PDA

View Full Version : Steve Jobs 'Thoughts on Music'




Pages : [1] 2

spicyapple
Feb 6, 2007, 01:32 PM
67704

Steve Jobs' Thoughts on Music linked from Apple.com

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.

To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats... continued



psychofreak
Feb 6, 2007, 01:42 PM
Seems more reasonable than I thought it would be...

BoyBach
Feb 6, 2007, 01:45 PM
It appears that Apple is looking for the lawmakers to 'oblige' the music industry to stop imposing DRM on digital downloads.

I wonder how the 'Big Four' will respond to these comments, if at all?

Peace
Feb 6, 2007, 01:55 PM
Apple will sell DRM free music as soon as the others agree to do the same.Thus making it a level playing field.

MacRumors
Feb 6, 2007, 01:55 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

This afternoon, Steve Jobs posted an article (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) entitled "Thoughts on Music" on Apple.com.

In the article, he addresses recent calls for Apple and iTunes to "open" the digital rights management system on iTunes to allow other digital devices to play iTunes music and to allow other music store media to play on the iPod.

He reminds readers that the iPod can play unprotected content, and gives background on the reason for for digital rights management.

He then explores three different alternatives for the future:

1) Stay the course "with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. "

2) License FairPlay to other companies. "The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. .... Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies"

3) Abolish DRMs entirely. "If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

Jobs argues that DRM doesn't work effectively and believes that Digital Rights Management should not be required by music companies.

"Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."

Apple has come under increasing pressure (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/24/european-countries-up-pressure-on-itunes-fairplay/) from some European consumer groups regarding FairPlay, perhaps prompting the article.

spicyapple
Feb 6, 2007, 01:57 PM
Steve really points out the hypocrisy of the music industry, but without actually using that word.

Go Steve!

radian23
Feb 6, 2007, 01:58 PM
I really don't think other players should be allowed to use itunes. Itunes is an integral part for the iPod which helps it separate itself from the competition. If you want to use iTunes get an iPod.

mambodancer
Feb 6, 2007, 01:58 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

This afternoon, Steve Jobs posted an article (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) entitled "Thoughts on Music" on Apple.com.

In the article, he addresses recent calls for Apple and iTunes to "open" the digital rights management system on iTunes to allow other digital devices to play iTunes music and to allow other music store media to play on the iPod.

This makes for a very interesting read. It'll be interesting to see how European countries respond to this criticism.

Project
Feb 6, 2007, 01:59 PM
100% truth being spoken here. I have to applaud Apple/Steve for coming out and being open about this. Its a refreshing change.

sycho
Feb 6, 2007, 01:59 PM
I really don't think other players should be allowed to use itunes. Itunes is an integral part for the iPod which helps it separate itself from the competition. If you want to use iTunes get an iPod.

:confused:

Other players can sync with the DRM-less music at the moment.

crees!
Feb 6, 2007, 02:00 PM
There is the DRM on DVDs to prevent you from making a copy of a movie but then again what's to stop people from bypassing that? Obviously I can be done. So where are the studios then? They still use the same copy protection granted it's been breached. Why should Apple or any other company have to update their software in said amount of time from when a breach occurs?

Steve is right and not because he's the one who said it.

neoserver
Feb 6, 2007, 02:00 PM
I really don't think other players should be allowed to use itunes. Itunes is an integral part for the iPod which helps it separate itself from the competition. If you want to use iTunes get an iPod.

I'd have to agree with you on this one. There is no reason that Apple should open iTunes.

Diatribe
Feb 6, 2007, 02:01 PM
DRM-free, downloadable music... as if that is ever gonna happen. :rolleyes:

Bobdude161
Feb 6, 2007, 02:06 PM
Well-said Steve.

radian23
Feb 6, 2007, 02:07 PM
:confused:

Other players can sync with the DRM-less music at the moment.

Just finished the article. Itunes music uses DRM if you purchase it in the music store. I don't believe other players can sync with itunes.

PtMD
Feb 6, 2007, 02:08 PM
Would Steve support the same for movies (Disney)? I find it odd he only speaks to music, and not electronic media in general. :confused:

dongmin
Feb 6, 2007, 02:09 PM
DRM-free, downloadable music... as if that is ever gonna happen. :rolleyes:

It's happened: emusic (http://www.emusic.com/).

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

timnosenzo
Feb 6, 2007, 02:10 PM
Really good, informative read!

arn
Feb 6, 2007, 02:11 PM
Just finished the article. Itunes music uses DRM if you purchase it in the music store. I don't believe other players can sync with itunes.

Some other players were able to "sync" with iTunes... but only with non DRM music. I haven't tested this lately, so don't know if this has been dropped

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548

Remember iTunes existed before the iPod.

arn

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 02:11 PM
I thought that was a very good article. I'm pleased to read that Apple would embrace non DRM music store, if it could - and recongises that this would be a benefit to the consumer, over the hideous situation we face today - that is - vendor lock-in.

SJ is correct when he says that vendor lock in represents only a small percentage of music. But face it - downloading music is more convienent IMO. As music stores become more popular, Apple and otherswill face increased pressure to license out their DRM - read: which ever music store is the most popular at the time.

People say - if you don't like it buy a CD. HOWEVER, they are missing a HUGE point. You cannot go into HMV and buy music on a track by track basis like you can with iTunes - or any other store for that matter. That is a major pull of online music stores.

I found it interesting to read regarding the 'time limit' that apple have to fix DRM breaches.

97% of music is DRM-free - its only digital music that is DRMed - which represents a very small amount. When you put it like that - DRM sounds like a very strange beast, indeed. You won't beat piracy when you have a situation like this.


As for 'you should only use iTMS if you have an iPod'. Get real. I'm glad you like you consumer rights being limited.

daveL
Feb 6, 2007, 02:12 PM
It's easy for Steve to say that DRM-free is the way to go, because he knows the labels will never let it happen.

killr_b
Feb 6, 2007, 02:13 PM
iPod+iTunes. Period.

The Zune is a joke. If people want to use a Zune with iTunes they can suck it and buy an iPod.

Apple spent their time and energy (and money) to develop a system that actually works and now because of some Wigs in Europe that don't know s*** from s*** they're gonna screw Europe out of the only system proven to work for people that they are *mostly* happy with.

Steve's response to this- he doesn't just tell them how it is, but how it is going to be. Maybe they'll figure it out now.

Peace
Feb 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
It's easy for Steve to say that DRM-free is the way to go, because he knows the labels will never let it happen.

While that may be true what Steve says is correct.

roland.g
Feb 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
That is an informative and great letter. I'm glad I read it, though I have no personal problem with DRM, since I have no reason to steal music. However, I want a new product release, not colored shuffles, not shipping Airports, not even shipping :apple:tvs, a new revision to a Computer. OR better yet, mind the gap, the missing mid range Mac.

dontmatter
Feb 6, 2007, 02:15 PM
Apple: It's not us, it's them! Not our choice! See how plays for sure was cracke...oh wait, nevermind. See how indendent lables we sell DRMed music of refuse to sell that same music without a DRM... oh wait, nevermind.

It's not that apple is wrong in their decisions or model, just that the argument here is based on fear and moving the blame, rather than a significant portion of the truth: apple is making a killing in this buisness. Not that we should expect them to do anything else. But I just don't buy that the difficulties of liscencing fairplay are a bigger decision maker than the increased competition to the ipod that would result in.

By the way, it's not the 22 DRMed songs that keep people from buying other players, it's (in addition to crappy designs) the whole library organized in itunes that does it.

50548
Feb 6, 2007, 02:16 PM
SJ is simply THE BEST CEO out there, and a true leader for Apple...it's amazing to see how much passion he puts in the company, and how promptly and openly he addresses some of the most annoying questions put forward by users and market alike...

He is an example as executive, and a true inspiration behind the rebirth of Apple...KEEP WALKING, STEVE! GO APPLE!

failsafe1
Feb 6, 2007, 02:17 PM
It's happened: emusic (http://www.emusic.com/).

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.

Yvan256
Feb 6, 2007, 02:20 PM
First of all, Apple doesn't have to do anything to "support" most of the other music players. Make a playlist, then select all and copy to the MP3 player that's probably mounted as a USB drive. Less practical than a real sync, but it works.

Second, I feel I have to add the following argument to Steve's comments about Fairplay:

Its hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future.

Especially when you consider that 3% of music will sound the same coming from a Mac, a PC or a burned audio CD. Of course you won't get the same audio quality as a real CD, but it won't sound any worst than when your computer plays it.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 02:22 PM
What happens when and if microsoft over takes the iPod - Your tune will change.

As for taking a crack at Europe - for wanting to give consumers MORE choice - that is lame.

People may be happy enough - because it made iTunes #1, but why not improve the suituation for the consumer. Markets shouldn't be static.


iPod+iTunes. Period.

The Zune is a joke. If people want to use a Zune with iTunes they can suck it and buy an iPod.

Apple spent their time and energy (and money) to develop a system that actually works and now because of some Wigs in Europe that don't know s*** from s*** they're gonna screw Europe out of the only system proven to work for people that they are *mostly* happy with.

Steve's response to this- he doesn't just tell them how it is, but how it is going to be. Maybe they'll figure it out now.

TheBobcat
Feb 6, 2007, 02:22 PM
The day DRM dies will be the day the labels realize their business model is no longer effective, and they themselves are no longer necessary.

Industries who find themselves bypassed by technology are the real ones who stifle progress, and unfortunately, don't die until consumers say enough is enough and endorse alternative means.

Project
Feb 6, 2007, 02:24 PM
By the way, it's not the 22 DRMed songs that keep people from buying other players, it's (in addition to crappy designs) the whole library organized in itunes that does it.

Thats a poor argument. iTunes uses standard tagging for its MP3s and as thus can be imported by Windows Media Player, Zune Software, Winamp, MediaMonkey etc pretty much intact. All you will lose is stuff like playcounts and ratings.

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 02:25 PM
That's a good article, and goes along with what a lot of people have been saying for some time. Some of the terminology is mixed up, but it makes sense. It's good to hear Apple would sell DRM-free music "in a heartbeat".

One thing I didn't think was very good was his talking about the "average" iPod. Jobs uses the term "average" in the sense of the mean, showing that the average (mean) iPod has 22 songs, or 3% of its music from the iTunes store. He claims this (costing roughly $22 to rebuy the songs) wouldn't lock someone into an iPod -- if someone wanted to buy a Zune, $22 likely wouldn't stop them.

But that's not really representative, in my opinion. Some people have bought more than 22 songs, while others have bought none. More stats would be helpful here.

Another thing is that that's 22 songs so far. As more music is released, and people are more familiar with digital distribution, this could rise.

illw!l
Feb 6, 2007, 02:25 PM
Thinking ahead a few years, affordable devices (including those by Microsoft) will likely be running full versions of a desktop OS, meaning they will have the capacity to install iTunes and play FairPlay DRM, which eliminates and competive advantage or lock-in (as far as I see) that Apple currently enjoys.

Thoughts?

szark
Feb 6, 2007, 02:26 PM
What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

See how indendent lables we sell DRMed music of refuse to sell that same music without a DRM... oh wait, nevermind.

The reason why Apple sells all iTunes music with DRM is to maintain a seamless experience. All music purchased from iTunes has the same restrictions and the same usage rights -- that makes it easier for the user.

They don't want the mess that exists at the other music stores -- where some songs can only be played through a subscription, some songs can only be purchased, different purchased songs have different usage rights, etc.

eenu
Feb 6, 2007, 02:26 PM
I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.

Same - I couldn't find anything on that site it was crap!

dongmin
Feb 6, 2007, 02:26 PM
I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.Obviously, how useful emusic is depends on your musical tastes, since they don't offer music from the Big Four. However, many people, such as myself, enjoy music from independent lables. Hence, emusic is VERY useful to me.

For $10 a month, I get 40 DRM-free downloads. That's 30 more songs than I can get from the iTunes store. Also, since emusic doesn't restrict what users do with their music, I can download the same song as many times as I want. So if I lose a particular purchased song, I can just re-download it. Very consumer-friendly.

I still use iTS because I like the interface and there are certain genres (like Hip Hop) that're not well represented on emusic. But from a DRM point of view, the emusic model is WAY more compelling.

ChrisA
Feb 6, 2007, 02:31 PM
Just finished the article. Itunes music uses DRM if you purchase it in the music store. I don't believe other players can sync with itunes.

It's more work but any non-iPodMP3 player can be used with iTunes. It's not hard. The MP3 player typically looks like a USB disk to Mac OX. All you have to do is tell iTunes to export a playlist as MP3 files and have it place the exported tunes on the MP3 player. Takes more clicks then if using an iPod but not hard.

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 02:32 PM
Apple: It's not us, it's them! Not our choice! See how plays for sure was cracke...oh wait, nevermind. See how indendent lables we sell DRMed music of refuse to sell that same music without a DRM... oh wait, nevermind.

Too much choice might scare the customer off. I heard that is why Apple prices all songs at $0.99. They want users to have the same experience. It would be completely annoying if there were 5 different DRM schemes. All I want to do is buy a song, but now I have to think, "OK, if I buy this, how many CDs can I burn it to? Oh and I can only have it in two playlists at a time..."

Even if they only had two levels, DRM and DRM-free, it would still be annoying for users to think about, and they would have more questions. Especially since so much of the music would have DRM, while some wouldn't. Users would have to be educated on the differences.

By having the same DRM for everyone they make this decision easier. Either you like their DRM terms or you don't.

lopresmb
Feb 6, 2007, 02:33 PM
That was awesome, at the very least we know Steve Jobs "gets" it.

jklps
Feb 6, 2007, 02:34 PM
I really agree with what SJ has to say.

Apple made it easy to move and manage files using iTunes, and easy to download them legally.

If these countries have a problem they are only doing a disservice to their citizens.

shelterpaw
Feb 6, 2007, 02:35 PM
Some other players were able to "sync" with iTunes... but only with non DRM music. I haven't tested this lately, so don't know if this has been dropped

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548

Remember iTunes existed before the iPod.

arnIt's super simple to write a script that could sync with iTunes and therfor be super simple to write an application that worked with iTunes. As far as showing up within itunes, that may be more difficult.

dongmin
Feb 6, 2007, 02:35 PM
The reason why Apple sells all iTunes music with DRM is to maintain a seamless experience. All music purchased from iTunes has the same restrictions and the same usage rights -- that makes it easier for the user.

They don't want the mess that exists at the other music stores -- where some songs can only be played through a subscription, some songs can only be purchased, different purchased songs have different usage rights, etc.

I don't see how the end-user experience would be any different. iTunes handles the back-end of the downloading and media management. The DRM songs and non-DRM songs would co-exist in your library just like they do now.

gsnixon
Feb 6, 2007, 02:39 PM
That was awesome, at the very least we know Steve Jobs "gets" it.

Exactly. ****ing right on Steve. This has really allayed my doubts for a while.

MacVault
Feb 6, 2007, 02:40 PM
I am jumping for joy after reading that Steve Jobs is publicly bashing DRM and saying Apple would rather sell DRM-free music than music with DRM!!!! I LOVE YOU, STEVE JOBS! All this time I thought you had no clue about this! Please, Steve, force the industry to embrace DRM-free-NESS. I would TOTALLY BUY MORE MUSIC ONLINE (from iTunes) IF IT WERE NOT SHACKLED BY DRM! THAT'S RIGHT - THE RECORD COMPANIES WOULD BE GETTING WAY MORE OF MY MONEY!!! But until it's DRM-free, FORGET IT!

And, next, do the same with the video content!!!!

:) :) :)

rxse7en
Feb 6, 2007, 02:40 PM
I think this statement, combined with the recent Apple Corp. announce is just Steve's way of prepping us for something different. I believe that Apple, Inc. is now free to produce their own, DRM-free music with every unsigned musician out there and will do so offering artists the opportunity to be iTunes Exclusive Artists. The end user will be free to purchase DRM-free music and the currently contracted artists will abandon the big four as their contracts expire. I for one welcome our new ant overlords...er, Apple's paradigm-shifting move into the music industry...yet again. Go Steve!

B

trevorlsciact
Feb 6, 2007, 02:40 PM
I think that the Beatles will be DRM free. I know it's out there but, I believe.

ShavenYak
Feb 6, 2007, 02:41 PM
It's happened: emusic (http://www.emusic.com/).

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

Probably for the same reason all the tracks are $0.99. Just to keep it simple. And also for security. Imagine if there was a 'flag' that had to be set for every track saying whether or not the store would add the DRM wrapper... what would happen the first time a major label's music got set up wrong and went out unprotected? :eek:

superleccy
Feb 6, 2007, 02:42 PM
Right or wrong (and I think it's mostly right), this is very clever.

This argument should make those pesky Europeans back down, whilst keeping Apple's (and SJ's) halo intact.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.
In other words... "if I open up FairPlay, then don't blame me if the whole concept of legally downloadable music comes crashing down... impacting the Big 4s' cashflow... and Apple's".
For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard.
In other words... "Vivendi, EMI and BMG... you huge powerful companies you, if you want your gravy trains to keep a-rolling, please can you give your local governments a wake-up slap"
Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
In other words... "Hey, we're Apple so we're still the consumers' friend, we're cool. OK, so we'd be hit too if the music companies actually agreed to this... but we know that they never will. Highfive!"

Apple 2, Europe 1.

Regards
Superleccy of Europe

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 02:42 PM
I'm glad I read it, though I have no personal problem with DRM, since I have no reason to steal music.

There are lots of reasons not to buy music that uses DRM. I don't buy it because I want to be able to do whatever I want with my music in the future, and not have to worry about authorizing/deauthorizing my computers. Or worrying about if I want to use music in a movie or presentation in the future, wondering if I'll be able to do that. For me it's nothing really concrete, I just don't like the idea. That's fine; I don't agree to Apple's terms and I don't buy music from Apple. I buy CDs and copy them into iTunes.

