Steve Jobs comes out against DRM on digital media. I'm only commenting because this was all over the news yesterday. Obviously I'm a big fan of Jobs. But this needs a little clarification. I mean, I believe him, but...
First, keep in mind that Apple is under legal attack in several European countries about the iTunes music store. So, in some ways this is probably a maneuver to shift focus off of the iTMS (and Apple's FairPlay DRM) and onto the record labels. And this seems fair, since it definitely is the record labels who forced Apple to sell music encumbered with DRM.
On the other hand, a little pinch of salt is needed here since Jobs seems to indicate that he would rather sell non-DRM'd music online (just as he points out the labels sell non-DRM'd music on CD,) but the fact is that many bands are interested in selling their music this way (and have asked Apple) yet Apple says it's not possible. Clearly it is technically possible to have both DRM and DRM free tracks for sale at the same time on iTMS.
I'm not really trying to criticize him here, it's a very complex issue, and Apple has to walk a number of very fine lines. I think they have done a very good job given the backwardsness of the record industry. Still, in a perfect world, Apple could be doing more. And these comments of Jobs shouldn't be taken as an indication that they are about to start selling mp3s without digital rights management.
Daring Fireball has his usual very long winded and very smart look at this news. If you're really interested in this issue it's worth a read. He gets it right I think.
Related news from the NYTimes: EMI Mulls Unprotected Web Song Sales. The thing that is always missing from these stories is bitrate. Probably they haven't even thought that far yet. But if they choose to license their music in DRM free MP3 format at 64 kb/s then it just doesn't matter. It's useless. Even at 128 kb/s it's pretty close to useless. And you just know that's what they will do. Then later they'll say "look, we tried to do it without DRM and consumers didn't like it."
"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."
Ummm ... "Every iPod?"
While I dig the iPod, I won't buy iPod-specific music. Also, I've never owned Sony BetaMax, Sony MiniDisc, or Sony UMD products.
I think he's just saying that it would be backwards compatible. I think some people have the idea that the iPod will only play iTMS tracks, when of course it's just a regular MP3/MP4 player - unlike the Sony products you mention.
It's true that the iPod is pretty open, which is why D and I have four between us. iTMS currently isn't, which is why I don't even have an account. Some of this incompatibility is the record companies, but some of this is Apple trying to keep people hostage to their iTMS libraries. Apple could cross-license DRM with other manufacturers of players, but won't.
Personally, I think they should try to have the best content service and the best players, and not try to link them together forcibly.
|
First, keep in mind that Apple is under legal attack in several European countries about the iTunes music store. So, in some ways this is probably a maneuver to shift focus off of the iTMS (and Apple's FairPlay DRM) and onto the record labels. And this seems fair, since it definitely is the record labels who forced Apple to sell music encumbered with DRM.
On the other hand, a little pinch of salt is needed here since Jobs seems to indicate that he would rather sell non-DRM'd music online (just as he points out the labels sell non-DRM'd music on CD,) but the fact is that many bands are interested in selling their music this way (and have asked Apple) yet Apple says it's not possible. Clearly it is technically possible to have both DRM and DRM free tracks for sale at the same time on iTMS.
I'm not really trying to criticize him here, it's a very complex issue, and Apple has to walk a number of very fine lines. I think they have done a very good job given the backwardsness of the record industry. Still, in a perfect world, Apple could be doing more. And these comments of Jobs shouldn't be taken as an indication that they are about to start selling mp3s without digital rights management.
- jim 2-08-2007 5:35 pm
Daring Fireball has his usual very long winded and very smart look at this news. If you're really interested in this issue it's worth a read. He gets it right I think.
- jim 2-10-2007 7:26 pm
Related news from the NYTimes: EMI Mulls Unprotected Web Song Sales. The thing that is always missing from these stories is bitrate. Probably they haven't even thought that far yet. But if they choose to license their music in DRM free MP3 format at 64 kb/s then it just doesn't matter. It's useless. Even at 128 kb/s it's pretty close to useless. And you just know that's what they will do. Then later they'll say "look, we tried to do it without DRM and consumers didn't like it."
- jim 2-10-2007 7:30 pm
"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."
Ummm ... "Every iPod?"
While I dig the iPod, I won't buy iPod-specific music. Also, I've never owned Sony BetaMax, Sony MiniDisc, or Sony UMD products.
- mark 2-10-2007 11:40 pm
I think he's just saying that it would be backwards compatible. I think some people have the idea that the iPod will only play iTMS tracks, when of course it's just a regular MP3/MP4 player - unlike the Sony products you mention.
- jim 2-11-2007 12:10 am
It's true that the iPod is pretty open, which is why D and I have four between us. iTMS currently isn't, which is why I don't even have an account. Some of this incompatibility is the record companies, but some of this is Apple trying to keep people hostage to their iTMS libraries. Apple could cross-license DRM with other manufacturers of players, but won't.
Personally, I think they should try to have the best content service and the best players, and not try to link them together forcibly.
- mark 2-11-2007 9:21 am