Slashdot Mirror
Music Execs Say Apple's DRM Hurting Industry
EMB Numbers writes "C-Net says last year saw a 131 percent jump in digital sales, but overall the industry still saw about a 4 percent decline in revenue. Some executives at this week's Digital Music Forum East conference lashed out at Jobs, blaming Apple and its CEO for their troubles. The impression at the conference was that Jobs' call three weeks ago for DRM-free music was anything but sincere. As the article puts it, 'Apple has maintained a stranglehold on the digital music industry by locking up iTunes music with DRM ... and "it's causing everybody else who is participating in the marketplace — the other service providers, the labels, the users — a lot of pain. If they could simply open it up, everybody would love them.""
DRM is what's hurting the (online) music industry. It needs to be eliminated, not "opened up".[1] Looks like the industry is a little irked at Jobs' statement.
Apple has already laid down its cards. "Open" DRM (can there be such a thing?[2]) is just as bad as any other DRM. It does not serve the customer.
The labels are hurting the industry with DRM. Apple is willing to ditch it wholesale (i.e., isn't interested in iTunes/iPod "lock-in").
The ball's in the music industry's court, not Apple's.
[1] Arguments about whether or not there would have been an iTunes store in the first place aside. There is one now, and online music has made a good showing. It's up to the industry to decide how to proceed, not Apple. Simply changing the face of DRM isn't a "step in the right direction."
[2] Yes, I know what they mean by "open" DRM. But who's it open to? Only other competitive music stores? So we can have one universal DRM "standard"? Aside from the massive technical hurdles to coalescing DRM with all the disparate formats and stores, is that really the right step to take?
ALL music should be DRM free. Nothing I hate more than buying a song on Itunes (or anywhere else) and trying to place it on my MP3 player from a few years back. I can burn it to a CD and then rip the MP3s out, so why don't they save me a few steps?
It almost drives me to find the song elsewhere. I said almost.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
No matter what the customers say, all the music execs understand is one word ... "blah blah blah blah DRM blah blah"
From the article:
... up (a lot)
CD sales fell 23 percent worldwide between 2000 and 2006.
Last year saw a 131 percent jump in digital sales
overall the industry still saw about a 4 percent decline in revenue.
So CD sales... down... (a lot)
Digital music sales
Overall down... ( a little)
Blame Jobs!
Brilliant!
What color is the sky in their world?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
The music industry must be getting the shit kicked out of them in the court of public opinion. This is what - the 5th puff piece from them since Jobs bombed them? I've lost count actually.
Great day for corporate porn fans everywhere!
So do the music execs *WANT* DRM, or do they *NOT* want it? They can't have it both ways. They should just be happy that people are buying music at all lately, what with the production-grade excrement coming out of most labels lately.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
As I understand it, Apple is the technological source of this DRM in question, but not the muscle that pushes for its incorporation into the files. If Disney wants DRM on its digital downloadable movies as a provision for Apple to sell them, then it's Disney that is failing to "open up." If Apple refuses to put DRM on their products, then I'd guess they wouldn't have those products to sell.
iTunes is not the problem, but the insane rules that govern the content that is distributed through it. Recently Apple said that they would drop DRM if the industry allowed. NOW the industry is crying that the DRM that THEY mandated to be inplace are actually hurting sales!?!
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
So the customers don't want it, the music execs don't want it, the vendors don't want it, and I don't think he musicians are clamoring for it either... Why do we have DRM again?
I say someone needs to call the bluff.
I always thought that big labels DEMANDED DRM to sign digital distribution agreements.
Am I right or am I wrong?
Don't forget the music industries 'other' DRM (Dumb Retarded Music) when mentioning falling sales figures. I just read an AP piece that says Rap & Hiphop has fallen 21% because much of the music is percieved as 'too negative' (aka just plain sucks).
Customers don't want DRM
Apple claims to not want DRM
Music execs want something open.
"Open-DRM"? like "Democratic-Dictatorship"?
Sales are down because of DRM.
It seems like there are two dimensions to the 'DRM problem,' and that Apple and the music companies disagree on which of these needs to be changed:
In Jobs' letter (whenever that was) he called for DRM-free music, because he said an open DRM standard wouldn't work (it would be too easily reverse-engineered, since many entities would have access to the code, or whatever).
An open DRM standard is exactly what the music companies want, however, and that's the point of this story. The music companies don't want to give up their (ill-gotten) rights over the music they sell but they want to appear like they're doing something for the consumer, so they argue for open DRM and call Jobs insincere. Ahh, it makes me angry.
If they could simply open it up, everybody would love them.
Everybody but the customer.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
They made Apple use DRM. And what about the dozen or so companies using various forms of MS DRM???? IF anything their incompatibility is hindering sales. At least with Apples DRM you can use it on most WIN and OS X .
Let's see, if I were Jobs and I had a near-monopoly on sales of digital music, would I give it away?
DRM is a financial fact of life, just like circumventing it is a technical fact of life. The only thing that will kill the DRM-monster is the sword of falling profits, and it looks like that is lost for the moment. No ammount of wishful thinking about open source DRM or Apple giving up its strangle hold will change this story.
Money. It is ALWAYS about money.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are you going to have to buy it all over again? Will they give you new copies of what you purchased? Will all the new DRM-free players also be able to handle any media with any outmoded DRM to allow backwards compatibility of things I've already bought?
Has anyone thought that perhaps the 180 degree change of opinion from Apple's side might find you paying twice for your "Best of The Rolling Stones" album?
The music executives demanded that every bit of music that comes out be "protected" with ConsumerRightsArentPermitted, and got, at least with Apple iTunes, exactly what they asked for.
So now they are reaping the consequences of their own shortsighted greed and contempt for their customers and they blame the messenger?
I've been using ITMS and iTunes & I'm on my third iPod. I can't say I've ever felt restricted in my ability to move the content I bought between devices, back it up etc. I'm about to try my first bulk move from one machine to another, so we'll see how that goes. When I have had a download issue, I have never been unduly hassled about crediting the money spent so I could restart the download. In short Apple seems to act in good faith. I think the real issue is sour grapes frm the established industry. Apple made a runaway success by providing an easy to manage device, store and end user application. As to DRM being eliminated. I don't think so. There's too many ignorant people out there that seem to think other people's creativity and hard work should be theirs for the taking. They're wrong.
What is the porblem?!? I don't get it, the iPods are open for others. They happily support MP3's. Or don't they?! You just need to sell MP3's and the customer can play them. Ah, you do not want to sell MP3's?! Not my porblem, I am happy with it... :-)
...then the industry should revoke, or not renew the license it gave apple, and sign a deal with someone who meets their requirements.
If they're getting hurt so bad by Apple's structure, it's their responsibility to stop dealing with Apple. End of story.
The music companies will blame whoever they have to, "Apple's DRM is hurting sales!" or "Our customers are stealing!!" they will never blame themselves for releasing an inferior product (shitty music) that tanks in sales.
Well, I say music execs are screwing over the world industry. hope they all burn in hell...if there is one.
You spelled "MONEY" incorrectly
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't necessarily agree with the motives of the music execs, but they have a point. Jobs' essay was a load of bull. Has Apple EVER strived for openness or interoperability? hell no. In fact, they go out of their way to make their products incompatible with competitors.
They only allow windows on their systems because it allows them to shove their hardware down more throats. They have nothing to gain by opening their DRM. Apple will hold their current position with itunes until the music industry finds a way to force them to change... and when that happens Apple will still get the credit for it.
Now watch as I get modded down by a bunch of ifanboys who want to have manbabies with Steve Jobs...
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Cohen then proceeded to shackle his brother to a chair and ordered a subordinate to inject 8 units of pain serum, all the while screaming "WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. JUST TELL US WHERE THE MONEY IS."
Music Industry: We want DRM.
Steve Jobs: You got it. Hey, it only works with iPods as well. Isn't product tying great!
Music Industry: Can we have more control over our product?
Steve Jobs: Nope.
Music Industry: Oh. Uhm... We'll leave
Steve Jobs: No you won't.
