Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Says People Don't Want to 'Rent' Music
eldavojohn writes "PhysOrg is running a piece on a recent speech by Apple CEO Steve Jobs about DRM free music. While we know that Jobs is a self proclaimed proponent of DRM free music who's not all talk, he's now said that 'by the end of this year, over half of the songs we offer on iTunes we believe will be in DRM-free versions. I think we're going to achieve that.' Jobs pointed out what's obvious to us, the consumers, but isn't obvious to the music industry — 'People want to own their music.' He also dismissed subscription based music as a failure, and claimed a lot of other music labels are intrigued by the EMI deal."
Even when you "purchase" a song, you don't own it. "Renting" or not, you never really own anything other than a license.
Jobs also sent out a memo yesterday to all content providers letting them know that any and *all* of them could sign up to provide DRM-free and higher qaulity downloads from May onwards. Hopefully Nettwerk and similar labels will sign up for this, and the remaining major labels either follow suit or get forced out of the music business. Its good to see iTS (and the Amazon store) making steps towards a sensible sales model.
It's the same with software, do you want to have to pay $29.95/month to use windows? (I'm sure MS would love that, but I can't think of a single person who would)
MABASPLOOM!
People feel happy when they own their music. Hence why there are so many who won't buy DRMed music. You not only feel like a criminal, but you feel you don't own what you just spent your hard-earned money on.
It's fun how self-evident stuff qualifies as news these days. Has anyone except the mafiaa ever thought otherwise? I have records I've listened to hundreds of times, and I doubt I'm unique in this.
Given the choice, how many people would rent a home instead of buying it? Would you rather rent a TV from RaC or own it?
In many cases, people must resort to renting because they can't afford to buy. This is hardly the case when it comes to music.
Like Jobs says, consumers want to own shit and do what they want with it. 'Renting' and 'subscription' are associated with control, red tape, limitations, etc. Buying a DRM-free song or album is a single transaction with no strings attached.
Huh, imagine that, people actually wanting to own what they buy? :)
People don't want to pay for music either :) Unless they really-really have to, or love the artist
Hyperom.com
... that Apple's clout is sufficient to a) hold the price line on the renegotiaed contracts with the other 3 and b)that those 3 will jump on the non-DRM bandwagon. BUT - i fear they may pull their contracts to greedily make more money elsewhere, and to try to spur lagging CD sales.. Although, even if they did that, seems to me Job's prediction of 50% non-DRM music on iTunes is all but guaranteed.
The music industry aren't complete idiots. They know people don't want DRM'ed music, just like they knew people didn't want to pay inflated prices for records for 30+ years. That's not the point though. It's not about what we want, it's about what they want, and what they're willing to do to get it. Whether they violate racketeering laws, buy legislature, or lie straight to the faces of their customers every second of every day, it's not because they're stupid. It's because they're greedy crooks.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
I spend more than I probably should on music, but I still pay for one of those subscription services. Why? To audition new music. Lots of times I'll hear of something new, and listen to the album (lots of times a 30 second sample just doesn't cut it) on the subscription service to decide whether its worthwhile to buy the album. Other than that, its fun to go through stuff I already own and randomly follow the recommendation links they provide to see if I stumble on something good.
Now, I certainly wouldn't want to use the subscription service as my only source of music... primarily due to the limited selection, mediocre encoding quality and limitations of where I can listen. However, I'd say its worth its worth the $10 to be able to audition full albums of most stuff without trying to track them down on some p2p system.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
I think Jobs' perspective should be put into context.
First of all, iTunes DRM is not designed for a subscription model. Re-engineering would be required, including firmware updates for older iPods, to enforce the subscriptions.
Moreover, not all songs are typically available via the subscription model. Jobs continues to make an issue about variable pricing for songs, with the DRM-free option being the one exception. Yet, consider how they are planning to implement this: by a preference in which the user selects which kind of music s/he prefers to buy.
