RIAA misreads Jobs' open letter on DRM, thinks he's offering to license FairPlay
By Peter Rojas 
posted Feb 7th 2007 2:28PM
posted Feb 7th 2007 2:28PM
Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM and music yesterday definitely got a lot of tongues wagging, but there's one group that might want to re-read what he wrote. Bit Player (you gotta scroll down to the bottom of the post) reports that our old friends at the RIAA issued a response today lauding Apple's offer to license FairPlay as a "welcome breakthrough" that would be a "real victory for fans, artists and labels." There's only one problem: Jobs didn't offer to license FairPlay at all. In fact, he makes it pretty clear that he thinks that switching to an open model for DRM wouldn't work ("Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.") and that the best option is to eliminate DRM altogether. We already knew that the majors are totally in denial about this stuff, but to pretend that his letter (however motivated) was anything other than a broadside against DRM is silly.
His letter was nothing more than Apple's response to criticism from the European market for selling DRM-laden music: they want to shift the blame.
Its surprising that they would read it this way -- I always understood that Fairplay is too vulnerable to hacking due to its client-side only implementation. I think that Jobs wants to get away from DRM because his company failed, and "taking on the music industry" is just his way to save face before the music industry refuses to re-license content to his store because his DRM sucks.
So I read Jobs letter as an admission that Apple isn't capable of managing software that can be used on anyones device/system other than theirs. Seems that Microsoft created DRM that works across systems/devices with Playsforsure (even if they have moved some of their eggs out of the basket by coming up with a seperate model for Zune). Why can't Apple license Fairplay the same way? Come on Steve, aren't the Microsoft people dullards like your commercials imply? Isn't the cool Mac guy capable of making anything that works better than something put together by Microsoft?
hyloka, you are completely missing the point here. DRM, whether it works or not, was and is a horrible idea, and they SHOULD get rid of it. The only thing the music industry accomplished with DRM is to frustrate the few remaining loyal customers they may have had into considering "other sources" to acquire their music. Doing the wrong this was already cheaper and easier, now doing the right thing is confusing and as well, thanks to DRM. They need to get rid of it, period.
hyloka, why make this about Apple VS. MS
your missing the point as is said above. DRM=limiting the potential of technology
Here's why Microsoft licenses PlaysForSure (ignoring the fact that Zune can't play it) but Apple doesn't license FairPlay: Microsoft likes DRM and Apple doesn't.
Microsoft wants to sell you content. If everyone has a Zune and Xbox then the content providers can sell you music, movies, and tv shows with Microsoft's DRM and Microsoft gets a cut of the action. (Microsoft sells the Xbox as a loss in order to become entrenched as the living room media player.) Because DRM is central to it's plan to sell content, Microsoft invest lots of people, time, and money to make it's DRM as unbreakable as possible. I know of only one hack for PlaysForSure create recently but Microsoft fixed it super fast.
Apple wants to sell you hardware. Macs, iPods, iPhones; They all have or will have high margins. DRM restricts the content that can be played and will not help Apple sell high margin hardware. To satisfy the RIAA paranoia, they created a DRM system with minimal investment. That's why it's been cracked so many times (especially compared to Microsoft's). FairPlay is simply a weak implementation created solely to placate the RIAA. If Apple licensed FairPlay, I suspect it would be crack so fast and often that it may shutdown iTunes Music Store.
Apple isn't saying it CAN'T do that -it's saying if it DID do that, they would lose their leverage over the record companies. If anyone could put DRM'd music on apple players, apple could no longer make the record companies stick to their 99 cent pricing plan, for example.
@hyloka - You are an asshole. Also, you must have some difficuly with reading comprehension. Furthermore, a Microsoft fanboy is the worst fanboy of all. It is a fanboy of the devil. Finally, youre an idiot and you started this argument on this thread. STEVE JOBS!!!
Gimme a break...I have something for the RIAA...
http://www.orange32.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=28
Funny shit man...I bookmarked the link. I might buy some.
The RIAA really can't be THAT myopic, can they?
Oh but they can my friend, they can!
This is direct evidence that the RIAA is run by people who can't read.
Exactly. Well, actually, they're even dumber than that.
What record company do you work for hyloka? You are the only person I've ever seen on Engadget IN SUPPORT of DRM. You are so on the wrong site. Perhaps lighter fare would be up your alley--- say, a site about ice cream and pretty kitties?
