Thoughts on Steve Jobs’ Desire to Abolish DRMs
In a surprise and welcome move, Steve Jobs has posted an article, Thoughts on Music, on the Apple website explaining Apple’s position on Digital Rights Management (DRM) of music purchased online and what it would like to see in the future. For those who think Apple is a megalomanic corporation focused on making money, Steve’s essay will surprise—he calls for the abolition of DRM.
“Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.”
Is this all just a ploy to polish Apple’s latterly tarnished public image? No and yes. Even though it is obviously how Apple feels, Steve’s writing and posting of this essay is definitely a response to negative press and blogging that has painted Apple as the bad guy of DRM.
Steve makes several points:
- “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.”
- “DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.”
- “In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves.”
- “Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries.”
- “For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard.”
Regarding music sold on unprotected CDs, the record companies—Sony BMG in particular—have experimented with copy protection of CD-based music and so are still keen to plug that hole. If they do, then Steve’s call to abolish DRM will lose its clout.
In arguing against DRMs, interestingly he argues that Apple can’t license FairPlay to others, as FairPlay’s secrets would be compromised, meaning the need for it to be modified. FairPlay can already be easily removed from a song by anyone with a CD burner, and yet nothing has been done to prevent that.
Given his position as CEO of Apple, it is no surprise he doesn’t mention how easy it is to remove DRM using a CD burner. I’ve done it myself so I could load and play music I legally own on my Palm—just as I can do with any music I bought on CD. Makes you wonder, though, how much music that floats around peer-to-peer music sharing systems is actually bought off iTMS. Probably more than we realize.
Today there are three main levels of piracy:
1) People making unauthorized copies of music for their own listening;
2) People sharing copyrighted music through means such as peer-to-peer and burning CDs;
3) People or businesses illegally reproducing and selling copyrighted music.
It is the third that affects the music industry the most, despite claims that it’s the second, which is just because those people are an easy target. In fact, as it’s a form of viral marketing, many musicians nowadays support the idea of people giving copies of their music to friends, with some even actively encouraging it.
But at all three levels DRM can be very easily circumvented. I hardly doubt Apple’s FairPlay—or any other DRM system—has any noticeable impact on any of these forms of piracy of music obtained from online music stores. As Steve said, DRMs haven’t stopped piracy.
So what else is in it for Apple if DRMs were abolished? Consider Steve’s apparent contradiction where on the one hand he states his fear of losing music on the iTMS:
“. . .a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.”
But he then goes on to argue how iTMS purchased music is insignificant in the scheme of things:
“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. . . 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.”
Despite the latter assertion, the former carries the truth that iPod sales, despite an average of 22 songs per iPod, would be greatly impacted by the loss of music sales on the iTMS.
Apple gains great leverage off the iTMS and has never made a secret of the fact that it is a vehicle to sell iPods. Steve and Apple clearly believe that discontinuing DRMs would not reduce iPod sales, and you might suspect they even think it could be good for iPod sales. It would also clearly be good for music sales; however, Apple has always stated that it makes nix off music sold on iTMS.
Steve’s article also demonstrates the power Apple now wields. He is obviously confident that, although it might upset a few record company execs, at the end of the day he has got them singing his iTunes—except on the DRM issue.
This is a significant move by Apple and one aimed squarely at the European countries who have been laying the blame for DRM on Apple. Fresh from winning the battle with another European giant of the music industry, Apple Corp, hopefully Apple will also win this battle and we will be able to buy all our music DRM free.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
So what is the best option for a “universal DRM”?
Like I have proposed many times in the past, the best option is having NO DRM at all. This mirrors Steve’s third option.
Some would say licensing, or even standardizing, Fairplay for all is the best option. This would still contradicts and limits fair use in many way since it would still adhere to the stipulations written in any contract with the labels. In Ben’s words, “contravening fair use is wrong, not limiting piracy per se”.
Therefore, a standardized Fairplay will keep choking fair use. A standard Fairplay will also not keep relentless hackers from cracking the system. This is DRM’s very purpose, isn’t it? Conclusion: a standard Fairplay will neither do both acceptably to be considered an option.
So, what about getting rid of DRM from content? Just who wins in that scenario? For me, I believe it will be a win-win for Apple, the labels, and everyone else who wishes to dance on the online content distribution stage.
Apple will no doubt be heralded as the saviour for all digital consumers and a clear leader in the industry where there are many pretenders. Apple might lose a few sales of both hardware and content in the short term, but will bode well in the future.
As for the labels, even idiots can conclude that having more tracks sold by “interoperable” vendors means more revenue. How can that be bad?
Surely, pirated copies will float on P2P sites. How is that different now? Cheapos will be cheapos, and honest consumers will stay honest (and keep returning for more) if their “fair use” rights are respected.
And as for the other guys - the MSs, the Sonys, the Creatives and Sandisks - are quietly rooting for Steve, I’m sure. It is the only way they can compete toe-to-toe with Apple. So, they win too.
