backtop

Print 60 comment(s) - last by Boz214.. on Feb 15 at 5:18 PM
Steve Jobs' open letter ruffles a few more tail feathers in the music industry

Steve Jobs surprised many with his rather frank open letter on DRM. Apple has come under fire for its FairPlay DRM scheme which is used on its iTunes music downloads and is only compatible with iPod music players.

Jobs made the case for completely doing away with DRM citing that when it comes to your average iPod "97 percent of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future."

Jobs also argued that the record industry has no problems selling DRM-free music CDs to customers, so why should online downloads be burdened with protection. "In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior."

Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the RIAA, responded to Jobs' rant by saying that a DRM-free environment is not the answer. In fact, Bainwol sided with European countries that are currently pressuring Apple to instead open up its FairPlay DRM system to competitors.

"We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen," said Bainwol.

Bainwol isn't the only one skeptical of Jobs' intentions and the feasibility of a DRM-free music download environment. Jon Lech Johansen has already taken issue with Jobs' reasoning for keeping FairPlay closed to competitors. "Microsoft’s Windows Media DRM 10 (marketing name PlaysForSure) has not had more security breaches than FairPlay despite the fact that it has been licensed to dozens of companies," said Johansen.

SanDisk CEO Eli Harari decided to also chime in on DRM following Jobs' much publicized rant. Harari made a slightly veiled attack on Apple's FairPlay in his own open letter. "Proprietary systems, in short, aren’t acceptable to consumers. In recent months, there has been a rising chorus of complaints in Europe about the anti-competitive nature of closed formats that tie music purchased from one company to that company’s devices, and tie that company’s devices to its music service," said Harari.

"SanDisk is already offering an alternative with its Sansa line of MP3 players, which connect to many major online music stores, including Rhapsody, Napster, URGE, Yahoo! Music, emusic and Best Buy Digital Music Store. Users purchasing songs from those services can also play them on many non-SanDisk devices. SanDisk and our partners have full support from the four major music companies, and we believe our offering is no less secure than closed systems," Harari continued.

Harari also offered up this bit of advice; "What’s more, the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Decision Should Rest with Customers
By TomZ on 2/8/2007 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Harari also offered up this bit of advice; "What’s more, the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers."

I strongly disagree - the decision on using DRM should rest with consumers . Consumers should and will create, or eliminate, the market for DRM though their collective purchasing decisions.




RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By shimman on 2/8/2007 3:31:13 PM , Rating: 3
agree, but if they insist, i am afraid that priacy will not decrease at all. i do use backup copy of dvd movies that i purchased just because i do not want to see things like fbi warning, previews and other things which i consider annoying at the best.

if they try to control more and more, i would reluctant to buy anything, and i might just hit the classic books instead.

those copy rights holders are way too greedy that they need regulations


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By CollegeTechGuy on 2/8/2007 4:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
This might come to as a shocker to you, but while it is completly legal to make back-up copies of Music CD's...it is ILLEGAL to make back-up copies of DVD movies. Don't ask me why, but thats the way they made it. To me theres no difference...if you buy something you should be able to do whatever you want with it as long as you don't try to re-sell it and make a profit. The consumer should have the right to put movies and music on anything and everything they own.


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By bhieb on 2/8/2007 4:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
If I am not mistaken the court case that made it "illegal" to back up DVD's was not really making it "illegal" to back them up. What it said was you cannot circumvent the encryption legally. It never went into your right to back it up, simply that the act of breaking the encryption is illegal. The end result is still the same there is no legal way to back up DVD's. However that being said I back up mine to my media server, because if it comes down to it where is the Damages? I personally am very careful not to have anything stored that is not specifically on my bookshelf, just in case.


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By sprockkets on 2/8/2007 5:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
The stupid DMCA prohibits breaking the encryption, but also says it should not interfere with current copyright law, aka, backup purposes. But the gay judge doesn't care, and said well, this is the new law and as such fair use does not count.

Like others mentioned, while some cds have DRM, it doesn't stop anyone from posting music.


