Steve Jobs Finally Stands Up Against DRM. Sort of

Wed Feb 7, 2007 3:38AM EST

See Comments (21)

It only took Steve Jobs four years, but in a lengthy post on Apple's website, he has finally come out and said that DRM, the encryption found on all the music his iTunes Store sells to keep it from being copied, is bad.

Well, sort of. Jobs' open letter to the music industry (and, I guess, everyone else) is 1,877 words of patting himself on the back, carefully worded caveats to avoid offending music labels, and, finally, a hesitant call for abandonment of DRM in music. Well, good for you, Mr. Jobs! It's about time.

The case against DRM gets more obvious every day. Jobs points out that barely two percent of music found on iPods is purchased from the iTunes Store. That means nearly 98 percent of music files are obtained from ripped CDs or pirated from the Internet. Music labels are paid for the former but receive nothing for the latter... but the shift toward online distribution is on, legal or not. It's in the labels' best interests to get a cut of those fees.

The technical problems with DRM are what Jobs spends most of his post discussing. It's not that DRM is too difficult for people to get around, but rather that it just doesn't do any good. Most music (sold via CD) has no DRM on it, and it's costly to produce and ship. And yet DRM is enough of a headache in digital music that it keeps millions of people from buying music online. DRM is the only thing that keeps me from shopping at the iTunes Store very much. I've bought less than 10 songs in my life from iTunes because burning a CD and ripping it back to my PC is just too much of a headache vs. one-click buying at Amazon or picking up a used CD.

One thing Jobs doesn't mention is how the RIAA is destroying goodwill for the music industry by suing its customers. (In fact, he doesn't mention the RIAA at all.) Maybe that's just too obvious to state, but it's another big reason, in my opinion, why music sales are on the decline. Consumers just don't want to support the industry's litigious ways. I have a hunch that, given legal alternatives, so-called pirates would happily pay a buck for a file that had no restrictions on how it could be used.

Excellent rant, Steve! Hope it does some good. Music industry executives aren't known for their patience and ability to read that much verbiage, but hopefully they have lackeys that can digest it for them. Maybe you could put it into one of your fancy presentations?

Comments on Steve Jobs Finally Stands Up Against DRM. Sort of

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by apjl007 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:57PM EDT Report Abuse

    trashing steve jobs, much? just because he's the ceo of apple doesnt mean you can talk like that about him.

  • 8 Posted by curts_cars on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:32PM EDT Report Abuse

    Why knock Apple?? After all it was Micromush that stole the Windows idea from Apple.......or didn't you know that? Jobs is "right on" and Yahoo has chosen a winner by advertising the iPods. Don't knock a good thing. It's about time Apple gets a piece of the pie!

  • 9 Posted by driley888@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:48PM EDT Report Abuse

    The mouse and windows ideal was orignally Zerox's Ideal But the exec's at zerox didn't think that it would sell so they scraped it. Anyway Apple or Macintosh may have some good products but there computers are too exepensive. Personelly I use yahoo music and Itunes for my own personel use. Has far has tranfer to my mp3 player which is not an IPOD there are ways to do it without a burn and rip to a cd to convert it to mp3.

  • 10 Posted by brandenpardee on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:12PM EDT Report Abuse

    I actually like all these piracy laws. They make me feel as if I were a great pirate captain, sailing the digital seas, taking all that I want, and not giving a d@mn about how it could hurt anyone. So in conclusion, YARRRRRRRRRRRGH I'M A PIRATE....... ALL YOUR 101010101010101's ARE BELONG TO US!!!!

  • 11 Posted by chicoboarder83 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:23PM EDT Report Abuse

    No hatred to anyone but seriously...J LO makes something like 350,000 per hour of singing she has to do. What about all the other hard working, sacrificing Americans who do more for this world than all the celebrities combined? People like Firefighters, or Paramedics, the real life savers who make less than your local bartenders. I wouldn't have a problem with the RIAA thing except for the fact that the record industry wants to protects its capability to sell ONE RECORD and be guaranteed its future within the industry. This industry not only promotes itself (LISTEN TO 80% of HIP HOP ITS ALL SELF-PROMOTING1!!) but makes you feel like a lesser being if you dont step up to their standards and spend more money conforming to their worthless ideal. Has anyone taken into account the whereabouts of rappers from the mid 1990s??? Jammaster J-Dead 2PAC- DEAD Biggy-Dead All shot for NO REASON AT ALL!!!. Artists murdered for what? Lyrics? Hood? Come on!!!! Go to E europe where ----- really happens...stop acting like you are tough and join the army. You want to spray your gat...well guaranteed there is some MF who wants to spray right back at you. But stop killing each other here..you want to die, hit the sand or shut the ----- up mother----- er.