Music Industry: Oh. Ummm can you open up Fairplay. This will mean there's some competition and we can afford to ditch you.
Steve Jobs:: Nope. Why would I ever do that?
Music Industry: We'll make you look like the bad guy.
Steve Jobs: You can try. I made downloadable music viable, produce the gadget all the cool kids want and I don't sue children and old ladies. Not only that, but I can plausibly blame all your troubles on you.
Apple, in it's traditionally clever way, has turned the tables on the music industry. The music industry, in initial negotiations, simply stated that they wanted "DRM." Apple designed and built a form of DRM that (A) minimally inconveniences their customers, (B) complies with the letter of the agreement, and most importantly, (C) uses the DRM to lock iTunes to its player, thereby profiting from the arrangement and effectively killing any other competitors. (Even MS can't break into the market.) As Apple has the only digital music store anybody would want to use, they use their considerable muscle to bully the music industry into doing what they want.
This is NOT what the music industry wanted. When they say "DRM," they mean DRM that protects *them,* not resellers. So now they're crying for Apple to "open" their DRM. They still want DRM, just DRM that doesn't give Apple the above benefits, the goal being to effectively give their competitors a chance to flourish. If this happens, the music industry will regain the upper hand in negotiations, and start forcing Apple to do its bidding. This will, of course, result in higher prices and poorer service.
The music industry is betting the public won't understand the difference between "opening" DRM, and doing away with it. The former helps nobody but the music industry. If they succeed in convincing consumers that the industry is opposed to DRM, and mean old Apple is forcing it on them, they'll be able to turn public opinion against Apple and get their demands met. This has nothing to do with helping the consumer, and everything to do with the music industry trying to wrestle its way out of Apple's iron grip on its throat.
We'll see how this turns out.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Watching the music industry squirm is like watching FOX news -- war is peace, freedom is slavery.
I wish I could.
Look at the numbers in the article... online sales more than double but overall is down 4%. What should this be telling them? People WILL purchase music online, they are willing to pay and not pirate.
What else will it tell the **AA? It says people are fed up with thier practices and are starting to vote with their wallet. Revenue goes down they cannot possibly be at fault so it must be Steve Jobs. He did it! We did not make any bad decitions we are doing what our customers want and protecting our artists.
Well... the reality is Jobs is selling the music because he is comming closer than anyone to what customers ACTUALLY want. Online sales more than doubled and who caused that? Also of note is that they never said CD sales are down... only that revenue is down. Expenses such as suing so many people might drain revenue no?
The music industry has spent the last few years pursuing its 'enemies'. Things continued to slide. Now, like any population fighting over a diminishing resource, they are turning on each other.
Soon the companies that make up the music industry will start dying, like any other starving population. Perhaps in the end there will be enough of a market left to support some of the present players, perhaps not? In their ashes will rise a new set up music companies, ones that serve their customers and give the musicians a fair deal.
The music industries realize that Apple's grip over the DRM distribution used for mose music is also the key to its elimination.
If Apple holds control over popular use of DRM, then it is inevitable music companies will have to offer DRM free music - because it's the only way to get the pricing control they really want. They don't want to be without DRM, which is why the demand Jobs give it up... it's like they built a giant castle, and just as it was done Jobs snuck in and raised the drawbridge. Now he's threatening to set a match to the powderkegs inside and destroy the whole castle. They don't want the general population to be able to enjoy the castle, they want it back for themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I Says Crap Music and Overpriced CD's Hurting Industry
Then you need just one hack, and you can have all your music be DRM-free everywhere! No more multiple-different-hacks for different DRM's.
stuff |
Think about this...
Apple is actually doing the CONSUMERS a service here by keeping their own DRM locked up tight as a drum. They have the attention of the labels and all the "bad guys" in the game because they simply REFUSE to open their DRM to them. (Horrah Apple!)
What does this accomplish? First, it causes heartburn for the bad guys. I mean, after all... What better way to piss someone off than to say "You can't have it"? If the labels can't have access to it, they can't change it on a whim whenever they feel like it (as they do with everything else if someone breaks their scheme).
Second, it gives us, the consumers, the real voice. By not opening up the DRM and saying to the labels "It's either all or nothing, and you aren't going to control how we do it", they're effectively standing up for us. While it's true that DRM hurts us as consumers, it hurts the labels more by not giving them the control they so much desire. So, in this way, Apple is exerting their leverage in saying "We don't want it, but since you do, you'll have to deal with it on OUR terms, not yours."
So, this just pisses them off. Perhaps Apple thinks by doing so, the labels will grow tired of it and finally wake up to the fact their brick and mortar buildings are burning to the ground around them with their asses planted firmly in the napalm waiting for that spark to blow the whole thing wide open for us... Who knows? Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't.
Although, I think it's going to take more than Apple to crack that shiny titanium ass the labels have. It's going to take ALL of us standing up as one and saying "We're not taking it anymore." We're going to have to REALLY hurt them. The only way we can do that is to not buy ANYTHING they have to offer at all.
Somehow, I just can't see that unition happening... We have the power, we have the control. But we have no concerted effort to put this to an end for ourselves.
I, for one, haven't bought a single CD (or song) for a number of years. At one point, I did buy CD's... Until I got one that was copy protected. Not one CD or song since that day.
We need more people to do just that.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thom
It was modded up three points, in the time it took me to comment. Thats a fairly accurate portrayal of whats actually going on. Don't believe the crap around here that "open drm" isn't possible. Thats exactly what MS has done, and exactly what the labels want out of apple.
It *is* possible, but Apple is either trying to maintain it supremacy, or is actually trying to wrest control of music distribution away from the labels. The latter seems a bit too idealistic for me, but its a consequence of them following the former.
I think we'll end up with more expensive, but drm free music from the major labels. Unfortunately, no company is in a similar situation to do the same with the movie studios, and given the close relationship between apple and Disney I don't see that happening for a long long time.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Man, I laughed my ass off when I read this one. So, there's a 4 percent decline in overall revenue. The only reason they could find is Steve Jobs? Of course, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that their products suck, would it? No, they would never look at themselves and wonder why sales are down. I guess their latest "pop tarts" aren't bringing in the money they were a long time ago. Oh, and I'm sure the lawsuits aren't affecting the revenue line. Nah - it's got to be Steve Jobs, isn't it?
Please. How lame can you get?
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
"Gewecke...defended record labels against the criticism that the music industry has its head in the sand and just doesn't understand the Digital Age."
"He said that Sony BMG is working with technologists and retailers, and is constantly is looking for technological solutions to some of the industry's problems."
Good work Mr. Gewecke. You've just validated your critics' point. The fact that you're looking for a technological solution proves you don't understand the Digital Age. How's that sand taste, anyway?
In other words: Code is Law. Whoever controls the code controls what happens, no matter what happens. It's the moderm version of "possession is nine points of the law".
RMS figured it out in 1883, Lessig figured it out in 2000, Jobs figured it out in 2001 (probably read Lessig), the music industry figured it out two minutes ago.
How many songs are there that are on multiple "albums"? How often do record companies put out a "Greatest Hits" compilation and add a new song just to get the fans of that band to "need" to buy it?
Now, they don't need to. The iTuner gets the new "<fiction>Van HalenRunning With The Devil f. Alanis Morrisette on vocals</fiction>" for a buck, instead of shelling out $17.99 for that and 17 reruns. That's a 94.4% drop in revenue, and DRM has nothing to do with it.
If they could simply open it up, everybody would love them.
{Tucker} BowChickaBowWOW! {/Tucker}
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
A simple online search will lead you to several sites that offer commercially available MP3s for download without DRM. The same music, the same bands. Just no DRM. And these sites are growing at an insane rate as peolpe are getting fed up with DRM. Afterall, if I pay $1 for a song from a CD, it should be useable like anything else I own, just like how I can do anything from making a telephone answering machine message to a mix for my car or even make a mobile out of the CD I buy.
And that's not counting the hundreds of bands that aren't even with a major label. One co-worker of mine is the bass player for a quite well known indie band and they still aren't with a major label yet. They do tours in Europe to packed venues and yet do fine without a record deal.(or DRM as a result).