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By Zelvek on 2/9/2007 2:05:14 AM , Rating: 3
Damn I love living in a country where the DMCA does not exist.


By CollegeTechGuy on 2/9/2007 10:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think some organization or something needs to sit down and clarify this law, and not just base everything off of some Judge's interpretation of the law.


By ZmaxDP on 2/13/2007 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
Really? He's "gay"? That must explain everything. Everyone knows gay people don't understand the law after all. So logically, the judge must be gay. Hmm, oh well, as long as he doesn't try to get married...

(Sorry, just harping on the use of a loaded term in the previous post. If you are talking about something you don't like and then insinuate that said thing/person is "gay" then you're also implying that you don't like gay people. This may be the case, but then just have the balls to say so. If not, then stop using the term "gay" in that manner. Thanks!)


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By Dragen on 2/8/2007 5:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
strongly disagree - the decision on using DRM should rest with consumers


Well put. Apple isn't sayin it's good for "Device Makers". They are saying it's better for the CONSUMER. Device Makers can say whatever they want. The only thing that matters is if the consumers are buying it. WE have the voice.

So if the RIAA is hell bent on DRM, then something needs to be done to STANDARDIZE it. Because this is just ridiculous, and I think 99% of the consumers on the market who deal with this crap will agree.

Nothing would make me happier to see the DRM abolished. But we know that wont happen. All the DRM amounts to, is an annoying thorn in your side which can easily be circumvented by using easily acquired tools.

I think it's about time the RIAA learns how to use media distribution to their advantage, instead of controlling it.


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By TomZ on 2/8/2007 9:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
The best way to standardize DRM is to eliminate it. The RIAA can still go and sue people who do mass file sharing, and in the meantime, we can all purchase DRM-free files and enjoy the convenience, flexibility, and freedom of them.

I only buy CDs, and if they had DRM, I wouldn't buy them either. I like ripping my CDs, putting the files onto my private server, and then listening to them on my computer, on my PMP, or through my media center, recording some to CD for my car, etc. DRM would put a stop to such convenience.


RE: Decision Should Rest with Customers
By Seymourbbuts on 2/9/2007 12:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
You know, the music companies would probably make more money with law suits after they eliminate DRM than they are making by having DRM "protect" the music from the people who illegally share it...


By lotharamious on 2/9/2007 2:57:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the music companies would probably make more money with law suits after they eliminate DRM

That's a pretty good point because the DMCA could still be their grounds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't CD sales skyrocketing to new record heights during the Napster years?


By ultimatebob on 2/9/2007 9:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to agree with you, except that Apple has brainwashed the masses into thinking that iPod=Media Player. Many of the less technical folks aren't aware of and/or can't figure out the other media player options out there. They probably also aren't aware that the music that they're buying from iTunes is crippled with DRM, and will have to learn this the hard way a few years down the road when their songs run out of device activations and won't work on their new PC's.

Like it or not, the government might need to step in on this one and protect consumers from their own ill-formed buying decisions.


By cgrecu77 on 2/9/2007 5:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
consumers should not have a say in this, it's the manufacturers (i.e. the music industry) that should decide.
The consumers have other tools:
- decide not to purchase music anymore
- force legislation that prevents it
As long as it's legal, RIAA has all the rights to put as much DRM as it wants.


How many times do I have to say it?
By thebrown13 on 2/8/2007 2:18:48 PM , Rating: 1
DRM Standard.




RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By dagamer34 on 2/8/2007 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
DRM standard solves nothing at all. Pretty much it makes it to where all efforts are focused on 1 DRM scheme instead of many, thus making it crack faster!


RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By thebrown13 on 2/8/2007 4:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
Look at windows. One standard, still a secure system if you're not retarded. That argument doesn't fly.


RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By raven3x7 on 2/8/2007 5:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO. That was a good one


RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By thebrown13 on 2/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By jtesoro on 2/9/2007 12:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
You're basing your argument on the premise that DRM is actually protecting music.

The others are saying that it doesn't. One standard, many standards, who cares: if someone doesn't want to pay for music, he will get it for free because it is extremely easy to do so. So what's the point of DRM?

