Apple and EMI ditching DRM is good, but it's not good enough
By Ryan Block 
posted Apr 2nd 2007 3:24PM
posted Apr 2nd 2007 3:24PM
For years Apple has said that given the choice between DRMed and DRM-free media ecosystems, it would always choose the former. Thankfully things seemed to be looking up when Jobs apparently had a change of heart after last year's crippling European pressures wrought havoc on the public perception of the iMonopoly. But we're still nowhere near there yet -- and we don't just mean that the other big labels, Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner, haven't switched over to DRM-free. What we're seeing here is a rabbit being pulled from a hat; it's wonderful, but what does it mean?
We should be clear to start: we don't believe Jobs is leading by example here -- EMI is. EMI is taking a huge, huge step in its business, and we fully commend them. Honestly, we do, kudos to you, EMI. Apple is taking the role of providing the first venue for EMI's great DRM-free music experiment; but what we find disconcerting is that Stevie J. is asking the labels do what he says -- not what he does. Now would be a good time to remind everyone that with last year's acquisition of Pixar, Steve Jobs became the single largest shareholder in the Walt Disney Company. With his $4 billion+ stake in the media megacorp and his seat on the board of directors, you'd think Jobs would be quick to encourage Disney-owned labels, like Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records, to "embrace [DRM-free] sales wholeheartedly." Perhaps Jobs and Iger don't see as eye-to-eye as they previously postured, or perhaps Jobs is waiting to see whether this is actually the right move for the business, consumers be damned.
The finer details of EMI and Jobs's announcement today were also dubious. Despite the silver lining, which is that full albums should cost the same but will now default to DRM-free files, the two businesses still conflated DRM-free music with the discerning tastes of audiophiles. Steve mentioned that 128-bit AAC just isn't good enough for the sharp-eared, so uncrippled tracks are being bumped to 256Kbps. This gives Apple the ability to sell the music as a separate product and price point, while giving consumers the illusion of greater value. But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's what we deserve, and we demand it. Asking customers to pay 30% more for no DRM and a higher bitrate is a distraction, a parlor trick to take our attention away from the philosophical issue: EMI is still selling DRMed music. EMI CEO Eric Nicoli said, "Not everybody cares about interoperability or sound quality." Since when did the two become so intrinsically linked? Sure, not everyone cares to vote either, that doesn't mean it's a premium privilege. Nicoli also stated EMI has taken the view that it must "trust consumers." It's true, today's announcement shows more trust than they ever displayed before -- but it's still conditional trust.
So why not make 99-cent 128-bit AAC tracks DRM free as well? We don't think there's an easy answer, but perhaps this is a move more tentative than people realize; this whole uncrippled music thing might just be an experiment. Assume it's a test to see how many people will buy DRM-free music, and possibly also a test to see how many copy it. If the experiment fails EMI and Apple can blame lack of consumer interest, or quickly inflated rates of piracy -- but they certainly wouldn't ever admit that the 30% price premium and inability to choose smaller file sizes and lower bitrates will have anything to do with lack of uptake. Meanwhile unwitting customers -- the type not to know of the crippling perils of DRM until it's too late -- will just go on buying the cheaper 99-cent tracks. So perhaps you can see why we don't fully believe that Jobs & Co. yet fully believe in a DRM-free ecosystem.
Now take a look at Steve's response to the question of whether TV shows will be sold without DRM. (And keep that $4 billion dollar stake / board of directors seat in mind.) Jobs stated he believed that video is different, and that movies are not an appropriate analogue because they aren't distributed without DRM at the same frequency of sales as music. But why is media not media to the man that's made peddling this media the crux of his business? What is the real difference between music and TV shows and movies when it comes to end-user consumption? We suspect we don't need to answer, but we'd also like to point out that it's probably safe to estimate that nearly 100% of Americans are in range of terrestrial analogue broadcasts from all the "majors" of their particular industry -- and all these broadcasts of flagship, primetime shows are completely DRM-free in analog and often digital TV streams, with which people can record and do with as they please. Jobs's argument about TV, movies, and DRM makes even less sense from a protection point of view: what's easier for users to pirate, a 50MB album, or a 5GB movie?
Lastly, we'd like to point out that, coincidentally, very, very few devices actually stand to benefit from Apple selling DRM-free AAC tracks. The iPod plays MP3s, but popular devices devices by all the big companies -- iRiver, Creative, Archos, most SanDisk devices, etc. (we forgetting any?) -- do not support AAC. In fact, the only other devices that we can think of that supports AAC are a handful of Sony players, the Sansa E200R, and the Zune -- and good luck getting that to work with your Mac or iTunes. We understand it may be a little much to ask that iTunes break its vertical integration and be made extensible for additional device support with this new DRM-free approach, but really, what's the point? Almost no devices play AAC, and Apple is deliberately not making these downloads available in MP3.
The bottom line is this: we want to live in a DRM-free world, and while we're not necessarily convinced that Jobs, Apple, Disney, and EMI do too, at least some of the players in this ecosystem are willing to look at it from the consumer's point of view. That's some of the best news we've heard about the record industry in a long, long while, and we honestly do hope that it sparks an uptick in sales for an industry in turmoil. But we don't approve of misleading sales pitches, confusing conditions, and second guessing what should just be a better consumer experience, and making it seem like some kind of privilege. If these companies are going to dump DRM, they need to really dump it, and never look back -- the buying public, Engadget included, certainly won't.
"we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's a right, and we demand it."
Let me fix this for you:
"we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media, that we don't have to get up off our fat asses from behind our computer and actually go out into the Big Blue-Ceilinged Room to a store to buy shiny discs with free, usable, uncrippled media at a 50% premium over iTunes, is a feature -- it's a right, and we demand it. We also want a pony."
And it is completely inexcusable when a gadget blog claims that "almost no devices play AAC". What kind of credibility is Engadget supposed to have when it says things like this? Are there no editors or fact-checkers?
Wow, you guys forgot Steve's interview in Rolling Stone magazine, when ITMS launched? Steve's on the record for being strongly against DRM, long ago.
I have to agree with the haters that this article is great contender for worst-episode-ever honors. The title gets it right, but then the text swerves off into flaming Steve Jobs, partly based on ignorance (you can cross-convert AAC to MP3 with one click in iTunes).
My biggest complaints about iTunes tracks are 1) bit rate and 2) DRM. That's why I buy CDs. I'd guess I have about 40 iTunes tracks. If I could, I'd upgrade them all. That would cost me $12.
When will, say, Sony or Microsoft address my biggest complaints about one of their retarded products? Will they let me upgrade for $12?
The EMI deal is not going to change the world. But it is a good thing. Let's not complain about good things, please.
ryan,
just as it's the consumer's right to consume creative media however they please within the spectrum of options available (and no, it is not a "right" to demand that media be delivered in a certain fashion), it's also within net citizens' rights to stop reading an increasingly-less credible gadget blog whose authors make disingenuous, hyper-opinionated tirades without time or facts to back themselves up.
Though I am skeptical, for many of the reasons Ryan brings up, this is still a first step. Sure, I am worried that this is the labels skamming to prove it won't work. However, EMI didn't HAVE to do this? Or did they? Did the votes of apathy towards new releases and rampant piracy send a message? Time will tell.
Also, I think the AAC argument is rather minor, since you can alter (re-code) these files. Would I LIKE to see an MP3 offering in the future? Damn skippy I would. And frankly, I'd like to see this same thing at other sites, so that the iTunes monopoly will one day be broken.
Charging a premium for a higher bitrate? A con and a travesty. What the premium charge really is is a piracy tax, which frankly, I think is fair. It was done before, with blank media. Now, it's too HIGH of a tax, but the concept is fair, I think. You should be able to choose the bitrate, with no added cost. Encoding at several "common" bitrates costs nearly NOTHING extra for the label or the e-tailer. The piracy tax should be built into the DRM free nature of the files, not the bitrate they're sampled at. Let's just be honest about these things.
Most important here, and I still have hope, as this is a first step, - the basic unit cost is still TOO DAMN HIGH!. A DRM free single should cost $.25-.50, depending on demand. At those prices, I'll buy. You have eliminated the bulk of the entire physical infrastructure and cost of distrubting media, and the most you can do is knock 30% off the already over-inflated price? Nope, sorry jack, doesn't fly with me.
Finally, the megacorps have created copyright laws that are so restrictive and unending, that there will never again be a common public domain culture that we all share as the heritage of our civilization. Making that stuff free, in its due time, is what opens up the stories therin to new interpretation and development. If, centuries ago, we had the same laws in place that we do now, the great works of history would have been denied to us all. Copyrights are fair, really, so that an artist can earn a living off of being an artist - during their lifetime. In my view, it's not so that some megacorp can highjack a common artistic heritage for all time. And, if they're going to try that, they at least owe us something on the very cheap.
(BTW: I am HUGE on property rights. What the labels are doing has nothing to do with the property rights of those who, in the vast majority of cases, should really hold them - the artist. The labels aren't about protecting property rights. They're about getting Johnny executive his fifth home in Maui.)
Still, all in all, at LEAST this is a start.
Oh, and I'd still like to see iTunes offer a subscription service, because if they could do it at a Napster/Rhapsody price, I'd be the FIRST guy in line to sign up.
WTF? Personally I think this is the best thing I have heard since I bought my iPod and learned about DRM. I'm gonna upgrade every song I can and be happy about it. I love my iPod...right now. But I don't know that I will want to be tied to it for the rest of my life. I welcome this step forward...ROCK ON STEVE!
Ryan is catching heat!
this is somewhat of a pony show.. we'll see what the outcome will be.. and no, this will never stop piracy. nothing will stop piracy, period.
i personally have never purchased off itunes and probably never will. when digital music becomes like .10 cents a song, maybe i'll invest in it. the
"Lastly, we'd like to point out that, coincidentally, very, very few devices actually stand to benefit from Apple selling DRM-free AAC tracks."
Oh come on now... Why assume this is some evil conspiracy? Don't you think it might just be possible that AAC was chosen for its quality? Its not like these other players can't fix their lack of AAC support with a simple firmware upgrade. And as far as I know, most major music jukeboxes already do support AAC. Its not like Apple is the gatekeeper to the AAC format and refuses to let these companies play. If Microsoft took DRM off of their WMA files and they had the dominant music store would you be complaining that the iPod didn't support WMA or would you tell Apple they had better add WMA support if they knew what was good for them.
"We understand it may be a little much to ask that iTunes break its vertical integration and be made extensible for additional device support with this new DRM-free approach, but really, what's the point?"
Um, maybe to avoid lawsuits that would be bad PR and could force Apple to open up in a way they over which they had no control? They are first and foremost a business and they know when the writing is on the wall. This way they get to make it seem as though Apple was the trailblazer in getting rid of DRM. (I am aware that they were certainly not the first but you can;t blame them for using it to their advantage).
And you give far too much credit to EMI for being visionary. They are simply at the end of their rope and figure they have to try something. Neither EMI or Apple is really acting out of vision or altruism here. They are just taking the next logical step to see if they can avoid getting into more trouble (Apple: legal / EMI: financial). But who cares if both are really operating out of what's good for them as long as things get better for consumers in the process? There will always be someone on a discussion board who complains they should sell lossless files in whatever format you desire for 3 cents a song with the ability to redownload as many times as you want. This is a good first step.
You are correct about the dire situation of video downloads, however. The Apple TV and the Xbox and Tivo/Amazon Unbox, etc will never amount to anything more than curiosities for geeks and early adopters until video DRM is gone. And since breaking CSS on DVD's is technically illegal this is likely not going to happen of the content producers own free will.
Movies are not in the same state of crisis that music is in because ripping DVD's onto your hard drive will not become mainstream until the DMCA is challenged in court. The iPod was wildly successful because people already had plenty of their own content to put on it (and the process was easy and completely legal). Had iPod owners been faced with filling up their devices strictly from the the iTunes store (or Amazon Unbox or Xbox Live...even without DRM) I doubt that mp3 players would be as ubiquitous as they are today.
minimalist
when you import songs to itunes you can press "convert to aac" any unprotectected audio can be played on iTunes/iPod
As far as this article I do not think I can say anything that has already been said. but can we stop flaming for a sec and could someone list any songs or groups that are good and published by EMI
Steve is making a great leap forward and already microsoft is copying ;)
Maintaining the status quo, DRM@128kbps, leaves the other record labels a real choice. Apple offered them a one-price DRM strategy, and is maintaining it. It hasn't snatched away their security blankets.
This also challenges the other online stores. EMI said it is willing to sell 128kbps files DRM-free. They didn't give the wholesale price for 128kbps files. I'm betting it is the same as for 128kbps files with DRM. I wonder which online store will offer 128kbps files DRM-free first - at the risk of offending the other labels.
If anyone is still even reading comments at this point...
For those who are still miffed at Apple, imagine the story unfolding this way instead:
"New Company Opple to offer DRM-Free Music"
"In a move sure to send shockwaves through the industry, Opple, a brand new Silicon Valley start-up, has announced a new music service selling DRM-free music - an first in legal digital music distribution. In addition, they have announced that all tracks will be at the higher quality 256-bit, rather than the usual 128-bit used by most online stores. Opple said that their downloads would be in the AAC format. It noted that it believes AAC to be a format higher in quality than the aging standard, MP3. Tracks will cost $1.29 each. However, in a move sure to delight consumers, Opple also said that all albums would be priced exactly the same as those in competitor Apple's iTunes store, despite the fact that iTunes has a lower bit-rate, and DRM. Further, users will be able to use Opple's new "jTunes" software to communicate directly with Apple's iPod, by far the industry's leading portable player. Opple has so far only reached a licensing deal with industry giant EMI, but hopes to add more labels soon."
You're going to be able to buy entire albums at the same rate that DRM full albums were priced.
They can sort it out to find the right ratio of price to volume to overall profit margin as time goes by.
This deal seems very fair to me. People are generally willing to pay a little more if they know going in that the quality is better. I know I don't expect to get Burger King prices when I'm at a nice restaurant eating a juicy steak...and I'm well aware that if I do eat at Burger King or Taco Bell, I may regret it later...just like buying ANY DRM crippled song.
you can always transcode these new DRM free files in iTunes to what ever format you like, where as you can't with the FairPlay enabled files. So quite bitching about AAC. The rest of the article was spot on though. I think Mad Dog Steve is using his RDF in full force with this.
By the way, there's a "Convert to MP3" command in iTunes right now that doesn't function when you purchase a DRM crippled song from the iTunes store. I'm assuming it WILL work on the higher priced, higher bit-rate files.
If so, I don't see why anyone would whine too much about iTunes sticking with AAC for their downloads. At least in May, you'll no longer have to burn a standard audio CD and rip it back to the hard drive to get it into a format you can use on a non-iPod device.
9th amendment to the constitution of the U.S. stipulates in no uncertain terms that while rights are enumerated in the previous amendments, that listing *in no way* implies that other rights do not exist. The framers explicitly leave evolution of the rights of citizens to the future.
It is now 2007. We, through previously held custom and commercial practice, expect to buy our music and our musical equipment sans locks installed by a few record companies. This is a right we expect, and have enjoyed for over a century.
What "right" does not exist? The right of a few dozen men in a dozen or so companies, known for their underhanded and outright fraudulent dealings with their talent and their customers, to sculpt a musical world to their liking. That, son, is a right that we do not recognize.
You can't use a CD 'anyway you please' because there are copyright laws which prevent you from using it for anything other than fair use. Indeed under UK law even copying a CD for any purpose is illegal. You have absolutely no choice to accept that if you buy a CD since it's in an Act of Parliament hence you do not have a right to copy it. The only difference is that for DRM music files those restrictions are enforced
Sorry, this is all silly. Since when was a large stakeholder the grand supreme overlord of a company? Just because he's the largest stakeholder, doesn't mean that he can turn the tide of one company. Of course he's still going to offer DRM tunes right now, it's what we like to call a test market. Obviously he's not going to go completely into DRM free right away, not only because he's unsure if it would be profitable (you see, the entire purpose of a business is to make money, not cater to techies on the internet) but EMI is the only company willing to give it a try. It would hurt Apple more than the other big record labels if they tried to take a tough stance. Finally, in selling both types of tracks, it gives a comparison to which does better, giving Jobs hard data to either support or refute his claims. Not only is this a good thing, but it's the only PRACTICAL method at present.
What if the combination of price point and DRM-free music were allowed to thrive at a price comparable to CDs? $1.29 sounds about right to me!
But, for now. I purchase CDs (six this weekend), burn them at a less than CD rate of 128AAC and ditch the shell. Fair use! Since I have 13000 purchased songs, 128 is about all a 200 gig drive can handle and retain the ability to hold work stuff. I can't believe I'm saying that.
BTW, those unencumbered tracks drop right on to my Nokia N800. Lock-in! Right...
If you give people what they want, they will spend the money. 45 singles used to cost quite a bit more.
Nice commentary Ryan!
Pointing out EMI CEO Eric Nicoli's quote: "Not everybody cares about interoperability or sound quality." hits the nail on the head- they are tossing a herring, not a bad herring considering, but a herring none the less. Appease the masses- after all, everybody and their creepy uncle has a blog- what if one day they all posted our music collections online for all to grab?
