Apple May Want To Protect Your Phone Data From Snooping, But It's Snarfing Up Your Local Desktop Searches

from the oops dept

So, Apple got plenty of kudos from security and privacy folks in deciding to encrypt mobile phone data, but over on the desktop side, apparently the message hasn't quite gotten through. Instead, it appears that the latest Mac operation system has the company automatically sending all of your desktop searches back to Apple. These aren't internet searches, but just what you're searching for locally.

The function is part of Spotlight search, which was updated with last week’s launch of new Mac computers and Apple’s latest operating system, Yosemite OS X, which also is available for download to owners of older machines. Once Yosemite is installed, users searching for files – even on their own hard drives -- have their locations, unique user IDs and search terms automatically sent to the company, keystroke by keystroke.

A pop-up window discloses the change, saying collecting the data helps provide results “more relevant to you” as Spotlight also looks beyond individual computers to gather information across the Internet, much like popular search engines such as Google already do. But privacy advocates worry that users won’t understand what information is collected and how to stop the transmission of data to Apple, which happens by default.

And, if you think there's no big deal in having this data collected, think again.

Testing by The Washington Post found that the locations revealed in Spotlight searches can be strikingly precise, placing a user within a particular building in Washington, D.C., even though the disclosure box on Spotlight refers to collecting “your approximate location."

In addition to sharing information with Apple, Spotlight also actively downloads relevant Web pages and Wikipedia articles about the topics covered by a search query, revealing potentially sensitive information about the user’s activities to other Web sites as well.

You can (and perhaps should) turn off this "feature" -- and you can see how in some specific cases there may be beneficial reasons for individuals to share this information, the idea of having it on by default just seems like a privacy nightmare.

Filed Under: mac os, privacy, search, yosemite
Companies: apple

New iOS Update To Break Emulators On iPhones Just Because

from the game-over dept

It's been pretty well established that the major console manufacturers out there hate independently developed emulators of their consoles. Why they react so violently against them instead of working out some kind of mutually beneficial licensing arrangement is a bit beyond me, but you may recall that a couple of years ago, both Sega and Nintendo strong-armed Google into pulling a bunch of emulators from the mobile marketplace. That move has worked so spectacularly that a cursory search in the Play Store returns all kinds of emulators. Job well done!

In any case, Apple appears to be bending to their collective wills in a similar fashion, with the most recent iOS update nixing an easy exploit that would allow emulators to be installed on iPhones that had not been jailbroken. The method that had been used by "antique" game enthusiasts was really easy.

Developers discovered the “date trick” that allows unapproved apps to be installed without hacking simply by rolling back the date and time on an iOS device and downloading apps through Safari. This is now the preferred method of gaining access to apps like GBA4iOS or Popcorn Time without losing things like software updates and support from Apple.

I have no idea about the technical details behind how rolling back the time on the phone somehow allows the installation of the emulators, but apparently a ton of folks utilized it, stimulating an active emulation community for iOS devices. What with Apple's cozy relationship with console makers and its own authoritarian practices with its app store, everyone knew it was only a matter of time before the exploit was removed.

In a blog post entitled “Apple Is Slowly Killing Everything We Love,” Dario Sepulveda writes, “iOS 8.1 beta was seeded to developers yesterday and it’s already causing panic among iOS emulator aficionados… The Date Trick fuels the emulator communities nowadays… Without it, everything looks bleak.”

Indeed it does. Of course, it did seem inevitable that this would come sooner or later; Apple has been working to put a stop to jailbreaking since it started back in 2007 — the same year the iPhone made its debut — so it has always seemed unlikely the Cupertino company would just turn a blind eye to this. But it’s a massive shame.

A massive shame indeed, especially since the move is so wholly unnecessary. There's absolutely no reason why console and game makers couldn't utilize the apps and communities already in place to both build up their fan base and make a little coin as well. Instead, by going the protectionist route, they only anger true fans and limit the exposure of their products.