In fact, there's so much music that's NOT released by the major labels(dare I say Cartels?) that it's astounding. Just get out and look for it - and enjoy, bcause most of it is also free.
Good luck with that. They're going to have to face facts: they are no longer in the business of selling music. They are in the business of promoting musicians.
The sale of the bits and/or the physical media they might happen to be stored on* should really be considered a service offered as a convenice at this point. The labels should think about how to differentiate their product from other copies of the music. You know - some reason to purchase it from them other than "we'll sue you."
*Did we ever get a straight answer on which it was that they were selling? I guess they just go with whichever one fits their particular argument at any point.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Are they saying 100% of the decline is sales is DRM related? It is more likely that the absolutely unlistenable content being produced by 90% of the money making labels out there is to blame. The never ending stream of me-too Bubble-gum pop deserves the most inhibited, draconian, impossible to use DRM available to keep it from 99% of the worlds players, and as close to 100% of the world's ears as possible.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
I'm not generally an Apple/Jobs fanboy. But I think it's pretty obvious that by keeping their DRM completely in-house, they are are at least aren't going to fall into the issues that microsoft's plays-for-shite has. Or any of the DRM that's present in Windows MediaPlayer.
Take this example from earlier today: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/28/187258
Can you really blame Jobs? For me at least it does seems to Just Work, as long as you follow the rules: Itunes+Ipod only. I don't think it can be said that that's the case for any of the other DRM solutions that I've come across.
I'm glad someone showed the pirates from RIAA who the boss really is. We, geeks, are the ones who have the final word in this modern world. They all depend on us for all the business they do. It's time we showed them who has the real power! It's time to blow the real pirates out of the water for good! Go Jobs, get them!
Apple is probably aware that many people don't buy from iTunes Music Store because they don't want DRM-crippled music. Perhaps they are sitting on market research which indicates that *more* people would buy from iTunes Music Store were it not for DRM. (If you're like me, and I know I am, you buy music on a CD and rip it to your iTunes player then sync it to your iPod. DRM-free.)
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
They could sell their own music on their own websites and it would be compatible with an iPod.
They could sell it in MP3, AAC, or several other formats, as long as they didn't include DRM.
Go DRM free, and sell it yourself. Use the DRM, and you're stuck with Apple if you want to make any money off of it.
OK, I'll be the one to state the obvious.
The drop in revenue most likely has more to do with the god awful quality of new music and less with any DRM.
I mean, if people like the music, they'll buy it, Apple's or M$'s DRM or not.
Personally, I haven't bought a song or a CD in months. There just hasn't been anything interesting out there, for me.
If they didn't strongly implement DRM in their music, they'd just go down like the other file sharing sites, obviously. They don't really have a choice, so the music industry blaming Apple is, I think, completely ridiculous.
[DRM rant mode on]
The problem is having to pay too much money per song and still not actually owning your music. That's B.S.
If songs were 25 cents and free of DRM, I'd spend a crapload of cash buying all the songs I want from iTunes. Unfortunately, songs are a dollar, which is too expensive when compared to how easy it would be for me to steal them elsewhere. Make it more convenient for people to buy cheaply from iTunes than to download/copy for free.
Isn't this a classic pricing vs. supply/demand economic problem? Why bother with DRM at all if you can make cash hand over fist by taking money from people a little less at a time, but more often?
I'm not economist, but I do know that the music industry is missing out on my cash because they're making it easier for me to steal with pretty much no consequence whatsoever than to give them my money.
That said, I should say that I don't actually steal music. I feel too bad about it. I actually *want* to support the musicians... just not the money grubbing execs.
[DRM rant mode off]
You'd think after the mountains of bad journalism and bad politics in the last 20 years, we'd have some sense. The article doesn't say what the slashdot poster seems to think it says. I guess making a report of a meeting of music execs into a "bash Jobs" fest is what makes this writer tick. C/Net is the home of sloppy, stupid journalism. "Many blamed" is a figure of speech, not journalism. Who blamed Jobs, and why? You mean, he didn't call for DRM to be dropped, or that he "wasn't sincere" about doing so? None of this approaches an elementary knowledge of the situation at this particular conference. In fact, the major execs all insisted on DRM, and Jobs called for them to drop it.
In fact, only the indie exec cited made any sense at all.
And Open DRM is technologically possible, but is effectively prohibited by the music labels.
If someone breaks the DRM scheme, Apple is contractually required to fix the DRM and release updates. Opening the FairPlay DRM would make that nearly impossible.
If the labels would re-negotiate their agreements, making them responsible for the DRM maintenance, maybe Apple would go for it.
they're the problem. they are not in control any more, customers are, and that's why they are running wild as wolves on crack in the courts trying to get some control.
they won't.
worst case is, we become a police state on rent to the RIAA, and the commercial music business completely dies out. you'll have your bar bands and individuals making their own music, no more supermegagroups and no more boy/girl band of the month bullshit.
best case is, the back libraries become fully availiable, every scratch and warped tape of it, in unlocked downloads for which the licensor (for there are no purchasers of music without all the suits on one end of the boardroom table and overwhelmed band members on the other) gets perpetual personal enjoyment for a half buck a track.
musicians, control your own back catalog, get it back from the pigopolists now. that way you get all the revenue. you don't need a label to catalog it, just a google search.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
If they could simply open it up, everybody would love them.
... I'd like all of it to go away. On the other hand, I don't believe that record industry executives, unless some effective treatment is found for the mass psychosis that infects most of them, are the ones to be calling for it's demise. All they want to do is get Apple out of the way so they can a. return to selling us shiny plastic discs and forget this "downloading" business, or b. take control of content distribution again and institute their own forms of DRM.
Sure, and if I opened up my bank account, everybody would love me too, for a while at least. I see Digital Restrictions Management as a net negative, in pretty much any form, but this kind of sour grapes attitude just doesn't sit well with me either. "If they would just give us back our candy store, we'd be, like, really happy and all." Apple has the market and the momentum, and it sounds like you have a bunch of people accustomed to being in charge suddenly finding that somebody else is steering their boat and won't leave the bridge. They don't like it, and they want that person to simply go away, and they just can't figure out why they won't. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.
I'd like Apple's DRM to go away too
The record industry is all about what is good for themselves: if Apple were to "open up" it's content management system, I presume Apple will ask "what's in it for us?" Answer: not much. For my own part, I don't particularly like Apple, and I don't care for Steve Jobs, but it just seems hypocritical for an industry that has done so very much to cripple or eliminate every technological advance in media and data storage for the past thirty years to complain about FairPlay.
They're just mad that they didn't think of it first.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
...and so I sent an imaginary reporter to the Digital Music Forum East conference to take pictures and note down what was happening in the halls. The results documented here.
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
Of course Jobs recognizes the problems that "Fairplay" is causing his company. He is worried about the antitrust implications and consumer backlash. He also realizes that DRM on audio is a loser that doesn't advance his interests anymore, and his arguments about CDs being DRM free are right on.
However, his primary objective is to save "Fairplay" for the burgeoning video market. There is NO sign that DRM is going anywhere for video, and STiVo needs to protect his interests. That is why he is blaming the music industry for the DRM and finding a reason that supports dropping it rather than opening up "Fairplay."
It's about protecting Apple's foothold in online video distribution, which shows no sign of becoming DRM free anytime in the foreseeable future.
Always take a look at what they're NOT saying to find out what they really mean.
Sheesh, what a lousy arguement. If any DRM hur the Music Publishers, it is Microsoft's failed DRM. "Apple's DRM" is not something of its own desire, but instead it was a demand of the MUSIC PUBLISHERS. Music Publishers only want a "DRM Solution" that results in their revenues going UP! Will someone please tell the world what God-Given-Right states that "Thou Shalt Have Increasing Revenues & Profits Forever Until the End of Time". Music Publishers don't want competition and don't want anything to upset the Apple-cart, but where is it stated that a CD must cost a minimum of $xy per disk or $ab per song? Most product costs decrease in real terms over time if you look at it. APPLE IS JUST A MIDDLEMAN for music making it VERY VERY EASY for the average end consumer to buy music and use it easily and in the user's various devices.
i think you are dismissing the posts as fanbois, but they have a point.