Apple didn't offer mp3 because they saw the liscencing issues Microsoft just coughed up millions for, why invite even more litigation? Besiding that- AAC is a gentler compression. Nicoli's "trust the customers" statement was pretty lame- does he think kids will be selling ripped cds of the unrestricted tracks on subways and street corners?
Oh damn, will that become the next big illegal thing?
Jobs has got to have some crazy thing up his sleeve- I mean, the appleTV must have something to do with it because it still seems a bit of a mystery. He's got Cingular/ATT in, he's got EMI, he's got Disney, I wonder who else he'll rope in. It will be a platform convergence triumph and the friendly face of Apple will be our media overlord.
The content will give us some measure as to how much EMI can "Trust Us"
zzz more smoke and mirrors from two companies that won't make it to the next decade.
i'm a videographer. i shoot outdoor life, extreme stuff, have my video all over the place. i'm kind of a big thing. ;~) and i'm really interested in DRM. this kind of anti-DRM babble is pathetic, ill-conceived and badly presented. i wouldn't have turned this article in for homework in 3rd grade.
it sucks the life out of me to see my content on P2P networks- i hate it, makes me want to get violent with every little crap artist who shares my media.
i see articles like this from engadget and all the other whine and cry sites like them- hating on this or that- microsoft in general- protection, DRM.
i'm thinking about starting a site called crapgadget- rip off this site daily and load it onto my site- then spam my site from proxy servers in russia and china- have more daily users in about 3 weeks. see how long it takes before deesnuts get salty. "umg guy, those jerks stole our site- all of our hard work and limited creativity gone; that is so unfair"
maybe then these little communists with bad peter brady haircuts would see how much theft of digital media sucks.
DRM is not your enemy. DRM enforces the rules that content owners need to have in place to make sure they get paid for their work. is that so wrong?
share if you want, just don't piss and moan when the RIAA shows up at your door.
thatz not true about most music players not playing aac
ipod has something like 70% of the market, meaning that about 70% of the music players are ipods
Engadget's criticism for Apple for still selling AAC tracks instead of generic MP3's seems kind of frivolous to me. It's like winning a computer and complaining that you didn't also win a monthly stipend to cover increased power bill you get because of the computer. My point is that if the tracks are DRM-free then you are free to cross-convert them to any format you wish, including generic MP3s, very easily (iTunes will even do this for you). Sure many devices don't support AAC now but that can be easily fixed with a firmware update. I even suspect that AAC support will become more common now that iTunes sells DRM-free tracks too. Also, Engadget's mentions several MP3-player manufacturers that don't support AAC but one class of device that they don't mention is cell phones where AAC support is fairly common (most MP3 playing Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and Nokia phones support the format).
given that the terminology in the article you went back and changed, ryan, is what's spurred this much deserved hate-a-thon ("right" now = "something deserved"), i think you owe it to people to at least make an edit note about it.
Steve, nice catch on the changed language. It's too bad. The narrow minded definition of right you're all clinging to is far more worthy of a 'hate-a-thon' than the original usage of the word. The thought that standing up for any right somehow weakens others is backwards. Allowing any right, whether it be a protection from government agency, corporate power or an individual to go undefended is what weakens other rights.
Fair use is to the consumer as copyright is to the producer. I wish engadget would change the wording back. The usage was arguably correct, and I'd venture it's only because Ryan didn't care to deal with the continued wrath that he changed it. Too bad.
"dwayne hoobler", I will look for your stuff and seed, seed, seed. People like you make me sick and I hope you have a blog that broadcasts your anti-customer ranting. Hopefully the idots that actually buy your stuff can read it and realize the person they are supporting thinks they are all pirates and is working against them and with the anti-consumer DRM patrol.
At the end of the day, its the people that are stupid enough to give money to any of these content holders that are the ones responsible for what comes forth. Because its with your money that these companies then turn around and use that same money, money you give them, to bribe governemnts to pass laws against you, the very same consumer. Seriously, how stupid are you DRM fanboys? I am sure glad that I live in a country where people are not this stupid.
I just today learned that Apple's had the "option" of selling you the music at twice the bitrate, saddens me. they must've been waiting to pull that one out. but regardless, i don't get one thing (maybe i'm just stupid, but...)couldn't one burn a cd of aac, or even drm aac, and take to a new computer and upload the tracks? would that not work? seriously, i reallly don't know, so if you do please tell me.
Anyways, limewire still runs, and with apple pushing it's prices even higher, consumers have even more insentive to go carribean.
Right click on a track in iTunes - convert to MP3.
Some of the reactions to this are rediculous.
Note most of the people that buy music on itunes have no idea that its crippled, they dont know they cant put it on other players or their phones. Its a blatant way to misslead the consumer which is why id agree with Ryan that it should be a right. Simply because there is currently no right protecting the averege consumer.
Also your piracy tax is the money that you save stripping the DRM.
It bothers me very much that people are so bent into a certain mindframe that they think that the higher bitrate is enough to justify the 30% price increase on an already inferior product.
Again what many of you have mentioned about AAC is that the format is open and flexible, that doesnt mean crap to the averege consumer, if they cant just dump it to where ever they need it more than half won't even know it can be converted. The higher price point is also a discouragement to the averege consumer, making this flawed form the start. Its a gateway to see if people will pay a higher permium, if it works the'll jack up the price as they extend the "drm free" state for a premium. Mind you theyre already making more by not licincing or paying for the drm.
Another ill informed individual spouting off about Jobs "change of heart" . He said he didn't think the DRM would work and didn't want it at the outset of the store. See the Rolling Stone interview he gave that year.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/steve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview/
(this is long before Gates or anyone else came out against DRM)
They way I see is this. Lil' Stevie was dead right in saying that the content creators (labels) sell 90% of their music DRM free.
I'd venture to guess that it is the distributors (i.e. Red, Koch Music etc.) and the retailers that don't want this to happen more than the content creators.