Well, I think DRM is FANTASTIC. Without it subscription services would not be possible. For a quarter of the price of cable TV I can download whatever I want, whenever I want and play it on my DAP. In the past year I've discovered more music (about 19 GB worth for ~$100) than I did in the previous 5 years, especially because I can sample whole tracks and not just 30 seconds. It's like heroin for music lovers. Now, granted, if you only listen to the same crappy Dave Matthews album you have for the past 10 years, then you might not get much use out of subscription services. Fact is, no record company would ever allow this type of service if they weren't protected in some way.
"Owning" music is an antiquated concept. Why would you want to own something that has an intrinsic diminishing marginal utility when you can have an endless supply of new music AND your old music? DRM is the greatest thing to happen to the distribution music in our lifetimes and most people, you especially, EDawg, aren't smart enough to realize it. This is very frustrating.
I never, ever, ever want to go back to paying for music by the track or by the album. Or even worse, buying CDs or stealing tracks off the net.
Amen, kuzu-b. When you buy a CD, you've spent your money on it, so you should be able to copy it however you want. A DRM'ed song . . . not so. That gives me exactly ZERO motivation to pay for DRM'ed songs.
The RIAA is stupid. This is icing on the cake.
hyloka,
Maybe you missed Steve Ballmer's take on PlaysForSure? http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=204
Apple is making an interesting point - if it licenses its DRM technology to other companies, then the chance that a rogue employee will reveal their secrets is quite high. Think about how a large chunk of Microsoft’s operating system code got uploaded on the Internet over a year ago – that was stolen from one of their partners. And don’t forget Microsoft’s recent claims that someone stole the source code to their DRM.
EDawg, kuzu-b:
hyloka doesn't say he supports DRM, he simply makes a comment about licensing of it.
Personally I agree with him- there's no reason why an open DRM system wouldn't work. All the media-based copy protection schemes (CSS, ACSS, BD+ etc) work in this way, so why can't downloaded music? Playsforsure showed it could work.
Ultimately I agree with Steve's conclusion though- no DRM at all would be better. If content can be watched or listened to then it can be copied, and so every form of DRM can be defeated. All DRM does is pose an inconvenience to the casual consumer and does nothing to stop file sharing.
A clever strategy to curtail Job's stance on DRM. Now the rumour mill will spread the words that Job's favours FairPlay and not about giving DRM the "old yeehoo."
Some good damage control by the RIAA there.
@John Miller
What you fail to realize is that it wont end with music/video. DRM will infest everything if the robber barons get their way.
Not to mention since you dont OWN the stuff, the REAL owners can revoke your "license" to use it, and they dont even need a valid reason.
That is just one of the dangers of full on DRM.
You do know that DRM has nothing to do with HOW you buy music right? There is DRM is pay-per-song services and DRM in subscription services. It has no impact on how you purchase your music.
No one is saying that we should all start paying for music by the song, that isn't even the question here. We are saying that DRM is a miserable failure that does quite the opposite of what it was meant to do, and we may as well just do away with it.
A very VERY small percentage of artists allow their music to be used in a "rental" format, and I can't say I blame them. My father has an album available on both iTunes Music Store, and through the monthly subscription services. If someone buys a track, on iTunes, he gets about 78 cents. If someone puts one of his tracks on their subscription player for a *WHOLE YEAR*, he gets about 20 cents.
http://start-user.com/?q=node/20
Misinterpretation of Jobs's article is a lot more widespread. Seems like everyone only "skimmed" the article. :) I for one was very interested in -everything- he had to say.
Kind of makes you wonder if the music company execs can read and comprehend. I bet they wanted to establish their territory so fast that they were hping for FairPlay to be released.
http://www.applepundit.com/?p=14
i know what happened my girlfriend does this all the time "they hear what they want to hear".
i think hyloka works for the RIAA he completely miss the point
No, DRM is crap. If I purchase a piece of music, I want to be able to play it on any player I own for personal use, as many times as I want. I want to be able to backup and assemble a library of music I like. If my hard drive fails I want to be able to restore said backup so I have my library of music again. If I change computers and OSes I want to be able to access the same library (this requires using open file formats). If I buy a third-party random MP3 player, I want my library accessible from there, too. All of the above are NOT screwing over record labels since they are all for personal use. All of the above should be basic inalienable digital rights.
Dheera,
With my URGE subscription I've done ALL of that already, with only one exception: I can't copy my music onto a CD. For me that's not an issue at all. I haven't listened to a CD in over a year. Besides, if PlaysForSure ever dies, I'm sure somebody on will come up with another program to stip my music of DRM. It's been hacked MANY times before.