As Jobs points out, DRM doesn't prevent "theft." All it takes is one person to buy the CD, rip the songs to whatever format, and put it on the Internet. Even with a perfect DRM solution, music could still be recorded by running an audio cable from your computer to a recording device (or, at the very worst, into a microphone). It only takes one person to do this. So DRM can't prevent theft. It prevents casual uses for everyday people, and that's why I don't like it.

manu chao
Feb 6, 2007, 02:43 PM
Sure, the big labels sell most of their music DRM-free (on CDs). But it is not that they have not tried to protect them (copy-protected CDs, Sony's trojan). They just hope that slowly more and more of the music sales will migrate to DRMed platforms (downloads and maybe DRMed SACDs).

Remember, 15 years ago, long before Napster, the main avenue to get music was actually buying it from the labels (+ what you could get from your friends on tapes). I am not sure any reliable statistics exist but what I learn from anecdotal evidence that a non-neglible part of music on peoples computers and iPods has not been aquired legally. Admittedly, people would not have bought all their non-legal music, but only a part of it.

My main point is that while I hate DRM (and whenever possible try to buy the music on CDs instead of from the iTMS) you cannot blame the labels for denouncing illegal downloading.

(Side point: can you bequeath or inherit DRMed music?)

nemaslov
Feb 6, 2007, 02:43 PM
I think my percentage of DRM music is much lower. I have about 300 purchased DRM trackes from iTunes and another 19,600 unprotected tracks from CDS....

dongmin
Feb 6, 2007, 02:44 PM
I think this statement, combined with the recent Apple Corp. announce is just Steve's way of prepping us for something different. I believe that Apple, Inc. is now free to produce their own, DRM-free music with every unsigned musician out there and will do so offering artists the opportunity to be iTunes Exclusive Artists. The end user will be free to purchase DRM-free music and the currently contracted artists will abandon the big four as their contracts expire. I for one welcome our new ant overlords...er, Apple's paradigm-shifting move into the music industry...yet again. Go Steve!

BWishful thinking. More likely, Apple's contract with the Big Four stipulates that Apple not get into the recording business.

I'd venture to guess this is also the reason why Apple doesn't offer DRM-free songs from independent lables.

scrambledwonder
Feb 6, 2007, 02:45 PM
Yes! No DRM. I would actually buy more music from the iTunes store if it didn't have DRM. As it is, I'm more likely to buy a new or used CD and rip it. That's still an excellent option, though, because it keeps my local music store in business. . .

ShavenYak
Feb 6, 2007, 02:45 PM
I have posted this on an iTunes forum and will repeat it here. I just purchased a Sony Ericsson W810i and it came with a coupon for 50 free songs from eMusic. I thought yay free music is free music. I had a hard time finding 50 songs I wanted. Most of the songs I looked for were bad Kareoke versions or not the original artist. I finally found 50 songs and quit the trial membership that same day. If emusic is an example of what a DRM site needs to be than count me out.

It's only recently that they've put a lot of that non-original-artist crap up. It is annoying. But, for the right kind of listener emusic is still cool. They just don't have 'mainstream' music because (almost by definition) mainstream musicians are all on the major labels, and the major labels all demand DRM.

balamw
Feb 6, 2007, 02:45 PM
As for taking a crack at Europe - for wanting to give consumers MORE choice - that is lame.

People may be happy enough - because it made iTunes #1, but why not improve the suituation for the consumer. Markets shouldn't be static.

Steve's point is that the DRM is not Apple's doing, it's the labels. The same labels that are already selling 90% of their music the old-fashioned no-DRM way, on CD. And that remains the best choice for consumers. The same major labels that are the boat anchors on the music business keeping it from adapting to the reality of the times, keeping the market static.

Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't by the deal they have struck with the big four. Open FairPlay up, face an (inevitable) leak, lose the whole license to the library. Not a good choice, I agree with Steve.

Those who have too much time on their hands have already demonstrated some cracks in the armor of HD-DVD/BluRay DRM, so is there really any hope for DRM?

I do find the article a bit short sighted in that it doesn't discuss movies, TV shows or software which face similar problems. Plus, I agree with those that say that Steve could put his money where his mouth is in offering at least some music DRM free or at least in FairPlay wrapped Apple Lossless (essentially unprotected).

B

OhEsTen
Feb 6, 2007, 02:46 PM
What happens when and if microsoft over takes the iPod - Your tune will change.

As for "when" I think you have some rosy goggles on. Microsoft is very far from taking over the iPod. They don't have a truly competing product. It's not that they aren't capable of making one, they just don't have it yet, and their track record would suggest they will never have one with their current business strategy.


People may be happy enough - because it made iTunes #1, but why not improve the suituation for the consumer. Markets shouldn't be static.

I beleive that was the whole point of the article. (did you not read it?)

Apple's Fairplay DRM is in place because that's how Apple can license the music library they offer. The music industry demands DRM for online music stores.

Some Eurpean countries are "attacking" Apple's DRM scheme, and Apple is telling them, "Don't shoot the mesenger".

I think Apple really isn't afraid of a DRM-free world. I beileve that's the way SJ would prefer it, because DRM in any form is limiting (although Fairplay is about a usable as possible). I believe the music industry would probably consider DRM free music because they are desparate to wrangle control from Apple. They have been shot down 3 times (that I know of), trying to increase revenues. They tried to up the price of songs twice, and they have tried to get a cut from iPod sales. Apple has not bowed to them in any of these attempts. If the music industry was to setup their own stores, they would have to sell DRM free tracks for it to be usable on the world's most popular music player - the iPod.

I think this letter is a good move. And I think it shows that Apple has nothing to fear. Competition is good.

ChrisA
Feb 6, 2007, 02:47 PM
Same - I couldn't find anything on that site it was crap!

emusic has some great stuff. I just got the following that is actually quite hard to find elsewhere. (edit: the Waits release was featured in iTunes front page)

Philip Glass' 2nd and 3rd symphonys
John Coltrane's European tour from the 1960's
A new release from Tom Waits


It's all, 100% legal, DRM free and 1/4 the price of iTumes and I've imported it to my iTunes library. Oh and the quality is typically better then 128kbps too.

They have stuff that no one else does. But they don't carry the the top 40 stuff the kids listen to that I'm sure accounts for 90% of music sales.

skochan
Feb 6, 2007, 02:48 PM
It's easy for Steve to say that DRM-free is the way to go, because he knows the labels will never let it happen.

I agree. This is just postering on Jobs' part so he can tell the European countries that he wants to sell music DRM-free, but see, the record labels just won't cooperate!

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 02:48 PM
I really don't think he's having a go at Europe... its your imagination.

He's describing DRM - and all the hassles that go with it - the complexities arising.

Additionally, as SJ points out - ONLY 3% of music is DRM, whilst the rest is free of DRM. How does that make sense regarding DRM? Music is easily pirated so matter what source - digital or CD. Is DRM the best answer - he's saying No.

All Europe wants are music stores which aren't locked in to a single device. Is that so bad - they want more consumer freedom. You can buy music from Store A and play the content on digital device B. Shocking - you have the freedom to buy online music like you have with brick and mortor stores!!!

Remember, Europe didn't care how this happened - whether DRM was removed or Apple licensed out Fairplay. ADDITIONALLY - it wasn't just aimed at Apple BUT ALL music stores and media players!!!!!!!

Consumer 1 v DRM 0

I feel this is what Apple will start pushing on the labels - "do you think DRM really is the solution?" and ask them to have a long hard think.

Right or wrong (and I think it's mostly right), this is very clever.

This argument should make those pesky Europeans back down, whilst keeping Apple's (and SJ's) halo intact.

In other words... "if I open up FairPlay, then don't blame me if the whole concept of legally downloadable music comes crashing down... impacting the Big 4s' cashflow... and Apple's".

In other words... "Vivendi, EMI and BMG... you huge powerful companies you, if you want your gravy trains to keep a-rolling, please can you give your local governments a wake-up slap"

In other words... "Hey, we're Apple so we're still the consumers' friend, we're cool. OK, so we'd be hit too if the music companies actually agreed to this... but we know that they never will. Highfive!"

Apple 2, Europe 1.

Regards
Superleccy of Europe

NATO
Feb 6, 2007, 02:50 PM
I'm astounded that Apple, and more specifically Steve Jobs himself would actually publicly comment on the whole DRM situation. I agree wholeheartedly, the sooner the music industry get over this DRM-Fetish the better, its a joke considering CDs are DRM-Free anyway.

I think this is yet more proof that Steve understands the needs and concerns of consumers and while he's stuck with DRM for now, clearly he thinks its time to start moving against it. It's great to see where Apple stands on the DRM issue.

Balli
Feb 6, 2007, 02:50 PM
Well said Mr Jobs. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. I just hope the record companies do too.

weg
Feb 6, 2007, 02:57 PM
I'd have to agree with you on this one. There is no reason that Apple should open iTunes.

If you don't care that you can play the music you paid for (almost the same price as for a CD!) only on an Apple player, that's your problem. I for one have more than one MP3 player, and not all of them are from Apple. I'm not going to pay the full price for music that I can't play on any device I own.

Anyway, Apple could licence iTunes to other MP3 player manufacturers, then they'd make money with it.

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 02:57 PM
talk the talk, i would cross my finger until the label company agree DRM free music, at that time, Mr. Job may confirm if he walk the walk, allow iTunes stored's purchase be DRM free. right now, whatever he said, doesn't mean a dime.

slu
Feb 6, 2007, 03:00 PM
I really don't think other players should be allowed to use itunes. Itunes is an integral part for the iPod which helps it separate itself from the competition. If you want to use iTunes get an iPod.

Did you even read the article? The point is that 97% of music on an iPod is not from the iTunes Store.

roland.g
Feb 6, 2007, 03:00 PM
There are lots of reasons not to buy music that uses DRM. I don't buy it because I want to be able to do whatever I want with my music in the future, and not have to worry about authorizing/deauthorizing my computers. Or worrying about if I want to use music in a movie or presentation in the future, wondering if I'll be able to do that. For me it's nothing really concrete, I just don't like the idea. That's fine; I don't agree to Apple's terms and I don't buy music from Apple. I buy CDs and copy them into iTunes.

As Jobs points out, DRM doesn't prevent "theft." All it takes is one person to buy the CD, rip the songs to whatever format, and put it on the Internet. Even with a perfect DRM solution, music could still be recorded by running an audio cable from your computer to a recording device (or, at the very worst, into a microphone). It only takes one person to do this. So DRM can't prevent theft. It prevents casual uses for everyday people, and that's why I don't like it.

Can you not use DRM songs in an iMovie or FCP/FCE project?
Can a DRM song not be used in Keynote?
And sorry, but if that movie or presentation or other sort of project involves any sort of non-personal use, ie. public exhibition, entrance into a festival, used to raise funds or otherwise promote your own personal enterprise endeavor (ie. commercials or sales pitches), then you owe the artists/record co. royalties, or at the least, some sort of recognition/permission.

balamw
Feb 6, 2007, 03:01 PM
Anyway, Apple could licence iTunes to other MP3 player manufacturers, then they'd make money with it.
You didn't read the article did you. Steve's arguments against this are sound.

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

Don't forget that DVDs were ultimately freed from DRM by finding the keys in a poorly written software DVD player that had a license.

B

weg
Feb 6, 2007, 03:02 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
2) License FairPlay to other companies. "The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. .... Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies"


So the FairPlay technology relies on security by obscurity? Come on.. tools to remove the DRM already exist, there's no need for "leaked secrets". This argument just doesn't work.

biggarthomas
Feb 6, 2007, 03:03 PM
I have approximately 1500 protected ACC files on my iPod I also have another approximately 6000 unprotected files from various sources mostly emusic and my own CD collection. This may be a somewhat different ratio from that argued by Steve Jobs but I have a fair bit of disposable income and, I'm sure that his numbers are right as an average.

And here's the but . . . But, on the other hand, I do find Steve's argument a little self-serving. "We are not to blame - it's those guys". Apple has forever tried to keep all of its innovations to itself. It's not a sharing sort of company. Look what happened when they "shared" stuff with Gates - they got ripped off and look what happened when the allowed others to build Mac like machines - it almost killed the company. No friends, we are bound to a highly protectionist company.

The problem is that nobody minded that protectionism when Apple was small and struggling but now that they are described in the press as "Technology Giant Apple" they are perceived" to have monopoly control over downloadable music - now it's another matter. The sharks are circling - look at the huge number of stupid lawsuits that Apple faces - long lines of shiftless CEOs trying to get a payday for the price of a cheap suit (pun intended).

When you couple the tendency toward protectionism with the somewhat hostile waters nurtured by governments that believe that they are protecting "the little guy", I think that Apple finds itself in a pickle. But, self-serving or not, as a result of its success, shifting the blame is probably the best hand that Apple has to play.

At the end of the day, don't get me wrong, I also say to those who are whining - go download from somewhere else or buy a CD.

RugoseCone
Feb 6, 2007, 03:04 PM
emusic has some great stuff. I just got the following that is actually quite hard to find elsewhere. (edit: the Waits release was featured in iTunes front page)
They have stuff that no one else does. But they don't carry the the top 40 stuff the kids listen to that I'm sure accounts for 90% of music sales.


eMusic is the best! I've been a member since May and I've downloaded 440 tracks for $85.92 for an average cost of $.20 (rounded up). That would have cost me $435.60 on the iTS. The interesting part is almost 100% of the tracks I've gotten from my eMusic subscription are available on the iTS, but they are more expensive and have DRM. So I use eMusic.

How do I know they're available on iTS? Because I use iTS to preview everything I download from eMusic.

Rychiar
Feb 6, 2007, 03:07 PM
thats the way it always shoulda been, anyone who buy DRM music is a fool. I just buy CDs and rip them all as unprotected AAC. its the only logical thing to do and what we all did in the past:rolleyes:

Rocketman
Feb 6, 2007, 03:08 PM
100% truth being spoken here. I have to applaud Apple/Steve for coming out and being open about this. Its a refreshing change.

Agreed. The most telling statistic was that only 3% of music on iPods are iTunes sourced. This means Apple is offering iTunes as a low priority convenience service. Most people most of the time are NOT employing it, except to manage their unprotected music.

I want to see Steve's open letter on Vista and Gates' and Balmer's public comments. That will be a keeper, and please let it be released in Quicktime too. The expressions will be priceless.

Rocketman

Hi Steve :) See you at the rocket launch.

shelterpaw
Feb 6, 2007, 03:10 PM
thats the way it always shoulda been, anyone who buy DRM music is a fool. I just buy CDs and rip them all as unprotected AAC. its the only logical thing to do and what we all did in the past:rolleyes:
I'm a fool! :rolleyes: I suppose I could go to the store and buy the disk or just download them and burn/rip with my rewritable drive, which takes 10 minutes. Far less time than giong to the store. Well that may not be the case if I were to buy 10 CD's, but I don't usually buy CD's in quantity. ;)

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 03:10 PM
Steve's point is that the DRM is not Apple's doing, it's the labels.

B

lets wait when labels stop doing this, that would be the time to test if Jobs said is true, right now, he can blame whoever he want, as long as he doesn't need to make decision right now.

Thataboy
Feb 6, 2007, 03:12 PM
Oh, snap!

Watch as every tech publication, blog, and podcast reports on (and swoons over) this. Jobs has just successfully passed the DRM buck to the labels (where it BELONGS in the first place).

It is great to see Apple ON RECORD saying if the labels allow unrestricted music, they will do it. It is also very clear that Apple considers "option 1", the current model, the only alternative. They will NEVER license FairPlay to tons of manufacturers. When and if they do license it, it will be in a very limited and strictly controlled manner.

EXTREMELY interesting to see him debunk the "FairPlay locks people into iPods" myth. Though I wonder if this is disingenuous. After all, isn't the ENTIRE point of iTMS to sell iPods? If Zune somehow gets 30% marketshare in some imaginary fairyland future, Apple won't mind up to 30% of its iTMS sales going towards Zune users? Maybe this "lockdown" was important in the early stages of the iTunes-iPod development, but now iPod is so ubiquitous that Apple feels iTMS can exist independently?

I sense 4000 Diggs :)

nemaslov
Feb 6, 2007, 03:14 PM
eMusic is the best! I've been a member since May and I've downloaded 440 tracks for $85.92 for an average cost of $.20 (rounded up). That would have cost me $435.60 on the iTS. The interesting part is almost 100% of the tracks I've gotten from my eMusic subscription are available on the iTS, but they are more expensive and have DRM. So I use eMusic.

How do I know they're available on iTS? Because I use iTS to preview everything I download from eMusic.

too bad that the artist get less, they always get screwed....kind of like record clubs...

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 03:15 PM
Oh, snap!

Watch as every tech publication, blog, and podcast reports on (and swoons over) this. Jobs has just successfully passed the DRM buck to the labels (where it BELONGS in the first place).

It is great to see Apple ON RECORD saying if the labels allow unrestricted music, they will do it. It is also very clear that Apple considers "option 1", the current model, the only alternative. They will NEVER license FairPlay to tons of manufacturers. When and if they do license it, it will be in a very limited and strictly controlled manner.

EXTREMELY interesting to see him debunk the "FairPlay locks people into iPods" myth. Though I wonder if this is disingenuous. After all, isn't the ENTIRE point of iTMS to sell iPods? If Zune somehow gets 30% marketshare in some imaginary fairyland future, Apple won't mind up to 30% of its iTMS sales going towards Zune users? Maybe this "lockdown" was important in the early stages of the iTunes-iPod development, but now iPod is so ubiquitous that Apple feels iTMS can exist independently?

I sense 4000 Diggs :)

i say 10000, everbody assume Steve Jobs is angel, taking care of apples user, lol, what a beautiful fairy tale.

skunk
Feb 6, 2007, 03:16 PM
I haven't bought anything on iTunes since JHymn was disabled by iTunes 6. The bitrate is far too low anyway. I just buy CDs from Amazon and rip them at 320.

Clive At Five
Feb 6, 2007, 03:16 PM
How would DRM-less music affect Zune's "3 days or 3 plays" rule, do you think? No way would the record companies go for consequence-free Zune-Tune Squirting, but if the music is unlocked, is there still a way to enforce the "3D3P" rule?

-Clive

WRXHokie
Feb 6, 2007, 03:16 PM
Wow... i am truely shocked. Go Steve... tell those record companies off.

Rocketman
Feb 6, 2007, 03:17 PM
apple is making a killing in this buisness.