Filed Under: emulators, ios
Companies: apple

Apple Facing Trial Over Whether Its Use Of DRM Violated Antitrust Laws

from the this-could-matter... dept

When Apple first launched the iTunes store for music, it had DRM deeply embedded in it. According to reports around the time, this DRM was a key part of allowing Apple to get into the business of selling music. The labels demanded strong DRM. It didn't take long for most people to recognize how the labels' own demands for DRM actually gave Apple tremendous leverage over the record labels by basically handing the market over to Apple while making it that much more difficult for a competitor to jump into the space. While, years later, Apple and the labels finally ditched the DRM on music, one of Apple's competitors, Real Networks had tried to hack its way around Apple's DRM, which was called FairPlay, with its own DRM, called Harmony, that more or less reverse engineered Apple's DRM. Apple responded by changing things so that Real's music wouldn't work on iPods (yes, this was back in the day of iPods). Real adjusted... and Apple broke it again.

While all that went on a decade ago, a lawsuit over whether or not Apple's use of FairPlay to keep out Real's music violated antitrust laws appears to finally be heading to trial:

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs are claiming the anti-Harmony measures in iTunes 7.0 broke antitrust laws, because it had the effect of illegally raising the price of iPods. Users were continually forced to either stop playing any songs they had bought from the Real store, or convert them to a non-DRM format, for example by burning the music to CD and then ripping the CD to their computer.

That produced "lock-in" to the iTunes environment and increased consumers' "switching costs," the plaintiffs argue.

Apple sought to have the lawsuit tossed out, but the judge is letting it go forward. While the specifics of this case now seem like ancient history, the eventual results, should it get very far, could be interesting for other makers and users of DRM (Amazon might want to pay particular attention). From the judge:

That theory is intricate, but ultimately it amounts to a charge that Apple's release of 7.0 unlawfully maintained Apple's monopoly in the market for portable digital media players by making demand for iPods less elastic. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that 7.0 resulted in an increased "lock-in" effect for iPod owners who purchased songs online. Lock-in, according to plaintiffs' principal economics expert, "is a form of foreclosure that arises from actions that increase the cost to consumers of switching to a product that has better quality and/or a lower price."....

Plaintiffs offer expert opinion that Apple, by counteracting Harmony, "raised the cost of switching from iPods to competing portable digital media players by eliminating the ability of consumers to collect a library of downloads that could be played on all players." (Id.) That is, 7.0 made iPod owners unable to play songs purchased from iTS competitor Real and thus pushed them to make their online song purchases only on the iTS. As a result, it discouraged iPod owners from buying a competing, non-iPod digital portable music player when it came time to replace their iPods due to loss, breakage, or a desire to upgrade. (Id.) Such owners would have to either forego use of the songs they had purchased through Real (as well as any other online music store besides iTunes, though that is not part of the damages alleged in this case), repurchase such songs through other, iPod-compatible means (for instance, iTS or physical CDs), or convert music bought from Real into a non-DRM format, for example, by "burning" that music to a CD and then "ripping" the CD onto their computers in a file format with no DRM, from whence the songs could then be loaded on their iPods. These increased "switching costs," plaintiffs argue, locked iPod owners into continuing to purchase iPods, notwithstanding the allegedly similar or better quality of and lower prices of competing products. They also locked out owners of non-iPod portable digital media players who had downloaded songs from the Real store. The effect of both lock-in and lock-out, plaintiffs say, was to reduce competition in the market for digital portable music players and to reduce the price elasticity of iPods, which permitted Apple to charge a supracompetitive price therefor.

While other DRM situations may not be quite as involved, the idea of using DRM as a form of lock-in, increasing switching costs is clearly a legitimate concern. Having DRM present a potential antitrust concern could make for some interesting situations for companies today who rely on DRM.

Filed Under: antitrust, drm, fairplay, harmony
Companies: apple, realnetworks

FUD: Former FBI Guy Lies, Claiming New Mobile Encryption Would Have Resulted In Dead Kidnap Subject

from the uh,-no dept

Yesterday, we wrote about law enforcement freaking out over the announcements from both Apple and Google that they'd start encrypting phones by default, better protecting data on those phones from anyone who wants it -- whether government/law enforcement or hackers. We noted, oddly, that former FBI guy Ronald Hosko had showed up in articles in both the Washington Post and the WSJ spewing a bunch of FUD about it. In the WSJ:

The level of privacy described by Apple and Google is "wonderful until it's your kid who is kidnapped and being abused, and because of the technology, we can't get to them,'' said Ronald Hosko, who left the FBI earlier this year as the head of its criminal-investigations division. "Who's going to get lost because of this, and we're not going to crack the case?"

