“Warner Music Group, the world’s fourth largest music company, said on Thursday it will keep anti-piracy copy protection for digital songs sold on services such as Apple Inc.’s iTunes Music Store,” Reuters reports.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday called for DRM-free music sales online in an open letter posted on Apple’s website.
Reuters reports, “Warner Music chief executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. said in a call with analysts that the argument to drop copy protection also known as digital rights management (DRM) is “without logic and merit. We will not abandon DRM.”
Full article here.
The situation is crystal clear: Apple is anti-DRM and at least one major music label, along with their partner in crime, Microsoft, favors DRM.
Warner’s Middlebronfman has in the past also expressed his desire for a cut of Apple’s iPod sales; a desire that defines the phrase “without logic and merit,” not only because such a deal is unprecedented in the history of music playing devices (besides Microsoft’s desperate deal with music labels and the failing Zune), but because Warner would presumably get a cut of all iPod sales regardless of whether any Warner music is actually on each device.
Note also that the vast bulk of Warner’s music profits comes from selling DRM-free CDs. Talk about illogical! 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.
It is time to eliminate the Middlebronfman and allow the artists to go directly to their fans via iTunes; no more outdated ideas like making an album a year (you write a song, record it and release it via iTunes whenever the creative urge hits) and no more DRM. With The Beatles’ Apple Corps settlement behind them, Apple is free to do just that.
[Note: MacDailyNews coined the term “Middlebronfman,” a combination of “middleman” and “Bronfman,” in an article on Monday, October 03, 2005 with the sentence, “Eliminate the middlebronfman.” Full article here.]
Related articles:
Dvorak: Apple CEO Steve Jobs is dead right about DRM – February 07, 2007
Apple’s Jobs jolts music industry; Zune exec calls Jobs’ call for DRM-free music ‘irresponsible’ – February 07, 2007
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ posts rare open letter: ‘Thoughts on Music’ – calls for DRM-free music – February 06, 2007
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
Warner’s Middlebronfman: ‘We sell our songs through iPods, but we don’t have share of iPod revenue’ – October 05, 2005
Warner music exec discusses decapitation strategy for Apple iTunes Music Store – September 28, 2005
Warner CEO Bronfman: Apple iTunes Music Store’s 99-cent-per-song model unfair – September 23, 2005
apple irecords 2007
first signing : the beatles
All those people (record label execs) are concerned about is keeping their fat paychecks and excessive lifestyles.
Is it stubbornness? Are these music exec’s just plain stupid?
I feel like the DRM thing is like trying to convince an old man to change his ways.
I suggest everyone go to eMusic. They’re DRM free and have some great undiscovered musical talents. Just my thought.
I wish I could see the full text of Bronfman’s response. How does he dispute the logic of no more DRM? Can he show that it’s working? I just can’t understand it. If there’s no DRM on CDs then what’s the point of DRM for online files? Where’s his logic?
I’ve said it before, this mess is all the labels fault. They have to lower the price of music. That gravy train has left. CDs cost way too much and truth is so do online files.
They would make up in more sales what they would get in profit margin by lowering the price. What’s better? Zero sales for a $17.99 CD, 1 sale for a $9.99 download or 10 sales for a $4.99 CD/MP3?
Do you think we should all write Edgar Bronfman Jr. and call him a brainless dork that has got to get with the 21st century?
Allow or cancel?
Greed is good.
Jobs did in fact invite people to envision a DRM-free world… but he was not trying to threaten anybody or act like a bully or put a gun to people’s heads. Jobs said that if it would ever happen, Apple would embrace it. They’re taking his manifesto out of context.
Don’t make Jobs the villain record labels… or call him irresponsible… he just wants the customer to also win. But then again… that would sound like villainy to Warner.
Apple needs to get some DRM-free Independent music on the iTunes store for Jobs’ claim to have more validity. He should have launched a DRM-free section on iTunes in conjunction with his open letter. While he’s at it, let’s get a Lossless option. Even without the DRM, I’m not buying anymore iTunes content (music or video) until the quality improves (lossless and HD video).
