it? Be real. Let Dell, HP and the rest ALSO make and support their own OS and sell it to you if you don't like MS and don't like Apple hardware. Nobody is preventing them from writing their own OS and putting it on their computers. You can also get Linux for "free". What are you complaining about?
All theory is gray
This a holding me back at buying music. They are loosing money, while the music I do buy, will be counted in as "DRM free" and will help the 97% to get even bigger.
I would just love it, if they would remove DRM for good. I would probably go from $ 10-20 to $ 100-200 a month, if I could have the ease and speed of downloading it. (this last line was just added to remind the "big four" about what they are missing out on...
Pity I can't moderate you "tool bag". Love you conspiracy theorists. Just like I'd love to be shot in the head with a 12 gauge.
Shadus
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.
.......Therefore, if European governments want change, they should pressure music companies to change the terms of these contracts.....
These governments could also simply outlaw all DRM. Such laws would negate the clause in Apple's contract with the music companies and Apple would just sell the music as they do now, except without the DRM. After a while, the music companies would find out (surprise) that they were getting more money from more ITMS and other on-line sales, but that "piracy" did not increase measurably.
All theory is gray
Nobody's really being locked in. Burn your iTunes-purchased music to a CD and re-import it into iTunes and you have DRM-free music.
iTunes DRM was always pretty mild, and that's why it worked.
I think the real reason for Steve to speak against DRM at this time is that he doesn't want to be shoehorned into putting the same protections into MacOS X that Bill's guys had to put into Vista. Mild DRM's OK but non-optimal. Vista's DRM scheme is downright ugly and affects the whole widget, as Steve would say.
He's looking towards the time he will have to figure out a way to let us play Blu-Ray/HD DVD discs without selling out to the labels/studios.
If Steve can avoid draconian copy protection in the next version of MacOS, a lot of people are going to jump ship and switch over.
D
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
You can run OS 9 apps in SheepShaver on an Intel mac, with a bit of fiddling. I've got it going on a new macbook here and it works like a charm. It's not as well integrated into the OS as the Classic Compatibility layer was in PPC OS X, but it gets the job done.
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?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Then you want a Cowon iAudio X5. http://www.cowonglobal.com/product/product_X5_feat ure.php
I get my music from eMusic too, and CDs.
We have a total of 28 iTunes tracks in our 5000+ song collection. 25 of them were free with my ipod (which in turn was purchased using points from my CC, not real $s). The other three were to complete an album (bad management on my behalf).
Anyway, if everybody thinks this is such a conspiracy by Apple, how come the record companies do not embrace the DRM-un-laden eMusic (god damn terrorists!)?
No DRM would equal more sales for Apple, end of story. Something tells me Jobs would be more than interested in more sales than enforcing having DRM on other peoples copyrighted material?
OTOH, I do agree that iTunes (software) + iPod is a pain.... which is one of the reasons why I use gtkpod/gnupod. It would be nice to be able to copy the music to the ipod like it was any old drive and then let the ipod scan the music to create the itunes db.
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.
and I say that if I wake up in the morning and start shitting solid gold bricks I'll buy every homeless person a beer. Can I claim to be fighting poverty now?
Saying 'I'd love to do X, except {hopelessly impossible event Y} isn't happening,' does not prove desire to acually do X. I won't assert that Steve's lying in this particular case, but he does have a history of manipulating (some may say distorting) reality to present the image that he wants. Anything from the mouth of Jobs needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt and an anti-RDF device.
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
so download it, burn it to a cd, and then rip it in mp3 format. DRM isn't preventing you from doing that.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
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."
"
It would probably be unprotected AAC. They're pretty proud of their better codec and I think most third party music players are compatible with the unprotected version.
I'd prefer MP3 just because of the ease of interoperability with everything else.
D
At this point, due to so much corporate influence and control, we americans cant really do much to force our government to push such a change.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. 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. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music. Whether he's lying or not is an exercise to the reader but that is an exact quote from the story.
"Brown University? We have one of those in Providence!" -- Outside Providence
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 you don't use Windows or Mac, I'm guessing you're a Linux user. If you're technically competent to use Linux as your primary OS, I doubt you'd have any trouble installing and using Rockbox, which is OSS that would make an iPod behave the way you want it to.
Of course, if you don't see any other advantages to iPods, then there's no point. A lot of people like their price/form factor/clickwheel/battery life/reliability/style/customer service.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
it is posturing to get sales.
That reads to me like he is saying that he wants us all to fight the DRM pushers, but to continue to buy his DRMed product - especially since the comment seems towards a country that *gasp* actually did put out legal measures to block DRM. The problem is, by buying a DRMed product, we are then supporting DRM financially. Sorry that posturing is pretty thin, and doesnt work for me.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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...
# AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
You can't take the sky from me...
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."
Where is the spin here?
The spin lies with the fact that he can have his cake and eat it too. Jobs can say that he opposes DRM and profit enormously from it at the same time. All he has to do is blame the record companies; a convenient cop-out if you ask me.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
Bah.. having read the article myself, I think a better summary would be, Nate Anderson lists some reasons why Apple benefits from DRM, and uses an unnecessarily controversial title as a hook to draw reader attention.
Here's a tip: Nate isn't an official Apple spokesperson. His views and opinions are his own, and have about as much bearing on Apple's strategic goals as yours or mine do. Now, if you can point me to an article that has a single verifiable quote from someone who oficially speaks for Apple saying, "hey, we're right behind DRM," then you might have a point. Otherwise, the best legitimate summary you can get is, "Nate thinks Apple likes DRM."
If you want to see DRM's best friends, look at the RIAA and MPAA. They're the ones who continue to spend tons of money lobbying Congress for laws that would make hardware DRM mandatory in any device that touches any device that could ever potentially touch content. They're the ones who've spent tons of money on markting campaigns that say, "you wouldn't commit genocide against an entire, harmless, sentient species, so why would you consider letting another person watch a rented movie on your HDTV screen without paying us theatre royalties?"
Or perhaps look at the DRM that Microsoft has rolled into Vista. Show me how Apple has loaded its flagship products with restrictions that turn them into crippleware as soon as one sees anything that looks like protected content.
Hell, if you want an opinion piece, try this one: How Apple Could End Up Being DRM's Worst Enemy:
The labels wanted to use DRM to control the consumer's access to content. They'd be happy to legislate away fair use and sell it back to us, impose bullshit like tiered pricing for anything that actually sells, and screw hardware vendors for the infamous $1-per-Zune "because we all know your customers are criminals" fee.
But they can't, because Apple doesn't like those ideas. And the labels famously failed to strong-arm Apple at the last contract negotiation because they need Apple more than Apple needs them. The iPod is the dominant product in the market, and the only way to sell DRM'd content for the iPod is through Apple.
In short, Apple is using DRM to screw the labels harder than the labels have been able to screw the consumer. And the labels are getting so tired of being screwed by Apple. They're so tired, in fact, that they're starting to look at dropping the DRM just to take some of the edge off Apple's market dominance.
Let's be clear here, boys and girls: if the labels do away with DRM, it won't be because they've spontaneously turned into "information wants to be free" idealists. They'll do it because it's hurting their bottom line. And who's the company that's used DRM to hurt the labels's bottom line rather than using DRM to help the labels screw consumers? Apple.