In the Washington Post:

Ronald T. Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, called the move by Apple “problematic,” saying it will contribute to the steady decrease of law enforcement’s ability to collect key evidence — to solve crimes and prevent them. The agency long has publicly worried about the “going dark” problem, in which the rising use of encryption across a range of services has undermined government’s ability to conduct surveillance, even when it is legally authorized.

“Our ability to act on data that does exist . . . is critical to our success,” Hosko said. He suggested that it would take a major event, such as a terrorist attack, to cause the pendulum to swing back toward giving authorities access to a broad range of digital information.

This is just blatant fear mongering, and not even close to realistic. But the Washington Post doubled down and let Hosko write an entire (and entirely bogus) story about how he helped save a kidnapped man from murder earlier this year and "with Apple's and Google's new encryption rules, he would have died." He accurately writes about a kidnapping in North Carolina, and how law enforcement tracked down the perpetrators, including by requesting and getting "the legal authority to intercept phone calls and text messages." Of course, here's the thing: nothing in this new encryption changes that. Transmitted content is unrelated to the encryption of stored content on the phones. It's the stored content that is being encrypted. It's kind of scary that a supposed "expert" like Hosko doesn't seem to comprehend the difference.

Either way, he insists that the encryption would have prevented this (it wouldn't). His story originally said:

Last week, Apple and Android announced that their new operating systems will be encrypted by default. That means the companies won’t be able to unlock phones and iPads to reveal the photos, e-mails and recordings stored within.

It also means law enforcement officials won’t be able to look at the range of data stored on the device, even with a court-approved warrant. Had this technology been used by the conspirators in our case, our victim would be dead. The perpetrators would likely be freely plotting their next revenge attack.

After some people pointed out how very, very, very wrong this is, Hosko or the Washington Post "updated" the story, but still makes the same basic claims:

Last week, Apple and Google announced that their new operating systems will be encrypted by default. Encrypting a phone doesn’t make it any harder to tap, or “lawfully intercept” calls. But it does limit law enforcement’s access to a data, contacts, photos and email stored on the phone itself.

Had this technology been in place, we wouldn’t have been able to quickly identify which phone lines to tap. That delay would have cost us our victim his life.The perpetrators would likely be freely plotting their next revenge attack.

Except, even the update is not true. As the AP's Ted Birdis notes, the affidavit in the case shows that the FBI used phone toll records and wiretaps to figure out the case, and didn't get access to any phones "until after [the] victim [was] safe."

In other words, Hosko's story is pure FUD. The new moves by these companies would not have meant the guy died. It wouldn't have impacted the story at all.

Meanwhile, as a massive post by Julian Sanchez notes, phone encryption products have been on the market for a while and if it was such a big problem we'd already know about it, but so far it's been pretty limited. In the entire US in 2013, there were nine cases where police claimed that encryption stymied their investigations. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases where they came up against encryption, they were still able to crack it. So... the impact here is minimal.

But that apparently won't stop lies from the likes of Ronald Hosko.

Update: And... it appears that the Washington Post edited the story again to now make it accurate, but which also disproves the entire point of the story. Now the basic story is "we saved this guy... and mobile encryption would have done nothing to stop it, but it's a bad bad thing anyway." If Hosko couldn't get the very basics right, how could he be considered a credible person discussing this issue?

Filed Under: encryption, fbi, fud, kidnapping, mobile encryption, ronald hosko
Companies: apple, google

Law Enforcement Freaks Out Over Apple & Google's Decision To Encrypt Phone Info By Default

from the we're-all-gonna-die dept

Last week, we noted that it was good news to see both Apple and Google highlight plans to encrypt certain phone information by default on new versions of their mobile operating systems, making that information no longer obtainable by those companies and, by extension, governments and law enforcement showing up with warrants and court orders. Having giant tech companies competing on how well they protect your privacy? That's new... and awesome. Except, of course, if you're law enforcement. In those cases, these announcements are apparently cause for a general freakout about how we're all going to die. From the Wall Street Journal:

One Justice Department official said that if the new systems work as advertised, they will make it harder, if not impossible, to solve some cases. Another said the companies have promised customers "the equivalent of a house that can't be searched, or a car trunk that could never be opened.''

Andrew Weissmann, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation general counsel, called Apple's announcement outrageous, because even a judge's decision that there is probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed won't get Apple to help retrieve potential evidence. Apple is "announcing to criminals, 'use this,' " he said. "You could have people who are defrauded, threatened, or even at the extreme, terrorists using it.''

The level of privacy described by Apple and Google is "wonderful until it's your kid who is kidnapped and being abused, and because of the technology, we can't get to them,'' said Ronald Hosko, who left the FBI earlier this year as the head of its criminal-investigations division. "Who's going to get lost because of this, and we're not going to crack the case?"

That Hosko guy apparently gets around. Here he is freaking out in the Washington Post as well:

Ronald T. Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, called the move by Apple “problematic,” saying it will contribute to the steady decrease of law enforcement’s ability to collect key evidence — to solve crimes and prevent them. The agency long has publicly worried about the “going dark” problem, in which the rising use of encryption across a range of services has undermined government’s ability to conduct surveillance, even when it is legally authorized.

“Our ability to act on data that does exist . . . is critical to our success,” Hosko said. He suggested that it would take a major event, such as a terrorist attack, to cause the pendulum to swing back toward giving authorities access to a broad range of digital information.

Think of the children! And the children killed by terrorists! And just be afraid! Of course, this is the usual refrain any time there's more privacy added to products, or when laws are changed to better protect privacy. And it's almost always bogus. I'm reminded of all the fretting and worries by law enforcement types about how "free WiFi" and Tor would mean that criminals could get away with all sorts of stuff. Except, as we've seen, good old fashioned police/detective work can still let them track down criminals. The information on the phone is not the only evidence, and criminals almost always leave other trails of information.

No one has any proactive obligation to make life easier for law enforcement.

Orin Kerr, who regularly writes on privacy, technology and "cybercrime" issues, announced that he was troubled by this move, though he later downgraded his concerns to "more information needed." His initial argument was that since the only thing these moves appeared to do was keep out law enforcement, he couldn't see how it was helpful:

If I understand how it works, the only time the new design matters is when the government has a search warrant, signed by a judge, based on a finding of probable cause. Under the old operating system, Apple could execute a lawful warrant and give law enforcement the data on the phone. Under the new operating system, that warrant is a nullity. It’s just a nice piece of paper with a judge’s signature. Because Apple demands a warrant to decrypt a phone when it is capable of doing so, the only time Apple’s inability to do that makes a difference is when the government has a valid warrant. The policy switch doesn’t stop hackers, trespassers, or rogue agents. It only stops lawful investigations with lawful warrants.

Apple’s design change one it is legally authorized to make, to be clear. Apple can’t intentionally obstruct justice in a specific case, but it is generally up to Apple to design its operating system as it pleases. So it’s lawful on Apple’s part. But here’s the question to consider: How is the public interest served by a policy that only thwarts lawful search warrants?

His "downgraded" concern comes after many people pointed out that by leaving backdoors in its technology, Apple (and others) are also leaving open security vulnerabilities for others to exploit. He says he was under the impression that the backdoors required physical access to the phones in question, but if there were remote capabilities, perhaps Apple's move is more reasonable.

Perhaps the best response (which covers everything I was going to say before I spotted this) comes from Mark Draughn, who details "the dangerous thinking" by those like Kerr who are concerned about this. He covers the issue above about how any vulnerability left by Apple or Google is a vulnerability open to being exploited, but then makes a further (and more important) point: this isn't about them, it's about us and protecting our privacy:

You know what? I don’t give a damn what Apple thinks. Or their general counsel. The data stored on my phone isn’t encrypted because Apple wants it encrypted. It’s encrypted because I want it encrypted. I chose this phone, and I chose to use an operating system that encrypts my data. The reason Apple can’t decrypt my data is because I installed an operating system that doesn’t allow them to.

I’m writing this post on a couple of my computers that run versions of Microsoft Windows. Unsurprisingly, Apple can’t decrypt the data on these computers either. That this operating system software is from Microsoft rather than Apple is beside the point. The fact is that Apple can’t decrypt the data on these computers is because I’ve chosen to use software that doesn’t allow them to. The same would be true if I was posting from my iPhone. That Apple wrote the software doesn’t change my decision to encrypt.

