Jobs to DRM: Drop Dead
Steve Jobs posted an essay of sorts today on Apple.com dubbed "Thoughts on Music." It's not really about music, though; it's about the way the major record labels have been selling their products online. In particular, Jobs urged the labels to drop their demand that downloadable tracks be fitted with electronic locks, enabling Apple to sell songs in open formats such as MP3 or AAC.
His words carry more weight than the average Beatles lover's, given Apple's dominance in the online music market (accounting for 85% of the sales in the U.S. in early January). The iTunes Store has sold more than 2 billion songs; eMusic, which claims to be No. 2, has sold 100 million. And all of the songs sold by iTunes are locked by Apple's proprietary FairPlay digital rights management system, which Apple developed when the major labels insisted on some form of copy protection.
The problem with DRM systems, Jobs noted, is that the ones in use today don't interoperate. People who shop at the iTunes store can transfer tracks directly to just one brand of music player, the iPod. Similarly, well more than a million people subscribe to Napster and Rhapsody, but they can't play the songs they rent or buy from those services on iPods. This kind of confusion hangs like a wet blanket on the digital-music market.
So why not license FairPlay to other companies? Doing so would increase the chances of the DRM being hacked, Jobs argued, because it would force Apple to share secrets that are critical to the DRM's security. He doesn't mention other approaches, such as the Coral Consortium, that try to achieve interoperability without compromising security. But no matter -- Jobs is absolutely right in arguing that DRM on 99-cent downloads is pointless. As long as CDs are sold without electronic locks, there will be plenty of sources of pirated music online. In other words, DRM has no effect on the problem it ostensibly tries to solve.
But Jobs isn't just thinking about music buyers' interests. Apple is under attack in Europe for using FairPlay to lock iPod buyers into using iTunes, and iTunes shoppers into buying iPods. If he'd written the essay in HTML, Jobs might have linked to a copy of the letter he received from Norway's official consumer advocate, telling him that FairPlay was illegal. Jobs says the lock-in argument is hard to believe, given that the average iPod has only 22 songs on it that were purchased from the iTunes store. That's an average, though; I'm guessing the median would be much higher, especially if you consider actual iPods in use (eliminating all of the ones with dead batteries, broken displays and the like). Even so, Jobs is right on this point, too. The lock-in argument is ridiculous. Songs bought from the iTunes store can be burned onto CD and re-ripped into any format the buyer chooses. The same is true for any other music store. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but if that's a concern, people can stick to CDs.
Here's hoping the major labels follow Jobs' suggestion and drop DRM from their permanent downloads, reserving the locks for services like Napster-to-Go that couldn't exist without them. In the meantime, it would be nice to see Apple offer independent-label music as unlocked AAC or MP3 files, just as eMusic and other indie-only retailers do. Who knows, maybe shoppers at the iTunes store will notice the difference and vote with their dollars against DRM, making an even more compelling case for the major labels to change.
Update: The RIAA has responded by giving its own, novel intepretation to Jobs' essay:
Apple’s offer to license
Fairplay to other technology companies is a welcome breakthrough and would be a
real victory for fans, artists and labels. There have been many services
seeking a license to the Apple DRM. This would enable the interoperability that
we have been urging for a very long time.
I don't think Jobs was offering to share FairPlay with his competitors -- in fact, there's a pretty explicit rejection of that option in his essay -- but then, the RIAA was probably just tweaking him. So give the RIAA points for having a sense of humor, which is something perhaps Mitch Bainwol can license to the chuckles-impaired Steve Jobs. And now, here are the obligatory RIAA-bashing sentences. If interoperability is their goal, the major record companies can solve the problem without Apple's help: they can drop their demand for DRM on permanent downloads. In fact, that's the only way to solve the interoperability problem across the device spectrum. So, how about it?
Subscribe to this Blog - What is RSS?
Humor...you think the RIAA has a sense of humor? More likely, they just said that because the thought of what Jobs was actually saying was way to disturbing for them to comprehend. They are in denial...
Posted by: Brad | February 07, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Although describing it as a "sense of humor" may not be entirely accurate, the RIAA is employing a strategy that is (darkly) comic. Simple PR ploy: Publicly accept an offer that was never made but would be popular, and the purported "offeror" will have to publicly state (and usually defend) why they didn't make the offer in the first place. The RIAA is calling Jobs out in a roundabout way for the one self-serving argument that he made in an otherwise altruistic-sounding essay, i.e. the argument that licensing FairPlay would be bad for Apple. RIAA comes out looking clean, while shifting the focus of the debate to "Wait, yeah...why DOESN'T Apple license FairPlay?" Pretty tactically sound move on their part.
Posted by: Art | February 07, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Brad, You are absolutely right. the RIAA picked apart Apple's essay and took whatever shread it could find in it, and turn it into something that would defend their view on DRM.
But I think most people will not react this way.... "why doesn't Apple license FairPlay". Most people who have no knowledge of Apples article will see RIAA's comments, and automattically assume that Apple indeed offered to license FairPlay. However I think it will back fire, as eventually everyone will know about it. The news of Apple admitting that DRM is bad will spread much faster than RIAA's comments.
Posted by: roberto sebestyen | February 07, 2007 at 06:40 PM
Hey, the RIAA issued a revised statement today, attributed directly to Bainwol:
"We all want to see this marketplace work and for fans to enjoy the music they have lawfully bought on various devices or service. The issue is how. One way to achieve it was outlined by Steve Jobs in his post - for Apple to license its DRM to other technology companies. We think that's a great solution. Obviously, it would need to be done right and in the marketplace - but we have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen. This would enable the interoperability that we have been urging in the marketplace for a very long time."
IMHO, the RIAA is doing two things here. First, it's repaying Jobs in kind by making a reasonable-sounding proposal that it knows Apple won't accept. And second, it's trying to make the point that there are other ways than dropping DRM to skin the incompatibility cat. This may all be hot air, signifying nothing, as the phrase goes, but at least it's fun to watch.
Posted by: Jon Healey | February 07, 2007 at 06:51 PM
Neither Job's original essay nor the RIAA's response are worth the digital paper they're written on. Job's says that a shared DRM can't work, which is true, but only because no DRM works. He then proposes that labels give up DRM altogether. He suggests this, to blunt criticism towards Apple and their refusal to license Fairplay to other DAP makers and/or music stores, but he also knows that it's unlikely that labels are going to do this.
The labels respond in kind by thanking him for offering to license fairplay, which he's already said is unworkable (even if all parties know that was pure horse hockey).
In the end, the only way the labels will solve the issue is to offer DRM free music at a reasonable price and in whatever format the people want, which means WMA, AAC, OGG, MP3 and some lossless format. The first 4 must be in higher quality than they are now. Why would the average person purchase a 128kbs sound file from some online store, when they can get a 256kbs file (or better) for free online? In the old days, people bought albums and CDs, because they were better than the counterfeit versions. These days the counterfeit products are generally higher quality than the legit product (unless you're smart enough to buy CDs).
Posted by: Kevin Crays | February 07, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I love the term tactically sound. LOL.
Yeah, I agree with Brad.
Posted by: Perfecto | February 08, 2007 at 04:37 AM
Here's the LATimes' editorial on this subject, from today's paper:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-jobs08feb08,0,6657024.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
Posted by: Jon Healey | February 08, 2007 at 05:59 AM
Brad and Art and others are not correct when they claim the "argument that licensing FairPlay would be bad for Apple" was "tactically sound move on their part." This is ridiculous and shows they either didn't read the full text of Jobs' comments, or don't understand the technology required to make DRM work. As he stated, they "can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies" and that is vital because "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."
Technologically, they can not do this. It is akin to the Windows "world" of multiple types of computers, sources that sell them, people connected or not connected to the net, etc. When a major virus or something hits, there are numerous ways for people to get patches - their virus software, MS update, etc, etc - but it requires people to be connected, to know what is going on, etc. Obviously that doesn't work, b/c trojans and viruses spread all over the net rapidly - even with those protections in place.
So, Apple can't license Fairplay AND meet the record labels' demands for protecting it - the technological means just are not there.
Posted by: Eric | February 08, 2007 at 08:13 AM
Eric, if it's not technologically possible, then how does Microsoft do it? MSFT licenses its Windows Media DRM all over creation (well, it licenses the PlaysForPrettyDarnSure version of the DRM, at least; the Zune version isn't on the market ... yet). As others have pointed out, the Windows Media DRM hasn't been measurably more hackable than FairPlay -- they've both been circumvented digitally, and neither one can stop an analog work-around (because nothing can).
And even if Apple's FairPlay was uniquely vulnerable to hacks post-licensing, there are ways to achieve compatibility that don't require DRM vendors to share their secrets with each other. Again, check out the Coral Consortium's approach, or even what the Digital Living Network Alliance is doing.
Posted by: Jon Healey | February 08, 2007 at 09:31 AM
Simple response - it is not technologically possible to do this:
"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."
Everyone knows more about the licensing agreement that Apple has with the big four more than any agreement MS or anyone else has because they are under such scrutiny - being the biggest. I think the above, if a person fully understands what is involved in upholding Apple's end of the agreement, fully explains why it is not possible to license it to a lot of places. Not saying they couldn't set up a few, finite agreements, but a carte blanche' license to any and all would make the above part of their agreement impossible.
Apple, unlike MS, seems to care more about their security - with those they license from and those they provide services and software to.
Posted by: Eric | February 08, 2007 at 09:59 AM
That's possible, Eric. I'm just not persuaded. Seems like the renewability mechanisms that all contemporary DRM systems use would be just as effective regardless of how many licensees Apple had. But I don't know the technical details; I'm simply skeptical of Apple's statement because it's self-serving.
Posted by: Jon Healey | February 08, 2007 at 11:21 AM
No doubt, Apple's statement is self-serving to a point.
What I am reading in this is that because of their position, and the popularity they have shown with iTunes that people WILL pay to download digital music, they are trying to push/persuade the record labels to go to a DRM-free world. I think everyone, except maybe the record labels, agree that eventually that is going to happen. So why not cut the crap and get there. Ultimately, that will allow any number of online stores to easily sell those songs online (DRM free) - then people can quit complaining that Apple "forces" people to buy iPods, and all the other nonsense that is out there.
I think all (informed) consumers agree that DRM has to go away - it's ultimately pointless and all it does is cause annoyance to the consumer.
Posted by: Eric | February 12, 2007 at 07:54 AM
I'm a newcomer to the issue of copy-protecting digital media. Perhaps the legislative and judicial actions have negated certain activities in which I once freely participated under the "Fair Use" concept. If so, I'd like to join in any ongoing or anticipated effort to re-inject sanity into industries gone mad with greed.
I have a record turntable and a dual-drive tape deck (plus other devices connected to an amplifier/signal-switcher/radio-tuner, which can route signals to my speakers or the tape deck. I bought the components between 1974 and 1980. I could copy songs (and anything else recorded on a vinyl platter or an audio mag tape) to another tape, then give the tape to a friend, all done legally under "Fair Use". That system postdated the 1976 Congressional meddling with the copyright concept in an effort to placate RIAA greed.
Congress obviously knows who contributes to re-election campaigns. How else could we have Congressional extensions of copyright durations which once lasted only a generation but now exceed the lifespans of many artists--not from the date they recorded the songs, but from the date when the artist was BORN.
Clearly, we won't get satisfaction from Congress. It's up to the Federal courts. Fortunately, they don't run for re-election.
Posted by: Steve ('Gator) Kimble | January 18, 2008 at 07:09 AM
What a nice job....
Posted by: Frank Albu | March 07, 2008 at 11:29 AM
But the major labels -- which act independently in these matters, not under any RIAA blanket policy -- are already dropping DRM on permanent downloads. This has been in the news for months.
EMI went first, with DRM-free MP3s on iTunes (you can go buy them right now if you want). Then Universal started selling DRM-free MP3s, but not on iTunes, though they are on Amazon MP3 -- which also has DRM-free downloads from Warner.
And Sony BMG, the last holdout as usual, plans to start offering DRM-free MP3s soon, possibly in connection with Amazon MP3 in some sort of giveaway.
The problem is NOT that the labels won't sell DRM-free MP3s. It's that three out of four majors won't sell DRM-free MP3s on Jobs' iTunes. Which is not the same issue at all.
Posted by: Bridey | March 07, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Jon,, Are you daft??
"I" WANT to buy 256kb unprotected music files from Apple's music store. Apple wants to sell them to me, but the record labels won't let them.
That's Apple being self serving??!
moron.
Posted by: B | March 07, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Wow, a wave of new comments on a year-old post. The Net moves in strange ways...
Re: am I daft -- probably, B, but you're taking the "Apple is being self-serving" line out of context. If you re-read the thread above, you'll see that Eric and I were talking about Apple's rationale for not licensing its FairPlay DRM to competing hardware and software companies. Jobs' comments about the security risks posed by licensing FairPlay to other companies are clearly self-serving; Apple uses its exclusive control over that technology to boost sales of iPods, AppleTVs and other gear. But that's a separate from the discussion about selling songs without DRM, which is the thrust of the original post.
Posted by: Jon Healey | March 07, 2008 at 01:12 PM
This may be irrelevant, but here goes!
I own an iPod, which I am very happy with. I have an iTunes account, of which I am generally happy using, with one exception. I can't get all of the music I want.
This is, IMHO, because of the greed of the record labels and their desire to control the music I listen to. I want access to ALL of the music that has been recorded, from anywhere that I want to get it from. Is that too much to ask?
I've got over 5,000 tracks, of which I have either paid for, through iTunes, or that I have burned from CD's. I am tired of all this bickering about who is right, and who is wrong! Give me what is fair, and I will pay for it, plain and simple!
Posted by: Mark | March 08, 2008 at 10:41 AM
DRM is asinine, plain and simple. Its only function is to punish the honest – making honesty less attractive. People who want pirated music will have it, and have since the first consumer tape recorder was sold. That hasn't changed, and it won't.
Licensing FairPlay would make it moot.
The labels are selling their music DRM-free other places outside the iTunes store and unfairly discriminating against Apple.
Those of you calling Steve Jobs' comments self-serving in being opposed to the greedy and customer-abusive practices of the labels should pull your headquarters out of your hindquarters.
Peace.
Posted by: Rip Ragged | March 08, 2008 at 09:57 PM