Apple CEO Steve Jobs has posted a rare open letter, “Thoughts on Music,” on Apple’s website. Here it is verbatim:
Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007
With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.
To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.
The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.
Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.
To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.
The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.
With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.
The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.
Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. Its 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. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
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, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
This letter will prove to be a defining, transformative moment for the music industry. And, if the music labels balk, with The Beatles’ Apple Corps settlement behind them, Apple is free to eliminate the middlebronfman.
Note, too, that Jobs has deftly positioned Apple as the anti-DRM company, just as Microsoft has inflicted the heavily-DRM-laden Vista upon the Windows sufferers.
As we’ve often written, as recently as January 24, 2007, “We do wish the music labels would give up on DRM altogether which would just about solve everything.”
And, from our MacDailyNews Take on January 14, 2007, “We wish DRM didn’t exist. Apple doesn’t need it: the iPod, iTunes, and the forthcoming iPhone are each plenty strong enough to appeal to large swaths of consumers on their own merits. Plus, DRM is so easily removed, that it’s pointless. The mass pirates, about whom the music labels are supposedly worried, aren’t going to let a little DRM get in their way, so the only people that DRM is affecting are regular, law-abiding consumers who just want to listen to their music. Thankfully, Apple’s iTunes Store does allow music to be burned without DRM to music CD to be played in CD players and/or transferred to any device they desire. We are all for selling music without DRM. Hopefully, someday we’ll get there.”
Related articles:
Apple Inc. and The Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd. enter into new agreement – February 05, 2007
Norwegian Ombudsman: Apple’s FairPlay DRM is illegal in Norway – January 24, 2007
Major music labels ponder DRM-free future – January 23, 2007
Clash, Pink Floyd manager: ‘DRM is dead’ – November 06, 2006
Study reports the obvious: most music on iPods not from iTunes Store – September 17, 2006
My god, what’s happening!!
This is great!
Why did MDNews put the whole thing on here? Anyhow…
Steve nails it. But it is amazing what some of the people on Digg are saying about this.
God has spoken, and so it was. Go forth and prosper.
Bill, pay attention. That’s a wow.
Bravo! This is a stunning letter, and is entirely correct.
Let music be DRM-free.
Wow.. very nice. I am pleased he did this, as it needed to be said and to many fools out there have been wrongly pointing the finger at Apple.
Bravo Steve!
I don’t get it?, does this mean no more crappy protected AAC’s?
SMAAAAAAAACKK!!!!! He should do this sort of thing more often. Nuff said..
MDN word = FEAR
As in Music Companies FEAR losing control…
Wow! Steve really lays it out just as it should be. To those who dislike DRM… I agree with you…but Apple signed agreements with the music companies that forbid distributing music otherwise. I personally did NOT know that these agreements give them the right to completely withdraw ALL their music in a few weeks time. That would tend to make you maintain the DRM.
Way to go Steve…very, very well said.
I said in one of my earlier posts that what happens in Europe is positive despite what some people think. The pressure on label companies will mount to the point where the only option for them will be to drop the whole DRM thing altogether. I am glad that Apple is ready to seize the opportunity that arises.
And there it is. Apple and its FairPlay DRM isn’t the culprit behind incompatible stores and players. It is, and always has been, the record labels.
The socialists in Europe are typically acting without any understanding of the facts. Protect the consumer? Not their motive, never has been. They are protecting their jobs, which requires that they look like they are protecting the consumer.
sounds like a plan to me.
To imply that licensing a DRM technology to another company increases the risk of it being compromised is shear nonsense. Firstly, who is to say an Apple employee is any more trustworthy than a Microsoft employee – if both companies were relying on the same software for their music business, both would have as much to lose. But more importantly, knowledge of how an encryption system works does not make it vulnerable. Jobs is utterly wrong in suggesting that this is “secret software”. Take PGP for example – the software is open source – we can all download the source code and examine every line in minute detail. But it does not make PGP encryption any more vulnerable to being broken. Encryption security does not depend on knowledge of the algorithm – if it did, it would be an embarassingly poor system and not worthy of the Apple name, or any other self respecting software company.
Apple has absolutely nothing to lose, in terms of increased risks of broken security, by licensing this to other companies. Nothing.
It has everything to lose in terms of loss of monopoly.
Steve’s RDF strikes again.
Wow. Way to go, Steve. Very articulately and clearly stated. Assuming the statistics are accurate, put in this context, the big 4’s constant harping about DRM sounds petty, paranoid, and piggish.
Makes you wonder what true benefit they (the big 4) gain by forcing this crap on distributors and consumers. There’s probably a huge helping of simple fear of change involved. Maybe the RIAA has some Svengali-like control over the recording industry…
so first the Europeans go after Apple and I guess if the Zune and its system of DRM takes off, Microsoft will be second. Sounds like the real issue is the 4 big music companies. Norway, France, are you listening?
His Steveness explains it best for entire world. From the unwashed masses to heads of mega-corporations and governments. Listen to Steve, he knows what he’s talking about
I love how this is specifically addressed to the music companies, and cleverly gets the consumer so easily on Apple’s side against the stupid requests of the Big Four.
Bravo, Steve. As always, well done.
At last — the whole thing, laid out logically, and with clear alternatives.
Let’s hope the Euros, especially Norway at the moment, read this and act sensibly from this moment on.
@Reality Check–
You are simply willfully ignoring the multiple arguementst that Jobs laid out in regards to sharing FairPlay. And you obviously don’t understand the meaning of “monopoly.”
MPN word “Strength” as in “Give me strength to deal with idiots like Reality Check.”
Reality Check:
So, “Convincing [the big 4] to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.” is just blowing smoke?
All distributors of online music will benefit from DRM-free music. Why is the electronic distribution of tunes treated so differently from CDs? What, honestly, is the RIAA trying to protect?
Get real…
Hmmm, I notice he mentioned the Zune Marketplace, but not PlaysForSure(Not!) in his DRM list. Hmmmm….
I agree with the Steve
He’s using wheels for his mind and thinking different for the rest of us.
Go Steve! (And stay out of jail!)
Let’s hear from the Norwegian Ombudsman. What? He vanished? But he forgot his shoes and his keys and wallet are still in his office. Someone check the men’s room.
Gregg Thurman: You know accuse the Scandinavian consumer regulatory bodies of “acting without any understanding of the facts”, but the truth is that YOU know absolutely NOTHING about the Scandinavian consumer regulatory bodies.
Are you trying to make a statement of public policy? If so, do you have any idea what kind of regulatory track record these bodies have in other ares of consumer protection? Have you studied whether the underlying legislation successfully identified the problem, and whether the regulatory bodies are correctly addressing it?
Can you even spell the official names of the Scandinavian regulatory bodies, or list who the principal people are? I would bet the answer is no – you probably know absolutely nothing that would actually help a policy analysis.
And yet here you are, spouting ideology, rather than citing facts, and pretending you know the true motivations and goals of people whom you have never met and know nothing about.
That’s just plain stupid and hypocritical, and undermines any arguments.
You are welcome to your opinion and conclusions, even if they are based on nothing but ideological hot air.
But if you want to convince anyone else who doesn’t already agree with you, then start taking your own advice, and stop commenting as if you have first hand knowledge of something that you plainly don’t.
To clarify: of course I believe that music without DRM is a better system. That’s why I exclusively use my own CD’s and http://www.emusic.com for my iPod – and not iTunes. My points was more about the logical slight of hand by Steve regarding the licensing of Apple’s DRM to others. That was sheer bullshit. And unfortunately, the chances of pursuading the music companies to give up on DRM protected music is close to zero – a fact of which Steve is undoubtedly well aware. Therefore, we actually rely on someone – either Apple or Microsoft – licensing their DRM to the other company so that we, the consumers, are not locked into one hardware solution or the other. I’m more concerned with the limitations for me, as a consumer, than on licking Steve Job’s anus.
Reality Check,
It isn’t a question of one employee being more or less trust worthy than another. The problem is that the larger the number of people who have access to the DRM code, the more likely that one of them will be tempted to give or sell the secrets away!
Looks like Steve is putting the smackdown on the record companies.
You go, Steve, and when you get there, you go some more!
I love it. Apple is shifting the blame to the music companies where it belongs!
But I want Apple to demolish MS and the Zune before opening up (if the labels ever allow).
Next up, the studios. So afraid to sell movies for what they’re worth. No more than $9.99 for new releases in DVD quality, $4.99 for ipod quality and rentals for $2.99. DVDs should cost more — packaging, extras, shipping, brick and mortar shelf space, etc, etc.