Furthermore, he notes that nothing Apple and Google are doing now on phones is any different than tons of software for desktop/laptop computers:

I’ve been using the encryption features in Microsoft Windows for years, and Microsoft makes it very clear that if I lose the pass code for my data, not even Microsoft can recover it. I created the encryption key, which is only stored on my computer, and I created the password that protects the key, which is only stored in my brain. Anyone that needs data on my computer has to go through me. (Actually, the practical implementation of this system has a few cracks, so it’s not quite that secure, but I don’t think that affects my argument. Neither does the possibility that the NSA has secretly compromised the algorithm.)

Microsoft is not the only player in Windows encryption. Symantec offers various encryption products, and there are off-brand tools like DiskCryptor and TrueCrypt (if it ever really comes back to life). You could also switch to Linux, which has several distributions that include whole-disk encryption. You can also find software to encrypt individual documents and databases.

In short, he points out, the choice of encrypting our data is ours to make. Apple or Google offering us yet another set of tools to do that sort of encryption is them offering a service that many users value. And shouldn't that be the primary reason why they're doing stuff, rather than benefiting the desires of FUD-spewing law enforcement folks?

Filed Under: 4th amendment, encryption, law enforcement, orin kerr, phones, privacy, security
Companies: apple, google

U2 Claims It's Working With Apple On A New Music Format That 'Can't Be Pirated'

from the because-that-will-work dept

Apparently U2's deal with Apple goes further than taking a bunch of cash and dumping unwanted music files on hundreds of millions of iTunes users. The band has said that it's working on a brand new music format that "can't be pirated." Oh really? We've heard that before, many, many times. And every time someone claims that, whatever new DRM they created gets broken without hours. I imagine the same will be true of this. The format sounds like a rehash of other things that have been tried and failed before:

[The new format will be] an audiovisual interactive format for music that can’t be pirated and will bring back album artwork in the most powerful way, where you can play with the lyrics and get behind the songs when you’re sitting on the subway with your iPad or on these big flat screens. You can see photography like you’ve never seen it before.

Of course, we've been hearing this for years. Five years ago, the major labels were all going to team up to create "CMX", a new music format that had all those audiovisual components. Where's that now? Every few years we see startups claiming to have created a similar new music format that builds in all those audiovisual components... and no one cares. Is it possible that Apple with the help of U2 will suddenly figure it out? Sure. It's possible. But I wouldn't bet on it. Especially if it includes annoying DRM that no one wants.

Apple itself figured out long ago that DRMing its music was actually a bad deal since it made the music less valuable to consumers. Would the company really switch back in the other direction? While U2 claims that this magical new music format "will prove so irresistibly exciting to music fans that it will tempt them again into buying music — whole albums as well as individual tracks," it once again shows how little U2 understands about the way fans interact with music these days. The ability to share what you're listening to with others and to build on that experience is what excites people -- and that's true whether its unauthorized sharing or through streaming services like Spotify that allow users to share what they're listening to. Locking stuff up with fancy graphics isn't "irresistibly exciting." It's just something most people will ignore.

Besides, we already have an "audiovisual interactive format for music that can't be pirated," and it's called a concert.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, drm, music formats, u2
Companies: apple

Good News: Mobile Devices Now Competing To Be Much More Secure Against Prying Eyes

from the very-good-to-see dept

While the more cynical folks out there have insisted that the tech industry is a happy partner with the intelligence community, the reality has been quite different. If anything, in the past many companies were simply... complacent about the situation, not realizing how important these issues were. That's problematic, but the Snowden revelations have woken up those firms and enabled the privacy and security gurus who work there to finally get the message across that they absolutely need to do more to protect the privacy and security of their users. That's why you see things like Apple's new local encryption by default on iOS8, meaning that even if law enforcement or the intelligence community comes knocking, Apple can't get much of your data off of your device.

“Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data,” Apple said on its Web site. “So it’s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”

Within hours, it was reported that the next update to Android would also have the same default encryption.

“For over three years Android has offered encryption, and keys are not stored off of the device, so they cannot be shared with law enforcement,” said company spokeswoman Niki Christoff. “As part of our next Android release, encryption will be enabled by default out of the box, so you won't even have to think about turning it on.”

