Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Steve Jobs flips 180 on DRM
Steve Jobs released an open letter to iTunes critics yesterday entitled, "Thoughts on Music" in which he discusses DRM, the major label system and why iTunes isn't "open." Ok, so in points the letter is factually incorrect. It tends to over-simplify the DRM debate by discounting any open alternative. As a well-known and widely read enemy of DRM, I'll take it. In Steve's own words, "Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy." He's right, and I've said nearly the exact same thing before, as have many others.
The simple fact is Steve has hopped on the bandwagon of industry figures proclaiming the death of DRM for music. Naysayers swore this day would never come and, they might have been right save for the constant downward pressure provided by groups like Defective By Design, music blogs of all stripes and genres as well as the actions of several European countries. I'm not at all convinced that Jobs' changed stance comes from an altruistic place deep within his stylishly dressed torso but, all the same, I welcome him to the right side of the argument.
Comments
11
Subscribe to commentsTM`Feb 7th 2007 12:27PM
Hmm sounds like good news. If he is in fact being truthful and not trying to save his hide from the European Union countries suing him for interoperability issues of his drm'ed music. Now all we need is itunes to start offering higher bitrate or lossless music without drm. That would be awesome! Are record companies and the RIAA going to realize DRM doesn't work though? Here's hoping that they do.
PXLatedFeb 7th 2007 12:56PM
How do you know this hasn't been Jobs stance all along...no DRM? Just because he has FairPlay doesn't mean it is/was his preferred choice. iPod/iTunes stand on their own pretty well against the competition, FairPlay had nothing to do with the success, or continued success. Better product, better store, with or without DRM and that's been true from the beginning.
glaciaFeb 7th 2007 1:54PM
PXLated, your hypothesis might fly except that not all record labels ARE requiring DRM. But Apple adds DRMs everything anyway. Why would this be except to keep you from playing anywhere but an ipod?
Terry McBride, Nettwerk Music Group's chief executive "artists initially required Apple to use copy protection, but that this is no longer the case." "copy protection serves only Apple’s interests ."
If Jobs were serious he could remove the DRM from some of the itunes content today. Since he hasn't he's a lier and a hypocrite.
AndrewFeb 7th 2007 2:32PM
I think that Steve can't do anything till the big 4 say no to DRM
KhuffieFeb 7th 2007 2:41PM
The fact remains that eMusic sells music without DRM from indie labels, legally. Said indie labels has requested their music be sold on iTunes without DRM. Apple refuses, and continues to sell their music with DRM.
Yes, this is good, but Jobs should practise what he preaches when he has the opportunity, which he does with the indie.
DonnyFeb 7th 2007 10:49PM
Ok, DRM is bad for one reason... it doesn't work in all environments. I bought a CD that had some sort of protection. The only way I play CD's in my house is on my Audiotron. I couldn't even copy the song to my hard drive. I have since stopped by CD's from that manufacturer.
I do not download music over the web because of the DRM that gets attached. I don't want the issues surrounding it. It is annoying. I want to be able to store a copy of my songs where I plan on using them... car, home, computer(s), phone. This hasn't been possible with DRM.
I will use DRM'd music when I don't have to worry about getting error messages or having to load/unload in order to move songs around.
Can you imagine non-computer people understanding how to do this stuff?
If I buy a CD or download a song, I would like to think that the manufacturers will trust that I will treat their copyright as I want people to treat my photography copyright. You can't design a system with the assumption that the majority of your customers are going to break the law. As a result, I am no longer a customer.
LordDaManFeb 7th 2007 4:01PM
This is like what was said before, a last ditch effort to get out of the upcomg antitrust lawsuits.
Like one big excuse for apple. Not sure why anyone buys this, since this is classic RDF form Jobs, and int his case not even good RDF either
glaciaFeb 7th 2007 5:16PM
Andrew perhaps you're among those who like to self delude perhaps not but if you look on itunes and there is no non-DRM option to DL songs by performers represented by Nettwerk Music Group then it's simply a fact that Steve Jobs is lieing and a hypocrite.
Try these artists for example Barenaked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne. If there are only DRMed versions of their music on itunes then Apple is the one who is making the decision to add the DRM not the record company.
Grant RobertsonFeb 7th 2007 6:54PM
Same goes for every single song or item that is available from eMusic.. You'd be amazed how many artists/labels don't require DRM and, I don't think a single one of them would tell you that they've been hurt more by piracy than any major label artist.
KevinMar 29th 2007 1:48PM
Why does he care, doesn't piracy sell more iPods?
BenFeb 8th 2007 4:53AM
I don't think Jobs is ditching DRM because "DRMs haven't worked, and may never work". He's doing it because it makes financial sense to open the doors of the itunes music store to all those millions who don't own ipods.
Either way though this is a good thing.