Nope. It makes something like a 25% gross margin on hardware players it sells. It makes about 5% on music it sells, and those music sales account for almost all of the headaches.

Further as stellar as Apple sales are, they are tiny as compared to Microsoft, or Exxon, or IBM, or HP. They are kinda close to Toshiba so long as you only consider their PC sales.

I find it quite interesting he listened to the various arguments and claims on the mucic DRM issue, particularly ones that might be subject to lawsuit or legislation, and he addressed them, one by one.

He did in an open letter what he otherwise would have had to do in dozens of lawsuits. He just saved Apple about $100,000,000.

Rocketman

carfac
Feb 6, 2007, 03:18 PM
Steve is full of it, right here and now.

He issues a lot of platitudes- things you all seem to like to hear- but he does not act on it. So I say BS Steve- put your money where your mouth is.

If you are REALLY for DRM-less music, do it. There is PLENTY of DRMless music right now- emusic for one. Same songs on iTunes have DRM- WTF?

So shut the F up Steve, quit your whining UNLESS you are gonna do something. Then, just do it. But this pie in the sky wishful thinking does not cut it, especially when YOU can do it different! Especially when you CAN make it happen.

Sorry, Steve, no pass on this one.

RugoseCone
Feb 6, 2007, 03:18 PM
too bad that the artist get less, they always get screwed....kind of like record clubs...

Do they? Everything I've downloaded is from independent labels or from labels owned by the artist themselves, not RIAA labels. Do you have something to back-up the claim that artists on eMusic are getting screwed?

Plus the vast majority of what I've downloaded are brand new artists for me (no CDs or iTS), so they are sales the artists wouldn't have had otherwise. Not to mention my friends, both online and off, share suggestions for eMu; so yet more sales.

Clive At Five
Feb 6, 2007, 03:21 PM
After all, isn't the ENTIRE point of iTMS to sell iPods?

The iPod has enough mindshare where it doesn't need the iTS. Besides, most people know that the iPod works best with the iTS, there's no question about it. Apple makes pittens on iTS content anyway, especially compared to iPods.

I gather he's just saying this to get Europe off his back.

A DRM-less world would be rather nice, however.

-Clive

psychofreak
Feb 6, 2007, 03:23 PM
How would DRM-less music affect Zune's "3 days or 3 plays" rule, do you think? No way would the record companies go for consequence-free Zune-Tune Squirting, but if the music is unlocked, is there still a way to enforce the "3D3P" rule?

-Clive

Well, CD rips still encounter the 3D3P rule, even without DRM...

Clive At Five
Feb 6, 2007, 03:25 PM
Well, CD rips still encounter the 3D3P rule, even without DRM...

Ah, so it's software.

Zune must tag squirted songs once received.

-Clive

ipiloot
Feb 6, 2007, 03:27 PM
I understand the problem of theft, but DRM is an ill-fated solution that punishes honest consumers instead of real pirates. Instead they shall invest in to fingerprinting music in sub-level audio noise that is played only when similar frquencies are played. So the fingerprint won't get lost.

joeboy_45101
Feb 6, 2007, 03:27 PM
Steve is full of it, right here and now.

If you are REALLY for DRM-less music, do it. There is PLENTY of DRMless music right now- emusic for one. Same songs on iTunes have DRM- WTF?

So shut the F up Steve, quit your whining UNLESS you are gonna do something. Then, just do it. But this pie in the sky wishful thinking does not cut it, especially when YOU can do it different! Especially when you CAN make it happen.

Sorry, Steve, no pass on this one.

Do it? What the hell is he going to do? That's like asking me to sell DRM-less music. It's not like he runs the music companies or owns any of the copyrights. The evidence is clear that you are mentally unstable. No person in their right mind emphasizes that many words in text.

Maybe YOU should READ something OTHER than MACRUMORS, because right now YOUR education is SHOWING!

Object-X
Feb 6, 2007, 03:28 PM
Nice to hear it from the source. I hope they can pressure the music industry to get rid of these stupid DRM schemes.

I will take issue with his first argument concerning lockin. It may be true that some people only have 3% DRMd music on their iPod, but I have close to 90%. His numbers are averages, which means that a lot of people have much more than 3%. I bought into this at the start and have purchased hundres of dollars worth of music (over 700). I'm what you would call "locked in". So the argument ignores all of us who have really bought into the whole Apple iTunes experiance.

If I wanted to go to another device or service I would essentially be screwed. Good thing I don't. My choice to embrace this was influenced by two factors. First, I wanted the conveince digital downloading offered. I like getting my music this way, much more than buying CDs. One reason I have purchased so much music this way is because I can listen to it before I buy and I can buy only what I want.

Secondly, I understood that I would be locked in. However, I believed that Apple, not only had the best service, but that they would always have the best service. I believe in this company. If it had been Microsoft or some other service I wouldn't have done it, but because it was Apple I was willing to give them my trust.

I don't regret my decision either. Five years later there is no competition in sight, no service I'd rather use or device I'd rather have. And the future looks even better than it did at first.

But always in the back of my mind is what about the future? Will it always be this way? I don't know, but i hope someday the DRM is removed and I can use my music freely. I'm glad the guy in charge wants this too. I guess I always figured if I ever wanted out, others would want out as well (for some reason) and there would be a way for me to strip the DRM -- even if it was illegal. Let's hope it doesn't have to come to that.

biggarthomas
Feb 6, 2007, 03:29 PM
eMusic is the best! I've been a member since May and I've downloaded 440 tracks for $85.92 for an average cost of $.20 (rounded up). That would have cost me $435.60 on the iTS. The interesting part is almost 100% of the tracks I've gotten from my eMusic subscription are available on the iTS, but they are more expensive and have DRM. So I use eMusic.

How do I know they're available on iTS? Because I use iTS to preview everything I download from eMusic.



Hmmm! Interesting that the companies sell the same music unprotected on emusic. Sort of bites into Apple's argument eh? (I've been a member of emusic since 1999!)

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 03:29 PM
This is a very ballsy move.

Steve yet again proves himself to be a king amongst fools.
:cool:

iW00t
Feb 6, 2007, 03:30 PM
Steve is full of it, right here and now.

He issues a lot of platitudes- things you all seem to like to hear- but he does not act on it. So I say BS Steve- put your money where your mouth is.

If you are REALLY for DRM-less music, do it. There is PLENTY of DRMless music right now- emusic for one. Same songs on iTunes have DRM- WTF?

So shut the F up Steve, quit your whining UNLESS you are gonna do something. Then, just do it. But this pie in the sky wishful thinking does not cut it, especially when YOU can do it different! Especially when you CAN make it happen.

Sorry, Steve, no pass on this one.

Doesn't emusic sell music that are from independent labels? I don't think you can buy any big label music from online sellers without DRM, unless you consider all *cough cough* of mp3.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 03:31 PM
i say 10000, everbody assume Steve Jobs is angel, taking care of apples user, lol, what a beautiful fairy tale.

Absolutely. He's protecting Apple, no more no less.

jelloshotsrule
Feb 6, 2007, 03:34 PM
emusic has some great stuff.

any way to search the catalog without signing up?

RugoseCone
Feb 6, 2007, 03:35 PM
Hmmm! Interesting that the companies sell the same music unprotected on emusic. Sort of bites into Apple's argument eh? (I've been a member of emusic since 1999!)

Well this, I believe, is because Apple offers a one-size-fits-all contract. Plus it reduces any possible confusion for the consumer. It also has something to do with the way Fairplay works. My understanding is the DRM is in iTunes and the iPod, not each individual Protected AAC track; but the dude from Apple that explained this to me could have been blowing smoke up my patoot.

As for jelloshotsrule's question. Go to emusic.com and click on the "About eMusic" at the bottom if all you are getting is the sign-up splash page. Then click on the logo in the upper left corner after the page loads. That should take you to the main site.

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 03:36 PM
Absolutely. He's protecting Apple, no more.


Why so cynical ?

He's protecting Apple ? by giving consumers a shot at digital drm free music - the freedom to switch players - the freedom to use Itunes or 'ahem' emusic (if they really must!) and not get bound up by drm heartache...

Apple have given you nothing but the best world class products, incredible innovation and more fun than you can possibly imagine.. Apple is a great company - they've made products that have enhanced all our lives.

Stop being so cynical..please...

tutubibi
Feb 6, 2007, 03:37 PM
Bravo Steve.

While this is also a strategic play (put burden on labels as opposed to Apple), this for the first time shows vision, courage and leadership from a major player / big corporation.

andiwm2003
Feb 6, 2007, 03:37 PM
if the labels where smart they would change the music formats itself. imagine drm free music. then some online stores would sell cheap mp3's, others would sell more expensive 320kb versions, others would specialize in classic with high quality and indexes. apple would attach pictures, album art and lyrics that play only on ipods (while the music still would play everywhere).

so the music would play everywhere but there would be a number of extra features that play only on certain players.

this would make customers stay with one company because they like the price or the extras (good for the music stores).
customers would probably steal less music because they wan't the same extras for all of their music and not a mix where some show album art, others lyrics and others have less quality (good for the labels).
and the customer gets a full variety of qualities, prices, extras like pictures and lyrics, but the music at least will always play on every player (good for the customer).

gugy
Feb 6, 2007, 03:38 PM
Steve really points out the hypocrisy of the music industry, but without actually using that word.

Go Steve!

Very True, That's why Steve is so ahead of his time.
Meanwhile the music industry still so much last century.

I thank god the we have Apple and Steve. without these two it would be a very backwards technology world.:eek:

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 03:41 PM
Everything that Apple do is for the benefit of Apple, that has the knock on effect that people want to buy Apple stuff.

Apple release great products because Apple want to make a bucket load of $$ $$ - and thats the way to do it. SJ wants to do the best he can - like the majority of us want. Not a half hearted job, but the best. He doesn't give half hearted keynotes - they are sooo polished - thats one example of this.

That is a fact of life - its not being cynical.

If Apple want consumer freedom - it wouldn't have restricted iPhone 3rd party applications.

Give me a break with "He's protecting Apple ? by giving consumers a shot at digital drm free music - the freedom to switch players".

Apple are being ( slowly ) backed into a corner, and they need to respond. This A response.

BTW: I'm glad he wrote this - I most certain agree with the majority of what he has to say regarding DRM.

Why so cynical ?

He's protecting Apple ? by giving consumers a shot at digital drm free music - the freedom to switch players - the freedom to use Itunes or 'ahem' emusic (if they really must!) and not get bound up by drm heartache...

Apple have given you nothing but the best world class products, incredible innovation and more fun than you can possibly imagine.. Apple is a great company - they've made prodcuts that have enhanced all our lives.

Stop being so cynical..please...

LethalWolfe
Feb 6, 2007, 03:42 PM
The day DRM dies will be the day the labels realize their business model is no longer effective, and they themselves are no longer necessary.
If you think that establishments like record labels, book publishers, video game publishers, and movie studios are no longer necessary I don't think you fully understand the roles these establishments fill.

One thing I didn't think was very good was his talking about the "average" iPod. Jobs uses the term "average" in the sense of the mean, showing that the average (mean) iPod has 22 songs, or 3% of its music from the iTunes store. He claims this (costing roughly $22 to rebuy the songs) wouldn't lock someone into an iPod -- if someone wanted to buy a Zune, $22 likely wouldn't stop them.

But that's not really representative, in my opinion. Some people have bought more than 22 songs, while others have bought none. More stats would be helpful here.
I'm not clear as to why you are saying it's not representative. They took the numbers, added them up, did some division and came out w/22. Even if you were shown all the raw data it still wouldn't change the average number unless someone made a math error or Jobs is lying.


Lethal

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 03:42 PM
Can you not use DRM songs in an iMovie or FCP/FCE project?
Can a DRM song not be used in Keynote?

Yes, of course, but that's short-term thinking. It's entirely conceivable I might ditch OS X at some point and want to create a presentation or movie on a Windows or Linux system. I just don't want to have to worry about these limitations.

And sorry, but if that movie or presentation or other sort of project involves any sort of non-personal use, ie. public exhibition, entrance into a festival, used to raise funds or otherwise promote your own personal enterprise endeavor (ie. commercials or sales pitches), then you owe the artists/record co. royalties, or at the least, some sort of recognition/permission.

Right, but I was thinking specifically of home movies. I'm not talking commercial. If I was doing something commercial, I would want better quality music than 128kbps AAC from the iTunes store.

But what uses I'm thinking of isn't even important. The point is that at some point in the future I may want to use the music in some way Apple hasn't thought of or allowed, and it would be a hassle for me to burn the music to CD and then rip it to unencumbered AAC or MP3.

Here's another example. A while ago I was playing around with playing songs in reverse. You know, how they have "satanic" messages. I had a good time fooling around with different songs, playing them backwards. Can I do this with DRM-encumbered AAC? I don't know. Not knowing that puts me off buying DRM-encumbered music. It's also an example of a (fair) use I wouldn't have been aware of when purchasing the music, had it had DRM.

I also buy albums, and not songs. So given the choice between buying an album on iTunes with DRM and buying a CD without DRM, I choose the CD.

AlmostThere
Feb 6, 2007, 03:42 PM
Steve is full of it, right here and now.

He issues a lot of platitudes- things you all seem to like to hear- but he does not act on it. So I say BS Steve- put your money where your mouth is.

If you are REALLY for DRM-less music, do it. There is PLENTY of DRMless music right now- emusic for one. Same songs on iTunes have DRM- WTF?

So shut the F up Steve, quit your whining UNLESS you are gonna do something. Then, just do it. But this pie in the sky wishful thinking does not cut it, especially when YOU can do it different! Especially when you CAN make it happen.

Sorry, Steve, no pass on this one.

Agreed.

Why should European consumers pressure the music companies when the very same music companies already offer music in a non-DRM format? They already have a choice and shouldn't have to do Apple's negocitations for them.

Apple saw the opportunity to make money through a music store, even if limited directly, indirectly through iPod sales and through the increased profile such a (successful) store brings. It is about profit, nothing else - if it really was such an issue, someone as famously principled as Jobs would not compromise. Apple 'caved' for profit and through their success have given a high-profile demonstration of the successful application of DRM. Few people have done more to further its cause. And, given that success, nobody but Apple has the leverage to tell the music companies to offer a DRM-free licence.

And the argument that Apple could no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies is a load of rubbish. iTunes already allows you to burn to CD and remove the DRM.

Flowbee
Feb 6, 2007, 03:47 PM
I haven't bought anything on iTunes since JHymn was disabled by iTunes 6.

Same with me. I was an iTunes addict until JHymn stopped working. I've since switched to eMusic for most of my music purchases.

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 03:49 PM
Everything that Apple do is for the benefit of Apple, that has the knock on effect that people want to buy Apple stuff.

Apple release great products because Apple want to make a bucket load of $$ $$ - and thats the way to do it. SJ wants to do the best he can - like the majority of us want. Not a half hearted job, but the best.

That is a fact of life - its not being cynical.

If Apple want consumer freedom - it wouldn't have restricted iPhone 3rd party applications.

Give me a break with "He's protecting Apple ? by giving consumers a shot at digital drm free music - the freedom to switch players".

Apple are being ( slowly ) backed into a corner, and they need to respond. This A response.

Yeah, that's right - Steve's all about money. You obviously know very little about Steve Jobs. Man, that kind of world view is without grandeur, vision and hope.

Apple is a company - of course - it has to make money - it has shareholders - that's the world we live in - the free market - but the great thing is their products are amazing.

Why are you arguing against Apple on this site ? What good can come from it ? Why do you want Apple to fail - to be run into second place by shoddy second rate enterprises like emusic ? Apple aren't taking anything from you - they GIVE GIVE GIVE...

Apple are not the bad guys. They make YOUR LIFE supremely better for the products you have in them ( that's assuming you actually have some apple products).

radio893fm
Feb 6, 2007, 03:50 PM
That's why Steve is so ahead of his time.

You are kidding right? Please tell me you are... who was the one that made the iTunes store files playable only on the iPod (including Motorola's phone)? Who was the one that cried when Real Media cracked those files? If he cared so much about US the customers and really wanted us to do whatever the hell we wanted with our songs, then he would have made iTunes compatible with all the player in the world... he is so hypocritical, but he wants to sell iPods so we can't really blame him.

Its all about the money...

This is just another PR game... and Steve is very good at it!

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 03:54 PM
I'm not clear as to why you are saying it's not representative. They took the numbers, added them up, did some division and came out w/22. Even if you were shown all the raw data it still wouldn't change the average number unless someone made a math error or Jobs is lying.

I don't think he's lying. I'm saying it's a very rough estimate.

The mean number of DRM'd songs on an iPod is 22. But obviously not everyone has 22 DRM'd songs on their iPods. Lots of people have none, while others will have many more. So to say "your average iPod is only 3% full of DRM'd songs" is true, but it's misleading.

I don't have stats, but for the sake of example, suppose 50% of iPod owners have no DRM'd songs, and 50% have DRM'd songs. The "average" for people that do have DRM'd songs is then 44 songs. Now, he's saying the 4GB shuffle is the most popular player, which costs $200. If someone were to buy another DAP from another brand (say Zune nano), that's $44/$200 (maybe less), or 22% of the cost of a new player. Would that keep someone from switching to the competition? Maybe.

Maybe they don't have more data than this, though. Or maybe they do, but wanted a simple version to show people. I don't think it discounts his argument, I just thought it was misleading.

Peace
Feb 6, 2007, 03:55 PM
The solution is not playsforsure or any other current DRM.

I call it OpenDRM.

It's a DRM that is cross-platform and will play on any mp3 player.This allows the record industry to breath a little better while creating healthy competition between various online music sellers.

These "OpenDRM" songs could be downloaded from any music service and played on any player.

The various online services could compete for business in any legal fashion.

Timeline
Feb 6, 2007, 03:57 PM
From an artists perspective I think Apple should license DRM to the labels that want it for a yearly fee. Give them the code but without warrantee.
Labels can put DRM on everything including the CD and instead of making Apple be the cop, the labels can do it for themselves.

If the labels used DRM to track computers that play the stuff via the internet with auto reporting they could compare against sales. Then they would have a game plan to re-establish the rules for such requirements and proof to make a better case to the public for protections. As it has been, an artist releases his stuff and experiences a few sales and then the income just dies but everyone seems to have the CD in some form. So, what is an artist supposed to do to make a living at making music? At least Apple DRM gets us back a few bucks at .99c per tune.