All the ethical rants, consumer hostility, and technological circumvention to date have failed to make the labels back away from DRM. They've only entrenched the labels more firmly in the idea that they need legal control over everything up to and including the consumer's eyes and ears.
If the labels decide to drop DRM, it will be because of how Apple used DRM to screw the labels out of money. Period.
Show me a more effective enemy than that.
Everything Ive seen says that since AAC is a better codec, 128 AAC is at least the quality of 192 mp3. From my understanding of the utilities that break Apples DRM intercept the data stream from Quicktime. I dunno if it intercepts the compressed stream or raw uncompressed audio data. If the latter, then re compressing it will double the compression artifacts. Either way, converting AAC to mp3 will cause a significant loss in quality.
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.
I'd like to meet these "expert" listeners. Maybe they should bring in a few people who refuse to buy MP3s at all because of their lossy nature (yes, we do exist). Take an exceptionally-recorded piece of rock or classical music, encode it to 128kbps AAC, and listen to it on even a mid-fi system. You will hear loss of dynamic transience. You will hear altered timbre on certain instruments (e.g. cymbals). There is a perceivable difference if 1) you have a decent sound system (Bose crap doens't count) and 2) you know what to listen for.
The fact that aforementioned so-called experts can't distinguish 128kbps AAC from lossless redbook format completely discredits them IMO.
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
Since when is 7% (Jobs's share of Disney) a majority? And how does the power of someone who owns 7% of a company equal that of the CEO? Laura, George is on the computer again!
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)
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Too much work... why should it be easier to be a pirate than to be a honest man?
They can have my money, when they remove the DRM.
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.
"Speaking of critical mass and Vista, industry is expecting a far longer time gap between users upgrading from XP and Vista, than 2000 and XP. It's already been suggested at more than 5 years until the majority of windows users are running on Vista."
I don't think that's a very meaningful comparison since most of the upgrading to XP was from Windows 9x, not Windows 2000.
The "benefit" is to the tune of $22 per iPod, notwithstanding the constant cat-and-mouse game with people trying to break FairPlay and the programmer-hours that costs. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead of maintaining FairPlay for each song was more than Apple's profit for each song. And you saw the numbers. The average iPod owner's music collection consists of 3% of protected-AAC files. If someone is really dissatisfied with the iPod and wants to switch, or if he's found something he likes better, he's not going to be swayed by 30 songs out of his collection of 1000, especially when he has the option of burning those songs and re-ripping them. The average consumer won't notice the quality drop. The benefit from this lock-in has been severely exaggerated.
Gates comments was about the current DRM and the need for better DRM, Jobs is about getting rid of DRM.
But I can see how someone like you wouldn't be able to figure that out...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can't take the sky from me...
Yeah, iPod owners are not locked into using iTMS. But iTMS users are locked into using an iPod.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
Marvin the Martian
so you want to be charged by the size and pay a 1$ 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
have you ever thought that your "listening tastes" actually diminish the music for you? I dont constantly hear these differences, and I enjoy the music just as much as you. In fact, I enjoy it better, because I am not driven to post to slashdot about how much mp3 and aac sucks.
Is your quality of life better mister audiophile?
NO they are not. They might just be happy to play music on their PC or Mac.
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).
What you're saying implies furthermore that Vista will have a slow uptake. You see if transitions from 2000 to XP is less than transitions of 9x to XP as your suggesting. Surveying is still placing 2000 to XP transitions greater than XP to Vista.
If a contract is invalidated in court, it means no one has any more rights from it. Apple stops selling the music under the terms of the contract. They do not magically get new terms just because the old ones have been declared null and void. Government puts a rule saying Apple can't sell DRM tunes. Fine, they stop. Until they can get labels to agree, they will not be able to sell any music.
Another failure of the click wheel is the letter search. You know, when you're in a list of songs, you spin around really fast until a letter appears in the middle of the screen, and then you're skipping through your library letter by letter. But I don't believe it's humanly possible to actually stop at the right letter. Just like above, I always go right past the place where I want to stop - but now I'm not just one or two songs off, I'm one or two whole letters off. (Also, just try spinning fast enough to trigger the letter search while holding the iPod in just one hand. It's nearly impossible unless you're using a case that keeps your finger on the scroll wheel.)
The player is fine except for that stupid wheel. I'm not a fan of the Creative Zen interface, but IMO the Zune is a lot easier to use than the iPod. Click once and it moves once, hold the button down and it moves a lot... just like a computer or a remote control.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
It isn't piracy: you're free to burn the music to cd. In fact, you're encouraged to make back-ups of your purchased music.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
Again? What are the previous examples of Jobs lying that you are referring to?
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.Why? Licensing DRM is a totally different issue to no DRM. I think it would make the DRM suck more, which would ultimately kill the appeal of the product. Look how much PlaysForSure sucks. If Apple had to deal with a bunch of shitty companies making crappy players like PlaysForSure does, Fairplay would probably suck a lot more.
even though they could be *much* friendlier to their customers.Licensing Fairplay would probably end up having the opposite effect. Rather than being a seamless, almost transparent solution that users hardly notice, it would become a bug-infested pile of junk, that involves tons of technical support. Most likely, it would be compromised more often, so it would need constant updating and firmware revisions. That's not exactly consumer-friendly.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I was using well-recorded music to back up my argument that there is a difference between AAC and lossless. Don't get me wrong--I still enjoy the heck out of music, and I enjoy many genres that would make die-hard audiophiles wince (e.g. epic trance and some engineered-to-be-catchy stuff on the radio). And no, I don't critically listen to said genres. They make for great background music.
:)
Of course, then there's music that's much more conducive to just sitting down in that perfect spot between your speakers and listening to. Stuff like Cowboy Junkies or the 1812 Overture or Norah Jones. Sure, you might hear deficiencies in your system, but it's still amazing.
Lastly, it's just a hobby. Your "quality of life" statement could apply to virtually any hobbyist.
-- n
Music fan: Someone who listens to their music
Audiophile: Someone who listens to their equipment
Has it occurred to you that you're just not part of the target audience for online music distribution? If 99.99% of people are happy with 128Kbps AAC quailty, I don't think Apple is going to go back to the drawing board on behalf of that last 0.01%.
'Tis just the way 'tis matey. The seas are an alluring wench. Plunderin' makes many a scurvy dog's heart race. You better watch yeself though, Jim-lad. It may seem easy at first, but all that easy booty weighs heavily on the heart. Eventually ye'll be drawn to the darker side, and before ye known it ye be headed for Davy Jones' locker like a dinghy fitted with a galley.
Being an honest man was never easy, 'tis easier to be an honorable swine.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
The contractual requirements highlight the problem of distributed secrets, which is basically what compromised CSS, and seems to be a weakness in the HD-DVD scheme, too.
Give him credit, he's willing to sell the iPod on its own merits, and doesn't need the music store to lock you in. Any way you cut it, the iPod will be more desirable (read: more profitable) if the store ISN'T encumbered by DRM.
It would also eliminate a whole bunch of security programmers from the distribution chain, which would benefit everybody except the programmers.
Furthermore if you'd say I get the CD and rip it myself in 192kb, to get better audio quality, you might not necessarily be successful, because the CD itself is quite a step down from the digital master.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
That's odd, I run OS X PPC binaries on my MacBook all the time.
