Note to Steve Jobs: lose the DRM or shut up

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Nick Race08 February 2007, 1:05 AM

Steve Jobs's reality distortion field has done it again: people have swallowed his self-serving statement about freeing the world from DRM hook, line and sinker. Here's why the ball is squarely in Jobs' court.


Yesterday my colleague Tim Gaden reported that Steve Jobs wishes iTunes could be DRM-free, allowing the 2 billion songs downloaded annually on the service to be played on any device.

Many have taken it as a bold step forward for the venerable download service and Apple in general - a move toward a more logical, easy to use, open player market of cuddles and happiness.

Of course, it's all just hot air and ‘what ifs' designed to make Apple look better in its current European DRM legal battles. A carefully worded statement directed not at you and me, but at the legal eagles in the far northern climes who will soon be deciding whether to sue iTunes into oblivion.

The last paragraph from Jobs' self-serving statement is an amazing "don't sue us, sue the music companies" plea simply designed to pass the legal buck.

Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard.

If Mr. Jobs was serious about this new world of DRM free downloads, and making the iTunes service work just like the 90% of music sold in the US market at the moment, then this is what he has to do...

The ball is in Apple's court

iTunes has become a success story like we never imaged, Apple HAS created a new way of distributing music and it's working.

Ten percent of the annual revenue from the "big four" Sony BMG, Universal, Warner and EMI comes from this single venture, and my guess this would be on par with some of their biggest retail customers (like Wal-mart et al).

Any of these ‘big four' companies would be utterly wrecked at the thought of losing 10% of their revenue - especially considering the costs (near none) of distributing product to iTunes. There's no CD to manufacturer, covers to print or boxes to ship, or returns to process. Apple and the consumer bear the internet distribution costs.

There is no way known that any of these ‘big four' would pull out of iTunes at the moment - their shareholders would absolutely not allow it. Their bottom lines wouldn't allow it, and their music would be consumed less. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

If Steve Jobs hates DRM so much, then, as the operator of iTunes, he needs to make a decision and not allow DRM infected music to be sold through the service.

At this stage in the game, the ‘big four' will agree. And hell, if he loses one or two, or even ALL of them, there's still a movie download service and music from other labels which don't have this draconian agreement locking up your purchases. iTunes will continue in one form or another.

Mr. Jobs - don't give us rambling diatribes on how bad you think DRM is. iTunes forged a new market.

Be a leader in this field again.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Lose the DRM, or shut up.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

mark:

Wow. This has got to be one of the dumbest responses I've read. Or if feeling a bit more charitable, one of the most naive.

So if all 4 labels decline, Apple should instead sell the same music that eMusic sells (in that subscription sort of way). And that makes sense to you because eMusic recently passed 1 million songs while Apple passed 2 billion songs. So, okay, the Store will be crippled but Jobs will maintain his principles.

Ah, but you say, the labels will be afraid to walk away. Well, maybe they will and maybe they won't. They almost left because Apple refused to alter the pricing to suit them, Apple refused to offer subscriptions that the labels want, Apple refused to tighten DRM like the labels would like. Apple might be the leader in downloads, but their sales still account for way less than 10% of global music sales. That's not as big a slice as you think but big enough to get in the game of negotiations.

I presume you don't run a money-making business. Since you must never have heard of a thing called negotiations? And you're clueless on how to use public pressure to get your way. Now if you said Jobs was a bully, I could agree with you. But you didn't say that...

I hope Jobs doesn't shut up, until the labels agree. Maybe not this year, but maybe by next year when there could be more monetary evidence for him to use to support his argument.




29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Derek:

I don't understand how people can attack small aspects of an article with such vehemence (eg, the last line) and detail, yet fail to take into account the rest.

To summarise what I believe Nick was saying (and I'll put it in computer-speak)

IF Jobs is serious on his stance on DRM (as stated) THEN he should just do something about it rather than complaining.
ELSE IF he's just making the statement to deflect some potential legal issues and just make Apple look like the victim
THEN he should just shut up.

Apologies to Nick if I've missed your point.

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

John C. Randolph:

Say there Nick,

Ever heard of these words:

1) Contract
2) Breach
3) Duty
4) Damages

and for extra credit:

5) Fiduciary Responsibility?

Pretty easy to toss off line like "lose the DRM or shut up", when you don't bother to consider the situation, isn't?

Shut up yourself, you stupid git.

-jcr



29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Brad A:

Did he even read Steve Jobs' statement? Does he know anything about DRM, or iTunes, or the music industry? It certainly doesn't appear so. Any idiot can see that the music industry REQUIRES DRM, in fact, their response to Jobs' statement says as much point blank. Clearly the author's unvalidated hatred for Apple is blinding him to reality. He calls for Apple to put pressure on the labels to distribute their content DRM-free... what the hell do you think they just did?

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tristan Bellmane:

Wow?
The article doesn't make sense. Please get your facts right.

I'll give you a tip.

Public responsibility, Corporate responsibility.
A care manufacturer sells a care with safety features. Seat belt, headlights, windshield wipers, airbags..and so on. By law they have to do this.

You can choose not to wear your seatbelt. It might be against the law, but it is your choice to do it.

So with music from iTunes it comes with DRM. It might be against the rules, but you have the option to remove the DRM, your choice.

And besides, the iPod is the best (popular) player on the market, why would you use anything else.
Check out the iPhone.


29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

raindog:

Tristan are you the guy in that cardigan whose colleagues unanimously voted in as safety warden, OH&S officer and Milk monitor? Do you know why they did?

