Apple CEO Steve Jobs speaks out on DRM

[InXess]

login || register

Search this site:


Home News Blogs Reviews Forums Magazine Spotlights
Latest news Latest iPod/iTunes news Newsletters News widget RSS feeds Search news
iPod/iTunes > News

Tuesday, 06 February 2007 Apple CEO Steve Jobs speaks out on DRM
Apple's boss would welcome DRM-free online music sales
Jonny Evans


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apple CEO Steve Jobs today published his thoughts on the state of the online music industry on the company website.

Jobs discusses — in detail — the way that iTunes sells tracks which are protected by technology to prevent them being stolen or misused.


The company's leader states that when iTunes launched Apple was forced to apply such technology — digital rights management (DRM) technology — on songs purchased through the service.

He states that the main protagonists in this demand were the major music labels: EMI, Universal, Warners, Sony and BMG.

Jobs also talks about interoperability within an environment in which online music service providers must repair any flaws that may emerge within their DRM systems "within weeks".

If music services fail to meet any challenges to their DRM systems within set time limits, labels reserve the right to withdraw their entire catalogue from the music stores, he explains.

Jobs answers critics who slam his company for limiting iTunes purchases for playback on devices which support iTunes DRM. He observes that licensing DRM systems to others would place any existing DRM systems at risk of being broken — leaving any services dependent on that DRM at risk of closure.

But that's not what he wants.

Apple, states Jobs, would welcome any move by major labels toward selling tracks without such systems applied.

"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," he writes.

Apple is currently under attack by Nordic EU countries over the way its DRM system stops iTunes songs being played on devices other than an iPod.

"For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100 per cent owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50 per cent owned by Bertelsmann, a German company," Jobs explains.

"Convincing them to to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace," he states.

"Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly," Jobs concludes.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.cfm?newsid=17141

[rumplestiltskin]

Makes sense to me. Of course, the music labels aren't known for their good sense.

[edDV]

Maybe he could walk the talk by offering Mac system firmware as open source?

[lordsmurf]

Maybe he could walk the talk by offering Mac system firmware as open source?

My thoughts too. 8)

Let's sell Mac OS X for non-Mac hardware.

[Dv8ted2]

The labels said no dice. They want Steve Jobs to open up fairplay.

[DereX888]

do i sense dwindling music sales by all those crapstores like itunes etc DRM-infected 'big ones'?
If so - good. EXCELLENT!

[Dubber]

I said it before and will repeat again: they should distribute lower bitrate versions either for free to everyone or sell for very little money while sell high quality recordings (CDs) for no more than $12-15 a pop. I my easteryears I was able to enjoy free tape copies as most everyone, hence lower quality than original; always wanted an original and would pay for a CD if and when had the coin but never paid outragious prices.
Same with small-screen portable video players, give us almost-free copies for those and regular DVD, HD DVD, whatnot for the big screen.

Who pays $20 a CD if they listen to the music on $100 MP3 player?
Who wants to pay $40 for a BlewRay if watching on PSP?
Just like some buy jeans at Wally while others blow 4 digit bill on a pair. Ppl have different possibilities and needs, give ppl a few choices.

[InXess]

I don't see it that way. Lawmakers like to listen to authorities. For them Jobs is a pioneer and holds the key to a highly valued stock that many are invested in. They may not agree but they won't totally dismiss his opinion. Jobs as an insider has a lot of leverage. It may not happen immediately but the cat is out of the bag forcing an open discussion. Studios, politicians may ignore you and me but they will hear him out. What's important is that the picture starts being less black and white as they all try to paint with DRM as the only cure for "rampant" piracy. Having Jobs on the other side of the fence can only help bring it to light. It is a delicate matter, as siding with DRM opponents was until now equal to promoting piracy. Now they hear that no DRM doesnt necessarily mean "bad for business". Gates who built Windows empire by tolerating widespread "sharing" knows it full well. How else you would you have millions of Windows users in countries where retail price of the OS is higher then an average monthly wage. This is a viral aspect of relaxed rules even with not much (or virually none) marketing muscle involved. P2P has not made labels collapse, they know that. It will be a tough sell but no one can ignore strong distrust towards DRM. If HD DVD and Blu-Ray encryption is finally bypassed or cracked, who knows they may even consider opening up a bit more as a gesture on their part (to improve their image) pretending bona fide. Who knows... Jobs said aloud what every (or most) user thinks and that is important regardless of Apple internal politics (OS related)... AND it's on the record. I like it.

Full text on Apple website.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

[guns1inger]

Let him throw the first stone by releasing the soundtracks to all Pixar's films DRM free.

