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.
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.
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.
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 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...
People buy from iTunes because they have iTunes software and because it can be faster and easier than hunting down a CD in a store or on Amazon.com--especially if all you want is one song, and you're not sure what album it's from. It's all for convenience.
There is still a distribution chain with iTunes. iTunes does not sign artists (yet), and it is not run by any labels. Therefore, it is distributing music from various labels, both major & indie. And the labels are themselves distribution mechanisms. We're not talking about music directly off some musician's webpage, unfortunately.
The major labels take a percentage of the price of an album or single. If they gouge at $0.99 and they gouge at $1.29, then they will gouge at $0.25. The less you pay at list, the less the artist will get paid. So we've a tricky economic problem here until someone stops the labels from gouging artists.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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.