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."
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.
Yes, now we are haggling over the terms of the license. Will anyone deny that DRM-free music is more consumer friendly ?
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.
What??? So lets see. The new EMI songs will be DRM-free AAC. I'll be able to copy them to all of my PCs and play them, with no problem. I'll be able to burn them to CD, in CD format and as a backup and as long as I have a player for the AAC file, I can play _my_ song.
Unlike protected tunes, there is no way Apple can take away any of my "rights" for this music after I've bought it from them.
From my perspective, that sure as hell makes it look like I will own the DRM-free music I will purchase from iTunes.
Absolutely. I've been a very happy subscriber of Real's Rhapsody for over 3 years now. It's subscription based, but I can also load my MP3 player full of unlimited music (as long as I connect it to the PC once a month to re-license the content). Rhapsody gets albums the same date that stores do, and it's instantly free. If I wanted to burn the track to a CD instead of use it on my MP3 player, I can then pay the small album/track fee and do with it whatever I like. Having access to that vast amount of music on a PC is invaluable, as I'm in front of this idiot box 8+ hours a day for work and I also love music.
Rhapsody made it possible for me to enjoy unlimited music legally, for the price of one CD per month via a subscription model. Maybe the companies that offer subscription models aren't seeing the gold mine that they imagined, but it would be pretty ignorant for Jobs to say that the model, in general, doesn't work.
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.
I think was modded down unfairly. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since the launch of the service, and I'm extremely happy with it for all the reasons listed. In fact, I'm strongly considering switching from iPod to Zen Vision to get the To Go service.
Just because the license would be difficult to enforce doesn't mean you have a right to do what you want.
As an extreme example, If they wanted to, Apple and the record companies could introduce a subscription model without DRM, and as a subscriber you agree that if you stop paying that you will delete all the songs. Obviously it would be difficult for them to force you to do it. But that alone wouldn't give you the right to keep them.
Yes, but you do not own the right to resell the music. Thus, the legal definition is not that of ownership; you are, indeed, licensing it.
While eMusic is technically a subscription based service it is unlike every other "subscription" based provider. You keep your emusic mp3s as long as you want. You don't lose your library because you stopped paying a monthly fee. You simply can't download new music once you've cancelled your subscription.eMusic is considered to be the #2 player in the online music business, and they're subscription based. You can argue how much of eMusic's #2-ness is because of DRM backlash, or favoring independent labels, or whatever, but eMusic is proof that subscriptions are not a deal-breaker, and certainly not failures. And before anyone confuses the subject, subscription != rental. Once a credit goes towards a track on eMusic (citing them as that's what I'm familiar with), you get to download that from wherever you want, as many times as you want, and you can do whatever you want with the file.
http://nyamenation.org/
Yes, but you do not own the right to resell the music. Thus, the legal definition is not that of ownership; you are, indeed, licensing it.
The First-sale doctrine, which is both case and codified law, says otherwise.
The first-sale doctrine has not been tested at the supreme court level in relation to downloaded music, but this is one case in which a conservative court is more likely to side against the record industry. The law says what it says; you'd have to be one of those so-called "activist" judges to read something into it other than what's on paper and side with the RIAA.
DRM-free purchased songs are "owned" under the law. Heck, so are DRM'd songs; you just can't legally break the DRM for resale purposes, making the first-sale doctrine moot.
Perhaps you don't realize that CDs are downsampled—lossily—to cram the original audio signal into a 44.1kHz, 16-bit stereo stream?
When the iTunes music store opened, it was announced that they'd be going back to the original masters to encode the AACs, instead of ripping from CDs. As I understand it, this means it's entirely possible for an AAC at 256kbps to be more faithful to the original signal than would be the equivalent Red Book-compliant CD.
It does seem that the AACs from the iTS are sampled at 44.1kHz, which lends your concern some relevance. But don't attempt to draw such a sharp distinction between "lossy" and "lossless" when the "lossless" to which you refer is, in fact, also lossy, and a cruder type of lossy at that.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
Even when you "purchase" a song, you don't own it. "Renting" or not, you never really own anything other than a license.
