You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Mr. Jobs' Thoughts on Music Not So Sincere

News

Mr. Jobs' Thoughts on Music Not So Sincere

Friday, February 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 PM - by

Apple may not be completely sincere in their stance that they would like to see music DRM go away. That's the view Cory Doctorow presented in a detailed analysis of Mr. Jobs' Thought on Music at Salon.com on Friday.

DRM is basically a legal issue, not a technical issue. By virtue of the DMCA, the entire force of the American legal system can be brought down on offenders. But in terms of technology, it only takes 180 seconds from the time a song is released in the iTunes store until it shows up on P2P Servers.

The author argued, therefore, that while Mr. Jobs agreed that no DRM system is technically perfect, Apple gets to enjoy the legal protection of DRM that is able to keep the vast majority of iPod users from switching to another music player platform. So the sincerity of Mr. Jobs was questioned.

Moreover, it appears that Mr. Jobs stance has varied a lot depending on the winds of change. At one time, "Rip, Mix, Burn" was the mantra of Apple. But, now, Apple attorneys have said that Apple would retain its DRM on music even if the labels asked to have it removed.

Mr. Doctorow wondered, "The reasoning goes that users will be confused by a store that sells both DRM and non-DRM music. But if this is so, how is it that Apple currently offers DRM-free podcasts alongside DRM'ed, pay-for-use podcasts in the selfsame store?"

DRM is bad for the industry, bad for the consumer, and many independent artists want it removed. Some labels are planning to experiment with DRM free music. But, given the effect DRM free music would have on the number one on-line music store and the number one seller of MP3 players, a key question remains as to whether Mr. Jobs was really serious about Apple's desire to embrace DRM free music.

12 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:08 pm

A real one, or simply an imaginary effect of the type this author speculates upon to make his piece remotely relevant?

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:10 pm

This article yields a great example of the systemic dishonesty that goes on between Cory Doctorow's brain and his right hand (or mouth depending on the forum). He sets this up as Jobs said he'd get rid of DRM is the labels would let him, but an Apple lawyer said they would not. Even John Martellaro buys into this enough to parrot the line, apparently without digging into the claim about Apple lawyers... So here it is for all of you, the link Cory provides to back up his claim that Apple lawyers are talking a different tune:

http://blogs.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php

Please note the date... May, 2004, almost 3 years before Jobs' open letter. So the lawyer in question is not reneging on Job's open letter, is he? Minor point? Perhaps. But these add up by the thousands in everything the EFF does, and especially every argument Cory Doctorow tries to make. Note also in his article that he does not even address the impediments FairPlay pose to music sharing among friends and whether or not such impediments might actually contribute to sales and what specific mechanisms do that. They do. I've observed it. I've also observed that unobtrusive DRM can be a passive encouragement for people to do the right thing and buy the music they want to listen to. Kinda like how those automated speed trap trailers keep most of the stupid people from going 60 in a residential neighborhood. See, if you're Cory, you just define the strawman of DRM'd music getting on P2P in 180 seconds to prove your case. Kids, stay in school. College teaches you why that's a bad way to argue.

Cory says he has an Apple logo tattoo. He ought to get a horse's ass, Mike Tyson style. Truth in advertising and all that...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:19 pm

Guess that Cory is too cheap to pay for a CD burner ...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:01 am

Bosco, I've heard about you on other sites, and now I know why. How do you stop grabbing your ankles long enough to type these posts?

So EFF, Cory Doctorow, and John Martellaro are all either dishonest, Jobs haters, or confused -- or all three. Wow, good company to be in. Or ... maybe they understand something about DRM, Apple, and monopoly that you and the rest of the Apple/corporate apologists don't (or don't want to).

Doctorow has made a logical and convincing case that DRM simply keeps people locked into using a particular player, which -- as Norway and other European countries have noted and begun to take action on -- is violative of consumer rights when there is a dominant player with so-called "market power" such as Apple has with music players (or, in the case of Microsoft, with first browsers and later media players).