And enough of this personal attack stuff.


RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By thebrown13 on 2/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By jtesoro on 2/9/2007 5:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I'm a bit tired so I'm not sure I understand where you're going.

If you're saying that the current subscription services (like Rhapsody) is better than the per song method of iTunes, then I'll agree with you. It's a very good proposition, though I'll bet that it still wouldn't suit a lot of people.

Subscription services also don't say anything about the point of DRM. If DRM can't protect music, why do it at all?


RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By thebrown13 on 2/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By jtesoro on 2/9/2007 11:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
OK, now I understand why we're not "connecting". When I say that DRM is not protecting music, I'm not saying it in the technical hack and crack sense. To clarify:

Let's say there's this perfect uncrackable DRM technology that iTunes, Rhapsody and everyone else uses in their online music stores. Can we then say that DRM just eliminated piracy? Nope, because we can get the same song from the thousands who ripped their CDs and put it online. No hacking and cracking needed.

This is what I mean when I say that DRM isn't protecting music. No matter how powerful the DRM technology, anyone can effortlessly get the exact same song for free if they wanted to.


RE: How many times do I have to say it?
By Spivonious on 2/9/2007 12:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to jump in here.

In the past, this argument would work, and it still does among the "enthusiast." The problem now is that there is a majority that doesn't know of the places to get free music. All they know is that they buy their iPod and use iTunes to get their music. They rip their own CDs and transfer them to the iPod. DRM protects the RIAA because it is enough of a deterrent to this majority to not steal.

Would the situation be the same in a DRM-less environment? Absolutely. The same people would still think they have to use iTunes to get their music and would happily continue to spend $1/song. The enthusiasts would continue getting their music for free. For once, I agree with Steve Jobs. There is no reason to have DRM in today's mp3 player saturated world.


By Tyler 86 on 2/13/2007 7:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Enthusiasts account for the hundred million plus unique file sharers?

The minority is the majority.


By Zelvek on 2/9/2007 2:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
One major problem with your theory brown13. In order for one to keep their PC secure they must use third party add on software to do so. So that effectively puts the idea of standardized DRM back to being the way it is now, unstandardized!


This won't end until
By FITCamaro on 2/8/2007 4:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Whats stupid is that regardless of whether the online downloads have DRM or not, music will still be pirated. Even if the DRM couldn't be cracked. Why? Because music is still sold on unprotected CDs. People can just rip it to their computer, re-encode as MP3, and share. Unless they plan to stop CD sales, they might as well get rid of DRM on digital music sales because its worthless. So burdening people with the annoyance of DRM is retarded.




RE: This won't end until
By Triring on 2/8/2007 9:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually RIAA needs CDs to ensure their existance.

Record label's business model is to manage, promote and most important distribute musician's music through a physical format.

If purchase habits of the consumers goes directly to on-line music, then musicians will not have to worry about distribution and start direct nagotiation with the on-line music stores.
Management and promotion can be handled by the on-line music stores or independent agencies can be hired when business become big for the musician.
On-line music stores will be more than happy to promote music that is exclusive to their site since more people will come. Starter up musicians will be able to gain attention from casual browsers that come to the site and the consumer will gain most since purchase cost for each music could go down with removal of the RIAA middle-man margin.

This is why the RIAA does not want on-line music to become the main stream.


RE: This won't end until
By thebrown13 on 2/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: This won't end until
By Triring on 2/9/2007 4:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
The recording industry does not manufacture professionally produced music, the individual professionals do .
You don't need the music labels for any of what you wrote. It's just a matter of rearranging the business model of already existing professionals within the music industry.

In other words, everyone in the music industry including the musicians themselves will get more piece of the pie without being leeched out by the labels.


RE: This won't end until
By Ksyder on 2/9/2007 6:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The recording industry does not manufacture professionally produced music, the individual professionals do .
You don't need the music labels for any of what you wrote. It's just a matter of rearranging the business model of already existing professionals within the music industry.


