Slashdot Mirror
The Economist, DVD Jon On Apple's DRM Stand
We have two followups this morning to Tuesday's story on Steve Jobs's call to do away with DRM for music. The first is an editorial in The Economist sent in by reader redelm, who notes that as "arguably the world's leading business newspaper/magazine" that publication is in a position to influence legal and political decision-makers who may never have heard of DRM. The Economist says: "Mr Jobs's argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right." Next, Whiney Mac Fanboy sends pointers to two blog entries by "DVD Jon" Johansen. In the first Johansen questions Jobs's misuse of statistics in attempting to prove that consumers aren't tied to iPods through ITMS: "Many iPod owners have never bought anything from the iTunes Store. Some have bought hundreds of songs. Some have bought thousands. At the 2004 Macworld Expo, Steve revealed that one customer had bought $29,500 worth of music." Johansen's second post questions Jobs's "DRM-free in a heartbeat" claim: "There are... many Indie artists who would love to sell DRM-free music on iTunes, but Apple will not allow them... It should not take Apple's iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM. This could be done in a completely transparent way and would not be confusing to the users."
Update: 02/08 16:28 GMT by KD : Added missing links.
Update: 02/08 16:28 GMT by KD : Added missing links.
It's very possible that Apple's contract bans them from selling non-DRMed music alongside DRMed music. This explains why groups like Nettwerk haven't been given the option to sell their music DRM-free. Apple's got the best deal of all the music stores, they must have given up something to get it, and "all music must be DRMed" sounds very cartel-ish and would fit getting the good prices.
The Economist on removing DRMc fm?story_id=8660389
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Maybe I'm new here, but shouldn't there be links to both the Economist article and DVD Jon's second article?
"It should not take Apple's iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM. This could be done in a completely transparent way and would not be confusing to the users."
Yeah, right. Tell that to the vast majority of non-tech savvy iTunes users, who don't understand why they can't make an MP3 CD of their purchased music. I have a friend who likes to make "Mix" CD's for other friends, and they keep getting frustrated when iTunes tells them some of their tracks can't be converted to MP3. I've tried explaining DRM to them, but for the typical layperson, it goes right over their heads.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
But the extremes just don't matter that much. The argument Jobs is trying to refute is this idea that there's a huge mass of iPod owners out there who are locked in due to iTMS DRM. The extreme cases certainly exist, but that doesn't demonstrate that this lock-in actually affects most users.
Getting distribution on iTunes is not as hard as was suggested.
/ viewAlbum?playListId=202470955
If you produce a CD and follow the instructions to have your disc sold on CDBaby.com, they will submit your music to iTunes. In the case of music I've submitted, there was a delay of about six weeks; then we got word that we were live on iTunes.
This is not the full ticket to Hollywood. It's not a huge hurdle either. It's one of many small cumulative things that you do to get your music out there.
Notably there was no contractual lock-in with CDBaby or with iTunes. They own nothing, we retain our copyrights and our ability to distribute in any other channel we like. The whole thing has been artist-friendly.
Our R&B artist on iTunes:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Our other music (ambient & progressive rock) http://www.workshopmusic.com/streams.html
Jobs also came out strongly in favor of:
* Ponies for everyone - who doesn't love ponies?
* Rainbows everyday - wouldn't the world be just that much better?
* Love - it doesn't have to be just for dirty hippies
You gotta hand it to Jobs and his bold stance of anti-DRM and pro ponies, love, and rainbows. Let's all go out and buy incremental upgrades to our iPods!
He knows what average means, and he knows that Steve was specifically referring to the arithmetic mean, because 20 billion songs/ 90 million ipods is the ~22 songs/ipod in question.
He's just saying that using this figure is misleading. Like talking about average fuel economy by dividing all the car miles ever by total gasoline production for the last 110 years. Sure it's the average, but it doesn't really tell you anything about current mileage. Most of those cars are scrap by now, just like many of the ipods sold in the last few years.
I am not a crackpot.
On everage, every human has one testicle and one breast. You have to learn when the average is meaningless (hint: start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation)
We each own an iPod (30 GB Video), and we both have quite a lot of music on them. We each ripped the CD's out of our collection that we wanted to our respective computer, using iTunes (we both have Macs, although I use my Linux computer more), and we independently sync our iPods with that music. Neither of us has even one song that we didn't either purchase on CD or through iTMS, and neither one of us would even think of "borrowing" a CD from someone else, with the intent to rip the tracks for our own use.
