DailyTech - Warner CEO Says Jobs' Letter is "Completely Without Logic," EMI Considers DRM-Free Downloads

Submit News

Internet Warner CEO Says Jobs' Letter is "Completely Without Logic," EMI Considers DRM-Free Downloads
Marcus Yam (Blog) - February 13, 2007 8:39 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

26 comment(s) - last by Quryous.. on Feb 14 at 9:35 PM

Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM has polarizing effect

Steve Jobs knew that his open letter on DRM last week would elicit a variety of responses. Jobs reasoned that since music companies were already selling the majority of music on unprotected formats, there were no appreciable benefits to wrapping music files with DRM.

One of the first executives from the “big four” music companies has gone on record regarding Jobs’ proposal of a DRM-free world. Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman said during a conference call last Thursday that Jobs’ letter did nothing to convince him that DRM was an unneeded technology.

"We advocate the continued use of DRM," said Bronfman. "The notion that music does not deserve the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit."

While Warner may not be considering what Jobs proposed, the EMI Group may be a little more convinced. Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported last week that the British music company might be investigating the possibility of offering its digital music free of DRM restrictions. Reportedly, anonymous executives have revealed that EMI is in talks with an array of digital retailers, including Apple, Microsoft, Real Networks and Yahoo for selling unprotected files.

EMI’s new age thinking of selling old school files is not an unprecedented move by the company. Last year, EMI experimented with the sale of DRM-free music, albeit in small qualities and selection, through Yahoo! Music.

Others have also responded to Jobs’ letter, including the RIAA, SanDisk, DVD Jon and Coral Consortium.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For what it's worth

By michaelheath on 2/13/2007 11:52:33 AM , Rating: 4

While I agree that music companies are greedy, that the RIAA , the MSRB, and the MPAA are conservative watchdog groups, and that DRM is just a way of porting money to people who already have too much, I must state that there are caveats to certain arguments.

First of all, PlaysForSure hasn't been cracked because 1.) How many people own a PMP that works only with PlaysForSure? Honestly, if the sales were proportionate to iPods, PlaysForSure would have been cracked ages ago. 2.) While Job's numbers are cooked in favor of his argument against DRM, his statement is mostly true: I personally have owned 2 iPods over the course of five years, and I have only a dozen songs that I got from iTunes Music Store, most of which came free because I got promotional items from Apple. How many of you have songs from ITMS? How about PlaysForSure encumbered music? Never mind the one idiot who bought $29k worth of music from Apple; that's a deviant from the general correlation...

Secondly, calling the EU a bunch of money grubbing Communists is just a load of crap. That's just a cheap shot from an uneducated individual at something they do not understand. They have laws in place just like America does for anti-trust and monopolies. They're actually trying to make sure that you have a fair shot at getting music that's NOT from Apple. Microsoft got what they deserved in the EU.

RE: For what it's worth

By Moishe on 2/13/2007 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
While I agree that music companies are greedy, that the RIAA , the MSRB, and the MPAA are conservative watchdog groups, ...

How exactly are the RIAA, MSRB, and MPAA convervative watchdog groups? This makes no sense. They are groups funded by the music industry to stop piracy.

quote:
and that DRM is just a way of porting money to people who already have too much, I must state that there are caveats to certain arguments.

Huh? DRM is a mechanism of control. In this case, it's a mechanism to allow the content owner to control the content. Yes, the companies are in it for money, they'd be stupid if they weren't looking out for their stockholder's interests. This is what businesses are for. There is nothing inherently wrong with DRM. DRM may or may not be the best business practice or what's best for the consumer, but that's the decision for the music industry to make and it's to their loss if it drives off consumers.

Speaking of cheap shots, it sounds like you're upset at the rich company for being rich. If you apply a little perspective, you'll realize that YOU are rich compared to someone else and it would be pretty foolish for someone to be upset at you just because you have more money than they do. How much money the music industry has should not even be a factor when considering whether or not DRM is good. DRM can easily protect the investment of a poor person as well as a rich company.