Would anybody disagree with Steve’s views? I doubt it. It just makes sense.
“Its 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.”
Wow. Excellent point!
Naysayers cannot scoff at his logic.
First, this piece is just an opening salvo against the ignorant Europeans who want a socialist society.
Next @ Reality Check, ever heard of FairUse4WM.exe? Sharing the code for “PlayForSure” didn’t work because of what Steve just said. Want to ignore reality? Go right ahead dumbfsck.
mike: “Its 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.”
The problem is the same analysis could be done of music sitting on a Creative player, or a Zune player, or the Fischer-Price player for kids, etc.
And I would bet that the vast majority of music on those players would also not be from their respective music stores.
So this point from SJ is not actually all that convincing, in and of itself.
Wow. Great letter. I am less stupid than I was 5 minutes ago.
@ reality check… you need one… your tirades fairly clearly point out that while you aren’t a complete fool, you lack the ability to see the big picture
I reckon Steve is basically saying he’s not happy with DRM, and would embrace it in a heartbeat. He could be saying that theres no way the labels under their current management would ever allow this. the answer? simple:
Apple buys the labels, one by one, until it controls 70% of the music labels. They would keep them under the same names, most probably (to allow for diversity) but could change the DRM content to DRM free content. Genius. Steve, you genius.
Louis.
I wish there was an audio file so I could hear him speak these words in his smooth, chocolatey tone.
Reality Check puts his finger on the only possible weak point of the Steve message. Could the DRM be maintained on multiple systems allowing others manufacturers to use itune?
Even if this did happen, would people buy competing products? I think Steve makes the point that it is not the iTunes store and the DRB that is motivating people to buy iPods or to stick with them. 97% of the content comes from somewhere else. It is the product.
I believe him when he says he would love to dump the DRB and I suppose he is correct in his opinion that the labels should do so.
Very interesting indeed!
Cheering,
Get a clue! Nobody needs to know the names of the Scandanavian agencies, let alone their leadership, to know that they’re barking up the wrong tree.
Apple didn’t invent DRM and neither did Microsoft. They use them because they’re required to by the music owners, and it just isn’t practical to license them. No one has ever successfully licensed an easily copied secret. Plays for Sure is a good example of a failure.
If you really want to be able to buy your music from any online vendor, then you’ve got to go after the Music Labels. The computer companies (not only Apple) just don’t have the authority to change the rules.
DRM that is.
Meanwhile:
“DRM is the future.” – Steve Ballmer
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer
MadMac – FairUse4WM strips a poorly implemented Microsoft “Plays for Sure” scheme from Microsoft’s music files. This simply highlights another poorly implemented Microsoft security implementation. I’m not sure what your point is? It doesn’t affect Apple’s scheme and nor does it affect my argument that a decently implemented encryption scheme – like PGP – is not compromised by knowledge of the encryption algorithm. If PlaysForSure or Apple’s scheme are compromised by knowledge of the algorithm, they should invest in better software engineers. The problem is not difficult. I repeat, there is no reason that an open encryption standard couldn’t be shared amongst all players in the market. To say otherwise is to manipulate the truth and to deceive in order to maintain an unnecessary monopoly.
Life in Steve’s RDF is good. Maintain the field!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Fanfreakintastic! Let’s hope this is the start of a DRM-free world.
This is soooo the opposite of what Microsoft is advocating. No wonder why we like bashing Gates and co.
Reality Check is right in saying that the code itself can be released to third parties, or even open sourced, without breaking security.
The issue that SJ identified, though, is not whether the code is secret or not, but rather how many parties would have to update their code if Apple had to update its implementation in order to counter previous codes that where stolen or broken.
SJ is right in saying that this would be cumbersome and difficult. And SJ is right for calling for DRM-free music, rather than trying to stick with an inherently cumbersome and difficult process.
This would benefit consumers, and it would benefit Apple.
The benefit of DRM-free music is much less clear for music labels.
So the labels would probably respond that, in exchange for DRM-free music, they want to be free to to charge higher prices generally, as well as adopt differential pricing (e.g. for new releases vs older songs) — something that Apple adamantly opposes.
This clearly is a complex negotiation between music labels and technology providers. The big four and Apple will have to dance this dance, and we’ll see how it comes out.
In the meantime, the consumer regulatory bodies will continue, rightly, to pressure Apple, on behalf of consumers. If nothing else, this gives Apple another club to beat the music labels over the head with.
“To imply that licensing a DRM technology to another company increases the risk of it being compromised is shear nonsense.”
Yes, let’s stop them from pulling the WOOL over our eyes.
I have a friend who has signed up several times with Napster, downloaded over 100 gigs of music and then stripped the DMR out of the napster/MS DMR music.
I am all for non-DMR music. The record industry needs to change.
Anybody read what Courney Love wrote how the music industry screws artist?
Cheering – I don’t think the issue of 3rd parties updating their code as a big issue – particularly if the underlying code was freely available. It wouldn’t be much more difficult than an automated software update.
I’ve said from the beginning (4 years ago) that it would be cool if Apple would allow other storefronts to appear in the iTunes list. This would allow people to competitively shop for music while maintaining iTunes as the primary interface. I could see an iTunes Music store then below it an eMusic music store (which is already DRM-free btw). Sony store below that. Then all pruchases dump right into iTunes.
No reason why this couldnt be done.
Screw Courtney Love? You have got to be kidding me?
Balmer: “The furture is DRM.” OK, now you are kidding me!
@ Reality Check
“…That’s why I exclusively use my own CD’s and http://www.emusic.com for my iPod…”
“…licensing their DRM to the other company so that we, the consumers, are not locked into one hardware solution or the other”
Um… doesn’t sound like your “locked” in.
It doesn’t matter how difficult it is or isn’t Apple CAN NOT guarantee those other companies WILL update the DRM in a timely fashion, thus they make themselves vulnerable to losing massive chunks of their catalog due to another company’s ineptitude.
For those “anal-ysts” babbling about the “closed” system and DRM, read this and be educated!!
Spot the difference:
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a virus. A successful attack will likely involve enhancing the anti-virus software, the spyware software, and the OS software in the hard drives with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Windows PCs already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a virus.
This was a nice move by Steve, he is polite but firm in laying the blame for DRM at the hands of the record labels (records?) and I agree with what he is saying.
Next time Steve, put a P.S. on the end and tell us what’s happening with Leopard!
“The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.” The European are freaking phonies!!!
Chris: “Get a clue! Nobody needs to know the names of the Scandanavian agencies, let alone their leadership, to know that they’re barking up the wrong tree.”
Uh, my point was that the original writer didn’t have any facts whatsoever (not even basic ones, such as names or leadership) to back up his statements.
You need facts – and lots of data – to make a coherent policy analysis. (Try analyzing the Environmental Protection Agency’s record, or that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, without any reliable facts. You’ll get laughed out of town at a Congressional oversight hearing.)
Making conclusions in the absence of those facts results in ideological hot air, which is useless.
“If you really want to be able to buy your music from any online vendor, then you’ve got to go after the Music Labels. The computer companies (not only Apple) just don’t have the authority to change the rules.”
Again, this is contrary to reality. Apple does indeed have commercial negotiating clout – as SJ himself acknowledged in his open letter. That’s why Apple was able to negotiate, and obtain, better consumer rights than what the labels originally proposed.
You are right that Apple cannot unilaterally change the contracts, but it sure can enter into commerical negotiations with a great deal of clout behind it.
So it is very convenient for Apple to divert the blame toward the music labels. However, this is not a valid legal defense (in my view) against the Scandinavian allegations of being anti-consumer. The legal reasoning is that, in this case, Apple is the entity that tangibly imposes the DRM, and refuses to license it to third parties. Apple is therefore rightly the logical first target of inquiry by consumer protection bodies.
In summary, I see SJ’s letter as less a legal defense to anti-consumer allegations, and more of a commerical negotiation ploy, an effort to step up pressure on the music labels.
We’ll see who blinks first.
Norway immediately convened a special session to respond to Apple’s “ultimatum” and “unparalleled aggression” and the following edicts were announced nationwide 06 February 2007 20:21 GMT:
iPods are banned and individuals in possession of iPods are subject to arrest and forfeiture of all civil and human rights including, but not limited to, ownership of property, admission to university, tenure, old age pensions, and weekly coupons.
Norway’s civil security and military forces are permitted to hold all subjects without charge for 4 years.
“iPodding” and “iTuning” are declared treasonable acts subject to life imprisonment or death by hanging.
