Slashdot Mirror
Warner Rejects Jobs' DRM Position
massivefoot writes "Warner Music has rejected the suggestion from Steve Jobs that DRM should be removed from music downloads. In an open letter this week, Jobs said that removing the software would also allow greater usability for customers, as any online music store would be able to sell songs that would work on all players. Warner Music, the world's fourth largest record company, seems far from convinced. "
With a strong arugment like that, how can Jobs respond?
Seriously, that's all the linked article quotes him as saying. Next up we'll discuss what President Bush meant when he said "The Iraq situation is"
I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, at this response. Don't these companies work logically, with policies dictated by common sense rather than a dogmatic fear of trying new things? Particularly companies like Warner, who as we all know prides itself on being at the cutting edge of business, striving always to find new ways to make music affordable and available to all- .. wait, what?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
In an open letter this week, Jobs said that removing the software would also allow greater usability for customers, as any online music store would be able to sell songs that would work on all players. Warner Music, the world's fourth largest record company, seems far from convinced.
And what, if anything, would music labels know about customer usability and convenience?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Here's an MSNBC article with just a few more details. It has the RIAA's response:
It's the false fear that if DRM doesn't exist their income will plummet to 0, which isn't the case. Peopel that want music for free have been and still are getting it for free. Removing DRM may convert those people that get it for free BECAUSE of DRM to actually pay for music they can use anywhere.
One of the reasons why I used allofmp3.com for my music was becuase it was in a format I could use anywhere and that wasn't restricted by DRM.
And it's a problem when your record company is trying to cling to a failing business model. The gloriousness of CD's back int he 90s was that reguardless of the brand of player, location of it, and the age I could play my CD's on it. It makes no sense to restrict music under the false veil of "protection".
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
"without logic and merit".
This from an industry that thinks it's logical to/that:
* Get a share of the profit from iPod sales.
* Adjusting for inflation CD should cost around $30! Why can everyone see what a great bargain they are!
* If it's on your computer and you didn't legally download it, you must of pirated it!
* The quality of music has nothing to do with lower CD sales.
I know they don't read this but...
STOP treating your customers as thieves and maybe they will buy your product more often.
STOP dishing out crap, your customers will buy quality music.
DRM does not stop pirates any more then closed window will stop thieves if you leave the door open.
... Steve Ballmer rejects suggestion to release Vista under GPL.
Who would have thought?
Here is the complete list of Warner's songs that are currently unavailable for "unofficial" download thanks to DRM:
...
...
...
Those record execs must know what they're doing though. I'm sure they have a perfectly logical reason for selling the genuine customer a worse product in order to not prevent something.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Bronfman is the grandson of a bootlegger, but unlike Kennedy, he shows exactly zero sense in his fat head. An elitist gangster who is now on his way to screwing up his second corporation. Having accepted Gates's bribe on the Zune -- wow, he must have made $100,000 on that deal by now -- he now speaks with a golden tongue. What a maroon.
I think all you eager Apple-haters should notice one thing: what's the RIAA's opinion on all this? Why, they adopt the "Norwegian Consumer Orgy-Borgys" position on all this: that Apple should bite the bullet and share the profitable portion of its business with all the losers. The RIAA. Do you get it now, morons? In response, Jobs offers a truly free market, and the labels, most of them, run in fear. (Though I heard a rumor that EMI is actually considering it.)
What we need now is a consumer movement. You want to start a boycott of all online music until they drop DRM? I'll sign that petition. Will I angrily denounce Apple for not sharing its DRM? Not on your life. That's the RIAA's position, chowderheads.
EMI (potentially) gets our business.
Warner does not.
Favorite artists who are on Warner labels get letters saying that their new albums will not be purchased as long as they continue to do business with Warner, along with a full explanation why.
Record companies don't care about their customers, but bands care about their fans. If we can get artists to jump ship to the companies that "get it" (or better yet, take the plunge and try self-distribution), and get the message out to new bands not to sign with the companies that don't get it, that will send make the message louder and more clearly than anything else. The media companies are not really the "content creators," as much as they like to throw the term around. The message can't just be "adapt or die;" it has to be "adapt or we (artists and fans alike) will kill you off."
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
"..." just hit the pirate bay and man, this shit is TIGHT!
Well, therein lies the crux of the problem. Apple says it's not practical (or even possible) to adequately DRM music and license the technology to others, because that necessarily means sharing "secrets," and the more people that you share the secret with, the harder it is to keep the secret. That makes sense to me.
The music industry and its players are saying, in essence, "You're a smart company, figure out a way to share the secret with others, and yet still keep the secret." That doesn't make sense to me. Witness what's happened to CSS. When the secret was let out, it was impossible to retroactively say, "Okay, everyone that was using that secret, start using this one instead..."
The thing that really chaps my hide is that let's say that Apple says, "Okay, let's share the secret," and lo and behold, the secret gets out and Apple's DRM is irrevocably cracked open. Who here thinks that the RIAA and the major industry players will say, "Well, darn, I guess that's the risk we ran by telling Apple to do something they warned us was impractical."
Yeah, I don't either.