Parent

RE: For what it's worth

By slacker57 on 2/13/2007 3:49:12 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Speaking of cheap shots, it sounds like you're upset at the rich company for being rich. If you apply a little perspective, you'll realize that YOU are rich compared to someone else and it would be pretty foolish for someone to be upset at you just because you have more money than they do.

Lol, wow, please direct me to whatever utopia you live in. I'll give you some time to locate it since it may be hard to find on a map. In the meantime, welcome to humanity, specifically capitalistic society, where a large majority of us get upset that we don't have what others have. It's called envy or jealousy, and it is quite the rage among the have-nots, which, surprisingly, 100% of us are in some way or another (not all necessarily monetarily). I mean, this only happens when we're not sitting round the campfire, holding hands and singing kumbaya.

Parent

RE: For what it's worth

By NullSubroutine on 2/13/2007 4:18:03 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
please direct me to whatever utopia you live in

Because its ridiculous to think there could be an other world to live in besides capitalism.

quote:
where a large majority of us get upset that we don't have what others have. It's called envy or jealousy, and it is quite the rage among the have-nots

Actually that's called Feudalism. The only difference between Capitalism and Feudalism is you can choose your Feudal Lord (ie corporation), and there is a slightly stronger Merchant class (ie Middle Class).

Parent

RE: For what it's worth

By mindless1 on 2/14/2007 5:38:51 AM , Rating: 2

Ridiculous to think there could be another world to live in besides capitalism?

Have you, by chance, ever seen a globe? Taken any history lessons? Turned on an TV set? Read a newspaper? You are terribly confused.

It's not feudalism either, so much as the word capitalism is meant to be applicable to existing societies it is a valid assessment if we conceded the validity of the original notion.

Parent

RE: For what it's worth

By Shining Arcanine on 2/13/2007 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 2

Conservatism is a belief in the mercantile economy. Since this has nothing to do with economic philosophies, you should have used "corporate," which is more accurate than "conservative" in the context of your sentence. Furthermore, your reasoning behind your statement "people who already have too much (money)" is undefined. It is unclear how you can label any group of people as having too much money if you fail to specify the exact quantity upon which further possession is too much. If you wish to pursue such labels, please define an exact quantity.

Lastly, please avoid chiding the person to which your post is in response; it belittles you.

Parent

RE: For what it's worth

By OrSin on 2/13/07, Rating: -1

RE: For what it's worth

By sdsdv10 on 2/13/2007 5:12:54 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
First of all, PlaysForSure hasn't been cracked because

Uh, PlaysForSure was cracked several months ago.
See http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fairuse4wm-stri...

Parent

RE: For what it's worth

By INeedCache on 2/14/2007 1:19:25 AM , Rating: 2

"Microsoft got what they deserved in the EU." This is, of course, strictly your opinion. Just like you being entitled to your opinion, so is the person who called the EU a bunch of money grubbing Communists. My opinion? I disagree with both of you. By the EU harboring ill sentiment toward Microsoft, they effectively just did their best to hurt the consumer. Literally nobody bought the Windows without Media Player. Forcing Microsoft to market a product nobody wanted made no sense at all, except to punish Microsoft. As for the EU, I wouldn't call them money grubbing Communists, they're more like vindictive little clowns with too much power and too little wisdom.

Parent

Why we do what we do

By daftrok on 2/13/2007 12:33:29 PM , Rating: 1

Money. That's all it comes down to. We are cheap, they are greedy. Now the reason why I believe music should be DRM-free is because I don't want to buy the song several times to use it. I want it on my computer, my mp3 player, a CD just in case, and sharing with friends. DRM simply won't let us do that. If they offered DRM songs for dirt cheap (like 5-10 cents) then people really wouldn't mind as much. Even better, they should offer DRM-free downloads for 1-5 cents (because you can cut out the costs for putting in DRM in the first place). The reason why I give a range is because a song by Vanilla Ice should cost differently from a song by Justin Timberlake. The fact of the matter is, a dollar for a song is simply too much because the average music listener will have well over 200 songs and would much rather pay 2-20 dollars rather than 200 dollars for it. And simply put, there are pirates out there. You can waste all the money you want on DRM, people will find a way through it. GIVE UP. Make songs DRM-free and sell them for dirt cheap. Its really the only way at this point.