Of course, you can expect to see the DOJ pushing for new laws to somehow block this or get backdoor access. It may create a future fight worth watching. In the meantime, though, it's great to see tech companies actually competing on how well they can protect the privacy of their users' data from the prying eyes of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Filed Under: android, competition, devices, encryption, ios8, privacy, security
Companies: apple, google

Did Apple Keep Or Remove Its Warrant Canary Concerning PATRIOT Act Requests?

from the unclear dept

Last fall, we wrote about how Apple has placed a warrant canary in its first ever Transparency Report, noting:

Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us.

In case you haven't been keeping track, the Section 215 orders are so called "business records" requests. It's the basis for the orders to Verizon demanding metadata on all calls. It's not the whole PRISM program, which details more specific requests for content and metadata. A "warrant canary" is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Since these requests come with gag orders, you can get out in front of them by saying ahead of time that you haven't received one. Then, if it disappears, people have reason to believe that you did get such a request and just can't talk about it anymore.

Jeff John Roberts, over at GigaOm, has noticed that updates to Apple's Transparency Reports didn't appear to have that same warrant canary, leading to speculation that perhaps Apple had received just such a Section 215 order. However, it's not clear if that's true. Christopher Soghoian has pointed out that the transparency reports do include some similar language:

To date, Apple has not received any orders for bulk data.

And, contrary to Roberts' reporting, Section 215 is not the basis for PRISM, which we already knew Apple is a part of, but rather for bulk data collection of "business records." So if it hasn't received "any orders for bulk data," then it still seems likely that it hasn't received a 215 order, but it's not entirely clear. As Soghoian notes: "There is a lesson to be learned here: once you post a warrant canary, it needs to stay in the same place and use the same language."

Of course, it's possible that Apple is actually signalling something different here. Perhaps it truly has not received a 215 order, but it did get pressured from the DOJ not to use the original warrant canary language. That would explain the change in wording, though would still raise some serious questions about the legality of such a demand from the DOJ.

Filed Under: bulk data, patriot act, warrant canary
Companies: apple

Apple Finally Allows iPhone-Ers To Nix That U2 Album They Never Wanted From Their Phones

from the me-three dept

In the wake of the somewhat confusing move by mega-band U2 to release their latest album for free on iTunes, we noted the comments from frontman Bono, who rushed to decry the concept of free for music and who insisted that because he was paid it didn't really count as free. These comments must have been especially confusing for those that suddenly found the band's album in their iTunes cloud account, despite never having requested or wanted it there. Indeed, given some of the comments reacting to the promotional move, it seems the problem with free might not be on the content producer's side, but on the consumer's instead.

If you’re trying to convince me that the stuff I store in my cloud is safe, don’t open up my cloud without permission. It’s easy to imagine Apple’s thinking here: What’s better than a free gift? A free gift that you don’t have to go get! But a gift on my doorstep is one thing. A gift that you left in my house, after letting yourself in, is something different.

Indeed, and it's not difficult to understand why some reacted less than favorably to the free album. First, despite Bono's insistence to the contrary, this was indeed the use of the concept of free as a promotional tool. Perhaps not for U2 as much as Apple, but that's what it was nevertheless. The problem wasn't that the album was free, but that the album appeared unbidden in the repository for a service that feels quite personal to the consumer. These were our cloud accounts that Apple invaded to leave their free stuff. You know what it's called when someone leaves you something you didn't want for free in your domain? It's called litter. And, in this case, it was litter that you couldn't even clean up. Just browse through a few of the reactions on the site WhoIsU2.com to get a sense:















And, just like that, Apple is walking back the "gift" by actually writing some code to delete the "gift," which, until that happened, was unremovable (though you could hide it).

It should take a couple steps, but it shouldn’t be that difficult. Head over to this page, which Apple put up this morning. Now you can make your collection Bono-free, or just “Songs of Innocence”-free, or whatever. The only catch appears to be that if you decide you do want your new free U2 album, you’ve only got a month to change your mind: After October 13, the only way to get it from iTunes will be by actually spending money.

Think about this for a second. For the first time in history, it seems, someone had to write some code to deliberately remove free music that was forced upon people. Like it was malware. How many people expected the digital music revolution to end up here?