The one thing that is not addressed is the fact that all of these "individual professionals" happen to "charge money" for their products and services. A music release (or thousands of them) is the collective effort of thousands of people who have to make a living. It is much more than just the individuals. Do you know how much money is tied up in everything from studio equipment to manufacturing facilities to the intellectual property of the record labels, musicians, graphic artists, etc? The trivial matter of "rearranging the business model of already existing professionals within the music industry" sounds like wishful thinking at best if there is no one to pay for it.


RE: This won't end until
By Triring on 2/9/2007 7:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A music release (or thousands of them) is the collective effort of thousands of people who have to make a living. It is much more than just the individuals.


In which most of them are not hired full time with the labels. The record labels are not the only stake holder in the music industry.
In fact management agencies who manages most business aspects for the musicians can replace the present role carried out by the record labels.
The only reason why this has not been the case is becuase of the difficulty in distribution where historically physical media was the only viable means. Therefore the record labels forcefully acted as a representative to collect usage rights and abused their position.
If on-line music becomes the main stream the on-line music sites can replace the record labels in collecting reimbusements on behalf of the musicians.

In fact in Japan the talent management agencies has more influence than the record labels in show business becasue they do most of the work you mentioned.


Ignorance and shoving the blame elsewhere
By mlittl3 on 2/8/2007 4:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Man, the RIAA is the most corrupt, pitiful organization I've ever seen.

quote:
Microsoft’s Windows Media DRM 10 (marketing name PlaysForSure) has not had more security breaches than FairPlay despite the fact that it has been licensed to dozens of companies


Last time I checked, Microsoft's PlaysForSure is used on like 10% or less of the online music market. Apple controls over 80%. So let me see, oh yes, the above quote is complete ignorance. Everyone says that Microsoft Windows security problems are because everyone targets the operating system that has 95% of the market. So wouldn't the same hold true for the biggest player in the online music market. Since Apple has so much marketshare, hackers are targeting FairPlay instead of the small amount of users that are exposed to PlaysForSure. Damn, the person who said this is so daft. Why would a hacker go after a DRM system that is hardly used by anyone (less than 10%)? Everyone's music is from iTunes. If hackers could open this up, it would be Napster all over again and 80% plus of the online music market because available to pirates.

I also love how the RIAA shoves the blame on Apple and says, "Well we want it protected this way so you better play ball or we pull the plug." Why doesn't the RIAA come up with a DRM system instead of Microsoft or Apple. They are so gung ho about protecting their precious music that they are making everyone program DRM systems hand over foot while they just sit there and sue people.

Folks, this is not right. This is not right at all.




By Murst on 2/8/2007 5:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you quote someone, you should at least know who you're quoting. The thing you quoted did not come from the RIAA but from the guy who cracked the dvd / apple encryption.


By walk2k on 2/11/2007 6:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Many record labels do not "require" Apple to put DRM on their music. Several of these even sell music downloads on their own sites. Yet when they are sold on the Apple iStore, Apple adds DRM.

In other words, Apple could be selling DRM-free music on iTunes RIGHT NOW. Put your god damn money where your mouth is Steverino!


I dont get Europeans!!!
By Grast on 2/9/2007 10:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
I do not get Europeans!!!!! This comment sums up everything about the attitude of eurorpeans that I do not understand.

"Proprietary systems, in short, aren’t acceptable to consumers. In recent months, there has been a rising chorus of complaints in Europe about the anti-competitive nature of closed formats that tie music purchased from one company to that company’s devices, and tie that company’s devices to its music service," said Harari.

If proprietary systems are not acceptable, then why are europeans buying I-Pods. No one is forcing anyone to spend their money on I-Pods or I-Tunes. This Harari character makes it sound like its a state mandated issues that all europeans must buy I-Pods.

Here is an idea from a simple american. If you do not like spending your money on DRM music from ITunes which can only be played on an IPod, STOP BUYING THE MUSIC OR BUY ANOTHER MP3 PLAYER. There is like over a 1000 different types of players.

End of rant.....





RE: I dont get Europeans!!!
By maxplanck on 2/9/2007 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Those damn Europeans! They're all the same - Norwegians, Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans, Spanish, Greeks, English! Trouble-makers the lot of them. And all the same, as I said.

