Thoughts on Steve Jobs’ Desire to Abolish DRMs

by Chris Howard Feb 07, 2007

In a surprise and welcome move, Steve Jobs has posted an article, Thoughts on Music, on the Apple website explaining Apple’s position on Digital Rights Management (DRM) of music purchased online and what it would like to see in the future. For those who think Apple is a megalomanic corporation focused on making money, Steve’s essay will surprise—he calls for the abolition of DRM.

“Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.”

Is this all just a ploy to polish Apple’s latterly tarnished public image? No and yes. Even though it is obviously how Apple feels, Steve’s writing and posting of this essay is definitely a response to negative press and blogging that has painted Apple as the bad guy of DRM.

Steve makes several points:

- “Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.”
- “DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.”
- “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.”
- “Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries.”
- “For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard.”

Regarding music sold on unprotected CDs, the record companies—Sony BMG in particular—have experimented with copy protection of CD-based music and so are still keen to plug that hole. If they do, then Steve’s call to abolish DRM will lose its clout.

In arguing against DRMs, interestingly he argues that Apple can’t license FairPlay to others, as FairPlay’s secrets would be compromised, meaning the need for it to be modified. FairPlay can already be easily removed from a song by anyone with a CD burner, and yet nothing has been done to prevent that.

Given his position as CEO of Apple, it is no surprise he doesn’t mention how easy it is to remove DRM using a CD burner. I’ve done it myself so I could load and play music I legally own on my Palm—just as I can do with any music I bought on CD.  Makes you wonder, though, how much music that floats around peer-to-peer music sharing systems is actually bought off iTMS. Probably more than we realize.

Today there are three main levels of piracy:
1) People making unauthorized copies of music for their own listening;
2) People sharing copyrighted music through means such as peer-to-peer and burning CDs;
3) People or businesses illegally reproducing and selling copyrighted music.

It is the third that affects the music industry the most, despite claims that it’s the second, which is just because those people are an easy target. In fact, as it’s a form of viral marketing, many musicians nowadays support the idea of people giving copies of their music to friends, with some even actively encouraging it.

But at all three levels DRM can be very easily circumvented. I hardly doubt Apple’s FairPlay—or any other DRM system—has any noticeable impact on any of these forms of piracy of music obtained from online music stores. As Steve said, DRMs haven’t stopped piracy.

So what else is in it for Apple if DRMs were abolished? Consider Steve’s apparent contradiction where on the one hand he states his fear of losing music on the iTMS:

“. . .a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.”

But he then goes on to argue how iTMS purchased music is insignificant in the scheme of things:

“Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full.  This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. . . since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.”

Despite the latter assertion, the former carries the truth that iPod sales, despite an average of 22 songs per iPod, would be greatly impacted by the loss of music sales on the iTMS.

Apple gains great leverage off the iTMS and has never made a secret of the fact that it is a vehicle to sell iPods. Steve and Apple clearly believe that discontinuing DRMs would not reduce iPod sales, and you might suspect they even think it could be good for iPod sales. It would also clearly be good for music sales; however, Apple has always stated that it makes nix off music sold on iTMS.

Steve’s article also demonstrates the power Apple now wields. He is obviously confident that, although it might upset a few record company execs, at the end of the day he has got them singing his iTunes—except on the DRM issue.

This is a significant move by Apple and one aimed squarely at the European countries who have been laying the blame for DRM on Apple. Fresh from winning the battle with another European giant of the music industry, Apple Corp, hopefully Apple will also win this battle and we will be able to buy all our music DRM free.

Comments

  • All I would ask is that anyone out there reading this who isn’t already blinded by partisan rage judges their own viewpoint by the relative quality of arguments, and not by comparing the ability of contingents to insult each other.

    Benji had this to say on Feb 09, 2007 Posts: 927
  • I’ll just elicudate, again, for Chris’s benefit.

    DRM only “protects the copyright holder” insofar as it prevents piracy. That is, the degree to which DRM prevents piracy and the degree to which DRM protects the rights of its distributor are completely allied.