[ssj2_goha]

Let him throw the first stone by releasing the soundtracks to all Pixar's films DRM free.

He don't contol pixar anymore and a music label hold the rights to those soundtracks so he can't "throw the first stone"

[creakndale]

I used to buy music CD's and I really like the theory of downloading individual songs. In my collection I probably have 300 CD's at $12 each but since the inclusion of DRM I have not spent a single cent of my hard earned money on any music purchase, download or physical CD's. I've got plenty of "oldies" to listen to. I read the forbes.com Jobs article with great interest. In my opinion, he's got it exactly right. I vote with my wallet and until DRM is removed they won't get any of my money. There's got to be lots of similar thinking potential music buyers out there.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/06/jobs-apple-drm-tech-media-cx_lh_0206apple.html?partner=yahootix

[DereX888]

Removal of DRMs won't change much.
Those who download freebie pirated albums from the web will continue to do so, and maybe small percentage of them would switch to buying same music but only if the price is right.
At this moment, same as for past 6? 7? years, they try to sell crappy low bitrate compressed music for almost the same price as buying CDDA in a brick'n'mortar store. Aside from DRM-infection inconveniences, not everyone is that dumb to not see it.
The audiophiles won't pay for downloads DRM-free or DRM-infected either, unless they can get pure crispy WAVEs - and at the lower price than the same CDDA goes for in a store (since no covers/booklets etc).

DRM-infection and online music selling business model as it is, was mainly a scared response to "napster mania" back when broadband started to replace phone line modems, and it was a fiasco since the begining.
Apple only seized the opportunity of the moment back then.
But for each million of downloads trumpeted by those DRM-infectees there is more than 10 millions of free downloads of same pirated versions.
Any short visit to just american university dorms would open the eyes of those idiots and show them, that killing the CD sales was their own downfall from which they will never recuperate.
They had a chance to not let kids get a habit of "free downloading" by lowering the CD prices to the really lowest possible prices and keeping them hooked still on buying cheap CDs habits back in 1998-1999. It was either that (sell very cheap but keep'em buying) or follow the proposed by Apple "solution" (which boils down to "try to milk them even more while brainwashing the dumb the masses that DRM-infections are good for them and the artists" hahaha )
Well, they either were too greedy or just blew it, or maybe they really couldn't go down with price - I can understand it too since they used to pay millions upfront to one-hit-wonder "artists" - or maybe Apple's seemingly safe back then "itunes model" appeared so appealing... it really doesn't matter now, genie is out of the bottle for too long, and most will go out of business (as many already did) even if they change anything now. Its simply too late. Probably Sony will be the 'last man standing' since it has almost unlimited resources compared to any other music selling businesses.

One important fact most of those "specialists" and big mouths in the music business like Jobs so conveniently overlook:
Outside of North America virtually NO ONE have any habit of paying for downloaded music.
I dare to say that most of music consumers who download music from the web, except for North Americans, have no clue about "itunes" and such. There are no ipods presence in Asia or Europe in case someone didn't knew. I can guarantee, that if you see a dude with ipod in Paris or Tokyo, in 99 out of 100 cases its "an American in Paris"
How's that for a business model?

Anyways: who cares?
Business is business.
Those who can't adapt to new market situation simply vanish, its not a rocket science
Government regulations, union pressures, cartel practices (RIAA) etc etc - can only prolong the agony, but it won't last forever.
Lets just wait until today's teen become major nusic buying demographics. In 10 years or so, the only people buying downloaded music will be 30+ year olds, same what you can see today in those few music stores selling CDs left on the malls

And let's not forget the "Britneys Syndrome" (releases of rushed, half-baked albums by one-hit-wonders while theyre still cute) that this business suffers from in past 10 years... does anyone have doubt how much it "boosts" the music sale?
Artists will and do find their own ways of distributing their music and making money.
All these "Britneys" of music industry would have never gotten those multimillion dollar contracts (and think of it - why should they?) if the whole music distribution system itself wouldn't be so twisted and downright corruptly manipulated.
DRM-infection of *sold* files is just a ridiculus byproduct of it.
Let'em die, the sooner the better - for us, the consumers, and the artists themselves.
Today you wouldn't be able to even whistle "For Elise" (or any other ancient tune) if the RIAA and our current music distribution business model existed few hundred years ago.

[dphirschler]

Good for Jobs. Sadly, I don't think the RIAA cares what he thinks. They want to go on suing people who have only downloaded five songs. I think free downloading and CDs go hand in hand. I always equated downloading mp3s to radio. It was an alternate way to get the music heard. Some people will be motivated to buy it on CD, others will be content to listen to their downloads. But now that they've all but destroyed the CD format, who knows what is next? But certainly DRM has no place in the future of the music industry if there is to be any future.


