Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing)
Most people by now have seen Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on music" posting where he seems to be arguing for the end of DRM on music. BoingBoing has put together an interesting set of responses to that posting. A number of people point out that there are several artists and labels who would like to be able to sell DRM-free music through iTunes now, but Apple has not allowed that to happen.
(Log in to post comments)
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 7, 2007 12:52 UTC (Wed) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] The short of it... NO. DRM offers Apple something they truly love..... control.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 4:02 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] The short of it: YES. If labels announced tomorrow that they are dropping DRM, Apple could not keep on selling DRM'ed music. They have now basically announced that if labels drop DRM, they will do it as well. That DRM in iTunes is mandated by the labels. If labels announce that they are eliminating DRM, Apple could not do 180 degree turn, and keep on using DRM, without HUGE consumer backlash. they have now made their stand public, they couldn't reverse their stand all of a sudden.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 6:04 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "The short of it: YES. If labels announced tomorrow that they are dropping DRM, Apple could not keep on selling DRM'ed music. They have now basically announced that if labels drop DRM, they will do it as well."
If all the labels march to the beat of the same drummer... But:
"A number of people point out that there are several artists and labels who would like to be able to sell DRM-free music through iTunes now, but Apple has not allowed that to happen."
If this is true, they don't look too sporty at this very moment. If it is true, what could their deal possibly be?
all the best,
drew
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 8:10 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] The reason why Apple doesn't currently sell DRM-free contant in iTunes, even though the owners of the content would allow it, is quite simple: Consistency. This can be seen in their fixation with $.99 pricing. Labels want variable pricing (old stuff cheaper, new stuff more expensive), but Apple insists on one price.
Same thing with DRM. They want all the content to have similar usage-rights. If some content was DRM-free, some had FairPlay-DRM, and others had some other DRM, it would get very confusing, very fast. What Apple wants is that the consumer knows EXACTLY what they are getting when they buy a song from iTunes. And right now it's songs that cost $.99 a piece, with certain set of usage-limitations (FairPlay).
If Apple went with variable-DRM, not only would it make it more confusing for the consumers, it would also make it more confusing for Apple. Right now they have one set of rules. Variable-DRM would create several new sets of rules, and every label might want to have their own set. But as things are right now, that problem does not exist, since they ALL have identical set of limitations. Instead of spending time discussing the details of the DRM, they can just say "here's what FairPlay does".
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 12:56 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I don't buy it. They can still provide a completely consistent interface. The customer buys the song, pays 99 cents and downloads it. It plays on the iPod just like any other song. The experience is completely consistent. The only difference is that the unencrypted song can be played outside of iTunes or an iPod. Users who only use their iPod won't notice a difference.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 19:29 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Exactly.
This is just more classic Apple BS. A snowjob.
People are starting to figure out that Apple's Itunes DRM has very little to do with actually protecting copyrights and everything to do with controlling a market and locking out competative hardware, software, and online services. People are starting to call them on it and the more socialist folks are starting to orginize lawsuits in various EU countries.
So here comes Steve Jobs, the figurehead visionary, saying that 'oh, no it's not _our_ fault, it's the evil studio associations; They make us do it!!', because they are the people that everyone loves to hate. Same BS excuse that Microsoft is using for justification with Vista.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Sure, sure the studios require it, but it's certainly being exploited by Apple to lock people into Itunes and Ipods. No question about that in my mind. The lock-in effect is Apple's doing, not MIAA. They could license it to other people's players if they wanted (like Sandisk or Iaudio), but they haven't.
That is the fact that shows that this 'Oh we hate DRM, too' is Apple attempting saving face rather then being realy truthfull about everything.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 9, 2007 1:16 UTC (Fri) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "People are starting to figure out that Apple's Itunes DRM has very little to do with actually protecting copyrights and everything to do with controlling a market and locking out competative hardware, software, and online services."
Well, iTunes store is not very good way of locking users to the iPod. I mean, overwhelming majority of music in people's iPod is not from ITMS. And the music that has been purchased from the store could be made DRM-free very easily. As to competing online-services... Well, no-one is stopping others from selling music to iPods. They just have to sell DRM-free music, it would play back just fine on an iPod. Why don't they? Because labels don't let them? That's what I thought...
"People are starting to call them on it and the more socialist folks are starting to orginize lawsuits in various EU countries."
People are not organizing lawsuits. Some government-organisations and the like are.
"So here comes Steve Jobs, the figurehead visionary, saying that 'oh, no it's not _our_ fault, it's the evil studio associations; They make us do it!!'"
Well, that is a fact, after all.
"Sure, sure the studios require it, but it's certainly being exploited by Apple to lock people into Itunes and Ipods."
If that is the case, they wouldn't be offering people a method of removing the DRM. But they are. You are completely free to strip every trace of DRM from your purchased content. Not very effective lock-in, now is it?