I agree with Uchendu that if you are going to buy a track that the consumer should have unlimited rights to enjoy it themselves. But the person or company who owns the music should have the right to protect its intellectual property, and that means they should be able to make sure you don't give illegal copies to other people.
"No, DRM is crap. If I purchase a piece of music, I want to be able to play it on any player I own for personal use, as many times as I want. I want to be able to backup and assemble a library of music I like. If my hard drive fails I want to be able to restore said backup so I have my library of music again. If I change computers and OSes I want to be able to access the same library (this requires using open file formats). If I buy a third-party random MP3 player, I want my library accessible from there, too. All of the above are NOT screwing over record labels since they are all for personal use. All of the above should be basic inalienable digital rights."
I think hyloka works for the RIAA...
Hey hyloka, check this site out: www.hookedonphonics.com; being able to actually comprehend what you read might be a little more difficult though.
Wonderboy,
I wonder if you understand that reading between the lines takes a little more skill than accepting a CEO's words at face value, especially where that CEO is facing forced opening of their DRM in some European countries. I am not saying that I like DRM or the recording companies. I've been involved with companies that were crushed by the RIAA for developing peer to peer file sharing systems and have no love of the RIAA. The world would be a better place if they had made a deal with Napster and let us all share peer to peer with some sort of tracking/payment mechanism.
I just question Steve Jobs motives and timing for standing on the mountain and proclaiming DRM to be evil (but only for audio/not video where he doesn't control the market and doesn't want to make the movie studios mad), at this particular time and claiming that the reason he couldn't license fairplay is that his technical solution is too weak to guarantee that it can protect the content (as if the licensor of DRM technology would be making any warranties at all to the content partners of its licensees).
I think that Steve Jobs is a masterful marketer and what he's doing is either setting up the recording studios as the bad guy in advance of his next round of negotiations for licenses to their content or setting himself up as the oracle of change if the recording studios announce a move in this direction, even if they've been planning on it well before Steve Jobs pontificated on the subject.
It's nice that Jobs wants to abolish DRM, but the reason he gives for not licensing FairPlay is laughable. Microsoft has had no problem licensing WM-DRM to people; the only reason they came out with Zune is they were tired of people coming out with what they perceived to be crummy music players (though you can have my Creative Zen Vision:M when you peel it from my cold, dead fingers.)
The thing is I don't think completely abolishing DRM is the answer either. I think DRM does have its place. Music subscription services like URGE and movie rental services like CinemaNow would never work without some form of DRM, and I love my URGE subscription. But I do think that when you purchase something outright, it should come with no DRM applied whatsoever.
I don't think this is the sort of "Reality Distortion Field" that Jobs wanted...
To be clear, I'm not for DRM. I don't like it and I don't purchase content with DRM unless there is no other choice.
I was just pointing out that Steve Job's argument that he can't license Fairplay seems a bit weak and that his pronouncement that DRM should go away was more an attempt to shift the blame for not allowing consumers to use content he sells to the music companies, when it is technically feasible to have a DRM system that works across devices and systems, as demonstrated by Microsoft. We can certainly argue about whether Microsoft plays for sure is technically all there, but surely the man who holds his company out as the most innovative company out there should be able to make Fairplay or another DRM scheme work flawlessly across systems and devices.
"Besides, if PlaysForSure ever dies, I'm sure somebody on will come up with another program to stip my music of DRM. It's been hacked MANY times before."
Basically, you are counting on being able to perform an illegal act to ensure music you bought is playable - doesn't that seem sort of weird to you, the fact that you have to plan to do something that is illegal in order to ensure future use of tracks you purchased?
(And if you plan on stripping the DRM from tracks you only subscribed to, and did not buy, that is of course illegal.)
DRM isn't iherently evil. It's the way that it is implemented and used to protected distributor rights over consumer rights that is the real issue.
I will never buy an iPod since it's basically a closed system. It can't play other system's formats and it's formats cannot be exported.
Apple, while on one hand saying DRM should be gone also uses it to lock you into iTunes and iPod by holding the keys to music bought there.
Steve's attempt to seem like the good guy is only a PR move. I'm sure he doesn't think that the record companies will agree with this entirely, although I do think we may move more in that direction in the future.
Then the RIAA fires back with their own PR stunt trying to make Steve look bad for not opening up his system.
It's looking a lot like a presential race. And for those of you too stupid to read between the lines, get a life and quit being an apple fanboy.