Some have said a subscription model would require a whole new iTunes Store -- a separate store, with rentable tracks. This is not really true -- users could be presented with a "Buy Song" or "Rent Song" button where applicable.
A subscription service is "not out of the question," he says, but it doesn't look like it's in Apple's interests -- they would bear the price of increasing download costs, unlike the record companies.
DRM-free music, on the other hand, allows for seamlessness. Users can download music, copy it between iPods, computers, and friends' computers without a hassle. Rentable tracks would lend themselves to the opposite kind of experience.
The trend lately to lease, license, rent, etc., rather than own, annoys me to no end. If I'm going to buy something and not own it, there better be a really major advantage somehow(i.e. I rent an apartment/house and someone else is responsible for its maintenance.) But with music, software, etc., I just don't see how leasing is beneficial to anyone but the seller. Also, I'd like to apologize for using up this page's allotment of commas.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
I was heavily into iTunes until I tried out the Urge service that's bundled with WMP11. $10 a month is dirt cheap and I can "try before I buy" tonnes of entire albums. If I want to buy an album, I can do it online. The tracks would already be on my hard drive (if I chose to download instead of stream) and a bit is flipped to state that I've purchased the songs and can now burn them (and re-rip to MP3). Most likely, if I like an entire album, I'll buy the CD used at the local music store.
The radio stations are pretty good; they basically showcase the songs on the service and if I hear a song I like, I can click on the station's "now playing" list and get more info on the song/artist and then download it.
So, I'm getting all the benefits of iTunes Music Store, plus exposure to a whole lot of music I'd otherwise never have incentive to hear.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Ok.. so you got the major record labels together.. how do you agree to split the revenue fairly?
You'll have to work out a system probably based on who ever gets the most plays, which song is most popular, etc... And of course not all artists are worth the same, correct? You got songs many years old, competing against songs that are just released. Then how do you factor in the appreciation premiums? I'm sure a Antoni Bachelli is worth much more in the eyes of the people than a Britney Spears.
Then you'll get a system where the independent artists will get totally screwed. Their play percentage is much lower than the big record labels and of course they don't have the big wigs and high price lawyers on their side. At least with song purchase models it's easy to map where that 99 cents should go to.
He has a habit of making wrong-headed and inflammatory statements like this.
Recently he dismissed cell phone carriers as "commodities."
Now he's dismissing subscription based music as something people don't want.
Well, I want subscription music! It's great that people who want to pay $.99 a song get it DRM-free. But subscription based services will require DRM. I pay $15/mo and listen to anything I want with Napster. That's $180/yr or a meager 180 iTunes songs. I currently listen to Napster about 2 hours a day at work and I listen to it at home, in the gym and in the car. I discover new music on a near daily basis. I love that for the price of a CD, I get to listen to whatever I want, whenever I want. I would have paid probably $5,000 to iTunes to listen to the music I've listened to on Napster. Screw that!
Subscription music services are rarely used for the same reason that nobody has a Mac. Everyone owns and iPod and subscription based software like Napster and Yahoo and Rhapsody won't work with the iPod. Why get Napster if it won't work with your music player? Similarly, everyone owns a PC and popular software won't work on a Mac. Why get a Mac if your favorite games won't work on it?
As bad as a monopoly as Microsoft in the OS market has been, Apple controlling digital music will be 10 times worse. It's always been Jobs' way or the highway. It's one thing when it was just the cultists that had to deal with it. When it's the whole world, it won't be pretty.
You cannot compare renting a home to subscribing to a music service. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
...what? that makes no sense? well, either does your post.
The reasons for subscription music services revolve largely around variety and choice. For $20 a month I can access MILLIONS, MILLIONS of songs. On top of that, your music "collection" is always up to date, new music being added all the time.
