CE-Oh no he didn't! Part XXV - Warner CEO Bronfman calls Jobs' DRM stance "completely without logic or merit."

While EMI might be giving the concept of DRM-free online music sales a bit of thought, it doesn't sound like Warner Music is digging the idea in the slightest. "We advocate the continued use of DRM," said CEO Edgar Bronfman during the Q&A portion of an earnings conference call on Thursday. "The notion that music does not deserve the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit." Edgar apparently couldn't be troubled to spell out exactly what's illogical by the stance espoused by Steve Jobs in his open letter to the industry, but he did decry Steve's method itself: "Frankly, manifestos in advance of those discussions is counter-productive." Wait, does that mean that you were considering getting rid of DRM, but Jobs ruined it all with a whiny letter? Or do you mean that because of his actions you're going to slap your tracks with even more cumbersome DRM just to teach us what happens when people attempt to dissent? We're so confused.

[Tek @ Feb 11th 2007 8:42PM]

I think what he meant was the Jobs was being hypocritical by pretending to be against DRM while operating a closed DRM promoting scheme like the iTunes/iPod combo that has been very profitable for Apple ... all the while refusing to license its DRM scheme.

[Ignacio @ Feb 11th 2007 9:28PM]

You obviously didn't bother to read the letter...

[Bman21212 @ Feb 11th 2007 8:51PM]

Also the fact that jobs has not been willing to license its copy protection to allow other people to use it besides iTunes. This is disingenuous at best.a

[Bob @ Feb 11th 2007 8:52PM]

Don't fool yourself the letter from Jobs was just a PR stunt to deflect the mounting criticism to open up the iTunes music store for other players besides the iPod, nothing more nothing less.

[LukeA @ Feb 11th 2007 9:06PM]

Bronf -- Ed Bronf

[Josh McGrath @ Feb 11th 2007 10:46PM]

HAHAHAHHAHAH

[Ted Nugent @ Feb 11th 2007 9:23PM]

What's illogical about Jobs' stance? The fact that his company has sold more DRM-protected material than any other in the world, perhaps? Over 2 billion songs, to be exact. If Jobs is so steadfastly against DRM, why does his company employ it?

I would think that something that obvious wouldn't need to be spelled out. You've proven me wrong, "Paul Miller."

[pixelbender @ Feb 11th 2007 9:59PM]

@ nug

You apparently didn't even read Job's letter, did you?

And this bloke's bs is just that - protection for software is nothing like for music. You take your music in your pocket, on your computer, throughout your house, and on any other stereo. Software just isn't the same.

[Pete @ Feb 11th 2007 9:42PM]

"What's illogical about Jobs' stance? The fact that his company has sold more DRM-protected material than any other in the world, perhaps?"

Didn't his letter say that they are DRM-protected because the record companies required them to be? No-one seems to be denying it, only his proposed (and entirely sensible) solution.

The examples of "software, film, video games or other intellectual property" stated here are ridiculous -- pretty much all of those have copy protection in all their forms, not just software-based but also physically (if applicable). None provide such an easily available bypass to their protection (buy a CD and rip it), which makes DRM on music tracks so utterly pointless.

[Ted Nugent @ Feb 11th 2007 9:52PM]

It'd be really tough for Apple to tell the record companies that they won't endorse DRM, huh?

Apple tacitly supports DRM by using it. Period. End of story.

[[e-mail] @ Feb 11th 2007 10:22PM]

"...simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit."

yeah man, that guy's right. screw the physical world!

[Zorque @ Feb 11th 2007 10:40PM]

Edgar Bronfman is slime. This man is a slanderous, hypocritical thief. Not only does he let his own children steal music, but he claims his protection schemes are for the sake of the artists and not the companies. These are the same artists, mind you, who make about $1 per album sold, while music prices remain ever high. I hope he dies in a fire.

[John Doe @ Feb 11th 2007 11:04PM]

Bronfman, do us all a favor. Break your neck, die, and go burn in hell you sack of shit bastard. >:-(

The world would be a better place.

[dan @ Feb 11th 2007 11:19PM]

1) Jobs says he wants to TURN OFF the DRM. This certainly
would open up iTunes songs to run on any player.