1) before iTMS Apple had that iTunes Rip-Mix-Burn ad campaign that got the RIAA in such a tizzy. they are never happy. that ad was about making mix CDs with your own content. it wasn't download-mix-burn.
2) the iPod was huge BEFORE iTMS existed, so don't blame the store for people buying iPods
3) the iPod can play most any DRM-free music, as can the other popular music players. they can sell non-DRM music and everyone can play!
4) supposedly *most* iPod owners still do not acquire content from iTMS, and the heavy buyers are really heavy buyers. the bulk of users (in terms of a head count) buy some singles here and there. therefore most are not locked into the iPod platform. i have personally spent maybe $5 at iTMS, the rest i rip from my CDs. i could take that $5 loss in stride if i changed teams.
what about people that were previously "locked in" to 8-tracks? they got no compensation from the industry for buying a format that died off....
Imagine apple opened up it's DRM to other stores. Now Sony goes to store B, C and D, which are rivals, and says we'll let the first one of you agree to our new rules have exclusive access toour top artists. Namely we want you will charge $7.99 and bundle them in sets of 5. No more singles and no more $1 songs.
Well duh, one of them will Kowtow. And it won't be apple which will sputter along trying to enforce the $1-single song rule.
Thus the only thing keeping the status quo which we all like ($1 songs and ability to buy singles) is apple's exclusive control of it's DRM. The moment that vanishes the Music INdustry has us in its claws.
So pray that apple does not open it's DRM to other stores.
Now on the flip side if all music is sold without DRM, well then there's another enformcement mechanism. If the music industry charges too much and forces song bubdling too much then Gnapster like trading services make a comeback, made all the easier by the lack of DRM on a much large song base.
So Jobs I think was right, but for different reasons than he stated. The most consumer freindly situation is that DRM be apple only or not at all. Apple is a good watch dog in this case because they profit from keeping song prices and tersm consumer freindly since that favors iPod sales as long as there is DRM. Second, they make a good watchdog because they are not threatened if DRM entirely vanishes. THe only thing threatening them is if the Music industry starts dictating higher prices and bundling songs because that will move sales off to crappy user unfreindly sites and diminsh the appeal of the ipod.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
is that the music execs' comments are anything but sincere. So they are calling for the elimination of DRM? The RIAA and MPAA are the litigious SOBs who insisted upon it! They are okay with just opening it up without restriction and fundamentally giving the content away, huh? Riiiiiight.
if Apple = RIAA
... and "it's causing everybody else who is participating in the marketplace -- the other service providers, the labels, the users -- a lot of pain. If they could simply open it up, everybody would love them.""
and iTunes = null
Then statement = true
'Apple has maintained a stranglehold on the digital music industry by locking up iTunes music with DRM
else = Music Industry silly spin excuses for their failing business model
So the headline really is accurate "Apple DRM is hurting Music Industry". It's just not hurting the consumer.
What I do think will be a problem is if they suddenly have to change DRM scheme due to some sort of security breach. Would they still allow you to play music encrypted with the old keys? Would they be bound by contract to remove backwards compatibility? And what about 10 years from now: will we still be able to play our current DRMed music? Will someone still be able to read and decrypt our files?
You're seeing the problem upside down. The real issue comes from having DRM, not because of the lack of it.
diegoT
So what gives? Did the execs sign an exclusive contract with Apple? How is it they have a strangle hold when the RIAA has the copyrights to the content? What stops them from using Microsofts store (hehehehe)?
They have access to multiple distribution channels and when one becomes successful enough to obtain brand identity they cry foul!
Some shit, different episode. These guys aren't playing with a full deck. Or at least they think we aren't.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
I'm sure that Jobs is sitting in his office laughing as the music industry creates a business for him and then prepares to give him the keys to the castle. Unless the music industry scraps DRM and embraces multiple online music retailers, Apple won't have to negotiate pricing with the "music industry" because it will OWN the "music industry" lock, stock, and barrel.
In the future with DRM, there will be two labels: Apple and eMusic. Apple will be mainstream pop. eMusic will be alternative and independent.
Music execs have got so much more money than anybody else that they have almost forgotten what it is, and pursue it only in a kneejerk reaction. But I agree with you. They want money, now and in perpetuity.
Examine the following:
money (J) = time (s) * work (Watts)
For the proof of that, I refer you to (1) your electric meter, (2) your paycheck, (3) a highschool or college grading system (where X months and Y assignments = A grade), etc.
To show what the music execs desire most, start with the axiom "love of money is the root of all evil":
money (J) = sqrt(evil)
Square both sides:
money^2 = | evil |
Now substitute the initial assumption:
time^2 * work^2 = | evil |
Simplify:
time^2 = | evil | / work^2
It becomes obvious that an absolute evil | evil | that offers no useful work will produce an unbounded increase in time. Music execs will continue to extend copyright using a time^2 formula. This implies that they plan to produce no work until the end of time to maintain a non-zero money.
Perhaps we should send them to jail for tax evasion.
I'd take Sony's offer of exclusive access (and make sure there's a really long duration on it) and then sell as little as possible, so Sony can hardly sell any music.
If you read the article:
Panel member Mike Bebel, CEO of Ruckus music service, said: "Look, I don't think anybody is necessarily down on Apple. The problem is the proprietary implementation of technology...and it's causing everybody else who is participating in the marketplace--the other service providers, the labels, the users--a lot of pain. If they could simply open it up, everybody would love them."
Listen carefully to what he says: "The problem is the PRORIETARY IMPLEMENTATION of technology"
Not the technology, but the implementation. The industry doesn't want to get rid of DRM. They want Apple's DRM to be the standard. Probably by the simple logic that most digital services with various DRM-s do not work as expected (i.e. do not generate enough money) while iTunes seems to be flourishing. In the very limited mindset of the music execs that translates to "*** DRM no good, Apple DRM good". It does not mean "DRM bad" at all.
Also, the fact that CD sales are down and digital is up in a music exec mind easily turns to "CD = no DRM = down, digital = DRM = up ==> DRM GOOD!"
As per how come that CD sales down 25% and digital up by 130% and still there are losses: simple, there were a helluva lot more CD sales to start with. I don't know, but possibly the CD down is caused more by crap being pressed and digital up is by downloading *oldie* stuff and not the latest and greatest. Or people download the latest and greatest but wouldn't care to get it on a CD because the 2 songs on the album (from which the other 8 are indistinguishable) they want to listen to does not warrant the price tag on the CD. (Here in Australia a top-10 CD is running around the AUD 35 mark, which is roughly US $27 or about 21 Euros. The only good point in not being young any more is that I can get most of my retro stuff from the "below (AU) $15" bin).
The RIAA gripes about music piracy, claiming that it must be stopped. DRM is a step towards stopping it (ineffective as it may be, I know).
The RIAA wants DRM, but gripes when someone OTHER THAN THEMSELVES CONTROLS IT!
Herein lies the REAL rub.
Somehow, they want to have blocking of copying of music (DRM), but, when someone other than the RIAA actually HAS it, they hit the ceiling and DEMAND access TO the technology that they had NOTHING to do with CREATING, marketing, or improving.
In other words, they don't want to put in the money to develop the METHODS to STOP piracy, but BOY! Do they EVER want to CASH IN ON IT!
Why am I NOT surprised?
I've been reading all these articles for years now. And I find it laughable how these so called "analysts" predict future growth potential for their industries.
- "Study Predicts $42.8 Billion Music Market by 2005"
http://www.stereophile.com/news/10837/
http://p2pnet.net/story/1167?PHPSESSID=b43903d88ca b374c1c0915849c2c4c92
- "The video game industry will grow to $50 billion by 2008"
http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2005/02/v ideo_game_grow.html
Then it looks like these industries seem to think they are entitled to this money, that they should be getting. And if they aren't hitting the numbers, then something must be wrong! People must be stealing their music, or their movies, or their video games. Perhaps, maybe there's just too much competition in their industry - and a lot of the players must die off?