If Apple licensed FairPlay, one could play music (or other media) purchased on iTunes on *any* media player. As it is now, you have to play it on an iPod -- or, as the Apple sycophants like to point out -- burn it to a disc and then re-rip it as an MP3. That's time-consuming, beyond the technical ability of many if not most casual iTunes customers, and results in loss of music quality.

But more importantly, it's really intended to discourage people from circumventing a DRM regime that is not designed to prevent so-called "piracy" of music -- which as Doctorow points out is rampant despite/due to DRM -- but to keep people from straying outside the walled gardens of iTunes/iPod (or Zune and whatever Microsoft's new Zune DRM is called).

Kind of like how U.S. cellphone companies make it hard to move your service from company to company -- which they don't do in Europe and Asia, by the way, because there people understand that the consumers' rights come before corporate profits, and because there are a lot fewer corporate ankle-grabbers like you to defend multi-billion-dollar-profit-companies from gouging people even more than they already do.

With all the sucking up to Apple and other corporations you do, your username should be "Hoover" ...

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:11 am

That's funny guest, because the people who know me on TMO and iPO know me to be (1) often skeptical of Apple, (2) quite critical of AAPL (its stock), and (3) not a fan of Steve Jobs. So while I appreciate everyone talking about me, you must be talking about the wrong Bosco. The more I think about this, the more I realize that the "minor" point of contention with Cory's argument that I bring up is actually the major point of his argument. You can't have duplicity unless there's something actually duplicitous going on. I.e. Jobs says they'd like to abandon DRM, but Apple lawyer contradicts him. Problem is Jobs said it this month, Apple lawyer said it 33 months ago. Corporate strategies change. The rest of Cory's screed is imputing motive to Apple to try to back up the claim and rally his sheeple.

See, I take Jobs at his word because he and Apple are now in a position to have to actually do something if someone takes them up on it. If one of the labels decides to abandon DRM and would allow Apple to do so with its songs, Jobs will be hard pressed to say no after that open letter. The "all or none" theme in Cory's stupid screed is pulled straight from his ass (which is a magical strawman factory).

And BTW, I really have no beef with the editors of this site. I know they are all inclined to be anti-DRM. I respect their opinions and where they are coming from. I do wish that they would at least delve a little into why DRM exists rather than parrot the EFF and Cory Doctorow. John Martellaro is certainly a thoughtful and intelligent contributor to the sites, with a real tech background that few tech reporters have. I would encourage him to be a little more skeptical about some of his agenda driven sources, that's all.

Signed,

Bosco Hoover,

Corporate Shill & Defender of Gougers

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 414 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:05 pm

A couple of comments. First, a do not get the whole reference to Apple's "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad campaign. That came about when Apple, after being late to the party, started to include CD burners on its Macs. Most people do not realize that it is perfectly legal to burn a CD that you legally own, and then give that CD copy away to a friend (even while keeping the original yourself). You pay a special tax on the blank CD media specifically for that purpose. Accordingly, when Apple was promoting ripping CDs, it was not encouraging anything illegal or inconsistent with its current position on DRM. Apple was not saying, "Hey rip this CD, and upload it to Napster." It was saying rip the CD, and burn a copy for yourself or friends, which was and is legal.

Second, I tried to find an old Jobs quote, but could not do so. I remember, however, when iTunes was released that Apple publically stated that it actually tried to get its downloads to be DRM free. Of course, the labels did not go along with that. My memory is pretty good, and I have no reason why that would not be Apple's position. Does anyone really think many people are really going to go use Napster or Real over iTunes? I have never used the new corporate Napster, but it is heavily in bed with the RIAA (look at all those forced university deals), and Real software sucks.