Those who buy and rip for their own use, that's cool but many will send CD copies to friends and they will do the same so big sales are ultimately thwarted to the point that the industry has just shrunk.

I feel if DRM was used as a tracking mechanism instead of hard licensing mechanism then the labels could simply figure out alternatives and everyone would be happy. Well, some of us anyway.

AS for my opinion on DRM, I obviously don't mind as it does offer several computer copies for different personal uses so I don't care either way. I have never had a problem.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 04:01 PM
I don't want to see Apple fail. SJ wants Apple to make successful and the BEST products, and in turn, that will benefit Apple. I like in most part, Apple's products, otherwise I wouldn't use them.

In this thread - I'm NOT arguing against Apple. I'm just saying that Apple aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it for their benefit. Its a strategy.

Why should I not argue against Apple on this site? Some of their decisons stink IMO, and why shouldn't I express my opinions? I'd rather be open minded than a complete fan boi like a large amount of people here.

Apple, and SJ are not 100% perfect Gods!!

Rereading your post, I think we are arguing the same thing.

Yeah, that's right - Steve's all about money. You obviously know very little about Steve Jobs. Man, that kind of world view is without grandeur, vision and hope.

Apple is a company - of course - it has to make money - it has shareholders - that's the world we live in - the free market - but the great thing is their products are amazing.

Why are you arguing against Apple on this site ? What good can come from it ? Why do you want Apple to fail - to be run into second place by shoddy second rate enterprises like emusic ? Apple aren't taking anything from you - they GIVE GIVE GIVE...

Apple are not the bad guys. They make YOUR LIFE supremely better for the products you have in them ( that's assuming you actually have some apple products).

ijimk
Feb 6, 2007, 04:05 PM
I am all for a DRM free itunes store. I doubt we will see it any time soon, but i feel re-assured that SJ feels this way about it. Well I guess this may be one small step in the direction of something big. :apple:

psychofreak
Feb 6, 2007, 04:08 PM
I am all for a DRM free itunes store. I doubt we will see it any time soon, but i feel re-assured that SJ feels this way about it. Well I guess this may be one small step in the direction of something big. :apple:

Now Apple Inc can be a record label (because of their agreements with Apple Corps), maybe the new label's unknown new signings will get their music sold DRM free from the iTS. I would be more happy if the 5 computer thing was increased to around 20 than if the 'iPod only' rule got scrapped...

elppa
Feb 6, 2007, 04:10 PM
The solution is not playsforsure or any other current DRM.

I call it OpenDRM.

It's a DRM that is cross-platform and will play on any mp3 player.This allows the record industry to breath a little better while creating healthy competition between various online music sellers.

These "OpenDRM" songs could be downloaded from any music service and played on any player.

The various online services could compete for business in any legal fashion.

Great.

What happens when “OpenDRM” gets cracked?

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 04:11 PM
Great.

What happens when “OpenDRM” gets cracked?

The same as what happens when fairplay gets cracked - it gets fixed again, and devices and music store updated.

That really is not a good argument to have propriority DRM.

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 04:12 PM
I'm just saying that Apple aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it for their benefit. Its a strategy.


That's a theory of yours - and it'd be better for your general happiness if you considered that anything Apple does generally does eventually benefits you/us the consumer.

I also believe the majority of the 'movers' and 'shakers' that work in Apple, ( that probably have so much personal wealth that they don't actually need to work!), genuinely do act out of the goodness of their hearts.

That's why Apple make amazing kit like Ipod's, Macbook Pro's and OSX and not guns, bullets and attack ships.

I know Apple aren't perfect but I think it's fair to say they're trying to head in that general direction..

CommodityFetish
Feb 6, 2007, 04:13 PM
Hmmm... As someone else said, there was the beatles deal, now Steve is dissing the record labels publicly... I wonder if he's not looking towards dealing with artists directly, cutting out the record co. middlemen. Not for the back catalogues, but for the future releases. And a more fair and sane business model for music in this century.

Before he couldn't do this because he needed the record companies on board, and the Beatles had him locked out of that side of the biz. Now, a few years down the road, and so many iPods later, the labels may have more to lose than apple if they pulled out of iTunes. So Apple may now be able to deal with some artists directly - those independent and uncontracted to the majors first, and then build from there into a new paradigm. Apple as the new digital distribution version of CDBaby. (Or emusic ...)

Probably wishful thinking, but this is ultimately what would be best for the artists, the fans, and the industry as a whole. Someone will do it, so it might as well be Apple right?

gugy
Feb 6, 2007, 04:14 PM
You are kidding right? Please tell me you are... who was the one that made the iTunes store files playable only on the iPod (including Motorola's phone)? Who was the one that cried when Real Media cracked those files? If he cared so much about US the customers and really wanted us to do whatever the hell we wanted with our songs, then he would have made iTunes compatible with all the player in the world... he is so hypocritical, but he wants to sell iPods so we can't really blame him.

Its all about the money...

This is just another PR game... and Steve is very good at it!

Sure, it's all about the money, but look at the other option. Microsoft. Sorry I rather have Steve hypocrisy than Bill gets one.
It's true, he's selling Apple, but hey I rather have Apple that most of the time give me great products (hardware & software) than go to Microsoft, Dell and others.
At least at the end of the day I have a great user experience and my computer and iPod is 99% reliable. That's what I want and Steve is offering me it.

Peace
Feb 6, 2007, 04:15 PM
Great.

What happens when “OpenDRM” gets cracked?

There is no perfect world.Never will be.

This would be a step in the right direction for all parties though.



And since this "OpenDRM" would be one that all music entities used it would be a LOT easier to fix should it be cracked.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 04:19 PM
Personally, I think your being seriously naive if you don't think that Apple does what it does for the benefit for itself - and thus has the side effects of making consumers happy - which it needs to do to keep a float.

Yes, I agree it would be better for my health if I didn't think that! :D


That's a theory of yours - and it'd be better for your general happiness if you considered that anything Apple does generally does eventually benefits you/us the consumer.

bleachthru
Feb 6, 2007, 04:19 PM
It is quite refreshing to hear a CEO talk like this. I for one have refused to use the iTunes music store, purely becuase I do not like the idea of DRM, if I buy the music, it is mine. As a consumer I feel like it is a slap in the face to not be trusted by the RIAA to not do illegal things with the music I have purchased. Good thing other industries do not think like this, or soon all cars will start comming with governors limiting them to 75mph, so no one "can break the law". I am very proud of my 40+GB music collection, all DRM free and legally mine. I hope the RIAA breaks down and realizes they are just pissing off the consumer, nobody likes to be treated like a child, especially by the selfish music industry.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
~Hunter S. Thompson

joeboy_45101
Feb 6, 2007, 04:19 PM
Viva! Jobs!

gnasher729
Feb 6, 2007, 04:20 PM
Wishful thinking. More likely, Apple's contract with the Big Four stipulates that Apple not get into the recording business.

Hard to imagine. And it would be thrown out by a court without hesitation as abuse of monopoly power and anti-competitive behavior.

reallynotnick
Feb 6, 2007, 04:25 PM
Man, I just said this the other week!
If people are going to steal their music they will steal it, if they are going to buy it they are going to buy it.

CD's making stealing easier then typing a paper now-a-days.

maxterpiece
Feb 6, 2007, 04:27 PM
I have two criticisms of Jobs' 'Thoughts on Music'.

1) Why not cooperate with other companies to allow users who switch from one music store to another to just redownload all their purchased music in the new format?

I doubt the RIAA would have any concerns about this - the music remains DRM'd. Apple has logs of all customer purchases and I'm sure other music stores do as well. Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting fairplay on other devices and media players, but people are no longer locked in.

2) As has already been mentioned, Apple keeps the DRM on songs even if the label doesn't stipulate that they must be DRM'd. Most independent music lables have made it clear that they don't care if their music has DRM, but apple continues to encode their music. Jobs is being a hypocrite by not selling these songs unlocked. It is the perfect opportunity: open up the independent music, promote that it is unlocked, watch as independent music sales explode, rub the statistics in the RIAA's face.

As far as eMusic goes, their selection is weak, but the real problem i have with them is that you have to pay a monthly subscription fee to buy from them. I find being locked into a subscription even more annoying than being locked in by DRM. I know you can cancel whenever you please, but how annoying is it to cancel and restart my subscription whenever i want to buy music from them?

Rocketman
Feb 6, 2007, 04:28 PM
Great.

What happens when “OpenDRM” gets cracked?

Apple can use any DRM it can access. It made one. Microsoft made one, Sony made one. They choose not to share with each other even though that is "only" three companies (not quite Steve's horrible many company scenario). But I do get his point quite well.

So far not even these three have selected to share code amongst themselves. They are each protecting a vertical system.

So why doesn't the record industry either individually or as a consortium make their own DRM, which I am sure Apple, Microsoft, and Sony would cheerfully add to their players and software?

The answer is simple. They want to restrict online sales, not CD sales. They want to sell CD's. They have an established dealer network they have an allegience to, and despite the rampant piracy through that channel, they value it. It will not be until onlione sales fairly substantially exceed physical sales, that the record companies will take real measures to stamp out piracy. In the mean time there is a small island of limited piracy. That is the download market with DRM.

According to Steve that is lesss than 3% of music sales.

It is more likely record companies would eliminate DRM sales than CD sales at this point even though it goes fully and tiotally against their claim (feign) that piracy is a concern of theirs.

I ask this simple question. Of all the copies of Microsoft Windows (all flavors) on computers in this world, how many are paid for? 30%?

Mac OSX (>80%)? It's not even copy protected!

Rocketman

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 04:32 PM
Personally, I think your being seriously naive if you don't think that Apple does what it does for the benefit for itself - and thus has the side effects of making consumers happy - which it needs to do to keep a float.

Yes, I agree it would be better for my health if I didn't think that! :D

:D I love being naive - I genuinely work hard at it everday! (straight up)

Steve's not interested in money - you must see that ? I'm sure he get's the occasional buzz from the power and glory perhaps ...but never money...I genuinely think he wants to make the world a better place - I really think that's the legacy he wants to leave...and that's why I will forever believe and defend a Steve Jobs' helmed Apple.

but as a reply - your being equally naive if you think any company exists only to perpetuate it's own existence. That company exists to make great products - that it's fuelled by the dreams of one man is it's shining strength. Without him it nearly folded or became a grey soulless corp like any other - so this particular guy - you shouldn't second guess..

and to return the compliment - I suggest you look up 'transference' - it's a psychological 'quirk' whereby you project your own beliefs, motivations and suspicions into the minds of others...took me a long time to become naive enough to stop doing this - I think ?:) my opinions were nothing but my own tatty ideas...( still are a little, but at least they have some vision, nobility and charity these days!)

You sound like a fairly nice guy though...glad to have 'sparked with' you for a while..:)

FoxyKaye
Feb 6, 2007, 04:36 PM
I haven't bought anything on iTunes since JHymn was disabled by iTunes 6. The bitrate is far too low anyway. I just buy CDs from Amazon and rip them at 320.
Ditto - There's tons of used CD stores here in the Bay Area, a lot with prices that beat the "album" download in iTunes anyway.

That's the other thing about iTMS that has always irked me - the AAC bitrate. I'm not a huge audiophile or anything, but there is a noticeable difference between 128 and 320. FairPlay just seems ridiculous when there are higher bitrate files almost always available on the peer-to-peer networks.

I seem to remember Napster was all the rage when Apple was first negotiating the relationships it has with the "big 4" - CD sales were plummeting, and people were uploading and swapping MP3s at an unprecedented rate. I'm sure at the time these companies had some reason to be nervous about putting pre-packaged MP3s online, but all the music that was traded on Napster was ripped from CDs - not downloaded MP3/AAC files - that were then being shared.

This was a very refreshing article to read, even if Steve's only reason is to direct some attention away from the lawsuits in Europe.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 04:36 PM
I can see that Jobs wants to make Good Products, to do the best he can, yes.

Just like most of us want to better ourselves, throughout our lives - self improvement. Something to strive for - and Jobs is certainly no different.

Steve's not interested in money - you must see that ? I'm sure he get's the occasional buzz from the power and glory perhaps ...but never money...I genuinely think he wants to make the world a better place - I really think that's the legacy he wants to leave...and that's why I will forever believe and defend a Steve Jobs' helmed Apple.


I shall look that word up!
edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Jarbo
Feb 6, 2007, 04:36 PM
We will if you will.

What's the matter ... Are you chicken?

Well played Steve.

Whats going to happen is indie companies will accept this (many already do) and the big 4 will be last to the game.

evilgEEk
Feb 6, 2007, 04:36 PM
I must say, I was quite surprised to see Steve be so open about the subject. It makes sense, what with the pressure Apple is getting with their DRM, but it was still a surprise.

All in all, good for Steve and Apple for coming out with this. I get so tired of hearing people berating Apple for their DRM when it's not up to them, it's up to the Music Industry. Focus your energies in the right direction, people.

Rating (239 Positives; 7 Negatives)

I think this is the largest positive percentage I've ever seen on an article!

flir67
Feb 6, 2007, 04:41 PM
that article was good reading material. good job steve..

keep up the good work.....

codo
Feb 6, 2007, 04:42 PM
I adore the majority of users on this forum.

If only I had the time to go back and quote the support for DRM a few weeks ago, count the number of individuals ready to sign away their individual consumer rights for DRM laden music and the individuals shining like a beacon out of Jobs' arse in support for his DRM.

Oh what a difference a week makes.

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 04:43 PM
I must say, I was quite surprised to see Steve be so open about the subject. It makes sense, what with the pressure Apple is getting with their DRM, but it was still a surprise.

All in all, good for Steve and Apple for coming out with this. I get so tired of hearing people berating Apple for their DRM when it's not up to them, it's up to the Music Industry. Focus your energies in the right direction, people.



I think this is the largest positive percentage I've ever seen on an article!

stand back, look at this statement, Jobs basically tell u they won't do nothing, and doing nothing is the right action that deserves ur praise?

gauchogolfer
Feb 6, 2007, 04:44 PM
Yes, of course, but that's short-term thinking. It's entirely conceivable I might ditch OS X at some point and want to create a presentation or movie on a Windows or Linux system. I just don't want to have to worry about these limitations.

Well, you can play those protected-AAC files on a Windows machine using iTunes, that's for sure. As to whether or not they work with PowerPoint or MovieMaker, thank God I don't know. They work fine (even the DRM-ed files) in Keynote and iMovie.

:cool:

twoodcc
Feb 6, 2007, 04:46 PM
nice article. i enjoyed it :apple:

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 04:46 PM
Steve's not interested in money - you must see that



unbelievable,, Bill Gates deserve more of your praise then.
Jobs not interested in money? is he god?

Porchland
Feb 6, 2007, 04:48 PM
It's happened: emusic (http://www.emusic.com/).

What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

The agreements with the labels may require Apple to DRM all of the music that it sells, which makes good sense if you're a record label. It keeps everyone on the same playing field.

superleccy
Feb 6, 2007, 04:51 PM
I really don't think he's having a go at Europe... its your imagination.

I don't think he's actually having a go at Europe either - so to speak. However, his note was undoubtedly prompted by the rumblings of discontent coming from Norway, Germany and France.

And anyway, as a European myself, I'm not taking it personally. Hell... us Brits are only European when we want to be anyway. :)

SL

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 04:51 PM
The agreements with the labels may require Apple to DRM all of the music that it sells, which makes good sense if you're a record label. It keeps everyone on the same playing field.
possible? yes
reasonable? no, and i doubt it

JGowan
Feb 6, 2007, 04:52 PM
There is no reason that Apple should open iTunes.Jobs stated several great reasons (go read the letter). If Steve Jobs thinks so, then I think he's got the bigger picture.

swingerofbirch
Feb 6, 2007, 04:54 PM
Whoa! Way to call their bluff! Apple certainly has a lot of weigh to throw around now, and it's doing it! I just hope they don't upset their European customers with the geographical accusations, as some of them already feel disenfranchised not having videos etc on iTunes.

Jobs is smart, but I see a couple of logical fallacies.
LF #1 20 BN vs. 2 BN
What Jobs does not mention is that undoubtedly the music industry regrets its lack of foresight in NOT implementing DRM in its CDs. They have certainly tried without success to do so in some instances, and you can see that the movie industry has learned from the music industry's mistake in making all DVDs hard to crack.

Also, this is comparing music that is sold, not music consumed. Of the 20 BN songs distributed without DRM many were copied and distributed many times over illegally. Why would they want to repeat that mistake with a new market which they can control?

LF #2 "We would be interopable if only...."

Come on, I don't buy this at all! Although the record industry will never call Jobs' bluff on this one, I wish they would! Jobs makes it sound like the only way to have interoperable systems is to either eliminate DRM or to license Apple's DRM to other companies. However, there are many companies who tried to get Apple to open up the iPod to their services. I don't believe there is any technological reason why you couldn't have two DRM functionalities on one iPod. I am not saying Apple should do this, but I am saying Apple has nothing to gain in a world where DRM doesn't exist. The exclusivity of the music store keeps customers buying there. If you could buy the same quality of song that would play on your iPod from Wal-mart cheaper why wouldn't you?

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 04:54 PM
unbelievable,, Bill Gates deserve more of your praise then.
Jobs not interested in money? is he god?

After your first billion do you think the thought of another is what get's you out of bed on a morning ?

..and Bill Gates may yet redeem himself - he's a very charitable chap you know...

anyway, back to the drm - I'd certainly buy a lot more of my music digitally if it was Apple lossles and drm free - so ultimately it's a win-win for all parties if this comes to play.

nagromme
Feb 6, 2007, 05:01 PM
Once upon a time, the big labels absolutley WOULD NOT sell music online. But times change: Jobs got them past that eventually.

One day, the big labels might take this next step too. (With some indie music and small but legal alternative sources of DRM-free music leading the way.)

Rocketman
Feb 6, 2007, 05:01 PM
The agreements with the labels may require Apple to DRM all of the music that it sells, which makes good sense if you're a record label. It keeps everyone on the same playing field.