The industry distribution model has been suffering from the weight of its own inertia for years.
Ideally content creators would take their own distribution model and apply it to the digital realm. For cinstance as it stands now a label would create the content, sell to a distributor who in turn sells to a retailer marking it up all the way, which is why we get to the $18 dollar cd.
Now for a digitial distribution model, the content creator sells to a distributor (which could also be the same distrib for physical content or some other specialized digital distributor) who then sells it to online retailers, such as Itunes, or Rhapsody or Newbury Comics, Quonset Hut or whoever. They in turn add their markup in the same way as a retailer would normally. Then you would get the same advantage of free market price competition you see in regards to physical cd's and everyone wins.
I don't buy the argument that it is the labels fault or Itunes or the BitTorrents...it's the physical distributors & retailers that don't want to see this happen, plain and simple.
wow brent, "narrowminded" and "backwards" are pretty heavy words to throw at someone's opinion on rights. question for you: if DRM-free media is a "right," and trumps all other considerations, as you seem to imply, i'm assuming you (and ryan, and the other self-styled music revolutionaries) buy all your movies on VHS, right? you know, as the only non-DRM format? because if you don't, you're invalidating your own argument - it's obvious that format flexibility will always be necessary for many, many reasons other than DRM. was it similarly a "right" to demand music on tapes over CD's in the 80's, or on a certain kind of vinyl further back?
Silly question Steve. No, I don't buy movies on VHS, but you forgot secret option c, I don't buy movies. Vinyl was just about dead by the time I was born. Not that tapes were protected by DRM, or CDs in the beginning.
Should the day ever come that music and film is distributed in the then current standard of quality, free from restriction on how I use it for personal use, reflecting a reasonable margin which goes mostly to reward the artists involved then I'll buy.
I think my descriptions fit the terms I used perfectly. It's a narrow definition to assume rights to mean only those rights enumerated in the constitution or worthy of risking life and limb to protect. And it's backwards to think that allowing the erosion of one right safeguards another.
I agree with the tone of this article. Marrying DRM status with higher quality is sneaky... an honest company would strip all DRM off all their music, and then sell higher quality at a higher premium. As for the argument "DRM free is not a right" ... I beg to differ. Since when has "buying" something meant that you cannot use it unless the company you bought it from says it's ok. When you "buy" something you are purchasing it outright. Getting people to believe that they are no longer making a "purchase" but rather "licensing" a product (akin to leasing) is very deceptive and wrong morally and legally in a lot of countries. Now morality is subjective, but as a buyer of products do you really want less for your money? Do you really want to buy the same song more than once? What makes you think you should? Stop listening to the greedmongers and start listening to your heart. And for God's sake stop referring to yourself as a "consumer". We are not consuming machines (slaves). We are humans with the right to the pursuit of happiness, which for me, includes good tunes!
Since when has "buying" something meant that you cannot use it unless the company you bought it from says it's ok.
Since you agree to a license for the use of that product or in fact since any such term is inserted into the contract of sale
When you "buy" something you are purchasing it outright.
Unless you agree to a license or an aforementioned term restricting your use.
Getting people to believe that they are no longer making a "purchase" but rather "licensing" a product (akin to leasing) is very deceptive and wrong morally and legally in a lot of countries
Care to provide examples? Misrepresenting the nature of the product you're buying is obviously wrong as is fraud and both will render a contract voidable. Neither is taking place here, the terms of sale are freely availible to view on itunes. I have never heard of any country so limiting the freedom of contract that you can't enter into a license. Not least because if you're suggesting what I think it would mean that any kind of license was illegal, so going to the cinema would be impossible as this requires a license to be on the cinema for the duration of the film.
This is stupid. The right to eat is a much more important right than the right to DRM free music. Is food free? No. Should it be? Well then we'd get no more food cause no one would grow it.
When the CEO of EMI talks about 'interoprability or sound quality' he's not inextricabally linking the two at all. What he's doing is establishing a dollar (well cent) value to interoperability. Peace of mind should you want to get another player or play the file on any other system. He's perfectly entitled to do that and there are numerous precedents for it: airplane tickets are usually more if you want to be able to change your flight; peace of mind. The whole system of insurance is based off of giving people reassurance that they won't lose everything in case of disaster.
Doubtlessly part of it is the money they'll lose to piracy through the venture. That's going to be an issue. It would be naive to pretend that there won't be torrents with tags like [256kbps][AAC] as soon as this things goes live. So high quality and ready to play on the most popular DAP in the world, those files will be jumped on.
Ryan your argument is weak. Apart from the points I've rebutted above you're basing part of it on a conspiracy like theory with little support. As Jobs was at pains to point out DRM is already circumventable by simply burning the music to CD and then ripping it back into itunes. If EMI and itunes were at such pains to enforce DRM why oh why wouldn't they just stop selling music online altogether?
Secondly the fact that DRM music is not availible on anything other than itunes is not the fault of Apple neither is the fact that you can't just drag and drop files across to the zune media player and have them transfer across. Both of those things are the fault of other music stores or of Microsoft. I'm sure that they will sell music for the Zune on their own music store in which case the othe pillar of your argument disappears.
TV shows are not comparable and you damn well know it. You're grasping at straws there. DVDs are encrypted, always have been and always wll be. The average consumer isn't going to have the knowledge to decrypt them and they aren't going to want to record them as a copy because it's a hassle to move them around. The comparison for priacies sake is incredibly inaccurate. The video files on itunes are about 1.5GB, they'd be snapped up like nobody's business on torrents. It's understaable there's no commercial will to sell DRM free videos, the main argument for it, that CDs contain no DRM isn't availible. No company is going to want to voluntarily lose money when they will gain no sales because of lack of DRM (because they're main distribution method is DRM encumbered anyway). All they would get is lost sales because of increased piracy.
Wow. I'm tempted to copy and paste that tirade and do a point by point. That'd just be too big.
