Great article from the NY Times pointing out Apple’s blatant hypocrisy regarding Steve’s recently published letter outlining his supposed stance that they only use DRM on the iTunes store because the record companies make them.
Some excerpts:
Apple pretends that the decision to use copy protection is out of its hands. In defending itself against Ms. Tucker’s lawsuit, Apple’s lawyers noted in passing that digital-rights-management software is required by the major record companies as a condition of permitting their music to be sold online: “Without D.R.M., legal online music stores would not exist.�
In other words, however irksome customers may find the limitations imposed by copy protection, the fault is the music companies’, not Apple’s.
This claim requires willful blindness to the presence of online music stores that eschew copy protection. For example, one online store, eMusic, offers two million tracks from independent labels that represent about 30 percent of worldwide music sales.
Among the artists who can be found at eMusic are Barenaked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, who are represented by Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver, British Columbia. All Nettwerk releases are available at eMusic without copy protection.
But when the same tracks are sold by the iTunes Music Store, Apple insists on attaching FairPlay copy protection that limits their use to only one portable player, the iPod. Terry McBride, Nettwerk’s chief executive, said that the artists initially required Apple to use copy protection, but that this was no longer the case. At this point, he said, copy protection serves only Apple’s interests.
Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research, agreed, saying copy protection “just locks people into Apple.� He said he had recently asked Apple when the company would remove copy protection and was told, “We see no need to do so.�
Apple’s statement is a detailed treatise on the subject, compared with what I received when I asked the company last week whether it would offer tracks without copy protection if the publisher did not insist on it: the Apple spokesman took my query and never got back to me.
I’ve heard other stories like this as well. So, Steve, if you’d really like to sell DRM free music on the iTunes store, why aren’t you already doing it? There are lots of artists out there who aren’t under the thumb of the “big four” oppressive record labels, who would love to do it, and have tried and been denied.
the article obviously attempts to take advantage of our fine nation’s under par knowledge of geography by failing to mention that vancouver, british columbia is actually in canada! in the letter, steve jobs (bless his name) was in america, talking to americans about american music. he was obviously not including the canadian artists listed above as artists he would like to release without drm. if he released canadian artists without drm, there would be less of an opportunity to convert potential canadian dollars into american, weakening our economy. it also may encourage the consumption of canadian music, drawing attention away from hard working, american artists like myself.
so if you want to drink milk from a bag, not have the right to own a gun, and download “open” “music” on your maplepod, go right ahead. as for me and my family, we’ll be fighting terrorism through rights managed mötley crüe mp3s! u-s-a! u-s-a!
I just love how it’s entirely speculative that contrary to what Jobs has publicly written he doesn’t want to sell non-DRM’ed music. I know that iTunes has gone in the direction of selling all music with DRM regardless if you can buy it from another store DRM free but that still doesn’t mean that he or they do not want to go that direction now or in the near future. Especially since he publicly stating that DRM is hindering sales. Apple is a publicly traded company if Apple knows that it’s in there best interest to sell DRMed music then why send mixed signals to stock holders?
I bet that your inconsistent rational to whatever Apple does is bad enough that it will lead you to believe that open letter from the largest online music retailer will have nothing to do with the big four’s release of DRM. I’d go so far as to say when iTunes does sell non-DRM music you will say “Apple must, it’s not a choice that they can make and they rather not”.
In my opinion, Job’s knows that non-DRM music will sell more music through iTunes and eventually supercede the difference between the lock-in model and the DRM free model.
It’s not speculation when you have lots of artists and labels who have expressed their desire to sell non-DRM’d music on iTunes and Apple has chosen not to do so in spite of their wishes. In those cases, the ONLY party imposing / requiring the DRM is Apple.
IF in the future they do sell non-DRM music, I’ll congratulate them, but you’re probably right in that I’ll attribute it to consumer pressure rather than Apple’s desire.
The main point in this post though, which I don’t think you can dispute, is that Apple doesn’t sell non-DRM’d music now when they easily could, and even when artists and labels are asking them to. That’s the bottom line, and more proof in my book that Steve’s letter is less than honest.
i don’t think they “easily” could. they’d have to have separate terms of purchase/licenses for each artist/label’s distinct take on drm/no drm. not to mention they would have to adjust their pricing or explain why you get different things for your $.99 depending on what you buy. that will ultimately make the big four look bad, which probably come to the more likely reason apple has drm on all songs: the big four required it.
if they really did it to force the sale of ipods, why don’t ipods play only drm music?
Dealing with the different licensing agreements would not be difficult. I’m sure the contracts between Apple and each of the big four look slightly different from each other, and bringing other companies onboard would require separate agreements with them.
The only thing that would prevent them from doing that would be if Apple had made a deal with the big four that prohibited them from selling music from other people on different terms than they have with the big four. This is certainly possible, although it would still suck. Steve didn’t mention this in his letter, however, and I haven’t seen any claims by Apple to that effect. You’d think they would point that out when these other labels ask, but instead they just tell them that they must use DRM – no explanations or exceptions.