This is like saying "Nobody would want to SUBSCRIBE to cable television. You don't want to RENT your shows, you want to OWN them, JUST LIKE A HOUSE"
Let's not forget that Jobs has a vested interest here. He's not just speaking as a concerned observer. It just so happens that a subscription model is not terribly compatible with the iPod in its current incarnation.
For $20 a month, I can buy, what, 240 songs a year? Why is is a better deal to pay $240 for 240 songs when I can pay $240 for millions of songs, available to me via any internet connection, and easily sharable with trusted friends or family? If I cancel my subscription I don't have any songs. Who cares? For $20 more I can have access for another month to millions of songs again.
This isn't exactly a new model. If people were so concerned about "owning" content they wouldn't be going to libraries, they wouldn't be subscribing to Satellite Radio, and they wouldn't be subscribing to Cable TV.
Even if Apple wanted to do it, there is huge issue for the millions of iPods out there: Fairplay DRM, as currently implemented, has no concept of expiration or time limit. So, an "all you eat" subscription solution would be painful for Apple. I can see them updating FairPlay in newer iPods, but updating firmware for every iPod model ever made isn't going to happen.
:-)
I could possibly see Apple making "subscription services" a new iPod feature... forcing people to upgrade to newer iPods if they want support. But that would mean millions of users would be left out. Would Apple really do this?
I'm guessing Apple will never do it, and continue saying it isn't something the users want. That's better spin than saying "it's too hard to do."
[sb]
You're bang on the money!
And if you think Apple computers are about making just multi-media players then think again!!!!
For many people, parting with their hard-earned coinage in exchange for a ornamental computer from Mr Jobs is the closest thing to self expression that they will ever experience in their lives.
Buying a pc from apple is almost a spiritual experience for most consumers, and for many its a deeply political act as well.
Now show me another "purchase" that is so multi-faceted as this and i'll stop calling you cockmaster.
A lot of people wouldn't buy songs from iTunes even if the songs were DRM free. The fact that you are purchasing something in a lossy format means that you're not getting all you could if you were to buy the actual CD. I'd rather pay $12.99 for something that is tangible and not lacking in quality than something that's digital and can only be downloaded once.
that everybody says they want in the iPod. Well, how have the other players with a radio in them sold? Not well. So people, in general, don't want a crappy radio.
I'm sure they can offer a sub service as well as the others. Right now they're in heavy negotiation with the labels, and they've got to at least pretend they don't want it.
Yes, some people will want a sub service. I think they'll eventually get it, as part of... prices tiered by actual value to the consumer, not the whim of marketing departments.
Persistent People WILL Progressively Penetrate the Perplexingly Pea-brained Pompous Pigs and "Persuade" them!
we WILL Prevail!
you may call me P.
Procedure Properly Planned live forever.
People don't want to "pay for" music.
We're all going to die. i intend to deserve it.
I'm all for Steve-o ripping the RIAA a new one and using some muscle flexing to get non-DRM music. I currently own a lot (680+) of Apple DRM music, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it. That said, too many people seem to be arguing how a subscription is better than ownership, or vice versa. This will always depend on the price and the individual considering the purchase, and their motives for doing so.
Not everyone has the same finances, not everyone listens to the same amount of music, and not everyone thinks $.99/song is expensive, or cheap. That means there is a wide variety of sales models that SHOULD be available from many different retailers. Choice is good.
I can imagine a lot of people that are very serious about listening to a variety of music would be interested in paying for a subscription. If you want to "try" 20, 30, 40, or even more albums per month, buying them will leave all but the very rich people out to hang dry. Some people don't think 30 second samplers are good enough. On the other hand, I only buy the equivalent of about 5 to 8 albums per month, and am willing to waste $.99 on a song that had 30 seconds of awesome riff and 2'30" more of utter crap. Then there are people that don't want to buy single songs, but the entire album. Sometimes a physical CD is cheaper than buying a full album on iTS.