Your food analogy is crap. The article doesn't say music should be free. It says you should be able to do what you please once you've purchased it. The real analogy to food is if Betty Crocker told you their food could only be cooked in a pan they made, and eaten off their plates. I know it's a ridiculous metaphor, but you're the one that started it. Why must people constantly come up with ludicrous metaphors, and then get them wrong besides?
Assigning price is indeed the right of the company. Offering different bit rates at different prices is entirely acceptable and if the market will bear it then the option will remain. But charging for DRM free tracks? The argument centers on DRM being in violation of fair use laws. To go back to your crappy metaphor it's like Betty Crocker selling two boxes of food, one which you can use your own pots, pans and plates. If the restriction is illegal in the first place, charging extra for the removal of the restriction is illegal as well.
There is no money to be lost in this venture. It's been pointed out before, there aren't (m)any iTunes exclusives that can't be found in pirated form at this point. It may well be EASIER for the pirate, but the people creating and seeding torrents are geeks anyway, they already know the ways around FairPlay. If anything itunes gains sales, because while pirates used to go buy the CD and rip it so they have higher bitrates they can now download higher bitrates. The idea that Apple is going to lose customers of a particular segment that it never catered to before is just plain dumb. You're saying the guy who used to buy DRM laden music at 128kbps is suddenly going to download torrents that are 256 because they're labeled as coming from iTunes. It's not as if the iPod didn't support MP3s before. And it's not like higher bitrate mp3s weren't readily available on torrents before. If anything iTunes has finally offered what this guy is looking for, and if his buying habits change to apple's negative then it's an example of the market not bearing the 30 cents extra. Which is the market's perogattive just as it was apple's to charge it.
It's not conspiracy theory. It's business theory. That business theory sounds like conspiracy theory just serves point out that business is decreasingly consumer friendly. The motives outlined in Ryan's original article seem to be very realistic, if you are disgusted by them it's not Ryan that should offend you, it's those that have those motives.
The issue of freely entering into contracts assume both sides freely accept the contract. It's not freely entered if there is no choice but to accept the terms dictated. Have you ever seen a EULA that had a third button "I don't agree, call me and we'll talk about it."? There is no other example I can think of which offers only a licensing option in the consumer segment. If CDs are obsoleted, and digital copy continues under it's current licensing scheme music will represent the first.
You do make a good point about my food analogy which was ill thought out. However your other points are rubbish. DRM at leats of the type that Apple uses iss highly unlikely to be in violation of fair use laws. They do not provide a free for all, Fairplay merely enforces those laws by not allowing you to do more than make a backup on CD (several times) and giving you the chance to share it between different computers. There is no right to DRM free music or at least not Fairplay DRM free music.
You've ignored my point on the value of having peace of mind due to interoperability. Is that not worth something? In this case it's your continuation of the food analogy that is ridiculous. What about my perfectly good one about plane ticket or the insurance industry.
Calling a conspriacy theory a business theory because it's to do with business does not change the fact it is a conspriacy theory with scant supporitng evidence. If, as you suggest the only way that itunes sales will go is up and this is patently obvious the conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Unless you're suggesting that Jobs will purposely lie about sales figures in order to further his own ends (which makes things sound even more stupid).
I'll say what I like about Ryan's opinion since he's put his name to it.
This article is worse than that Engadget photo contest that said to avoid using photoshop and then the Engadget editors picked a bunch of finalists that used photoshop.
And for the record, if Apple started offering MP3 only vs. AAC only, I'd be pissed. MP3 es muy horrible.
i demand a reply from ryan.
Ok that's just rubbish. If you don't accept the terms don't buy it. You're seriously suggesting that if someone wants to get the benefit of a contract and doesn't like the terms of the other side imposing on obligations on them that's not freely entered into.
Ridiculous.
Oh and how about every single OS as something else with a licensing scheme in the consumer sector as well as all other software. Exclusively so no less so music is certainly not the first. Why on earth are you mkaing stupid claims when there's an obvious example right under your nose?
Alright, since you asked. How is music analogous to a seat on a plane? When you bought the ticket was there any possible conception that you had bought the seat and got to take it with you? I understand the (loose) analogy in interoperability and guaranteed flights, but you can't use the second half if the first half is not a reasonable premise. At least not to define some sort of legal precedent.
Frankly the insurance industry is a joke as well. Car insurance is federally mandated and way out of the league of this issue. In health insurance we'd be talking what, free to use any doctor, so long as you can get him to go to one hospital or paying the upgrade to any hospital? I wasn't aware of an insurance policy like that. Home owners? I just can't see the analogy.
The end result is a pretty good evidence of the motivations for this move. 'Conspiracy' seems overblown. Is EMI charging apple more for unprotected tracks and if so what extra cost have they incurred to justify it? Does not encrypting songs with, and updating, fairplay cost apple more? I think most likely EMI and Apple sat down and figured out how they'd split an extra 30 cents. I bet they did research on how much customers would pay. I don't really have a problem with any of this, it's standard business practice. But charging more for something that results directly in lower costs is far from benevolent. That's been the point all along, not that there's a big conspiracy, you made that your point.
I considered software for awhile as I wrote there was no other system without the ability to buy. But you are buying software, and you are allowed to do as you please with it. You don't mean to say that Microsoft could charge more for a version of windows that would run something other than IE do you? Or perhaps charge to remove IE? I seem to remember an anti-trust case... The conclusion to be had there is that if DRM doesn't violate fair use it's anti-competitive.
I wasn't aware we were discussing UK laws, and I admit my ignorance of them. But the comparison is still off by a level. You can use the CD in whatever brand CD player you'd like. The CD represents the music. In iTunes case the file represents the music, and you cannot use it in whatever player you like.