Look, it's a great thing to see musicians and distributors continue to experiment with this sort of thing, but it's also important that lessons be learned as they do so. Today's lesson is that the internet is a back-and-forth, not simply a distribution channel that can be used to force products into the consumer's space. Perhaps next time they'll get this a bit more right.

Filed Under: deleting, free, free music, music, u2
Companies: apple

U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It

from the it's-all-part-of-a-business-model dept

As you may have heard, earlier this week Apple announced a bunch of things -- and that included that U2 was releasing a surprise new album that everyone who uses iTunes would magically get automatically for free in their library. That struck some people as interesting, given that the band has long crusaded angrily against "free." Four years ago, we wrote about how Paul McGuinness, the band's long-time manager, was railing against "free." Here's what he said at the time:

If you had to encapsulate the crisis of the music industry in the past decade, it would be in one momentous word: "free." The digital revolution essentially made music free. It is now doing the same with films and books. For years we (and by "we" I mean the music business, musicians, creative industries, governments and regulators) have grappled with this new concept of "free." One minute we have fought it like a monster, the next we have embraced it like a friend. As consumers, we have come to love "free" - but as creators, seeking reward for our work, it has become our worst nightmare. In recent years the music business has tried to "fight free with free," seeking revenues from advertising, merchandising, sponsorship - anything, in fact, other than the consumer's wallet. These efforts have achieved little success. Today, "free" is still the creative industries' biggest problem.

Bono has repeatedly attacked the idea of free music, complaining that it's "madness."

Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it's a sacred thing, so I'm a little offended."

Funny, it seems even more ubiquitous under this deal.

Of course, the other side will argue, this is different. This is "okay" because they got paid upfront. Bono himself still seems offended by the concept of free, but insists this doesn't count because it's not really free:

“We were paid,” Bono tells TIME. “I don’t believe in free music. Music is a sacrament.”

Yup. Of course. Bono repeated a similar story to the NY Times, and current manager, Guy Oseary, says more or less the same thing:

Bono, U2’s lead singer, alluded to the deal himself at Apple’s event. After the band performed, he and Mr. Cook playfully negotiated over how the album could be released through iTunes “in five seconds.” Mr. Cook said it could if the album was given away free.

“But first you would have to pay for it,” Bono said, “because we’re not going in for the free music around here.”

Mr. Oseary, who took over management of the band less than a year ago, stressed in a phone interview after the event that the music still had value even though it was being given away.

“This is a gift from Apple to their customers,” Mr. Oseary said. “They bought it and they are giving it away.”

But, as per usual, this (once again) misunderstands the nature of "free." For years we've tried to hit back on this notion. As we've said free is not the business model, but free should be a key part of the business model, with the idea being that "free" helps the artists make more money. And that's exactly what's happened here. Now, of course, because of U2's stature and Apple's billions in cash, this could be done as a big upfront deal (rumors are saying that Apple will pay somewhere around $100 million total). But for others it may involve giving away stuff free to build a larger audience for shows. Or maybe it involves getting money upfront via a crowdfunding campaign and then sharing the music widely. Or maybe it involves using a tool like Patreon to get people to pay for each new track released, but still making them more widely available for free.

The point is that "free" is not some evil. It's something that the public really appreciates, and when done right fits very nicely in with a smart business model. For U2 that's collecting millions in cash from Apple. For others, it's other things. Free is not evil. It's a tool, and one that can be used to make people lots of money -- as U2 and Bono are realizing, even if they don't "realize" it. Amusingly, since these tracks are automatically showing up in everyone's iTunes, some are actually arguing that it becomes the equivalent of junk mail. In other words, there's an argument to be made that this promotion which effectively pushes "free" tracks even to people who don't want them does a lot more to decrease the value of the music than any sort of unauthorized files sharing. At least with file sharing, people get the free music because they want and value it.

In the end, though, I tend to agree with Amanda Palmer's take that everyone should be doing all kinds of business model experiments, so I certainly have no problem with this particular one. In fact, I think it's great.

It would just be nice if U2 and its managers could admit that maybe "free" isn't automatically evil.

Filed Under: bono, business models, free, free music, give away, guy oseary, itunes, music, paul mcguinness, u2
Companies: apple