Steve Jobs: Apple would embrace DRM-free music 'in a heartbeat'

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 175
    physguyphysguy Posts: 919member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    It was a private bill, not government sponsored. The original would have been far reaching but it got watered down in consultation such that France gave the record companies the right to waive the requirement on inter-operability. ie. if Universal (owned by Vivendi - a French company) tells Apple they don't want the iTunes songs to be interoperable with other systems, they don't have to.



    Ball back in the record companies court.



    The original law did not require that Apple removed DRM either.



    Funnily, at the time Apple PR were on record as saying the original law as written amounted to 'state sponsored piracy'. I wonder what changed Apple's mind in the last 6 months?



    You continue to look at things through your same colored lenses. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between these two statements. The law calls for gov't interference in the content owners rights - that does amount to state sponsored piracy - the current statement calls for the content owners to give up those right voluntarily, their right and what Apple believes is the best long-term business decision. All of these discussions are totally bent by the underlying asumption that consumers have a right to unencumbered music. I've never seen that as law.
  • Reply 82 of 175
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    The law calls for gov't interference in the content owners rights - that does amount to state sponsored piracy



    Only if the end result is more piracy.



    Why would the government forcing DRM to be interoperable result in more piracy, whereas record companies choosing to remove DRM completely would not?



    The "state sponsored piracy" claim was nonsense then, and it still is now.
  • Reply 83 of 175
    physguyphysguy Posts: 919member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Only if the end result is more piracy.



    Why would the government forcing DRM to be interoperable result in more piracy, whereas record companies choosing to remove DRM completely would not?



    The "state sponsored piracy" claim was nonsense then, and it still is now.



    Why is it so hard to understand that the government taking rights away is different than owners of those rights giving them away. If the gov't takes away your right to freedom, which I believe is ensconced in law in a few places, by putting you in a small locked room for even a week, I believe you'd agree that that's quite different than you choosing to stay in that same small room for a week to protest the unfair distribution of music, even if you would have done it in any case.
  • Reply 84 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    You continue to look at things through your same colored lenses. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between these two statements. The law calls for gov't interference in the content owners rights - that does amount to state sponsored piracy - the current statement calls for the content owners to give up those right voluntarily, their right and what Apple believes is the best long-term business decision. All of these discussions are totally bent by the underlying asumption that consumers have a right to unencumbered music. I've never seen that as law.



    Maybe all's fair in love and war, because the content owners often use their money interfere with copyright law, to buy legislation that extends copyright to unreasonable lengths of time and adding draconian measures to boot. Fair use is codified into law in many places, with some give and take based on interpretation, but the trend is on taking away from those fair use rights as much as possible under the guise of curtailing piracy.



    Requiring that media not be encumbered by artificial restrictions doesn't violate the copyright owner's copyrights that I can tell, they still own the rights to the work.
  • Reply 85 of 175
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    Why is it so hard to understand that the government taking rights away is different than owners of those rights giving them away. If the gov't takes away your right to freedom, which I believe is ensconced in law in a few places, by putting you in a small locked room for even a week, I believe you'd agree that that's quite different than you choosing to stay in that same small room for a week to protest the unfair distribution of music, even if you would have done it in any case.



    That's all very well and good; unfortunately it utterly fails to address the point that I was making. In addition, it takes a rather one-dimensional view of "freedom" and its relationship with the law. The law limits people's and companies' freedoms in many ways, usually with good reason: e.g. companies are not "free" under law to have people murdered etc. etc. The law curtailing people's or companies "freedoms" is not always a bad thing.



    Again:



    How does a government forcing interoperable DRM result in more piracy?
  • Reply 86 of 175
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    To use an American term - Bullshit!



    If Apple want to operate in Europe they shouldn't expect us to put up with the crap Americans are prepared to put up with and Americans should quit whining that we have a different set of values and culture that isn't based on corporate capitalism. You wouldn't go round someone else's house and stick your feet up on their table, eat their fridge contents and fart on the sofa because that's what you do at home.



    Given you buy iPods and DRM protected songs from iTunes perhaps the analogy isn't very apt. Don't like the terms don't buy a product and companies, regardless of size, will change to meet consumer demand as driven by a fair and free market.



    Don't like DRM, don't buy DRM restricted products. The issue will resolve itself when the companies see no revenues.