I don't understand why people keep calling the iPod a "closed system". Sure it can only play a limted amount of formats (AAC, mp3, WAV and AIFF) but how is this different from the other offerings (Zen, Zune etc.) which also play some but not all audio formats. Yes, it cannot play playsforsure but WM devices also cannot play AAC protected files. Also, the iPod can be used on the Mac, Windows and Linux platforms. The Zen and the Zune can't even be used with Macs (I don't even know about Linux) so how can it be "closed" when it is more open than the other players out there?
Maybe a more accurate description is that the iPod will only play a limited amount of closed audio formats.
As for Jobs licensing FairPlay why bother. This is feasible, but guaranteed, as soon as this goes public, it will be cracked within days if not hours. This will be bad for Apple and the licensees so reading between the lines, Apple would rather not go to the trouble and just have no DRM whatsoever.
>I will never buy an iPod since it's basically a closed system.
Since when is mp3 a closed system. Steve Jobs' letter correctly points out that iTunes can rip music into the open mp3 and aac formats (you, the user, chooses...). And you aren't forced to buy anything from the iTunes store.
So how is the iPod a closed system? Because you have to load music onto it with iTunes? Puh-lease...
"Well, I think DRM is FANTASTIC"
-John Miller, Record Company fanboi
After I closed my dropped jaw and re-read John Miller's post, he really, really, meant that he likes DRM. He asks why anyone would want to "own" music, because it is an "antiquated" concept. I suppose we all don't need to "own" cars either. In Chicago we have zip cars you can rent for the time you need it, and then don't need to own a car. Of course, you can't just do whatever you want with said car, like drive to Mexico, loan it to a friend, or chop it up and turn it into a dune buggy.
When I buy a CD, I can loan it to friends, take it to Mexico and have it work there on a Mexican stereo, and use software to chop up the music and make samples for other projects if I was into that kind of thing. I could even do something revolutionary like, say, play it on my PC, my stereo, and my car stereo if I felt like. I could even play the music I "own" on my friend's stereo.
Talk of piracy is a load of BS because any 12 year old can log onto any end of sites and download illegal music without ever being caught, DRM or no DRM.
Dave Matthews suckitude aside, most independent artists that you have "discovered" are moving towards DRM-free sales of their music because it is the future, as are authors of "antiquated" paper books. Cory Doctorow gives away his books for FREE on his website for download and said this has sold him more books than being a copyright freak ever could because even when someone downloads his book for free, he realizes that:
1. They weren't going to buy it anyway
2. They might like it after d/loading and then buy it after all
3. It's great publicity to have it spread for free and reach people he otherwise wouldn't.
THE SAME APPLIES TO MUSIC. The RIAA is run by morons who got their business schooling in the 80s and just don't have a f'en clue as to how the future is going to work. And that goes for everyone else that "loves" DRM.
WAKE UP. DRM is the RIAA's last gasp at relevance and power -- DRM free music is the future, especially for new, unknown bands!
John Miller, you are a silly, silly man.
EDawg,
Have you ever heard of the saying, "that's like comparing apples to oranges"? You might want to think of that the next time you make a silly little 'cars are like music' argument. They're not even remotely similar products. If you took economics, you would know that non-DRMed music is non-rivalrous (copies can be made out of nothing) and non-excludable (record companies can't prevent anyone else from having it). Cars are the opposite. I would go further, but I sense your obtuseness would prevent you from following.
Next, independent artists can release all the free music they want. Nobody has to use DRM. It's a tool that protects content owners from having their property stolen from them. Granted, DRM isn't solving the whole problem, but it is preventing a lot of music from being stolen. Tracks bought from iTunes aren't easily distributed on the internet; it's mainly songs that are ripped from CD's that are being distributed. So DRM can't be called a failure. It's a stopgap.
DRM is here folks. Without it, you would all still be out there with your bit torrents or morpheus clients stealing music. Get used to it. Rather than abolish DRM, they need to come up with a true interoperability standard for all players. Enough of this proprietary BS. I too am a subscriber and love the fact that I can listen to millions of songs for a cheap monthly price. The problem that I face is that I have a combination of 6 desktops and laptops and 3 different media devices. I want to be able to logon to my service from any one of these PCs and be able to access my music and download it to which ever player I happen to be using. Now I can understand that DRM is restrictive but I think it is a necessary "evil" to prevent the illegal sharing that goes on. The artists need to make money as do the record companies. that's business. And no, I am not an employee for a record label, I am just an end user who thinks one shouls pay for their music and not be allowed to give it to someone just because they feel like it because they think they own it. Truth be told, even if you bought the CD, you do not own it. You own the right to listen to it but not distribute it and that is what people are doing.
DRM has it's place like with rentals and subscription services, but not in PURCHASED content.