So really, there's a wide variety of viable sales/rental/subscription methods out there. Some will make more money than others, and someone will fill the void. So what the article SHOULD have read (or what Steve-o SHOULD have said) was that a subscription method would be an utter failure FOR APPLE.
That said, full DRM songs for SALE just doesn't make sense for the consumer, no matter what your niche is...
he wasn't talking about you. He meant people in general, and he is right.
lets see,
It is a buck per track that you can listen to anytime.
so, How many unique tracks to you listen to that aren't available for free elsewhere?
where can you play the music?
what happens if the service is shut down?
how do you get napster in your car?
drm free music will be good for the consumer, no matter who offeres it.
of course, I don't buy 180 new tracks a year.
5000 dollars would mean about 350 hours a year in songs that you never heard before.
"Everyone owns and iPod and subscription based software like Napster and Yahoo and Rhapsody won't work with the iPod. "
only because they own what you can do with it, and thats not iPods fault.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
At 1.29 (last I heard) for the DRM free version, it's even more worth it to just buy the CD if you want DRM free music. Personally, a file transfered over the internet isn't worth that much to me. I don't know why people pay so much for music from iTunes when the CDs are only marginally more expensive. For my downloaded music I use eMusic. They don't have everything, so I still buy some CDs. However, eMusic's price of about $0.30 for a song is much more to my liking. I've always said it should be a quarter a song, even when iTunes first came out. Because when you cut out the entire distribution chain, as well as the physical media, the cost of the songs should be really low. And since from what I hear the artists don't make any more from iTunes (sometimes less) than they do from CD sales, I can only assume that it's lining the pockets of the production companies, who frankly, don't really deserve any more money.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Perhaps Mr. Jobs would like to expand his "you bought it, use it as you wish" philosophy to the OS he sells.
You really do need to do more than read the headlines. eMusic is subscription ONLY in the sense that you pay a regular monthly fee. It is nothing like Rhapsody or Napster - there is a set limit on the number of tracks that can be downloaded for the selected subscription rate, and the music you download has no DRM (it's strictly MP3). If you cancel your account, you keep your tracks.
$20 bucks for 75 tracks/mo. Strait mp3s with no strings attached and the ability to download anything you've lost without penalty. Now if we can just get all the labels on it :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Apple is making $0.10 profit for every song sold on iTMS. A subscription service will likely make less money since it would appeal mostly to people who would otherwise buy 20 or more songs a month on iTMS.
What Apple really wants is their AAC to be the standard for compressed music. What people really want is uncompressed music.
www.itjerk.com
Don't worry, Macintosh fanboys. Apple vs. Apple has been settled, and Apple Inc. (aka Apple Computer) owns all the trademarks. It's just letting Apple Corp. lease a few back.
To put it another way, the Beatles lost. They got paid for losing, but they lost.
So, if Apple Inc. wants Apple Inc. Records bad enough, there can be an Apple Inc. Records!
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Even when you "purchase" a song, you don't own it. "Renting" or not, you never really own anything other than a license.
That's what the RIAA wants you to think.
When you purchase a song, you purchase either a piece of media on which the song is recorded, or the service of having that data sent to you. (Though actually, it's a little unclear to me what exactly you are purchasing when you purchase a "download"; maybe you're paying someone who is licensed to make copies, to make a copy to your disk?) Either way, the result is that you have paid someone who is legally authorized to make copies of copyrighted materials (the CD distributor, or download service, or whoever) *for a copy of those material*, and you now own that copy (and whatever media you may have purchased with it). You may resell that copy of the data, destroy it, do whatever you want with it like it were any other piece of property.
However, you *are* legally prohibited from making copies of it. The only relevant license someone could sell you regarding it was a license to make further copies; all other relevant rights, you already have. The only right withheld from you is the right to make copies of it. There are plenty of other things you aren't permitted to do with other things that you own (hit someone with your baseball bat, for instance), and that doesn't make you own them any less. No one can revoke your license to listen to it or do anything else with it (though with DRMd music they may have sold you something which extralegally will become useless to you unless you continue to pay them, i.e. "renting" music; but you still own that copy of the data, it's just useless to you now and you're legally prohibited from fixing it to make it useful again).
