“A recording industry group fired back Wednesday at Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, suggesting his company should open up its anti-piracy technology to its rivals instead of urging major record labels to strip copying restrictions from music sold online,” Alex Veiga reports for The Associated Press.
Veiga reports, “Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said the move would eliminate technology hurdles that now prevent fans from playing songs bought at Apple’s iTunes Music Store on devices other than the company’s iPod. ‘We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen,’ Bainwol said in a prepared statement.”
“In an essay posted Tuesday on the Cupertino-based company’s Web site, Jobs called on record labels to abandon their requirement for online music to be wrapped in Digital Rights Management, or DRM, technology, which is designed to limit unauthorized copying,” Veiga reports.
Full article here.
The music cartel sure loves their ineffective, easily-bypassed DRM, don’t they? They’re just digging their own graves. Put the shovels down while you still can, boys, the party’s over!
The situation is crystal clear: Apple is anti-DRM and the major music labels want to continue trying (and failing) to restrict their paying customers with DRM-laced products.
DRM is so easily removed, that it’s pointless. The mass pirates, about whom the music labels claim they are so 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. The music labels want to restrict paying customers in such a way as to force their paying customers to buy multiple copies of the same material.
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.
Related articles:
Warner’s Middlebronfman: Jobs’ DRM-free music call ‘without logic and merit, we’ll not abandon DRM’ – February 08, 2007
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
Don’t they realize they are playing with fire denying the edicts of the Exhaulted Ruler of the Earth?
If they are not careful, he will go beyond his written warning and appear, in person, in uniform, in full hubris, on a stage in front of an auditorium full of lemmings, and announce that he has now canceled all DRM in response to the industry’s irreverent reaction to his treatise.
If SJ can get the RIAA to understand that licensing FairPlay makes it more susceptible to being compromised, and they’re okay with that, then I say okay! If they agree, and licensing FairPlay doesn’t really help to deter piracy, then it might be one more step closer to DRM-free music. And if DRM does stick around, then FairPlay as a great shot at becoming the de-facto standard.
License away!
First Rule of Holes:
When you’re in one, stop digging.
JoeL
That’s exactly what I was thinking, hairbo.
The RIAA says “License Fairplay” because they believe it’s the last thing Steve Jobs will do.
I say license it just to shut them the f*ck up when piracy goes undeterred.
Obviously the morons at the RIAA need a translation. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn’t have billions to waste supporting useless DRM in the hands of other firms. Of course Microsoft was hoping that Janus DRM would become the defacto standard so that MS could control the morons at the RIAA, etc.
Hmm.. The RIAA wants Apple to license out Fairplay to other companies. Then all the other companies can play the iTunes bought music. End result, Apple dominates everything and there is one defacto standard for DRM and DVD Jon can license his tool to others and then there is only one way to remove the DRM and guess what.. we’re back to square 1.
Operative word here is “Control”. I think SJ’s essay worked to give Apple the keys to the kingdom and the eventual demise of the RIAA’s powers. The only problem I see with this is all the anti-trust that Apple will inherit for the RIAA’s stupidity.
Apples’ contract with the Big 4 says if FairPlay fails, it has to be fixed within a matter of weeks or they can pull their music from the iTunes Store.
Does MS have the same contract?
Warning: Conspiracy Theory Ahead! Many of the Big 4 don’t like Apple’s pricing structure. What if Apple licensed FairPlay and one of the “independent” licensees fails to correct a FairPlay exploit within the contractual terms. Then a major label pulls their music from the iTunes Store and demands new terms, citing FairPlay weaknesses?
Just guessing here, bit I don’t think Steve is ever going to license FairPlay if there’s a chance some third party holds the fate of the iTunes Store in their hands.
If Steve Jobs can get one major label to agree to DRM-free sales on iTunes and then that label makes a spectacular number of sales, DRM will die. All the labels care about is money and if one label gets a significant competitive advantage, others will want the same.
As has been mentioned previously, the ideal candidate would be the Beatles. They’re now all cosy with Apple, they’re not currently on iTunes and their music is nearing the end of it’s UK copyright lifetime. They don’t have anything to lose and if they released their singles one at a time, they could write more musical history by topping the charts all over again. Renewed interest in Beatles music would also generate renewed interest in Beatles DVDs, which would very profitable. Furthermore, Paul McCartney has supported new musicians in the past and he may view dispensing with DRM as a way to help musicians to sell more music.
The response by the RIAA is exactly what Jobs is looking for. For at least the past couple years, Apple was unfairly criticized for selling songs from iTS (formerly iTMS) with DRM as if it was Jobs’ decision to do so. With Jobs now on record as being in favor of selling songs and albums without DRM, the onus is now on the RIAA and (hopefully) any public pressure to remove DRM will not be placed on Apple, but the RIAA where it belonged in the first place.
I’m glad the majors came out and gave their predictable retorts in vitriolic fashion. They end up looking like stupid douches.
I do not know much about how DRM licensing works, but it seems like consumers using non-iPod portable players are going to have a bumpy ride. The player software has to be updated too when Apple tweaks the DRM, which happens periodically. Apple does a good job of making this fairly seemless, though hiccups do occur (iTunes 7). These companies have not shown they can do this with Plays For Shit.
The record companies and RIAA are beyond retarded! Seriously, has any member of this illustrious menagerie ever given an actual reason why it’s so important to continue with with DRM on online music, but not CDs, or do they all say “just because”?