What idiots you Amerians are.


RE: I dont get Europeans!!!
By Boz214 on 2/15/2007 5:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in a legal/commercial sense, they are. The discussion of what "Europeans" want quoted in the original story (I won't venture a guess what the poster you responded to meant) in reference to lawsuits file by the European Union, and letters from the European Commission. So in a corporate sense, one does have to deal with the Europeans, generally...

And I'm sure the reference to American idiots is just a tongue-in-cheek way to let us know you are a Green Day fan?


You're all blaming the wrong people still
By maxplanck on 2/8/2007 5:17:18 PM , Rating: 3
It's the music companies, dummies. Jobs was completely on the money. No better evidence of that fact comes this morning (and will soon come from other music industry CEO's, rest assured) from the CEO of Warner Music, who says they "will not abandon DRM" and the argument to drop it is "without logic or merit":

http://tinyurl.com/2v27s2

Jobs is NOT in charge of this whole issue, and he's getting spanked by his vendors now. And Norway, the EU, DVD Jon and the rest of you are barking up the wrong tree, as this clearly shows.




By SGWB on 2/9/2007 2:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
But Jobs never said dropping DRM would be good for Apple, and he didn't promise to do anything about working towards a DRM free future. Jobs is just redirecting responsibility for Apple's anticompetitive iTunes/iPod lock towards the music industry.

So, Apple won't sell unprotected music because they might loose access to vast portions of the music companies' catalogs. Fine, how about licensing FairPlay at a reasonable price? Jobs says no because it's a security risk. This from the company who sold an OSX upgrade disk protected by a Pearl script! (Bypassed in 10 minutes. I'm not joking, it took a guy about 10 minutes to disable the script.) If Apple cared about security, ITMS would not transmit music in the clear and rely on the users PC, the most easily compromised link in the chain, to apply the FairPlay DRM.

Besides, all the security risks are in software, not in the music players. They could allow third party device licenses for FairPlay, allow these devices to synch to iTunes, and disallow 3rd party software access to ITMS. Apple would keep the entire chain under their control and it would be no more of a risk than synching with an iPod.


Typical Jobs
By TheDoc9 on 2/8/2007 2:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
At least we know the real reason he doesn't want the open standard - so that he can keep more money. Why on earth would he allow other companies to sell to ipod owners when he controls 90% of the market and opening his DRM would mean less money to itunes. Of course the others like sandisk want open standards, they must join together to go up against the apple - if apples DRM was open then they would get a piece of that pie.

But most importantly, apple philosphy is all about complete control of every product they make, you could compare them to nintendo.




RE: Typical Jobs
By Hare on 2/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Jobs
By h0kiez on 2/8/2007 4:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
You're right that Apple makes the vast majority of its money from hardware, not from iTunes. The problem is that the huge install base of iPod owners used to using iTunes may open their eyes to alternatives if every song in iTunes suddenly can be downloaded to any mp3 player, rather than buying more and more future versions of iPods. As pointed out by "DVD John", a lot of people are much more locked into the iPod/iTunes model than Jobs is letting on.


Johansen
By Oregonian2 on 2/8/2007 4:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Johansen kind of missed the point. It wasn't whether apple's or microsoft's DRM would get cracked, but how quickly and cleanly the occurrence can be corrected systemically in all music sources and in all music players. Jobs outlined how Apple has systemic control of their system due to their keeping itunes and iPod the only users of their system. Microsoft and their system doesn't have that ability. Jobs argued that they shouldn't have to do the DRM stuff, but if they do they should do it well. If it's worth doing it's worth doing well....

Everybody knows that the big 4 are NOT going to do away with DRM even if it was absolutely and obviously the best way to do things in the long term. They are ONLY short term thinkers -- and this is wise. Long term thinking says that those companies are obsolete and will eventually be gone completely once a significantly large company provides the distribution channel for bands to go directly to end customers without the record companies inbetween. Apple is capable of doing this. They were only constrained by their deal with Apple Corp (Beatles) from getting into that business. This restriction may now be gone. So, I'm thinking that Jobs is considering have Apple go completely around the big-four. But he has to offer the Big-4 the opportunity to eliminate DRM. Apple will then be "forced" to establish the direct channel in a large significant fashion, taking perhaps just a small percentage of a band's sales -- rather than just about everything that record companies do now. The life of record companies may not make it to the end of this decade.