Yes you do own it. You own an exact copy, and you can do anything with that copy you please... except copy it. The RIAA cannot come and confiscate your CD.
That's where copyRIGHT comes in. It is the right to make a copy, not the ability. It has nothing to do with ownership. You own it, but your rights are restricted. There are other restricted rights as well, such as the right to public performance or whatever. (For comparison, you may own a car, but you do not have the right to drive it on a public highway unless you are granted that right through a license. Regardless of whether you are granted that right, you still OWN the car.)
A license may grant you the right to copy the song you own, or the right to publicly perform the song you own.
So yes you DO actually own something.
(Software is weird and different and I'm not sure how this concept translates to shrinkwrap licenses and stuff.)
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 should be able to on-sell the song (or more accurately, the license). Just like software, you sell the media, keys, etc, and remove it from your systems. What's the difference between this, and a person buying a song on someone else's behalf because that someone doesn't own a credit card?
AAC as used by Apple is part of the MPEG-4 standard. Apple didn't invent it and doesn't own it.
All digital music, with the exception of purely synthesized stuff, has to pass through an analog-to-digital conversion process that throws away information (quantizing). So "uncompressed music" is still actually compressed -- and lossy-compressed at that -- if it's in digital form. The question has never been compressed vs. uncompressed, but rather what type and level of information loss you find acceptable.
I'm happy with a compression format that is not encumbered with lots of onerous license terms (i.e., that I could write and distribute an open-source player for if I felt like it) and that produces quality slightly better than the point at which I can hear the difference on a good stereo system. The "slightly better" simply so that if I get an even better stereo system later on, I still won't hear the difference. As long as that baseline is met, I want the format to take as few bytes per song as possible.
Does that make me not "people?"
You know, I call bullshit on this argument. I bet that you and all the other people that make this argument (and there seems to be a lot) really just don't want to pay anything for music at all. You all just want to download the songs for free, and wouldn't pay a cent for a song even if it came in uncompressed 96 KHz PCM Audio straight from the master tape.
Now, if that's what you want (free, as in beer, music) come out and say it, and lets have a real debate over the underlying issue. But don't hide behind this BS "uncompressed music" argument. No commercially available completely uncompressed. Even most CD's are dynamically range compressed.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
No. People are just confused as to what the product is.
If I buy a CD, I own the CD. The actual CD. I can shred it, I can give it a friend (so long as I don't have any copies of it), I can sell it, etc. The same would apply to a downloaded song, though it is a bit of a harder stretch for some peoples' minds because of the difference between digital and physical goods.
In neither case did I buy the copyright. I don't control (re)distribution except of my own copy of the work, but I can transfer ownership so long as it is transfered in full.
Ahem! I have a personal CD collection of over 800 CDs, every one original, and I *don't* want downloadable music. I'm more than happy hunting out good CDs at the best prices, getting a shiny disk, a set of sleeve notes and a plastic case. I *love* my music, it's a *fantastic* value product for me because I research and preview every CD before I buy it - therefore, I own the *best* music and the price of a CD is well worth the product quality.
I'm more than happy to rip my own CDs to play on my unbranded MP3 player or on my laptop while I work but that's *my* decision - I'll rip at the quality *I* want and I'm certainly not paying anyone else to do it for me.
So please *do not* equate a dislike of "pay per download" music with piracy - in the 30+ years I have been buying music as an enthusiastic music listener, I have probably put more money the record companies and artists way than most people.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
'' The First-sale doctrine, which is both case and codified law, says otherwise. ''
I think with music with DRM the situation is similar to the situation when you bought wallpaper: You are allowed to resell it, but it is difficult once the wallpaper is on the wall, and the manufacturer doesn't need to help you.
To clarify, analogue music is also lossy-compressed, since the amount of bandwidth available for storing it is finite. The only way to get uncompressed music is to listen to it live (and not at a big concert where you're really hearing music through the speakers, rather than from the instruments). Unfortunately, it's a bit difficult to fit many musicians in an iPod.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.