It does NOT have a place in PURCHASED content. That is, if I buy a movie for 15 or 20 bucks, I should get to use it on my network seamlessly, without restriction. Same with music. This includes streaming across network to ALL devices (tivo, xbox, computer, smartphone via sling) and backing up my server in case of a crash.
If I RENT a movie via XBOX or some other service, then some level of DRM (wmv) that is standard and works across ALL devices is to be expected. I paid them money for the use of the content for a set period of time. I should use it as I see fit, and then give it up at the end of the rental period. I should be able to push the file to computer, tivo, smartphone, laptop, iPod, etc, and then have it eat itself at the end of the rental period.
All DRM should do is add a small nuisance for people who are on the fence about stealing content. You're never going to make something 'unbreakable' for hardcore hackers. At the same time, a speed bump like WMV and WMA DRM will stop 90% of the population from pirating.
That's the point of DRM and I think it'll be the future.
Maybe the RIAA is comprised of teenagers.
Dad: Son, you should get a good education and a good paying job. I don't think you should have to work as hard as I did.
Son hears: I don't think you should have to work/
It's not the iPod itself but the iPod/iTunes model which is a closed system. So is the Zune and its marketplace. The only protected files they'll play come from their respective stores, and conversely, they are each the only player that will play these files.
It's not a completely closed system from a consumer perspective because of the support for unprotected formats. However, from a manufacturer/music retailer's perspective it's about as closed as it's possible to be - Apple won't license you Fairplay to sell music to iPods, and neither will they license it to allow you to play music from iTunes on your player. (Same goes for Microsoft. Motorola did put iTunes on a couple of phones, but they're only allowed to do so as a complete player made by Apple- they don't have a Fairplay license either.) Short of selling unprotected music which the record companies don't currently allow, as a competitor the system is closed.
PFS is unbreakable? What happen to FairUse4WM? Viodentia was a figment of my imagination? Or was Steve right a licensed system is weaker than closed?
The problems with DRM are many and well discussed. Here's one that's not. An end to DRM would be one more step towards the direct distribution of music by the artist. Corporations have no place in art, and yet DRM is one entirely huge corporate pile of cow crap. Realize that small labels are popping up left and right that allow good musicians the chance to record their art in a high quality manner without paying ridiculous amounts. When it comes to distribution though these labels are almost all still dependent on the majors. With a free, open, non DRM, music distribution service a la iTunes a band could completely eliminate big business and charge $3 an album of which they'd get $2.50. (twice what the RIAA would like to pay them on an album sold for 5x more.) DRM isn't hurting just the customer it's hurting the artist. At this point, illegal downloading does less to hurt real artists than RIAA companies and DRM does.
I think this is the RIAA saying in effect that Steve Jobs' reason for not licensing FairPlay is bunk (he says in his letter it's because of them, essentially), and they're making a stab at him.
Anything that puts the head of the market leader in personal audio players in the same room as the anti-
DRM crowd is a great thing-even though the comments are meant to be a reply to the EU's stance on the iPod.
I echo others who comment on DRM being necessary if you want to have subscription music services- as I most certainly do. I've listened to and shared more new music this last year due to my subscription to go music services than ever. For me, it's been worth it.
But buying my music and STILL having restrictions on it? That's just favoring the corporation over the consumer.
Oh, and I think this should be read like a joke from the RIAA. Jobs says one of three options. He doesn't like option one, RIAA laughs at option 3 which means the only thing he really said is option 2.
John Miller,
You are absolutely correct that cars are not songs, and I certainly don't mean anything personal in our spirited debate, my obtuseness aside ;)
Yes, songs can be copied easily and disseminated-- so can books available for free online. "Copy, cut, paste" comes to mind. This is the clearest example I have. As I said, people that want it illegally are going to get it anyway, DRM or no DRM. If someone pruchases a song, they should have 100Z% ownership of it, end of discussion.
As to discovering new bands, so you can discover new music, why not just let people listen online to a band and/or song, and then if they want it they can buy it? Renting it is fine if that's what somneone wants to do, as they have limits on what they are renting just like someone renting a movie. Selling someone a song and then telling them how they can use it (or most likely *not* use it) is the height of insanity.
DRM DOES NOT protect artist's intellectual property. Not even a little bit. As I mentioned, anyone slightly Internet savvy can download anything they want for free and never get caught. The RIAA only catches those less net-savvy-- and that pool of people is shrinking all the time. (They are also the ones most likely to buy a non DRM laced CD anyway).