Third, I am not a DRM fan, but I will tell you this: DRM on iTunes right now is protecting consumers, not hurting them. I would be willing to bet that labels are willing to close down iTunes if other stores had access to iPods. Labels want to charge you more money for downloads, and restrict your rights to move songs. Apple is the only thing standing in the labels way. The labels want to allow third parties to access Apple's iPod. If it suceeds, it could force Apple to play ball on prciing because even if iTunes was shut down, the labels now can advertise that all these other services work with the iPod. The catch, however, would be if you were a Mac user, as none of those services support Macs.

Fourth, as an Apple fan I like the fact that Apple controls the whole process. For Apple's part, it has never been willing to allow others to interfer with controling its users user experience. Accordingly, when Jobs says Apple does not want to license Fairplay because Apple does not want to deal with coordinating with others, I believe him. I also do not believe Jobs is being disingenious about DRM. If DRM goes away, all the same people using iTunes will likely continue to do so. Fact is, iTunes is the best solution out there if you merely want to buy songs, and it is bundled with the number one selling music player. Accordingly, Apple would continue to sell iPods based on the great iTunes, iPod combo experience. If Apple has to license Fairplay, however, the labels could force Apple to cede control over pricing and be forced to share iPod profits. In the worst case scenerio, labels could force Apple to shut down iTunes which would be a heavy blow to consumers, especially Mac users.

Summary: I do not think Jobs is being disingenious because without DRm Apple still has the better product and marketing which made it number one. Forced licenisng of Fairplay hurts consumers because it allows the labels to dictate to Apple pricing terms.

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 414 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:09 pm

PS

People might not know, but Apple is either currently negotiating, or soon will begin doing so, with Universal over renewing Apple's iTunes contract. Universial successfuly got Microsoft to pay a royality on every Zune sold, and wants prices raised. The timing of Jobs annoucnment could be related to that, as well as the whole Europeon situation.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:47 pm

It is not the DRM that keeps people buying iPods or using iTunes. It is the very SIMPLE fact that both are very SIMPLE to use. If DRM went away, this would NOT CHANGE! IPods and iTunes would still be the easiest and most stylish way to enjoy your music.

How hard is that to figure out?

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:27 am

Most music on iPods is DRM-free (from CD’s). Just exactly how are people locked into the iPod?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:49 am

"Most music on iPods is DRM-free (from CD’s). Just exactly how are people locked into the iPod?"

I'll give you a perfect example of what happened to a friend of mine being locked into an iPod. He used to have an iPod photo, and so when he wanted to purchase online music that he could sync to his iPod the logical (only?) choice was iTunes. Now, his ipod died on him, and he wanted to get a new player. He wanted to get the Zen player, but it wouldn't play any of his already bought & paid for music. He had no choice but to buy another iPod or to circumvent the DRM on the files. He didn't feel comfortable with the legality of circumventing the DRM, and so he was forced to buy another iPod to continue to have access to his purchased music while on the go.

Jobs' letter wasn't due to some ideological belief that DRM is evil. If he truly believed that, he never would entered into a contract requiring him to use it. He knows that the DRM scheme being proprietary and lacking interoperability with the manufacturers of other devices means that the iTMS will be one of many driving forces for purchasing an iPod. The timing of the "open letter" is well executed, in the midst of legal battles in Europe. Norway is specifically asking Apple to make the DRM scheme available to other device manufacterers so that their players can play iTMS purchases and consumers won't be forced to make a tough decision like my friend.

The contract with the labels indeed requires Apple to protect the content with DRM, however it does not require that Apple not license its DRM scheme to other manufacturers. In fact, the labels have asked Apple for quite the opposite, and have suggested that they license it. Doing so would not be a violation of their contracts with the labels, would alleviate some of Apple's legal battles, but would also unlock people who have purchased iTMS songs from the iPod device. Licensing the DRM scheme to provide interoperability with other players is good for everyone except Apple.

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 414 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:10 pm

First, your friend was not locked into the iPod. The songs in iTunes could have easily been ripped into MP3s. All your friend had to do was read the iTunes instructions. He could have then moved the songs to the Zen, which in my view is not a bad player, but not an iPod. Moreover, none of this was a secret when he bought the songs.