    Quote:

    Apart from that, your claim that we are not willing to pressure the record companies over DRM is patently false...



    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01...es_record_biz/

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/01...to_put_poison/



    And that's just the Reg articles I remember.



    This is a far cry from legislation in France. 3 years later you'd expect more progress than what happened to Apple in France.



    Quote:

    Jobs' "It's the record companies fault" is just him dodging the bullet. It's quite clever as it puts the ball in the record companies court. And he's probably right too. Unfortunately the record companies today seem to have replied with the second option - open up Fairplay rather than the third - Destroy all DRM!!!



    Say what? AFAIK there hasn't been a response yet. If they really wanted Apple to open up Fairplay they'd have forced the issue in France. They didn't.



    Quote:

    The difference being that in fighting any moves from Europe to open up the market, Apple will now just tell them to go annoy the record companies. And that's probably a good thing provided that Jobs isn't spinning a yarn when he says the record companies are the ones forcing DRM on people.



    Who else would it be? Its not like Apple released a root kit or had lawyers suing 10 year olds for downloading mp3s. Its not Apple adding anti-piracy systems to CDs.



    Vinea
  • Reply 87 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    All of these discussions are totally bent by the underlying asumption that consumers have a right to unencumbered music. I've never seen that as law.



    That depends what you mean by 'unencumbered music' and 'consumer rights'.



    Most sensible participants in this discussion aren't arguing for a free for all, just no less rights than currently exists with CDs and to bring the balance back away from the record companies to the consumers.



    Jobs is appearing to be standing on the consumer end of the see-saw now whereas the other end has the big 4 majors sat there with Microsoft. It remains to be seen whether Jobs is putting any effort in or ready to jump off his end of the see-saw and rocket us consumers skywards.
  • Reply 88 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    That's all very well and good; unfortunately it utterly fails to address the point that I was making. In addition, it takes a rather odd view of "freedom" and its relationship with the law. The law limits people's and companies' freedoms in many ways, usually with good reason: e.g. companies are not "free" under law to have people murdered etc. etc. The law curtailing people's or companies "freedoms" is not always a bad thing.



    Again:



    How does a government forcing interoperable DRM result in more piracy?



    Oh what a chameleon we try to address, keeps changing colors. All I was addressing is that the charge that the two statements are inconsistent, they are not. Again, to paraphrase you, your missing the point. The open letter addressed your question directly, in Apples opinon, and I think supported by acutal cases such as CSS on DVDs, interoperable DRM will be totally ineffective for the reasons explained, and with which I agree. Therefore interoperable DRM is in effect removing it. The owners of those rights disagree with your assertion that removing DRM with NOT result in additional piracy. I'm not arguing either side of that issue, just that its currently within their rights to both have that opinion and to act on it accordingly.
  • Reply 89 of 175
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    It was a private bill, not government sponsored. The original would have been far reaching but it got watered down in consultation such that France gave the record companies the right to waive the requirement on inter-operability. ie. if Universal (owned by Vivendi - a French company) tells Apple they don't want the iTunes songs to be interoperable with other systems, they don't have to.



    Ball back in the record companies court.



    The original law did not require that Apple removed DRM either.



    No, it required opening up FairPlay to other companies. Real consumer advocacy is no DRM but these all want FairPlay opened up. Gee, does that strike you that these "private" and "consumer advocacy" efforts are in fact commercial in origin?



    As I said, America bashing by Europeans. Corporations perhaps and not citizens (but enough of that happened these last few years too on both sides). But you know, I'm pretty tired of the Europeans beating on Microsoft, Boeing and now Apple. Somehow working on contracts for the USG delivering product is "subsidies" which are vastly different than the direct launch aid subsidies given to Airbus.



    Quote:

    Funnily, at the time Apple PR were on record as saying the original law as written amounted to 'state sponsored piracy'. I wonder what changed Apple's mind in the last 6 months?



    It was state sponsored piracy...but of a different sort. Piracy of the iTunes ecosystem by European companies.



    Vinea
  • Reply 90 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    That depends what you mean by 'unencumbered music' and 'consumer rights'.



    Most sensible participants in this discussion aren't arguing for a free for all, just no less rights than currently exists with CDs and to bring the balance back away from the record companies to the consumers.



