Steve Jobs Says Record Labels Should Ditch Their DRM
from the preach-it-brother dept
Steve Jobs has been something of a key player in the ongoing debate about the restrictions and copy-protection placed on digital music files sold through download stores. His opinion on the matter seems to have flip-flopped, and it's hard to argue that the labels' insistence on DRM hasn't helped the iPod in some way. However, in a statement posted on Apple's web site, he's now calling for the big four record labels to drop their insistence on DRM. While he does make some questionable points (denying that any lock-in to the iPod exists, and saying that licensing Apple's FairPlay DRM wouldn't be manageable), his underlying point that DRM simply doesn't work, and does more harm than good certainly is a valid one. He points out that while the labels make such a fuss over restricting digital music, the other 90 percent of songs they sell aren't protected at all (try as they might), so to think that DRM will ever stop piracy is foolish. Jobs also points out that the added cost and complexity DRM brings to the music world holds back the number of companies that can create "innovative new stores and players", and dropping it could lead to an influx of investment and interest in digital music and result in the creation of exciting new devices and services for users -- which, he says, can only be a good thing for the music industry. We've called on people like Jobs and Bill Gates to use their influence to try and make Hollywood and content owners understand how they've got so much more to gain by dropping their insistence on copy protection than they stand to lose from piracy. While this note from Jobs isn't likely to create any instant change, it's a nice first step.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How is it a flip-flop?
So basically he siad that if you buy it you need to be able to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates on DRM
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill Gates on DRM
He is accurate, may seem crazy now, but we wait and see, and he will be right completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I for one am shocked...
And though I rarely agree w/ol' Steve here's one place he's right, DRM has outlived its non-usefullness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More sour grapes for Zune fanboys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No label will ever agree to this
They get the artist to sign to a blood/soul sucking contract which gives the artist virtually nothing and gives the label everything.
But the internet is changing this. Artists can now grow their own audience/buyers and promote their own works at a fraction of the cost they would have previously paid.
What DRM is supposed to do is give the labels time to come up with some other idea to prolong their existence. They are about to go the way of the 8-track and they know it. Their only hope at survival is to paint a sympathy drawing portrait of themselves and their industry and gain that sympathy from lawmakers which so far has worked.
They present distorted figures on sales and piracy. They continue to make it sound like they have lost billions in lost sales due to piracy.
I beg to argue that they may have lost 10% of their total sales that would've happened to piracy. The other 90% come from people who need to replace media that was somehow lost, damaged, or stolen.
If the labels had their way they would get the same cushy protections Microsoft has for its OS. You would have to buy one copy of a cd for your car, one copy for each portable music device, and one copy for your home stereo.
But it's become increasingly clear to the labels that they can never get this deal as hardware manufacturers will not go along with it and the buying public has never had to do this before and will not buy.
The labels will be all but dead within 25 years unless Congress or the FCC acts to protect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose this means he is anti-FairPlay? So if FairPlay were not in existence, I wonder how much of a monopoly Apple would have built up with the iPod in the first place? Is he saying he thinks they could have sold more iPods with no DRM resrictions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let's not drink too much of Jobs koolaid...
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-02-06T214012Z_01_WE N3678_RTRUKOC_0_US-APPLE-ITUNES.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
Basically, unless they are given the green light by the major record companies, Apple faces either fines and other legal action in Europe, or the scenario of not being able to sell stuff from the major record labels (because currently they all require some type of DRM).
So, let's not become Jobs cheerleader too fast! I say if he really wants to stamp out DRM, take it off of the iPodfirst , put his money where his mouth is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let's not drink too much of Jobs koolaid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goddamn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it any different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of the reasons why OSX tends to be more stable than, oh, say, Windows, is because they have a very limited number of video cards, etc. that they directly support. This means that Apple programmers, or at least people with a vested interest in product stability, write the drivers and do their damnedest to make sure that they, you know, WORK. Compare this to Windows, where the code for the peripherals don't necessarily receive the same diligence, and that's where a lot of the complaints (whether rational or not) surrounding Windows has been generated.
If Apple Inc. wants to build their systems that way, then it's their right to do so. That's not DRM; that's a bottom-line saving measure that all but guarantees that they're not going to blow a wad of $$$ on a support technician because some jerk-off bought the $29.99 video card at Fry's and then wonders why it won't run Aero Glass.
Don't like it? Want to customize your system to the nth degree? Then I suggest that you eBay your Apple and go buy (or build) yourself a box and then throw Windows or Linux on it.
Incidentally, you are more than free to do whatever the hell you want to do with your Mac. Just don't count on Jobs & Co. to foot the bill for your ineptitude if you screw something up. Note also that a lot of the warranties for Windows boxes also carry similar caveats on their warranties against "home-user upgrades."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM Keeps me from purchasing
To tell you the truth, the RIAA really screwed the pooch and I haven't purchased more than 2 albums a year in the last 5 years. I find entertainment elsewhere...and no I don't watch TV either.