In reality, people face an increased rise in the cost of living. But they're not making any more money. So these entertainment industries are competing for precious dollars that need to be spent elsewhere.
How about some breakdowns:
- Salaries are stagnant across the nation. LA, SF, and NYC are the large cities. The salaries there should be higher than anywhere else, but companies hate, and I emphasize "hate" to pay any more than $50k/year for a person. $70k/year starts to afford you a mini-comfortable life, but you still got to watch your expenses. Six-figure incomes seems to be the holy grail that everyone wants to achieve - but not everyone can. And most people with good jobs, are already working 50-60 hours a week, this also includes travel time, lunch time, and preparation time in the mornings.
- Property values in the large cities have skyrocketed. You need to make over $125,000 annually just to qualify for a $500k home. This started after the dot-com boom. People with extra money buying up property. Then everyone tried to get into the house flipping craze, which really artificially jacked up property value. People are signing off on 30 and 40 year mortgages now.
- So this jacks up the rent. Rent keeps increasing. California is quickly becoming a land of renters. $1050/month is the minimum you can expect to pay for a tiny 1-bedroom apartment in LA. The only way to keep your cost of living low is to have 2 or 3 roommates. Unless you want to live in the ghettos with ghetto-birds always flying around your neighborhood at night. There you might find a 1-bedroom apartment for $700 - make sure to wear a bullet-proof vest.
- Energy costs have gone up. LA's average for gasoline is $2.50/gallon for 87 octane. $2.90/gallon for 91 octane. People are spending $125/month on gasoline now just to commute to work.
- Anyone with a job has car expenses. If they have a newer car, they'll have monthly car payments. If they have an older car, all paid off, they'll have maintenance expenses, and risk of the car breaking down. And there's the insurance cost to drive in LA.
- Most people have a cell phone now, which is $60/month.
- Internet - cable modem is $50/month.
- Cable TV - Basic cable is now $50/month.
- Food will cost you $300/month, if you want to eat cheap.
- And most people with a good job, also has student loans to pay off - which can range from $25k to $60k. And whatever credit card expenses they incurred during college when they didn't have a job.
- And if you're a guy, and you want a girlfriend, then you've got "dating expenses." Clubs love to charge guys $25 for cover, and let the girls in for free. Drinks in Hollywood are $13/piece.
And now... I can get to the entertainment expenses.
- A movie ticket is $10/piece.
- Then there are all the other fun things that you want to do to enjoy
The music industry wanted a system that is draconian in control, that "permanently" tied music to specific systems, that can't transfer control easily. Congrats, they got it! Oh but wait, the music industry really didn't want it to be draconian against them. Now they are claiming that they can't control it because it is draconian, permanently ties music to systems, and they can't get control. It seems to me that it isn't Apple/Steve Job's fault at all. The industry got exactly what they begged for.
Sounds like they made their bed, now they got to sleep in it. Pleasant dreams.
Yes, because a color coded circle next to the song title to indicate DRMness would really confuse users. /sarcasm
You work for Microsoft don't you? Because rejecting that kind of crappy UI (and by UI, I also mean usability and not apperance) thinking is exactly why Apple owns music distribution online and no-one else can match them.
Consistency of behavior is key to a good system. And why SHOULD we all have to settle for just indie stuff being open to appease people like you and mean, when we can use this DRM lever to force major labels to give it up altogether, or stall the industry until all the big acts start going to eMusic or running their own operations like Barenaken Ladies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The best argument Jobs made in his letter was that the music industry is already selling the same files they want locked down with DRM in a completely un-encrypted format on little plastic disks.
It's like they are insisting on having at least three deadbolt locks on their back door of their house, while they have no plans to even install a lock on the front door.
People who want to scatter their content to the four winds can already do so by getting a CD and ripping it.
Therefore, DRM on the iTMS files protects absolutely nothing.
The only effect it is having is that it hurts on-line sales, because DRM-encrypted files have less value than those on CD.
If I were a cynical person, I would suspect that this was their agenda all along. But since I'm not *cough*, I have no explanation for their position.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Most people can burn CD's, which is all it takes for anyone to "escape" from the Fairplay "Jail". The people that don't know how to do anything else will also not care about the slight drop in quality. Those that care about the quality either wouldn't have bought compressed music to start with, or know about QTFairUse. So there is no lockin that matters with Apples' system.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And since you licensed it, their new license for you would allow you to lawfully remove the DRM on those files. Right?
IANAL.
No matter what the customers say, all the music execs understand is one word ... "blah blah blah blah DRM blah blah"
They still think that they can sell us the same song for every device we'll ever want to play it on, if only somebody would get DRM right. The allure is so strong they can only hear what they want to hear, and that's DRM, their golden child (hypothetically speaking)
I'm not sure if it's a drug or a religion but they just can't quit.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Furthermore, the iPod does not have the best record known to man when it comes to being a reliable piece of hardware. They have stated, more or less, that the expected life expectancy of an iPod is a year, no more; anymore than that, and you're essentially crap out of luck, I hope you enjoy buying your new unit. There are portable units that have better reliability records, such as the Creative Zen; personally, I'd rather keep the competition in there, instead of allowing Apple to sit on it's laurels.
Come to think of it, I only BOUGHT an iPod last week instead of a Zen for two reasons: 1) because I started with iTunes music, and therefore, it's iPod or I'm out of luck, but most important, I bought iTunes because 2) All the other legit music services have their own WMA based DRM, and if the Zune has proven anything, it's only that DRM is an absolute nightmare with it, with the way they essentially told everyone that prior music bought with Yahoo, Napster and everyone else was worthless, and had to be bought again. It's the lesser of the two evils, by far. But getting rid of what little competition iTunes and the iPod has is not wise. That's what is being advocated with your comment (unless my interpretation is incorrect), and it will do much more to hurt the average user than help.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Maybe instead of lamenting their decrease in revenue, the music execs could look at the big picture and think about how to increase their profits without screwing their customers. For some reason, they seem insistent on pushing these pieces of plastic, but why not consider a distribution method that's better for everyone involved?
(IANAL)
wow, that was insightful! Thanks!!
Jokes aside, I think that statement is indicative of the mindset the industry is set in.
The issue to them is that we are set in our piratey ways of pillaging their product. They posit that we have become "used" to not paying for things, and they need to change this.
I'm no expert, but my experience is quite different. Most of my college friends downloaded music through legal services at a cost. The remainder largely sampled music before deciding if/what to buy, or to get mp3s of things you can't buy. I don't download any music not made availible by the artist/company themselves. I did recently buy the Absolution album by Muse from a store.
What the music industry doesn't see is that consumers are willing to buy music, but DRM has made that too much of a hassle. When it comes to movies it's easy to find reviews in a paper, watch a trailer online, see it in theatres, rent a copy, and then come to a conclusion of whether to buy it or not. For music, all of that faces significant hurdles because of pirating paranoia.
It disturbs me that these people are absolutely certain we don't want to give them money for good music.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Music industry want DRM, they just want DRM that is 100% under their control and ONLY benefits them
,as Apple DRM currently only works with iPods, best way forward for Apple is to get all those non iPod users onto ITunes thus expanding the ITunes market, so he says get rid of DRM totally (Better PR and less complicated to say get rid of it totally instead of opening up Apple DRM)
They demanded Apple put DRM in iTunes music, Apple said fine and put it in but refuses to sell that DRM to anyone else thus creating a "lock in" to Apple products
Job's recently realised that iTunes is so big and dominant now that they (Apple) don't really need DRM anymore while iPod is slowly losing market share as other MP3 player manufacturers catch up finally
Music industry says, let others use your DRM, thus getting rid of the ITunes/iPod "lock in" but leave everything else as is so consumers still get screwed
Basically Music industry still wants to eat their cake while tossing Apples in the garbage
Whispering into music execs ears....
Apple DRM bad...Microsoft DRM is better....Use ours to reach more desktops....it's built into vista.....
"Yeah, that stupid Steve Jobs! We begged him to sell our music DRM-free, but he fought us tooth and nail!"
The gall of some people is amazing.