Sig is on vacation
The flaw in that particular wigglument is that protected AAC is already compromised, and Apple has not fixed it.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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
Can you work out just how long they would have stayed in business in the states *without* drm? Weeks? Days? It would have ended in a very loud lawsuit, I can work out that much.
The ridiculous part of that is that DRM does nothing to prevent piracy. The people who want to obtain unrestricted copies already can, from a plethora of sources from friends' CDs to torrents. The only thing DRM does is give you less product for your money.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"they surely can demand it of the labels themselves - why are they whining to us?"
What do you think Jobs just did?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
So have you yourself done the double blind test, or are you just assuming that it's impossible?
Not sure why I care, because (despite my numerous character flaws) I'm no audiophile.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Your conclusions are valid provided that the survey did the comparison by including people who never used Windows 2000 (which would be a very odd choice). If they didn't, than the survey doesn't really say anything about the behavior of the majority of Windows XP users. (This assumes that the survey was statistically valid)
In any case, the 5 year estimate is misleading. Some XP machines will never be upgraded to Windows Vista, but I'd expect that upgrades will occur at an average rate of about 15%-20% per year before maxing out at about 90%. That's just a guess of course.
You forgot accessories. Yes, many iPod accessories are somewhat gimmicky, but what other digital music player even HAS accessories?
Apple will blame anyone but themselves
"and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat"..
You know, not all of the music in the iTMS catalog is licensed from the Big Four. A fair bit is from smaller and indie labels, some of which have no problem with selling their music without DRM. In fact, there are those that have asked Apple to sell their music sans DRM but have been denied.
Jobs doesn't have to wait for the Big Four. If he really is serious about this he should give the smaller labels the option of selling their music through iTMS DRM-free. If he doesn't, then this open letter is just damage control to get the euro consumer ombudsmen off his back.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Don't you even remember those days? If it was all about lock-in to the music store, why did Apple start with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" iTunes ads? Don't you remember how Apple was a major target of the RIAA and labels for that campaign? Jobs was demonised for encouraging music piracy - and it was reported in many places as if Apple was the new Napster for encouraging people to "rip" their CDs. Under the pressure, they added "please don't steal music" stickers to the iPod. Other companies would probably simply have removed the ability to rip CDS from their product - or put DRM on the ripped files like Microsoft is wont to do.
You whiners should remove your heads from your asses. Without Jobs, we wouldn't have any high-profile people with the power to influence DRM and the labels in a positive way. We'd still be in the dark ages, with the labels denying it was even possible to make money selling music online, and your only choices would be CDs or bittorrent. Now Apple is in a position to fight for the repeal of DRM on music altogether. But you just want to undermine it. Fucking idiots! You whine all the time about how DRM is evil - then someone comes along with the capacity to get rid of some of it, and you just diss him? You don;t even know what's good for you.
Seriously, which tactic is going to work - whining all the time and running lame "defective by design" campaigns with the FSF - or having an ally who is successful and influential, with contacts within the actual record labels? Someone who actually makes the labels money and has revolutionized their business? Yeah, I'm sure they are going to listen to some FSF protestor who says he won't buy music online anyway, over someone who makes them millions of dollars.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I like to listen to music using my stereo.
An audiophile likes to listen to their stereo using music.
I'd rather listen to exceptional music, bold or not.
After all, I am strangely colored.
ahh, I see the misinterpretation here. The study referred to when Vista would be dominant over XP. As such it included new computer sales and upgrades. Transition referred to the market share figure.
And I'm sure Jobs would LOVE to move those programmers to work on another project. Devoting a good chunk of his staff simply to appease the record companies, when they could be working on products that actually make profit, isn't exactly the best use of employee time.
Hi there, I don't really see where you're coming from mate - you say that you're "Locked Out" because you CHOOSE not to buy Music with DRM, so you're not "Locked In". If you make an active choice to not participate in something, you're not locked out - you just choose to stay outside. I'm not "locked out" of wearing womens underwear - I just choose not to. I certainly don't hold it against the makers of the wonderbra just because I don't want to buy them - good luck to them I say. As for the lost "profit" you say they are missing out on, I think they'll live without your $200 a month to forgo the gushing artery of losses they'd encounter by making their music easier to pirate. I mean really - tell me you'd spend $200 a month if you could get the stuff for free - you're having yourself on a bit aren't you? I can't see why people are so uptight about the whole DRM issue anyway - if I want to but an iPod and never make a purchase from the Music store - or not even buy a Mac, I can. If I'm happy to buy an iPod, a Mac - destroy all my old CD's and download every song on the store while wearing an "I love Jobsie" T-Shirt, I can do that too. No-one but music pirates and the anti-mac squad should have any problem with that scenario, should they?
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.
Not the OP. I can tell the difference between MP3 and CDDA, however. I took a double blind test to prove it (to myself -- you can do it too, if you'd like. Google "ABX test software")
I don't have a particularly nice stereo. I have an old Hitachi amplifier with a nasty buzz and a scratchy volume knob -- though I'm currently building a replacement. But I have a decent set of speakers that can go loud without much distortion. This is a nice thing. I can sit on the couch between my carefully arranged speakers, close my eyes, and engage what I'm listening to.
I also have an iPod for when I'm on my bike or on the bus. Or at work. And at the gym. Places where I'm not actively listening to the music, but using it as an entertaining distraction. And it suits me just fine.
But when I want to be an active listener, I much prefer my stereo.
After all, I am strangely colored.
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.
Apple only puts DRM on content sold through the iTMS _if_ the content provider (and presumably copyright holder) asks for it. It's not automatic.
You can even buy non-DRMed material via the iTMS - there are some independent labels up there who don't want to use DRM. It's still AAC, but it's not DRMed.
As Jobs said - if the music industry is concerned about the DRM lock-in created by Apple, there's an easy fix: don't use DRM.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
If you are indeed rippoing it from itunes AAC format to MP3, then it is *not* 100% of the quality of the original file. If you are keeping an untranscoded AAC file, then perhaps it is 100% of the quality.
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.
Microsoft seems to able to do it just fine. Plus, the RIAA doesn't seem to care (or maybe they don't know) that some music download services are still using crackable DRM.
And I was under the impression that myfairtunes still worked.
Also, I am under the impression that all music sold on the iTunes store is required to have DRM. I'm sure some artists want to sell their without DRM on iTunes.
Given the fact that you've given no link to the survey, there's not much point in debating interpretations.
http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/news/163C59DFD6 12CE53CC257272007D4D72
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,391645 63,00.htm
http://www.errorforum.com/microsoft-win dows-vista-error/1492-todays-vista-uptake-predicti on-slow-again.html
http://it.moldova.org/stiri/en g/22246/
What motivation does Jobs have to actually combat DRM? It's not like Apple is hemorrhaging $$$ because of DRM.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Apple is locking their software to particular hardware. This sounds like DRM to me.
coding is life
Are you sure about that? I'd say it's almost certain that Apple would make a lot more money and sell more tracks without DRM. After all, DRM doesn't work. Jobs really understands this. He knows that DRM sucks, and doesn't have any illusions about it preventing piracy.