Shipments of iPods are to be confiscated and destroyed nationwide. The Norwegian Navy has been ordered to inspect all ships and boats within Norwegian territorial waters and “deep six” all iPods. Ships and boats not submitting to inspection will be fired upon until the captain relents or vessels are sunk. Roadblocks are set up at all border crossings with Sweden, Finland, and Russia to inspect all vehicles entering Norway that may be carrying contraband iPods. Train tracks will be removed that cross international borders. Tunnels that exist between Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia will be filled with steel-reinforced cement. All planes carrying iPods or passengers suspected of carrying iPods are to be forced to land at designated military airfields as directed by fighter pilots. Captains of planes that do not obey instruction will be declared “mercantile mercenaries of Steve Jobs” and planes declared “transports of Apple insurgents” and destroyed at will. Apple stores are to be razed.
The “Musikal Freedom Party”, “National Gramophone Action Party”, and “League of Historical Reconstructionism and Archaic Technologies” demand that all instrumental and vocal recordings be sold only as analog versions of LP plastic discs.
The letter “i” is stricken from the Norwegian alphabet and is replaced by “*”.
Compulsory military and naval service is required of all Norwegian citizens from ages 16 to 65 years.
So it is written so shall it be done.
Reality Check…I don’t get you.
“That’s why I exclusively use my own CD’s and http://www.emusic.com for my iPod – and not iTunes.”
“…we actually rely on someone – either Apple or Microsoft – licensing their DRM to the other company so that we, the consumers, are not locked into one hardware solution or the other. I’m more concerned with the limitations for me, as a consumer, than on licking Steve Job’s anus.”
One sentence you’re saying you simply don’t buy DRM protected music and that’s what you load on your iPod and then at the end you say DRM locks you into the device so that’s why Jobs would want DRM to continue (and for some bizarre reason for you to lick his ass).
You have the device of your choice, the iPod and you’ve obviously found a way to enjoy it without being “locked in” should you decide to use another device in the future. So how does DRM keep you using the iPod (because it’s the iPod that’s the real moneymaker, not the music store) and therefore keep Jobs rolling in money (and once again the ass lickings)? It doesn’t.
It seems like if there’s no DRM Jobs might actually get MORE money. From people, like yourself, who are so afraid of FairPlay DRM — even though you can make a CD of music bought on iTunes and rip it as MP3s (a good idea for backing up your files) and there’s no DRM and it can play on any device. So I don’t think he’s bullshitting or using the Distortion Field or whatever. I think he’s just making some good points.
Chris: “Get a clue! Nobody needs to know the names of the Scandanavian agencies, let alone their leadership, to know that they’re barking up the wrong tree.”
Uh, my point was that the original writer didn’t have any facts whatsoever (not even basic ones, such as names or leadership) to back up his statements.
You need facts – and lots of data – to make a coherent policy analysis. (Try analyzing the Environmental Protection Agency’s record, or that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, without any reliable facts. You’ll get laughed out of town at a Congressional oversight hearing.)
Making conclusions in the absence of those facts results in ideological hot air, which is useless.
“If you really want to be able to buy your music from any online vendor, then you’ve got to go after the Music Labels. The computer companies (not only Apple) just don’t have the authority to change the rules.”
You are right that Apple cannot unilaterally change the contracts. But that’s only part of the story.
Apple does indeed have commercial negotiating clout – as SJ himself acknowledged in his open letter. That’s why Apple was able to negotiate, and obtain, better consumer rights than what the labels originally proposed.
So it is very convenient for Apple to divert the blame toward the music labels. However, this is not a valid legal defense (in my view) against the Scandinavian allegations of being anti-consumer. The legal reasoning is that, in this case, Apple is the entity that tangibly imposes the DRM, and refuses to license it to third parties. Apple is therefore rightly the logical first target of inquiry by consumer protection bodies.
In summary, I see SJ’s letter as less a legal defense to anti-consumer allegations, and more of a commerical negotiation ploy, an effort to step up pressure on the music labels.
We’ll see who blinks first.
@Bob – no, I’m not locked in, because I continue to buy CD’s. But that’s not the point of ITMS and this discussion is it? The point is to determin how downloaded music can be made to offer the consumer the same freedom of use as music has traditionally always done (ie. with records, cassettes, CD’s, DVD’s, etc). DRM is not an inevitability, but Steve seems naiive in suggesting that it’s going to disappear, or that all that lies in the way of its disappearance is European apathy on taking on the music companies. The removal of DRM is clearly a laudable objective, but in the meantime, Mr Jobs is clearly capable of simply licensing his DRM to rival companies to remove the restrictions, in a practical sense, to law abiding consumers. Suggesting otherwise is simply more of his RDF double-speak. Look at the iPhone – he’s overcome far greater technical challenges than sharing an encryption algorithm with others.
Hey Reality Check,
You encrypt a file with PGP and you must give the password to the the person receiving that file or the file is just garbage.
You encrypt a song for one household full of computers using FairPlay and every music store on the planet must also be able to encrypt a song using FairPlay for that one household. Same for every other household full of computers.
It’s like giving that PGP password to everyone on your intranet or on your Address Book. What good is PGP encryption if everyone has access to the password?
Every DVD is encrypted and every DVD player can decrypt the files. Can you easily rip DVD’s? You betcha!
“Its 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.”
– I can’t imagine that he believes that it’s going to stay at 3% forever. As downloading becomes increasingly popular, eventually outnumbering CD purchases, would Jobs still be saying the same thing?
…
There is actually another option that I would like to see eventually take place, namely, other stores selling digital content that is playable on the iPod by using FairPlay. I would love to see online stores compete with the iTS by offering different quality files, prices, and additional options, which you could then import into iTunes and an iPod.
1) The Apple / Apple Corp agreement (according to Wired) allows Apple Inc. to sell music preloaded on iPods.
2) Steve wants to sell DRM free music.
3) Its hard to imagine the Big 4 dropping their requirments for DRM
If Apple is allowed to sell music preloaded on iPods, could they also produce their own music and become their own label? Then sell uncompressed downloads or cheap flash drives pre-filled ready to be transferred into iTunes. Forget all about the need for the physical CD and waste if an album doesn’t sell. If a band bombs, stores send the drives back to the factory to be refilled reboxed with the next new release. Without the production overhead and bureaucracy of the big four apple could give artists a larger share of each sale and still make more money with each sale.
re-re-invent the music industry?
How far fetched is this?
Reality Check: “Cheering – I don’t think the issue of 3rd parties updating their code as a big issue – particularly if the underlying code was freely available. It wouldn’t be much more difficult than an automated software update.”
Um, with respect, I think it’s a lot more difficult than that. This isn’t a closed system anymore, and it’s unclear whether any technical solution exists to force a random music player to update its firmware automatically.
But even if the technical issues could be resolved, the point is that the complexities – legal, commerical, and technical – scale up enormously in a non-linear fashion as the number of music labels, online music stores, and hardware/software DRM licensees proliferate.
Who wants all this hassle? Apple clearly doesn’t.
But why should the music labels give up DRM, if Apple is the one to accrue benefits from such a free pass? Clearly, the music labels will want something in return, and that would be up for negotiation.
Hence my comment: I interpret SJ’s open letter in the context of a commerical negotiation, and will wait to see which party blinks first.
To Huh? – LOL! Once again, well done!
“It’s a Norwegian Blue. Lovely plumage.”
@Peter J: See my comments to Bob above. I’d like to be able to use iTunes, but I refuse to spend my hard-earned cash on music that I might not be able to use in the future, if I decide to by a Zune2 or whatever. Buying from ITMS and then burning to CD and ripping as MP3 is simply not an option. As I’m sure you’re aware, converting from one lossless format to another always results in a degradation of sound quality. ITMS music quality is marginal enough as it is (for its price, and compared with CD) without a further loss in quality. I accept this from bootlegs, but not from music I paid for.
I was going to send this letter, but Steve Jobs copied it and now he takes credit for it. Really, anything Steve Jobs or Apple does, I thought of it first. Believe me, Apple couldn’t survive without me. I am the essence of technological brilliance and Microsoft is the epicenter of digital goodness.
Cpt Obvious,
“It doesn’t matter how difficult it is or isn’t Apple CAN NOT guarantee those other companies WILL update the DRM in a timely fashion, thus they make themselves vulnerable to losing massive chunks of their catalog due to another company’s ineptitude.”
– Likewise, Apple CANNOT guarantee that consumers WILL update their version of iTunes, thus they make themselves vulnerable to losing massive chunks of their catalog due to another person’s ineptitude. Hasn’t seemed to stop Apple from selling songs.