I really don't get the piracy thing. If you are going to listen to the music, then you should pay for it, whether that be from purchasing the CDs, or through a legitimate on-line music service. I also don't care to hear arguments against this, because those that argue the loudest are usually the ones with the most non-purchased music in their library. They are being just as self-serving as Mr. Jobs.
Personally, I wish we could do away with DRM, because it is quite difficult to play the songs I legally purchased off of iTMS on my Linux computer. I think that is a load of crap, and that it severely cuts into my fair-use rights, which nobody seems to care about.
No matter where you go... there you are.
When devising our digital store (www.roughtrade.com), we didn't for one moment consider having DRM catalogue included. Contrary to it being a marketing issue of differentiation against would-be digital competitors, us opting to sell only DRM-free MP3's has been moral stance informed by three decades of selling music. We consider it morally wrong to impose one set of ownership rights (on the same album) to those customers preferring to buy one format and not another - instead, we treat all our customers the same, whatever format they decide to purchase. To do otherwise would be disrespectful to our customers accrued over thirty years. As it currently stands, major labels have ignored our long-standing retail support and that of our customers (arguably the roots of their prosperity) in favour of imposing DRM and thereby propagating an uncompetitive digital retail market, whereby retailers such as ourselves are unfairly discriminated against to the continued advantage of an effective monopoly. For Rough Trade, music is not a content driver, music is a passion shared with like-minded people over a counter or website. The more music retailers that uphold this value, the more prosperous our industry would surely become. The sooner DRM is scrapped by major labels, the sooner we can present our long-established customer base a consistent offer, whether they visit our London stores, buy online at our mail-order website, or download MP3 from our digital store website. The end result being we can compete on a level playing field, allowing music lovers to choose their digital retailer based on 'music lover' factors such as the retailers ability to recommend exciting new music, and not uncompetitive, discriminating terms of format availability.
Apple hates DRM because it's an arms race that sucks up resources. Programmers that could be working on cool code are stuck ensuring that FairPlay doesn't get cracked, and that they get a patch up within the time framed dictated by their contract. Without DRM, the iPod and iTunes codebases could be trimmed to run faster and possibly even allow for the API to be published.
Mod parent up! DVD Jon may be a cult-hero around here (I know I like him), but he certainly isn't privy to the negotiations that Apple has had with the major labels. He's smart, not omnipotent. It would not surprise me in the least to find out that Apple's agreement with at least one of the major labels includes a prohibition on Apple selling any unprotected music.
:)
Jon is not an idiot, though, Mr. Parent.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Maybe DVD Jon is just worried he will be out of a job. Didn't he work for months and even years to break Fairplay just so he could sell it to rival music stores? Regradless he also has his own interests that must be recognized, he is not simply a champion of free information.
just this morning, i read this (Hollywood Takes Its Concerns About Piracy and Taxes to Washington):
i have a feeling that the prime mover and shaker in the wars for/ against drm will be fought mainly along this battlefront. so either hardware manufacturers, by ignoring content creators, will drag content creators kicking and screaming into reality, or content creators will probably, as a mode of attack, simply buy hardware manufacturers, and silence them via business channels
some, like sony, are both hardware and content creators. internal battles on the issue within sony might be revelatory for what our future holds
i'm actually pretty upbeat about the future in this regard though. people like jobs show that hardware manufacturers are just as willing to dream about bullying around content creators as visa versa. it was the content creators dithering and denial on the subject of downloadability that allowed jobs to create iTunes and lead us into the future, so to say. from an obvious business perspective in terms of natural fit, content creators should have been the ones offering a download storefront on the internet, but they didn't out of their fear and panic about what the internet meant to their existence. along came a hardware manufacturer, with nothing to lose on the content front, and therefore no fear, and filled the natural void of consumer want/ need that wasn't being filled as it should have naturally been filled by the content creators. and for dithering as they did, now content creators are in a deeper hole because they have to deal with a formidable opponent, jobs, with nothing to lose and no reason not to defy content creators. he is now in charge of the largest growing revenue stream for the content creators, not one of their own stooges. good for the consumer
and besides, even if all of american hardware and content creators were consolidated business-wise against the interests of us, the consumers, there is always hardware manufacturers in china, or russia, or india, or europe, who would be all too happy to steal the lions share of the marketplace from consumers sick of the ridiculous 1984-style limitations on their hardware that would obviously result from collusion between hardware and content creators
in other words, i don't think content creators have enough business muscle AND international clout to completely limit the range of drm-free options we as consumers will be able to access hardware-wise. and therefore, content creators and their dreams of completely controlling how we access our own culture is doomed
an odious intrusion, simply because they want to preserve their antiquated pre-internet business model. no, i have a better option: why don't you just fade away and die, movie/ music conglomerates? you need us. we don't need you. welcome to the future: the internet has rendered old style media distribution models, where you could easily put up your tolls, archaic. in the future, artists will reach consumers directly
in short, you're history
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You said the same thing here.