  • 12 Posted by motivatedfriends on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:26PM EDT Report Abuse

    Well, with all the legalities these days, it gets confusing.However, there is simple way past all of this. I agree that artists should be rewarded with their royalities etc. However, it is a bit overboard to have these spoiled artists becoming insanely rich. Who produces music? Follow that trail and you find the source of the problem. The music producers decide what music we listen to, what artists become famous etc. It is a power game for these guys, and not the love of music, but more a love of money and power. Here is a unique angle to view this situaion. How about some brave artists do their own recording? (which in the computer age is as easy as making pie). Then post these songs, and then let the audience decide who is worth it or not. Throw the music producers out of business, and then let the music sell itself. If it is good it lives, it is crap then it dies. Each artist could have his or her own site and charge a modest amount for their stuff. That is true "free trade" and we don't need to be boxed into what the current labels feed us or what they in collusion with the media feed us. Where are the brave souls to buck the status quo of the recording world? It is time for a revolution and the internet is the tool to acheive this. Look at "youtube" as an example of what can be done. Go for it!

  • 13 Posted by stevehudec on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    If you want to reward the artist, check out a concert. thats where they make the bulk of their money. Piracy in fact increases exposure of the music, bringing in more "customers" to see live shows. But the RIAA doesn't profit there...

  • 14 Posted by castlebravo242 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    DRM is enough of a hassle that I will not buy any music that uses it. I usually put my music on flash memory or a DVD to play with my mp3 players and DRM makes that a real pain.

  • 15 Posted by dbottie on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    I heard on XMRadio technofile minute that there is a free software download for MP3's that will track the item if stolen. Sorta like lojak. I'm trying to find the URL to use it. If the ipod is stolen and it has this software, it will somehow transmit ip address, ISP info to someone (?) to help recover the mp3 player. Does anyone have more information?

  • 16 Posted by c_araneta88 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:33PM EDT Report Abuse

    it's not our right and it's not free merchandise... it's the music industry and you know that they work hard and you grab every penny they earn. music stores shut down because you steal, you pirate... the bands itself see it as if you where the ones deciding if it's good or not. just by a freakin download... It's not anyone's fault. If anyone could fix this, this should be a worldwide change by creating a new type of internet, where everything shouldn't be just free, upload and download is a cost.

  • 17 Posted by ctbunch_2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:32PM EDT Report Abuse

    This article and the comments to date are telling of American thought. We expect something for nothing. We love getting rich and idolizing the rich, but we loath them when they are rich (J LO and Jobs), we somehow think that if you make a certain amount of money, then the laws to protect don't apply. I don't understand the reasoning for this author not downloading music, it didn't make any sense. But here's the best reasons for buying CD's: CD's are hard copies, you can use them where you like, the music is not compressed to sound like an AM radio in a shower, and the artists, unlike what is posted above, DO make their money from CD's. Unless you're the Rolling Stones, concerts don't pay well, they help sell CDs. Why anyone would want to buy a 128KBPS digital copy of a song for 1$ (with rare exception) is just beyond me. My old vinyl LPs sound better than that krap.