Apple does not own the content it sells by iTMS. So the monopoly here is not on the music itself or even the right to sell music. the DRM is only a weak gate between consumers and their music since the one apple chose is so porous (burn it). The strong gate is between the content owners and their ability to sell music for iPods. So the restraint is really on the content owners not on the consumers.
To them selling the content is a loss leader for selling ipods. The last thing they want to see is the price of music go up.
Apple's big fear is that if there are other stores that can sell to the iPod market the content owners will yank it from apple's pricing model and go to a more extractive one. Apple would not really care that iTMS was less busy, but they would care that the distinguishing simplicity of use of the ipod ecosystem was gone: contrast: 1) just go to one store and there's all the content you want and it transfers to your ipod automatically 2) have 12 different places to search and pricing models each serving a different store.
so I'm saying that like walmart the apple monopoly is 1) aligned with consumer interests 2) the impact of the monopoly is on the content owners ability to raise prices not the consumers. 100% of the monopoly leverage to keep prices down comes from the inability of the content owners to access the ipod market without using apple.
So yes it is a monopoly but not in the direction we usually think of monopolies: they are not exploiting the consumer but rather the producers. It's a tad like the way a big conduit like walmart can screw the producers. Since I'm a consumer I'm in favor of it. Unlike walmart, I don't think it's hurting the nation to screw the producers.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Couldn't the same thing be achieved if Apple were to dictate terms under which other stores had to operate in order to license FairPlay?
Apple could just say "You license fairplay, but you have to charge $1/song."
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"If iTunes was DRM free I would pay for my music"
Sure you would.
Oh yeah that would go over big! All the stores colluding on price. I give it a week before the record industry sued.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't know if you guys have heard of RoughtlyDrafted but it has an excellent analysis of why DRM is necessary and offers a fair, balanced take on the whole situation. I'd trust the author's assessment of the situation as a wholly unbiased observer more than the industry itself.
That explains the beard - it's to hide the neck scars from when Sean Connery almost cut his head off.
1. m4a's wont run in linux with drm
2. if you reformat your computer after 3 times, apple thinks you ran it on 3 computers
That be nice if they ATLEAST made it like activating windows xp, where its activated based on the hardware and not whats on the hard drive.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs always have gay sex together and hate linux (yes I know about mac osx)
What this whole no DRM and "lock in" nonsense is really about is Steve's insistence on a $0.99 pricepoint. The iPod's locked into iTunes store purchases only so that more industry friendly online stores that would be less resistant to raising prices won't be able to sell tracks for the iPod. If FairPlay was open to other vendors, then other stores could get "exclusive" songs for a higher price, and iTunes' single price point could be bypassed.
I think the quote from the article "Get people used to paying for music again"... is very telling... People in the "Industry" really don't get it.. I'm not not buying music because I'm stealing it, I'm not buying music, because current music licks taint, sucks ass, is crap, etc. Period.
I've bought one CD in the past 12 months, and a few, very few, single tracks on the iTMS... # unpaid for? 0.
In 1994 I think I bought 20 CDs (my all time yearly high)... Does music suck THAT much more now than then? Well, IMHO, yes.. it really does.
I'm sure I'm not alone. Add to that the number of people actively boycotting RIAA music, and the loss of sales is easily accounted for w/o assuming any piracy.
Kinda depressing... They still think their "shit don't stink".
Well, it does, it really really does.
I'll buy more when, er, if, it doesn't.
I actually get $0.6375 per download through iTunes, and the amount not only exceeds all other digital sources combined, but it even exceeds my physical CD sales.
So yeah... if you're looking for indie cred by going "wah indies can't bla bla" you're barkin' up the wrong tree.
And Jobs? No doubt in my mind he means what he says about ditching DRM. What does he gain by lying?
As in give other companies an opportunity to license it. They could do it on a per downloaded track basis, making money whether itunes makes a sale or the others do(possibly getting more money from other companies sales). If the other companies don't like it, too bad find another DRM scheme.
Make the agreement renegotiable every time Apple has to renew its contract with **AA. If the media companies do try to do something stupid, Apple could effectively break every other music store that uses its DRM.
Apple really has an opportunity to stick it to the media companies.
Furthermore, the iPod does not have the best record known to man when it comes to being a reliable piece of hardware
Really? You have warranty return data for all the music players shipped since 2001?
The iPod has had some highly publiccized shortcomings - non-user serviceable battery for one - but for reliability, I'd wager they're above the rest.
I'd add that battery issues in many early iPods were caused by clueless users who left the devices in hot cars during the day or in freezing conditions overnight - both conditions are extremely detrimental to L-ion batteries.
How can anything the music industry wants be good for the consumer?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Apple is worth $75bn > EMI's music arm ($1.4bn) + Warner Music ($2.9bn) + Sony's music arm ($2.1bn) + Vivendi ($5.5bn).
You are confusing market capitalization with worth. The catalogs owned by these companies are worth quite a few hundreds of millions at the very least, and that's not necessarily reflected in the stock price - and the rights to those catalogs are worth everything to Jobs and Co. - a very big stick to negotiate with.
DRM will never work. What the industry should be saying instead of, "Don't Steal Music." which essentially accuses all customers of being crooks is instead say, "Please don't share music with strangers." I am 44 and have always shared my music among friends, making mix cassette tapes back in the 80s and now MP3s today. I have no interest in giving or receiving music via anyone who is not my friend. The question is why would you in the first place when you won't even let a stranger into the lane ahead of you on the freeway?
Wait... Music execs are pissed at Apple for including DRM on their music when they insisted that Apple include DRM on their music in order to sell it? I am definately confused, who's to blame here? Was Apple supposed to say to the labels "No, we won't DRM your music to sell in our integrated iPod+iTunes experience and the consequences be damned." I'm pretty sure the labels really loved the iTunes music store first and formost because it included Fairplay protections on all the tracks sold. I'm sure Apple hates dealing with all the customer support issues DRM brings up. "Wait, I'm limited to how many computers?" Perhaps the issue is more the Apple includes its own DRM protection scheme on the tracks it sells on it's own music store to the marketplace that it developed on its own dollar. For shame, not sharing the profits of the system that you developed, marketed, and brought to fruition on your own dollar just because that system sells content produced by someone else and now they want a larger cut. Let's be honest, the RIAA might just as well come right out and admit they hate antitrust legislation as well because it prevents them from completely manipulating the market to their hearts content just like they already try to. What's next, the MPAA launching into theaters for showing movies on digital projectors because it "enhances the quality of bootleg copies?"
"but what you're essentially saying is that Apple is the only company that can be trusted with both DRM and keeping prices down."
.mp3's (or unprotected AAC or FLAC or Apple Lossless or whatever). For the few tracks/albums I do buy online, iTMS is the best available alternative. (Plays for Sure? Yeah right.)
Seeing as how Apple has advocated (strongly) the 99 cent price point, and removing DRM entirely, I think that's a pretty good synopsis.
"Apple has shown in the past that it is willing to abuse it's DRM laws,"
Huh? And since when does Apple have DRM "laws"?
I'd love to just by
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The music execs are not concerned for the welfare of consumers. They are worried about the power Jobs has to negotiate and prevent things like hiked prices and erosion of end user rights.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Wait, Apple has advocated removing DRM? Don't make me laugh. They don't care if people pirate music, per se; they know it's a relatively minor sector of the market. They care about keeping their things exclusive, so that no one else can use it. If that business model isn't called DRM, then fine, but basically, the fact of the matter is that their whole business model - everything from OS-X to their music files (and, according to Charlie Demerjian at INQ, their iPhone) are exclusive. You cannot legally change them. So when they start advocating the end of DRM? They're lying. Or they're not thinking of DRM in the same way I am.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
The music industry has gotten too accustomed to collecting profits from their existing catalog. With the music being released in yet another new format (i.e., downloadable files), the industry expects people to line right up and buy all their music again. When this doesn't happen, the reason must be piracy. There is no other logical alternitive.
1. We already have all the old music we want in a digital format. Nobody has any interest in buying it again. No new sales here, friend!