As with books, songs can be easily replicated and those that want to copy them and get them free already will. Those that buy a song/album are the ones getting screwed because the music companies have an insane business strategy to piss off the customer.
Again:
1. Anyone can get music for free if they want to illegally already despite DRM's existence.
2. People that pay for music legally probably aren't going to just start giving away every song they have to others, if they wanted to do so, they wouldn't pay for it in the first place. They would download for free, and then share for free.
3. Even music not paid for helps spread the word about new bands. And then they are MORE likely to attract paying fans, not less.
4. Musicians that sell direct to consumers is the future. The artist deserves 100% of the proceeds of their art, not the pittance allowed by music companies. In the case where they choose to use an online store, they still get more than they would with a record company.
5. IF DRM is only hurting the people who buy music legally anyway, THEN DRM is no longer relevant and useful and just engenders more and more rage against music companies.
6. Artists (musical and the written word) have said that free distribution of their work has made them MORE money in the long run than copy protecting their work to the nth degree-- the only reason music companies fight this is because they are swiftly becoming the middle man, and know they are being cut out.
DRM is a failure that needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.
DRM rocks. especially when i want to listen to music while i'm on my two month vacation. What's that you say? AH, crap!
I see the RIAA has stocked an army to go out commenting on sites like Engadget today. Don't kid yourselves, guys - my company used to do this too. Almost every big company does. These are paid RIAA shills. Still, I'll bite:
"But the person or company who owns the music should have the right to protect its intellectual property, and that means they should be able to make sure you don't give illegal copies to other people."
There has never - NEVER - in this country been a doctrine of pre-emptive law enforcement. That's true of everything, music or anything else. The obvious reason is that you don't punish law-abiding people. You punish criminals. Punishing law-abiding people just pisses your consumers off. This is not good business. How do some of you not see this? Oh, right, I forgot - the RIAA is paying your bills.
If I go and buy an article of clothing, is there something intrinsic to the pattern of the clothing that's designed specifically to prevent me from taking a sewing machine and duplicating it, then selling it to a friend? No. Even with the threat of piracy (and plenty of fake Gucci bags are confiscated every year), clothing and accessory makers have sought to punish the *criminals* who actually sell the bootleg merchandise, *not* the consumers buying it at the point of sale.
Nobody is arguing that music piracy should be legalized, so stop equating an anti-DRM stance with a pro-piracy stance. It's insulting to our intelligence. Go ahead and prosecute real pirates - you know, the people who are actually out there distributing copied songs. That's what piracy is. Piracy is not having the same song on two PC's in your own house to listen to in two different rooms, and neither is having a copy on a PC, having a copy on an iPod and having a copy in your car.
But don't treat every single consumer like a pirate. That's what DRM does. Not only that, but because of its restrictions and because of bad laws like the DMCA, it *makes* a lot of legitimate consumers into pirates in the eyes of the RIAA simply because they have no choice but to break the DRM in order to exercise their fair use rights. You know, the rights explicitly granted to them under copyright law and further clarified in 20+ years of case law.
Even from a pure business perspective, all DRM has done for the record industry is turned Apple into a virtual monopoly on music players, because it locks consumers in. How has that helped the RIAA? Wouldn't it be better for the RIAA, which is now in a desperate bid to try to dislodge Apple from their perch in order to regain pricing leverage, if MS could sell Zunes that play music purchased from the iTunes Music Store? Then what happens when the Zune gets popular... wouldn't they like it if iPod users could similarly download songs from the Zune store? The only truly workable solution for interoperability is ditching DRM. On the other hand, the only possible outcome of DRM is for one company to control nearly the entire market for downloadable music and players. Even Apple now realizes that this doesn't make any sense.
DRM is dead. Accept it. The RIAA just doesn't know it yet. But they will, or they'll be dead along with it.
Jeff,
I'm not a shill. The RIAA has never been concerned with PR, so why would they start now by employing people to troll a board that's not going to have any effect on the outcome of DRM? Makes no sense.
I'm just hoping that people who are obsessed with having to own all their music don't kill off the subscription services.
Jeff is absolutely right in his comments on DRM. While I argue reasons for why it is foolish and really useless, what it boils down to is the record companies assuming consumers are guilty of piracy before they are, and stopping them.
DRM is such a joke, I am too tired to even type another response. It is the past, and totally useless. You can't try and pre-emptively punish people for something you think they may do with THEIR product after they bought it.
OK, I get it; it's a continuation of the bs Mr. Gates treated us to in his recent interview on M$n. Apple can't secure its OS and Microsoft can. The sheer ridiculousness of that statement boggles the mind. Then again, we're living in a world where those in power are somehow able to convince a sizable number of us to believe things simply because they are oft repeated.