So, what does DRM mean for Apple and iTunes? Basically it's just another added overhead cost - it takes developers to develop, it would be fairly complex to administer, and causes all kinds of headaches. I would think that DRM could only be a burden for Apple.
Can you tell me how Apple benefits from DRM?
... and then they built the supercollider.
I'm a Linux user, and am having quite a lot of trouble installing Rockbox on my iPod. The new Naon 2G and the latest video iPods have new encryption and I think some hardware changes, so you basically have to use a Windows PC or a Mac to put music on them (and have it playable).
coding is life
....If a contract is invalidated in court, it means no one has any more rights from it.......
There is no reason for the whole contract to be invalidated if the DRM clause is thrown out by new laws. Most contracts have sever-ability clauses in them for just that possibility. All it would mean is that Apple would continue business as usual, without DRM. The music companies would continue to get their money and likely even more than now. By the time the lawyers fought this all out the music folks would realize that not having DRM was an advantage to their bottom line and send their lawyers home.
All theory is gray
"Plus I'm pretty certain any regular slashdotter worth their salt would have already known of at least one"
Even before I read the link, I gotta say: nice try at deflection.
I checked out your links, but only the 1st actually lead to a story. The story at the first link, as expected, mentioned "research" but provided zero details about it. Sounds like typical speculation not really backed-up by real, statistically valid data.
"Why doesn't Jobs sell some DRM-free music right now? (hint: to shackle you to future ipods)."
He does. You can buy DRM free music from the iTMS store today.
evil is as evil does
First one, probably because Apple is bigger and more prominent, and might have had to make more concessions in negotiations with the RIAA etc to get the 5 computers/unlimited ipods clause.
second, I really don't know.
third, again probably a concession Apple had to make when negotiating with the record companies. They don't want to see any music available for legitimate paid download without DRM. It would undermine their whole PR case.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
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!
'DVD' Jon Johansen's blog debunks Steve Jobs abuse of statistics quite well: If you'd read the damn essay, you'd know that.
How about you read the essay critically, rather than mindlessly swallowing anything Steve spews out as gospel?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
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.
Steve Jobs would like to be Time's Man of the Year in this the year of the MP3. As of yet he is the only figure with something at stake to stand up and say that he is for the end of DRM. He's going to have a breakout year, fueled by jealousy of You, for winning last year (and using his computer on the cover)
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.
On my iPod 100% of the music is DRM free. Most tracks are CD rips. Almost none are illegally acquired mp3s anymore. And all the shite I buy on iTunes is burned to a CD and ripped to mp3.
Now if only I could find a better way than to waste good CDs... seriously, is there no way? If there was a CD burner emulator that acted like a normal burner in Windows (and could thus be used by iTunes) that wrote ISO-files directly it would make my DRM free life much easier.
The simple fact that he's lying.
There's music on other sites that's also sold on itunes, the itunes version has DRM, the other version doesn't.
Don't give me anything about consistent user experience, no DRM doesn't STOP them doing anything they currently do. If they don't do anything they couldn't do before they would never notice. It would help his case since people might start to question more strongly some of the other tracks.
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.
So how could Microsoft license 'Plays for Sure' for so long?
And why were so many online stores allowed to distribute music
owned by major labels, using 'Plays for Sure'?
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.
Do they have TPS reports though?
p ace)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPS_report_(Office_S
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
Except that the metric by which Apple would judge the success of the Grand Lock-in Conspiracy(TM) is average number of DRM'ed songs per iPod, because that's the most conservative estimate. How is Apple supposed to know whether an iTunes customer has an iPod or which iPods are no longer in use? It gives a ball-park estimate. So let's say we've got 45 million iPods still in use, half of the ones that have been sold. That's 44 songs per iPod in use. Still, not incredibly locked in. The person could still burn to a CD and re-rip. Okay, so let's say half of all iPod owners don't actually buy songs from the iTunes Music Store. Okay, average of 88. Still below a hundred. This also means that Apple has to spend money and risk getting the music catalogue pulled to keep half their user-base potentially locked in. Now, for simplicity, let's say that half of all people feel "locked in" after 88 songs. So Apple's spending all this time and effort to lock in a quarter of all iPod buyers.
... OH MY GOD THEY LIKE iPODS. Apple spends a whole lot of money on marketing. Why do that if the Grand Lock-in Conspiracy(TM) works so well? For a lot of people, the "lock in" factor doesn't even register. They just like their iPods, so they keep buying them.
This is a simplistic analysis. But this should show that it's not as simple as DVD John makes it out to be and certainly not as simple as how Steve Jobs made it out. But really, the true answer is probably in the same order of magnitude. You also have to take into account how big a factor "iTunes lock-in" is in future purchasing decisions. Most people just don't even know that iTunes DRM is there. They just buy new iPods because
So yeah, it's complicated. And it's not easy to figure out. What does Jobs' analysis tell us? It's a conservative estimate of how well this supposed lock-in works. And that estimate is not kind. Generally, in business, if a conservative estimate makes something not worthwhile, then don't do it. Just assume that the worst-case scenario is how it actually is and go by that.
As to his comments about TV shows and movies, once you've watched a TV show on your iPod once, you're not nearly as likely to watch it again. Same with movies. Songs are really all that matters here. The most likely videos you'll end up replaying are ones you've made yourself with something like iMovie, which doesn't generate DRM-encrypted movies. If Apple really wanted to lock people in, they could do a far better job for far less money. Or they could make iTunes rip to DRM'ed AAC's. Guess what? That would mean lock-in for free. No having to put up with music companies' threats of pulling their catalogues or anything.
DVD John may be a smart guy, but this theory that "Steve Jobs is using bogus statistics on purpose to back an argument he doesn't really believe in (which is bound to piss off the people who license him his content, and those people just happen to be a cartel) just to make himself look better to the geek crowd that hates DRM and maybe appeal to governments that have already made it clear they don't like what he's doing" is just ridiculous. Please.
You have your principles and stick to your guns for a good cause. That's admirable. Stick it out further, and you might just get an iTunes Store with DRM-free music. (No, this isn't sarcasm.)
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?"....}
~
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.
Sure, I could follow the stream, and just buy myself an iPod and crazy-download allot of DRM protected stuff. But if I ever wanted to change my iPod for the music player in my phone, I cannot, unless it's some iTunes-enabled-phone. I'm not planing on buying a iTunes phone and thats not because it has anything to do with iTunes or Apple. I mean really - tell me you'd spend $200 a month if you could get the stuff for free The problem is - I can get it for free now! Alot of my friends have no problems with sharing music and movies with each other. You only hav to logon to the different sharing networks and find music and movies there. But I want to pay for the music and DRM makes it more difficult to use after I buy it (like now, where I order regular CDs online and rip them. My choice). If you are a pirate, you can download allot of music for free (as in speech and beer) right now.
According to Apple, 3% of the music on the iPods are DRM protected. That means removing DRM could cause them to loose 3% of the marked to pirates? No, of cause not. People will still buy music - they will just be more free (as in speech, not beer). Of the other 97%, not all of it is illegal. Many people have large CD collections and somehow they manage to use the music without DRM, without breaking the copyright. You put it like: "Non-DRM music will be copied allot". Two problems with that. 1) I have learned through the comments in here, that there are ways arround DRM and therefore makes the DRM useless and makes it possible to copy the music anyway. 2) Much of the music is already out there to be downloaded illegal / for free. DRM will not stop piracy.