Second, as I already explained Apple's DRM lock is benefiting consumers right now. If Apple licensed its DRM, the labels would quickly implement more DRM restrictions and raise the price. The labels have made it no secret that they want tiered pricing. Apple is what is stopping them. As soon as Apple licenses its DRM, the labels no longer need Apple or iTunes. All the services will work on the iPod, and they will raise the price and implement the DRM scheme of choice regardless of whether Apple wants to go along with that or not.

Sure Apple has its own interests at heart. However, for most consumers, Apple's own interests and their own align. Apple wants to make money, but it has shown that it is content making the money on the device, and to allow the labels to make most of the money on the content. The labels certainly do not have your interest at heart. They argue loading your CDs on your iPod is illegal, when legal precedent suggests it is not (fair-use).

Where Apple would lose out if it licensed Fair-play, it would not lose out if DRM was removed from the songs (the number two download service only offers DRM free songs, that should tell you something). Most people would still use iTunes (as the alternatives, including the number two site, mostly blow), and the labels would still be forced to listen to Apple concerning pricing.

I like downloading songs. What I like is the price seems fair, and it is simple to understand. If Apple loses this battle, consumers lose. I hope I do not have to say I told you so.

Guest wrote:
. . .

I'll give you a perfect example of what happened to a friend of mine being locked into an iPod. He used to have an iPod photo, and so when he wanted to purchase online music that he could sync to his iPod the logical (only?) choice was iTunes. Now, his ipod died on him, and he wanted to get a new player. He wanted to get the Zen player, but it wouldn't play any of his already bought & paid for music. He had no choice but to buy another iPod or to circumvent the DRM on the files. He didn't feel comfortable with the legality of circumventing the DRM, and so he was forced to buy another iPod to continue to have access to his purchased music while on the go. . .

Licensing the DRM scheme to provide interoperability with other players is good for everyone except Apple.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:15 pm

Terrin wrote:
The labels certainly do not have your interest at heart. They argue loading your CDs on your iPod is illegal, when legal precedent suggests it is not (fair-use).

Terrin, the second sentence is not true, and it's another myth perpetuated the EFF and its dishonest chain smoking college dropout spokeshole. Aw, forget it. They're probably not being dishonest, just stupid. And then it gets repeated as truth because nobody bothers to analyze the statement. What the RIAA lawyer said in front of the Supremes was that the technical legal concept of "fair use" is not what gives people the right to legally rip CDs into iTunes and move to their iPods. The labels allow it just like they allowed hooking an amplifier up to your cassette deck back in the day. All parties recognize there would be nuclear war or worse if the labels decided to litigate against or pursue legislation against such use. Such use is recognized and acknowledged by all parties as reasonable. Again, the RIAA acknowledged it in front of the Supreme Court, ferchrissaakes.

The EFF, on the other hand, would very much like the legal concept of "fair use" as defined in statute and expanded by litigation to be the explicit legal mechanism that gives you the right to rip your CD into iTunes. Why? Because then, they can break down wholesale widespread illicit distribution into a sequence of mechanical steps, each covered by "fair use" and then argue that Chewbacca doesn't exist, er, that sharing files with 1,000,000 of your closest friends isn't copyright infringement. This is the primary trick of the copyfighters... Act like petulant children who demand having everything they can and can't do explicitly defined for them so that they don't have to conceptualize right and wrong. Actually, it's worse than that... As anyone who has ever been or known a petulant child, they do this to wear down the parent (or teacher). The child is perfectly capable of knowing intuitively what is right and what is wrong, just like the EFF is. They're even capable of negotiating specific applications of right and wrong in good faith. But if they pretend they aren't, they hope the authority figure will give up completely of exhaustion.

Again, a minor point, but add all the minor points up. If you hate the RIAA, at least recognize what your hatred is turning you into when you align with the EFF. It ain't pretty.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.