Wow…
First I see an ad with (a beleaguered) PC and a Security Guy pointing out a “sad realization”, now it’s Steve going directly to the people and pointing out the real problem with DRM is the music companies, not Apple.
The “Fist Bump” is most definitely out and the Face Slap is very, very in…
~M
DRM is like giving all the bad guys the guns without the good guys having any. Many folks think this DRM is Apple’s idea, and I’m glad Steve made it clear where Apple stands on this.
Does this mean now that Apple can be one of the buddies in PlaysforSure? ha
@Big Al: I can’t see your point. Are you suggesting that music encryption doesn’t work? It clearly does. My point is simply that a good encryption algorithm doesn’t depend on the secrecy of its algorithm for its effectiveness. I simply used PGP as an example of an open-source algorithm that people would be familiar with. You seem to have missed the point.
Reality Check
I take your point that disseminating a security program to third parties may not itself be a problem. I don’t know enough about these kinds of software to catagorically say it would be an issue.
But I do understand the concept of being able to update third party software and devices since that relies on the compliance of the licensing companies and whether their software will routinely be used to update devices. That can be very complicated and probably cost Apple more than they get in licensing fees.
One approach is for other companies to hook up to the Apple store front end. Again cost of implementation could be an issue.
Free DRM seems the way to go. Jobs point about 90% of songs sold are DRM free already. Of course with CD sales plummeting and onine sales increasing that will not be the case for long.
Anyone who thinks that DRM can be shared clearly doesn’t remember the early 80s, when software developers thought that they could use DRM. A cottage industry sprang up to break them. If all music is to be sold with the same DRM, then the incentive will be there to break it. As it is, all DRMs need to be regularly updated. The only long term solution is for the big labels to recognize what software developers learned over 20 years ago: DRM doesn’t work.
Incidentally, Steve Jobs neglected to explain why Apple hasn’t adopted another alternative, which is to implement Microsoft’s PlaysForSure scheme as well as there own? Why not also sell music in that format and allow the iPod to play it? Other 3rd party companies do. Breaking of the scheme is no longer Apple’s responsibilty, so no worries about that. Let Microsoft take the heat.
Oh, but wait. That means people could buy other players and get their music elsewhere. That’s not in the consumers interest, now, is it?
Folks, let’s all agree that Apple owns FairPlay and therefore could license its DRM to third parties in a heartbeat if it really wanted to. Certainly, the music labels would not object to that, and it would satisfy the Scandinavian consumer protection bodies.
So Reality Check is correct that SJ’s argument here is not as compelling.
So why is SJ making it? Because he wants to be rid of this DRM as much as all of us. And he’s pressuring the music label holdouts by getting the masses whipped up against them.
By all means, write the music labels of your favoritate music bands and artists. Let’s help SJ do the right thing – let music be DRM-free.
One point to remember: Microsoft developed their DRM implementation over several years. Apple bought FairPlay from someone else just a few months before launching the iTunes music store; they had no plan to develop DRM until the labels insisted on it.
Also, FairPlay doesn’t work the exact same way as MS PlaysforSure/Janus/Zune. The key to FairPlay is between the Music Store and iTunes itself, thus, no subscriptions or exploding music. Without getting into the details, the scheme to maintain FairPlay DRM is much different than that of MS, and arguably much more difficult to maintain if the “secrets” are spread across multiple vendors.
Reality Check: “Oh, but wait. That means people could buy other players and get their music elsewhere. That’s not in the consumers interest, now, is it?”
But it would be in the consumer’s interest to abolish DRM entirely. And that’s what SJ is pushing.
So yes, Apple could easily license FairPlay, or it could (as you pointed out) license PlaysForSure from Microsoft.
But Apple doesn’t want to do that, because abolishing DRM would not only help consumers but help Apple as well, by relieving them of the burden of developing and/or supporting DRM.
While I loved the letter and embrace the idea of loosing drm, Steves stats are flawed. The 3% figure is gauged with the assumption that every ipod ever sold is still being used and playing music. This is most certianly not the case. Many ipods break. I’m sure apple has statistics that reflect the actual number of ipods in use and because this is a much smaller number, the 3% figure is way off in favor of supporting his argument.
Eliminate the middlebronfman!
I forgot to add:
Abolishing DRM would very much be in Apple’s interest, because it levels the playing field, and Apple is confident its iPod and iTunes store are popular enough that it would compete – and handily beat – all the competitors out there.
After all, the iPod/iTunes ecosystem is one of the few (except possibly for Zune and Sony) to be based primarily on hardware profts, as opposed to profits from music sales like PlaysForSure.
Aside from the increase security risk which is hardly arguable, the point is that selling DRM digital music becomes massively more expensive if Apple has to license Fairplay to all and sundry and co-ordinate such arrangements. Interesting to hear about the need to fix any breaks in the security within weeks…
As for Norway and other hypocritical European countries, it might interest you to know that there is a 100% monopoly on selling alcohol in Norway.
What was that about consumers interests being upheld???
Well done Steve Jobs. I simply can’t imagine anyone else doing this. Gutsy or what.
And the 11th commandment is……Music Shall Be DRM Free!!!
everyone makes a big deal over DRM I don’t give a shit I rip CDs, I buy music from the iTunes music store, burn a CD and play in my car and I’m happy.
BTW I dont think steve jobs wrote this paper at all.
I agree: Eliminate the middlebronfman!
Like it or not, Reality Check (if that is your real name) makes a valid point. Apple is, and always has been, about owning the cart and the horse (and for that matter, as much of the path as possible).
Software and hardware, folks.
Steve knows that the big 4 will never go for an unprotected system, so he uses this point to shape his own. Apple has received a lot of flak for their “closed” system, and big music greed makes for a perfect scapegoat. If Apple can work out a deal with them to sell music online, they could certainly work out a deal with other companies in the selling game to create a universal DRM system. But does that sound like a way to sell more iPods?
Now before you get postal on me, I am a Mac user since the beginning, and I love my Apple products, of which I own many. But Apple is a business too. And I certainly don’t think that the music industry harbors many saints.
A week ago you all called us Norwegian socialist just because we HATE DRM and want to fight it.
So this week you will call Steve Jobs socialist?
Learn to pick your fight, you poor bastards. (yes, as a Norwegian I mean you are all poor)
You don’t convince me one whit.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”blank stare” style=”border:0;” />
This is all bs –
Apple does what it has to do to distribute music. It does not have monopoly powers and does not sell snake oil. The terms for DRM’d music are right there for anybody to see before they buy.
The RIAA does what it thinks it must to protect its intellectual property. As Steve pointed out, this is not working – but you can’t fault someone for trying to keep people from stealing what you own.
The only party at fault here is the Scnadinavian Ombudsman and his dreams of nanny-state control over Apple’s business practices. If the Ombudsman had ever created anything worth stealing, he might have a different view about it being passed around and used like some dock whore.
As for the poor consumer – I have no sympathy for someone who bitches about their DRM’d music AFTER they press the buy button. Hey – suck it up.
Apple doesn’t sell DRM music as a way to push ipods. In fact, I bet most users wouldn’t even know Fairplay DRM if it bit them in the ass. They’d find out AFTER they bought another mp3 player. Apple sells millions of ipods because they make the best hardware and user experience. Period. End of story.
Anyone out there think that Steve may be helping his old buddy Bill out of his Zune mess. If the DRM is abolished then anyone can buy music from iTunes, making more money for Apple (I know they don’t make that much from downloads blah blah blah, but) money is money
I love my country, and I love Steve Jobs.
Both hate DRM, and both want to fight it.
This is small victory for us and all consumers!
Norwegian
Macaday: “As for Norway and other hypocritical European countries, it might interest you to know that there is a 100% monopoly on selling alcohol in Norway.”
You seem to be implying that an alcohol monopoly set up by a government is inherently anti-consumer.
The problem is that assertion may or may not be true – it is a very debatable point, depending on your ideological point of view on the purpose and role of government.
For example, many states in the US have an “Alcoholic Beverage Control” (ABC) boards, which not only regulate alcoholic beverages but also in many states open and run stores that sell liquor in licensed quantities. Ditto for Canada. Similarly, British customs imposes stringent limits on how much liquor can be imported by travelers for “personal use” from France. So does the US customs authority.
These ABC and other liquor controls were set up decades ago, and legal challenges to their validity have long since faded. Given the long operational history here, there is ample data to analyze whether the ostensible public good for which they were set up – regulating alcohol consumption – is adequately being served or not. I.e. whether this government monopoly is anti-consumer or not. It would be a complex task to make such an assessment.