* The quality of music has nothing to do with lower CD sales.
I'm sorry, but this is the same brand of BS as the old saw 'things were sooooo much better in my day, and everything since is crap' in every area of every art-form/discipline/job area/whatever since time began. Music doesn't get better or worse; it changes. Due to Sturgeon's Law, 99% of it will be crap, just as 99% of music when you were growing up was crap. Since we are a more media inundated society, the sheer quantities are higher, but proportionately it is the same.
Familiarity with certain styles will make a person more tolerant of mediocre talent in particular genres or styles, but not tolerant of mediocrity in others. To a person who listens to Rock, they might enjoy John Q. Crappy's rock band but can't stand the local sucky hip-hop artist. It doesn't mean that rock music is better. The same goes for generational changes with music, only you have to deal with the additional power of nostalgia.
And, it should be noted that CD sales of Beethoven, Stravinsky, et al. are dropping just as precipitously as modern pop artists, so I would submit that even the 'appearance' of diminshing quality is not a significant causal factor.
The culprit is a simple cultural acclimation to a technology that the industry simply hasn't taken advantage of. And they will probably die for it. Are you crying? I'm not.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Generally, satire is funny.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
That's the kicker, isn't it? Their back catalog of artists that were not exactly barn-burners is huge. What does it profit them to sit on the music and not let it be heard? They could start an "emusic" like service that gave, for $10 a month, 40 downloads of old, crufty music that has been out of print for decades... (drm-free of course... why in the hell would they protect it? They're not making any money off it as it is...)
Why don't they? Because they're stupid profiteering criminals who desire to screw innovation and progress so they can continue to exist. I've no sympathy for their whiny "we're losing money" "CD's should cost more" bull. They are clinging to a dead business model and cannot be bothered to travel with the rest of humanity into the future. Let's put them on an iceberg and be done with this fiasco. The Movie industry isn't far behind in terms of stupid... but at least they recognize where their profit lies... and it ain't putting their product in a vault and hiding it underground for 100 years. (well not as much of it...)
May their collective death be painful.... It's closer than they think...
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Thought it's no surprise that due to pressure in certain European countries Apple is re-evaluating their options, I still think this could potentially be a good thing, specially if consumers back up the 'sell DRM-free music' option. This might be as good a time as any. Who knows maybe this is the year that the DRM fight goes up one level.
A lot of the things that Jobs states in his essay are true. More devices with the same DRM scheme will be harder to update once the DRM scheme gets cracked. No matter what new DRM scheme is developed someone will crack it. He told the recording industry 'big four' this when he approached them about the iTunes Music Store, and it's true today as well.
Personally, I stopped buying iTunes music because I recognize that the DRM limits my options with it, and frankly I like choice. I do have an iPod and chances are any music I buy will go on it, and I probably upgrade to an iPod because it does what I need. Over 90% of the music on my iPod is DRM free. I do like to support artists I like and in fact I've bought a good amount of music from iTunes at one point or another not because I wanted DRM music, but I felt at least I had to support the artist in some way. In other cases, I've bought one song from iTunes and bought the CD from a store once i decided I liked that artist.
Steve Jobs also stated in his essay:
Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free.So what it comes down to is us the consumers who "bitch and moan" about DRM, to take this opportunity while it's still fresh in the RIAA's mind, and write constructive, honest, and polite letters to them letting them know what we think.
Because ultimately DRM-free music is not Apple's concern, it's ours.
.... ... }
int main (void) {
Jobs said "it's not technologically possible" with qualifiers. Jobs' point is that DRM itself is "not technologically possible", that there's always going to be a way and someone will find it. Licensing Fairplay is "not technologically possible" because they can't "protect the protection" to the limits stipulated in their existing contracts if they license it.
The art of negotiation. Get the opponent to demand you give them what you want to give them. By advocating for removing DRM, the record companies will now demand Jobs open Fairplay DRM to others. Jobs will accomodate their demands by rewriting the contracts to reduce his responsibility for problems.
Now if Steve had started by asking to rewrite the contracts, the record company would have responded by demanding a share of all iPod sales, higher per song prices, etc. Now he has them demanding they rewrite the contracts so he CAN license Fairplay.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Because a lot of people get residuals off each copy sold, including the songwriter and his publisher.
You mean like EMI?
A few months back the Dutch organization of the music industry (BREIN) claimed that it wasn't the music industry that forced DRM on their tunes, but instead it was Microsoft and Apple who forced them to do it. They didn't want it, but they couldn't have it any other way. (Right in the face of the news that eMusic had just launched their European shops, but meh, who's counting...)
Right here, we have proof that it's the other way around. Jobs essentially offered the big music companies an opportunity to show that it was indeed Apple who forced DRM into iTunes, and clearly it shows that it's in fact the music industry that wants (and think they need) DRM.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
This clearly will gain Jobs friends in the public domain, everyone dislikes the strict DRM apple has to some extent. But music companies have long memories, and Steve Jobs has effectively bought some publicity and goodwill from the public by making the music companies look like bad guys- This, they will not like. Long after the public applause has died these music companies will know plainly that Jobs bought credit at their cost.