  • 18 Posted by keith_mclaren on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    This is a great article and it once again shows that the recording industy cares little about it customers since the customers have nowhere else to turn. I am one of the few people who actually pays for all my music and I choose to purchase CD's since I agree that it's easier then download music. In addition the audio quality is far better. What peeves me is the continuous lies we hear from the industy. In the mid-late 80's I worked in a music store and recall when CD's came out. Albums and tapes were selling at $9.99 (full Price) and CD's began selling at $16.99-$18.99. We recieved letters from many in the industy explaining that there were cost differences in production and that as these costs came down that CD's would come down to be the same price as Tapes and Albums. This made sense for a while, but today I can burn a CD at home for less than $0.10 and I suspect that in bulk they are cheaper. So why do we still pay $18.99 for a CD in a store when a tape sells for around the $9.99 mark? and where does the profit go? Well not to the artist -- They are paid per album/song. Thus the profits go to the recording industry. Since these lies in the 80's (my earliest understanding of the policies) the recording industry has ripped off their customers and artists. In addition they have always strong armed customers and artists with lawsuits which destry goodwill. This makes it hard for me to feel bad for them when people steal from companies who in essence have been stealing from us for many years. On the other hand, we also canot allow things to get to a point where all music is stolen. This will cause artists to leave the industry and we will no longer have music. Thus I believe that there will likely be a serious shift in the industry. There is really no need for record companies in the day of digital music. The distribution used to be costly for music, but with online distribution you can sell music online very cheaply. I believe that we will soon see artists cutting out the distribution mechanism. We already see small bands recording music in a basement and then selling it online or at a site like CDBaby. Ince well known bands begin to cut out the middle man this could quickly become the method of choice. If you bought directly from an artist, prices for music could well come down while allowing artists to keep more money. This would likely mean that the future of the recording industry could be dull, but hopefully they could change their model to compete. The old world of music distribution is quickly going to way of the buggy whip and this industry needs to change quickly before they are left behind. So I think that the best thing that could have been said to the industry by Steve Job's is that the recording industry need to reinvent itself that same way Apple did when it moved from being a computer company in the the world of music and iPod.

  • 19 Posted by cossels on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:30PM EDT Report Abuse

    The music indutry, like other online downloading, is killing itself demanding one use. The same problem will haunt Windows with the one time use of Vista. The answer is to stop the licensing things and go to ownership. Much like the courts' decisons on the cable that comes into your house is yours past the first connection. I personally am buying less and less downloads and less software.

  • 20 Posted by mariza_espino on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:07PM EDT Report Abuse

    I owned a independent record label in Dallas, TX and having inside knowledge to how the artists are treated by the big record companies, I have ZERO sympathy for them in regards to digital download copyrights. I have to tell you that the artist at BEST receives only 2-4 % of the sales from CDs. Their money really comes from touring and performing more than the sales of their albums. So in that sense, I think digital downloads HELP the artist, because if I can download their music and raise my awareness of that artist and loyalty to the artist I am much more likely to attend a concert or performance or watch them on TV. I imagine a world where CD's no longer are sold as tangible property, but rather solely as FREE digital downloads and service as PROMOTIONAL tools rather than a vehicle for making money. Only the record labels would suffer slightly, not the artist. But then again, when you think about it, if the record label didnt have a CD/DVD to put out, they'd have to find other ways to make money. That's what they are most worried about --- they care very little about the artist or the music itself. Luckily I built my record label to be different than that... I am not after money, I am after the experience, the music, and the entertainment. I believe if you concentrate on that, the money will come --- surely not the multi-millions that big record labels see today, but enough to live comfortably and most ENJOY life. The big record labels have really lost sight of that...

  • 21 Posted by vondoom7_2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:38PM EDT Report Abuse

    Just one word: NAPSTER. I have been working on an ISP for over 10 years now. I have seen the Internet from being in diapers to the monster that it is now. I saw Napster from its birth to its demise when the RIAA & Co. took it down. I remember saying this to somebody back then, and we're talking six or seven years back: "How much time will pass before we see Napster's substitutes online?" and so Kazaa, IMESH and BitTorrent were born. So it has been evident that no matter what you do, filesharing has become a fire that can not and will not be put out, why? Simple. Because if you bring one down, another way will come. And the more the RIAA fights to stop it, the more ways to slap them back will appear. Take down the Internet connection of a student so piracy ends, yeah right... a quick and simple solution? Knock on your buddy next door and ask him to pass you his 1,000+ music collection. There you go. Call your girlfriend or boyfriend and ask him/her to borrow you his/her 30GB Ipod and get a copy of his music. Ask someone for his latest Jo-Jo CD and rip a copy to your computer and then to your IPod or MP3 player of preference. People please. The internet is just ONE way to get music. Cutting the wire won't stop it now. It's that simple. With todays technologies filesharing is a fire that they can't put out.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.