Jobs against DRM, Gates for...

[Devils'Advocate]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2.../jobs-drm.html

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs has urged record companies to abolish digital rights management technology, meant to stop people from duplicating music or video and burning it to disc or uploading it to the internet.

Gates admitted no one was satisfied with the current state of DRM. He also advised consumers their best option was often to "buy a CD and rip it." But Gates defended the idea behind DRM, saying incentive systems make a difference.

[MarchHare]

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs has urged record companies to abolish digital rights management technology, meant to stop people from duplicating music or video and burning it to disc or uploading it to the internet.

So does that mean the iTunes Music Store is going to start selling DRM-free music?

I'll wait for Steve Jobs to put his money where his mouth is.

[Devils'Advocate]

There was a link to an article there, but by the comment I'll assume you didn't read it. The big recording companies won't let him sell their music without DRM. If the companies took that demand off the table, he'd certainly sell more music since he'd be able to sell to more than just iPod users.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

There was a link to an article there, but by the comment I'll assume you didn't read it. The big recording companies won't let him sell their music without DRM. If the companies took that demand off the table, he'd certainly sell more music since he'd be able to sell to more than just iPod users.

Yup, he put it all directly on the music companies: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

There was a link to an article there, but by the comment I'll assume you didn't read it. The big recording companies won't let him sell their music without DRM. If the companies took that demand off the table, he'd certainly sell more music since he'd be able to sell to more than just iPod users.

From here: http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBru...a/2006/06/15/1

There's a lot of blame to go around, but an Apple lawyer said publicly that Apple would not abandon FairPlay restrictions if the record labels gave it permission to do so.

Of course Apple wants to keep DRM on the iTunes Music Store. If they sold their songs in a non-protected format such as MP3 that could be played on any portable device, they'd sell fewer iPods (full disclaimer: I have an iPod and love it).

More from that link:

On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple's iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store. He said "no." I was puzzled, because I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple.


Thanks to the recent Berkman Center report on the iTunes Music Store, I think I understand.


So you're Apple, and you make all your money selling iPods. You invest in the Music Store to make the iPod even more attractive, never intending to make much margin on the 99 cent downloads. But here's the problem -- you really don't want every other maker of portable digital music players to free-ride on your Music Store investment. After all, the Music Store is supposed to make the iPod more attractive than the competition.


Here's where FairPlay comes in. It's a great barrier to entry that keeps the iPod as the exclusive device for the Music Store. Competitors who dare to reverse engineer the protocols or otherwise support interoperability find themselves staring down the barrel of the DMCA.

[kermitology]

I actually support the idea of DRM as well.. Just not the way that it's been implemented to date. While the cost of music is horrendously over-priced and a user should be able to do with it what they want to, I think that music distribution that is free and un-checked isn't right. I make a point of buying most of the music I download. I like to check it out first, if I really like it I go out and support the artist. The problems come from the damn record companies that try to extort every penny out of the consumer while delivering less to the artists.

Digital music spreading is great for artists because it helps bands like Arctic Monkeys get recognition. But they need to see some benefit other than everyone downloading it for free.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So does that mean the iTunes Music Store is going to start selling DRM-free music?

I'll wait for Steve Jobs to put his money where his mouth is.

No. The big four labels are what is and has been holding iTunes back. Did you read the article? As part of the deal with these big labels, Apple had to restrict the uses of files downlaoded from the iTMS.

Here's a more detailed article.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2470

[MarchHare]

No. The big four labels are what is and has been holding iTunes back. Did you read the article? As part of the deal with these big labels, Apple had to restrict the uses of files downlaoded from the iTMS.

And did you read the link I posted above? Apple's own lawyer has said that if the record labels gave them permission to not use DRM, Apple would still put DRM on songs sold on the iTunes Music Store because they want to restrict their music to play only on iPods and no other portable devices.

And how do you explain this?
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2632

"Music fans can now explore Nettwerk's complete portfolio of established and developing artists, simply by visiting www.mercora.com," said Avikk Ghose, director of Business Development at Mercora. "Additionally, fans can purchase the music downloads in open MP3 formats with no DRM, which significantly expands the market for Nettwerk artists."

If Nettwerk Records is giving permission for one of the iTMS competitors to sell DRM-free music, Apple would love to do the same because Steve Jobs is against DRM, right? So why is it that all songs by Nettwerk artists (such as The Barenaked Ladies and Sarah McLachlan) are still sold in a crippled format using Apple's DRM on iTunes? Hmmmmm....

[Winsor_Pilates]

Jobs is playing both sides and it's working

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If Nettwerk Records is giving permission for one of the iTMS competitors to sell DRM-free music, Apple would love to do the same because Steve Jobs is against DRM, right? So why is it that all songs by Nettwerk artists (such as The Barenaked Ladies and Sarah McLachlan) are still sold in a crippled format using Apple's DRM on iTunes? Hmmmmm....

Could be a requirement from the other record labels for allowing their music to be downloaded from iTunes, forcing the playing field to be level.

Just a thought.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Jobs is playing both sides and it's working

Exactly.

Jobs can talk the talk and act like he's opposed to DRM, but as Apple's CEO, he has the duty to maximize profits for his shareholders. Part of that strategy is to sell as many iPods as possible. Since the iTMS is more or less a trojan horse to get people to buy iPods (and only iPods, since songs sold by Apple don't work on any other music player), Apple has a vested financial interest in keeping DRM on the iTunes store.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And did you read the link I posted above? Apple's own lawyer has said that if the record labels gave them permission to not use DRM, Apple would still put DRM on songs sold on the iTunes Music Store because they want to restrict their music to play only on iPods and no other portable devices.

I did. It references an article were a guy heard an Apple Lawyer say they wouldn't drop drm if they could. Its from May 2004. A time when the iTunes music store was still seeking acceptance from media giants. I know its hard to believe but lawyers sometimes speak in half truths. He may have been protecting Apple's interests by not ****ing off potential partners.

Lawyer guy in '04 or Steve Jobs in '07.