    Since it is today possible to obtain any music available with DRM on non-DRM encumbered media today, and therefore possible to obtain pirated copies of any work, DRM IS PRECISELY 0% EFFICIENT AT PREVENTING PIRACY.

    Therefore your claim that there is any purpose at all for DRM in protecting the rights of the copyright holder is, totally and simply, wrong.

    And again with this “you’re pointing out the differences I’m pointing out the similarities” thing. I am not merely “pointing out the differences”, I’ve made a solid argument that the superficial similarities you have become obsessed with are irrelevant.

    In order for a comparison like the one from Macenstein to be relevant, it does not just have to be similar, it has to be pretty well homologous. I have provided reasons why this is not so. Merely repeating the superficial similarities that have been demolished goes no way to helping your argument.

    Benji had this to say on Feb 09, 2007 Posts: 927
  • One thing people seem to constantly gloss over…

    Jobs has said that licensing FairPlay would be a nightmare because they would be responsible for getting fixes out to the various partners when it was cracked. As he mentions, partners can slow the process down since all their music stores and players would need to be quickly updated, and the likelihood is that they wouldn’t.

    Meanwhile, if there were a crack, Apple’s feet are held to the fire by the record companies. Why would he want to open his company up to that kind of legal problem?

    Let’s compare that with CSS. CSS is the licensable “open” DRM for DVDs. It was cracked. It has never been fixed. DVDs, for all intents and purposes, are basically unprotected because it’s trivial to circumvent CSS these days.

    Jobs is saying, “why should we be held legally responsible for our partners who license FairPlay when the simplest solution is to remove DRM altogether?”

    And everybody criticizes him… WTF?

    Why should the onus be put on Apple for FairPlay? Why haven’t the record companies gotten together and develop THEIR OWN DRM to license (for a reasonable fee) to the online stores? Why didn’t the record companies put together their own CSS-like consortium to build a the DRM independent of Apple and Microsoft?

    Because they know it will fail for the same reason CSS did… It will get cracked and it will be impossible to have all the partners update their software and hardware… so instead they bogusly lay the problem at the feet of Apple.

    “It’s not *our* fault Apple won’t license its DRM…”  Bullshit. They know a licensed DRM is doomed to failure.

    The fact is, the simplest and best solution is to remove DRM because it doesn’t even begin to prevent piracy. It doesn’t protect the rights of the content holder. All it does is hinder the consumer.

    But it’s easier for the record companies to *require* Apple use a DRM, and then blame Apple for not wanting the programming and legal headaches of licensing in the eventuality of it being cracked.

    Did Bill Gates come out and say “We should get rid of DRM?”  No… and yet everyone is shitting on Jobs for doing just that.

    It makes absolutely no sense for all you supposed DRM-detractors to shit on Jobs when he is probably the best hope for getting the dialogue moving on this issue (as seen in the last weeks storm of press).

    vb_baysider had this to say on Feb 09, 2007 Posts: 243
  • ...and yet everyone is shitting on Jobs for doing just that. -vb

    I have always sensed you are a level-headed dude (oh, that is a compliment btw). Your analogy of Fairplay to CSS is very convincing and very true in regards to both angles mentioned in this thread: protect the rights of the content owners and prevent widespread piracy. DeCSS, as public knowledge (thank DVD Jon), have shown otherwise. Good one, VB!

    To be real, ANY form of DRM and no matter how many bits of cypher length, for that matter, will be CRACKED in due time. There is no way around that. Is that so hard to understand???

    The labels politically-rights themselves by requiring these onerous DRM requirements and shift the blame to the device makers and content providers like iTunes. Here’s a tidbit from the LA Times (home of the RIAA, btw) with their response to Steve’s “Thoughts…”

    The labels therefore want their cake and eat it too. That just not going to work, guys.

    Robomac had this to say on Feb 09, 2007 Posts: 846
  • BTW Chris, here’s a gift from Steve to the Land Up Over (courtesy of AppleInsider):

    as-funfactory-070210-1.jpg

    This new store in Melbourne has been in construction since last year.

