NEW YORK, 12:00 PM, TUE OCT 14 | 19 POSTS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS | tips@idolator.com | SUBMIT A TIP | RSS
Drm

Steve Jobs To Record Labels: Tear Down Your DRM Wall

Steve Jobs posted an essay, innocuously titled "Thoughts On Music," on apple.com today; instead of being filled with reflections on what his iPod's been bumping lately, though, he talks about digital-rights management and its future. He closes with a challenge to record labels:

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.
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

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. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

Jobs' j'accuse hasn't elicited a response from any of the majors yet, but we have to say, he was awfully nice to not bring up the whole abortive attempt at CD DRM that Sony tried out a while back. Anyway, we're sure Universal Music CEO Doug Morris is hard at work on his reply, and that it will consist of equal parts blackmail threats and "it's hard out here for a CEO" whingeing.

Thoughts On Music [Apple]

5:58 PM on Tue Feb 6 2007
By mjohnston
124 views
6 comments

Comments

  • It's ON, baby!! This is tres hot.

    Over to you, Doug "the Thug." You've just been preemptively bitch-slapped.

  • This is in response to his bitch slapping by several European countries.

    I am just curious. If he is anti-DRM and would love to see it removed from the ITMS, how come it is a requirement and not an option? Why isn't FairPlay a check box? I am sure all of the labels who support eMusic and do not have their music crippled by DRM would also love to see them free of "protection" on iTunes as well.

    I would love to hear someone with actual power, not an internet poster lugnut like me take him to task on this. I have always felt DRM was benefiting Apple as well as it keeps people locked into the iPod music player, as much as it stops people from making illegal copies.

  • The LABELS require DRM. The only way Jobs could get their participation on the iTMS is to offer DRM. And of course Jobs doesn't care much about DRM: the iTMS doesn't make money for Apple. It's just there to support sales of iPods.

    And before you make the argument that iPods benefit from a closed system, don't. They play MP3s just fine.

  • "I am just curious. If he is anti-DRM and would love to see it removed from the ITMS, how come it is a requirement and not an option? Why isn't FairPlay a check box? I am sure all of the labels who support eMusic and do not have their music crippled by DRM would also love to see them free of "protection" on iTunes as well."

    My guess is that it's consistency. Things are easier for the user when you don't have to check to see if the music you're about to buy is FairPlay or not.

    An example of what can go wrong when you go the other way: A lot tracks in the Zune store have (or had) a no-sharing flag, so you couldn't even share them with the 3-plays-or-3-days deal. What's worse there was that there was no way to tell if you could share the song or not before buying it.

    I'm sure Apple would make it clear beforehand, but still. It's one extra hassle when you want buying from iTMS to be as much a no-thought-required process as possible.

    That's just a guess though.

  • My guess on why DRM is on everything iTunes sells is technical -- it's much easier to administer a system, from an IT perspective, when you're applying one rule across the board vs. having some stuff DRM'd (major-label music) and other stuff not (indies selling at eMusic.) Less expensive and technically easier just to build DRM into AAC without exceptions.

  • You can't outlaw the stereo RCA jack. At least yet. Until that day, people will be copying music for free.

Comment on this post

Reply by Email

Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.