In a letter posted on Apple's website, CEO Steve Jobs calls for the music industry's "Big 4" -- Universal, Sony, BMG, Warner and EMI -- to consider stripping digital rights management (DRM) restrictions industry-wide from music sold digitally through online music services like iTunes Store. While this development isn't necessarily surprising -- RealNetworks' Rob Glasser says it's “an idea in ascendance and whose time has come.” [via NYTimes] -- it, like any other industry shift, raises some questions.
In his letter, Jobs explores 3 possible solutions to the DRM problem: keeping things as they are, licensing Apple's FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors, or, the complete removal of DRM restrictions. He asserts the third option:
If such [DRM] 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. . . . Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.Will they? My friend Calin speculates that perhaps Jobs' motivation stems from the idea that a substantial portion of folks who choose *not* to buy from iTunes are doing so because of DRM restrictions. While that might be why Calin doesn't use the iTunes Store, he says removing restrictions wouldn't change his mind. Hmm. I support lifting DRM restrictions 100%, but would it change my mind? In his letter, Jobs reports that only about 3% of anyone's music library is in a protected format. That's certainly true of my library. If restrictions were lifted, however, would I start buying? More importantly, would this act of goodwill on the part of the music companies, Apple and other online (legal) music sources suddenly garner an influx of consumer activity? Or would piracy just run rampant? I find it interesting that the next potential shift in the portable music revolution (and I think it's safe to describe it as such) that started with iPods and iT[M]S hangs on the exact thing that propelled it forward in the first place: the only reason music companies reluctantly placed their music in iTunes' digital storefront was the stipulation that each musical bit be wrapped in a layer of encryption. Jobs waited long enough to prove his point with the Big 4 -- that the iTunes Music Store would be successful -- and is now pushing forward. This makes me wonder if this is where he wanted to take iTunes all along. But wait, if all these files suddenly become unlocked -- if I can buy music from any other music source and port them to my 'pod, why the heck would I only use iTS? Because it's cheap? No, prices are pretty much comparable. Because they have an extensive library? Well, sorta, but most of the stuff I'm after I will probably need to find elsewhere; will probably need to buy as a CD. A lot of folks feel that way. What's the gimmick? What's Jobs after?! And of course, I haven't even mentioned the other forms of media with ties to iPods/iTS and proprietary what-have-you: movies, TV shows, games. Large media distribution companies are none too pleased with the idea that this could lead to well, unencrypted everything. From the NYTimes article, Ted Cohen, managing partner of TAG Strategic and former senior vice president for digital development and distribution for EMI Music said, "If anything can play on anything, it’s a clear win for the consumer electronics device world, but a potential disaster for the content companies." Yeah. Will the music industry ever support the removal of DRM restrictions? And if they do, will the digital music distribution industry be able to survive?
I just read Job's open letter and I was sort of taken aback a bit by his "pass the buck" approach to DRM. Apple profits from DRM BUT ALSO probably profits more from non-DRM music.
But on another topic, I found his stance regarding current DRM initiatives to be disingenuous. To summarize, Jobs states that music companies already sell the majority of their music DRM free and that they are foolish to require online stores to require DRM. Ok this is retarded.
He states, "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."
Basically he is saying, "What idiots! They never anticipated worldwide file sharing when CD technology was developed in the mid-80s. I could have told you that by 2000 we would have had that, but I would have also told you that the LISA (Apple’s Hindenburg) would be the world's best selling consumer electronics device."
The record companies did not anticipate file-sharing, people loved the format and subsequently bought billions of CD-players. Now the labels are tied to a technology that is fundamentally flawed from a protection standpoint, but they realize that the future of music distribution will probably be electronic rather than through these clunky, scratch prone, disks. So they become resigned to not make this mistake again by requiring DRM. "IDIOTS," Jobs says, "DRM is shit, people copy your music using CDs!" Which only further highlights the problem- motherfucking CDS! The record companies are trying to PHASEOUT this technology, knowing that in time, digital, protected, technology will makeup the majority of music sales. They have NO OTHER OPTION. It is frankly illegal for the music labels to coordinate their activities and decide that all music will be distributed in an electronic (DRM) format. No single record company can make this decision (at least in the near future) because that company cannot withstand the almost certain huge drop in sales*. So the labels are adopting a careful, long-term strategy, betting on the fact that if they weather the CD storm, they will be better for it in the future. It is not sexy, or bold, but probably the only option they have left.
* Remember the flack they got for making CDs that could not be played in computers?