    Jobs is appearing to be standing on the consumer end of the see-saw now whereas the other end has the big 4 majors sat there with Microsoft. It remains to be seen whether Jobs is putting any effort in or ready to jump off his end of the see-saw and rocket us consumers skywards.



    This is something we can actually discuss. At what point in time would you like to establish the "consumers' rights". How about when CD's were first introduced? That's not too long ago and I was actually alive then (just so I'm clear that is sarcasm). When I bought my first CD and player I didn't have capability, or was it the right (oops there goes that sarcasm again) to make perfect copies of that CD. The technology didn't exisit but I could take the time and pain to make an analog copy at 1x speed which, for most low end consumer stuff sounded crappy. It that how you would like to define consumer's rights? Rights vs capabilities?



    Again, I agree with Jobs letter and getting rid of DRM on music, everyone will benefit. I'm just not willing to be hypocritical to get there which is what, in my opinion, calling for the 'consumers rights' is. Given the choice we all have, as Jobs points out, I really can't see how my rights are being curtailed.
  • Reply 91 of 175
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    Oh what a chameleon we try to address, keeps changing colors. All I was addressing is that the charge that the two statements are inconsistent, they are not.



    Still you do not get it. Let's take it one step at a time; let's kick off with me asking you some questions, and in few posts' time, we will get to the bottom of this:



    Do you agree that:



    1.) The statement that came out of Apple last year concerning the proposed French legislation, labelling it as "state sponsored piracy", implied that Apple believed that government-enforced interoperable DRM systems would result in more piracy.



    2.) That going by the open letter from Jobs, that Apple consider no DRM at all would be "a good thing" for everyone involved: Apple, consumers and the record companies.



    3.) That Apple believes that piracy is not "a good thing" for Apple or record companies, and presumably in the long-term, not good for consumers either.
  • Reply 92 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    ... ie. if Universal (owned by Vivendi - a French company) ....



    For the record (npi), Universal is now owned by NBC, which is owned by GE. Vivendi sold it off in 2004 (or thereabouts).
  • Reply 93 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Still you do not get it. Let's take it one step at a time; let's kick off with me asking you some questions, and in few posts' time, we will get to the bottom of this:



    Do you agree that:



    1.) The statement that came out of Apple last year concerning the proposed French legislation, labelling it as "state sponsored piracy", implied that Apple believed that government-enforced interoperable DRM systems would result in more piracy.



    2.) That going by the open letter from Jobs, that Apple consider no DRM at all would be "a good thing" for everyone involved: Apple, consumers and the record companies.



    3.) That Apple believes that piracy is not "a good thing" for Apple or record companies, and presumably in the long-term, not good for consumers either.





    OK I'll play



    1) I believe that is only part of the intended meaning, but lets say OK.



    2) I believe he is saying that 'no DRM' is, of course, good in the short term for consumers and he believes in the long term its good for the record companies.



    3) I don't agree with this as stated. Note that Jobs only mentions piracy once in his letter he doesn't comment other than to say the DRM does not "halt" piracy. Given that DRM is used on so little percentage of the content out there current DRM could not possibly "halt' it. Your statement as written inverts the logic in the letter. All that is said, heavily paraphrased, is the DRM is worse for Apple and the record companies than no DRM. This is a business based statement. If I had to guess (and its only my guess carrying all of my biases of course) I would guess that Apple (read Jobs) believes that piracy is irrelavent if a good commercial solution is offered.
  • Reply 94 of 175
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,994member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Again:



    How does a government forcing interoperable DRM result in more piracy?



    There's a misunderstanding of what Jobs meant by the term "state sponsored piracy".



    He didn't mean more piracy of music.



    He meant that the state would be forcing Apple to do business with companies that they had rejected doing business with. Licensing software, and possibly hardware designs, to entities Apple had rejected doing business with in that fashion.



    That would be the same, in Apple's eyes, as those companies taking what they needed from Apple, and throwing Apple a bone for it.



    State sponsored piracy, yes.
  • Reply 95 of 175
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Here is my 2¢.