But you're looking at that backwards. It's not about preventing you from playing non-aac formats and locking you into the store. It's about selling you music that only plays on an iPod, and locking you into the iPod. Once you have a $500 collection of iTMS music, it becomes too much of a waste of money to make your next purchase *not* an iPod. Protects their revenue stream. The hardware.
Nor does the average matter. The statistic that would matter is this. . . what percentage of iPod owners have at least one track on their iPod that they purchased through the iTunes store? Because any iPod owner who has a single song from iTunes is "locked in" in the sense that they can't switch to a different device without giving up music they have already paid for.
Everything else is just a measure of how severely they are locked in, how much already-paid-for music it would cost them to switch. But even if the switching cost is to give up just one track that you already paid for -- lock in is lock in.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
You're incredibly naive if your really believe that. I've had to explain to my girlfriend on three separate occasions that her music will only work on iTunes or an iPod, and that I can't play it on my Linux computer. I had to convince her sister that if she bought a Creative mp3 player, her music from iTunes wouldn't work on it. Apple makes it easy for people to play their music and transfer it to their iPod. Unless somebody has bought a music player other than an iPod and tried to transfer music, tried to burn an mp3 cd, or tried to use Linux, most likely they're only loosely aware that there are some things they can't do with their iTunes music. Apple's DRM is not nearly as restrictive as it could be. If nothing else just burn a regular CD and rip it back. You may care about quality, but the difference isn't enough for most users to care.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The artist often gets a very minimal cut of sales on iTunes, and only complies because otherwise they could lose other contracts. I'd hardly call it greedy to try and keep your job. The listener has a choice between driving to the store and buying a CD, downloading something illegally (the greediest option), or downloading it from iTunes. Then they have as many choices as they have with a CD, because they can in fact burn the music to a CD. There are two groups that could be construed as particularly greedy. The publisher, who chose DRM in an attempt to prevent piracy, would go under if everyone shared digital music freely. Then there's Apple, the distributor, who seems to have the most to gain by locking people to a platform. But Apple is saying that decision lies with the distributors.
As far as why Apple doesn't sell some tracks without DRM, I don't think its so much a matter of confusion as not wanting to advertise DRM. As I've stated, there are iTunes users out there who don't realize there are restrictions on their music. If the music store didn't distinguish between DRM free tracks and tracks with DRM, users would never know for sure what they're getting until they'd bought it. But if they put anything to indicate that some tracks have DRM and some tracks don't, it would call attention to DRM, and users would begin to realize their music had restrictions on them. Whether you'll admit it or not, right now most iTMS customers are blissfully ignorant towards DRM, and the only way Apple is going to make sure every user knows about DRM is going to be in the context that the iTMS is now DRM Free.
Why is this creating such a commotion, or better yet, why are people arguing against Jobs? I'm no apologist, but his stance made 100% perfect sense to me.