When you buy music, you *own* that music. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.
Note: None of the above should be construed as support of copyright law.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Hm, I don't seem to recall the GP saying anything hateful, or even mentioning, the RIAA- he was adressing Jobs. And even that adress wasn't hateful, just pointing out the fact that when you buy a piece of music, you don't actually own the song, just the right to listen to it with certain restrictions. It's just a simple statemant. Yet you're able to read into this person enough to write two scathing paragraphs? Back off, man. He may be impotently crticizing "The Man" on Slashdot, but at least he's not attacking other slashdotters for no reason.
Whats so bad about this post that it got labelled Troll?
---
1. People have rights to their own music
2. DRM - Rights taken away
3. People are given back their rights
4. ???
5. Profit!
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Please don't link to PhysOrg. They're a link tarpit... their business model is to take press releases from elsewhere on the net and post them without linking back to the original article, so that searches terminate there among their ad banners. It's usually not *hard* to find the article they copied, it does usually have non-hypertext attribution, so using PhysOrg's tarpit is just laziness.
This appears to be the original article: at Ziff Davis' C|net.
Also it doesn't make sense at all to DRM music you sell (and therefor no music) because the people who actually buy the music isn't likely to copy it to begin with, if they where they whould have done so instead of buying it.
But sure, if all the ways music was distributed in was copy protected and never broken it would work for them and suck for the consumers.
They don't need. They already have the "making steps towards something" patent accepted.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
A few months ago, I started using one of the subscription music services and I love it. I pay about $10/month and I have access to a HUGE library of music. For me, this is a much better solution than (a) paying nearly $20 for a CD that I *might* still like a few years from now and (b) *stealing* music via the p2p networks.
Ok, so that baseball bat analogy wasn't so great, and I can't think of another one off the top of my head that doesn't involve copyright, so here's one that does: books. You probably own some books, and believe, correctly, that you really do own those books. However, you are prohibited by law from making copies of them. Thus, you can own things and be prohibited from doing certain things with this. But my overarching point was just that the only right that *could* be licensed to you with regards to some hunk of data you've bought is the right to copy it, since that is the only right witheld from you by law; all other rights regarding it come with the purchase.
Of course DRM plus the DMCA throws a huge exception in there in that you're also not allowed to circumvent any encryption mechanism on the data, even though you own it; so if you buy some encrypted data, you'll have to buy a (perhaps limited) license to decrypt it to make any use of it. But this thread is about whether you can really own un-DRMd music, and you can; you're just prohibited by law from doing one thing with it, copying. In fact you can own even DRMd music, but then you are also prohibited by law from doing what is necessary to make any use of it, so really, you've bought something useless which you are prohibited from making useful, plus the limited service of having someone authorized to make it useful for you, do so. Which seems like a real rip-off to me, hence the unsavoriness of DRMd music.
If it weren't for the DMCA, DRMd music would basically be music with "some assembly required"- i.e. you'll have to break the decryption first, though there will be tools to make this easy just as there are hammers out there to make actual assembly of things easy. But with the DMCA, DRM becomes "some assembly required, assembly at home prohibited by law, please see dealer for assembly and a limited-term maintainance contract, assembly may fail upon failure to renew maintainance contract (i.e. we built it like shit so that it'll fall apart unless you pay us to keep it working)".