It just seems silly that something I own cannot be used somewhere else whenever I want. Silly enough to pretty much avoid it totally.
Gates has been touting DRM solutions since people were stealing his OS back in the early years. Anti-piracy has been ingrained in everything MS ever since. Vista embraces and manifests that sick solution in one OS. I doubt MS will support a non-DRM move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give it up - it's time
From a functional, technical, business, and security standpoint, the mechanism is flawed and the outcomes are ridiculous. (Note today that a Maine resident was targetted for having downloaded five (yes 5) songs in violation of the DMCA and boy was the RIAA annoyed.
So it's time for a change and the fact that Jobs, Gates, and even Google's Schmidt are onboard, maybe gives this a bit of traction.
When will the artists all follow suit and dump the labels - the technology is there to bring the music directly to the people - unless it is still truly about money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually gates gave this same pitch months ago. Hell Jobs is behind the heads of some record labels on this but it is enough to give the mindless a reason to believe. Also, the DRM in vista isn't worse that of only allowing OS X to be installed on a computer apple already sold you. That's far more powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple can still lock you out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple can still lock you out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple can still lock you out
Umm, AAC doesn't need to be reversed-engineered. It's an open standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did anyone catch the irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still disagreeing with you
Having studied the Fairplay implementation, I argued with you in March 2006 about the unmanageability of licensing Fairplay to other vendors. Once the process is divulged, the whole thing collapses. You seem to still doubt that.
And his letter could bring a change soon, since Apple is about to enter negotiations with the music labels. Jobs is positioning the consumers to be on his side for this battle just like he did last year with his the labels "are just being greedy" quote regarding a common 99 song price for new hits and back catalog. And he pulled it off. So who is to say he can't do it again if he can get enough public support.
I'm not sure I like this though as it sounds like what bullies do. But then again, I hate the music labels, which might mean it's okay to bully them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't you just read that Apple Corp and Apple Inc have settled, and that Apple Inc owns all of the Apple trademarks, and will license some back to Apple Corp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
go Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huge
First, he states, clearly and unequivocally, that Apple will sell DRM free music when they are allowed to. He didn't hedge that statement.
Second, he directed the EU to go after the labels. His point is well made. I think the main reason he won against Apple Corps is because the LABELS control the licenses for the music; Apple is just a distributor. That means, contractually, the labels have the control, not Apple, and he invites the EU to go after the true owners of the licenses - the ones who really have control of the issue.
He makes Apple's position very clear, they feel that DRM is a waste of resources and doesn't work.
What could be more clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did find one bit interesting that I am surprised I didn't see anyone jump all over:
No DRM system was ever developed for the CD,
Yeah? Sony rootkit anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dRm
ZoomVid.com was tinkering with DRM but I think they finaly just X'ed it out all together. It makes sense to give your customers what they want, when they want it, and how they want to use it.
I like Kodak's recent announcement to make ink cheaper, their printers cheaper, and their cartridges bigger and better.
I hate how companys are acting like DRM with their printers and ink. Clearly not TECHDIRT readers!
Go ZoomVid.com
Go Kodak
Go TechDirt !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple can still lock you out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecturism
Serious research and discussion should examine a better way to compensate all creative artists of music or video to enable successful lobbying for legislative expansion and protection of Fair Use. Maybe someone like Job's already has the solution, But how can he state it when Apple has a contract with the music industry that he has to renegotiate?
Does the music industry really think it has lost $10,000 in revenue when a 18 year old college student downloads 10,000 songs without paying? He may buy an IPOD to listen to a small fraction of the songs. He may develop a taste for music he never had before. He might even purchase music if it was convenient for him to listen to it on the hardware of his choice.
Millions of people now having cable, satellite, or computers now listen to an awful lot of free legal high quality digital music. These sources also allow them to discover new artists and music independent of any promotional efforts of the music industry. Does the music industry assign any of its revenue declines to the loss or decline in this patronage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecturism
Serious research and discussion should examine a better way to compensate all creative artists of music or video to enable successful lobbying for legislative expansion and protection of Fair Use. Maybe someone like Job's already has the solution, But how can he state it when Apple has a contract with the music industry that he has to renegotiate?
Does the music industry really think it has lost $10,000 in revenue when a 18 year old college student downloads 10,000 songs without paying? He may buy an IPOD to listen to a small fraction of the songs. He may develop a taste for music he never had before. He might even purchase music if it was convenient for him to listen to it on the hardware of his choice.
Millions of people now having cable, satellite, or computers now listen to an awful lot of free legal high quality digital music. These sources also allow them to discover new artists and music independent of any promotional efforts of the music industry. Does the music industry assign any of its revenue declines to the loss or decline in this patronage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]