I agree and disagree with you, vb. When you get down to specifics, yes, DRM and software serialization are vastly different beasts.
However, stepping back, as I believe Macenstein meant us to, they serve an identical purpose.
That is, to protect the right of the legal owner to earn income from their product.
This is why Macenstein’s argument is valid. And why both Beeb and I support it.
That’s not to say it is conclusive and end-of-argument. Because it is a more generalized view, it is open to question by anyone who wants to get specific. But getting specific is to conclusive either.
To use another analogy (oik!) it is like comparing two sports and arguing their differences instead of their key similarity: i.e. they’re both good for your health and well being.
Hmm! That’s it! VB, Robo and others are arguing the differences between DRM and software serialization, whereas Beeb and I are arguing the key similarity.
Now, after that long winded twaddle, back to normal our normal program.
However, stepping back, as I believe Macenstein meant us to, they serve an identical purpose.
That is, to protect the right of the legal owner to earn income from their product.
That is total male cow. The purpose of music DRM is to allow (they hope) the labels to charge consumers multiple times for the same product on different brands of player. It is only incidentally to prevent piracy. Indeed in a situation where the labels also sell the SAME, but unprotected music that *is* widely pirated, it is an emprically undeniable fact that the effect of DRM to limit distribution of pirated copies is, precisely, nil.
DRM in music exists thanks to the labels’ greedy desire to sell us multiple copies of the same thing - to enforce UNFAIR use, NOT to “protect the legal owner to earn income from their product.”
DRM in software exists to protect against piracy and does not, at least in the form it takes in Apple’s software, enforce unfair use.
That is why the comparison is wholly disingenuous and misleading. Sure you can say that you are merely “arguing the similarities” as if that made the argument hold any water. But I believe Scott Adams has a book title that reflects that kind of stance: “When did ignorance become a point of view?”
In short:
Steve Jobs was not attacking music DRM, but advocating music interoperability.
Anyone making claims otherwise has been misled by their own sophistry.
Anyone making claims otherwise has been misled by their own sophistry. -Ben
Aye.
The purpose of music DRM is to allow (they hope) the labels to charge consumers multiple times for the same product on different brands of player. -Ben
Interesting tangential view of DRM, Ben. But it is very true, definitely. If one bought their “fair use” of a CD/DVD title, then why are there no replacement policy by the labels? If I return the damaged original in its entirety, then shouldn’t I be entitled a replacement? I have read many articles that the labels give such a hard time to people who try that they end up giving up the whole idea. Is that protecting their interests, or what?
And unfortunately, this is very true as long as DRM is in effect in the industry. An industry standard Fairplay would only solve one leg of the three-legged monster.
Microsoft’s entire music strategy rests upon, is centred on, and consists of DRM.
Ben, please explain to me in your own drunken kool-aid-induced fog how this makes them different from Apple.
They both have DRM. They both are non-interoperable. They both are compelled by the labels to wrap their music in DRM.
And has already been pointed out, indie labels that do NOT WANT DRM on their iTunes music must still wrap their songs in iTunes DRM anyway.
If Steve Jobs (er. excuse me, THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST to you and the minions) only includes DRM because the labels want him to (so much for his not cowtowing to the lables as you laughably claim) - then why not sell DRM-free music from the artists and labels that don’t demand it?
Steve Jobs was not attacking music DRM, but advocating music interoperability.
Certainly. But people who live in glass houses…
And his glass houses is,in this case are:
- DRMed music that isn’t required to be
- The similarities between DRM and software serialization
On the latter, you can argue the points of difference all you like, and I will agree all you like. However, the points of similarity are there and are legitimate. And 10 reasons against doesn’t counter one for (neither does one for counter 10 against)
I imagine it is very common practice in law cases for one side to argue points of difference and the other points of similarity. I’m sure Apple Computers would have argued the difference, whilst Apple Corp argued the similarities. They’re both valid.
The purpose of music DRM is to allow (they hope) the labels to charge consumers multiple times for the same product on different brands of player. -Ben
A purpose…
And neither is my point “DRM and software serialization are… to protect the right of the legal owner to earn income from their product.” the only purpose.
DRM doesn’t serve one purpose only. But it does serve that one purpose in common with software serialization.
That’s not to say it is conclusive and end-of-argument. Because it is a more generalized view, it is open to question by anyone who wants to get specific. But getting specific is to conclusive either.
It is, like any analogy, not 100% applicable. But it’s applicable where it counts, in comparing the protection of one form of intellectual property with another.
A trick in political spin is to pick out some minor detail and declare triumphantly that the entire argument is invalid. “Ah, but with DRM you have to include a password and with software it’s a serial number!! Booyah!!”
But like in politics, it’s just brainwashed partisan hackery. The goal isn’t to defend DRM or anti-DRM. It is to defend Steve Jobs and Apple. At any cost, including intellectual honesty.