2) If you don't like the fact that songs you buy at the ITMS
don't run on other players, don't buy them there. Buy them from
Microsoft or Walmart or whomever. Or buy the frigging CD.
When I signed up for a Verizon cell phone, I don't get all bent out of shape because it doesn't work on my buddy's Sprint phone.
I know going in what I'm getting. Are people just not very bright?

Dan

[ChillyWilly @ Feb 11th 2007 11:26PM]

Bronfman's attempt to sound reasonable aside, the only thing him and Jobs share is the common goal to make money. Jobs at least has the consumer's interest in his search for more money. And he's got the technical chops to back up his words. Bronfman is a spoiled-ass corporate figurehead who has only one interest in mind.

Removing DRM will sell more digital downloads. Period.

[Mark @ Feb 11th 2007 11:58PM]

I don't see why you say:

"Edgar apparently couldn't be troubled to spell out exactly what's illogical by the stance espoused by Steve Jobs in his open letter to the industry..."

He spelled it out quite clearly as you had just quoted:

"The notion that music does not deserve the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit."

By the way, Steve's stance was that if DRM vanishes entirely it would be "clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

Isn't it entirely logical that someone who makes money by selling content would be in favor of copy-protection for that content, and someone who makes money by selling the hardware to play said content would be in favor of anything that made that hardware more attractive to the consumer. I see nothing but rational behavior here on both sides.

The real issue is that the "legacy product" that he refers to (audio tape) has an inherent DRM system. Audio tape doesn't make perfect copies, and copies of copies are even worse. In addition, copies are produced one at a time at 1X speed. That allows you to make copies directly from the purchased source for personal use and for people you know, but not much more.

In a world of perfect digital copies where the nth generation image is still identical to the original, and where the internet and peer-to-peer software allows instant anonymous sharing with total strangers across the globe, some kind of DRM is inevitable. Unfortunately the DRM we have so far is incredibly restrictive and doesn't allow the sort of fair-use that consumers were used to with audio tape. Hopefully new, better, and more subtle DRM will evolve that will be a good compromise between the expectations of both producers and consumers.

[Nick @ Feb 12th 2007 11:15AM]

DRM is in the best interest of the industry and the corporations. This means that less restrictive more subtle DRMs will never occur until some underdog non Corporation takes the reins and forces the industry to change by showing how influencial a subtle DRM offering is to consumers. My prediction is that they are only going to become more strict and more of a pain in the ass as time goes on. Strict DRM is what the major players want.. and strict DRM is what they will force upon us.

[jdcarter @ Feb 12th 2007 10:15AM]

The ability to crack the DRM of music purchased from the iTunes Music Store is built into iTunes. It's called 'Burn Disc' Somebody mention another software product that has a way to circumvent copy-protection in one-click. Yet France and Scandanavia seem to be unable to locate this feature.

[Special_K @ Feb 12th 2007 12:33AM]

How many times must people say this before these guys hear it: CDs do not have DRM, so why should downloadable media? The music industry has already chosen to distribute CDs with the ability to be ripped to any format and sent to anybody. These guys have forgotten that the CD player is dead (or in its last throes) and that (let's say) 90% of CDs nowadays are bought for the sole purpose of being ripped- which means that the industry is already digging its own grave (if, as they wrongly posit, the MP3 is destroying the music industry). I hate DRM with a firey passion that burns with the intensity of a thousand suns, yet iTunes is the only way to get music where I am (at a boarding school in a town with no music store and an internet connection that blocks MP3 and WMV but not AAC files). Every time someone says "Hey, awesome music you've got! Can I have that song?" I have to shamefully explain to them that "Wellll, see, I download off of iTunes. So, I can't give it to you..." and when I suggest to them that they buy it off of iTunes themselves, they look at me like I'm an idiot. I certainly feel like one, and Mr. Bronfman should too.

[pmow @ Feb 12th 2007 12:30AM]

The "legacy product" is the compact disc.

[Mark @ Feb 12th 2007 12:55AM]

@pmow

You're right, the CD is another unprotected legacy product. However, consumer expectations of fair-use in music copying started before CDs were invented, and until CD burners became commonplace, consumer copies of CDs were still made on audio tape. The advent of cheap CD ripping and burning equipment allowed the perfect-copy part of the equation, but the internet and file-sharing is what really got the music industry's panties in a bunch, and what created the knee-jerk reaction that current DRM represents.

