Steve Jobs 'Thoughts on Music'

[spicyapple]

But it seems that allowing music to be sold without DRM will do nothing more than diminish the number of sales. This would be very similar to the idea that software should be sold without copy protection. We have all heard from the software makers about how much piracy has hurt their sales.

An argument could be made that because a piece of software was easily pirated, more people used the software, learned the tools, and thus helped to spur sales in industries of employment.

Softimage boasted about their uncrackable protection scheme for their 3D app, which ultimately hurt their sales because students and amateurs could not learn the software.

 

[BillyShears]

As a general note, please do not describe ways to get rid of the DRM in these forums. That constitutes a violation of the usage agreement, as I'm sure you already know.

It also puts MacRumors at risk because it seems that we're providing the information.

Talk of piracy is not allowed and removing the DRM by itself may not be that but it's step number one in allowing it.

What is this in reference to? If we're talking about the effectiveness of DRM, shouldn't we point out how easily it is defeated (as per Steve's article)? Maybe not in explicit terms, but saying I use "software ***** to do so", or "you can burn an audio CD in iTunes and then reimport it."

Since I have no interest in actually breaking DRM, I have no problem with not discussing it. I'm just wondering what the exact rule is.

 

[generationxwing]

Burning a CD loses your meta-data, cover art and reduces quality (on a song that already doesn't sound as good as a 16bit/44.1khz master... ie a normal CD). Plus, it can't be automated.

When I import a CD into iTune that I had burned from DRM, the software gets the album/song info automatically, downloads the cover art and I can't hear a difference in sound quality. The same goes for a vast majority of people who aren't audiophiles.

 

[gwangung]

But a DRM-free iTunes store seems irresponsible. As an artist, I would like to understand more about this thinking, because it may very well be that Steve has the ability to see into the future and understand how this might work out for all.

But it seems that allowing music to be sold without DRM will do nothing more than diminish the number of sales.

Thing is, there's been some natural experiments where DRM is gone...and sales have gone UP. It's counter-intuitive, but when writers see their income go up when they give away their work for free, you really have to stop and think.

This might be a limited case, but you have to account for empirical results in any arguments....

 

[morespce54]

100% truth being spoken here. I have to applaud Apple/Steve for coming out and being open about this. Its a refreshing change.

yep. kudo steve-o

 

[vitaboy]

Softimage boasted about their uncrackable protection scheme for their 3D app, which ultimately hurt their sales because students and amateurs could not learn the software.

Who is Softimage?

BTW, the benefits of getting the software out there is the reason why most companies do offer things like free 30-day trials and such, or extremely lost cost student/teacher versions.

Microsoft didn't have any trouble with that with protected WMA.

Are you really being serious with that statement? The joke is that "PlaysForSure" doesn't. Microsoft was having SOOOO much success with the DRM-licensing scheme that was PFS that it decided to essentially abandon it on the Zune, coming out with a closed, proprietary system that is completely incompatible with "PlaysForSure."

DRM-licensing doesn't work. Case in point. How easy is it to rip a DVD encoded with the CSS system, which is licensed out to the thousands of manufacturers of DVD players?

Exactly. Which is why Steve Jobs is saying Apple will never license FairPlay.

 

[bousozoku]

What is this in reference to? If we're talking about the effectiveness of DRM, shouldn't we point out how easily it is defeated (as per Steve's article)? Maybe not in explicit terms, but saying I use "software ***** to do so", or "you can burn an audio CD in iTunes and then reimport it."

Since I have no interest in actually breaking DRM, I have no problem with not discussing it. I'm just wondering what the exact rule is.

We've had a few people post in this thread how to remove DRM from purchased songs.

 

[Highland]

As an artist, I would like to understand more about this thinking, because it may very well be that Steve has the ability to see into the future and understand how this might work out for all.

But it seems that allowing music to be sold without DRM will do nothing more than diminish the number of sales.

I'm an artist too. Don't believe the record label hype... all DRM does is hurt your paying fans. Illegally downloaded music doesn't have DRM, so it's easier to use. So the illegal option is BETTER for users. All DRM does is force a worse experience on someone who did the right thing by you.

Not cool.

This would be very similar to the idea that software should be sold without copy protection.

Most software comes with effectively no copy protection (a serial number only links the user to the app, it certainly doesn't stop piracy).

A similar watermarking feature could work for music as well, although I doubt it'll make the user experience better or change the number of sales, which is really all we're talking about here.

