Hmm....

[sleigh]

Steve Jobs has written an open letter to the world, giving his thoughts on DRM-free music. He states that the only reason Apple sells DRM-protected music is because the big four music companies insist on it, and won't license their music without DRM. He points out, rightly, that "[t]hough the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music." In comparing the sales of CDs to the sales of DRM-protected online music, he points out that the record companies who are insisting on DRM protection for online sales sell 90% of their music in totally unprotected format via CD.

What benefit, then, do these companies derive from insisting on DRM for online sales? "There appear to be none."

As to his own stance on DRM protection, he says this:

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. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. Good stuff, that. Steve talks the talk. Walking the walk would be to start offering DRM-free music on iTunes: it's out there. There are well-known groups (Barenaked Ladies come to mind) who speak loudly against DRM; my bet is that BNL would allow their catalog be sold on iTunes without DRM. I'd think it'd be easy enough to 'tag' songs on iTunes as "DRM-free" so we'd know which ones were in "Protected AAC" format and which were in the regular open AAC format.

I hear the beating of the heart...

Comments

[nomissnewo.livejournal.com]

I almost wondered though if he felt brave enough to say all those things because he knew the companies wouldn't back off DRM. Make the online geeks think of him as a hero while not actually having to go DRM-free. Almost like a president who will take a popular stance on an issue he doesn't agree with just because he knows congress will never vote it through.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't think that's the case, though I'll grant you the possibility. There is the reality that having DRM-protected music on iTunes means that only Apple's iPods can play music purchased through Apple's online store -- which in turn means that if you want access to Apple's online catalog, you gotta have an iPod, or you have to take the additional step of burning your purchased music onto a audio CD (which strips the protection from it) then loading it into your non-iPod player.

It's that last bit that makes me think that Steve means what he says: it's trivial to strip the DRM from the protected tracks. All it takes is a twenty-five cent (or less) recordable CD and a little bit of time. The DRM is a joke. As Jobs points out in his letter, most of the music on iPods out there is not DRM-crippled tracks, but tracks downloaded to iTunes via CD and thus perfectly open.

But... the proof will come if someone big steps up and says "OK, here. Prove you mean what you say. Here's our catalog, and we want you to sell it without DRM." As I mention above, BNL might make a good candidate.

Would Apple do it, or would they wimp out and say "Oh, but we really can't make any changes until all music is offered without DRM..." Which means, effectively, it's never gonna happen.

[nomissnewo.livejournal.com]

http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2007/02/emusic_sells_dr.html

This post makes some good points

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. Note that he carefully worded his essay to apply only to music -- where has the market sewn up -- and not movies. I think he's deflecting blame to the industry everyone already hates.

B

[empressov.livejournal.com]

The word hypocritical comes to mind.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I can understand the skepticism, and this may just be a way to deflect the issues Apple is having with a couple European countries and DRM by saying "Hey, it's not our fault; they're making us do it!"

As I say in reply to the comment above, we'll see when someone big enough to have clout in the industry offers Apple the chance to back up their words with action.

As a long-time Apple user and proponent, I hope they will. But I don't know that they will.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

The question arises, "Does BNL, for example, have the ability to do that?" Their label may control distribution so that their feelings on the matter aren't relevant. (The BNL I own, I downloaded from iTunes.)

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

And the answer is: "I don't know..." I do know that BNL has made public statements opposing DRM, and they've done all sorts of 'open' stuff that bands aren't supposed to do. But who controls their music? I don't know...