"They could license it to other people's players if they wanted (like Sandisk or Iaudio), but they haven't."
Things like that would merely make DRM more prevalent and extend it's lifespan. Why not push for total elimination of DRM instead? Oh, that's exactly what Apple is pushing for.
"That is the fact that shows that this 'Oh we hate DRM, too' is Apple attempting saving face rather then being realy truthfull about everything."
It just boggles the mind, really. They have now made their stand clear, which basically is "We want to eliminate DRM entirely". And that is exactly what we have been demanding for years now. Apple has been criticized for FairPlay (even though it's a lot more bening than PlaysForSure). And now those same people are criticizing Apple when they announced that they want to eliminate DRM entirely. No matter what they say or do, they are wrong?
Fact is that labels and demanded DRM, period. And looking at various DRM-schemes out there, FairPlay is quite bening. You can even remove it entirely if you want to.
Had Apple not implemented FairPlay, there would not have been ITMS. So our only option would be those PlaysForSure-stores, with their crappy DRM. But as things are right now, you can choose between draconian PlaysForSure that plays on several devices, or relatively bening FairPlay that only plays back on iPods. Ideal solution would be no DRM at all, and that's what Apple is pushing right now.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 9, 2007 0:55 UTC (Fri) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "They can still provide a completely consistent interface."
Yes they could provide an interface. But the interface is not the issue, the issue is the content. Fact remains, that the goods sold through the store would not be consistent anymore. And that is one thing Apple cares very much for, for better or worse.
"The customer buys the song, pays 99 cents and downloads it. It plays on the iPod just like any other song. The experience is completely consistent"
And some songs could then be burned to CD, whereas some other songs could not. So forget about making your own CD's. Some other songs could only play back on one iPod, whereas some others would have unlimited iPod-playback. And so forth. The key here is that the user knows EXACTLY what he can and can't do with the purchased content. If you have variable DRM, you lose that, period.
If we get variable DRM, it will end up being worse for the consumer. What would be better than FairPlay? No DRM at all. But you already have that. You can burn your purchased content to a CD as 100% un-DRM'ed music, afterwards you are free to do whatever you want with it. If we get variable DRM, we might get some content which was un-DRM'ed from the start, but we would also get content that had even more draconian DRM than what we currently have. And for what? Few un-DRM'ed indie songs? Is it worth it?
Since we can already remove the DRM (and do it legally) from iTunes-content, I don't really see need for variable DRM. I would like to see a change in the DRM-policy of iTunes, but instead of pushing for some DRM-free content through variable DRM, I want total elimination of DRM right from the start.
But you should be happy: Instead of asking for "interoperable DRM", Jobs is calling for total elimination of DRM. Isn't that what we have wanted all this time? Now Steve Jobs and Apple has made their stand clear on this issue, and their stand is practically identical to ours. I don't see the problem. "Interoperable DRM" would make DRM more prevalent. Apple wants to get rid of DRM altogether.
"Users who only use their iPod won't notice a difference."
And what about the users who uses CD-players? What about user who has several iPods? What about users who have several computers?
I find it quite surprising that so many people have negative feelings about Steve Jobs's letter. I mean, he's basically agreeing with us 100%. He wants to get rid of DRM, so do we. He blames the record-companies for the DRM, and so do we. And as a DRM-technique, FairPlay is quite decent. It has unlimited iPod-playback, and it can be removed entirely by burning the music to a CD. PlaysForSure (for example) is a lot more draconian scheme. If I had to choose between "locked-to-iPod" FairPlay and "interoperable" PlaysForSure, I would choose FairPlay. After all, even FairPlay-content can be made 100% interoperable: just burn it to a CD.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 7, 2007 13:06 UTC (Wed) by rogerd (guest, #4170) [Link] We are only one step away!
Both iTunes and Yahoo (all I know about...) allow burning purchased tracks to audio format disks. These disks play on regular CD players. It is one extra step to import these tracks back into MP3 format. It could be one step to DRM free MP3 tracks instead of two. The extra step probably keeps 95% of the buyers honest.
Then we can get right back to the task of shutting down illegal posting sites.
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 7, 2007 18:24 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Has anyone listened to something that has gone through AAC -> CD -> MP3 or Ogg? Does two rounds of different lossy compression clobber the sound?
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 7, 2007 18:45 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] It sounds OK, I suppose, though all that lossy processing doesn't do the sound any good. I'd try pretty hard to avoid it with my own music. But it's still better than those 6th generation cassettes we used to trade...
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 7, 2007 19:21 UTC (Wed) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] The original 128 kbps AAC file doesn't sound too great, but I suppose it's better than cassettes or 8 tracks. Transcoding makes it roughly equivalent.