    Take out DRM from iTMS, and watch the popularity of P2P filesharing skyrocket again, and it will probably be bigger than before. Before anyone goes to buy a song, or CD they will first fire up the latest filesharing app that everyone is using and check to see if has been uploaded. New Releases from iTMS within minutes will be there "so why pay for them" will be the mentality again. iTMS exclusive songs. Yeah right. Your filesharing app has them uploaded the day they come out. Freaking worst possible idea ever. Watch Apples iTunes sales start to fall dramatically the first quarter, and they will keep falling.
  • Reply 96 of 175
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There's a misunderstanding of what Jobs meant by the term "state sponsored piracy".



    He didn't mean more piracy of music.



    He meant that the state would be forcing Apple to do business with companies that they had rejected doing business with. Licensing software, and possibly hardware designs, to entities Apple had rejected doing business with in that fashion.



    That would be the same, in Apple's eyes, as those companies taking what they needed from Apple, and throwing Apple a bone for it.



    State sponsored piracy, yes.



    Thanks melgross. This is the other half of the meaning. I actually think it was aimed at both to some degree but then, we'll never know for sure.
  • Reply 97 of 175
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    OK I'll play



    Good stuff.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    1) I believe that is only part of the intended meaning, but lets say OK.



    Great.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    2) I believe he is saying that 'no DRM' is, of course, good in the short term for consumers and he believes in the long term its good for the record companies.



    Good.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    3) I don't agree with this as stated. Note that Jobs only mentions piracy once in his letter he doesn't comment other than to say the DRM does not "halt" piracy. Given that DRM is used on so little percentage of the content out there current DRM could not possibly "halt' it. Your statement as written inverts the logic in the letter. All that is said, heavily paraphrased, is the DRM is worse for Apple and the record companies than no DRM. This is a business based statement. If I had to guess (and its only my guess carrying all of my biases of course) I would guess that Apple (read Jobs) believes that piracy is irrelavent if a good commercial solution is offered.



    This response appears to be attempting to pre-empt where I am going to take this. Are you saying that Apple thinks that piracy is a good thing for record companies? Really, I thought 3.) was the most no-brainer question of the three that I asked.
  • Reply 98 of 175
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There's a misunderstanding of what Jobs meant by the term "state sponsored piracy".



    He didn't mean more piracy of music.



    He meant that the state would be forcing Apple to do business with companies that they had rejected doing business with. Licensing software, and possibly hardware designs, to entities Apple had rejected doing business with in that fashion.



    That would be the same, in Apple's eyes, as those companies taking what they needed from Apple, and throwing Apple a bone for it.



    State sponsored piracy, yes.



    If that is all they meant by the term, then that statement and Jobs' open letter are not at odds with one another. The term would also then make sense. But if it was referring to piracy of music, it didn't make sense.
  • Reply 99 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    iTMS exclusive songs. Yeah right. Your filesharing app has them uploaded the day they come out. Freeaking worst possiblle idea ever. Watch Apples iTunes sales start to fall dramatically the first quarter, and they will keep falling.



    Are you suggesting that the iTunes exclusives aren't on P2P networks?



    I really don't think your predictions are realistic because the prediction conveniently ignores that most music being sold is unencumbered by DRM, and even the DRM on protected CDs is bypassed quickly enough to not be considered much of a hurdle to P2P.
  • Reply 100 of 175
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


    Here is my 2¢.



    Take out DRM from iTMS, and watch the popularity of P2P filesharing skyrocket again, and it will probably be bigger than before. Before anyone goes to buy a song, or CD they will first fire up the latest filesharing app that everyone is using and check to see if has been uploaded. New Releases from iTMS within minutes will be there "so why pay for them" will be the mentality again. iTMS exclusive songs. Yeah right. Your filesharing app has them uploaded the day they come out. Freaking worst possible idea ever. Watch Apples iTunes sales start to fall dramatically the first quarter, and they will keep falling.



    Where your logic falls down quite substantially is that pretty much all the music available through iTunes is already available via P2P. Selling DRM-free music from the iTS would therefore make no difference for most of the content. Not sure about the "iTunes exclusive" tracks, but your post seems to be talking about all tracks, not just the exclusive ones. In any case, even the exclusive tracks can be burnt to CD, ripped back (or have the DRM removed by other means) and then uploaded.



    It all boils down to the fact that some people are dishonest, and some are not. Offer a high-quality service with good content, and reasonable prices, and people will choose to use it over p2p.
Sign In or Register to comment.