Famous last words. Yup, it’s time for a new Apple Records.
@flappo
Awesome concept….any Joe on the street can currently post a podcast with artwork on iTunes…why not DRM free Music from both established artist as well as 3 guys in a garage….artist get direct and higher % payment from Apple iTunes sale.
Dear Recording Industry,
This is why people hate you.
Thank you,
Christina Wiley
What Warner provided is Apple’s answer to the European call for removal of DRM from songs purchased from iTunes. Actually this is part of the answer as Europe is calling for Apple to license Fairplay to it’s competitors. Steve Job’s letter and Warner’s response together explain why Apple must use DRM and why it chooses not to license Fairplay. Seems to me if the European countries who are calling for Apple to license Fairplay do not accept this answer, then Apple must stop selling songs in those countries in order to avoid breaking the law in those countries.
Gotta love the big 4 $&%&BS; music companies. <sigh>
Peace.
It is getting to a point we do not need a CD, so we don’t need companies like Warner Music Group. The artists should start thinking about the future and go directly to their fans via iTunes, and or others to distribute music.
I need a CD like I need an eight track tape.
More from Bronfman/Warner conference call:
Bronfman rejected Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs’s public plea to drop digital-rights management coding on versions of songs sold online.
“We advocate the continued use of DRM in the protection of our and our artists’ intellectual property,” Bronfman said on a conference call with analysts. “The notion that music does not deserve the same protections as software, television, films, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product available in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNqshMobYvAg&refer=news
(Replays of the conference call are on http://www.wmg.com .)
Net income dropped 74 percent to $18 million, or 12 cents a share, from $69 million, or 46 cents, a year earlier, New York- based Warner Music said today in a statement. That missed the 26 cent average estimate compiled by Bloomberg. Sales declined 11 percent to $928 million.
Maybe Bronfman is looking for a way to deflect attention
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Jobs placed the onus for DRM on the music industry where it belongs and that’s good enough for me. Hopefully, Norwegian ombudsmen et al can read English or, at least, find a useable translation of “the letter” in their native language.
“I’ve said it before, this mess is all the labels fault. They have to lower the price of music. That gravy train has left. CDs cost way too much and truth is so do online files. “
Actually, I don’t think the industry’s problems have anything to do with DRM or even the cost of music.
The real problem is that they put out complete crap.
If there was actually good music, people would buy it.
who owns emusic?
Apple should buy them and then offer a hefty amount of independent DRM free stuff.
Then they shall do what they never did before, break down the sales figures of their Itune sale just to prove to the big four that DRM is burden on music sales.
Question: What would DRM-free music do to the music download industry?
Answer: INSTANTLY KILL the “all you can eat” subscription plans on day one. People would sign up. Download 10,000 songs. Cancel after one month.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a subscription service. I download LOTS from iTunes, and I’d save money.
For this reason, among others, I don’t think that DRM is “all bad” for consumers.
This is it, folks. This is what I’ve been waiting for since the iPod was released, the REAL Apple records, the one that eliminates the big 4 all together, and lets artists market their music directly to consumers.
The big labels are dead. So utterly redundant and unnecessary, they have their giant back-catalogs to protect, but no value to attract the new or emerging artist. They are the lumbering corporate behemoths, the faceless powers, that so many artists profess to loathe. But until today (or maybe a couple of Tuesdays from today) they were the only game in town. And to play that game, artists had to give up control of their work and much of the profit derived from it. It’s exploitive, it’s anti-creative, and it’s just plain sleazy, and it gives us nothing in return for its existence but endless reincarnations of The New Kids on the Block and Madonna.
They sell shit. And shit-sellers never last, because after a while people get tired of their shit.
So yeah, this is going to change the whole game. The recording industry should be collecting moving boxes in their spare time, because it’s not going to be long before they close up shop. Goodbye payola, goodbye sleazy A&R douchebags, goodbye crappy royalty deals. The vast army of people in the music business who don’t make music for a living are about to get shaken to the ground.
-c
Another reason that Bronfman may be pissed
A judge has noticed that the purpose of Copyright Law isn’t just to protect the music industry. The purpose of the law is to enrich the public by access to creative works. That judicial insight led this judge to think about the defendant’s situation, what she had been through, what she was facing, and what Copyright Law would end up like if he didn’t make it a little bit less one-sided in his courtroom.
This is a significant development; the landmark case could have dramatic repercussions for the RIAA’s legal campaign against file sharers, since a precedent now exists for the RIAA to compensate wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070208021454284
A judge has noticed that the purpose of Copyright Law isn’t just to protect the music industry. The purpose of the law is to enrich the public by access to creative works. That judicial insight led this judge to think about the defendant’s situation, what she had been through, what she was facing, and what Copyright Law would end up like if he didn’t make it a little bit less one-sided in his courtroom.
This is a significant development; the landmark case could have dramatic repercussions for the RIAA’s legal campaign against file sharers, since a precedent now exists for the RIAA to compensate wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070208021454284
THis is an edited copy of my post from a dead thread. My apologies to any who read it there:
The CD is far from dead and many are sold via stand-up displays at Wal-Mart, Target etc. Getting on Leno and MTV doesn’t happen by accident, nor does inclusion on movie soundtracks. Print advertising doesn’t come cheap and the labels support tours. This stuff is still important for keeping the talent happy and breaking new acts on a large scale. The labels pay millions, sometimes tens of millions, of dollars in advance to fund future recording, many of which will bomb and have to be covered by the hits.
This stuff is paid for by $13 – $17 list prices — Apple can charge $10 since all the other stuff is on the labels’ tab. Plus, comparing $10 to $17 isn’t apples-to-apples. Of the $17, approximately 35% stays with the retailer ($5.75). The list price of a disc at Wal-Mart has to be at least $15.37 for Apple to net $10.
People complain that the labels are greedy, and they are, but what most don’t realize is that after marketing, copyright and union royalties, mfg and distribution they make less per unit than iTMS. (you don’t have to believe me but I am an ex-insider and know what I’m talking about)
So the record industry has to adapt to these changing times but simply saying that CD prices are too high is ignoring the business model that still sells a very large lion’s share music.
I don’t agree with him but I understand Bronfman’s frustration. Jobs could sell his product without copy protection but he doesn’t, at least for most items.
And please, don’t complain about how all the music people care about is their fat paychecks. It’s really only the top execs who get them and I suspect the top people at Apple and elsewhere do too. Perhaps they should all take huge cuts so my next iMac will be cheaper.
Oops!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
OMG Jobs is Brilliant!!
Apple has been telling commissions across Europe, “It’s not us, it’s the record labels.”
Now Jobs has the labels lining up to confirm it to the press! Genius, pure genius!
MDN Magic Word: Past. “They are so living in the past.”
Eventually this will come to a head. The record companies are the ones that hold all of the cards. They are the ones with the rights, plain and simple. Apple can go into the record business if it likes, and my guess is that they will now that they have the rights to the Apple name from the Beatles. They need some leverage against these guys and an Apple iRecord company would go a long way towards wresting some big names away from the record companies.
Let’s face it. What we are seeing is the death throws of one music industry and the birth of a new way of recording and listening to music. The current music industry, of course, will fight to the death to protect their gravy train. They will use whatever means they can. But it will be to no avail. If I was Apple right now, I would play nice with them for a little while longer. Hell, open up Fairplay but tell them to go scratch on their iPod tax. Then open up a new Apple records. Start signing some big names to sweetheart deals. Hurt them that way. When all of the other artists begin to sign on then you stick the knife in. You know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
this is just asinine. We need to start POUNDING this FACT home – that all the CDs they sell are without DRM (or the DRM is passable without much effort). So if they can sell all those CDs without DRM, what is the point of selling that remaining percentage without DRM?
i don’t think i pounded that message home well enough.