    Nice one, eh? DRM-free music or not… wink

    Robomac had this to say on Feb 09, 2007 Posts: 846
  • Ben said: Therefore your claim that there is any purpose at all for DRM in protecting the rights of the copyright holder is, totally and simply, wrong.

    Ben? It must be getting too cold up there. What do you think the “R” in DRM stands for?

    Just because it is crap easy to break the DRM (as I mentioned in my original article) DOES NOT invalidate its purpose.

    Usually Ben, what you say is quite valid and reasoned, but to suggest that the ease of which DRM can be circumvented means it’s not therefore there to protect the rights of the legal copyright owner to earn income from their work, is just plain bollocks!

    And it’s not just the rights of the copyright holder, it’s the rights of all those involved in bringing a work to market. And cynically, of course, the record companies in particular.

    If there was no piracy (at *any* level), there would be no DRM.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Feb 09, 2007 Posts: 1209
  • Just because it is crap easy to break the DRM (as I mentioned in my original article) DOES NOT invalidate its purpose.

    Just because my leg has been torn off and eaten by sharks does not invalidate its purpose.

    I find it amazing that you’re buying into the smoke and mirrors blown in your eyes by the record industry. It is manifestly clear that I am saying that “DRM” in music is a perversion of the phrase Digital Rights Management. And if you think that Fairplay is currently benefiting “all those involved in bringing a work to market”, well I personally think you’re wrong.

    I may be biased, but you’re right, what I say usually is quite valid and reasoned. And I stand by what I’ve written here absolutely. I’d just ask you to give it a chance.

    Benji had this to say on Feb 12, 2007 Posts: 927
  • ...but to suggest that the ease of which DRM can be circumvented means it’s not therefore there to protect the rights of the legal copyright owner to earn income from their work…CH

    Apologies for cutting in, but I have to say my dime on this view of Chris.

    If I may ask also, in a world free of DRM, “rights” as you mildly put it, does that world invalidate the protection of those “rights” of the legal copyright owners to “earn” income?

    There will still be avenues besides software locks as DRM is. I have read many other suggestions such as file tracing and I believe that came from SanDisk’s CEO. File tracing would not be DRM but a copy flag counter or indicator.

    How file tracing would work, in simplest term I can afford, is like purchasing a track from iTunes without the obvious DRM restrictions. Alas, the file structure/header has a serialization bits that “ties” you to that purchase. You can do as you please with that music, just like a CD. The “interoperability” question, all of a sudden, is kaput!

    Then, if and when that same track gets floated around the P2P sites, Apple’s legal can trace that track to you, personally. This is called accountability on the part of the music fan. This would be akin to buying a CD and giving copies to friends. The only difference would be that giving a copy to the P2P site amounts to sharing to everyone - and that is the thorn in this argument. Minimal copying might be tolerated but unlimited, it isn’t!

    So, I think that file tracing is a great compromise between DRM and NO DRM if there are no technical problems with the AAC stream format. If so, Apple can create a new licenseable format to implement this feature (or perhaps Apple Lossless format could?).

    There will also be gripes raised about privacy issues but bit flags on files are not active spy mechanism. They are more like cookies for web servers. A passive static variable storage.

    So, going back to my question, a DRM-free world will only invigorate the content owners’ revenue take and this in turn compensate the artists better. Isn’t that the factor all along for keeping DRM (by the labels) but those very people are in denial that DRM is a joke that haven’t worked its magic and would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible (Steve’s scenario #1).

    Like I have mentioned many times in this thread, it will be a win-win-win situation for all. It will not be easy getting there for there are many pundits and fearsome keyholders of the kingdom. Many of which do not have deep understanding of digital technologies, if at all.

    Robomac had this to say on Feb 12, 2007 Posts: 846
  • Page 4 of 4 pages « First  <  2 3 4
You need log in, or register, in order to comment