2. We want to hear something new, something that appeals to our taste. We have a lot of different tastes, so don't think you can get away with feeding us the same list of 40 pathetic songs. Either the RIAA companies give it to us, or we're gonna start turning to independants, and drop your sales even further! Your choice, but don't you dare blame your incompetance and short sightedness on piracy.
3. You no longer have a relatively cheap, easy-to-use marketing tool like the 45RPM single (CD singles and cassette singles are too expensive). If you sold digital singles for 99 cents without DRM, and turned a blind eye towards piracy (while still telling people not to), the free publicity would boost the album sales, provided, that is, the music doesn't suck.
4. Allow podcasts to "broadcast" lower bitrate versions of those digital singles, without restrictions, creating a new form of radio. The added publicity will also lead to increased sales. Provided, of course, the music doesn't suck.
5. If you went after the professionals mass-producing illegal CD's, instead of college students, little old ladies, single moms and nine-year-olds, you'd make more money *and* make a real dent in piracy. Of course, then you'd have to deal with a few governments who get protection money from the crooks, or organized crime who like to break kneecaps, or both. It's easier going after little kids and their grandmas, isn't it?
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the RIAA to get a clue.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Honest question, does the current line of Ipods support Ogg?
A couple years ago I went for a Samsung player since it supported Ogg and almost all of my CDs are ripped to Ogg.
I don't even know where to begin, so I'm not gonna. Have a nice day!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Good sum-up.
Apple neither wants nor needs DRM at this point - the worst result for everyone is that they are forced to licence the iTMS DRM. Only lawyers could possibly win from that scenario. The record companies should be ashamed that their entire catalogues aren't available to buy RIGHT NOW from their own websites - no, not even in CD form. It's absolutely pathetic that Apple should be doing their job for them.
I am sure you had something important to say here. After all, you did get a Score:5, Insightful, however, I am a bit tired right now, and try as I might, I just could not focus and get what you are saying because of your atrocious spelling. I am not a spelling Nazi. It's just that these days, with spelling checkers being ubiquitous, there is simply no reason to distract your readers so much that they fail to get what you are saying. Because of your spelling I remain unenlightened in spite of your possibly well though out comment.
- I am not an AC, rather, simply not logged on. I am TropicalCoder, and I forgot my password and I couldn't be bothered to go to the trouble of recovering it at the moment.
What do you mean "when [they] make a comeback"?
Unauthorized P2P trading accounts for 98% of all downloaded music. P2P doesn't need to make a "comeback" -- it already enjoys an overwhelming monopoly over online music distribution.
The music industry could drop the price of their authorized services to 5 cents per track, and they still wouldn't stand a chance of breaking P2P's monopoly.
No. You can flash your iPod's firmware, but the people who write alternative firmware for iPods tend not to "get it" the way Apple gets it and the result is an interface made of major shit. If you've got a library full of Oggs, my guess is you're probably not a good fit for an iPod anyway.
comma
I think the original poster was saying that at the moment, power is not in the hands of the RIAA but in the hands of Apple. As soon as Apple licences FairPlay, the power shifts back to the RIAA, as then any company can sell music for the biggest player in town, the iPod.
It's better now to have the power not rest with the RIAA and try to force the end of DRM rather than give them back everything they need to retain full control over the market.
Does Apple have a monopoly on music? Maybe online music, and while I'd argue they don't, it's not straightforward.
Does the RIAA have a monopoly on music? Absolutely. They control almost all music in every sphere of commerce except online sales, where Apple has the upper hand.
Should we give them more power over online sales? Well, given their history of trying to force price increases (variable pricing on iTunes) and extorting money for players sold ($1 per Zune) it's hard to see that giving them even more power is a good thing.
I agree with the other poster - having Apple control FairPlay completely gives them a bigger wedge to open the RIAA up for dropping DRM. Once DRM is gone, the power shifts away from Apple, but not to the RIAA. It goes to all the music stores, who can now compete fairly against the iTunes Music Store and sell songs for the iPod. This would seem against Apple's interests, until you think about the cost of adding DRM to each track, maintaining DRM systems and all that.
Steve Jobs is right in my opinion - the options are no DRM, or all DRM and we've seen that all DRM isn't working. Licencing destroys the ability to bargain.
What. The. Fuck?
So, in your opinion, it would be best for the consumer for Apple to have a monopoly on online music distribution? How exactly does that work? Especially considering that you then have a monopoly selling someone else's product, and ultimately it's them who set the prices and not Apple... and AFAIK there are already songs on iTunes that you can only purchase as part of an album.
If Apple opened it's DRM (IMO) not much would change. Apple would still have the majority of the market because if everybody is offering the same product for the same price, why bother purchasing from somewhere else? Your fear of Apple being 'shut out' is completely unfounded, by doing what you suggest the record labels would be effectively killing legal online downloads, which for an industry which is already seeing decreasing turnover/profits wouldn't be the best of ideas.
Kind of an aside, but most music (albums at least) traded over P2P are ones which have been leaked prior to release.
The word to be left out is "Apple's".
But then again, I couldn't see a music industry exec say that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK. Heres the deal. Hip Hop SUCKS HARD! Listening to some malcontent blather on in semi-rhythmic fashion in a general atonal way about hoes and his drug problem and his gun (all without real actual music) is basically spoken word poetry ---bad spoken word poetry! It isn't actual real music (there is no music). And there is a reason why this shit gets a smaller and smaller audience every year: IT SUCK HARD! When I hear a great song, I want to hear it again (and again). I don't get that with 99% of the atonal crap on the radio today. Most people don't get that with 99% of the atonal crap on the radio today. Heres the story. When an old band performs at a stadium/arena, they get tens of thousands of tickets sold per show. When a new band/group plays their gangsta crap, they get single-digit hundreds of tickets sold. Its not zero, but a lot less. Its not mainstream. Most people don't like it. Side-by-side comparisons have been made. Hip-Hop will never *EVER* make the all-time highest albums sold charts. Its a bit like communism. Its a failed experiment. Time to move on. I listen to many different genres of music, but HH isn't one of them. It *ALWAYS* sounds more like a bar fight than music to me. I turn it off/change the station. I'm not alone. Loss in record sales year on year you say? No, really? Says I, as sarcastically as I can!
This stuff happens a lot in "market ecosystems"...
1) Microsoft's bread+butter is its Windows OS and Office software (85% profit margin), with some additional revenue from support services. Open Source businesses give away software for free, and make money from supporting it. Microsoft whines because their high-margin product is "competing with free".
2) The following scenario actually happened in Canada years ago.
Background... Banks' bread+butter is profits from loans. Insurance industry makes money off car insurance.
a) Car dealers seeking a competitive advantage started offering artificially-low-interest loans. They didn't care if they made absolutely no profit on the loan, or even lost a small amount. It increase car sales, which is all the car dealers worried about.
b) Banks fought back by offering stamdard-priced car loans with low-priced auto insurance thrown in. This hurt the auto insurance companies.
c) Insurance companies went whining to regulators about unfair competition.
3) IBM's bread+butter is hardware sales. To them, software is a necessary evil that is required to give customers a reason to buy the hardware. One of the things that got IBM into anti-trust troubles decades ago was giving away "free software" with their mainframes. They don't make any margin on software sales. Hardware sales (and software support) is where the money's at. "Free software" was a part of IBM's business model in the 1960's. So it's only natural that they support Open Source today. IBM learned "the hard way" that they would get into trouble for distributing "free software" for their hardware. That's why you won't see an "IBM Linux". This time around. they let Redhat etal distribute "free software".
Now we get to Apple Computers (Jobs' company, not The Beatles' company). They're a hardware company, not a software company. They don't give a hoot if they never make a penny off of the Itunes Store. Hardware (e.g. the Ipod) is where the money's at. Apple Computers' best interest is served by commoditizing music (forcing the price down) so that customers have more money to spend on Ipods and accesories.
How would Apple Music (The Beatles' company, not Jobs' company) do something similar? Their best approach would be to produce a dirt-cheap music player at a fraction the price of an Ipod (let's call it an "Applet") and sell their music at high prices, with really strong DRM. That's basically what many cellphone providers do, offering "free cellphones", but requiring a contract.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Consider walmart. Walmart is not your freind if you make products but it is your friend if you purchase them. Walmart does keep prices down. It might have other effects too, but you have to admit it does set the low bar on prices. They sell more DVDs then anyone. they demand lower prices. Apple is the same sort of conduit.
