Jobs Calls for DRM Freedom
|
This afternoon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs may have set off an anti-DRM powder keg that has been building over the last six 12 months. |
His essay, "Thoughts on Music," contends that "DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy." He said that Apple would embrace "wholeheartedly" the licensing of "DRM-free" music from the major labels.
The letter clearly is meant as a call to action and to further ignite the debate over DRM. Strangely, Jobs' call for DRM freedom comes as Microsoft has tacked on more rights protection to its products, particularly Windows Vista.
In the music realm, Microsoft's Zune is a startling example. Microsoft's "Welcome to the Social" device is supposed to be able to share music with other Zunes. But rights restrictions prevent sharing of many tunes carried on the Zune Marketplace. Additionally, Zune sharing wraps DRM on music, even the stuff without rights protection.
Restrictive rights functions are core attributes of Vista's support for HDMI or Cable Card. The new operating system also comes with built-in anti-piracy controls that periodically check to make sure the software is, in Microsoft parlance, "genuine." To meet this burden, many businesses will need to set up license servers and ensure Vista computers check in within every 180 days. Otherwise, after 30 days, for all practical purposes, Vista will turn off. For Microsoft, rights protection is an off switch.
Yesterday, BBC columnist Bill Thompson observed that during last week's Windows Vista launch, "particular attention was lavished on the digital rights management ... features." He later warned that most people would "rarely notice the limitations, because they are not the sort of people who download films from the net or try to make copies of their DVDs. But the day will come when they do notice ... those changes could be used to take away our freedoms."
In what has become a lightning rod for DRM opponents, Peter Gutmann's recent paper, "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection," contends people will pay and pay again for Microsoft's approach to DRM; Microsoft, too. The single-sentence executive summary is chilling: "The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history."
Anti-DRM Momentum
Even as Microsoft embraces more restrictive rights technologies, other quarters have called for an end to DRM. In October, the Free Software Foundation spearheaded the Day Against DRM. The group's Defective by Design campaign seeks to eliminate DRM.
Yahoo's music store has experimented with DRM-free tunes for sale, while operations like Audio Lunchbox have long sold MP3s without rights protection. In September, and not for the first time, Yahoo offered a DRM-free album for sale--Jesse McCartney's "Right Where You Want Me."
A year ago, Yahoo's general manager of music called for an end to DRM, not that he got the headlines Jobs is getting today.
During last month's Midem conference in Cannes, France, some music executives signaled willingness to offer music from online music stores free of DRM.
Jobs' call for the end of DRM catches a wave Microsoft bucks against. But I don't mean to attach an untoward altruism to Jobs. He's a calculating mind, so there has got to be more going on here than what may initially appear. I don't know when Apple renegotiates its contracts with record labels, but right now makes a helluva lot of sense. The iTunes music store launched in April 2003. Assuming contracts are renewed yearly, Apple should either be entering or soon to be entering contract renegotiations.
Jobs' Case Against DRM
In his letter, Jobs' blows a hole in some of the fiercest accusations against Apple's music business: closed model and competitive unwillingness to license the Fairplay DRM.
Jobs' major reason for holding back Fairplay licensing has nothing to do with Apple lock in. He laid blame on the nature of DRM itself. Jobs asserts that if Apple licensed Fairplay, "leaks" could "rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection."
Repairing the DRM would be "very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces," Job claimed. "It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak."
As for the closed model--where Apple controls the major music store and portable music player--Jobs would be ready to open it up. He wrote:
"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."
The idea of DRM-free music would have sounded ludicrous even 24 months ago. But as Jobs noted, most of it is that way already. He explained that only about 3 percent of music on iPods comes from the iTunes music store. Most people rip from CDs, the majority of which are DRM-free.
What Jobs doesn't discuss is the power of commerce. Online stores like iTunes make buying music more convenient than stealing it. New music is easily discoverable and downloaded, and there is about zero risk of getting malware with the music.
If Jobs succeeds in his DRM-free quest, he may yet again route Microsoft's broader entertainment strategy. While Windows most certainly dominates the desktop, Apple has cornered one of the home entertainment endpoints Microsoft desperately wants to control.
What about all those rights management technologies Microsoft slathered onto Windows? Paul DeGroot, lead desktop strategies analyst for Directions on Microsoft, says it's in the company's DNA.
"Microsoft has a strong IP [intellectual property] culture and probably suffers more from piracy than the record labels," he said. It's one reason why Microsoft "doesn't stand up more for consumers."
Comments (13)
Ya thats great for Jobs to say all this stuff about getting rid of DRM, but actions speak louder than words. Why doesn't he open fair-play to others. He was the one who thought of DRM when they first intorduced the iPod. He only wanted you to be able to sync the iPod with one computer and limiting 5 devices being able to listen to the protected music. It will be hard to stop this run away train.
Posted by GCRaya | February 7, 2007 12:35 AM
GCRaya:
It would help your credibility if you actuallly read the letter you are criticizing. Jobs explains clearly why Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay. But I'll be nice today and summarize for you.