More broadly, setting up a government agency with a monopoly function is a time honored part of governments the world over, including the postal services, air traffic control systems, libraries, water infrastructure, law enforcement, etc. So the mere presence of a government monopoly is not automatically anti-consumer, or at least hasn’t been seen as such as the people who elected the governments that put these systems in place.
Anyway, what does alcohol regulation have to do with DRM and music and iTunes?
Hold on a minute.
No-one was pissed of with Norway for wanting to FIGHT DRM.
We are pissed off at the ridiculous case Norway’s authorities made to hit on iTunes.
Fighting DRM is all our fight, we’re with you on that one for heavens sakes!
Why wasn’t this letter a podcast instead?
@reality check: “To say otherwise is to manipulate the truth and to deceive in order to maintain an unnecessary monopoly.”
3% of the music on all iPods is how they maintain a monopoly? With an average of $22 per iPod? Explain to me how this works?
I’m sick to death of losers who refuse to acknowledge that a superior, competitively priced product is all you need to kick the shit out of a mediocre marketplace.
You wouldn’t know reality if it bit you on the ass. And GO STEVE!
Seems to me something else here is being over looked.The record companys would seem to be trying to slow the adoption of downloaded music over the purchase of CD’ they have a large distribution chain and manufacturing system world wide that depend on CD’s. After years of steady decilne in CD sales you cant expect a 90 year old industry to shift overnight. The jobs lost and the economic trauma would not be felt by the record company execs but by the thousands of companys and their employees that depend on the manufacture, encoding , packaging, shipping, distribution and sales. Not to mention the loss of a source that is not only a backup to your itunes library but a high quality source as well. I say bravo to Steve for clarifying the point.
Re: Reality Check makes a succinct point
Yes Apple is about owning it all, that way they provide the best user experience. We all can see how that works quite nicely. But you seem to be saying that iTMS is the reason most people buy iPods and therefore DRM keeps people only using iPods. I think you’re giving iTMS more credit than it deserves.
Didn’t Jobs say on average it’s 22 songs sold on iTMS for each of the 90 million iPods sold? Are you saying people will hold on to their X-hundred dollar iPod because they spent $22 on songs? People get their music on the iPod from many sources and iTMS with is DRM isn’t the main attraction. The attraction is a well designed device that works great with the software. You can still use the iTunes jukebox without buying songs from iTMS.
I just wish credit would be given for a well designed product as opposed to schemes that lock you in. With all the others players out there everyone has choice but people have made their choice. They dig iPods.
Nice letter, but will Steve:
* license all Apple SW without any need for activation codes?
* encourage Disney to distribute its movies on-line without DRM?
Steve makes compelling arguments, but it’s a scary world. I wish he had argued for the Europeans, and others, to work harder to go after those who pirate. In a world with the Russians pleading with Bill Gates to go easy on a SW Pirate, people just aren’t understanding this “virtual stuff” is not free and stealing it is, well, stealing it.
Probably take a generation or two to understand the issues and have them embedded into everyone’s everyday lives. Just as we have kids today who will not allow Mom or Dad move the car without everyone having a seat belt on, one day we will have a generation of kids who will not even consider stealing products in the virtual world.
-David.
Steve is a Genius!
Good to see a cogent argument. I learned stuff.
I agree with the majority of what Jobs wrote.
I cannot say that I understand DRM technical issues, ie whether the secrets issue is a good argument or not.
Two key points I would like to highlight:
1. only about 3% of songs on iPods are from iTS.
2. “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.”
As Jobs points out, the first point addresses those people that rant about being locked in. BTW, I know there are people that have hundreds or thousands oif iTS songs, but they are probably also in the 3% of iPod-users range. The player dictates the store used, not the other way around.
Another segment of critics this addresses is the, “If you are against DRM, you are against the artists!” crowd. Point 2 does not even take into account the 10-fold more music already exisiting in the households of consumers that can be freely digitized without DRM.
The only reason the major labels want DRM on downloads is that they envision the day when all of their sales are via downloaded. If they can keep DRM on music, then 100% of their music have DRM. Of course, there is still the issue of music already existing in the home in other formats, but all new media would then have DRM. Why is that a problem if you are not pirating? The obvious outcome is that the content providers can then sell you multiple copies of the same thing, either in different formats or for different devices. This is exactly their wetdream scenario for movies: DVD copy and download copy. If you cannot rip DVDs, the only way to get true portability is to buy a download. Since the iTS (or similar store) copy is lower res you need the DVD version if you are going to watch on your home theatre. Now if only they could figure out a way to charge you a fee everytime someone from outside your family watches those DVDs or files….
There is only one reason that major labels are chaffing under their agreement with Apple – they are not fscking you, the consumer, as hard as they would like. They do not give a shit about artists, their art, or you.
gorsh: “The only party at fault here is the Scnadinavian Ombudsman and his dreams of nanny-state control over Apple’s business practices. If the Ombudsman had ever created anything worth stealing, he might have a different view about it being passed around and used like some dock whore. “
For your information, the consumer protection bodies in Scandinavia have a legal obligation – imposed by their elected parliaments, which represents the sovereign will of the people – to act in a manner that would preserve and enhance consumer protections and freedoms.
And it is quite logical to argue that these bodies are correct to go after Apple. It is, after all, the party that is tangibly imposing the restrictions – DRM – that limit the freedoms of music consumers.
You may not agree with this argument, and you may sincerely believe that these agencies are acting contrary to their mandated mission. (Or you could simply be making ideological assertions about the role of government.
But unless you are a citizen or resident of one of these countries, whether YOU think such actions are for the public good or not is entirely irrelevant.
If you ARE a citizen or resident of these countries, then you have ample opportunity to provide feedback to both the agencies as well as the parliaments involved. If you are so motivated, and qualify as a citizen or resident, then do so.
In my opinion, your letter-writing efforts would be far more effective, and beneficial to music lovers the world over, to write to the music labels and pressure them to let music be DRM-free.
I may not have been clear. I use Apple products BECAUSE of their tight control on both hardware and software. This makes for an unparalleled (no pun here) user experience.
I am not saying that the ITMS is the reason people buy and use iPods. What I do think is that Mr. Jobs is using a closed DRM to perpetuate each. One hand washing the other. No problem. What I find a bit “convenient” is using the industry to justify the decisions.
Let’s face it… A guy with Mr. Jobs’ consumer savvy and bargaining skills could come up with a universal DRM that would open up the entire marketplace, and convince most other hardware developers to adopt it. Microsoft did it. Then let the best innovator/developer win (which would no doubt be Apple).
The Exalted Most Magnificent Lord Jobs has written it – so shall it be.
Downloaders for free: start your engines!
Ok. This is the answer to Finnish, Swedish, Danish and Norwegians (+French and Germans) ombudsman. Thank You Steve. I agree! That is the way!
Steve Jobs finally explain things about this whole DRM
crap! People always seem to blame Apple for DRM when Apple did’nt really want it either. The record labels are the ones that should be blamed for DRM solely. So for everyone in Europe I hope you have read and fully understand where Steve and Apple are coming from. He is legally under contract by the record labels to have this DRM included period. If the record labels change and say remove it then and only then can Apple change it. IT’S NOT APPLE’S FAULT!!
@Norwegian: “We are pissed off at the ridiculous case Norway’s authorities made to hit on iTunes.”
You may be pissed off, but that doesn’t make Norways’ action a “ridiculous case”.
Quite to the contrary, it is indisputable that DRM restrictions limit the consumer’s protections and freedoms. It is equally indisputable that in this case, the DRM is being solely and tangibly imposed by the iTunes software running on the consumer’s Mac or PC, and enforced by iTunes software on computers and firmware in iPods. Lastly, the iTunes music store has a dominant, if not monopolistic, share of legal online music sales and downloads.
In short, Apple is the biggest party that tangibly imposes DRM for music, which means it would be the logical first target of any regulatory action by authorities that take their consumer protection mandate seriously.
So what part of all this is so hard to understand?
SJ wrote a great and strategic letter. And MDN’s take is right on.
No doubt, it was timed to Apple’s getting ready to compete in the music industry with the new agreement with the Apple Corps. But the points made are valid.
SJ is telling the EU in so many words to STFU. The EU is a socialist gangster inflicted bureaucracy aimed at their hated American capitalist competitor. Their illogic and hypocrisy are pointed out in detail.
The SJ letter is also an attack on the music companies and their assault on both consumers and consumer electronics companies with their maddening DRM abomination It puts the onus of responsibility where it belongs.