[Intrepid @ Feb 12th 2007 2:14AM]

He is right, DRM stops piracy (to a small extent) and the real solution as an 'open-DRM', not no DRM at all.

[Mark @ Feb 12th 2007 2:02AM]

@Special_K

That's a great example of what's wrong with current DRM. You just want to give a copy of a song to a friend to introduce them to that artist, but the DRM won't let you. But if there is no DRM at all then there is nothing to stop someone with less scruples than you from making it available to anyone in the world who wants it. What if somehow you could give a copy to a friend that would work without question on their player, but that copy couldn't be copied. To me, a good compromise would be to be able to copy music you bought, but not copy music you haven't bought. How that can be achieved I don't have a clue.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but some CDs have been copy-protected and I'm sure more will be in the future for the same reasons they want DRM on downloads. Be careful what you wish for, if Apple takes DRM off their AAC files, then AAC may also be blocked where you're at.

[bruce brendon @ Feb 12th 2007 7:18AM]

if people are want to copy music, video etc.. THEY WILL!!

how much has been spent wasted on DRM, what next DR-Photocopiers, Pencils?! Zzz...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_audio_cassette#Home_dubbing

if only entertainment was about entertaining...

:o)

[ryan @ Feb 12th 2007 10:05AM]

if people didn't buy it, they wouldn't use drm, it's as simple as that, until people stop buying it, why would they stop?

[Mike @ Feb 12th 2007 9:58AM]

The problem is that DRMs do not stop piracy: when a song is released, not matter what kind of DRM it has, someone will break it and make it available on P2P, and within hours, the file will have been downloaded by at least thousands of people. Even if this song were not available on online stores but only as a CD with multiple copy protection systems, someone would find a way to break the protections and put it online.
So we end up with two kinds of people:
- people who will download the song from P2P, without paying it, and will be able to play on whichever device they want,
- and "honest consumers", who will pay for the song, but will have to suffer the consequences of DRM, which will restrain them from playing the song on every device they'd want it to.

I buy some songs from online store, but not often, because my cellphone doesn't read DRM, so I spend a lot of time to strip out the DRM to be able to listen to a song I paid for on a legal online store. If I wanted to, I could just download the same song from P2P, but I don't want to (call it principles). In the end, I buy very few songs from online stores, and I nearly don't buy any CDs because more and more have copy protection which prevents me from playing it on my mp3 player. I nearly don't buy music anymore, because I'm tired of being treated like a criminal when I do. I'm tired of music companies thinking that because I buy music, that makes me a potential pirate and that I should therefore be treated like one.

[Aron Trimble @ Feb 12th 2007 10:12AM]

Mike got it best.

The problem isn't DRM itself; the problem is that record companies assume their PAYING customers are pirates. And as such, I get less use out of my paid music downloads than a pirate gets out of his unpaid (read: stolen) music downloads.

[Trent @ Feb 12th 2007 2:47PM]

Jeez, you freaks who actually want DRM scare the crap out of me! At what time in your life did you decide that you wanted to hand some of your freedoms over to the RIAA? Listen, DRM does nothing other than make a MINOR inconvenience to a real pirate, while making only a MODERATE inconvenience to the consumer. Only the real idiots are baffled by DRM security.

It's protecting nothing! None of it. Can any of you name a DRM system that is not cracked (in some manner) as of yet?

You would think that the RIAA (or whomever they are buying DRM development from this week) is sick of reinventing DRM by now. It has to be COSTLY failures as well by now. Hell even Microsoft has failed at it.

Guess what, no matter how good they make the DRM, I'm still not going to buy it. I hope it cost them BILLIONS so they can choke on it.

[Keyth Halloween @ Feb 12th 2007 10:47PM]

He's right! Letting people have free access to music, TV shows, and movies will cause the industry to COLLAPSE!!!

Just LOOK at what libraries have done to the book publishing industry! People can just read WHOLE BOOKS for free, and now nobody ever buys them!!!

. . .Except that this isn't true. I know. I sell books for a living, and seeing as we post higher numbers year after year, and people still buy TONS of books, I'd say being able to go to a library, borrow and read a whole book, and even having the freedom to scan or photocopy books at home when you're borrowing them hasn't hurt book sales at all. In fact, it propels them.

DRM is idiotic. Give it up.