1) The contract with the label stipulates that Apple only has a few weeks at most to plug any cracks to FairPlay. Otherwise, the labels have the right to immediately pull their entire catalog.
2) By licensing to others, you inevitably increase the chance that some dork partner will spill the beans (either accidentally or through design) on how FairPlay works, making it extremely difficult for Apple to keep FairPlay working as advertised.
3) Apple suddenly becomes responsible for updating FairPlay not only on its own systems, but on 3rd party systems. We know how well PlaysForSure "played for sure" on all those supposedly compliant players out there.
For these reasons, it's just easier and better for Apple to maintain control over FairPlay.
BTW, Steve Jobs did was not the one who "thought of DRM." That makes you not only lazy for not reading the letter, but laughable. Sorry for the history lecture, but it sounds like you really need it. There were several other online music stores before iTunes, and they all had DRM. Really atrocious, annoying DRM where some songs you could only play on your computer (as long as you had an Internet connection), other songs you could download to your Rio and burn to CD, and other songs that you only download to your Rio but not burn to a CD, and some songs that allowed you to burn to CD but not download to Rio, and burn only 3 times to a CD at that while other allowed more burning.
It was ridiculous. Steve Jobs said it was ridiculous but the labels insisted on DRM. So he came up with a simplified, consistent DRM where all songs were treated equally, and no song was "more equal" than other. That's what made the iTunes Store a success, because consumers knew what they were buying.
Now I hope you actually modify your opinions to reflect actual facts and history instead of just being critical of something just because you don't happen to like Steve Jobs or Apple's success.
Posted by Paul | February 7, 2007 1:23 AM
I agree with Jobs 100%. I admire Apple that it was able to make a landmark deal with the labels and bring the least restrictive DRM music to the masses. I don't think this could have been done if Apple insisted on DRM free music from the beginning. Now that it has some leverage because of the success of itunes, it can lead the way to a free DRM world. I don't think Jobs ever really used DRM as a lock for iTunes/iPods as some have insinuated, because there was never a practical lock in the first place. The DRM was just to keep the Labels happy, but it was weak and Jobs knew it never worked.
Whats the difference with buying songs from itunes store and burning it to CD than driving to a Wallmart and buying a CD. Just because you buy songs from itunes dosen't mean you are LOCK to iPod. You don't even need an iPod to buy song on itunes. Just listen to it on your computer or burn to a CD and transfer to any format you want. Its the convinience of being about to discover and download in the comfort of your home is what makes itunes secessful. This arguement of itunes/ipod lock is weak.
Posted by Bach | February 7, 2007 1:39 AM
Nicely put Paul and generous too especially in view of the general uninformed blather that passes for comment around the net and other media - from so-called analysts - as portrayed by GCRaya. The most amazing thing to me is that these pundits were never able to grasp the simple truth that the labels wee calling the tune, not Apple and who, considering the mess that had gone before, were never able to bring themselves to give credit to the remarkably elegant solution called iTunes Music store.
This should be the starting point for an intelligent debate but I guess that the most common reaction will be 'Yeh, but it's ok for Jobs to say this now that they control the market....'
The full Beatles catalogue on iTunes should ram the nail firmly home.
Posted by flintwall | February 7, 2007 5:19 AM
GCRaya just got ripped.
(Sorry, couldn't resist using that pun)
Posted by William | February 7, 2007 6:40 AM
Jobs is on the right track. Canada's federal Parliament is reportedly about to intro a Canadian version of the DMCA and enshrine DRM in Canada. Perhaps Steve Jobs would do us a favor up here in Canada and speak against the Canadian DMCA legislation that is said to be coming soon to Canada.
Canada should take Jobs' hint as to the low value of DRM and skip outlawing the cracking of digital locks on software and content and any software that can do the same here in Canada.
Many contracts that are penned between parties (a copyright license works in the same way) tend to be loaded up on onerous terms on the premise that, despite the tough language, the terms aren't that tough in reality because they are costly to enforce-a point made to me during my training toward qualification as a mediator. So a typical contract such as a loan agreement may be over-written to al-low for the weak enforceability
DRM stands to make this over-written component of a soft-ware license binding in full without the judgment of the law courts that would normally enforce an alleged copyright infringement, absent DRM.
The long-run effect of DRM will be less commercial trade in IP, not more, as consumers realize the costs of DRM in time, fuss, bother, and lack or content portability relative to money spent.
Posted by Keith Risler | February 7, 2007 10:31 AM
Joe, while I'm a supporter of DRM. I'm not one for music and particularly OSs. I believe DRM has been overused in the music industry and under used in other sectors. I see a great deal of success with documents and personal information. If I have a document I only want you to see then I can use some type of DRM to allow only you to use it.
Unfortunately it seems our friends at Redmond and the whole RIAA wants to use DRM for the mass market. Which is in itself counter DRM. In other words DRM for the masses is counter productive. Why so much emphasis on DRM for music for everyone and not so much DRM for personal information (read confidential documents)? I don't know and I would love to hear an answer.