What in blue blazes does DRM or for that matter ITunes, have to do with air bags or public safety? To the best of my knowledge apart from a little bleeding from the ears on crowded railways cars, ITunes and iPod have not been responsible for any personal death or injury.
If all skivvy wearing faithful cannot see the obvious double standards uttered by Mr Jobs and highlighted clearly in this article, could they please just moan amongst themselves and not annoy the rest of the planet.
Watch out for them Black helicopters Tristan, they are everywhere!

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

quixos:

was this article written by a 12 year old?

drm is a condition under which apple can sell the songs licensed from their partners. apple making a profit from this situation doesn't make Jobs evil.

just doesn't make sense. please, don't get me wrong. the man, (Jobs) is evil!

but this whole drm thing isn't what makes him evil. :)

it's the turtleneck.



29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tim Priest:

I agree with the first reply to this. Does the writer of this drivvle even understand how DRM works from a legal stand-point? I can't believe that a reputable source...Oh wait, its APC and NineMSN....

Please strike the last statement!

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne:

We're pro Apple. And we're anti-Apple. We're pro Linux. And we're anti Linux. We're pro Microsoft. And we're anti Microsoft.

Now we've gotten past that old chestnut, I think it's worth reframing what Nick is saying in case you've missed his point: this is Steve Jobs painting himself as the good guy (while he's under legal attack in Europe for not opening up the Fairplay monopoly).

Jobs knows there's zero real chance that the music industry will allow music to be sold without DRM (it would make music piracy even easier than it is now with CDs -- no ripping required.)

Also, it's disingenous for Steve Jobs to say he would welcome DRM-free music with open arms. It would seriously compromise the quasi-monopoly he's got with the iPod at the moment. Don't kid yourself that the success of the iPod is solely due to the fact that it's well designed and has a good interface: a large part of its success is due to the (proprietary) accessory eco-system and (proprietary) music store. It all works together beautifully because Apple controls it all -- but at the same time, Apple gets a cut of every sale.

If music was sold DRM-free, then it would be an amazing leg up for every other device manufacturer.

What Nick is saying is: Jobs has considerable leverage as the iPod and iTunes Music Store is now responsible for a LARGE slice of music sales worldwide. If he truly means what he says, he should take the first step and lay down the "no DRM" law with the music companies.

Evidently, this would be an extremely unlikely to happen because of the high risk the big four music companies might just tell him to bugger off.

But putting up his hands and saying "I'm the good guy here... it's up to them" is equally silly... the music companies aren't going to give up all their DRM protections, and he knows that.

Steve Jobs is an excellent communicator and very good at persuasion, but he's a businessman like every other. Rather than swallowing everything he says at face value, 'think different' and look at the motivations behind what he's saying -- it's highly unusual for CEOs to come out with groundbreaking philosophical statements unless there's a big commercial motivation behind them.



29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Manettas:

The writer makes some good points. But I think this is all about Jobs feeling threatened by some music companies toying with new DRM-free business models. He wants to make it seem as if he's ahead of the game.

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

lol867:

I think DRM should go away. The incident with that case that includes sony.

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Les Posen:

Was writing this article the author's first paid job after leaving high school?

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

raindog:

Was it me-too urges or just plain stupidity that inspired this valueless reply.
Quick hint: Replies are most use when you actually have something to say.

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Rico:

Nick Race says "At this stage in the game, the ‘big four' will agree. And hell, if he loses one or two, or even ALL of them, there's still a movie download service and music from other labels which don't have this draconian agreement locking up your purchases. iTunes will continue in one form or another."

Apple support article 302758 says:
"Videos purchased from the iTunes Store have FairPlay digital rights management embedded in the files and are in a format that can be readily synced to a Fifth Generation iPod."
and
"You can save your iTunes Store movies to data DVDs for backup purposes (if you have a supported DVD burner), but these DVDs will not play in a DVD player."

Thus, movie downloads presently have more "draconian" restrictions than music.

In short, Nick Race (like his fellow/former APC contributor Angus Kidman) not only gets the facts wrong, but also uses the John Dvorak method of antagonism in order to pump up the number of hits and keep the advertisers happy.

There are many more errors of fact in this article, but flamebait doesn't really merit such a response.

Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Cankles:

Jobs can't force record companies to lose the DRM...he doesn't own the content. The reason iTunes exists is because of the Fairplay DRM otherwise they would have never gotten access to the music in the first place.

I doubt jobs is making any friends by saying this so I applaud him. It'll make a hell of a lot more impact to possibly bring change than this blog post.

Now, where is Bono when you need him?

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Rico:

Bono along with Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Cliff Richard, are pleading desperately for the period of copyright protection to be increased.

You're not likely to get any help from him.

29 February 2008, 8:37 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Bruno Dexter:

We all agree DRM can be a liability to consumers and is not effective against piracy - but the idea that Apple is solely responsible to battle DRM is ridiculous. To add insult to a penury of facts, the author maintains that itunes would be just fine without any product to sell. I must've missed something in economics class, but a music store site that has no music is nothing.
I won't argue that Apple may benefit from DRM but I'm sure that Apple's growth strategy does not hinge on that DRM.
BTW - in this passage you say:
"There is no way known that any of these ‘big four' would pull out of iTunes at the moment - their shareholders would absolutely not allow it. Their bottom lines wouldn't allow it, and their music would be consumed less. It's a lose-lose situation for them."
That is very thin logic - considering the head of a big 4 label has already threatened pulling its catalog from iTunes - and there wasn't a peep from the shareholders or anyone else protesting the move.
In the real world - the power lies with the content owner - blaming apple is like blaming a tv manufacturer for rotten television shows.


29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags