“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It is time to eliminate the Middlebronfman and allow the artists to go directly to their fans via iTunes; no more outdated ideas like making an album a year (you write a song, record it and release it via iTunes whenever the creative urge hits) and no more DRM.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
Toonie, The iTunes contracts expire in May. Jobs is leveraging a better position on DRM so they can license it as he knows the MAFIAA will never go DRM free.
At the same time I expect an iTunes “Music label” to be announced soon. iTunes direct? artists selling their works directly through iTunes without the MAFIAA taking a cut. With new media the MAFIAA ways are dying, artists do not need them to get noticed by the consumer.
The only big music tours that work are funding by corporate sponsers nowadays anyway, just look at Vans Warped Tour and Ozzfest for validation.
Artists can produce their music and videos on macs, sell their songs on itunes and distribute videos via you tube. Add in the myspace marketing factor and show me where you need a record label.
Seems like a win win to me for everyone except the robber barons..I say good riddance to them..
Since DRM is so easily circumvented, and most music is sold without it, why are the labels so attached to it? The answer has to be that it makes it much easier to get a conviction in court against an illegal downloader. DRM and the DMCA work together to protect online music and video. If you bypass the DRM, you have broken the law (the DMCA) that the labels paid so much to buy.
What’s wrong with DRM?
All you bozos who get excited about DRM are smart enough to circumvent it, right?
So STFU and get a life!
Thank you, Edgar for speaking up. Soon everyone except Apple-haters will know for sure that it’s only the labels who want DRM, and that MS will be the willing lackey to do their bidding.
Then Cory Doctorow can stop his anti-Apple tirades and start pointing in the correct direction. (But of course, he won’t…)
LEgacy Product? CDs are a legacy product? WTF? They are most of the market. Who is this idiot? No wonder sales are down if that is how he thinks.
Anti-piracy and fair use are just smokescreens. The real issue is who controls emerging media distribution channels. The dinosaur music industry relies on control, in order to continue influencing music tastes as the gatekeeper for what gets heard, while extracting a financial cut from as much media consumption as possible. They don’t like it when consumers are able to bypass them when buying music.
Unfortunately, the misguided Home Recording Act of 1992 set the precedent for taxing digital media devices regardless of usage. This so called “DAT Tax” approved by a voice vote of Congress imposed a 2% transfer royalty on Digital Audio Tape recorders and a 3% tax on blank media. As a composer, I was required to pay this tax every time I bought a blank DAT tape on which to record my own original music. Through legislative action, the music industry succeeded in muting entire media recording technologies that they otherwise could not control – DAT and minidisc come to mind.
Now Microsoft’s misguided decision to offer hardware royalties for Zune extends this precedent into the realm of media players and not just recorders.
After decades of such nonsense, things are about to change. Microsoft is on record as pro-DRM, and Apple has clarified its anti-DRM stance. Microsoft believes they have clout as allies of the content suppliers, and Apple clearly has the advantage with content consumers. This is going to get interesting.
Middle Bronfman,ah yes the ex-Canadian jewish family who made their fortune smuggling poor quality whisky into the States during prohibition, the same family that owned the company that allowed Gerald Ball to invent the big gun for Sadam to fire on Israel, the same family who for years didn’t pay their fair share of taxes in Canada, paid off some politicos and moved all of their trusts (without penality) out of the country, and then bought a record company so bozo could live the dream in California. Oh Yeah!
God forbid anybody should play DRM free music.
@ Not Evil…
“They know CDs are going away over the next decade so in a rare show of thinking ahead they want protection in the next business model where they have none now.”
…and having none now, why don’t we look at how much money they make? Is it not enough? Is it unfair? Are there starving record execs?
No, but there are starving bass players.
So we’re to believe that these poor, starving record execs are just this side of Chapter 11, and they need protection for their next media format. Ah. Like they tried with EVERY PREVIOUS media format, maybe?
They didn’t have the technology to stop us from dubbing tapes.
BUT THEY TRIED.
We won, and yet still they made money.
Now again, all is lost unless media can be ‘protected’.
How is it different now?
Why should I suddenly think this is a good idea?
-c
I’m not talking about record execs, I’m talking about the record industry. 1% of the employees of record companies are fat and happy but the industry is on life support.
Yes, there are starving bass players and those that are in the musician’s union have their health insurance paid for by union royalties. People who download (steal) music are doing so at the expense of these bass players.
The record labels do NOT MAKE ANY MONEY on US operations and they haven’t for more than a decade. It’s their own damn fault but they don’t. (BTW – I’m talking real dollars, not any accounting tricks) They only stay in business because the international operations are still profitable. (BTW – international is profitable because CDs are MORE expensive overseas) If they were rolling in dough you can bet there would be more companies trying to get in the game but there aren’t. You’ll note the record companies are part of conglomerates with profitable divisions that prop them up. I’ll say it again:
The Record Companies Lose Money!
The real reason that DRM is an issue at all is that cheap bastard have made it appear necessary. People make statements like I’ll never pay for music again and this makes them robbers who aren’t good enough at it to be barons.
Music has value and most people recognize that. But some of those same people think that they shouldn’t have to pay for it. They rationalize it by claiming the record companies are evil and don’t deserve their money but that’s crap. The law doesn’t only apply to businesses you respect. The freely downloaded track was paid for at some point and people seem to think its OK to freeload.
If you think the labels sell shit than don’t buy it. If you think they sell something worth listening to, buy it. If you steal it be honest with yourself and know that you’ve done something wrong.
BTW – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with file-sharing as long as there is actually sharing. If no one took more tracks than they uploaded there wouldn’t be a problem. THe record companies would still whine but it wouldn’t be any worse than borrowing an album from a friend, making a copy and returning it. The issue is with people who download tons of stuff but never buy any. They have spoiled it for the rest of us.
Bronfman’s brain is full of Seagrams. Too numb to know he is on the Titantic Warner. Its goin down. Stay onboard the ship please.
Number one, first and foremost: Copying is not stealing. It never has been, it never will be. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you can’t make it true.
If you have a car, and I steal that car, you don’t have a car.
If you have a recording, and I steal that recording, you don’t have a recording.
If you have a recording, and I copy that recording, you still have a recording.
NOT STEALING.
And as far as record companies not making money – I believe you are either an idiot or a liar. Sure, they may use nifty accounting tricks to make it look like they make no money, but I’ve seen how accountants can operate… that’s not hard to do.
So, THE RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES MONEY. LOTS OF IT.
And while CDs may cost more in parts of the world, they cost much less in others. Try to sell a $17 CD in China and see how far you get.
And considering how the record companies are behaving, fuck them. I haven’t given them a dime since the Napster lawsuit, and I’m not about to start now.
Number one, first and foremost: Copying is not stealing. It never has been, it never will be. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you can’t make it true.
If you have a car, and I steal that car, you don’t have a car.
If you have a recording, and I steal that recording, you don’t have a recording.
If you have a recording, and I copy that recording, you still have a recording.
NOT STEALING.
And as far as record companies not making money – I believe you are either an idiot or a liar. Sure, they may use nifty accounting tricks to make it look like they make no money, but I’ve seen how accountants can operate… that’s not hard to do.
So, THE RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES MONEY. LOTS OF IT.
And while CDs may cost more in parts of the world, they cost much less in others. Try to sell a $17 CD in China and see how far you get.
And considering how the record companies are behaving, fuck them. I haven’t given them a dime since the Napster lawsuit, and I’m not about to start now.
Number one, first and foremost: Copying is not stealing. It never has been, it never will be. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you can’t make it true.
If you have a car, and I steal that car, you don’t have a car.
If you have a recording, and I steal that recording, you don’t have a recording.
If you have a recording, and I copy that recording, you still have a recording.
NOT STEALING.
And as far as record companies not making money – I believe you are either an idiot or a liar. Sure, they may use nifty accounting tricks to make it look like they make no money, but I’ve seen how accountants can operate… that’s not hard to do.
So, THE RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES MONEY. LOTS OF IT.
And while CDs may cost more in parts of the world, they cost much less in others. Try to sell a $17 CD in China and see how far you get.
And considering how the record companies are behaving, fuck them. I haven’t given them a dime since the Napster lawsuit, and I’m not about to start now.
On what basis do you think the record industry makes money?
What if I go to the local coffee house where local musicians play on weekends and buy a self-produced CD at the register. I tell the guy that I’m going to bring it back tomorrow after I burn copies for the 14 friends who split the cost with me. I just want to confirm I can get a full refund.
I’ve done nothing but make copies – nobody is out anything. I’ll even put new shrink-wrap on it.
So it’s not stealing, it’s just copying. And perfectly legal. Is it right? Would you object if you were the musician?
Imagine how you would feel if you were the founder of Napster, having been vilified, sued, prosecuted out of business, only to have the big labels grab the DRM free download market again, this time calling it legal.
[I don’t know if anyone is still reading this thread but…]
@ Brau – The Napster thing went down badly for everyone and this would make it worse but there’s still a difference – with Napster, the artist, writer and starving bass player get nothing. My concern is with them, not the labels. In lots of cases the labels have taken (are taking) unfair advantage of the creators but that’s not the issue. That will still be true w/ or w/out downloads. When we buy music the creators get something but when we download it they don’t.
I understand vilifying the labels and wishing them ill. I can’t understand treating the songwriter in the same fashion. At least a guitar player can play at a bar to earn some money, free drinks and the chance to meet girls (or guys). The songwriter generally has one source of income and that is from copyright royalties earned on the sale of albums. Unlike the band, they didn’t get an advance on future royalties and need their x pennies a unit to pay the rent. (big deal writers may get an advance from their publishing company)
I don’t mean to sound holier-than-thou but when many (most) people say they want to screw the labels they are using it as a justification for getting something for free. If they said they wanted to screw the labels, the artists, the writers, the studio musicians and independent producers at least they would acknowledge the result of their actions.