STEVE= GENIUS
and i guess all of the mac users are genuis because APPLE is a god choice to make in these days.
LinuxGuy: “SJ is telling the EU in so many words to STFU. The EU is a socialist gangster inflicted bureaucracy aimed at their hated American capitalist competitor. Their illogic and hypocrisy are pointed out in detail.”
Let’s all give LinuxGuy a moment to catch his breath. After all, blowing all that ideological hot air must be tiring.
(Pause.)
There. Feeling better now?
SJ is not telling anyone to STFU. He is trying to pressure the music labels to adopt his favored solution (abolish DRM), while downplaying the favored solution of the music labels (license the DRM).
And if anyone seriously thinks that the Scandinavian authorities will be impressed by SJ’s open letter as a legal defense to the legal charges of anti-consumer practices, then you had better think again.
SJ’s letter is not a legal defense. Not even close to it. And it would be laughed out of any court or regulatory proceeding.
What is it that you do not get?
Norway and other European countries hate and fight DRM. Steve too.
And they choose to start the fight at Apple’s door.
If your milk taste like shit, do you complain to the guy who sold it to you, or do you blame the cow?
I really hope it turns out the way Steve Jobs wants. Then the consumer will rejoice, and Norway and other DRM-fighting countries have won.
john: “He is legally under contract by the record labels to have this DRM included period. If the record labels change and say remove it then and only then can Apple change it. IT’S NOT APPLE’S FAULT!!”
This is an exceedingly simplistic and naive view of what’s going on here.
The music labels could (and probably will) easily retort that FairPlay is entirely Apple’s creation, and it is Apple’s decision not to license it to anyone else. And it is entirely Apple’s choice to license, or not, anyone else’s DRM scheme, e.g. PlaysForSure or Sony’s.
So SJ is correct that Apple has a contractual obligation to impose DRM and to support it actively, or else lose access to the music.
But the contracts with the music labels say nothing about which specific DRM Apple must use, nor where Apple can get it from, nor to whom Apple can license its own DRM.
The music labels position clearly will be: We want DRM, and you (Apple) have to figure it out and make it work.
Apple’s position clearly is: We don’t want DRM, and you (music labels) should figure out how to compete in an online sales market.
Let’s see who wins this battle of the titans.
Funny, I was just musing to myself the other day how the record companies are quite happy to continue selling unprotected CDs while insisting on DRM for downloads.
There is some bad news in this open letter. Steve has just told hackers how they can attempt to shut down iTunes – by getting the major labels to pull their inventory.
I blame the cow that sold me the milk.
I want an unlocked phone
I want an unlocked phone
I want an unlocked phone
I want an unlocked phone
Did I say that
I want an unlocked phone
I do
You Euro-socialists are a dense bunch. What is it that you don’t get? Apple has no legal right to offer DRM free downloads of content that the owners of such content refuse to license w/o DRM. Aiming at Apple is like a swat team shooting at the victim, not the hostage taker.
Stop acting like a bunch of Bill Gates’ sock puppets. If Apple is taken down in Europe, all you are doing is damaging the least offensive channel for DRM and enhancing the worst bunch of DRM loving gangsters, Microsoft.
Are Microsoft’s representatives bribing (a corruption approach) or influencing (taking advantage of stupidity) your politicians? M$ tries that here in all of our legislatures and with our bureaucrats – federal, state and below. Why are you shilling for those vile bastards by going after Apple?
Stevie strikes again! I’m having difficulty counting the number of birds he has struck with one stone:
1) The Europeans bureaucrats and activists: “It’s your own companies that are doing this, stupid! You’ve let your rush to play to the anti-American gallery in Europe expose your own ignorance of some basic facts. We’ll skin you in court!”
2) Microsoft: “C’mon, Bill, your new Vista is a user-oppressive piece of work! Listen people, another reason not to buy this piece of junk!”
3) The record companies: “Guys, thanks for that initial boost, but guess what . . . the iPod will sell on its own now. It doesn’t need the iTunes store any longer. In fact, we need to make the store itself universal now. If the 30% or so of people who own non-iPod players were able to purchase music from iTunes, that’s exactly what they will do . . . boosting our profits in the process!”
This man is brilliant … innovator (Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone), performer (not a word, not a note out of place at his recent Macworld presentation), ultimate survivor and brilliant corporate tactician (this letter).
Steve Jobs for President!
What would happen to the subscription model of music distribution if DRM disappeared? Is Steve Ballmer in favor of DRM and Steve Jobs against it because of their differences over the superiority of subscription and direct sales models?
LinuxGuy: (More ideological blather)
LinuxGuy, feel free to keep on huffing and puffing, if it makes you feel any better.
But you’re just preaching to the choir that has the same ideological blinders that you seem to have on. So you’re not going to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
Quite simply, the world isn’t anywhere near as black and white as you’re making it out to be, and most importantly, people can reasonably disagree with your ideology, while still agreeing that music should be DRM-free.
Questions:
1. Who wants DRM?
a. Apple
b. EMI, Sony etc.
c. Consumers
d. Richard Nixon
2. Would Apple ditch DRM if they could?
a. Never ever
b. In a heartbeat
c. Consumers would never allow it
d. Richard Nixon
3. Who is at the forefront of DRM implementation in their OS?
a. Apple
b. Micros**t
c. Linux developers
d. Richard Nixon
If you answered ‘b’ each time you may ‘b’ correct.
Ergo, Steve is correct.
Reality Check:
Just to add a little light into th darkness here. It is correct to say that proper encryption algorithms will never be “broken” if their source code is made public.
HOWEVER – in order for licensing of Fairplay DRM to work on all iPods and other players from other manufacturers, as well as all other online stores, each one of those entities would need to also have a copy of the SECRET KEY used to power those same cryptographic algorithms. If the secret key were to be, “outed” it would be then child’s play to use those media files on ANY device whether the user had purchased those files or not.
Thus, it is entirely correct to state that if we spread around the FairPlay DRM system AND ITS ASSOCIATED PRIVATE (SECRET) KEYS, we will be increasing the odds for a compromise of the security system.
Cheering:
Has the Ombudsman declared the Zune illegal because songs sold for it can’t be played on iPods?
Has he declared the Nintendo Wii illegal because games sold for it won’t play on an Xbox 360?
Has he declared CD players illegal because you can’t play cassettes in them?
Has he declared refrigerators illegal because you can’t cook in them?
People are unhappy with the Ombudsman — and you don’t have to be from Norway to find his arguments illogical, or for one’s criticism of him to be relevant, you pompous ass — because his “declaration” that the iTunes store is illegal holds no more logical weight than any of those arguments.
I hope this gets rid, once and for all, of the ridiculous notion that Steve Jobs is somehow using Fair Play unfairly.
Mr. Job’s business strategies for the last 24 months have been nothing short of amazing, and this one leaves me almost literally breathless. He leads MS down a path, doubles back, collects the reward on the way, and leaves MS wandering in the woods, and every time this cycle takes place the reward gets bigger.
Its clear that to be a billionare against all odds requires, among other things, cunning honed to a fine point, and inexhaustable patience.
Sooner than later Apple is going to trounce MS – I think the Mac is poised to slingshot into the market place in a way most of us have not been able to imagine.
Anyway – GO STEVE!
The unstated point is that Steve is acknowleging that legal downloads make a limited dent against pirates/cd-buyers.
The solution to piracy is simple:
1) Reduce the price of legal downloads (taking advantage of its cheaper distribution costs);
2) Drop DRM – nobody wants hobbled software – except Gates & Co.;
3) Improve the quality of the online product – bit rate, artwork, lyrics….
The solution for the music industry:
1) Increase content (video, studio sessions, live shows – real fans want to own it all );
2) Innovate with new formats (separate tracks for voice and karaoke lyrics in audio and video);
3) Differentiate – different quality and pricing between online legal downloads and hard media.
The lesson here is that one can never stop innovating to deliver better product to consumers and respond to market factors, and it applies to Microsoft too, whose products are of the “fuck consumers, let’s make enterprise/IT happy, ” which is what fuels and facilitates malware.
Ahh, the clarity…that’s the Boss you know?
Unsquirted:
Cynicism and skepticism can give birth to satire and humor…sometimes. Besides, who else is going to laugh at us fallen humans other than ourselves?
Galloway:
“Has the Ombudsman declared the Zune illegal because songs sold for it can’t be played on iPods?”
Of course not, at least not yet. As MDN likes to point out, Zune has less than 2% of the handheld music player market. Apple has the dominant position, both in handheld music players and in online music sales. So what’s your point?