RE: Why we do what we do

By BMFPitt on 2/13/2007 1:38:18 PM , Rating: 2

If they offered DRM songs for dirt cheap (like 5-10 cents) then people really wouldn't mind as much. Even better, they should offer DRM-free downloads for 1-5 cents (because you can cut out the costs for putting in DRM in the first place).

The recording, editing, overhead, and distribution costs are one cent, while DRM adds another 4-5 to the cost? This is an excellent evaluation, tell me more.

The reason why I give a range is because a song by Vanilla Ice should cost differently from a song by Justin Timberlake.

I agree, Vanilla Ice is worth way more.

The fact of the matter is, a dollar for a song is simply too much because the average music listener will have well over 200 songs and would much rather pay 2-20 dollars rather than 200 dollars for it.

Sound goods, but When I tried to buy my car for $199.99, the dealer didn't go for it. Maybe you can talk to him.

Parent

RE: Why we do what we do

By Oregonian2 on 2/13/2007 2:10:46 PM , Rating: 2

Note that the only "costs" that are necessary are fees paid to a recording studio (and the post processing (mixing, etc)), artist royaltees, and the distribution cost, which over vehicles like iTunes is practically nothing per song when amortized over the huge volume handled. Things like "record companies" are obsolete. Don't know if it would come out five cents per song, but guessing what the record companies cut might be (based on a book I read), it'd be a WHOLE LOT less than a dollar per song using the record-company-free model of distribution.

Parent

RE: Why we do what we do

By BMFPitt on 2/13/2007 4:16:02 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Note that the only "costs" that are necessary are fees paid to a recording studio (and the post processing (mixing, etc)), artist royaltees, and the distribution cost, which over vehicles like iTunes is practically nothing per song when amortized over the huge volume handled.

So the only costs are the things I enumerated is what you're saying?

quote:
Things like "record companies" are obsolete. Don't know if it would come out five cents per song, but guessing what the record companies cut might be (based on a book I read), it'd be a WHOLE LOT less than a dollar per song using the record-company-free model of distribution.

Your theory is that record companies are making a profit a $1 per song? Really going out on a limb there. Next thing you're going to tell me is Best Buy doesn't lose a ton on every Monster cable. Reread and note that I'm making fun of the poster's assertion that DRM accounts for 80% of the cost of music.

Also, what gives you the impression that record companies are interested in doing right by their customers? They stand to profit by impeding progress and technology every chance they get and hanging onto their business model, because it does them no good to live in a world where they are irrelevant.

Parent

RE: Why we do what we do

By Oregonian2 on 2/13/2007 9:40:27 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
Your theory is that record companies are making a profit a $1 per song? Really going out on a limb there. Next thing you're going to tell me is Best Buy doesn't lose a ton on every Monster cable. Reread and note that I'm making fun of the poster's assertion that DRM accounts for 80% of the cost of music.

Uh, no I didn't say that. Reread what I wrote. itunes SELLS songs for 99 cents, and I don't think at a loss. So the current total of ALL current-system costs per song, including the record company's, is less than a dollar. I assert that I think a big percentage of that 99-cents goes to the record company -- not payments to the artists or going toward the original production costs of that song's recording (or iTune's cut). So when record companies are "history", the selling price should be able to come down quite a bit. Costs due to DRM itself I'd think to be very very close to zero (other than for "opportunity lost" costs for sales that didn't happen because of the DRM -- that may be what the other fellow was talking about but I don't think its quite that substantial though, and in any case not my arguement).

quote:
Also, what gives you the impression that record companies are interested in doing right by their customers?