Wrong. Digital files with DRM cannot be readily copied. Physical CD's most certainly can, and are, in a widespread way.

DRM's online sales are effectively crippled.

Apple has determined it is worth doing in exchange for claiming the largest source of non-pirated material in the world. That's a pretty impressive claim BTW, and market share keeps rapidly rising too.

He is doing those record company folks a favor and piraters hate it, especially European/Asian countries who openly encourage piracy.

Again I refer to the Wintel model. Wintel has about a 90% market share (installed base, 95% new sales). MOST (70%) of those sales are commodity PC's with pirated OS's and pirated applications. People buying the tools are getting the value from them but not reimbursing the folks who worked to design and distribute the products they use.

I want to buy about 10 pirated houses and about a million pirated acres of land please!

Rocketman

psychofreak
Feb 6, 2007, 05:02 PM
is he [Steve Jobs] god?

This has been discussed...quite possibly...

Porchland
Feb 6, 2007, 05:05 PM
Seems like I say this every time a DRM story hits: Am I missing something here?

When I bought my first iPod about three years ago, I ripped most of my CDs into iTunes. In the last three years, I have bought very few CDs and quite a few digital tracks from iTunes. I listen to ripped and digital tracks on my PowerBook. I burn album CDs and mix CDs. I play ripped and digital tracks on my two iPods. I'm not planning on getting a non-iPod MP3 player anytime soon.

Given all that, DRM does not adversely affect me one bit.

Why -- specifically, not in theory, not because it's BAD! -- why does DRM bother you?

evilgEEk
Feb 6, 2007, 05:07 PM
stand back, look at this statement, Jobs basically tell u they won't do nothing, and doing nothing is the right action that deserves ur praise?

I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Correct grammar and spelling can go a long way when trying to convey thoughts via text.

My point still remains that it isn't Apple's fault that they have to include DRM in their product. That comes from the music industry, not Apple.

BornAgainMac
Feb 6, 2007, 05:09 PM
iTunes 8 ... DRM free music for purchase. Unlock your existing music. Free of DRM forever.

iTunes 9 .... DRM free TV Shows and Movies


iTunes 10 .... Thanks to the huge sales of music. 10 Billion songs sold in 2 years, we are giving 1 free song for every 2 songs you buy. So introducing HD content on iTunes.

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 05:11 PM
Seems like I say this every time a DRM story hits: Am I missing something here?

When I bought my first iPod about three years ago, I ripped most of my CDs into iTunes. In the last three years, I have bought very few CDs and quite a few digital tracks from iTunes. I listen to ripped and digital tracks on my PowerBook. I burn album CDs and mix CDs. I play ripped and digital tracks on my two iPods. I'm not planning on getting a non-iPod MP3 player anytime soon.

Given all that, DRM does not adversely affect me one bit.

Why -- specifically, not in theory, not because it's BAD! -- why does DRM bother you?

it should be surprising consider not everybody are as fixed as you, they pay for something, and they want to be totally free about what they want to do with it.

RugoseCone
Feb 6, 2007, 05:12 PM
I have two criticisms of Jobs' 'Thoughts on Music'.

2) As has already been mentioned, Apple keeps the DRM on songs even if the label doesn't stipulate that they must be DRM'd. Most independent music lables have made it clear that they don't care if their music has DRM, but apple continues to encode their music. Jobs is being a hypocrite by not selling these songs unlocked.

Not trying to defend Jobs, but mayhap it's a stipulation of the contract with the big four of the RIAA? It's possible they demanded that ALL labels have the DRM applied or they wouldn't allow their content to be sold.

As far as eMusic goes, their selection is weak…

I suppose if you consider musical masters such as Miles Davis and John Coltrane "weak" ;)

SpaceJello
Feb 6, 2007, 05:13 PM
Wouldn't the lack of DRM break down the ipod empire? I always assume that part of ipod's suggest is the inability to get songs from other online music stores to ipod...

I love the ipod and doubt i would go get any other music player any time ZUNE *laugh*...

RugoseCone
Feb 6, 2007, 05:16 PM
Wouldn't the lack of DRM break down the ipod empire? I always assume that part of ipod's suggest is the inability to get songs from other online music stores to ipod...


eMusic.com
Audiolunchbox.com
Aimestreet.com

Three online music services with no DRM that work with the iPod.

clevin
Feb 6, 2007, 05:17 PM
My point still remains that it isn't Apple's fault that they have to include DRM in their product. That comes from the music industry, not Apple.

simply put it this way, I don't believe thats the case.

eMusic.com
Audiolunchbox.com
Aimestreet.com

Three online music services with no DRM that work with the iPod.

You wonder if these guys also being pressed by label companies.

thejadedmonkey
Feb 6, 2007, 05:19 PM
I ask this simple question. Of all the copies of Microsoft Windows (all flavors) on computers in this world, how many are paid for? 30%?

Mac OSX (>80%)? It's not even copy protected!

Rocketman

There's something about it NOT having ANY copy protection that guilts me into buying it. With Windows, I feel like a criminal every time I have to re-enter my COA, where as with OS X I feel like I'm being trusted, and I wouldn't want to break that trust. Hence I buy OS X upgrades, and get pissed off at MS for making me feel like a criminal (but don't ever buy their OS's because my computer can't run a newer OS usually, and I upgrade with the new PC)

Oh, and back on topic... yeah, that was an amazing read. thanks SJ!

RugoseCone
Feb 6, 2007, 05:20 PM
You wonder if these guys also being pressed by label companies.

Frankly no, since they don't carry music on RIAA labels. Seeing as how they're the only ones that give a hoot about DRM, I highly doubt the labels represented on these websites are applying pressure.

mrthieme
Feb 6, 2007, 05:29 PM
Interesting read, and hopefully a step towards abandoning drm, it is a broken concept.
PS I want "Fireside Chats with Steve Jobs", every week.

balamw
Feb 6, 2007, 05:32 PM
lets wait when labels stop doing this, that would be the time to test if Jobs said is true, right now, he can blame whoever he want, as long as he doesn't need to make decision right now.

Could be real soon now based on various reports.

e.g. http://www.betanews.com/article/IHT_Major_Label_to_Embrace_MP3_Soon/1169573210

My guess is that at least some of the contracts with the labels are up for renewal and Steve doesn't want to get blind sided by the labels going off and selling MP3s without Apple.

B

EagerDragon
Feb 6, 2007, 05:32 PM
Steve really points out the hypocrisy of the music industry, but without actually using that word.

Go Steve!

hypocricy = inconsistency or disparity in business terms, lol.

surferfromuk
Feb 6, 2007, 05:32 PM
Interesting read, and hopefully a step towards abandoning drm, it is a broken concept.
PS I want "Fireside Chats with Steve Jobs", every week.


LOL!! I'll second that...but I like the element of surprise...who'd have thought Steve was going to drop a 'good news' story. just like that out of the blue...

FoxyKaye
Feb 6, 2007, 05:33 PM
Why -- specifically, not in theory, not because it's BAD! -- why does DRM bother you?
I'll give you a few reasons from personal experience:

* Low comparative bitrate - if I'm paying for something that locks me in to only Apple hardware/software, I want the highest bitrate available.

* Apple DRM music will not burn with either Toast or Jam anymore (it used to until Apple got on their case).

* "Mix" CDs in iTunes are one thing, but proper waveform observation and editing, crossfading, and even beat matching are next to impossible with DRM music (since editing programs and DJ programs won't open DRM music). Obviously any compressed music is not pure audio experience, but AAC files are much more portable than vinyl or CDs.

* Oh yeah, and my iPod just broke a couple weeks ago, and the only place I can listen to any iTMS downloaded music is on my iMac.

At least until JHymn stopped working I could download a file, strip and rip it to another program as needed.

jonharris200
Feb 6, 2007, 05:39 PM
Can you hear that? It's the sound of conventional wisdom exploding.

zelman
Feb 6, 2007, 05:41 PM
Steve used a bit of creative statistiking in there.

He says

"Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold."

and deduces that

"Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats."

HOWEVER

"Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods."

So, technically, there could be 2 billion DRMed songs on every iPod if it weren't for the capacity issue.

fistful
Feb 6, 2007, 05:42 PM
any way to search the catalog without signing up?

http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html

You might also be interested in their free daily download (http://www.emusic.com/dailydownloads/toolbar/main.html).

Seasought
Feb 6, 2007, 05:43 PM
I'd like to see more of these "thoughts on 'whatever'" from Jobs. I wonder if more are in store for the future.

EagerDragon
Feb 6, 2007, 05:45 PM
I agree with Steve, if the labels are selling music with no DRM (CD's) and it is easy to rip the music and make it available for free in the Internet, Why should Apple and others be forced to protect something that the labels themselves sell with no protection?

Since when is 10 minutes of effort (rip from CD) going to stop pirates?

Makes absolute sense not to sell DRM music.

As to movies, .... Pigs already fly and hell has frozen over a few times, but video will continue being sold in protected form in media and via iTunes. Movies is too much money to create and to line the pockets of Hollywood to go out in unprotected form. At least not for several more years.
:eek:

Psychic Shopper
Feb 6, 2007, 05:46 PM
My take on Steve's article is that the itunes store is doing poorly. He admitted that only 3% of the music on an ipod is from his store. He's looking for someone to blame and he points the finger at the record companies. I don't know if Apple invented fairplay on their own or if they were forced to by record companies, but I do know that it is hurting sales on the itunes store. I don't think Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or any phone company will be major players in online music sales in the future. How hard is it to set up an online store? The hard part of music sales is getting peoples attention in an increasingly over entertained world.

autrefois
Feb 6, 2007, 06:01 PM
I have to say I'm impressed. I've gained a new respect for Steve Jobs after reading that. I always thought he was in favor of DRM, but it looks obvious that he's just going along with it since this is what the industry demanded. That is a huge voice, and some good well-written arguments, in favor of getting rid of DRM.

nemaslov
Feb 6, 2007, 06:04 PM
My take on Steve's article is that the itunes store is doing poorly. He admitted that only 3% of the music on an ipod is from his store. He's looking for someone to blame and he points the finger at the record companies. I don't know if Apple invented fairplay on their own or if they were forced to by record companies, but I do know that it is hurting sales on the itunes store. I don't think Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or any phone company will be major players in online music sales in the future. How hard is it to set up an online store? The hard part of music sales is getting peoples attention in an increasingly over entertained world.

WRONG!. the iTunes Store is going great but it is probably slightly above a break even for Apple. It is just that there is SO much music out there in personal collections that most (myself included) use iTunes and iPod to manage and take our music with us.

I for one would do just fine with NO digital downloading EVER. I love buying CDs. Playing that quality at home or in my car , having the art work, no limitations and then loading some into iTunes so I can take 20,000 songs with me anytime.

mashinhead
Feb 6, 2007, 06:05 PM
I really don't think other players should be allowed to use itunes. Itunes is an integral part for the iPod which helps it separate itself from the competition. If you want to use iTunes get an iPod.

Actually it shows extreme confidence in their product. They are the market leader and as such they have a lot to loose by opening up DRM files. Other stores and mp3 hardware makers must love this. As a consumer your investment into whatever store/mp3 player brand you chose to go with, becomes deeper and deeper making it harder to switch even if you wanted to. It is a bold move, and he wouldn't do it if he thought it would hurt ipod sales, which seems to be the main concern.

Porchland
Feb 6, 2007, 06:05 PM
The thing that struck me about Jobs' commentary is that dumping DRM is not necessarily in Apple's best interest. DRM may hinder consumers (a populist thing for Jobs to say), but it also aides a closed system (iTunes/iTS/iPod) with big market share.

An Apple customer that cannot now take his tracks and go elsewhere would be able to do so if DRM were removed from his iTunes-bought library. Good for him; bad for Apple.

Aside from the Europe problems, why would Apple risk a good thing (for Apple) by giving away part of what makes it such a good thing? (Maybe it's nothing more than the Europe problem.)

I don't see it helping Apple grow its iTS business. Does Apple think there is a huge market of potential customers sitting out there waiting to come to Apple until DRM is gone? No. Does Apple think the 20 percent of the market it doesn't have is worth risking the 80 percent it does have? No.

This whole thing just doesn't sound like Apple. I would expect Apple to go toe-to-toe with those countries that are whining about DRM, shut down one of the European stores if it came to that, wait for livid users to get their governments to undo it all, and force its own way.

What's the deal?

jonharris200
Feb 6, 2007, 06:06 PM
I have to say I'm impressed. I've gained a new respect for Steve Jobs after reading that.
And I've gained a new respect for his reality distortion field.

Yes, I'm joking. :rolleyes:

rktheac
Feb 6, 2007, 06:08 PM
possible? yes
reasonable? no, and i doubt it



and yet you and many others haven't shown a shred of plausible evidence to support your case (saying "i doubt it" is not an argument). I can't believe I read through pages of non-arguments like this.

History tells us that Apple's iTunes was the first successful download music store. Conjecturally, the terms of the license were both give and take for both Apple and the labels: you give up some and you gain some. As for the DRM, I'm willing to say Apple whoeheartedly accepted it, since the alternative is no licensing deal. Whether they knew how to play the DRM game to "lock people in," they probably didn't realize they would be in a position they are in right now, so having a DRM was probably an unexpected windfall; no one can deny that Apple was able to use its DRM to its advantage. One should not be encumbered by the 20-20 vision a hindsight might give, so to argue that Apple knew all along from day one is patently ridiculous. They may have had various scenarios of which this is one of them, but to state that they knew, no way. I'm not saying that you're saying it, I just happened to choose your post to respond.

The proverbial ball have been served to the labels' court. To say that Jobs' open letter is a response to what's been happening in Europe, it pretty damed obvious. It remains to be seen how the labels will react. One can theorize the possible responses:

1. "Sure, we'll remove DRM, but give us a cut of your iPod sales."
2. "**** off."

My guess is that the labels will choose to respond with #1: No DRM, sure, but pay us a percentage of your iPod sales as "tax," which effectively puts the ball back into Apple's court. It's not unprecendented. What is unprecedented is that it took an MP3 player manufacturer/music store operator, the one who has >70% of the US market share at that, to come out on record that they're not happy with DRM and they'd be happy to sell music minus DRM.

dontmatter
Feb 6, 2007, 06:13 PM
Thats a poor argument. iTunes uses standard tagging for its MP3s and as thus can be imported by Windows Media Player, Zune Software, Winamp, MediaMonkey etc pretty much intact. All you will lose is stuff like playcounts and ratings.

Certianly there is nothing in itunes that locks you in to itunes outside of DRMed songs. What I meant was that when buying a new mp3 player for a couple of hundred bucks, 20 bucks isn't going to hold people back. On the other hand, most of the population is tech timid, and while they are in no way locked into itunes, the time and worry of transfering music libraries, learning a new system, etc is more unappealing than paying an extra 22 bucks. Therefore, I think that for most people, the jukebox software that is used to sync with a player is a bigger impediment to changing player than the few DRM songs they might have.

balamw
Feb 6, 2007, 06:13 PM
My take on Steve's article is that the itunes store is doing poorly.

As reported at MWSF last month Apple is now the fourth largest seller of music in the US after Wal-mart, Best Buy and Target.

Poorly? I think not. Beyond expectations, yes!

B

rktheac
Feb 6, 2007, 06:16 PM
the deal is that, according to Jobs, statistically speaking, most songs on a typical iPod has 22 (out of a 1,000 average capacity) songs with DRM. So people are free to choose a different player/software practically at any time. So in effect, what Jobs is saying is that Apple sold iPods (nearly) solely on the virtues of the player and software, not based on DRM and the "lock in" it provides. So even if DRM on the iTunes store was removed, he's saying that they'd still be able to sell a ton of iPods.

The thing that struck me about Jobs' commentary is that dumping DRM is not necessarily in Apple's best interest. DRM may hinder consumers (a populist thing for Jobs to say), but it also aides a closed system (iTunes/iTS/iPod) with big market share.

An Apple customer that cannot now take his tracks and go elsewhere would be able to do so if DRM were removed from his iTunes-bought library. Good for him; bad for Apple.

Aside from the Europe problems, why would Apple risk a good thing (for Apple) by giving away part of what makes it such a good thing? (Maybe it's nothing more than the Europe problem.)

I don't see it helping Apple grow its iTS business. Does Apple think there is a huge market of potential customers sitting out there waiting to come to Apple until DRM is gone? No. Does Apple think the 20 percent of the market it doesn't have is worth risking the 80 percent it does have? No.

This whole thing just doesn't sound like Apple. I would expect Apple to go toe-to-toe with those countries that are whining about DRM, shut down one of the European stores if it came to that, wait for livid users to get their governments to undo it all, and force its own way.

What's the deal?

lectro33
Feb 6, 2007, 06:44 PM
If Apple dumps DRM, I'll start buying music from the iTunes store in a heartbeat.

The 99¢ would be totally be worth the convenience of not having to strip the DRM from my subscription music. ;)

fatfish
Feb 6, 2007, 06:53 PM
the deal is that, according to Jobs, statistically speaking, most songs on a typical iPod has 22 (out of a 1,000 average capacity) songs with DRM. So people are free to choose a different player/software practically at any time. So in effect, what Jobs is saying is that Apple sold iPods (nearly) solely on the virtues of the player and software, not based on DRM and the "lock in" it provides. So even if DRM on the iTunes store was removed, he's saying that they'd still be able to sell a ton of iPods.

It doesn't actually work like that even though the implications might be the same. 3% is an average that means that lots of people have no or little music from itms on their ipods and some may have 70%. I have 1813 which is about 20%, however it is not the 20% that would stop me going for another player it is the 1813, I doubt someone with 5 itms tunes on their ipod would bat an eyelid at changing players. Of course this doesn't actually change the fact that very few people would be bound to the ipod because of DRM.

My big question is though:

If all music had no DRM, how would I prove all my music had been purchased legitimately or ripped from legitimate sources.

thirdhand
Feb 6, 2007, 06:58 PM
These words are music in my ears! :)

DRM simply doesn't work. It only makes hassle for legitimate customers. If Apple starts selling music without DRM I will certainly buy from iTunes. Will this mark the shift towards people waking up to the insanity and abandoning DRM? One can dream... The big labels will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Still it's good that Steve is talking the talk. Now if he could walk the walk...