Darryl

[JohnnyMalaria]

Let him throw the first stone by releasing the soundtracks to all Pixar's films DRM free.

Or even OS X. Put it on the Apple servers as a free download and rely on people's honesty to pay for it if they keep it. You know - shareware. And open it up to non-Apple hardware.

"Hello, I'm a Mac"

"And I'm a PC"

"What's up, Mac?"

"I've been allowed into the real world...and I'm scared. People are trying to exploit my vulnerabilities. Please, Steve, let me go home...."

[DereX888]

Good for Jobs. Sadly, I don't think the RIAA cares what he thinks. They want to go on suing people who have only downloaded five songs. I think free downloading and CDs go hand in hand. I always equated downloading mp3s to radio. It was an alternate way to get the music heard. Some people will be motivated to buy it on CD, others will be content to listen to their downloads. But now that they've all but destroyed the CD format, who knows what is next? But certainly DRM has no place in the future of the music industry if there is to be any future.


Darryl

RIAA cares. Its to be or not to be for them, same as for all member companies of RIAA.
They can't sue everyone, but they will continue this "strategy" of scaring kids away simply because there are no alternatives left to them.
No matter with or without DRMs, people will always "illegally" (according to RIAA) copy music on their own multiple devices at homes without double/triple/quadruple paying for same music. They are insane. I am a 'pirate' according to RIAA too, because I always copy my legally purchased CDs to backups CDs, my MP3 players, car player, etc - I suspect that 90% of legitimate music consumers are 'pirates' according to RIAA for we don't buy multiple copies of the same CDs!
If they had it their way, we would have to pay every time we listen to each song, I think

No one knows what future of music distribution will bring, but it will be certainly online/web based.
All it takes is final downfall of RIAA cartel and its grip on the world of music (with all of its greedy members) and Im sure there will be sleuth of smaller and bigger online music stores offering direct downloads - without DRMs - for low fees, in any format you want. These stores will replace current "labels system". Perhaps it will be as easy as you recording and editing your song at home, uploading it to the store(s) of your choice, and collecting the proceedings from selling your music directly to your bank account. Basically any artist's dream - only the one-hit-wonder "Britney-type" wouldn't want that. (Yes I know its not that simple - copyrights of composers etc etc, but thats just another matter).
Anyways, who knows.
Maybe they'll start legal executions of 'pirates' and people will really stop copying music...
But no matter what, due to the mistake they made back few years ago, sadly the CDs (CDDA/SACD/DVD-A/etc) will probably vanish

[Tekneek]

Music without DRM is not the same as releasing an operating system for free, or even releasing the source for some firmware. If the RIAA wants Fairplay done away with, please cite an article that says as much. Everything I have seen indicates that Fairplay exists to please the RIAA, not to spite them.

[ssj2_goha]

Let him throw the first stone by releasing the soundtracks to all Pixar's films DRM free.

Or even OS X. Put it on the Apple servers as a free download and rely on people's honesty to pay for it if they keep it. You know - shareware. And open it up to non-Apple hardware.

"Hello, I'm a Mac"

"And I'm a PC"

"What's up, Mac?"

"I've been allowed into the real world...and I'm scared. People are trying to exploit my vulnerabilities. Please, Steve, let me go home...."

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

"Darwin" the core of Mac OSX IS on the apple servers free to download as OPEN SOURCE. Darwin is the Apple Build of BSD. So next time, make sure you have your facts right b4 you post. (oh and b4 you say something about the "rest" of OSX source i don't see micro$oft releasing any source) Vulnerabilities are made by lazy or sloppy programming yes Mac OSX has some but as soon as someone find once Apple releases a patch within a week not 2 years later.... OK i'm done with my rant now......

[lordsmurf]

ssj2_goha, I'd be happy with OS X and Apple software being sold in the open market, for any hardware. Right now Jobs/Apple uses a closed-market model for software sales. Open source is not the argument as much as open market.

I admire Jobs for wanting to open the music market too (not tying media purchases to certain hardware only), but nobody will take the man seriously until he sets the example. Right now, he's just a hypocrite. I would guess he's just trying to stir trouble and give iPod a better name, a false showing that they are "attempting" to make Apple Store music work on other devices (a major gripe with the service).

I don't see it as anything more than a pretty PR speech. If he were serious about this mindset, I'd be able to go purchase OS X and DVD Studio Pro for my laptop (which I bought because HP offered TWICE THE RESOURCES at HALF THE PRICE of the Apple systems ... buying Apple hardware would have been a double screw).