RE: Johansen
By typo101 on 2/11/2007 11:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
As much as I would hate to see such a proprietary minded corp. like Apple make that first step, I will celebrate the day an online reseller successfully distributes music not recorded under a label (and the music is good, DRM free, and it spawns other such business models for distribution and recording). By successful I mean the band and everybody involved in producing/creating/recording the music profits, it is listened to in many parts of the world, and even makes it onto the radio


Be wise & less smart
By crystal clear on 2/9/2007 9:48:37 AM , Rating: 2
Quote-

"Harari also offered up this bit of advice; "What’s more, the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers."

Unquote-

I am of the opinion device makers have a equal say in this matter.
You cannot hold the device makers by their throats-Do or DIE
methods.
The music industry is equally dependent on device
makers ,just as the opposite is true.
There has to be a common ground for both sides to come to a workable agreement.
Instead of making announcements/open letters/response & counter response-start talking-Device makers & content providers(music).
But let it be crystal clear-"The DRM issue has to be resolved once for all for benefit of buyers/users.




RE: Be wise & less smart
By Boz214 on 2/15/2007 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Harari also offered up this bit of advice; "What’s more, the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers."

Even in criticizing this opinion a lot of those commenting are missing the way the comment is slanted. Yes, Apple is a music industry "device maker," but they are also a huge music RETAILER...substitute "music retailers" for "device makers" in the above quote and it sounds a lot different.



Hmmm...
By JWalk on 2/8/2007 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 3
I have no doubt that Jobs' motivation is less than altruistic. But, it doesn't change the fact that all the points he made about DRM are in fact true. There is a reason that the RIAA is dodging the actual facts, and focusing on Jobs' motives. There is no denying that only a very small amount of the music currently being sold is DRM protected. DRM is a headache that is infecting every electronic device and piece of software on the market. It is ridiculous that we are forced to tolerate the paranoid knee-jerk copy right "protection" schemes of these music and movie companies. Especially since they only "protect" a tiny percent of the over-all market. It is a gigantic waste of time, money, and effort. :(




The Real Problem
By Rollomite on 2/8/2007 4:45:19 PM , Rating: 1
The real problem with this whole system is that the music industry is moving farther away from musicians, and back toward the "one hit wonder". Gone are the days when you had to buy an album for that one great song. Now you can download that one song for $.99, and ignore the rest of the trash on the album. This has taken a serious chunk from their greedy paws. Opposed to independent label bands, or no label bands, who would be happy to let you download a tune or two for free. Just with the hopes that you might buy their album, or tell someone about it. Don't blame Jobs, don't blame Gates. Blame the person who realized that the universal language of music could be exploited, and they could make a quick dime from someone's talent, or lack thereof.

Rollo




RE: The Real Problem
By AlexWade on 2/9/2007 8:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
There are two real problems.

1) The RIAA/MPAA think we are all criminals just itching for the chance to steal from them. DRM has been proven to punish only the innocent because hackers always find a way around any DRM.

2) The RIAA has gotten too greedy. Artists make no money off CD's. This is easy to prove by browsing the web. Yet the ones who the RIAA says piracy hurts is the artists. Wrong. It only hurts the Big label's and the RIAA's bottom line. And how do you make more money? Destroy artists originality so that by the time they can negotiate a contract where they make money on CD sales, they are irrelevant. I've seen it happen where an artist on a small label does great music, goes to a big label and does one great CD (if that), but every one after that sounds just like the same junk that they force radio stations to play.

Also, the RIAA is very narrow minded, which can be shown by the fact that they view DRM as a cure-all. They think that because music sold in the past, a similar tune will sell forever. Once you get out of the Big labels, you get originality.