Don't panic
Feb 6, 2007, 06:58 PM
My big question is though:

If all music had no DRM, how would I prove all my music had been purchased legitimately or ripped from legitimate sources.

you can't prove that for CDs anyways

balamw
Feb 6, 2007, 07:01 PM
If all music had no DRM, how would I prove all my music had been purchased legitimately or ripped from legitimate sources.
Watermarking?

B

fatfish
Feb 6, 2007, 07:10 PM
Watermarking?

B

But wouldn't the watermark be copied to another persons computer along with the music.

CD's I accept there is no real way, you could always produce the original I know, but some of mine have gone out the window when I turned a corner and left them on the dashboard, others have warped in the sun and many are just plain lost.

EagerDragon
Feb 6, 2007, 07:27 PM
unbelievable,, Bill Gates deserve more of your praise then.
Jobs not interested in money? is he god?

There is a difference between need and want. Neither Bill nor Steve need any, but they want more. It is fair, if you are the soul of a company why should you not be rewarded?

I agree that Steve is driven by his creations and not so much by the money. Money comes on its own when everyone likes your product.

biggarthomas
Feb 6, 2007, 07:38 PM
it should be surprising consider not everybody are as fixed as you, they pay for something, and they want to be totally free about what they want to do with it.


Yeah, it's the concept of freedom that I'd like to explore. I agree with the original poster. I could care less whether DRM is on iTMS downloads. My whole family has iPods. We share by burning CDs. No hassle. What other freedom do I want - to be able to copy everything that I purchase to another. player? You may care about that - I do not. It's only with the advent of tape and CDs that such "freedoms" have been realized and argued. Although it was technically possible to copy vinyl most people just did not even think of it. This freedom to use another player or to copy endlessly that is allegedly being abridged by Apple is therefore not inalienable nor is it a "natural" right (it does not come from the Bible or from some metaphysical origin). It was a freedom moulded and made articulable by changes in technology.

brepublican
Feb 6, 2007, 07:55 PM
My big question is though:

If all music had no DRM, how would I prove all my music had been purchased legitimately or ripped from legitimate sources.
The same way you would be able to tell which of your music you ripped from C... I'm sorry, were you going somewhere with this? :confused:

dongmin
Feb 6, 2007, 08:04 PM
My take on Steve's article is that the itunes store is doing poorly. He admitted that only 3% of the music on an ipod is from his store. He's looking for someone to blame and he points the finger at the record companies. I don't know if Apple invented fairplay on their own or if they were forced to by record companies, but I do know that it is hurting sales on the itunes store. I don't think Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, or any phone company will be major players in online music sales in the future. How hard is it to set up an online store? The hard part of music sales is getting peoples attention in an increasingly over entertained world.

Apple makes its money off of hardware. How well the iTS does is mostly immaterial since the margin is so low. Basically the iTS is a low-profit service Apple provides to ensure a well-integrated service top to bottom. Also, having their own store DRM ensures that they have control over the total experience--imagine how ****ed Apple would've been if they relied on Microsoft's DRM schemes.

Steve's letter is essentially a publicity stunt. Apple has nothing to lose in calling for a DRM-free universe since they make all their money off the hardware. The record companies, on the other hand, has everything to lose, if things don't go as planned. Apple will sell its ipods even if all the music in the world is pirated. In fact, Apple would probably sell more ipods if all music is free.

EAGLE1
Feb 6, 2007, 08:10 PM
Steve, you are my hero... folks, the Zune started the begining of the END of DRM. Microsoft's newest operating system was the latest example. And NOW look! This is greatest news article I've read in years. Words like these from Steve have significant power. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is the most unethical legislation ever presented in in the last decade.

rktheac
Feb 6, 2007, 08:13 PM
agreed. On a macro level, if one takes the number of iPods sold and average the total capacity and compare the number of songs sold through iTunes, the average number of DRM songs per iPod is low. Of course in reality, there are many, many people whose iPods are full of songs purchased from iTunes. But taking the former, Jobs' point is that generally, iPods are being sold on their merits as a music player and iTunes and DRM is at best incidental. That, and the convenience of having the iTunes store and the great interoperability are the formula of great iPod success, and my take is that even if DRM is taken out of the picture, he (Jobs) feels confident that Apple will sell tons of iPods.

It doesn't actually work like that even though the implications might be the same. 3% is an average that means that lots of people have no or little music from itms on their ipods and some may have 70%. I have 1813 which is about 20%, however it is not the 20% that would stop me going for another player it is the 1813, I doubt someone with 5 itms tunes on their ipod would bat an eyelid at changing players. Of course this doesn't actually change the fact that very few people would be bound to the ipod because of DRM.

My big question is though:

If all music had no DRM, how would I prove all my music had been purchased legitimately or ripped from legitimate sources.

SiliconAddict
Feb 6, 2007, 08:16 PM
2) License FairPlay to other companies. "The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. .... Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies"

Well that is a load of crap if I've ever seen one. MS has licensed their DRM to more manufacturers and OEMS then you could count. Of all the crack and hacks that have occurred AFAIK not one pertains to industrial espionage. Oh and DVD CSS encoding that is probably the most famous and widespread crack around? Ditto. It was a bunch of hackers who figured out how to break it without needing to steal the secrets. What this boils down to is once again Jobs is a paranoid nutcase. :rolleyes:

vitaboy
Feb 6, 2007, 08:18 PM
It's easy for Steve to say that DRM-free is the way to go, because he knows the labels will never let it happen.

It would have been even easier for Jobs to have said nothing.

By expressing his thoughts in the written word and published on Apple.com as an official statement, he is taking a huge risk even if you choose not to believe it.

Or maybe we can set our cynicism aside and realize that Jobs could not have written this open letter 5 years ago or even last year. He is sensing the time is right to tip the momentum in favor of ridding consumers of all forms of DRM (at least in music).

In business and in poker, it's all about knowing when to show your hand.

Pigumon
Feb 6, 2007, 08:20 PM
What's with this amazingly short-sighted assumption that the "Big 4" will never agree to DRM-free downloadable music?

Every massive entertainment corporation has sworn they will not go along with the next big thing. Just look VHS movie rentals- "it will destroy the movie industry". After being smashed in the face with money the finally went whole heartly into it because it's what the consumers wanted and would pay for.

It is just really mind boggling how these companies can consistantly NOT do the one thing that will make them the most money, which is all they really care about.

Non-DRM music will sell more. That means more money for greedy men (and women). Why are they not doing this?

Mr. Amiga500
Feb 6, 2007, 08:27 PM
The only way I'd ever buy music from iTunes is if it's DRM-free and in a lossless format. Otherwise, I'll continue to buy Compact Discs.

There's something about it NOT having ANY copy protection that guilts me into buying it. With Windows, I feel like a criminal every time I have to re-enter my COA, where as with OS X I feel like I'm being trusted, and I wouldn't want to break that trust. Hence I buy OS X upgrades, and get pissed off at MS for making me feel like a criminal (but don't ever buy their OS's because my computer can't run a newer OS usually, and I upgrade with the new PC)

Yes, that's exactly how I feel. I don't want something I paid for to constantly tell me not to steal (like stupid FBI warnings on DVDs). I don't want to have to worry that some stupid copy protection code will suddenly shut me out without warning. These things actually make me want to find some way to bypass protection just so I can comfortably relax. I'd feel very happy about paying for DRM-free music.

j-a-x
Feb 6, 2007, 08:27 PM
No DRM sounds good to me!!!

Rocketman
Feb 6, 2007, 08:29 PM
But wouldn't the watermark be copied to another persons computer along with the music.

CD's I accept there is no real way, you could always produce the original I know, but some of mine have gone out the window when I turned a corner and left them on the dashboard, others have warped in the sun and many are just plain lost.

You used to be inclined to replace most of those with new physical CD's. Not any more!

:)

Rocketman

vitaboy
Feb 6, 2007, 08:29 PM
Wouldn't the lack of DRM break down the ipod empire? I always assume that part of ipod's suggest is the inability to get songs from other online music stores to ipod...

I love the ipod and doubt i would go get any other music player any time ZUNE *laugh*...

Only if you believe the meme that there are teeming masses ready to dump the iPod + iTunes if only FairPlay would let them (not).

Actually, Jobs was pointing out that even though Apple has sold 2+ billion DRM'd songs online, the reality is that most people probably have never touched a DRM song. The "22 iTunes songs per iPod" figure is an average...it could easily mean that only 5% of iPod owners are responsible for 90% of iTunes song purchases, for example, with 95% getting all their music directly from CDs (or P2P downloads).

Jobs is saying, "Look, Apple has the most successful DRM system in the world, but in the big picture, it matters squat. Apple hasn't sold 100 million iPods because people are welded to FairPlay. The reason Apple has sold 100 million iPods has almost certainly nothing to do with DRM."

In other words, the success of the iPod is because it just is the best solution for millions of consumers (due to style, functionality, popularity, price, simplicity, etc.), and has nothing to do with FairPlay, despite the delirious rantings of certain anti-Apple people who act like FairPlay will bring about Armaggeddon or something.

BenRoethig
Feb 6, 2007, 08:38 PM
Here's the one thing that puzzles me. Jobs says we wants a level playing field. If that's true, why not make a little bit of money by licensing fairplay. Any player or jukebox software that plays normal ACC files should be able to play fairplay protected ACC files with minimal firmware and software updates. It wouldn't be a final solution, but it would be a start. I'm not so sure, this isn't a PR move meant to deflect attention on Apple's monopoly away from apple and on to the record companies instead. They're not going to change, so Steve and Apple end up looking like the good guys.

spicyapple
Feb 6, 2007, 08:43 PM
Here's the one thing that puzzles me. Jobs says we wants a level playing field. If that's true, why not make a little bit of money by licensing fairplay.
Steve mentioned the reason against licensing Fairplay in his article. The cost to update software to protect against uncovered DRM keys would prove a daunting task if third party vendors were involved.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 08:44 PM
If Apple could, they'd keep with the iPod + iTunes lock in.

External pressures are forcing Apple's hand.

Unfortunately, if digital music stores do go DRM-free , SJ will be worshipped for this turn of events ( when reality is quite different ).


Here's the one thing that puzzles me. Jobs says we wants a level playing field. If that's true, why not make a little bit of money by licensing fairplay. Any player or jukebox software that plays normal ACC files should be able to play fairplay protected ACC files with minimal firmware and software updates. It wouldn't be a final solution, but it would be a start. I'm not so sure, this isn't a PR move meant to deflect attention on Apple's monopoly away from apple and on to the record companies instead. They're not going to change, so Steve and Apple end up looking like the good guys.

vitaboy
Feb 6, 2007, 08:47 PM
I have two criticisms of Jobs' 'Thoughts on Music'.

1) Why not cooperate with other companies to allow users who switch from one music store to another to just redownload all their purchased music in the new format?

I doubt the RIAA would have any concerns about this - the music remains DRM'd. Apple has logs of all customer purchases and I'm sure other music stores do as well. Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting fairplay on other devices and media players, but people are no longer locked in.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this. The labels are very anal about stuff like this, which is why they also went after Internet radio stations because they weren't paying the proper royalties for playing music on their radio shows. There was even a case of a restaurant owned by a celebrity (or was it athlete) in Philadelphia where the music company presented a bill in the tens of thousands because the restaurant had been using an iPod to play mood music without paying royalties. You can bet the labels are wanting to be paid for every additional download, just as they expect you to pay for a new CD if you lost the original or it got scratched up.

2) As has already been mentioned, Apple keeps the DRM on songs even if the label doesn't stipulate that they must be DRM'd. Most independent music lables have made it clear that they don't care if their music has DRM, but apple continues to encode their music. Jobs is being a hypocrite by not selling these songs unlocked. It is the perfect opportunity: open up the independent music, promote that it is unlocked, watch as independent music sales explode, rub the statistics in the RIAA's face.

It's all about simplicity. It's the reason Apple insisted on flat rate pricing on songs, with few exceptions. It's the reason why all songs on iTS have the same sharing rights, i.e. 5 authorized computers and unlimited iPods.

Apple doesn't want to get into a situation you are advocating that plagues the PlaysForSure music stores and Zune, where songs have different usage rights. It was recently revealed that about 60% of the songs purchased in the Zune marketplace can't be shared, for example. Some songs can't even be burned to a CD. And you can't tell until you try to do it, and the Zune software tells you that you can't.

This is what will happen if you go "DRM free is optional." Because then DRM-free becomes just a gimmick that the labels will manipulate. They'll begin offering 1 song on an album that is DRM-free, and the rest of the album is locked up. They'll sell a song DRM-free for the first 5 weeks for $1.50, and then it'll revert to DRM'd-only after that for $0.99. They'll do things like "only the 1st million downloads are DRM-free" to try to generate hype and mindless buying.

Steve Jobs knows what happens when you give the music labels "options" when it comes to DRM, even if one of those options is DRM-free. It has to be all or nothing, either all-the-same-DRM or no-DRM. When the labels have options, consumers lose, so Steve Jobs is about to try to make them an(other) offer they can't refuse.

EricNau
Feb 6, 2007, 08:52 PM
There is the DRM on DVDs to prevent you from making a copy of a movie but then again what's to stop people from bypassing that? Obviously I can be done. So where are the studios then? They still use the same copy protection granted it's been breached. Why should Apple or any other company have to update their software in said amount of time from when a breach occurs?

Steve is right and not because he's the one who said it.
Updating the DRM on DVDs would involve updating every DVD player in every home in America (and the world). DVD's aren't software; they can't be updated. It is just not possible.

starsolutions
Feb 6, 2007, 08:56 PM
Explained very well,

Another example of how apple is foward thinking in this area.

LaMerVipere
Feb 6, 2007, 08:59 PM
Bravo to Steve Jobs for saying what everyone else was already saying...thinking...wishing for... :cool:

vitaboy
Feb 6, 2007, 09:03 PM
Steve mentioned the reason against licensing Fairplay in his article. The cost to update software to protect against uncovered DRM keys would prove a daunting task if third party vendors were involved.

Not even just the cost - with that many players involved, Steve is saying it would become impossible for Apple to maintain FairPlay. Sooner or later, some underachieving "partner" will accidentally (by design, possibly, or more likely through bad implementation) reveal FairPlay's inner mechanisms, and the system would be irretrievably broken. To date, Apple has simply issued an iTunes update to plug attempts to crack FairPlay, so it remains a robust DRM system. The labels will almost certainly revoke all the songs from the iTunes Store if FairPlay is complete broken, as stipulated in the contract.

Basically, this is Steve's polite way of saying to all the "if only Apple would license FairPlay" shippers, "You don't know what the hell you're talking about. :p

LethalWolfe
Feb 6, 2007, 09:04 PM
Updating the DRM on DVDs would involve updating every DVD player in every home in America (and the world). DVD's aren't software; they can't be updated. It is just not possible.
The new DRM on BD and HD DVDs can be update dynamically. IIRC they can include the update on new movies so when you pop them in your player it will update the machine. I've also heard that in the future they'll be able to include the update in HDTV signals .


Lethal

Xeem
Feb 6, 2007, 09:04 PM
A good article, and one that is sure to put some public opinion behind Apple.

Also, this story has almost a 40:1 positive to negative ratings ratio right now, which is one of the most positively-rated stories/rumors that I've ever seen on Macrumors.

flir67
Feb 6, 2007, 09:06 PM
better yet just how about a weekly blog.. so much easilier in todays world








Interesting read, and hopefully a step towards abandoning drm, it is a broken concept.
PS I want "Fireside Chats with Steve Jobs", every week.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 09:12 PM
Personally, I'm surprised about the positive ratings.

Its well known that Mac users like their consumer freedoms removed by Apple - because "anything that Apple does must be a Good Thing" fan boi view.

Now, they have the nerve to say that "Apple are forward thinking" for suggesting that DRM on digital music should be removed!


A good article, and one that is sure to put some public opinion behind Apple.

Also, this story has almost a 40:1 positive to negative ratings ratio right now, which is one of the most positively-rated stories/rumors that I've ever seen on Macrumors.

tartempion
Feb 6, 2007, 09:13 PM
Question :confused: : What is the percentage of music bought from iTune Music Store which still have DRM on it ? I mean it's so easy to burn a CD with songs bought from iTMS and put the songs back on your iPod. Almost all my music comes from iTMS (legally purchase) and is all DRM-free :)

Jobs skip this one...

iMacZealot
Feb 6, 2007, 09:14 PM
Just a quick question here to all of you:

If you buy music from iTunes and buy and listen to it legally, then what's the point of not having DRM if it won't really affect the way you buy and listen to music?


Plus, why would record labels allow more of their precious investments to be DRM-free only to find it be illegally downloaded more?

I really don't think a lot of people understand the great amounts of time and money record labels put into their artists' albums. It's amazing how people really don't care if an artist makes money or not. The truth is, a lot of artists, especiallly newcomers, are in debt because the album they created that they're trying to sell to us cost them (and the record label) hundreds of thousands, if not, millions, of dollars to make. And so many people say "it's only one copy I'm getting for free (i.e. stealing)" but for every album sold, on average, three are pirated.

I don't understand why people have a problem with record labels and artists trying to protect their time and money from being stolen.

rockthecasbah
Feb 6, 2007, 09:25 PM
Just a quick question here to all of you:

If you buy music from iTunes and buy and listen to it legally, then what's the point of not having DRM if it won't really affect the way you buy and listen to music?


Plus, why would record labels allow more of their precious investments to be DRM-free only to find it be illegally downloaded more?

I really don't think a lot of people understand the great amounts of time and money record labels put into their artists' albums. It's amazing how people really don't care if an artist makes money or not. The truth is, a lot of artists, especiallly newcomers, are in debt because the album they created that they're trying to sell to us cost them (and the record label) hundreds of thousands, if not, millions, of dollars to make. And so many people say "it's only one copy I'm getting for free (i.e. stealing)" but for every album sold, on average, three are pirated.

I don't understand why people have a problem with record labels and artists trying to protect their time and money from being stolen.
France courts ruled that the Fairplay DRM crippled competition and so Apple is trying to push the move so they look like the good guys and still have the ability to sell tunes. Really if it hadn't been for France's ruling, we wouldn't see this at all. No point in stirring the pot.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 09:28 PM
How about:

The current digital music stores lock in digital players - vice versa.