[ssj2_goha]

I don't see it as anything more than a pretty PR speech. If he were serious about this mindset, I'd be able to go purchase OS X and DVD Studio Pro for my laptop (which I bought because HP offered TWICE THE RESOURCES at HALF THE PRICE of the Apple systems ... buying Apple hardware would have been a double screw).

May I ask what you mean by "TWICE THE RESOURCES at HALF THE PRICE of the Apple systems"

After Apple went to Intel chips the price difference and hardware difference went to almost 0. I know for a fact you can get a Apple MAC Pro for cheaper than a Dell with the same Hardware. I Agree with you on the fact that it would be nice to put MAC OSX on any computer. But the downside of that is that you run into driver issues. That is one of the reasons apple uses "closed" hardware so they know the drivers work and so that they can assure people buying them that they will work flawlessly out of the box. If they would open the OS to all hardware (witch i think is coming soon) they would have to rely on hardware makers to make drivers that would work (as we have seen in the windows world this don't always work). That or they would have to make drivers that wrok with any hardware. It also introduces people building "OSX" computers with crap parts and people bashing OSX even though it's the hardware that sucks not the OS.

Yes I'm huge mac lover. I know I can rant on the subject and I'm sorry if I hurt anyones feelings....

Well anyway back to the original topic of DRM: DRM is only around to make the record companies (riaa) happy nothing more nothing less. should it go? YES and NO. Yes so that all hardware can be use to play songs. No? becuase people are dishonest period. One person buys the song everyone he knows will get it. it's a fact and i don't care how many people say "people are honest" it's a lie and everyone knows it. Sorry... man i just realized how much I do rant.

[DereX888]

We would have never guessed it!

[ssj2_goha]

We would have never guessed it!

yeah i guess i do go into defense and attack mode when the subject comes up. it's a character flaw i have. after re-reading this thread (with a cooler head) i see much of the point people are making. But I still say this: The iPod must not be that bad if 75+% of the "mp3" players purchased per year are iPods. well any way. AS Howard Stern Says "if you don't like it turn it off" any way off to play with my WII......

[lordsmurf]

May I ask what you mean by "TWICE THE RESOURCES at HALF THE PRICE of the Apple systems"

When I was laptop shopping back in October, I basically had these two choices:

1. HP
Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
nVidia graphics (with dedicated tv output, dualview desktops)
200GB hard drive
DVD burner
Windows XP
$1000

2. Macbook
Intel Core Duo
512 or 1GB of RAM
Intel graphics, maybe ATI graphics
80GB hard drive
DVD burner
OS X
$2000

I had wanted an Apple notebook for years. I was tired of having to used a Mac only at work or at a friend's house, I wanted my own powerful Mac. But when the time FINALLY came that I could afford a really nice laptop (and had enough need to justify the purchase of one), it just was not going to happen with those prices.

I remember thinking to myself "you've got to be ******* kidding me" when I saw a 2x price for a ½x quality/amount of hardware. No thanks.

DVD Studio Pro is nice, but not for $1000 more just for the privilege to install it.

But the downside of that is that you run into driver issues. That is one of the reasons apple uses "closed" hardware so they know the drivers work and so that they can assure people buying them that they will work flawlessly out of the box.

I hate to disappoint you, but this is malarkey. I've run across a lot of so-called "Mac approved" hardware that doesn't work correctly. Matrox had that problem with some of their cards.

Microsoft seems to be able to overcome driver issues. So can Linux. What's Apple's excuse? I honestly think their methodology here is their limited profit margins would be destroyed if they had to work as hard as MS did. They'd spend all their money on programming. Their closed business model is all about maximizing profit from the limited niche that actually buys their goods. They're not willing to take the big risks, gambling the whole company on their software alone. They have to overcharge for that hardware.

[ssj2_goha]

1. HP
Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
nVidia graphics (with dedicated tv output, dualview desktops)
200GB hard drive
DVD burner
Windows XP
$1000

2. Macbook
Intel Core Duo
512 or 1GB of RAM
Intel graphics, maybe ATI graphics
80GB hard drive
DVD burner
OS X
$2000

Looking at both sites right now: here is what i see.