When I import a CD into iTune that I had burned from DRM, the software gets the album/song info automatically, downloads the cover art and I can't hear a difference in sound quality. The same goes for a vast majority of people who aren't audiophiles.

Going from AAC>CD>AAC of the same bitrate loses enough quality that I can hear it.
Going from AAC>CD>Apple Loseless will keep the quality, but the file size goes up considerably.

All this jumping through hoops for SOMETHING I'VE PAID FOR! No thanks.

 

[calculus]

I've read through this thread, but I still don't see how record labels are ever going to allow non DRM downloads.

eMusic downloads are DRM free. It's a great place for some types of music too and much cheaper than iTunes.

 

[emac kinda guy]

The music Biz

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?

That doesn't sound much like the music industry as I've heard it described by people trying to make a living in it.

 

[color guy]

figure around 99 % of musicians need to have a day job.

I think this link has been posted here before:
http://negativland.com/albini.html

The myth of the music industry, chicks, nice clothes, limos, etc. They are all rented for the video.

 

[riversky]

I agree BUT.....

Does anyone else find it ironic that he is so passionate about "unlocking" music from the DRM system yet LOCKS the iPhone one carrier.

Just a thought...Wish he would sell the iPhone unlocked. Apparently not only is it locked via hardware but also via the Mac OS on the phone. So it really is locked hard.

 

[color guy]

good point.

steve is being a little self serving with his drm position.

I would like an unlocked phone, and i'm not happy with his choice of
carriers, but i would like the thing to work seamlessly, foremost.

 

[Highland]

Does anyone else find it ironic that he is so passionate about "unlocking" music from the DRM system yet LOCKS the iPhone one carrier.

Just a thought...Wish he would sell the iPhone unlocked. Apparently not only is it locked via hardware but also via the Mac OS on the phone. So it really is locked hard.

Here's the deal.

iTunes is nothing without content, and couldn't have opened without DRM and the blessing of the record labels.

The iPhone is nothing without a good carrier deal to kick it off, and couldn't have happened without the blessing of Cingular (and... YES, it was essential—a lot of the features require changes from the carrier end... selling the iPhone unlocked would have meant skimping on the features).

I bet the long term plan is to be able to sell the iPhone completely unlocked. Have patience!

 

[wongulous]

Uh, locking music with DRM, to prevent piracy, is apples and oranges compared to Apple luring Cingular to meet their demands on a phone carrier in exchange for a standard handset-exclusivity contract. What a dumb direction for this thread to go.

Back on topic, I personally refuse to partake in any download service with DRM. So I buy CDs, and if I can't afford to do that, I borrow friends' CDs to see if I like an artist, and then when I have the money, I buy the artist's CD myself. Physically.

 

[Highland]

steve is being a little self serving with his drm position.

The biggest seller of DRM, and the leader of the company with the most to gain by it staying as is sends a message to the world saying that he doesn't like it, and needs a little help from his friends (customers) to get rid of it... and you call it self-serving??!?!??! EH?

 

[cxny]

Hell yeah!

I immediately burn any songs from iTms straight to Audio/Mp3 and I even throw away the DRM AAC sometimes to save space! That way I can make Mp3 comps for my friends and share the love. The audio industry should be kissing my feet - I actually LISTEN TO MUSIC, don't take that for granted
there's lots of other things to do with my time, and I spend a lot of time turning people on to good music, just try to buy that kind of support.

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

 

[vitaboy]

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.

Sorry, you really don't know much about how record contracts work, do you? Did you know that when a label "pays" an artist to produce an album, it's actually a loan? Say they give you a million bucks...that's not a payment, but a loan that the artist is expected to pay back. That's why artists go on grueling concert tours because it's the only way they actually get to keep the majority of the proceeds (and these days, given how anti-music the industry has been, concerts have been bombing left and right, leaving the artist with little to actually make money on).

So when the album is finished and it goes on sale, the proceeds immediately go right back to the record company to pay back that loan. Of course, the labels then add "extras" like marketing costs, management fees, production costs, the whole 9 yards so that even if an album goes platinum, the artist is pretty much left with dirt squat.

In addition, the label owns all copyrights to the songs free and clear in most cases because they hired a lowly Congressional staff member to secretly modify language in a bill to classify all musical works as "work for hire." That means the artist who wrote the song is a mere contracter to works for the label just like any other hourly staff.