Real world and DRM
By Jrouss on 2/8/2007 5:30:53 PM , Rating: 3
Here is a real world example of why DRM regardless of the vendor is at the very least porrly implemented for consumers.

I was deployed in the middle east serving in the Army last year. I brought my laptop that had music I bought and payed for, because I had no internet consitently I couldn't play music I payed for. How anyone rationalize DRM being fair for consumers is beyond me.




+5 Funny article
By Justin Case on 2/8/2007 6:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
> Steve Jobs surprised many with his
> rather frank open letter on DRM.

"Rather frank"? What a hilarious way to spell "completely hypocritical"...




RE: +5 Funny article
By TomZ on 2/8/2007 9:28:07 PM , Rating: 1
I did also find it at a minimum ironic that Apple would "bite the hand that feeds it." Apple has made a furtune by selling DRM-protected files.


By scottcolo on 2/12/2007 3:56:23 PM , Rating: 3
Personally speaking, I do not own a single piece of DRM protected music. I have an iPod that gets several hours of use a week, and a collection of several thousand songs. While I haven't quantified the numbers, I would say that 95% of the music I own is legally purchased, the balance being songs I got from friends or *gasp* downloaded illegally.

I use iTunes to manage my iPod, but do not have an account on their store, or any other store for that matter. As a matter of principle I will never, ever buy a song that has any form of DRM associated with it. The very notion that somebody else thinks they can tell me what I can & can't do with material on which I've spent my hard-earned money is LudaCris, er, ludicrous. If I want to put it on my iPod, home media server, play it in my car, etc, then by golly I'm gonna do it.

Having said that, I have, on more occasions than I can count, illegally downloaded a song to see if I like it (and usually others from the same artist / album), and if I do, I buy the CD! The availability of "try before you buy" music, albeit through illegal means, has greatly expanded my collection of legal music. If I download a song I don't like, it goes bye-bye and no harm done. I wouldn't have bought it anyway. If I like it, the artist receives their compensation after the store, government, and label take their chunks because I've purchased the CD.

First thing I do when I get a new CD is rip it, add it to my library, and shelve it as insurance against the day when something happens to my online version. I can't remember the last time I played a store-bought CD in either my home, car, or computer.




b.s.
By whalenapp81 on 2/8/2007 11:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
i have to call shnanigans on this, ur sucha hypocrit steve jobs




By Hawkido on 2/9/2007 3:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs: Do away with the protection of online media. You are hurting your sales of online music, and your CD sales are unprotected which is where all the pirated music is coming from.

Music Industry: Hell no, why don't you give away your IP to the rest of the world so we can continue to screw our customers.

Pirates: We don't care so long as the Music Industry keeps one form or the other unprotected. Right now IPod plays all the pirated stuff just as well as the legally-paid-for stuff.

Okay, now who of the 3 sound like they have their head up their arse? The pirates really like the squabble, so long as they fight the pirates win. Jobs talks sense (for once) however I wish he would apply that very same logic to Apple and have the Macrappleintosh become more main stream. The recording companies LOL they are clueless. I just don't even know if they realize how stupid they are. They pay radio stations to play their songs so they become popular, so people will buy the albums. The Artists should only get paid for the number of times someone buys to a particular song. Not the whole freaking album. One good song, the rest are crap, that BS sucks. Cut out the contracts for recording artists. Make the Recording studios fight over the good songs and neglect the bad ones.

I really think that those who buy music online will continue to BUY music online, especially if the price drops to about 50 cents a song. Maybe allow you to download it to your cell enabled device then transfer it to where ever and just add it to your cell bill to make it easier to pay for.




By Targon on 2/10/2007 8:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
One possible reason for all of this from Apple is the recent case in Europe. Now, picture if Apple is forced to open up their DRM crap, or to re-program the iPod to accept the other DRM methods out there. The programming that would go into support other DRM systems and applications wouldn't be trivial, so what better way to avoid it than to just eliminate DRM? If DRM is removed, that would make it a LOT easier to distribute music on iTunes, and the engineering for new devices becomes easier.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki