Steve Jobs 'Thoughts on Music'

[vitaboy]

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.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

wait... wait...

Question : 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No contradiction in supporting DRM, going against DRM

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]

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]

Dear Norway...

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]

There is a lot of evidence that people buy albums once they've listened to pirated music.

OK, let's see it.

 

[owensd]

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]

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"

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]

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]

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]

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]

EricNau, are you connected to the music industry in some way?

( or even, say the CEO of EMI )

 

[inkswamp]

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.