“Has he declared the Nintendo Wii illegal because games sold for it won’t play on an Xbox 360?”
Bzzt. False analogy. A better analogy would be if the same underlying game wouldn’t work solely because Nintendo added DRM to restrict it to Wii.
“Has he declared CD players illegal because you can’t play cassettes in them?”
Is this the best you can do? Because it’s a stupid argument – you’re confusing physical media and form factor differences with deliberate imposition of DRM.
In case you’re unaware, Philips (the Dutch company that originated the cassette tape) went to great lengths in the 1940s and 1950s to ensure that every cassette player in the world could play every cassette tape in the world. There was no DRM on cassette tapes, and ditto for music CDs when they came around in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
“Has he declared refrigerators illegal because you can’t cook in them?”
Ok, this is even more moronic. If Aunt Jemima came up with a Cream of Wheat product that could only be (a) stored in Aunt Jemima refrigerators, and (b) cooked on Aunt Jemima stoves, then you might have an argument. But if Aunt Jemima tried to do that, you would clearly rebel against this imposition on your consumer freedoms.
“People are unhappy with the Ombudsman — and you don’t have to be from Norway to find his arguments illogical, or for one’s criticism of him to be relevant …”
You can be as unhappy with the Noway Ombudsman as much as you like. But if you aren’t a citizen or resident of Norway, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans of difference what you think.
“… because his “declaration” that the iTunes store is illegal holds no more logical weight than any of those arguments.”
If you think the Ombudsman’s arguments are illogical, then what on earth would you call your own “arguments”? You’re making baseless analogies that fall apart if somebody else simply sneezes on them.
Try again, Galloway, because you’re making very poor arguments.
In case anyone is confused about where I stand:
– I fully believe that the Norway Ombudsman is entirely right that DRM limits consumer protections and freedoms.
– It goes without saying that the Norway Ombudsman is acting well within its authority and mandate granted to it under the laws of Norway, which were established by the elected parliament that represents the sovereign will of the people. It’s hard to argue against democracy in action.
– I entirely agree with Apple that the right solution to this problem is to abolish DRM entirely. This maximizes consumer protection and freedom, and establishes a level playing field for both the handheld music player and online music stores markets.
– I disagree with the music labels that Apple should license FairPlay widely, or that Apple, Microsoft, Sony, et al should agree on a common DRM standard.
Cheering –
“…these bodies are correct to go after Apple. It is, after all, the party that is tangibly imposing the restrictions – DRM – that limit the freedoms of music consumers”
“…your letter-writing efforts would be far more effective, and beneficial to music lovers the world over, to write to the music labels and pressure them to let music be DRM-free”
First, as Jobs explained, it is not Apple that has mandated DRM – the people who produce music have demanded DRM from distributors like Apple to try and protect their investments from rampant piracy.
Second, I feel no need whatsoever to take to the streets and fight for a DRM-free world. The amount of DRM’d songs in my music collection is frighteningly close to the percentages that Jobs mentioned, and I have never – not once – felt restricted by it. If consumers want DRM-free music – let them buy CD’s. CAVEAT EMPTOR.
If I feel any urgency at all about this entire mess, it is in not wanting to see committees in Norway or anywhere else stifle the innovations of one of the world’s great companies by trying to force it to hand over its intellectual property to every Tom, Dick, and Sven that decides to crank out an online music store.
gorsk,
So let me get this straight. On one hand, you think that the “amount of DRM’d songs in my music collection is frighteningly close to the percentages that Jobs mentioned, and I have never – not once – felt restricted by it.”
On the other hand, you believe that you don’t want “committees in Norway or anywhere else stifle the innovations of one of the world’s great companies by trying to force it to hand over its intellectual property to every Tom, Dick, and Sven that decides to crank out an online music store.”
Are you really that personally threatened by the Norway Ombudsman? That he’s going to take your iPod and online stores away? That Apple’s long history of innovation is somehow going to come to a crashing halt because of this ruling by the Ombudsman?
That is very, very, very unlikely. You don’t know Steve Jobs very well, if you think that.
Where’s the logic in railing against a theoretical possibility in the future, instead of working to correct a concrete limitation in the present?
Oops – the above comment should have been addressed to gorsh, not “gorsk”. My bad. Apologies…
Less is More;
I believe that the real problem is the music industry wants to operate a 20th century paradigm in a 21st century world. Technology has finally trumped their dominance in controlling how and when music is made and is distributed. They know it, they just don’t like it, and they will use all the means at their disposal to prolong the use of DRM.
Reality Check…
If all your music is burned from CDs what does it matter. you can move your DRM-free music to any player and trash your iPod. If you don’t like what SJ is offering, go buy whatever you want.
Cheering!
Hey, man – don’t think this has anything to do with Norway or the Ombudsman – I’m sure he’s a great guy and I’m sure Norway a helluva nice place.
What I’m trying to say is that DRM doesn’t restrict anyone’s “freedoms”. If you want to own music, you have choices. You can buy CD’s, records, tapes, digital music online, etc. You are not locked in to anything until you make the choice to buy. In making that choice, you are deciding what restrictions are right for you.
And yes, the intervention of governments can, indeed, stifle the innovations of companies. No one is afraid that the Ombudsman is going to take away his iPod – but if a committee’s pronouncements make the iTunes store unprofitable in Norway, it will simply close up shop there. Consumers in Norway lose.
You seem to think that the consumer has no responsibility here. It was consumers who raped (and still rape) artists and record companies alike from Napster (in the old days) to BitTorrent. It was the consumer who guiltlessly paid their $1.50 per album on allofmp3.com, knowing full well that only Russian gangsters profited from the sale. And now it’s the consumer who is crying foul that the shop owner has ruthlessly locked his doors after hours. This ‘consumer outcry’ sounds more like a child who’s been told he can’t have cookies before supper…
as someone who has used non-Itunes music (with DRM) when I was in the Windows world, let me tell you a little something about how various stores store their licenses which would make them completely incompatible with the iTunes paradigm. The licenses are separate files, that Windows Media looks for before it will play them. That’s right separate files – my computer crashed and I was able to recover some of my downloaded songs, but none of them would play because the license was kaput. With iTunes it doesn’t matter if the computer crashes – you just activate another. easy peasy, as long as you have the files they play. Oh and every single song was a different price, and had different restrictions, and none could be burned to CD and ripped without the protection.
SJ is right, he shouldn’t have to license his working DRM, to companies who created their stupid version in the first place. Besides, lets say I wanted to buy from one store, since everything is based on theaccount, wouldn’t all the stores who licensed fairplay have to have my account information, even when I didn’t select them. And even if that wasn’t an issue, if the DRM is broken it would take ages to fix everything. It’s not cut and dried as some people think.
“You seem to think that the consumer has no responsibility here. It was consumers who raped (and still rape) artists and record companies alike from Napster (in the old days) to BitTorrent. It was the consumer who guiltlessly paid their $1.50 per album on allofmp3.com, knowing full well that only Russian gangsters profited from the sale. And now it’s the consumer who is crying foul that the shop owner has ruthlessly locked his doors after hours. This ‘consumer outcry’ sounds more like a child who’s been told he can’t have cookies before supper…”
Well, said – personnaly, I hope DRM goes away, but theft is theft. My Bro-in-law once said it wasn’t wrong (allofmp3 etc) since he paid for it – well, isn’t that like saying I bought a stolen TV, but its not wrong, since I wasn’t the one to steal it.
“…lets say I wanted to buy from one store, since everything is based on theaccount, wouldn’t all the stores who licensed fairplay have to have my account information…”
Yikes, I hadn’t even considered that – now THAT would be something that the Ombudsman would be hearing from me about.
I apologize that my parody that was mistaken as a reason to heap scorn and criticism upon beautiful Norway and the wonderful Norwegian people. I merely wanted to use absurdity to satirize the anger and angst concerning DRM and restrictions to the distribution of music. If I were to visit any European nation, I would want to visit Norway in the summer from shore to summit.
This message coupled with the Apple Corp announcement, is the first “shot across the bow” to the Big 4.
Loosen up the pressure on DRM, or face the music when we start to sign YOUR artists to the new Apple Inc/Corp Label.
End of story… Apple wins. We all WIN.
Follow the money.
Microsoft is the money man behind all of this Apple DRM lock in bullshit.
Microsoft wants to lock in all of their customers with DRM therefore they believe Apple is playing the same game. They are enraged because they think that Apple has beaten them at their own game. They have paid bloggers posting on this very site trying to perpetuate this myth. They are using every trick in the book to pursue the fight offshore. They and their minions cannot believe that Apple does not want to be bothered with DRM.