Also on the Microsoft activation thing. I find it dangerous. There is the whole anti American thing. Oh ho ho Microsoft can turn off you computer at any time as part of an American domination plan. But think about it. So can terrorists to Americans. Yet we don't even need to go to such extremes and be so uhh... paranoid if you will. Those who read these comments surely know two things: Murphy's law and that the activation thing is in your laptop. Folks, do the math.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | February 7, 2007 10:35 AM
Among all this Microsoft bashing, less we forget Mr. Gates' comments on DRM?
I know actions speak louder than words (for both Microsoft and Apple, really). Both have much to gain from DRM just as they have much to lose.
Jobs' comments were much more important as the market leader, but perhaps we can see some movement between both corporate giants as they slay the dragons of the RIAA and MPAA.
Posted by David | February 7, 2007 2:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that as far as DRM is concerned it always will stick in the throats of both Gates & Jobs (as it does mine) - something they were forced to do rather than something they wanted.
There's also the financial side of things - why should both Apple/MS continue to spend millions implementing DRM based solutions being forced on them by the Media Companies when they know that due to the insecure nature of OSs - MS in parituclar - they will most likely be hacked/cracked in some way - all it takes is one knowledgable-enough individual challenging the "Hollywood suit brigade" as the recent HDDVDBackup episode shows.
Err.. Am I allowed to mention that ? ;)
The logic of this is obvious - both Companies being continually forced to implement ever "draconian" meaures to keep the Media Companies off their backs. If OSs were secure they'd probably go with it - but thankfully they're not.
There is a battle going on here and it's the same battle that's been going on for yonks - The Media Cartells/Agencies vs The Software Companies.
Talk about Clash of the Titans ! ;)
Methinks Monsieur Jobs has drawn the line as "forcefully" as he currently can and in his own way he's fighting for the rights of the individual - albeit that takes second place to Apple's goals.
Suspect most of us know where Monsieur Gates stands on that subject too.
Posted by Steve Berry | February 7, 2007 6:10 PM
Is it a coincidence that not too long ago Bill Gates expressed his views on DRM? Steve Jobs needs to get a life, one that doesn't aim at trying to "fit in" with the rest of the world. It seems like his 1.5% +/- Apple MAC user base should be enough for his type of persona.
Posted by Albert | February 7, 2007 7:47 PM
The problem that the content providers (Universal, Sony, ...) and the hardware manufacturers (Apple, MS, et al) consistently refuse to face is that fact that they are attempting to solve a behavioral/social issue with technology. Good luck with that my friends, because it simply cannot be done. There is no way that anyone will come up with a DRM scheme that will:
1. Work across all players on all platforms
2. Be accepted by all media distributors
3. Allow end users to freely use the content they paid for
I could list more, but you get the picture. And every time idiot company like Sony comes out with a new way to undermine their own customer base, there will be someone else that will find a way to get around it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Sony fan, but the rootkit fiasco was simply unforgivable.
I have been collecting CDs since the early 80s (there were probably less than 100 titles available when I started), and my collection has grown to well over 1500 discs in that time. If people want to make a copy of a CD from my collection, I will gladly help them out -- maps to the local music store can be found online as well as many quality online stores. I paid good money for these discs, and I'm not giving it away to others!
I will continue to buy CDs instead of online music because I will NEVER buy 1 single piece of DRM-ed media. If I paid for it, I have the right to listen to it now matter HOW many different devices I have to listen to it on (The current count is a nice half-dozen, including players from Creative, Apple and Rio).
I have consistently maintained that if the content providers simply mined their back catalog (say 5 years or older), added some substantial value (fully tagged with album art, lyrics, chart positions, etc), and sold them at a reasonable price (I like .99 a track myself), they could not possibly stop the FLOOD of money that would come their way, especially from people replacing out of print vinyl, etc.
Figure it out people - your current plan clearly isn't working.
Posted by TLBradbury | February 8, 2007 12:41 PM
Paul,
[QUOTE]
1) The contract with the label stipulates that Apple only has a few weeks at most to plug any cracks to FairPlay. Otherwise, the labels have the right to immediately pull their entire catalog.
[END QUOTE]
Like that's going to happen now that they're making hundreds of millions of dollars.
[QUOTE]
2) By licensing to others, you inevitably increase the chance that some dork partner will spill the beans (either accidentally or through design) on how FairPlay works, making it extremely difficult for Apple to keep FairPlay working as advertised.
[END QUOTE]
Security of encryption systems by obfuscation or by keeping the algorithms secret never works. Poeple already know how FairPlay works. They're just waiting for permission to start using it. If they wanted to release how it worked, they could do that today.
Posted by Dale | February 9, 2007 7:18 PM
If anyone is interested in winning a free Zune I am helping to spread the word about a sweepstakes going on at MSN right now.
People who make MSN their homepage have the opportunity to win a free Zune. The promotion can be found at http://homepage.msn.com/zune
They are giving away 50 Zunes, and the contest closes on Feb 28, with random drawing of all 50 winners on or about March 14.
Posted by Will | February 22, 2007 10:58 AM