DRM:
Look, if you are required by some companies to use DRM, what are you going to do? 1., use it or 2., don't and don't sell their music. I think DRM is a sham, but it's pretty clear what the companies want that own the music they license out to iTunes.
iPod:
Again, I agree with Jobs here. The iPod plays MP3 and AAC, which can both be considered 'standards'. The only thing missing, of course, is Ogg. But this is pretty good. I don't see anyone bitching much about the Zune which has THE WORST DRM imaginable on a player. Not only is your DRM-free songs wrapped in DRM, but when you share (or squirt - jesus..) these with the social - this is ANY track mind you - it's wrapped in DRM and the receiver can only listen to it 3 times and/or it expires automagically in something like three days. I can't begin to say how unbelievably lame this is for the consumer, but makes perfect sense to the record companies. Where's the uproar against the worlds largest software company regarding that?
iTS:
Yes, it does not sell all indie labels (some tho) and yes, Apple probably could roll in something to allow non-DRM stuff to work perfectly with DRM stuff. But again, without having priviledged access to the project/source, who's to say how that could be done. I'm sure it could be though. I still think Apple does a pretty good job with the iTS. I mean how many other music stores out there fight with the record cartel to keep prices low? If it was Bill G or Ballmer or whoever else, you know they wouldn't give a shit about $.99 price and kowtow to the labels every wish. This is a FACT.
Licensing FairPlay:
I'm with Jobs on this one. M$ tried it with the 'Plays For Sure' and look where they are now, copying iTS/iPod. For a company providing a product, NOT a socially beneficial service, it makes sense to keep it small and in control. Doesn't mean I support FairPlay, but from a practical product standpoint, Jobs is right and the real goal is to get RID of FairPlay, not expand it to more vendors.
In the end, again, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course the Microsoft club is gonna slam everything Jobs does - cuz they're not #1 in that area, so they'll naturally hate everything else. But the Econ calling the article 'self serving'? I dunno, I guess, but how is taking the labels to task so self serving? When did Ballmer last call for the labels to drop DRM? Or any other big computer/electronics exec? I think Gates went as far as mentioning at one point that DRM "won't work" but, that falls very short compared to Jobs speech.
I also don't look at the iPod as some big monopolistic, lock in mechanism. I can play all the formats I use on it except, again, Ogg. And for indie artists, there's always eMusic or CDs. The Econ article, and many others, cite lock-in as a argument the EU is using, but seriously, why would someone jump ship to a player from M$ or Sony? Plus, what does Jobs really have to lose if the EU rules iTS/iPod illegal? Fine, worst case, don't sell to them. And then what DRM will the EU run to? M$? Sony? Or will they spend years and years coming up with some 'standard' that then fades away when the labels finally cave in to unprotected tracks, but only because consumers demanded it from them? The EU may sue or whatever, but Apple dropping FairPlay is not going to happen and again, music players are not computers, so the 'lock-in' will fade.
I think, if anything, more people should be backing Jobs. What other high profile hardware maker is saying the same? M$? Sony? Creative? Sandisk? His stance on having the EU look at EMI and Universal is dead on. I've been in the music industry and they ARE the culprit in this case. 100%. If anyone opened up an online music store tomorrow and wanted major label music, it w
Jon's position reminds me of an old joke:
A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"
The man below says, "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."
"You must be an engineer", says the balloonist.
"I am", replies the man. "How did you know?"
"Well", says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's of no use to anyone."
Technically, since Apple doesn't do the encryption until after download, it would be trivial to implement.
The problem isn't implementing it, the problem is that unless the Big Four labels go along with it there's a huge risk and no benefit. One of Apple's "lines in the sand" for the iTunes Music Store right from the start was that all music would be available on the same terms: you can play ALL the songs in the store on 5 computers, you can burn them ALL to disc, they ALL cost the same. Making an exception for a few small labels, or even a lot of them, may violate their existing contract with the big four and would certainly hurt them when they have to renegotiate.
And there's no need: eMusic.com already fills that market, and it's cheaper than the iTunes store!
But wait, there's more! Let's complete the joke:
The man below says, "You must be in management."
"I am", replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well", says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault. "
Nah, Jon, I'm in the same position I was before, and it's not a problem, so it's nobody's fault. See, I'm one of the people who's supposed to be locked in to the iPod.
I've bought 286 tracks from the iTunes Music Store, plus a dozen TV shows. That's over $300, and I'm not locked in at all. I've played this music on an iPod Shuffle, an HP Pocket PC, and a cheap Magic Star MP3 player. I have done this using nothing but Apple's own software, unmodified, using instructions provided by Apple on their website.