With un-DRMd music, all you're prohibited from doing is copying it. There's not really any real-world analogy to copying, so this is a weird special case. Though I do wonder... I'm fairly sure that sculpture is copyrightable, and I know that even a simple "X" on a page is automatically copyrighted (though good luck enforcing it), so I would imagine that anything you build, no matter how generic, you automatically have a copyright on. Now, I'm also fairly sure that accurately reproducing a work by hand counts as 'copying'; otherwise simply retyping someone's manuscript (or some GPLd code) letter-for-letter would allow you to circumvent the copyright on it. So all this taken together, it would seem to me that if someone manufactured, say, a wooden chair, that could count as a fairly simple and generic sculpture, and if you were then to get out your saw and lathe and meticulously reconstruct a bunch of identical chairs, you might be in violation of copyright law, just like if you retyped and printed copies of some book you own.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
We listen to music because the right music improves the quality of life. It's the same reason we keep flowers, eat gourmet food, or play favorite videogames.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I really like Napster's subscription. I don't use it much to be honest, but it's nice to know I can listen to pretty much any song I want very quickly. When I'm bored, it's nice to browse the new additions as well.
I also subscribe to a DVD rental company and a separate game rental company. After really running out of storage for boxes, and seeing how pathetic the resale is on old movies and games these days, I really think rental is the modern way to experience all these things.
Plus, a touch on the morbid side, but you're never going to own anything for very long in grand scheme of things...
"(4th Quarter) Music revenue was $33.6 million, a 21% increase over the fourth quarter of 2005". From the Real Networks Corporate Website.
Although in fact I agree with Jobs. Subscription services appeal to music afficionados who value access to a huge library. Most people just want their Fleetwood Mac, Brittney Spears etc and subsciptions don't make sense when you want to buy 10 songs a year.
So it will be a niche market targetting "music nerds" or whatever you mighty call them.
I for one think that Rhapsody is the greatest step forward in the history of the internet.
You a fucking idiot for trolling somebody you don't even know who was just saying what is a fact. The game is rigged you idiot and freedom is just an illusion to make you feel better about yourself. You are not even arguing any of the point he made. Grow up Here's how you work, you too are a cowardly geek who proberbly in his 30's who still gets beaten up by high school kids and you are bitter an angry so you pick a random on slashdot and troll him/her for no reason so you can sound like a hard cunt and feel better about youself till you close the web browser and replace the underwear after getting a wedgie by a couple of 13 year old who made you cry at the video game arcade. Now THAT is how you sound like, get a life
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Mod this guy up!
Ah, I see, you do not own a single book, do you? While I can brag I own thousands of books, you own none!
Sorry, I do not intend to adopt your definition of ‘own’.
I agree the AC reply was a bit harsh, but despite that I have to agree with the general sentiment, if not the specifics. It's become a typical /. cliche to rant against anything with the slightest hint of restriction attached. However, you don't agree to a license when you buy a book, or a CD, or a movie. You really, honest-to-god own that copy. Copyright law, which is not a license, no matter what people on /. may really want to believe, says you aren't allowed to make copies (except for some very specific instances). So yes, if you purchased a song you'd own that copy of the song. You'd be free to sell it to whomever you want at whatever price you could get, you just wouldn't be able to (legally) keep a copy for yourself once you've sold it.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
A good analogy of renting vs. buying individual tracks is sports season ticket holders vs. buyers of individual tickets. Season ticket holders get a reduced price per game and get to see any game they want to. Ticket buyers get to pick and choose but pay a higher price. I might want to go to a game once every three years or maybe three a year. The season ticket holder is much more passionate about the team (music) but we're both sports (music) fans. Both are necessary for the support of music.
The difference between the two models is numbers. It's a classic pyramid where there are many (10?) times more people who are casual buyers vs. season ticket holders.
Where DRM comes in, is imagine that your memories of those games you attend only survives as long as you keep buying season tickets. For individual buyers, you have to keep track of your music, etc., much less onerous. With DRM free, your memories won't die with minimal maintenance of your music library.
Subscription services are important but not for the mass market. So Steve Jobs is right that the iTunes eco-system should not go through a radical change to meet the needs of a few. That doesn't mean the needs of a few are a failure or cannot be met elsewhere.
A person who likes to own music.