I'm not sure that there is anything digital that can't be hacked, reverse engineered or otherwise compromised. That is the point Steve was making in his essay. Why he decided to express himself publicly is anyone's guess, jab at RIAA? My only question to Mr. Jobs, a sitting member of Disney's board, is how about Disney and ABC going first in releasing DRM free content? The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
One of the biggest problems with most things digital is that you never really own anything, except maybe the hardware(still, even the purposes for which you use the hardware are regulated); you license use. One either agrees to the terms, or you don't get to use it at all. This hardly constitutes an agreement; which, to my mind, involves two parties reaching a decision together, not one side being put over a barrel. The bottom line to me, is simply that the new business paradigm is for items never to be purchased. By controlling the licensing, being able to say things like, "this product is not guaranteed for any fitness, etc., etc." companies are able to go beyond reasonable indemnification and can move to controlling every aspect of a customer's 'use' of its products. Thus weakening and eventually eliminating the notion of 'fair use'.
I never said that PlaysForSure is unbreakable. I said Microsoft wants its DRM as unbreakable as possible. I cited the same hack as you (I didn't remember the name of the hack but I remember that Microsoft released a critical patch within two days).
The point is that DRM means Microsoft can make more money off content therefore Microsoft invests more to make it as unbreakable as possible. No DRM means Apple can make more money off hardware so Apple puts the least amount of effort into it.
It's not a surprise that Microsoft has the better DRM and can license it but Apple has weak DRM and will be hacked to smithereens if it's licensed.
I'd just like to point out to all the people who claim that Apple likes DRM because it "locks people into the iPod" that Jobs addressed this in his essay.
He wrote:
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
@Jesse:
Jobbs does indeed "address" the locking-in issue- but did you notice he poses one question and then answers another?
The previous paragraph begins "Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company.". He then replies by claiming that the low average number of songs means for most people this isn't true. So, instead of explaining how purchasing a "body of music" isn't a problem, he's explaining that most people don't have one, so it's not a problem! Or, in other words, those who DO have a substantial "body of music" ARE locked in.
I can't believe this. I must have fallen and hit my head.
First Jobs turns on DRM, blames the people who keep Apple going (the music companies, without who the iPod would flop). Next the RIAA misread an entire paragraph and fail to understand the entire message.
This is too funny to be true.
I haven't heard any good music that I would download in like 5 or 6 years. So DRM or no DRM. Doesn't matter to me.
The Recording Industry Association of America, what jokers, I mean, the making companies think that we are against the wishes of our consumers prank.
Oh, wait...they were serious about that one.
I think you guys are missing the point. You really think the RIAA can't read? I think they are interpreting his letter (as they should) as a direct attack on their organization and everything they stand for. He's asking them to abandon the tactic they've chosen to protect their franchise, and so, in return, they're ignoring some of the details of his letter and asking him to do the same. Essentially, they are saying "listen buddy, you want us to give up our business model - why don't you show us the way."
I think it's actually a pretty clever turning of the tables.
"Steve's attempt to seem like the good guy is only a PR move."
Nail on the head there. Well done, sir.
Jobs has NO, I repeat, NO interest in DRM going away. Why? Because if DRM is gone, the ipod platform/system is open to competition. Steve does not want that.
Steve is not for choice. He is for making money. There's nothing wrong with that. Let's just not make him some savior of the plebians when that just isn't so, K?
There are a lot of people here talking about which they know nothing.
The iPod came a good while before the iTunes music store. I believe it was even made for windows before the music store. I also believe it was already the most popular PMP before the music store was opened.
It's also strange that iTunes music store was the first one that the RIAA licensed their catalogs to. Why didn't they insist on the same DRM for future stores?
The iPod will not be dethroned if the fairplay DRM is removed. I don't think too many people are buying iPods only because of the store.
To the posters who think Apple should have no problem licensing it out to everyone else and who claim Jobs is admitting it's too weak to enforce - you misread the letter. Licensing it out to everyone else is what will weaken it. Just look at how easy it is to get a copy of windows... Too many people have their hands in it. Look at how great plays4sure is. How many times has microsoft had to patch it?
Whose responsibility would it be to make sure that Fairplay updates get written for all the devices that want to use it? Apple? Probably not. So how reliable and how secure would it be if Apple had to tell everyone how it works so they can code it for their player? What are the chances that it will be done correctly for every player? How buggy would the whole system be? How secure would it really be? Again, just take a historical look at windows.