Yes, technically, I've lost a fraction of the sound quality by remixing their old ad campaign into "mix, burn, rip", but who cares? Buying music where absolute fidelity matters from the iTMS is daft... you've accepted a loss in quality just by buying it in lossy-compressed format to begin with. I buy classical music on CD, and I don't listen to it in a noisy office through tiny earbuds.
The real lock-in for iPods isn't the music, it's the accessories. Apple's changed the iPod form factor and connectors far less often than their competitors, so there's easily a dozen times as many accessories available for the iPod as for any other MP3 player... probably than all the others put together.
Right now, I don't have an MP3 player. My daughter's iPod Mini broke, so I gave her my shuffle. I'm looking at new MP3 players now, and right now I'm inclined to get something other than an iPod. The new shuffle looks sweet, but I don't like the click-wheel on the higher end iPods. If I decide to stick with a flash based player I'll probably get an iPod Shuffle, but the Toshiba Gigabeat (the real thing, not Microsoft's rebadged "Zune") looks pretty good.
I covered this in my journal but I'll say it here too:
The issue is that the landscape has changed. The iTS and iPod exist in a symbiotic relationship where the strength of one strengthens the other. But that's about to come to an end. MP3 playing mobile phones are becoming more and more viable, with flash memory plummeting in price and the carriers themselves seeing OTA music sales as a great way to make use of their under-utilized Internet services. People don't like having to carry multiple devices around, and the convenience factor of a device that is a music store and mobile music player in one is going to, ultimately, trump the iPod. Right now, Apple's saving grace is the relative incompetence of most of the mobile phone makers, they can't rely upon that forever.
This is one side of the deal. They could have dealt with that by producing a viable mobile iTunes player and licensing it, or by dominating the mobile phone market, but what they've actually decided to do is enter the mobile phone market as a niche player. This makes them a competitor to all the other manufacturers, who are unlikely to license any kind of "mobile iTunes", and also means they'll never get a substantial market share of the new market in the same way that they did the iPod. One can make all kinds of guesses as to why they've decided to do this, but the bottom line is that Apple's days as the #1 seller of MP3 playing hardware are numbered.
The other is Vista. Vista has upped the ante in terms of DRM available. Mac users will be locked out of the content that will be available under Vista's DRM, and those chosing to publish content under a DRM scheme will see Vista's, as the one available to the most number of people, as being the one to go for.
It is no longer in Apple's best long term interests to promote DRM. In fact, DRM is likely to bite it to a point that its own platform may well no longer be viable within a few years.
Apple has, at least, dealt with that in one way: their computers, if push comes to shove, are capable of running Windows, and if it becomes a really serious issue, Apple could migrate to a Windows based platform. This would be the end of them as a company with control over their own platform, and would make them another Boutique computer maker like Lenovo and Sony. So naturally it's not where they want to go.
So I honestly believe Jobs is sincere when he claims to dislike DRM. He does... now that it's looking like it'll be a serious problem for Apple in the future. A successful DRM scheme from a competitor could well destroy Apple's position as an independent computer maker, making them beholden to that competitor and its interests. Such a situation has not been as realistic in the past as it is today.
One more thing: If Vista's DRM starts to take off, it may be time for Apple to take the gloves off with respect to Mac OS X market share. I'll leave you to speculate as to what they could do to make that happen.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That's a half-good point, and I'm gonna tip my hat (half way) and give you half of a "touche'" for it.
But it still isn't quite the same situation. When we used cassette tapes, we could play them in any cassette player we wanted, regardless of who manufactured it. A cassette was a cassette was a cassette. Our tapes became obsolete because technology changed, and offered us benefits that convinced us to switch to something newer -- cds gave us track by track access and an order of magnitude better quality -- and for a time the manufacturers all put out stereos that could play your cassettes or cds.
In the case of digital audio, the iTunes DRM songs can only be played in the player(s) produced by a single manufacturer, and are incompatible with any other. There is no fundamental difference in technology between a protected iTunes track and a track encoded with mp3, ogg, or whatever. The issue of whose device you can play it on is the only significant difference between a DRMed track and a non-DRMed one).
In short, your point about cassettes has to do with format lock-in. The issue with Apple's DRM is more about vendor lock in.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.