Where do you get that idea? Reread what I wrote. IMO, record companies are going obsolete. They are fighting for their lives. The only real current reason for they existing is to have CD's manufactured and distributed economically (which is a tough job to do). When distribution is purely iTunes style (DRM has nothing to do with it, I mean electronic distribution for a downloading fee) the record companies will not need to be involved (for new material). Distribution will be much more direct from artist to end-customer. They will fight to stay in business through their lawyers as hard as they can caring nothing whatsoever about anybody other than themselves and their own survival. They know they are doomed in the long term or will have to change the nature of their business dramatically (for which I don't fault them, this is "natural"). What I wrote is exactly the opposite to that which you attribute my writings to say.

P.S. - I exaggerate a little, I don't think they'll actually "die", but they will be forced change their character a great deal. They will stop being a distribution company and become a service company, providing services to the direct-distribution "system". They'll have lots to do, but won't be "in charge" like they are now, except for the legacy material holdings that they own -- at least until copyrights expire after a few centuries, if ever (part of the service is having laws changed as needed to keep copyrights asserted as long as it is profitable).

Parent

My Solution

By NaughtyGeek on 2/13/2007 12:56:08 PM , Rating: 2

While I agree DRM is a load of crap and doesn't deter anything other than a legitimate customer's usage rights, I don't think downloads should be completely devoid of all DRM. Before you bash the crap outta me, hear me out. When I say DRM, I refer to a simple "watermark" on the downloaded media tyeing the original purchaser to the music. If you in turn post your media on a p2p network, the music companies should have direct access to who the media was originally licensed to. Then, they can pursue the "evildoers" and those of us that just want interoperability between devices and media can have it. I agree the media suppliers have become bloated and a tick unfair in their management of their property, but we can't lose sight of the fact that this is how a great many people make their living. I have no doubt that a file could be "tagged" without impeding it's playability on all devices. Here, everyone who has legitimate claim to rights gets it. Plus, every provider could have their own proprietary tagging format which would likely make cracking it tougher and since legal rights holders have the rights they need, a lot less folks will try to circumvent the included protections if they are even aware they exist. Just my $.02.

RE: My Solution

By Oregonian2 on 2/13/2007 2:30:41 PM , Rating: 2

That's a reasonable idea that is similar to software's serialnumber/password sort of "DRM'ing. Not sure if it'd be very effective. Jobs' point being that most all songs are DRM free in that old nearly obsolete "legacy format" (CD's). So for record company arguments for DRM (your version or theirs) to hold water, I'd be much more impressed if the record companies would announce next week that they are all discontinuing the manufacture of all CD's and are ONLY selling online through agencies like iTunes. Then DRM would make sense, at least for the six months or so that it takes those companies to file chapter 7. But then, they likely would then try and sue people to make them return CDs and LP's purchased previously in order for them to be replaced by DRM digital copies. Their company Senators and Representatives may have to pass a law to enable the scheme at government expense, rather than at the expense of their lawyers so there could be a deadly delay involved (unless they've got things set up already).

Parent

RE: My Solution

By GaryJohnson on 2/13/2007 4:54:31 PM , Rating: 2

The problem with digitally copy protecting audio is that at some point it's going to be played on a device with an audio out, which can fed directly into another device with an audio in, and re-recoreded in whatever format you wish. At that level you're going to lose anything you've done to digitaly protect or mark the media source.

Parent

well

By sprockkets on 2/13/2007 10:33:52 AM , Rating: 3

As long as we do not have the same stores selling the same music with COMPETITION, we are ok.

Funny how the DRM imposed on CDRs and MiniDisc was unlimited digital copies, and no digital copies of the copies, with computers excluded. That imposed no hardship to anyone.

Funny how with one step, DRM is stripped from iTunes, legally.
Your point to having it in the first place?

The only format of a store I like is allofmp3, and it is not because of the price, but because of the choice of formats. Hell will freeze when they offer tunes in lossless format.

By Scabies on 2/13/2007 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
"The notion that music does not deserve the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit."

Steam...
EA's downloader...
my current DVD and CD collection...
all of my pictures and documents (my intellectual property)
ALL of these work universally. To say music deserves the same protection, I couldnt agree more. Too bad we blew past that years ago.