I don't know how to defend what I said about freely entering contracts. I said it as clearly as possible. If one side is given no say while the other side is allowed to make limitless arbitrary and often ridiculous stipulations that have no bearing on the product it is not a mutually arrived agreement. And yet the recording industry forces exactly those types of agreements on both the artists and the patrons. Music--art in general-- is a part of the pursuit of happiness. If you doubt that, some fun googling for you. "the relationship between art and society" turns up 744 results. More than the relationship between "love and marriage" and "marriage and sex" and less than "love and sex." Also try reading what Plato has to say after searching "the relationship between art and society"
Ok you're talking rubbish and I'll wager you know you are and are doing so in order to try and confuse the issue.
Firstly the plane seat doesn't need to be an exact analogy as you seem, amnazingy, to suggest it has to be. All it shows is that other industries often and quite legitimately place a monetery value on peace of mind. Therefore Apple is quite entitled to monetize the peace of mind that un-DRMd songs will play on anything by leaving the lower priced songs with DRM. Similarly part of the reaosn you get insurance, often its major selling point, is peace of mind. The insurance industry attaches a dollar value to it, no detailed anaylsis of federal car insurance is needed. Also whoever said anything about legal precedents? I certainly didn't
So lower costs doesn't come into it, they're taking advantage of selling things to consumers that consumers want. That's business. If it does lower the cost (and I'm not entirely convinced that doubling your storage needs for a million or so songs and the bandwidth needed to download those is lowering costs) then that's good business to boot. However both the consumer and the business is getting something out of it so don't pretend it's morally corrupt because they value something you don't.
UK laws and US laws are largely the same on copyright restrictions so don't try and duck the issue by raising that point. The DMCA takes away any rights you may have had to copy a CD however much you like. It's not certain that even fair use survives that statute, if it does it's no more than what Fairplay allows you to do.
You certainly cannot do as you wish according to the license you agree to when you install windows. You can only install it on a limited number of other computers and you are not allowed to make a backup or if you are those backups are limited. Sound familar?
You don't know how to defend what you said about contract because it's wrong. The fact that parties are of unequal bargaining strength is of no consequence as to whether they can agree to the terms offered them. You thinking any different is quite irrelevent. Terms not freely entered into are those entered into under duress and the contract would then be voidable. That's about a million miles away from buying music on itunes as even economic duress has no application to buying luxeries such as music. No one is forcing you to do anything and the notion that they are is quite ridiculous.
Taylor, I agree with you, in principle. However, we don't have a playing field in this country where "everyone is free to pay their money and make their choice." Why? Because our government and laws are in the back pocket of big businesses. We live in a socialized country where the biggest recipients of state enforced kickbacks are the megacorps. There are so many laws on the books to reduce competition and protect companies that can't compete and innovate that it is a straw man to argue that, today, in America, we really have free choices in the marketplace. Let's remedy that, and we can come back to the discussion. It is clear that what the megacorps are doing is using the force and (deadly) power of the government to remove choices from the free marketplace.
Also, btw guys, let's get fundamental. A right cannot impose a duty on someone else, because that's slavery. So, saying you have a right to an artist's music is like saying they are obliged to create music for you for free.
That said, artists are totally jacked by today's system which is sustained by lobbying of our governement by the megacorps to maintain their "legal" "rights" which are nothing more than enforced anti-competition laws (a form of socialist kickbacks for corporations). The megacorps of today are nothing more than the 21st century verison of the railroad robber barons.
"Almost no devices play AAC, and Apple is deliberately not making these downloads available in MP3."
4 months from now, every new player announced will probably play AAC.
This was a watershed moment for the selling and manufacturing of what was formerly known as mp3-players (to consumers I mean, because nobody I know says "DAP").
Its not that hard to add - just contact the local licensing office, get the IPR and pay a fee similar to what you pay for mp3 or dvd (hopefully much less than for dvd). And because of iTunes importance, nobody will dare to leave it out now.
New manufacturers and importers will race to be first with it in their sales channels.
Ryan:
You're really just looking for a handjob from Cory Doctorow, aren't you? C'mon, admit it and move on.
Whaaaaaa! It's not the bit rate I want.....It's not the price I want......It's not the format I want! Boo Frikin' Hoo.
You want to live in a DRM free world? I do and it's great. My music is totally DRM free, comes in any format, at any bit rate and plays on any player I want to use. Wanna know the secret, Mr Block?.... buy the cd, rip it yourself, and quit whining! Works very well.
this is
One overlooked aspect to this move is that Apple has to change the UI for iTunes to make these new options available. I would expect that once they've done that, Nettwork and other small labels that have claimed that they'd like to remove DRM will do so as well. Apple needed the traction of a major label making a commitment to DRM-free tracks to justify that change to the UI, though -- why risk confusing consumers for a small group of indie labels?
Unlike the idealist meanderings of this story, Apple has begun a process which, I think, will change the market, until no retailer can compete with them without going DRM-free as well. Jobs said that's what he wanted to do, and he has, in the minds of some, taken a huge risk. How about if the village idiot Bronfman just pulls his stuff out of the store? How will the market react? If EMI starts making a bundle, the industry will notice, believe me. Jobs put his money where his mouth is, and he's demonstrated now that there is no link between the iTunes store and the iPod except that the labels make it so.
As for the movie situation, look. After the DVD, no movie has been available unencrypted. You don't know what Jobs' position is on this, but if he told the studios to decrypt, they'd laugh and pull the movies. Period. The eventual freeing of EMI music is a long, long story, starting with Napster, and the RIAA lawsuits, and the continued flourishing of file sharing, and the Sony rootkit debacle, and the excellence of the online product when it comes to files up to about 150 MB -- digital audio. This moment took a lot of hard bargaining, convincing, and the ripeness of events.
Movies, to be acceptable quality online, are BIG. 700 MB for xvid rips. Shareable only through bittorrent. Even Apple has problems with bandwidth, and the home users do too. Then, there's the solid front of the studios.