The question is how much is this really worth to you? While iTunes might be somewhat cheaper than the ripoff prices labels charge now for physical CDs, does the extra time for working around DRM and poor sound quality change the cost/benefit equation at all?
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 8, 2007 19:37 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] If you buy used cdroms and work those big 'Music Clubs' correctly you can get cdroms a much cheaper prices per song then what you can get from Itunes.
Personally I prefer to have entire albums then single songs, so I look on amazon.com or local 'used cd warehouses' and occasionally go down the local music store to purchase music (which I rip into Flac).
I suppose it realy matters what you prefer. If you only want paticular songs from this or that artist then Itunes makes a nice deal, aside from the DRM stuff.
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 9, 2007 3:39 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] I think it changes it for some, but I think the number of people who would be willing to do the legwork and be willing to buy songs from ITMS is small.
Personally paying for data in a losssy format is not my cup of tea. I'll start buying online music when it's in an archival format and it's no-strings. Oh, and above board. I considered allofmp3 flac purchases years ago, but decided against.
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 10, 2007 1:16 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] All formats are lossy formats, some are just more lossy than others... Are you saying that 2ch 44.1khz 16bit is the lowest quality you could envision paying for?
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 18, 2007 11:04 UTC (Sun) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] All digital formats are technically lossy, it could be argued. I suppose the closest thing to lossless in that sense is virgin vinyl.
How does that sound, though? Posted Feb 8, 2007 6:12 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Dunno about AAC, but in my experience, MP3 (128kbps) -> Ogg (-q1) sounds fine. Especially in the kind of environments for which portable players are designed, with quite a lot of ambient noise... but I couldn't really tell much difference playing them through my separates. Let's face it, you still end up with something a world away from cassettes!
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 15:59 UTC (Thu) by rogerd (guest, #4170) [Link] Another thing I have not heard discussed is that the labels don't sell individula songs without DRM. They will sell you an entire album on a disk, but not a single (some singles, perhaps, but not all...). This lets me get the few songs I like from a disk for less than the whole ablum. This makes my "effective per song price" reasonable, and the tradeoff is DRM.
I would think that the labels could sell entire albums online without DRM for a price close to the actual disk. This would be closer to their current model. Since many CDs are purchased for a few favorite songs, it keeps the "effective per song price" higher and favors the label again.
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 8, 2007 19:56 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] The difficult part for record labels is that they are almost obsolete as a business.
They were created in a era were it was impossible for a individual or multiple individuals to get together on a on a average person's wages and make a studio. Much less aquire distribution channels, and store front contracts, promotion, orginize concerts and the like.
Throughout the 20's up to the 90's the costs associated with this stuff was huge. Much more then a manager or small company can hope to cope with. If you had a band that was a big act there was no way you could support it.
So you had to have these big companies do it. They had to pay for everything, and when you bought the ablum you weren't just paying for the peice of vinyl it was stamped on, but everything associated with producing, promoting, and distributing the album.
However nowadays it's different. A group of people with 20-30 thousand dollars and a decently sized basement can probably get together a recording studio that rivals the best of what any artist had going through up through the 70's and into the 80's. Computers make it cheap. software has replaced the vast majority of hardware you would need and digital integrated curcuits provide easy lossless ways to manage sound data (once you get the initial A-D done).
And although Myspace sucks, the popularity of it for promoting artists have shown that it's possible to reach mass market appeal without the studios. Not nearly enough as MTV or going through clearchannel radio stations, but enough to bypass the traditional path and yourself noticed.
So with the internet and the dropping prices of bandwidth it's possible to get that music distributed without the studio labels.
The way the recording industry is structured it's almost as big of a rip-off for the artists as it is for the consumers. Sure if your big name on your second or third contract you can make very impressive amounts of money, but if your a no-name starting out and even if you got millions of albums sold chances are that your as likely end up loosing money on the whole deal as make anything.
I am no expert, but I've been told, that for majority of successfull artists they make more money off of live appearences and t-shirt sales then albums.
So if you don't need studios for the studios, you don't need the labels for promotion, and you don't need the stores for distribution, then what do you, as a artist, or you as a consumer realy need the recording industry for anymore?!
Now enters DRM....
(I think there is still room for those corporations for management and promotions. Especially for the expertise these people can offer to new artists is probably very valuable. But they are going to have much diminished roles compared to what they are used to, and this means much much less profit.)
Will Steve Jobs drop iTunes DRM in a heartbeat? (BoingBoing) Posted Feb 9, 2007 5:41 UTC (Fri) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] The way the recording industry is structured it's almost as big of a rip-off for the artists as it is for the consumers. It's actually more of a ripoff for artists. Record contracts are designed to keep bands/artists in perpetual debt to the label, which allows the label to strongarm talent into producing whatever content the corporation feels is most marketable. See The Problem with Music by Steve Albini, a highly respected indie musician and record producer.
|
|||||||||||