Ah! someone finally gets what I was saying.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Well, Apple has publicly said that they would want to see DRM eliminated, period. So there's no argument there. And FairPlay is pretty damn crappy at "locking in" users to iTunes/iPod, since removing FairPlay is very, very easy and it can be done in iTunes itself. There's no need to "hack" anything, and it's 100% legal and allowed.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Wait a minute... I thought their story was 'piracy' was the big loss?! Wasn't piracy causing them to lose a bazillion percent of revenue or something? Nope nope- it's Jobs now, that's the ticket... it must be Jobs. XD
Where are you getting that idea? Apple has no monopoly, and they have no ability to get it. As Jobs himself points out, 90% of music is sold on Cds, and that's DRM-free. That finds its way onto ipods, maybe the most common source of music on the iPod, and on all other mp3 players. Then there's shared music, and coming up at the end is the online purchases.
To have a monopoly, they'd have to have a higher percentage of the digital music market. The iTunes store would have to be higher than #5 as a music store in the US. (Amazon, Best Buy, etc. -- all higher. Apple would have to leverage its total dominance over digital music (not) to eliminate competition -- not by just outselling other competitors, but by insisting that every mp3 player sold have iTunes and Quicktime installed, or else... something. (That's a monopoly, as in Microsoft: put what we want on the hard drive of every new computer -- Explorer, not Netscape -- or we'll deny you the license to sell Windows. That's what a monopoly is: someone who uses market power to exert undue influence on competitors and on the consumer. Rockefeller wasn't the only oil company, but he used his market power to make contracts with railroads that screwed everybody else, so he could RAISE PRICES without competition. That's why Standard Oil was the first monopoly that got broken up.
There are four encryption regimes. Apple, Plays4Sure, Zune and Real. Each one of these is in a monopoly position with its respective music stores only. All players all also play mp3s and a mix of other formats. The iPod/iTunes was first to market, and it's still selling like hell. You can buy stuff from iTunes, and iTunes only. Real? You have to go with their encrryption. Microsoft? You can choose one of their two regimes.
Apple's not a monopoly, it's just selling more music than the others, and lots more iPods than all the others combined. That's not a crime; and the iTunes store, or at least the encrypted portions -- I'm not counting the podcasts here, where they're also the biggest provider, of free and unencumbered audio and video -- has the same music as anyone else -- you're not restricted in your music choices, and the encrypted portion of any iPod is almost always the smallest segment of the whole flash or hard drive.
The labels, by taking the approach they have done with rights, have totally dominated the availability and pricing of music for a very long time. In fact, there have been recurrent price-fixing and payola scandals for decades, as they attempt to exercise this monopoly power as though they're somehow above the law and above the natural laws of economics. They are the ones acting like monopolies, in fact; trying to abolish the music commons. There are many, like Bronfman, who want nothing more than that all of his music be encrypted, and that all of the labels participate in this cartel. They will then continue as before, or so they think. keeping the great majority of its signed acts in penury and debt slavery while promoting the hell out of a tiny few. This they will tell you is "protecting artists."
I'd rather have unprotected music, so that the labels would be forced to have a more open market, competing on recording quality, on the artists whom THEY WORK FOR, and their ability to guess what the public wants.
Imagine if you could buy a track, or an album digitally in aac, or in apple lossless; or buy that some album in 5.1 surround with an extra booklet and have it shipped to you.
Some 5 million tracks are, effectively, the great majority of recorded music up to this time. The online music stores give you access to all that plenty with a simple search term. Try doing that at the local record store.
For the record companies to say they have "intellectual property," first they have to show some intellect.
.... that MS ditched it in favour of an iTunesque scheme for their Zune player.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All DRM does is provide the RIAA a way to change "format" anytime they want.
Think of how amazing DRM is for them. They no longer have to back a new physical format (8-track, vinal, CD, DVD audio, etc.). Instead they can just change how they encrypt the music and !!profit!! No more waiting for electronics companies to produce new hardware to play their content. They can just write a new piece of software and now you have buy all that music over again.
As many have pointed out, they just want to keep selling the same music to you over and over again. No new value really, they just want you to "refresh" your license every few years to make sure they can continue to afford there 8 vacation homes.
I found the easiest way to deal with the problem. I don't buy any more music from RIAA backed labels. It does mean a different selection of music. However, I've found some great stuff, which combined with all the CDs I already purchased, makes for a great library that keeps me happy while I code.
Okay, preaching to the choir complete...
It doesn't surprise me that Jobs is drawing the line at DRM for all songs, or for none. The fundamental principle on which the iTunes Music Store is based is same deal for all songs--same prices, same rights. I can't imagine Apple ever embracing a scheme in which users have to read the small print to find out what they can and cannot do with each song--it goes against the fundamental principles of uniformity, simplicity, and transparency upon which Apple has built its reputation.
The industry knows (and wants very badly to speed this up) that the end of the life of CD's is in the near future. Online delivery is clearly the end goal for everyone. The reason they so badly need to somehow make DRM stick is so they can maintain control and also resell their music again. At this point, they'd LOVE it if Apple went out of business and Microsoft or whoever became a market leader. Why? All those iTunes tracks don't work on anything else, so guess what? That's right. Buy your music again, but this time from Napster, next year again, this time from Microsoft, ad nauseaum. It's about control in the future until they can buy more restrictive copyright laws.
'the Internet is right.'
I've thought this is the case for a little while now, and I'm happy to see other people with the same idea.
The thing that gets me is that Steve Jobs can't say this in any form - it's not good business to call your partner untrustworthy! That means the argument to licence FairPlay has to be made on other merits, which aren't anywhere near as strong as the case that we've put.
Oh well, at least we're in for some interesting times.
25% of all music sold in 2006 was from indie labels. If you consider 75% a monopoly, then Apple has one in portable music players.
You miss several key points about how Walmart's business practices 'screw' the consumer as well as the producer:
When Walmart can dictate which producers to choose and what the pricing will be they inherently reduce competition in that product area. I cannot buy the variety of products that I want because Walmart has priced them all out the market. The consumer loses out on choice in the rest of the marketplace
Similiarly, Walmart also prices other retailers out the market, narrowing where I can choose to buy. Walmart aggressively targets smaller retailers using their marketshare to reduce local competition. Walmart actively promotes the monoculture that removes the Mom and Pop shops that used to be able to deliver highly personalised service.
By using pricing as its most aggressive strategy, Walmart turns to the third world and dubious business and environmental practices. The consumer may win in the short term, but only because another country is bearing the weight of this financial arrangement.
All of the 'consumers' who actually work for Walmart and their producers also get screwed. Lower wages, limited benefits, and union-busting methods all underwrite the lower prices that you enjoy. Someone has to pay for your savings, and millions do.
So maybe the companies are trading at a discount to the assets they hold - how does that prevent a takeover?
That's why companies get taken over. While the catalogs may be worth a few hundred million, apple is worth two or three orders of magnitude more - anti-trust legislation is the only thing that could keep these companies out of the hands of apple, if Jobs wanted them.
Maybe the agreement with Apple Corp was preventing him before now, or maybe the status quo suits him - he's not feeling threatened by the music companies though. He owns the technology that they require for their products to be listened to and he owns the only legal distribution channel that is available to them.
He also, coincidentally, can buy them all for stock, or for cash using one year's revenue, and have change left over. The open letter was a gimmick.
let's see, there are a million retail stores, new-napster, real music's service, MS's service, music websites a plenty, artists with their own websites selling their own wares on greenie-disk and otherwise... and Steve Jobs is the "only legal distribution channel?"
so Todd Rundgren's PatroNet site is against the law, even though it was up five years before the torrents?
do some research next time you vent, you are wrong, sir.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
They are never happy. The RIAA want to limit independent artists by making radio stations that broadcast over the Internet pay a heavy fee.
Visit http://www.kaizenlog.com