And don't forget, there's Microsoft, which is the DRM enabler par excellence. They've bet Vista on draconian DRM schemes that deactivate you if you switch to a graphics card with a component out. What's all this Mafia "we'll fuck you up" about? The studios and their extreme plans for hi-def. Plus, why is the Zune a dog? DRM.
I think the situation there will change, but not before some major bankruptcies show the studios that DRM as a business model doesn't work.
"But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's what we deserve, and we demand it. "
Really now. Like one deserves world peace, a living wage, long lives of bliss, a month of paid vacation, all of our technology PLUS the pristine air of, oh, whatever, 15th century Europe.
Grow up. Please. I don't want to entrust my Social Security to your generation.
Purchasing a commercial product on your terms rather than those dictated by the person who is selling it is nice, it's not a right. Get some perspective.
-------------------------------
You really believe that don't you? if it were anything BUT an absolute right they would be able to FORCE me to buy there crap.
Thats MORE MONEY than buying a CD! and you think thats a good deal? you think that its something to praise.
When you purchase PROPERTY its just that PROPERTY and its YOURS.
This "concept" of "licensing" content is a fabrication of media companies. There is no such thing in REALITY outside of big media?
Can ford dictate what you can do with your car? But wait you say there is no LICENSING with a car. Well that is where your deluded.
There are 2 types (recognized or not they exist) of property ownership. you have IPR and PPR
IPR is Intellectual Property Rights
PPR is Personal Property Rights.
For HARD items IPR is "patents" for SOFT items its COPYRIGHT
there is no tangible difference between them as far as PPR is concerned.
Once you PURCHASE (not license I never license anything) its YOURS to do with as you please in any way shape or form you please as long as it conforms to PPR and does NOT violate the IPR of the items.
When you buy a car you can hack it convert it destroy it cut it up modify it resell it make profit off of it ETC.. and all this is perfectly legal and as it should be its your PROPERTY therefore YOUR RIGHT.
NOW if you went to a chinese manufacturer with a car and said reverse engineer this and replicate it for me so I can sell it.
WELL now thats illegal. NOW your violating the IPR of the owner (ford or whoever)
the SAME applies or at least USED to apply to MEDIA or SOFT stuff.
Buy it copy it convert it remix it your FINE. copy it and SELL IT (even for free) and Your NOT ok since once you do that you move from PPR to IPR
they ARE NOT DIFFERENT. its SHEEPLE like you that have accepted the brainwashing to think ANY other way.
ALL the rights are YOURS because YOU are the consumer!!! its YOUR MONEY you bet your damned ass its your freaking right to make your demands and either get them or not buy it.
THE PROBLEM is they are distorting the LAW to REMOVE your PPR rights!!
What happens when there IS NO CD's and the ONLY way to get music is with there license DRM'd CRAP.
What then. your only option is abstinence THIS is not right.
As a CONSUMER we need to make the demand and the manufacturer THEN has a choice COMPLY with our DEMANDS (not requests) or DO NOT SELL THE PRODUCT.
WE have forgotten this and its a very sad thing.
ALL the rights are ours. Companies sell product AT OUR demand and calling. NOT THERES.
They do not even have IPR rights except as GRANTED by law.
The problem is those laws are out of control and 100% funded by the media companies (find me ONE sane american who is not greedily involved who would agree with something as draconian as the DMCA)
You jump for joy at an inferior restrictive overpriced electronic file
a CD goes for $8-$16 if you shop around and you think $1.29 for an inferior 256kbps AAC is a good thing? Thats a joke right? are you THAT brainwashed?
I do not consider an electronic download of a song to be worth more than 25cents and thats EXTREMELY pushing it and it better be 320kbps CBR and DRM FREE. AND include redownload if I lose the file.
10-15cents and you can forgo the redownload and go 192kbps.
anything higher or any other conditions and I am not interested. Period End of discussion you have no other choices. Those are my demands MEET them or DO NOT SELL ME YOUR MUSIC.
THAT is what people need to do. if EVERYONE would STOP being SHEEPLE and STOP buying music till they meet 100% of our (reasonable) demands then they SHOULD go out of business.
THAT IS HOW a consumer oriented capitalist environment is supposed to work.
in a normal environment when Manufacturer X pisses of its customers they move to Manufacturer Y
Manufacturer X has a choice CHANGE there ways and EARN back there customers or DIE.
In this case the labels have decided on another route. LEGISLATE there way through and FORCE us to ONLY pick them and ONLY on there terms.
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ??? am I the only one that see's that as truly ass backwards or what?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!
The IPOD is a beautiful peice of hardware CRIPPLED by horrible software (on and off the ipod) and a horrible music format.
Give me an ipod with simple mass storage access and NO software pure file access and I would be all over it.
So would MOST people if they REALIZED how much easier and more free this was than the crap they feed us.
My problem is not the ipod but the media companies desire to strip me of MY RIGHTS (and they are my rights) and REMOVE my options by passing draconian laws (the media companies WROTE and PASSED the DMCA your deluded if you think anything else)
And another delusion. Piracy. First its not theft its Infringement. No that does not make it any less wrong but it also does not make it theft.
Another delusion put forth by the media companies.
DRM has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with piracy. Anyone with half a brain AND who stops to really think about it and ignore the propaganda will come to this same conclusion rather quickly.
the "pirates" the REAL "pirates" see DRM as nothing more than a slight hiccup.
Its the AVERAGE law abiding PAYING USER who feels the pain of DRM and they are the ONLY ones who feels the pain. NOT ONE SINGLE REAL PIRATE will ever feel any pain from DRM.
The sooner people realize this the sooner we DEMAND not REQUEST our rights and give them an ULTIMATUM comply or DIE then and only then will we have our rights as they should be.
AS MANY famous characters have been quoted as saying Freedom is NOT FREE. you have to FIGHT FOR IT BLEED FOR IT DEMAND IT UNCONDITIONALLY.
If our demands are too much for them the choice is simple. GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/