And I do mean "hired" because that Congressional staff member inserted the "work for hire" clause without telling any member of Congress and - surprise, surprise - is now a highly paid exec for the RIAA.

Maybe you should educate yourself on how record contracts work before getting this idea that the labels are out there fighting for the livelihood of artists.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

 

[wmmk]

I'm sure these are actually Steve's thoughts, but do we seriously think he wrote this?

 

[non-prophet]

An argument could be made that because a piece of software was easily pirated, more people used the software, learned the tools, and thus helped to spur sales in industries of employment.

Softimage boasted about their uncrackable protection scheme for their 3D app, which ultimately hurt their sales because students and amateurs could not learn the software.

So, was it on MacRumors or perhaps Version Tracker(?) where the software police were running ads soliciting folks to turn in pirates? I honestly don't think that they would be spending ad money on it if they felt that the long or short term impact of piracy would result in more revenue. I would be curious to understand how learning to use a pirated tool would help spur the sales. Perhaps down the road, when an upgrade happens? But that is not applicable in the music industry.

Perhaps the Softimage problem was more about how their product functioned than it was about the copy protection. Do you know? If the software was really that hard to learn, then perhaps they needed better development.

I dunno the answer. The market will probably decide. But I cannot see how allowing a buy-once-copy-freely model would benefit anyone except the folks listening to the music. And while I am always happy when someone listens to something I write, I am much happier when I get my 1/10th of a cent for that listen.

2/9: I came across another ad soliciting folks to report piracy. Thought I would add that to this thread -- https://reporting.bsa.org/usa/

 

[Peace]

I'm sure these are actually Steve's thoughts, but do we seriously think he wrote this?

Not sure about the group collective "we" but "I" believe he wrote it.

 

[Highland]

So when the album is finished and it goes on sale, the proceeds immediately go right back to the record company to pay back that loan. Of course, the labels then add "extras" like marketing costs, management fees, production costs, the whole 9 yards so that even if an album goes platinum, the artist is pretty much left with dirt squat.

...and "breakages" (a fee designed to cover broken and unsellable CDs and records). Breakages are still applied to digital downloads in most contracts. WTF??!?!

Not sure about the group collective "we" but "I" believe he wrote it.

Same here.

But I cannot see how allowing a buy-once-copy-freely model would benefit anyone except the folks listening to the music.

Who said that? You're making stuff up.

No DRM != Buy-once-copy-freely.

No DRM == Buy and use on any device you own, but don't put copies on the internet or copy it for anyone else... ie. the same as it is with DRM, except without the DRM.

 

[EricNau]

I'm sure these are actually Steve's thoughts, but do we seriously think he wrote this?

I'm sure he had some help, but over all, he was probably the main author.


Of course, assuming they are his thoughts, does it matter who actually wrote it?

 

[non-prophet]

I'm an artist too. Don't believe the record label hype... all DRM does is hurt your paying fans. Illegally downloaded music doesn't have DRM, so it's easier to use. So the illegal option is BETTER for users. All DRM does is force a worse experience on someone who did the right thing by you.

Not cool.


Most software comes with effectively no copy protection (a serial number only links the user to the app, it certainly doesn't stop piracy).

A similar watermarking feature could work for music as well, although I doubt it'll make the user experience better or change the number of sales, which is really all we're talking about here.

Here is how this could work. Instead of DRM to restrict duplication, encode what would be essentially a hit counter. Each time the track is played, the hit counter sends info to the account of the person who downloaded the track, and their credit card is dinged for a play. Now, feel free to duplicate and give the music to anyone you want!!

What, not fair? Why should you have to pay for each listen? Let's turn it around! Why should the artist be cheated because someone wants to give the track to their friends? Sure, they might buy it if they listen to it! So, okay, go the Weed way and let 'em listen three times for free! I am okay with that. Then they pay. And now everyone has been treated fairly.

 

[non-prophet]

... Who said that? You're making stuff up.

No DRM != Buy-once-copy-freely.

No DRM == Buy and use on any device you own, but don't put copies on the internet or copy it for anyone else... ie. the same as it is with DRM, except without the DRM.

Well, Steve said it.

The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thougonmusic/
​

He does not refer to a modified DRM or a DRM replacement, but of "DRM-free" music which "is playable on all players".

I certainly could be missing a point, but his position seems to be that no DRM does equal "Buy-once-copy-freely".