They think this DRM denial must just be a marketing ploy. You can’t control your customers by dropping DRM. He can’t really mean what he says.
Cheering,
I agree with most of your conclusions. Here’s where I disagree:
1. The fact that the Zune has minimal market share shouldn’t matter; it’s a matter of consistent application of the law. Even if one person buys a Zune, that person faces the same lock-in situation that an iPod buyer faces. (I understand that it is possible that the Ombudsman may be limited in resources, and can only deal with one company at a time. However, just writing that down made it sound all the more ludicrous since he’s obviously dealing with other non-DRM issues at the same time. If he’d just say more often that both are equally wrong, a large number of people would back off criticizing him for what is perceived as “picking on one company.”)
2. The fact that MS licenses PlaysforSure to multiple stores and player mfrs doesn’t mean that a person who buys a PlaysforSure device isn’t equally locked-in. There’s no guarantee that PlaysforSure stores will continue to exist (many have already closed including MS’ own store) and no guarantee that vendors will keep making more choices in players (many have already exited the business).
3. I believe the Ombudsman had knowledge of many of things that Jobs wrote about – i.e., DRM is contractually required by the labels with an out clause having financial repercussions if Apple fails to correct a breach; DRM as implemented by Apple could be more easily breached if licensed – because variations of these thoughts have consistently been in Apple’s public comments and likely more detailed responses were given in its private comments. If this is so, then the Ombudsman should’ve explained why he still believed that Apple was the primary party at fault. Note that altho it looks as if Apple preferred lock-in, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence (prior to this letter) that pointed in the opposite direction. a. Jobs said a long time ago that downloaded music should be playable on any device (couldn’t find the exact quote right now). b. Apple bought Fairplay not long before the iTunes Store launch; there’s no evidence they were developing DRM, and it looks as if Apple went looking for a DRM solution once they realized the labels demanded it. c. Apple took the same positions when Real attempted to get around Fairplay.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Apple was told that they couldn’t sell online music without DRM — a software lock.
Apple came back with a software lock, and the Labels agreed to license their music.
Consider that the ‘software lock’ is IP, yes. Apple’s IP. Apple’s little ‘secret’.
Consider that Schlage and MasterLock, et al., have ‘secrets’. They just call them ‘patents’.
If the Labels don’t want Apple’s ‘lock’ then it would seem prudent for THEM to create their own IP, uh ‘lock’. Or remove the locks entirely — and then sell their songs cheaper.
At 25¢, people would by hundreds of songs — well above the average of 22 per ipod. It wouldn’t matter to the Labels that their CUSTOMERS would likely listen to these songs twice. That’s the beauty of impulse shopping and discretionary income.
Agree with mark’s thoughts. Note that MS holds key patents in DRM implementations. They’ve been working on DRM for a long long long time.
Improving Fairplay so that it can do iPod wifi sharing of DRMed music probably causes Apple to use one of MS’ patents. That’s one aspect of self-interest I see on Apple’s part.
The other self-interest I see is Apple’s posturing for its label negotiations. Universal is looking for a fee per iPod. Apple’s response is a precondition of drop DRM and then Apple will begin to entertain that thought.
Apple records and Virgin records will be first, I’m pretty sure of that.
I find it fascinating reading this thread how many of the forum members here appear to have elevated Apple to the status of a religion. All the same characteristics are present. Firstly, there is a “belief” that Apple is the only way, the right way. There is the temporary suspension of rational thought that accompanies all religions, together with a refusal to accept or consider any evidence or points of view that contradict the religion. Then there is the necessary creation of a prophet or messiah figure on which to focus your devotion – in this case, Steve Jobs. There is the tribal-like behaviour that accompanies all religions – you’re either one of the tribe or your not. With us or against us. And finally, there’s the violence that accompanies all religions – in the case of these forums, just verbal violence – but hostile, angry emotions nonetheless. If you don’t believe, we have the rights to force you to.
Fascinating. I wonder whether Steve Jobs will be the next “Joe Smith” in 50 years.
And all over a piece of computer hardware and a company that seeks to make a profit from your income.
I find it fascinating reading this thread how many of the forum members here appear to have elevated Microsoft to the status of a religion. All the same characteristics are present. Firstly, there is a “belief” that Microsoft is the only way, the ‘correct’ way. There is the temporary suspension of rational thought that accompanies all religions, together with a refusal to accept or consider any evidence or points of view that contradict the religion. Then there is the necessary creation of a prophet or messiah figure on which to focus your devotion – in the case of the Microsoft Freedom Fighters, Bill Gates. There is the tribal-like behaviour that accompanies all religions – you’re either one of the tribe or your not. With our 87% or against us. And finally, there’s the violence that accompanies all religions – in the case of these forums, just verbal violence – but hostile, angry emotions nonetheless. If you don’t believe, we have the right to force you to.
Fascinating. I wonder whether Bill Gates will be the next “Joe Smith” in 50 years.
And all over a piece of computer hardware and a company that seeks to make a profit from your income.
What did you say?
What did you say?
@ Mark: I think that the zune is NOT sold on Norway so the Ombudsman can NOT act against Microsoft, YET.
I’m not really sure if it would act against Microsoft if the the zune was sold there, but I tend to belive more on the EU to fight in favor of the consumer (remember the fine imposed on Microsoft?) even if some countries try to shoot the messenger (Apple) when trying to do this (France comes to mind) and end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Cheering:
Obviously my arguments were intended to degrade to the point of ridiculousness. (I’ll try not to comment on your failure to realize this.)
To echo gorsh, I have no beef with the Ombudsman personally, as I don’t know him personally. I mean no disrespect to the nation of Norway. But I clearly don’t agree (nor do many here) with the Ombudsman’s pronouncement — one that seems selective and misplaced. Whether my analogies are valid or not (and I am not the first to make any of them), the point is that the Ombudsman’s decision seems arbitrary. I would expect he does quite a bit of research before he comes to such decisions, and yet — even without Mr. Jobs’ letter — the barest amount of critical thinking should point to the source of DRM as the record labels, not Apple. Whether they benefited from DRM is at most a side effect, not the root of the matter.
There are strong links — if not outright cross-ownership — between the music labels and the movie studios. The movie studios are constantly fighting to increase DRM on both physical and electronic media. How can it not be virtually obvious that the record labels would have this same ideology?
You argue that the Ombudsman’s decision is helpful because it gives Apple a weapon to use against the music labels in their upcoming negotiations. If that was the Ombudsman’s intention, wouldn’t it just have been easier to make some sort of pronouncement to this effect directly against the music labels? Is this idea an inference of yours or has the Ombudsman said this to some effect in the Norwegian press? Because from the western side of the Atlantic it just looks like a singular attack at Apple because they are successful. Your argument that the Zune is okay — for now — because it only has 2% of the market is spurious. The Ombudsman declared that the iTunes store is illegal in Norway because it is a closed system; well, so is the Zune Marketplace, in exactly the same way. If the concept is the problem, Apple is not the only culprit, so every closed system must therefore be illegal. But that’s not what we heard. We heard the iTunes store is illegal, nothing else. Please correct me if I’m wrong; again, I don’t live in Norway. Mr. Jobs letter, however, supports this assumption.
Either way, of course, the real point is that Apple doesn’t want DRM, Apple didn’t begin the use of DRM as a means to restrict consumer choice (if you accept Mr. Jobs letter at face value, and I see no reason to not do so), and if we are all very lucky this letter will affect some change in the music label’s requirement of DRM on online music sales.
And if that happens, we’ll all be “cheering”.
Darned typos! That should have been “effect some change”, not “affect some change”. Sorry.
By the way:
“DRM is the future.”
-Steve Ballmer
“Steve Ballmer is an ass.”
-Galloway
I love Steve Jobs.
DRM = DOESNT REALLY MATTER
Once again, Steve hits the nail on the head about the illusion that protection schemes block piracy. Honest people will get their music honestly. Dishonest people will find workarounds. Why spend hours combing the virus-laden websites for a song when it’s under a buck from a legitimate source? DRM is like any other copy-protection scheme – nothing but a hassle for legitimate customers.
Wouldn’t it be great if this shot across the bow resulted in the repeal of the ‘no DVD ripping’ law? That’s what I’m hoping for: the day when I can put a DVD in my macine and have iTunes legally fip the video off of it.
Yeah I know handbrake works, but I’d prefer a one app solution.
Magic Word: ‘Seemed’ like a good idea.
all working and latest age of empires 3 cheats
That’s great