This is not good for consumer choice.

Yes, I could go and buy a CD.... if you were to ask me - however, I would respond that I cannot go to HMV and buy individual tracks off a CD like you can in online music stores.

In an ideal world if the players ( Apple, microsoft et al ) would put away their egos and come up with a standard DRM method that was interoperable with all devices and all music stores, then DRM wouldn't be as bad.

And no, burn -> rip isn't ideal - its a complete waste of my time and degrades the quality.

So, DRM music does affect the way I buy and listen to music.

Only 3% of music is DRM. I don't think that'll make quite the impact on piracy as you may think - if it becomes DRM free. Copying CDs and uploading for distribution isn't that difficult - time consuming, yes... but easy.

The labels assume all consumers are automatic pirates, which isn't the case.

I think the majority of people care about artists - because they know they get screwed over by the record companies. A lot of people sympathies with them.

Just a quick question here to all of you:

If you buy music from iTunes and buy and listen to it legally, then what's the point of not having DRM if it won't really affect the way you buy and listen to music?


Plus, why would record labels allow more of their precious investments to be DRM-free only to find it be illegally downloaded more?

I really don't think a lot of people understand the great amounts of time and money record labels put into their artists' albums. It's amazing how people really don't care if an artist makes money or not. The truth is, a lot of artists, especiallly newcomers, are in debt because the album they created that they're trying to sell to us cost them (and the record label) hundreds of thousands, if not, millions, of dollars to make. And so many people say "it's only one copy I'm getting for free (i.e. stealing)" but for every album sold, on average, three are pirated.

I don't understand why people have a problem with record labels and artists trying to protect their time and money from being stolen.

QFT.
Not only France but the other European countries too who wanted to ensure consumer choice ( viewed as a bad thing by the Apple religious fan boi ).

France courts ruled that the Fairplay DRM crippled competition and so Apple is trying to push the move so they look like the good guys and still have the ability to sell tunes. Really if it hadn't been for France's ruling, we wouldn't see this at all. No point in stirring the pot.

Jarbo
Feb 6, 2007, 09:30 PM
I have two criticisms of Jobs' 'Thoughts on Music'.

2) As has already been mentioned, Apple keeps the DRM on songs even if the label doesn't stipulate that they must be DRM'd. Most independent music lables have made it clear that they don't care if their music has DRM, but apple continues to encode their music. Jobs is being a hypocrite by not selling these songs unlocked. It is the perfect opportunity: open up the independent music, promote that it is unlocked, watch as independent music sales explode, rub the statistics in the RIAA's face.

The reason it's hard and perhaps impractical to apply DRM to some songs and not others is becuase the DRM is not applied to the songs at Apple. The DRM is applied locally, by the iTunes client on your computer. (that what allows fairplay to keep track of what and how many computers a song is authorized for).

Apple would have to release an iTunes update, with something that knows to look for a flag on a song that indicates it is not to be drm'ed. Then all said songs willing to be DRM free would have to have a special tag associated with it to communicate with the iTunes client.

Anything bought with an older version of iTunes would still have DRM.

It seems like significant headache potential and an opportunity for mass consumer confusion.

Steve has the right approach, egt rid of DRM all together.

spicyapple
Feb 6, 2007, 09:35 PM
Just a quick question here to all of you:

If you buy music from iTunes and buy and listen to it legally, then what's the point of not having DRM if it won't really affect the way you buy and listen to music?

I use iVolume rather than iTunes' built-in Sound Check feature to adjust the loudness of my music, but Fairplay doesn't allow iVolume permission to modify the id3 tag of the protected AAC music file. Right there, Fairplay already restricts my usage rights. No thanks!

This is the one of the major reasons I don't buy tracks off iTS.

cxny
Feb 6, 2007, 09:36 PM
Wow a 30:1 Positive/Negative ratio from MacRumors users, that seems to be unprecedented and suggests the music industry should PAY ATTENTION or something. Thanks Steve, I really enjoyed it, well written.

ezekielrage_99
Feb 6, 2007, 09:39 PM
I think more people would opt for a new iPod/iTunes if it was DRM free, hopefully Apple will be able to pursade the big music companies to thinka about and maybe even take it up.

I hate DRM at the moment especially if you're using a few computers with iTunes on it......

iMacZealot
Feb 6, 2007, 09:41 PM
Only 3% of music is DRM.

...and only 1% of digital downloads are legal...considering the fact that iTunes is the biggest all-digital music store, if they go no-DRM, don't you think that more people would know how to illegally download then?

The labels assume all consumers are automatic pirates, which isn't the case.

Record labels are just struggling to figure out how to sell music -- It's hard to tell how people will buy music now with the boom of the internet. It's hard for television networks to figure out how people will watch TV since the boom of YouTube.

I think the majority of people care about artists - because they know they get screwed over by the record companies. A lot of people sympathies with them.

That's the image people are given of the record labels. It's hard to pay artists when more and more of the artist's music is being stolen, isn't it?

Record labels give their artists hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions, to produce a record. I think that's being pretty generous, don't you think so? And while the artist does have to pay that back, it's not like the record label is penny-pinching all of their sales and keeping the money in their pocket -- they can't pay artists like the used to because people don't buy the music.

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 09:41 PM
Personally, I'm surprised about the positive ratings.

Its well known that Mac users like their consumer freedoms removed by Apple - because "anything that Apple does must be a Good Thing" fan boi view.

Now, they have the nerve to say that "Apple are forward thinking" for suggesting that DRM on digital music should be removed!

I think people can be consistent on the one hand in praising Apple's DRM and wanting it removed.

In the first place, there was no way to sell the big labels' music without DRM. Apple is praised for getting users a fairly liberal license, and because "something is better than nothing."

Now Apple wants to further improve the deal for users by removing DRM restrictions altogether.

I don't think anyone was saying restrictions are good, but that the restrictions were more or less fair and at least it was something. I don't see the contradiction.

(That said, I don't want DRM-encumbered music, and I've never bought anything from the iTunes store.)

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 09:46 PM
There is a lot of evidence that people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music.

The labels cry 'piracy' as a reason for reduced income, but have you heard that quality of music recently? IMO, its utter crap and I wouldn't and haven't bought a CD in quite a while ( neither have I pirated music ). Too many manufactured bands with no talent.

The quality of YouTube isn't that great, IMO.

People already know how to download music, and rip ( and burn ) their friends CDs... so non DRM digital music isn't going make much of a difference... compared to the amount of CDs being pirated.

...and only 1% of digital downloads are legal...considering the fact that iTunes is the biggest all-digital music store, if they go no-DRM, don't you think that more people would know how to illegally download then?



Record labels are just struggling to figure out how to sell music -- It's hard to tell how people will buy music now with the boom of the internet. It's hard for television networks to figure out how people will watch TV since the boom of YouTube.



That's the image people are given of the record labels. It's hard to pay artists when more and more of the artist's music is being stolen, isn't it?

Record labels give their artists hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions, to produce a record. I think that's being pretty generous, don't you think so? And while the artist does have to pay that back, it's not like the record label is penny-pinching all of their sales and keeping the money in their pocket -- they can't pay artists like the used to because people don't buy the music.

calicanuck
Feb 6, 2007, 09:46 PM
I just sent an email to the Torgeir Waterhouse, the Senior advisor of the Norwegian Consumer Council who has already responded to Steve Jobs letter and basically said, nice try but not good enough. I just had to send him my thoughts on the matter. His email address is at the bottom if anyone would like to add a thought or two.


Dear Mr. Waterhouse,

I just read a response made by you to the letter Steve Jobs released today regarding DRM, iTunes and the iPod. I felt compelled to let you know that most people agree 100% with Mr. Jobs regarding the solution to this issue. All music should be completely DRM free, and the consumer should be able to decide from there which music player, jukebox software, operating system, computer platform they wish to use. The power to do that lies entirely in the hands of the music labels, which is who you should be targeting.

Apple is completely within their rights to sell hardware (iPod) that works with only with their own software. That is part of what makes their products a joy to use, because that tight integration of hardware and software is what makes the experience seamless, reliable, and headache free. To change that would create an inferior product, and thus a less satisfying experience for the consumer. Your argument that tying the iPod to iTunes and vice versa is somehow wrong, illegal, or against consumers best interests is without any merit whatsoever.

There is plenty of choice in digital music today. There is few, if any consumers who have a problem with the selection of music players, the software that plays them and the ways in which they are combines. What people do have a problem with is that they are not free to play music that they have legally bought where they want, when they want and how they want. That is something only the record labels can change. If you want to do something useful, beneficial and constructive, leave Apple alone and focus on the real problem.

Respectfully yours,

____

You can email him at torgeir.waterhouse@forbrukerradet.no

EricNau
Feb 6, 2007, 09:51 PM
There is a lot of evidence that people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music.
OK, let's see it.

owensd
Feb 6, 2007, 09:54 PM
Just a quick question here to all of you:

If you buy music from iTunes and buy and listen to it legally, then what's the point of not having DRM if it won't really affect the way you buy and listen to music?

Well, here's one very specific example. I use both Macs and PCs, in my opinion iTunes for Windows blows, so I want to use Media Player 11 - which I like... but wait! I can't because the DRM that protects the music won't allow ME to play the music that I purchased and LEGALLY have a right to listen to. The problem is that DRM needs to be standard or it shouldn't be used at all.

Another scenario... what if my wife wants an iPod and I want a Zune (or some other media player). I typically don't buy music, but my likes to so our music library is populated with DRM tied to iTunes. Now, again, we own the right to play this music but we can NOT do it.

DRM isn't a joke or even necessarily a bad thing, it's the fact that DRM is non-standard across the industry that is the joke. It's pathetic to say that music purchased from iTunes can only be played through iTunes (the same is true for the Zune music store). I bought the music, I better get to play it when I want to on what I want to.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 09:55 PM
OK, let's see it.

Google is your friend, go search.

Personally, I'd email him saying - "Good work so far, keep up the pressure"
:D


I just sent an email to the Torgeir Waterhouse, the Senior advisor of the Norwegian Consumer Council who has already responded to Steve Jobs letter and basically said, nice try but not good enough. I just had to send him my thoughts on the matter. His email address is at the bottom if anyone would like to add a thought or two.


Dear Mr. Waterhouse,

I just read a response made by you to the letter Steve Jobs released today regarding DRM, iTunes and the iPod. I felt compelled to let you know that most people agree 100% with Mr. Jobs regarding the solution to this issue. All music should be completely DRM free, and the consumer should be able to decide from there which music player, jukebox software, operating system, computer platform they wish to use. The power to do that lies entirely in the hands of the music labels, which is who you should be targeting.

Apple is completely within their rights to sell hardware (iPod) that works with only with their own software. That is part of what makes their products a joy to use, because that tight integration of hardware and software is what makes the experience seamless, reliable, and headache free. To change that would create an inferior product, and thus a less satisfying experience for the consumer. Your argument that tying the iPod to iTunes and vice versa is somehow wrong, illegal, or against consumers best interests is without any merit whatsoever.

There is plenty of choice in digital music today. There is few, if any consumers who have a problem with the selection of music players, the software that plays them and the ways in which they are combines. What people do have a problem with is that they are not free to play music that they have legally bought where they want, when they want and how they want. That is something only the record labels can change. If you want to do something useful, beneficial and constructive, leave Apple alone and focus on the real problem.

Respectfully yours,

____

You can email him at torgeir.waterhouse@forbrukerradet.no

EricNau
Feb 6, 2007, 09:59 PM
Google is your friend, go search.
If you are going to make such claims you should have the proof to back them up.

Quite frankly, it sounds like you made it up.

spydr
Feb 6, 2007, 10:06 PM
People keep bringing emusic into the equation— Emusic seems to have negotiated with indie labels to provide you songs not only without DRM but also for substantially less than 99c a piece (in fact, you get 50 songs free for each email/person that signs up from your home!). But I don't think apple's business model or their deal with the big four allows that much wiggle room.

vitaboy
Feb 6, 2007, 10:07 PM
If you are going to make such claims you should have the proof to back them up.

Quite frankly, it sounds like you made it up.

Sorry, but a little research goes a long way.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060320-6418.html

"Three out of four P2P users admitted to purchasing music after downloading it online, with 21 percent of P2P users saying that they have bought tracks they have also downloaded on more than 10 occasions. 25 percent admitted to purchasing previously-downloaded tracks only once or twice, while an additional 27 percent claimed to have done it less than 10 times, but more than twice. The end result is clear: people are buying music after downloading it on P2P, meaning that the industry has failed to recognize the marketing-like effects of P2P. Just as important, this should caution the industry against assessing each and every download to a "loss" to piracy, since the statistics clearly show that those engaging in P2P do buy music in not-insignificant numbers."

What's really funny is that these numbers come from a report commissed by the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA...not that the music industry wants you to know about this study, as it directly contradicts everything they have been claiming about music piracy.

And if you did a few minutes more research, you'd find university studies showing that piracy has a very tenuous link, if at all, with the decline in music sales from a few years ago. Of course, the music industry just starts up with a shrill screeching in the halls of Congress whenever such studies come out, trying to convince everybody that declining music sales have nothing to do with INCREASING CD PRICES.

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 10:08 PM
EricNau, are you connected to the music industry in some way?

( or even, say the CEO of EMI :) )

inkswamp
Feb 6, 2007, 10:14 PM
What's puzzling is why Apple insists on adding DRM to music from these independent lables when they don't require it for emusic.

This isn't hard to answer: consumer confusion.

Imagine the headaches for iTunes support folks when they have to explain repeatedly why a customer was able to burn one playlist of songs 20+ times or play it on 10 different computers but not able to do so with other songs. I suspect the one-size-fits-all approach is just for the low maintenance, and given that the music sales itself isn't particularly profitable for Apple, it's hard to find fault with that.

BWhaler
Feb 6, 2007, 10:18 PM
This is why I love Apple.

Sure, it's good business. (Apple is leaving a lot of money on the table because people are choosing to buy non-DRM music.)

But its also good for us.

A win-win.

I bet the music companies crapped their pants when they saw this. No way they are agreeing to it.

mambodancer
Feb 6, 2007, 10:20 PM
I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this. The labels are very anal about stuff like this, which is why they also went after Internet radio stations because they weren't paying the proper royalties for playing music on their radio shows. There was even a case of a restaurant owned by a celebrity (or was it athlete) in Philadelphia where the music company presented a bill in the tens of thousands because the restaurant had been using an iPod to play mood music without paying royalties. You can bet the labels are wanting to be paid for every additional download, just as they expect you to pay for a new CD if you lost the original or it got scratched up.


Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in about this.

I think most people don't realize that when you go to a restaurant or are listening to music being played in a elevator or any other public place or business, you are listening to music that the owners of that establishment are probably paying a licensing fee to play.

I worked in a Dance studio for many years and we were advised by our lawyers that we could not even play the radio over our stereo system because it would violate copyright law. If we wanted to pipe music into the studio like that, there was a legal service that we could subscribe to and pay for to do that. We were even concerned that we couldn't play music from our own CD's during a dance lesson without paying royalties but most, if not all dance studios try not to think about that and just do it anyway.

For me, and most of the professional dance instructors that I know of, the iTunes store was a godsend. Prior to that, we would have to bring a CD case of 50-100 CD's of dance music to class. I would typically spend about $15 per CD for a disc that at best had 5-6 songs on it that I could use for teaching. Needless to say, my budget for music was limited and there was a limit to the number of CD's I could lug around with me anyway.

When the store opened, we were in heaven. Now I can purchase any song I want for only $.99! Every song I purchased I could use in class. No song downloaded is wasted. On top of that, iTunes opened new vistas (no pun intended) for previewing music. I quickly found out that many artists had arranged so many of my favorite dance songs in so many interesting ways. I have swing, cha cha, hustle, salsa and foxtrot versions of "Fever" that I can dance to. I found out that Elvis, Madonna, Ray Charles, Love and Rockets, Tito Puente, Rita Coolidge, Joe Cocker and so many artists have all created their own unique and interesting arrangements of this music. This is something I would never have been able to explore, enjoy and benefit from had it not been for the iTunes store. It makes it so simple to explore music. Talk about freedom! Not only that, but since the advent of the iTunes store, while I do not buy CD's at all anymore, this feature alone is responsible for me buying and enjoying more music than I ever did prior to 2002.

And there was another advantage.

I mentioned how many CD's we'd have to carry to class. It gets to be pretty cumbersome and heavy lugging so many CD's around but you had to do it. To cut down on the weight and make things a bit easier on ourselves we'd take the CD's out of the Jewel cases and place them in those carrying cases with the sleeves. That saved a lot of weight and made shlepping the CD's around a lot easier. Problem was, every time you slide a CD out and slide it back into the case you inadvertently, unnoticeably, introduce micro scratches to the surface of the CD. Every day the Salsa CD you have or the Foxtrot CD you play are pulled out, then slid back into its sleeve. Probably several times a day, several days a week, month after month until the playable surface of the disc is so covered with scratches one day a track you want to play wont play because the laser wont track properly and starts to skip that track. If you ever rented a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix or checked out a CD or Movie from the library flip it over and just look at all those scratches. On more than one occasion I've had to repurchase a CD because I just wore it out. These things do not last forever like you think they might.

Anyway, the DRM thing hasn't been an issue to me because now I have my complete music library on an iPod and my laptop that I can hook up to the stereo system in the dance studio and have a greater variety of music that I can teach with than ever before!

EricNau
Feb 6, 2007, 10:24 PM
Sorry, but a little research goes a long way.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060320-6418.html

"Three out of four P2P users admitted to purchasing music after downloading it online, with 21 percent of P2P users saying that they have bought tracks they have also downloaded on more than 10 occasions. 25 percent admitted to purchasing previously-downloaded tracks only once or twice, while an additional 27 percent claimed to have done it less than 10 times, but more than twice. The end result is clear: people are buying music after downloading it on P2P, meaning that the industry has failed to recognize the marketing-like effects of P2P. Just as important, this should caution the industry against assessing each and every download to a "loss" to piracy, since the statistics clearly show that those engaging in P2P do buy music in not-insignificant numbers."
Those numbers are insignificant, pathetic even. In other words, the article states that 79% of music pirates either never buy music they've pirated or have bought less than 10 songs they've pirated in the past. Considering many, if not most pirated libraries are well into the hundreds and thousands of songs, <10 songs is a extremely small percentage.