Furthermore, buying an iPod will make me able to play music from the iTunes store. But what if I want to buy some music from another store? I can buy the music, but not transfer it to my iPod! Then I will need two musicplayers...? I would rather have one device in my pocket: My Phone, with the ability to play all music from all stores.
Conclusion: DRM removes freedom from / makes it more diffucult for paying customers. Pirates are NOT affected.
What the hell. Screw them. I probably already broken their copyright by ripping the CD's, just like removing the DRM from you paid music probably also make you break the copyright.
Can you point to any examples of this? I'd buy a song just to test this, but most posts I see claim that ALL iTMS tracks come with DRM.
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!
You can even buy non-DRMed material via the iTMS - there are some independent labels up there who don't want to use DRM. It's still AAC, but it's not DRMed.
Could you provide sources or examples of this please? I read the opposite several times: that even independent labels music, already available elsewhere without DRM was DRMed in the iTMS, due to Apple's policy of forcing the same deal on every labels, with no discrimination/exception.
Not that i intend to buy anything from them, but it would be nice to have tham myth debunked if it is one.
This post is awesome.
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.
Maybe they have different contracts? It's not inconceivable that the behemoth that is MS managed to leverage themselves a better deal to facilitate licensing - especially if it was something Apple didn't push too strenuously for at the time.
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.
I couldn't agree more - the X5 is an awesome little player, handles a ton of file formats (including WAV and FLAC) and best of all, you can add files to it just by drag and drop - it appears just as an external hard drive, you copy over your folders and you're ready to go, no messing about with proprietary software to upload and organise. It also supports playlists, so if you have all these created already for winamp or whatever, you can just copy them over too and they'll work, or you can create a playlist from the actual player. It also has all the other requisite bells and whistles you'd want on a player these days - file storage, movie player, image viewer, radio receive (and record), dictaphone, text file reader, etc. Maybe not the prettiest player around, but it's certainly not the ugliest either.
1) Sources.
2) What kind of headphones are they using?
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
'' IMO alltunes, the allofmp3 store frontend is a better music store than iTunes, particularly for offering a great deal of choice over codecs and bitrates, and being DRM free. If only they weren't probably/definitely illegal! I'd pay iTunes prices for alltunes content. ''
:(
Tell that to the music industry
Everything that people like about allofmp3 comes from the fact that they have no contracts negotiated with the music industry (no DRM, choice of Codecs) and don't pay money to the music industry (low price). I think Apple spends a bit more money on making their interface look attractive; they spend more money for lawyers negotiating with the record companies and for programmers developing and maintaing the DRM, and obviously they spend money to pay the record companies for the music.
As long as the price for a song is ok with you, Apple could easily deliver everything you like about allofmp3 if the record companies let them.
"I'd like to meet these "expert" listeners."
l es/index.php).
Boo.
AAC at 128 kbit is good enough for me. I certainly cannot hear any artefacts on my system (Sennheiser HD-600 connected to a Denon DA convertor and AHA headphone amp).
With MP3, you certainly can hear some artefacts, an aquarium-like effect in the higher regions. But this seems to be not the case for AAC.
With respect to your comments on "transience", "Timbre" and stuff, show me some measurements. Show me some real stuff, not some huggy-feely analysis, be more like the people at Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprincip
Please point out the differences in balance in a frequency spectrum that might be perceived by the human ear, then I'll be happy to agree with you.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
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.
I think that this could go on for ever - I can see your point, but maybe we should agree to disagree.....
I bought a lot of music on Vinyl. The Vinyl then didn't fit into my walkman, so I taped some of my music and started buying tapes. Then CD's came out, and that meant I couldn't use my tapes anymore. I also had a Betamax VCR. I owned a few movies on Beta, but then VHS took over - so then I bought quite a few movies on VHS. Now I have almost 200 DVD's. I have owned an Intellivision, Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Amiga, Sega Saturn, N64, PC, Mac, PS, PS2, Xbox Xbox360 too - and with each innovation came the requirement of re-purchasing some stuff, or just playing in it in it's own required player. I think you can get my drift - I'm talking about three end uses - one is listening to music, one is watching movies and the other is playing games. Those 3 past-times required 18 different devices - not including an MP3 player or Blu-Ray or HD DVD or whatever now. End result - I didn't moan about it, I embraced the new technology, despite the fact that my Vinyl records were too big to fit in my DVD drive to burn the music. Times change, with new technology comes new opportunities.
The point is if you have an iPod and you purchase music from the iTunes Music store - play it on your iPod. If you buy music from somewehere else - much of it can be played on your iPod too. If you don't have an iPod or don't want to be restricted, then don't buy music from the iTunes Music store. But there's no reason to get shirty about the existence of, or workings of the iTunes music store - that's a really flawed argument. If you own a PC, you shouldn't buy Mac software it's pretty simple really. If you can't decide what device you want to use, I understand that it's a frustrating decision, and the pros and cons can be heavy to weigh up - but making a decision does not mean you are tattooed for life. You can change at any time. If carrying a big iPod and a phone is so problematic, with the discretionary income to spend $200 a month on music - surely you could afford an iPod shuffle to play the music you can only buy on the music store if it came to that? Why get crappy with Apple because they only sell music that can only be played on an Apple iPod - do you start blogs about the way that Gillette only sell blades that fit on their razors too?
I know that music can be pirated now, but just because someone can upload a burned CD to Limewire or whatever doesn't mean that Artists, Labels or Retailers should throw their hands up and say "Let's just make it a free for all - use our music however you want, we don't care" - that's pretty naive, I think.
So my thoughts are, DRM does not remove freedom from anyone - it ensures that the product sold is fit for the purpose it was intended for. It doesn't make it more difficult for paying customers. I have bought 848 items from the iTunes music store as of this post. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it too easy to buy! There has not been one moment that I have not been able to listen to what I want, when I want or where I want. I think in your case, it's the customer that is complicating the issue - not Apple. And to say that Pirates are not affected by DRM is just ridiculous. Sure, they are still free to get around the systems in place - but burgulars can still get around home security systems - doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's not hard - just means they have to really WANT to break the law.
Now I'm off to complain to to Toyota - I hear that they *force* you to use their engines when you buy a Prius from them.......
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.
"You will hear loss of dynamic transience."
But that can be fixed with some magnetic phase-inducers and cable-elevators. And wooden knobs. Can't go wrong with those knobs....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
> What do you think Jobs just did?
I wouldn't call this a demand. Apple keeping tracks at 99 cents (to the labels chagrin) was a demand. I don't think that was done through an open letter like this one.
Whined to us?
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."
It all depends so much on what you're listening to music on.
Through the average set of headphones/earbuds most people stick into their ipod? Very little difference. On most computer speakers? Almost no difference (I tried and failed several times to pass a blind listening test on my computer speakers).
Through a decent set of headphones or nicer home audio system? Oh yes, it's almost painful sometimes when I hit a badly encoded mp3 I downloaded somewhere. I got a new pair of headphones and had to toss a large portion of my ripped music collection.
I'll agree with you on their "experts," but there is a large subset of the population that probably isn't listening on something good enough to notice or care.