Macbook 13.3"
MAC OSX 10.4
512MB ram
60GB sata HardDrive
1.83 GHZ intel core 2 duo
combo drive
802.11 N wireless card
Bluetooth
intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM
$1,099.00

HP dv2000t series PC
Vista Home edition
intel Core 2 duo 1.83GHZ
Mic and webcam built in
14.1" screen
Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator 950
512 MB Ram
60GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
DVD/CD-RW Combo Drive
Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network w/Bluetooth
System Recovery DVD w/Windows Vista Home Basic
$1,027.99

Difference between the two? 1 inch of screen space. And the mac cost only $72 more not quite 2X the price for half the resources. Sorry i had to look that up it was bugging me........... Oh and the other difference an OS that runs circles around Windows. (windows copies OSX sooo much don't get me started on it.)

[JohnnyMalaria]

(windows copies OSX sooo much don't get me started on it.)

What, like being a pre-emptive, multitasking, kernel-based, multiprocessor-capable OS? Windows was all those things TEN YEARS before Mac OS.

[ssj2_goha]

(windows copies OSX sooo much don't get me started on it.)

What, like being a pre-emptive, multitasking, kernel-based, multiprocessor-capable OS? Windows was all those things TEN YEARS before Mac OS.

pre-emptive????
you mean : Preemption (computing) — the ability of an operating system to stop a currently scheduled task in favour of a higher priority task
MAC OS introduced JAN 1984
Windows introduced November 1985

MAC OS was a PURE GUI
Windows was a wrapper for DOS till win 95 (it still is sort of)

Know your computer history before starting with me......


oh and on a side note the OS to the "lisa" was a pure GUI but i didn't say that because it wasn't widely released. and for those who don't know the "lisa" was sort of a prototype version of the Macintosh that was named after Steve Jobs' first daughter and released almost a year b4 the Macintosh.

OK my wife says i have to go to bed but i will be back....... you have been warned 8) .

[JohnnyMalaria]

[pre-emptive????
you mean : Preemption (computing)

No, I mean "pre-emptive multitasking"

And I'm afraid you have a distorted view of the history of such on the Windows and Mac platforms.

Up to version 9.2.2, the Mac OS used CO-OPERATIVE MULTITASKING. Like the non-NT Windows prior to Windows 95.

Windows NT has always supported multiple processors. Not until OS X, did the Mac platform offer such. Some earlier Mac OSes had dual processor support. But way after NT.

MAC OS was a PURE GUI
Windows was a wrapper for DOS

So what????

And, on the pre-emptive multitasking front, Apple and Microsoft were beaten by the Sinclair QL - launched in January 1984. (Supposedly the computer that inspired Linus Torvalds to develop Linux).

Know your computer history before starting with me......

I refer the right-honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Tekneek]

So, if Steve Jobs were serious about music without DRM, Apple would release more software for the Windows OS, or would even make sure their OS ran on HP hardware? Can you say apples and oranges?

[InXess]

I'm with you on it. What OS X has to do with DRM? Seems some ppl condemn Jobs regardless of what he does. That's just plain dumb. So what do you expect?... that Jobs first should restructure his business to your exact liking to earn the right to speak on the subject of music and DRM? In their naiveness some members expect Jobs to become a crusader... this is not what he meant or will ever consider doing.

[Cornucopia]

No, I think what many here are saying is for Jobs to just put his money where his mouth is, and that's not going to happen. We all know it, so are crying, "BS!".
If you think the OpenPlatform/ClosedPlatform and DRM/NoDRM topics aren't related, you're fooling yourself.

Scott

[ssj2_goha]

Well anyway back to the original topic of DRM: DRM is only around to make the record companies (riaa) happy nothing more nothing less. should it go? YES and NO. Yes so that all hardware can be use to play songs. No? becuase people are dishonest period. One person buys the song everyone he knows will get it. it's a fact and i don't care how many people say "people are honest" it's a lie and everyone knows it. Sorry... man i just realized how much I do rant.

I really must stop ranting....... well anyway on the subject of DRM. this whole discussion reminds me of a discussion i had with a close friend of mine. the whole discussion was about how in the entertainment industry certain people hold allot of power. The same situation is here the record industry and the artists would need to OK DRM being dropped from iTunes in order of Apple to Legally do it. If Apple did it with out their OK Apple would be sued for "illegal distribution of copyrighted material" and all the music on iTunes would go poof. I know allot of people say do it on a case by case basis. The problem with this? Well with the current iTunes set up the DRM is applied after you download the song from iTunes buy the software you have on your computer. there is nothing in iTunes (at this moment, next version might change this) to recognize pro-drm songs from anti-drm songs it just drm's all songs (and videos). Will the next version of iTunes solve this? maybe, but more than likely there would need to be at least one "major" record studio ok with no DRM b4 apple re-wries that part of iTunes.

wow a whole post and I don't sound like an Apple nut.... or do I and I'm just that delusional???