Frankly, I don’t care if Apple continues to use Fairplay, or not. I find the iPod and iTMS to be the best solution by far, and Fairplay doesn’t restrict me in any way. I don’t think Apple should be forced to go to the trouble of licensing Fairplay though. That doesn’t seem fair. Unless of course, the industry is willing to drop their option to remove their catalog if it’s breached. They’re putting the onus of responsibility for the entire industry on Apple’s shoulders, while Apple is getting the smallest piece of the pie for their trouble.
I don’t know how accurate it is to claim that there is no DRM on CDs. Certainly many CDs are completely free to use in any manner one wishes. However, there are a fair amount of CDs being sold these days with special anti-piracy technology built-in. This technology makes the CDs work fine in car stereos and the like. But try to use this CD in the computer and it either doesn’t work at all or forces you to use special use-limiting software in order to access the music. Some of the CDs have even been known to install security-compromising rootkits (ala Sony). All in all, the RIAA has been placing motivation out there right now to keep people from using CDs in a DRM-free fashion. While anti-piracy technology does not specifically use any sort of encryption or licensing keys to protect the music, the fact that it forces the user to use the CDs in a specific way makes it much like DRM. For this reason, I don’t see how anti-piracy and DRM are different. Consequently, I think it’s a somewhat weak argument to say the music industry is not pursuing DRM for their CDs. The RIAA really really wants DRM no matter what the format is.
And of course, that makes it really unfortunate for the consumer.
All the RIAA comments are ‘grist for the Apple mill’ in their court case against Norway et al.
Steve wins both ways: either the DRM stays and Norway has to take the labels to court instead, or DRM is removed and the case goes away.
The third benefit is that if DRM goes away for music sales, the subscription model instantly dies because it is either unpopular since it alone contains a DRM, or we all buy subscriptions and download unlimited songs to keep permanently.
On the hardware front we have already seen the hardware manufacturers inability to keep up with Apple’s iPod design, or iTunes integration. Apple cannot lose unless we choose cost over cool design.
Sell the RIAA the whole FAIRPLAY package to RIAA. Make it a cahs plus free licensing for life deal.
Apple wins big now and RIAA can deal with the headaches of keeping DRM current.
Anybody else notice how that big Ford ad breaks the links to the other articles at the bottom of the page. It has done it all day in Safari. Only seems to happen when you roll over it on your way down to the article links.
MW–Social…. hah! welcome to it.
‘Apple does a good job of making this fairly seemless,’
‘Seems seamless to me.
Why can’t MS make it’s proprietary DRM software work on the Mac????????? They could, they just don’t want it to.
RIAA is in so many words saying to Apple “we’ll have it our way and you’ll play nicely with us”. Well, at least they’re right about Apple being smart enough to work with the music community on more open solutions, and it’s too bad that the RIAA is positioning themsleves to <not> be part of Apple’s solution.
I think Steve’s best legal argument is the reality he’s stated that i) the music industry required Apple to do FairPlay as a condition for putting their music in the iTunes store, and ii) that these same companies will hit Apple with huge liabilities if FairPlay is ever compromised and not patched quickly.
Apple knows that the only way they can keep FairPlay secure is to keep it within Apple, as they would have no control over how quickly a Microsoft, Creative, Samsung or other competitor would patch FairPlay on their systems. In fact, in this scenario it could be in a competitor’s own best interest to drag their feet a bit on writing a patch.
I believe that RIAA and the music companies understand this. They have no problem asking Apple to push the proverbial boulder uphill (by licensing FairPlay), as they would love to have this big, new legal club hanging over Apple’s head as a way of controlling the market leader.
Steve is correct in the content and timing of his open letter, and he should not under any circumstance back off, retract or otherwise clarify his position as the RIAA and music industry are now screaming for him to do. It’s time for the music industry – not Apple – to change its business model.
In My Honest Opinion.
Did the RIAA not read Steve’s letter? It says quite plainly in the letter that allowing other people to share the “secrets” in the Fairplay DRM will effectively render it useless.
These recording industry folk need to get a lesson in PGP and other security systems…. Idiots.
What the hell? Did the dolts in RIAA HQ even read Steve’s letter?
MW: Doubt it.
Well, were right back where we were before.
LOL. The Pirates don’t even have to try and bypass the DRM. All they have to do is buy one CD and they can make as many perfect high quality copies as they want.
This SO reminds me of when the movie companies fought against the VCR. A battle which they lost….. and subsequently made billions more dollars in profit because they did.
Don’t speak for me, MDN. I have hundreds of “DRM-laden” songs and it doesn’t affect me one bit. I listen to my music wherever and whenever I want. People against DRM fall into one of two camps:
– those that don’t like the “idea” of DRM
– those that try to use their music in creative ways (in a movie or MP3 player)
Steve won’t license Fairplay.
The reason he gives for not doing so is bullshit, but that doesn’t matter because the players know that it is bullshit and know the real reason he won’t license it.
Steve hold a stranglehold on Fairplay because he believes that the only way digital music will ever succeed is for it to be reasonably priced.
The labels spent the past two decades creating the CD album sales system whereby consumers are stuck paying $18-$20 to buy a CD for the one song they want.
Steve knows this one the main things that made Napster take off like wildfire, and keeps P2P in business–faced with the options of paying $18 for a song, and several tracks of unwanted crap glommed on, or downloading for free people will download for free. Given the choice of downloading for free and facing prosecution and buying for 99 cents a good percentage of people will buy. The majors hate this 99 cents business and want Apple to license Fairplay to them so they can take their songs off iTMS and sell them themselves for $5, $6, $7 a track.
The majors think this is a great idea, while Steve knows that this will simply drive the growing percentage of people that will pay for digital music to go back to P2P.