Bose crap doens't count
-1, Idiot.
Oh, wait... he misspelled "doesn't": -2, Idiot.
Lies about crimes
Yes, it is better for him. See, when he hears a perfect recording, he not only enjoys the music, but also the recording itself, i.e. more enjoyment than you could perceive. The downside is with bad recordings, but really good music will cancel that out anyway.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Look through the discussion before posting -a post suggests that if a group does not demand DRM on their music, then the itunes/apple store does not wrap the audio file (AAC codec) in DRM..
"Laziness is an optimisation protocol"
I heard last week that they've just invented some kind of newfangled rerecordable CDs! They might be coming to a store near you real soon!!11!!!
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I attempted to read all the links he gave and only the first one worked. What articles are you referring to?
That's really not fair. neuro.slug is absolutely right in saying that with a remotely decent set of speakers, it is very easy to spot the difference on instruments like cymbals when encoded at 128. Noticing something as obvious as that doesn't make you an audiophile who's forgotten how to enjoy music.
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.
Why should you have to go through all that? Why do we have to jump through hoops just to have music on our computer? Sure CD's are cheap, but I don't want to have to burn a CD if I buy a track, just to rerip it. I also agree with the 192kbps point... why not increase the quality of the music for those that want it?
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.
"Yes, it is better for him. See, when he hears a perfect recording, he not only enjoys the music, but also the recording itself, i.e. more enjoyment than you could perceive. The downside is with bad recordings, but really good music will cancel that out anyway."
A "perfect recording" means there are no artifacts. (Compression artifacts, clipping, distortion, overcompression etc).
A non-audiophile doesn't notice any of these artifacts. (Except, maybe, clipping.) That means that to them, the audio has no artifacts. So to them, it is a perfect recording.
To add to this, why would Apple want to license DRM from Microsoft, one of their biggest competitors. Apple's positioning as a company that sells hardware, software, and (now), entertainment/media, puts them in competition with everyone. So, they keep the DRM in house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QTFairUse
If you have an iTunes installation authorised to play a file, you can get an unprotected version in the same amount of time as it takes you to play the song - without quality loss, and without moving to a different file format.
I wish I could mod you up on this. Kind of hard to fix a problem quickly when the software breaks at the end of the beta test cycle, not the beginning. I have been running the Vista releases since they were named Longhorn, and I have to agree that iTunes was working fine until the end.
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.
If you have DRM, you are locked in. That's been the product of DRM, in fact, which was required by the studios. The studios had just come from their victory over Napster, and many of them, no doubt, wanted to go back to things just the way they were. Around came Jobs, saying downloads were continuing, but that if they made their music available cheaply online, they could lessen the losses of digital distribution. DRM was the price of admission -- and even then, they didn't all join at the same time.
It would be good if Disney agreed to letting their music go DRM-free.
And plenty more posts pointing out that that was false.
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.
I don't buy the "consistent user experience" crap, but I *do* believe that the record labels wouldn't allow Apple to sell DRM-free music - because they don't want people to buy independent instead of "big four".
Imagine what the labels would say if Apple sold independent music at a lower price.
Yes, I'm sure they wouldn't like someone else having a better product than them. You might actually have something of a point there although shame on Apple for agreeing with them a contract that dictates how others sell. I'm sure WallMart wouldn't sign a contract with Nabisco that meant all Kellogs cereals would have to be sold with "Gives you cancer" scrawled on them in marker.
Remember, the iPod was originally a music player for use with a Macintosh, and, when it came out, there was no such thing as Fairplay. DRM based online music stores began to pop up, and of course, there was not any support for any Macintosh hardware, so, ITMS was born, with DRM that runs on both Mac and Windows in the form of iTunes. If I'd like to use a play4sure or a Zune and use it on a Mac (or Linux) and play purchased, and encrypted content, where is the software from Microsoft to do this? Nowhere. Remember, everyone is playing dirty in this game, and it just happens to be that Apple is playing the game their way. I'd like to see the European regulators enforce this on the other end, and make proprietary Microsoft DRM compatible on the Mac, and on Linux. Of course, this won't happen.
People just don't get it. It's either Microsoft, Apple, or nothing. Get rid of the DRM altogether, and you aren't looking at comparing DRM compatibility anymore. Of course then the record companies loose, and Microsoft looses, and Apple gets an even playing field to show off the merits of their hardware without any limiting factors.
I think they switched off "recommending" or "defaulting" to DRM on ripped CDs around WMP8 or WMP9. It certainly was brain-dead.
/one/ track before being pissed off.
At least when you only put DRM on content that's purchased online, customers will buy
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.
Read two paragraphs further: "We'd probably make more money from dropping DRM," (since Apple more or less breaks even on music sales and takes almost all its iPod related profit from hardware sales) is hardly the most ringing of endorsements.
---- You mean the API that allows developers to optionally integrate MS's HDCP implementation into their media players without having to write their own HDCP implementation?
No, I mean the code that will transparently downgrade the quality of every signal passing through the machine if any signal is judged to be carrying "Premium Content".
Saying third party developers can roll similarly restrictred code for themselves is disingenuous at best. The RIAA/MPAA want DRM that goes all the way down to the hardware, and Microsoft has delivered that in Vista.
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.
A contract is a two party thing. Usually, a contract requires the agreement of both parties for it to be suspended. No party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract. If a court invalidates a contract, it then allows either party to withdraw from it. Imposing conditions on a contract is another thing altogether, and the courts cannot force the music companies to transact in a way they do not wish to. I would be surprised if the contract did not allow the music companies to unilaterally withdraw if a court ruling makes it impossible to continue the relationship in the way originally intended.
The only way for a court to remove the DRM clause specifically, is if Apple requested it, because they are a party to the contract. I cannot go to court and ask someone to amend the terms of a contract between two other parties because I am a potential consumer. The most I can hope for is that the court will make it illegal for one or both of the parties to continue offer those terms, and hence encourage the parties to offer new terms.
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.
If you buy iTunes music today and switch platforms later, you now have to buy a different format of that same music. How is this different?
The only things that shackles you to an iPod are the headphones. That and perhaps your inability to read the article. Cassette tape never was a real commercial medium, if you wanted something of high quality you bought an LP and copied it to a C90 to protect the original. Anyone remember high speed dubbing? Did anyone use it much (I doubt I did more than a dozen times at most). I had a fair number of tapes usually containing Albums from My collection or friends LP's I bought loads of albums often 2nd hand and generally would tape my favourites to preserve them or maybe making up mix tapes for partys in car ect. Parties were and still are a medium for ruining albums and getting treasured albums stolen.
Tapes grow old fade stretch and drop out. The invention of the mobile phone also helped kill tapes even on playback mobiles could have the sound of an incoming message embed itself on a favourite tape.
over all tapes would provide an introduction to many great bands. Occasionally tapes had a value bootlegs of concerts were often only available on tape and these tapes were often treasured. Also some albums long deleted and hard to obtain the best you could do was have a taped copy.
I have bought commercial tapes over the years but not many, and not a significant part of my LP collection.
as for the invention of the CD well it took a while to catch on for me but I did buy CD's of some stuff I had on tape but for the stuff that was on LP a lot never did get released on CD. The vast majority of my tapes rotted away a long time ago.
maybe the vast majority of the songs were not that great, maybe i just got old and my tastes changed. However the best music i had was on album and I still have it more than 20 years after some of it was bought. Some albums I have date back to the 60's (they are usually heavier and more durable than later recordings).