Evolution Will Right This Mess

By Houdani on 2/13/2007 1:04:25 PM , Rating: 2

The music market is volatile right now because of how the industry is treating their honest consumers. Eventually this DRM business will settle out and reach a fair compromise between the industry and the consumers. That's just simple business evolution.

As it stands, I don't think the current incarnations of DRM will stand up over time. If the industry doesn't budge from their current state of controllership, then I can only expect their customers (you and me) to move to other, less restrictive entertainment venues. No, that doesn't mean piracy. It means that instead of buying a bunch of CDs, maybe I'll give my money to someone else and go swimming instead.

powerful language

By Oregonian2 on 2/13/2007 2:31:48 PM , Rating: 2

"might be investigating the possibility of "

Love that powerful statement!

correction

By kristof007 on 2/13/2007 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 2

second to last paragraph:

albeit in small quantities

The RIAA supports piracy

By crystal clear on 2/14/2007 5:14:11 AM , Rating: 2

They want your money the fast forward way-Pay up or we take you to court.

"Act fast & get a discount before its late"

is their marketing campaign in disquise.

"Lets skip those lawyers-Save money & Time-Lets settle."

They support piracy as its become a big money earner-A good business model.

Quote-

"Leaked letter shows RIAA pressuring ISPs, planning discounts for early settlements "

The RIAA is asking for additional cooperation from ISPs in getting customers targeted by the RIAA's file-sharing sting to cooperate, according to a letter recently leaked to P2P attorney Ray Beckerman. In it, the RIAA lays out its vision for how it would like ISPs to cooperate with its efforts to identify and sue those accused of sharing music over P2P networks. This includes communicating a standing offer of a $1,000 settlement discount should the subscriber settle before a lawsuit is filed against him or her. The letter also discloses plans for a settlement web site that will launch later this year.

MediaSentry, the RIAA's investigative arm, typically identifies suspected copyright infringers by IP address. One of the record labels whose music was discovered in a shared folder then becomes the lead plaintiff in a John Doe lawsuit. Via the discovery process, the ISP is then forced to turn over the name and address of the account owner who was using the IP address at the time of the alleged infringement. At that point, the John Doe case is discontinued and the label sues the individual fingered by the ISP.

Bypassing the courts
The RIAA wants to do an end run around this process, getting ISPs to start the collection agency work by sending out letters to the owners of IP addresses allegedly used for infringement. If the recipient of a such a letter contacts the RIAA, the labels get their positive ID and the chance to extract a sizable settlement without having to resort to the legal system.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070213-8832...

For those interested in video and audio, . . .

By Quryous on 2/14/2007 9:35:57 PM , Rating: 2

Despite the many so-called advances in Vista, a topic of major concern for many users is not what it will enable you to do, but what it could prevent you from doing. Vista has been designed from the ground up to support Digital Rights Management (DRM) in ways never before possible under Windows. New output content protection mechanisms are designed to protect premium’ (usually meaning paid-for) content against physical interception and copying. Outputs that do not support DRM, or are deemed insecure, must be turned off before playback can proceed. This is called Protected Video Path — Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM). Device drivers must agree to switch off these outputs at the request of the operating system and have to undergo a certification process to verify their compliance. Protected Video Path — User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) ensures that premium content, such as HD video, is encrypted as it passes over the PCI Express bus to your graphics card. This prevents any electronic snooping on the data by hardware devices. Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) provides similar protection for audio content, again allowing for content producers to insist that insecure outputs be disabled before playback.

The practical application of these technologies is highly complex and well beyond what a typical consumer could be expected to understand. DRM adds a whole layer of potential incompatibilities, with few perceived end-user benefits. For this reason, many users are justifiably wary of installing Vista and buying new hardware, especially displays, that may prevent them accessing content in the future, It’s an area that’s seeing a lot of activity at the moment, and HD content providers are certainly being wary of implementing DRM fully for now. The impact of these technologies remains to be seen, but unless they work transparently without inconveniencing users, only the pirates will benefit.