Someone else brought up the good point about Microsoft wanting to own the DRM. Check this out:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
It's a bit technical, but here is one of the best parts:
Vista includes various requirements for “robustness” in which the content industry, through “hardware robustness rules”, dictates design requirements to hardware manufacturers. The level of control the content producers have over technical design details is nothing short of amazing. As security researcher Ed Felten quoted from Microsoft documents on his freedom-to-tinker web site about a year ago:
“The evidence [of security] must be presented to Hollywood and other content owners, and they must agree that it provides the required level of security. Written proof from at least three of the major Hollywood studios is required”.
So if you design a new security system, you can't get it supported in Windows Vista until well-known computer security experts like MGM, 20th Century-Fox, and Disney give you the go-ahead (this gives a whole new meaning to the term “Mickey-Mouse security”). It's absolutely astonishing to find paragraphs like this in what are supposed to be Windows technical documents, since it gives Hollywood studios veto rights over Windows security mechanisms.
And some people complain about Apple...
They read the signal correctly. We interpret their message wrong.
Allow me to translate: RIAA response = forget DRM-Free pipe dream
It's amazing how such a dysfunctional body (backward thinking) still monopolizes one of the most creative industry. I sincerely hope technology will soon render RIAA irrelevant.
DRMs are really just "Digital Restrictions Management" and I stopped counting the number of times DRMs generated problems and hassles for me for something I actually bought, the latest being a recurring offender: Zinio and from witch I will never buy a magazine again - screw them. Anybody who's glad to buy content with an electronic straitjacket is a fucking idiot.
Do like I do and refuse to buy anything with a DRM attached to it, unless it's obvious and sure you can suck it to them (i.e. DVD and CD ripping). I'll be glad they go under with their stupid business model, somebody else will come up to the plate and get my business.
As for the RIAA, they're just an industry mouthpiece staffed by money grubbing lawyers that didn't want to work for the Mafia. They have about the same amount of decency and morals as their illustrious colleagues nonetheless.
Agreed 100%. The RIAA sucks a huge amount.
"Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies."
I wish we could keep the big four music companies away from our music too.
hey folks - I don't like the RIAA as much as the next guy, but I think it is a little irresponsible of Engadget to claim they 'misread' Jobs' letter.
The whole interweb is aflutter with the 'misread' claim and it seems totally wrong to me. This whole thing is about public posturing and Jobs' letter basically said - 'We could open up fairplay but it wouldn't do any good'. I think the RIAA is just calling his bluff - which is exactly what each of you would do if you were in their position (what else CAN they do???)
I am awaiting the death of DRM like everyone else, but this is going to be a battle and as much as we don't like it - the RIAA is going to fight back. Strategically I think it is a brilliant move on their part and a far cry from misreading the comments of Jobs.
FairBagels
Let’s imagine a catering company called Apple Catering. Apple Catering is a division of Apple Breakroom Supplies, which sells coffee makers, soda machines, and other stuff used in breakrooms at offices. Apple also makes the iPlate, the world most popular portable food-carrying device.
Apple realizes that there is money to be made selling bagels in these breakrooms. Office workers would gladly pay $0.99 for the convenience of buying a bagel right at the office – much easier than going down to the bakery for a whole box of bagels. The only hitch is that it would need to work on the honor system – office workers could take a bagel, and would be asked to drop the $0.99 in a jar.
Apple Catering approaches the “big four” bakers. The bakers agree that it’s a good market, but are worried that people won’t put the money in the jar. They ask Apple Catering to put padlocks on the bagels.
Apple Catering tells the bakers that it is impossible to stop all bagel theft, but they will make the best padlocks that they can.
Continued at:
http://jimonwebgames.com/articles/2007/02/08/fairbagels
It's clear that all the RIAA sees when they read Jobs' letter is dollar signs.
Hey, Abdul... Did you know that the RIAA and MPAA offices are vital cogs in the functioning of the American economy? Say, I have an idea!
Sorry. There's got to be a better way, right? Hope so. I would never condone such a course of action, and I apologize for any racist connotations, but it would probably get a mixed reaction if it happened, no? Especially if the people who worked there got tipped off and evacuated...
People are always saying they hate Bush. That makes no sense. Are the names of the top honchos of the MAFIAA available to the public? Let's hate them instead. Bush will have to move on anyway. Can we elect those other guys? If not, it's a dangerous situation. And the RIAA's response? "Let them eat cake."
I think musicians should just submit their music to Apple and other downloading services and bypass the record companies altogether. Stick it to RIAA once and for all.