I don't think there are that many Albums worth buying twice the best example I can think of was Dark Side of the Moon. I did buy that a few times and a few others which became terminally scratched.
At present I wouldn't buy Drm'd tracks from Apple or anywhere else for that matter.
However without DRM and at the US download price. It wouldn't be beyond belief to see me downloading music from itunes on a friday or saturday night on a regular basis just for convenience similar to an online jukebox. perhaps after buying enough of an album apple might be prepared to send me the entire album for a couple of dollars more on CD.
really it should be as easy to use as a jukebox if i make 5 selections say the third and fifth ones i don't own it should be seamless to download them from apple within the time it takes to play 1 or 2 tracks that i already own, in case of delay the software should be able to swop songs in from further down the playlist.
Don't we all want the abilty to be able to say yes thats my favourite too and have it delivered within 2 or 3 minutes of entering the track name and hitting the download button.
seriously there is a lot to be said for providing high quality drm glitch free music on demand. done right and music sales could go through the roof. DRM makes the basic error of assuming a DRM version is all thats available if the music companys could get over themselves accept that millions of copies they will get nothing for and embrace the instant satisfaction of providing music on demand which would make billions in sales. Everybody would win.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
You're right, because probably no record execs will ever read this letter, huh?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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
Recently, Slashdot cited an article about smaller record labels suing Apple for encrypting their music. The smaller record labels never wanted the music encrypted; yet Apple wouldn't sell their music unless it was
Can you provide a link to the Slashdot citation? I wasn't able to find it.
This ain't rocket surgery.
They couldn't move to Russia to sell non-DRMed mp3s and still be listed on Nasdaq.
That doesn't mean that there won't be any difference between an mp3d aac and an mp3d cda track. The loss of quality with the acc compression may be so small to be unnoticeable, but it might be noticeable when you add it to the additional loss of quality from the mp3 compression.
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
....The most I can hope for is that the court will make it illegal .....
If a clause in a contract is made invalid by a new LAW, only that clause is affected. There is no court even involved unless one party drags the other into court. In that case the court will uphold the remainder of the existing contract unless both parties agree to a new one. Besides, this squabble is in Europe where the rules may be different. Still, if Apple, in response to such a law, simply unilaterally continues selling the music without DRM, the music companies are not likely to get an injunction against it. By the time the lawyers finally get it fought out, the music companies would learn that they are actually making as much or more money from Apple than when their DRM mandate was still in effect.
All theory is gray
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.
Decompressing and recompressing in the *same* format can be lossless, if the encoder is well matched to the original encoder. Typically, though, even that increases the SNR, since the re-encoder is seeing a different input than the original encoder.
Program Intellivision!
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.
I find it amazing that a group of people who make such a big stink about copyright (the RIAA members) would then turn around, and step on the ability of others to distribute their songs as they see fit, by forcing Apple to put DRM on their copyrighted material against their will. It would be like the MPAA forcing everyone who wants to distribute their films on DVD to use encryption and region coding. Of course, knowing the RIAA I guess it doesn't really surprises me. If I was in that position, I would tell Apple to go stuff it myself.
However, I still don't completely buy it. I'm pretty sure that Apple, now that people are overall fairly comfortable with their DRM scheme, isn't going to back away from it.
How is 7% a majority stockholding?
No no no. A court can't cherry pick parts of a contract to enforce. Go read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts#Illegal_con tracts about illegal contracts. When a contract becomes is illegal, it becomes void, and is of no force or effect (or something like that). So there is not contract anymore, hence if a Apple was disallowed to sell music with Fairplay, that would void the contract with the recording companies. A court can either hold two parties to a contract, or it can declare a contract void.
I have done a bit of contract law. I know that much.
Are you saying Microsoft DIDN'T break compatibility?
That's what I'm saying. It is not Microsoft's responsiblity to test every 3rd party Windows app before they release a new version of their operating system, even assuming that was possible. It's the vendor's responsibility, in this case, Apple's. Apple could easily have obtained one of the beta versions of Vista and tested iTunes against that in the many years before Vista's release. iTunes 7 was released after the betas were widely available, and many users reported that iTunes 7 didn't work with the Vista betas. So they certainly knew there were problems, they simply CHOSE not to do anything.
Of course, if they followed good Windows programming standards (ex. you have to run iTunes as an Administrator) they probably wouldn't be having these problems.
He explains why licensing DRM to other companies would not work due to the stringent contractual requirements that the music companies have placed on Apple in regards to maintaining the integrity of the DRM system.
This may or may not be true, but even if it is, it's pretty self-serving. It certiainly is POSSIBLE to have a label-approved DRM scheme that is widely licensed, Microsoft is doing it right now. It's possible that Apple's contract with the labels DOES forbid them from licensing the DRM technology to anyone else, I don't know. I suspect that contract is confidential but there might be some public filing somewhere. OF course, Apple could simply renegoiate the contract.
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?
No, they're not. Virtually all of the music on iTunes was ripped from Audio CDs using mostly Plextor CD-ROM drives. I've seen them do it with my own eyes. And you're also assuming, quite wrongly, that Audio CD's have na inferior frequecy and dynamic range response to DAT. In 2 channel mode DAT tape which has similar audio properties ro Audio CDs. There is also the fact that DAT tape rapidly degrades over time, about as fast as cassette tape, making it unsuitable for archival purposes. Record labels, at least in my experience, archive vinyl LPs and compact discs, and very recently, hard disks masters.
AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps
This is only true if you stack the deck in AAC's favor. Yes, AAC is superior to Fraunhofer's original implementation of the MP3 codec. However, most people use the LAME implementation which has vastly better psychoacustics. It is now generally agreed that LAME MP3 sounds as good as AAC. AAC, MP3, and Ogg Vorbis all introduce slightly different artifacts and different sets of "golden ears" regards some of these as more "displeasing" than others. YMMV. What really makes AAC superior to other codecs are it's advanced feaures (multitrack mixing, etc.). Features that Apple's implemtation does not use. If you care about quality, use FLAC. Rockbox and the Rio Karma support playback in this format (I have a Karma).
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.
If they start selling music in 192kbps, it'll basically be admitting that 128kbps wasn't good enough.
Yeah, it also has a 160x128 LCD, 30GB, and costs more an 80GB 320x200 ipod. Awesome.
I don't know if it counts, but NPR shows are in mp3.
Then why did they buy an ipod to begin with?
Maybe Apple's contract with the Big Four prevents them from selling DRM-free music? I wouldn't be surprised, since it takes away a big selling point for smaller labels.
What I'm imagining right now:
RIAA exec reads Steve Jobs's open letter.
RIAA exec says to himself, "Isn't this cute?"
Nothing else changes.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Apple cannot, as of now, run iTunes both with RIAA music (and the $$$ RIAA music generates) and without DRM.
Apple cannot ensure the reliable-but-locked DRM that the RIAA requests unless it refuses to license its DRM out. (Apparently, the mess with Plays4sure was all but inescapable.)