Steve Jobs was not attacking music DRM, but advocating music interoperability.
Holy crap. You have GOT to be kidding. This absurdly moronic claim is undermined in Steve Jobs own letter. It is the exact opposite of reality.
The labels do not prevent Jobs from making iPods interoperable. They only insist on the DRM, which you now say Jobs was not attacking. But the labels do NOT prevent Apple from making iTunes interoperable. That is solely Apple’s decision.
So IF that were true, then Jobs would keep the DRM, as the labels want, but license it so that iTunes songs play on as many players as possible. But in fact the opposite is the case, with Jobs advocating the demise of DRM but refusing to make iPods interoperable.
I will add once more that I DO hope the labels drop DRM as some have rumored them to be contemplating, even if it means that Jobs and his brainwashed minions will give him sole credit for precipitating it - like Republicans give Reagan sole credit for defeating communism.
...even if it means that Jobs and his [adoring fans?] will give him sole credit for precipitating it…
Unfortunately for our beloved, Bbx, it will be the general public and the mass media that will crown him the music saviour and the enforcer of the Fair Use Doctrine, and not the gloating Mac faithful, as you gleefully claim.
For us Mac faithful, we can only watch (and grin) at the overall good, make that GREAT, press coverage all throughout the media. Go on, have a good cup of cafe au lait, while you watch Bloomberg and reading up on BusinessWeek, NY Times, or Wired.
Now tell yourself, are these people (all of a sudden) become kool-aid-drinking Mac fanatics? The answer is in you my uncreative friend.
The music industry has responded to Jobs with what I would call an unexpected Door #3. They want Jobs to license Fairplay to competitors.
Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said the move would eliminate technology hurdles that now prevent fans from playing songs bought at Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people )‘s iTunes Music Store on devices other than the company’s iPod.
“We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen,” Bainwol said in a prepared statement.
As stated previously, the non-interoperability of the iPod and iTunes has always been Apple’s choice, not the RIAA’s.
Of course, one has to question their motives for such a statement just as one must question Jobs. Could it be another example of making a promise you know you’ll never have to keep?
Another little tidbit:
Britain’s EMI Music is experimenting with releasing music in the DRM-free MP3 format. In the past few months, the company has released tracks by Norah Jones, Lily Allen and the band Relient K.
Leigh believes older music could be made available without copying restrictions.
“I think the labels will release selected back-catalog stuff, to see what happens,” he said.
They were certainly toying with the idea before Jobs’s missive.
It’ll be interesting to see if you will be able to purchase those songs on iTunes without the DRM since the label isn’t requiring it.
the next big flap.
Let’s suppose that the music industry decided to drop DRM (fat chance, those dudes are DUMB) and Apple is good to it’s word and drops Fairplay (and maybe even back dates it so that previously locked music becomes unlocked).
The howling will then transfer to AAC. Most non-iPods won’t decode AAC even though they could. The hew and cry about the “propriatary” Apple standard will be immense even though Apple doesn’t even own the standard and AAC is itself is licensable. Note that Steve used the term licensable several times in his letter. I doubt that Apple would convert to MP3 simply because the iPod plays AAC and it works better than MP3 at any given bitrate.
Another interesting point, this time brought up by Arstechnica (and linked to via Macitt, btw):
Is interoperable DRM inherently less secure?
If what the anti-interoperability folks say is true, shouldn’t Microsoft (the licenser extraordinaire) have suffered as many problems as Apple (just say no to licensing!) in the same timeframe, if not more? Shouldn’t Microsoft have suffered at least one crack as a the result of spilled secrets? Reality is otherwise: Apple has suffered the most attacks on its DRM, and Microsoft has not suffered a single attack stemming from a secret leak. Let’s revisit Nate’s excellent report on DRM hacking from last year:
By the middle of 2004, the [Apple FairPlay] encryption scheme had been cracked more times than a toppled Humpty Dumpty. Jon Johansen, the Norwegian hacker partly responsible for cracking the encryption on DVDs (see below), released the primitive QTFairUse, which attempted to bypass (rather than break) the FairPlay encryption. [snip] Another approach was provided by playfair, a little program capable of stripping the DRM from iTunes files. Instead of grabbing the unencrypted data, playfair relied on grabbing the key FairPlay encryption uses. [snip] A third approach came from PyMusique, software originally written so that Linux users could access the iTunes Music Store. The software took advantage of the fact that iTMS transmits DRM-free songs to its customers and relies on iTunes to add that gooey layer of DRM goodness at the client end.
In the timeframe that FairPlay was comprised or circumvented at least four times (RealNetwork’s hack is the fourth), Windows Media DRM was verifiably cracked once that I’m aware of, last August. Microsoft patched the August hack in a few days’ time, and had the patch out to licensees in that same timeframe. The game of cat and mouse with that crack carries on, much like the client-side cracks do with respects to FairPlay.
Hee hee.