I will also estimate that the majority of the 21% who claim to have bought more than 10 songs they've pirated, have probably not made it to the 25 song mark.

Kabeyun
Feb 6, 2007, 10:36 PM
22 out of 100 songs are DRM-protected? Locked-in to an iPod? Hogwash!
Take your DRM songs, burn an audio (not MP3/AAC) CD, and reimport the CD into iTunes. Poof! DRM gone.

A hassle, you say? Hogwash again! How many iTMS songs do you have? Instead of Steve's 22, say you have 100. That's about 6 CDs at 15 songs per CD. Is it really awful to burn 6 whole CDs in your spare time.

Expensive, you say? Hogwash yet again! Blank CDs cost pennies.

This whole Euro-gov argument that DRM is burdensome & restrictive is a bunch of bellicose whining, and you European citizens should take your ill-informed governments to task.

Nuff said. Go Steve-O!

-K

robbyx
Feb 6, 2007, 10:52 PM
22 out of 100 songs are DRM-protected? Locked-in to an iPod? Hogwash!
Take your DRM songs, burn an audio (not MP3/AAC) CD, and reimport the CD into iTunes. Poof! DRM gone.

A hassle, you say? Hogwash again! How many iTMS songs do you have? Instead of Steve's 22, say you have 100. That's about 6 CDs at 15 songs per CD. Is it really awful to burn 6 whole CDs in your spare time.

So, let me get this straight. Buy music encoded at 128kbps, burn it to CD, then re-import it? While this works, it's a surefire recipe for lousy audio quality. I don't really see this as an option.

-Rob

robbyx
Feb 6, 2007, 10:57 PM
Enough's enough. How many people in the various European governments who are fired up about iTunes even UNDERSTAND how it works? How many can check their email without some tech support kid walking them through it? How many know DRM from USB from TCP/IP?

This is a huge problem, not only in Europe, but everywhere. At a minimum, government officials should understand the issues they are legislating. Otherwise, they have no business coming up with boneheaded ideas like magically making all DRM systems interoperable. Idiots!

There's no way Apple is going to cave on this one. So, what's the choice? Shut down the music store in those countries? If I were a citizen of any country where such legislation was even being discussed, much less considered, I'd be writing to every elected official I could. They don't understand the subject they are legislating and that's very dangerous for their citizens.

-Rob

robbyx
Feb 6, 2007, 11:00 PM
Anyway, the DRM thing hasn't been an issue to me because now I have my complete music library on an iPod and my laptop that I can hook up to the stereo system in the dance studio and have a greater variety of music that I can teach with than ever before!

That's great - for you. But what about those of us who would like to play our music on a SqueezeBox? Or Sonos player? Or car stereo? Etc. So long as Apple makes the products one needs, everything's peachy. But as soon as you want something NOT made by Apple, you're in trouble. This is the problem with DRM.

-Rob

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 11:02 PM
Those numbers are insignificant, pathetic even. In other words, the article states that 79% of music pirates either never buy music they've pirated or have bought less than 10 songs they've pirated in the past. Considering many, if not most pirated libraries are well into the hundreds and thousands of songs, <10 songs is a extremely small percentage.

I will also estimate that the majority of the 21% who claim to have bought more than 10 songs they've pirated, have probably not made it to the 25 song mark.

First, are you honestly comparing a study to your "estimates"?

Second, buying ten songs you downloaded would probably equate to buying 10 albums. (It could be less -- if two or more songs downloaded are on one album, but it could make you buy two or more albums by the same band.) There are bands I never would have gotten into had I not downloaded their music, and now I own all their albums (in CD form). I used to download on p2p; nowadays I listen to iTunes 30 second previews and use Pandora. Before these services weren't really available or convenient for me.

Third, "pirates" that download a ton of music would likely not buy that music otherwise. It's not a lost sale.

robbyx
Feb 6, 2007, 11:04 PM
Its well known that Mac users like their consumer freedoms removed by Apple - because "anything that Apple does must be a Good Thing" fan boi view.

How on earth is Apple removing consumer freedoms? What are you talking about???

BillyShears
Feb 6, 2007, 11:08 PM
Take your DRM songs, burn an audio (not MP3/AAC) CD, and reimport the CD into iTunes. Poof! DRM gone.

A hassle, you say? Hogwash again! How many iTMS songs do you have? Instead of Steve's 22, say you have 100. That's about 6 CDs at 15 songs per CD. Is it really awful to burn 6 whole CDs in your spare time.

Expensive, you say? Hogwash yet again! Blank CDs cost pennies.

If it's so easy why should we have to do it at all? If anyone can do this, why is the restriction there in the first place? Why can't they just sell it as DRM-free?

I consider it too much of an annoyance considering I'd be paying for the damn music. And it's not 6 CDs, it's however many songs you bought. If you bought 22 songs, it's 22 CDs. When I download a song, I want it DRM-free (reasons are outlined above in my posts and other peoples'). So I immediately have to burn it to a CD and then rip it.

Not to mention the loss of quality...

robbyx
Feb 6, 2007, 11:09 PM
Not only France but the other European countries too who wanted to ensure consumer choice ( viewed as a bad thing by the Apple religious fan boi ).

It's not consumer choice that is viewed as a bad thing. It's hours on tech support lines. It's devices that don't work together. It's endless frustration.

Maybe you like to spend hours of your day tweaking your tech goodies so they work. I don't. I want to buy something, plug it in, and use it. Period. Apple makes this possible. It's not about being a "fan boi." It's about valuing how one spends one's time and looking at the computer not as a hobby for whiling away the hours, but as an appliance that JUST WORKS.

-Rob

Transic
Feb 6, 2007, 11:24 PM
*

nagromme
Feb 6, 2007, 11:52 PM
If you bought 22 songs, it's 22 CDs. When I download a song, I want it DRM-free (reasons are outlined above in my posts and other peoples'). So I immediately have to burn it to a CD and then rip it.


Until the RIAA comes to their senses and allows Apple to end DRM, I'd suggest buying more songs at once--then you could burn more than one song to a CD. Buy 22 songs on 22 days, and if you can't wait at all to have a CD, then you need 22 CDs. But buy those songs in 4 batches and burn 4 CDs and you have saved some money. Plus, you have more useful discs that will play longer than one song.

Another tip: burn songs to CD-RW. Then you can re-use the same disc.

EricNau
Feb 7, 2007, 12:32 AM
First, are you honestly comparing a study to your "estimates"?
No, I'm reinterpreting the numbers in the study.

Second, buying ten songs you downloaded would probably equate to buying 10 albums. (It could be less -- if two or more songs downloaded are on one album, but it could make you buy two or more albums by the same band.) There are bands I never would have gotten into had I not downloaded their music, and now I own all their albums (in CD form). I used to download on p2p; nowadays I listen to iTunes 30 second previews and use Pandora. Before these services weren't really available or convenient for me.
No, buying 10 songs would equal 10 songs. Buying 10 albums would equal 100 songs (based on 10 songs per CD). The study said "tracks" not "albums" - since iTunes the days of having to buy complete albums are gone.

Third, "pirates" that download a ton of music would likely not buy that music otherwise. It's not a lost sale.
So if pirating didn't exist people wouldn't buy music? What did people do before the internet? ...There wasn't music back then?

vitaboy
Feb 7, 2007, 12:37 AM
Those numbers are insignificant, pathetic even. In other words, the article states that 79% of music pirates either never buy music they've pirated or have bought less than 10 songs they've pirated in the past.

You asked for a link and basically accussed someone of making up number. I did a 1 minute Google search based on remembering something I'd read on Arstechnica and presented you with number from a music industry study

And instead of saying, "Okay, this is information I hadn't seen before." your argument is basically "Oh, the study is pathetic because I don't agree with it." What part of music industry sponsored study do you not get, or maybe one reason why the music industry is hurting so much is that it wastes its money commissioning pathetic studies like this, for no reason?

Here's another argument, without numbers since it's clear numbers isn't what you are really looking for. And by golly, it's from John Dvorak himself.

Why Steve Jobs is Right About Digital Rights (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-steve-jobs-right-about/story.aspx?guid=%7B775E7E37%2D8A51%2D438B%2DAAD8%2DD1B0B7FCADC5%7D)

I would like to finish with the marketing observation that the record industry hates. During the heyday of Napster and open free music sharing and trading, when million of people swapped songs, the CD business was booming. Once Napster was shut down, and along with it the social network of music discovery, sales began to plummet. They are still falling.

Apparently these people are clueless about their own industry and how it works.

Now which category do you belong in? Or are you going to continue to insist on being the lazy contrarian while offering up no citations to back your own position?

EricNau
Feb 7, 2007, 12:47 AM
You asked for a link and basically accussed someone of making up number. I did a 1 minute Google search based on remembering something I'd read on Arstechnica and presented you with number from a music industry study

And instead of saying, "Okay, maybe I was wrong about this." your argument is basically "Oh, the study is pathetic because I don't agree with it." What part of music industry sponsored study do you not get, or maybe one reason why the music industry is hurting so much is that it wastes its money commissioning pathetic studies like this, for no reason?

Here's another argument, without numbers since it's clear numbers isn't what you are really looking for. And by golly, it's from John Dvorak himself.

Why Steve Jobs is Right About Digital Rights (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-steve-jobs-right-about/story.aspx?guid=%7B775E7E37%2D8A51%2D438B%2DAAD8%2DD1B0B7FCADC5%7D)



Now which category do you belong in? Or are you going to continue to insist on being the lazy contrarian while offering up no citations to back your own position?
Sorry, you misinterpreted my statement (perhaps partially my own fault and I'm sorry for that).

I was never questioning the study itself, rather I was questioning the way the numbers were interpreted. Basically, the study found that nearly 80% of all music pirates never pay for the large majority of the music they steal, leaving only 21% who have ever bought more than 10 songs they've pirated (keep in mind, many of these pirates have illegal libraries of hundreds of songs).

How is this supposed to convince me that "people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music" - if anything it convinces me that this is only, at the most, partially true for 20% of the Canadian population.

vitaboy
Feb 7, 2007, 12:48 AM
So if pirating didn't exist people wouldn't buy music? What did people do before the internet? ...There wasn't music back then?

What people are saying is that piracy contributes to the music business in a significant way, because if people don't hear about a song, it definitely won't get bought. To ignore the social networking aspect of music sharing means you are basically saying that it would be pointless to spending money on TV advertising. Heck, why spend $5 million making a music video that you give free to MTV if word-of-mouth marketing (whether via piracy or other means) is so worthless?

On thing is certain, and it ain't piracy that is causing CD sales to fall by double digits each year.

killr_b
Feb 7, 2007, 12:52 AM
Steve is full of it, right here and now.

He issues a lot of platitudes- things you all seem to like to hear- but he does not act on it. So I say BS Steve- put your money where your mouth is.

If you are REALLY for DRM-less music, do it. There is PLENTY of DRMless music right now- emusic for one. Same songs on iTunes have DRM- WTF?

So shut the F up Steve, quit your whining UNLESS you are gonna do something. Then, just do it. But this pie in the sky wishful thinking does not cut it, especially when YOU can do it different! Especially when you CAN make it happen.

Sorry, Steve, no pass on this one.

What?
You must not have read the article, as it clearly states the DRM is the record companies requirement.
Beyond that, the only reason they offer an iTunes Store is to complete the package. They sold iPods before a store existed… I don't think they really give a crap about the iTunes Store other than as a convenience to those who wish to use it. The store doesn't cause people to want an iPod.

WTF makes you think SJ can do anything about anything other than close it all down if they piss him off? He's only CEO of Apple.

vitaboy
Feb 7, 2007, 12:52 AM
How is this supposed to convince me that "people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music" - if anything it convinces me that this is only, at the most, partially true for 20% of the Canadian population.

If you actually did a search, you would fine plenty of studies that show piracy is not responsible for a decline in music sales, and more than a few that show piracy may indeed be helpful to the music business. The problem is that the music industy isn't exactly happy about those reports, and would prefer not to talk about it as it is quite embarrassing given their claims in court and Congress about the threat of music piracy.

BTW, there is a distinction to be made about "casual piracy" via P2P networks by individual consumers and industry pirates who are in the business of counterfeiting CDs by the millions. I'm talking about the former, and definitely against the latter.

I've already read the reports on a variety of websites from 2-3 years ago, so I'll leave it up to you to try and educate yourself on this matter.

killr_b
Feb 7, 2007, 12:54 AM
What people are saying is that piracy contributes to the music business in a significant way, because if people don't hear about a song, it definitely won't get bought. To ignore the social networking aspect of music sharing means you are basically saying that it would be pointless to spending money on TV advertising. Heck, why spend $5 million making a music video that you give free to MTV if word-of-mouth marketing (whether via piracy or other means) is so worthless?

On thing is certain, and it ain't piracy that is causing CD sales to fall by double digits each year.


That was damn fine. Bravo.

EricNau
Feb 7, 2007, 12:56 AM
What people are saying is that piracy contributes to the music business in a significant way, because if people don't hear about a song, it definitely won't get bought. To ignore the social networking aspect of music sharing means you are basically saying that it would be pointless to spending money on TV advertising. Heck, why spend $5 million making a music video that you give free to MTV if word-of-mouth marketing (whether via piracy or other means) is so worthless?

On thing is certain, and it ain't piracy that is causing CD sales to fall by double digits each year.
That's what the radio is for. ;)
...or even the 30 second preview in iTunes, or MTV, or AOL music. There are plenty of legal alternatives that can be used to discover music, but they aren't utilized - why? ...Because that's not why people pirate music - they pirate music because they don't want to (or plan on) paying for their music.

I am strictly arguing for principles, and against the arguments pirates use to defend their illegal practice. It is absolutely not OK to steal music in any way.

mambodancer
Feb 7, 2007, 12:57 AM
That's great - for you. But what about those of us who would like to play our music on a SqueezeBox? Or Sonos player? Or car stereo? Etc. So long as Apple makes the products one needs, everything's peachy. But as soon as you want something NOT made by Apple, you're in trouble. This is the problem with DRM.

-Rob

Nothing prevents me from playing 97% of my music to those devices now. (In fact, 100% through my car). If you are one of those people that needs to play 100% of their music through these devices then all you have to do is go out and buy the CD's.

Besides, as soon as I want something NOT made by apple, I just buy it and load it on my computer or iPod. I've copied CD's that I originally purchased, LP's and tapes that I transfered, things that I've recorded on my own, DVD's that I've ripped to my computer and iPod, television shows that I've recorded and transfered from my VCR and eyeTV. If there was a song or CD not on the iTunes store I went out and bought it, ripped it to my computer and copied it to my iPod. I play them through my car stereo system, on my computer connected thru HDMI to my TV.

If apple closed down the iTunes store tomorrow what would change versus the way things were prior to 2002? We would all be forced to buy CD's and rip them DRM free on our computer just like we can today. Just no digital downloads. No single track purchases. Would I like it if there were no DRM? Yah, sure. Do I care? Not all that much because I don't like the alternative of not having the store. Besides, I'm betting that 10 years from now DRM will be a thing of the past. And so will CD's and DVD's. They'll be gone just like 8 Track tape, reel to reel, Beta, CAV and CLV video disks, Laserdisks (which I have several hundred movies on), 8", 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disks, Bernoulli and Zip disks. There's a very interesting article in this months Wired magazine. The new CD of the future may be Flash drives. The article reports that software companies are now considering putting there software on small flash drives instead of CD's or DVD's and they hint that record companies may soon follow by publishing album collections on flash and selling the product this way.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72656-0.html?tw=wn_index_7

killr_b
Feb 7, 2007, 01:04 AM
That's what the radio is for. ;)
...or even the 30 second preview in iTunes, or MTV, or AOL music. There are plenty of legal alternatives that can be used to discover music, but they aren't utilized - why? ...Because that's not why people pirate music - they pirate music because they don't want to (or plan on) paying for their music.

I am strictly arguing for principles, and against the arguments pirates use to defend their illegal practice. It is absolutely not OK to steal music in any way.

Dude, you are way wrong.
The radio plays who pays. That's it. Mostly garbage, not discovery at all.
iTunes 30 sec. preview? Ya, if I knew what artists and albums I was going to be interested in, even though I've never heard of them. Forgot the discovery part there…
AOL, well, is limited to AOL members!
Plenty huh?

MOST PIRATED MUSIC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ANYWAY. Ask the pirates themselves. Some stuff is cool to have, but not cool enough to seek out and pay $15 for.

EricNau
Feb 7, 2007, 01:10 AM
Dude, you are way wrong.
The radio plays who pays. That's it. Mostly garbage, not discovery at all.
iTunes 30 sec. preview? Ya, if I knew what artists and albums I was going to be interested in, even though I've never heard of them. Forgot the discovery part there…
How do you know which songs to pirate? You should be able to apply the same searching technique to iTunes.

iTunes will also suggest music for you based on music you've purchased in the past, but of course, this only works if you purchase your music. ;)

AOL, well, is limited to AOL members!
Plenty huh?
You'd possibly have an argument if AOL charged for their memberships. ;)

MOST PIRATED MUSIC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ANYWAY. Ask the pirates themselves. Some stuff is cool to have, but not cool enough to seek out and pay $15 for.
If it's good enough to steal it's good enough to pay for. ...And if you don't pay for it you're not entitled to own it.

killr_b
Feb 7, 2007, 01:14 AM
…snip- The new CD of the future may be Flash drives. The article reports that software companies are now considering putting there software on small flash drives instead of CD's or DVD's and they hint that record companies may soon follow by publishing album collections on flash and selling the product this way.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72656-0.html?tw=wn_index_7

YES! That's what I've been saying ever since a 512MB stick cost $30. I figured with new better encoding we could get away with 512MB vs. the 700MB CD's. And the price increase over CDs is justified in the "new format" hypeage. Bring on the "never scratch another damn disc!":D :D :D