European governments probably will not allow Apple to continue using a DRM that it refuses to license out indefinitely. I will note that Steve Jobs's note was addressed to a European audience.
If Apple is forbidden to keep Fairplay to itself, then it has the choice of licensing Fairplay out or dropping DRM altogether.
Apple hates licensing things out; it would rather close the iTunes Store than that. But if it cannot convince the RIAA to allow DRM-free downloads, then it will hemorrhage $$$--or rather, cease getting new $$$ from the iTunes Store.
That is Steve Jobs's motivation to combat DRM.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Yes, they have.
But if you have recorded something from the iTunes jukebox on your re-recordable CD, and you decide to record something else onto that CD from the iTunes jukebox, iTunes will wipe the disk clean before it does the second recording.
This is not just a hitch with Fairplay trax. This happens if you try to burn anything on the iTunes jukebox whatsoever onto any non-pristine disc! I nearly lost one of my back-up disks that way; fortunately, the system did give me an "Are you sure?" message, and so I was able to back out.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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
So what? The complaint was that a CD was being wasted; I assume this means OP doesn't want to keep the music on a CD; he just wants to burn it temporarily so he can re-rip as MP3. Better to overwrite a CD-RW than to just throw away a bunch of CD-Rs he doesn't want anyway.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
......A court can either hold two parties to a contract, or it can declare a contract void.......
True, but contracts usually have a clause to the effect that if any part is invalidated, the rest is still applicable. In most contracts there may be a particular issue over which the parties thereto are at odds or which has been made against the law. The court may, but usually doesn't throw out the whole contract, but only the offending sections. In this case it would be the DRM. The court may also direct the parties to come to a new agreement on the disputed or illegal clauses. The bottom line in this dispute is simple: money. The labels get the lion's share of each song sold by ITMS and would lose a lot more than Apple. I doubt whether they would forego all that cash over the DRM issue. In the end, the consumer, Apple and the labels would win with the elimination of burdensome DRM.
All theory is gray
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.I'd say offer it for maybe 5 cents extra, call it the enhanced edition. Not everyone cares about it so offer both.
Isn't that what .NET, managed code, and XNA are for?
Yes but you're talking about different standards over gaps of time. Kind of a bad example since it's happening to a degree with Bluray/HDDVD, but would it have made sense if when CD's came out Wal-mart CD's only worked on Wal-mart DVD players? And Target CD's only on Target players, and Sears CD's on Sears players, etc. And of course, all of them don't have the same stuff. Wal-mart has most of the music, but some of the CD makers have inked "exclusive" deals with target so only Target sells those CD's (that require a Target player naturally). So in the end you have to have a half-dozen CD player decks. Even worse, what about your car? You better pick the one you like the best and put one of those units in your care. And pray to goodness that if it's the Wal-mart one that it doesn't suck, because you don't have the option to buy a better quality one elsewhere.
Overall, the situation is stupid. If I pay for a song, it should be mine to listen to as I wish, on whatever equipment that I have that would play it. When you bought a DVD player naturally your VHS tapes wouldn't play, but that was an equipment limitation. Do you think it would have been fair if when DVD's came out they forbade the construction of the VHS/DVD combo units, and from henceforth all VCR's immediately cease to function?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
If you can't hear the difference between the original redbook 44.1kHz 16-bit audio and 128kBit AAC, there's either something wrong with your speakers, your hearing, or both.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
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.
The part of your post that I took issue with was where you said that if Apple "followed good Windows programming standards (ex. you have to run iTunes as an Administrator)..." Emphasis mine. Putting aside my opinion that the only programs that should be required to be run as admin are the administrative tools and such, forcing iTunes to only be allowed to run as admin is just pointless. Yes, I know that most people using iTunes on Windows probably have their own computer, and so I'm probably in the distinct minority (the people who set up my Windows box actually use the damn thing and don't want me breaking it), but let's say, hypothetically, that there's some 8-year-old in ... pick a state ... Colorado whose parents recently bought him an iPod shuffle, and he wants to put his music on it. The problem he has is that his parents won't do it for him, and they think that he might do something dangerous online (unrelated, of course), so they won't let him run as an admin. I don't know how many teenagers own their own computers, but the scenario may be quite similar for many of them. In that case, Apple would have a problem, since the person who wants to use their product cannot. Most of the time, this would lead to the user getting something like the Zen or the iRiver, and Apple can't have that.
Putting aside my opinion that the only programs that should be required to be run as admin are the administrative tools and such, forcing iTunes to only be allowed to run as admin is just pointless.
m =305042. I still say they had lots of time to fix these problems before Vista's release.
You misinterpreted what I meant. Right now, iTunes 7 requires administrator rights in Windows XP in order to run properly. Part of the new security features of Vista is discouraging users from running an account with admin rights. iTunes 7 does not apparently play nice with these features. However you can apparently work around these problems by "Run As..." the app with an admin account. Apple says on their support page that this will be fixed soonhttp://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnu
Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all saying that I love the fact that my music has DRM attached to it at all. What my point is - I know that it's the case when I purchase it, and I therefore use it accordingly - in this case, on my iPod. This has not really impacted my life in any way shape or form. Whilst my example (of which there were more than one, by the way) may be more extreme to highlight my point, it still stands true. You are not paying for a song - you are paying for a file and the "license" to listen to it. Even when you listen to a song on the radio, someone has paid for the right for you to hear it, in that case, the radio station) that's how the artists, and the company that made it possible for the music to be produced, earn their money. The file you pay for is designed to be read by a specific machine - in this case, an iPod. So, my point remains valid. Using your logic, if I pay for a copy of The Sims on Mac, I then have a "right" to expect that I can play that game on PC, XBOX, PS2 or "Whatever equipment I have that will play it" - truth be told the Mac *is* the only equipment you have that will play it. So - please explain to me why downloading a file that is designed to only be played on an iPod is different? Is it just because digital music is exempt against the expectations we set for other types of digital media? A format is a format - in this case AAC is the format. A player is a player - in this case it is an iPod. Now as for your Wal-mart example - you have it all the wrong way around. The iPod came out well before iTMS. The iPod can play music other than AAC, it can play MP3, for example - so therefore your Wal-Mart player in the car locking me in to Wal-Mart only CD's is not a valid point. You buy the player before you buy the music - if you buy music from the iTMS without owning an iPod, the player isn't the problem - it's the lack of grey matter in your head that's holding you back. I still can't see why people have such a big problem with the situation. Buying an iPod does not lock you in to buying music from iTMS - buying music from iTMS locks you in to listening to it on an iPod. Again, if you don't like being locked in to listening to music on an iPod - then don't buy music from iTMS - isn't it just that simple? It sounds as though the fight against DRM could be mistaken for communist propaganda, don't you think???? "DRM FREE MUSIC FOR THE PEOPLE NOW!!!!" ;-)
Oh. Sorry. I'm not worried, since I don't actually use iTunes on Windows, but it's there because Apple doesn't exactly make it easy to find the standalone version of QuickTime (I know it exists, there's a link on the Firefox plugins to it, but not on Apple's QuickTime page.). I don't plan to move to Vista anytime soon, either... ;-)
Maybe they did have more than enough time, and if they did, I agree that this would be a problem, but then again, maybe not. How much is enough, really?... or does it matter?
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?).