Steve Jobs wants to abolish DRM
So it happens. Industry leaders are recognizing the failure of DRM. The only question remaining is, will RIAA let it go? Looks like they need to learn to read first.
Read what? Steve Jobs open letter, where he writes the following (an excerpt):
"Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though 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. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player."
We probably all know Steve Jobs is absolutely right here, and we share his vision of a DRM-free world. We gotta give it to Steve for coming clear on this. It is quite a pleasant surprise!
In their report on this letter, Engadget also suggests something that seems worth propagating: "Well, that's nice to know—but is it enough for the head of Apple, possibly the single most important company in digital media right now, to just decry DRM and point the finger when under legal pressure from Europe? Steve, listen, we're glad someone such as yourself has come out and said what needed to be said, written the anti-DRM manifesto, as it were. But don't just leave it to the consumer to pressure the record industry, you need to lead the way—that's why we wrote Microsoft that open letter. You and Bill have more power over this ecosystem than any two people in the world, and the big four knows it. Perhaps The Mac and The PC need to rally the troops (i.e. us) and lead this charge together."
Steve Jobs to lead the way with an anti-DRM campaign? That would certainly be interesting to see, although, he would just be joining a movement that has already been down for the job for some time now.
Copyright © 2004 - 2008 Libervis Network - Some Rights Reserved :: Advertise :: Privacy Policy :: Contact
According to my newspaper,
According to my newspaper, the real reason is that music crippled by Apple's DRM can only be played with Apple software (or hardware), and Apple is getting in legal trouble because of that.
I'm not sure if that makes sense.
reply quote
That seems to be what
That seems to be what Engadget is implying as well. It definitely makes sense. Still, the motives behind this letter don't diminish the content and conclusion of it, which really is about abandoning DRM.
Hmm, it just shows that DRM is so bad that it can get not only users, but corporations in trouble as well. It looks like Apple had to do what they did with DRM, but that went against certain antitrust laws in certain countries.
Birds on branches are singing DRM is more pain than gain for everyone, heck maybe even for RIAA.
reply quote
not so fast
Hmm, it just shows that DRM is so bad that it can get not only users, but corporations in trouble as well. It looks like Apple had to do what they did with DRM, but that went against certain antitrust laws in certain countries.
They could have allowed other companies to also make devices able to play music crippled by that particular DRM, then there wouldn't have been any legal trouble. But I guess allowing others to make the same product is very un-Apple-like
.
Birds on branches are singing DRM is more pain than gain for everyone, heck maybe even for RIAA.
I would say especially for the RIAA, but they just don't seem to get it. If a file is DRM'ed, it's likely it won't play on some hacker's favorite player. So this hacker will convert it to a non-DRM format (this is always possible), and share it for free with everyone else who might need it. And everyone else thinks "I can get it un-crippled for for free, or I can pay for a crippled version... I'll take the free version". DRM is the tank the RIAA uses to shoot
itself in the footit's leg off.reply quote
second option
They could have allowed other companies to also make devices able to play music crippled by that particular DRM, then there wouldn't have been any legal trouble. But I guess allowing others to make the same product is very un-Apple-like
.
Didn't Steve Jobs describe this as a second option in his letter? His conclusion was that licensing their DRM to others would make it impossible for Apple to guarantee that files are protected as it would be extremely hard to patch everything up in a concerted way every time hackers break it. Well, it's hard as it is.
It's still quite a trouble for them. Apple isn't in the business of selling their own music. They're in the business of selling iPods. I bet Apple couldn't care less at this point where people play the music they get from an iTunes store. In fact, if iTunes files were unprotected it looks like more people would buy from it. You actually make the point in your next paragraph.
I would say especially for the RIAA, but they just don't seem to get it. If a file is DRM'ed, it's likely it won't play on some hacker's favorite player. So this hacker will convert it to a non-DRM format (this is always possible), and share it for free with everyone else who might need it. And everyone else thinks "I can get it un-crippled for for free, or I can pay for a crippled version... I'll take the free version". DRM is the tank the RIAA uses to shoot
itself in the footit's leg off.Quite right.
reply quote
more coverage
Here are some other stories covering this news:
Steve Jobs on DRM (p2pnet)
Jobs' shot over the big four's bow (Public Knowledge)
Found via our good old newswire.
reply quote
irrelevance squared
His conclusion was that licensing their DRM to others would make it impossible for Apple to guarantee that files are protected as it would be extremely hard to patch everything up in a concerted way every time hackers break it.
Apple doesn't have to guarantee anything about what others do. If the implementation by some other company is broken, nobody is going to sue Apple for that. But of course this is all irrelevant since DRM doesn't work, it only annoys. It's nice to see someone clue in... what's next, a completely free software MacOS?
reply quote
I wish!
It's nice to see someone clue in... what's next, a completely free software MacOS?
Eh I wish, but that would be totally unlike Apple. If Mac OS would be free it'd immediately be possible to run it on non-Macs and Mac OS X may well beat Windows and Apple might become a leader in the OS market with GNU/Linux just around the corner (or vice versa). But Apple doesn't like the idea of dominating the OS market apparently.
Oh and btw, if Mac OS X got freed up, I'd buy a Mac in a heartbeat.
reply quote
But you wouldn't need to buy
But you wouldn't need to buy a Mac...
reply quote
Well, true, since it'd run
Well, true, since it'd run everywhere the Free Software devs would probably quickly port all GNU/Linux drivers to it so it might even work as flawlessly as it may work on Macs.
But this will still take a bit of time, and I also like the way Mac Mini looks (and it's not too expensive), so I'd probably get that.
So if Apple is reading that's a hint.
But since OS X is proprietary, NO Apple, I WON'T buy a Mac!
reply quote
Big Four's wrath
Jobs said that the Big Four would hold them responsible (which probably means stop licensing music to them).
reply quote
Post new comment