I never argued that the big four did NOT require Apple to DRM their music. I only mentioned that SINCE they did, it’s very easy for Steve to say that he’d rather not, because he (for the moment) knows that he won’t have to back up that claim.
The question of “why don’t ipods play only DRM music” is unrelated to this subject. Steve admitted in his letter that most iPod space is taken up by non-DRM’d music, so Apple knows that it would kill their sales to ONLY support DRM’d files, but I don’t think anyone was ever talking about that.
I also never said that they DRM their music to “force the sale of iPods” directly, only that their decision to not license their DRM locks iTunes customers into only using iPods for portable playback.
Again, I see the problem with their lock in approach as a separate issue on top of the more general DRM one, and it’s all about their decision not to license their DRM to other companies. Steve claims in his letter that they can’t license it because the record companies would then not trust it and not give their business. This is proven false by other licensed DRM options, such as Microsoft’s PlaysForSure model.
This whole post is about discrediting “the letter” and making Steve look dishonest, nothing more. If it was solely about selling a mix of DRM free and DRM music in iTunes then you would have brought it up a year ago when it really mattered.
“I also never said that they DRM their music to “force the sale of iPodsâ€? directly”…You’ve misrepresented yourself in the past if this is the case. The whole meaning of a lockin model is just that, you lockin people’s iTunes purchases to only play on an iPod. That’s wierd you said that becuase I doubt you thought that. And an open letter on the internet isn’t going to convince me either.
That last paragraph is false. First, you might want to re-read the letter,
As stated, MS Playforsure is broken and cracked, I’ve already posted about this plenty. Most importantly the scramble that MS has to go through to stop the cracking is something required by the record companies and Steve says Apple does not want to go through the hoops.
Another factor that I would expect from Apple and not MS is credibility. Even if you don’t think they have any, think about this. With MS not supporting their own playforsure DRM for the Zune it has to send mixed messages to it’s customers. Those customers are huge, like Yahoo!, I don’t think Apple has the legs to not care about big companies, including the big four. MS is the big gorilla and they do what they want, whether good, bad or selfish.
Another move from MS out of left field would be the newly released DRM to not replace PfS but to be it’s own product. Something a software company does not a hardware company that sells music to support it’s hardware.
1. No, this post is about Apple not allowing non-DRM music to be sold in their store. It matters as much now as it did at any other point in time, and just because I didn’t bring it up in the past (because I wasn’t aware of it) does not invalidate the point.
2. I don’t think I’ve misrepresented myself; I’ve always felt that Apple’s motivation for not licensing their DRM was to lock people in to the iPod platform. iPods will be sold whether or not they DRM the music, but they will sell more (at least in the short term) if customers have to throw away their purchases when switching. They DRM the music for multiple reasons, they don’t license their DRM for this one. Is that more clear?
3. No, it isn’t false. Steve is clearly implying that they can’t license FairPlay and keep the record companies’ business. Microsoft has licensed theirs and they still have the business, so this allegation is untrue. The fact that PlaysForSure AND FairPlay have both been cracked is not relevant, because the big four are still doing business with both of them in spite of that. If anything, it disproves Steve’s allegation that licensing their DRM would be a problem for the record companies.
4. Apple has no more credibility in my eyes than Microsoft. You cannot honestly criticise Microsoft’s former monopolistic practices without recognizing that Apple is also trying to secure a monopoly by using this lock-in approach.
I’m glad we both agree that iTunes sells music to support its iPod. I’m not sure how you could argue that not licensing their DRM is not a deliberate attempt to sell more of them.
i say we make it a rule that all discussions must end once jared innumerates his responses.
as a point of clarity, when i mentioned licenses, i was referring to the license a user agrees to when they purchase a song and confusion about what exactly one could do with the file.
I don’t know about that first one…
Yeah, I remember figuring that’s what you meant when I first read it, but somehow I forgot about that point when I was responding.
I don’t think it would necessarily be any more or less clear for the end user than it is now, since right now I don’t think iTunes jumps out and says “Hey, don’t try to copy this file or play it anywhere but your iTunes or iPod, because it won’t work”. I would think that would be where most of the confusion would come in, and they’ve already got that now.
As for the actual text of the license (which I’m sure probably does list those restrictions), those will never be too confusing for the user because no users ever actually read them.
I still don’t understand the rational behind being so skeptical of a company that any open letter makes you think it’s completely inaccurate, false and/or a lie. I would understand if the company continued to do unlawful things that warranted a distrust like MS or Sony but Apple hasn’t exactly been in that much trouble other then your personal disliking for their [????].
[????] = kick ass products?
I think I’ve pretty clearly outlined above how the inconsistencies and logical flaws in that letter point me to the conclusions I’ve come to. I haven’t seen any other rational explanations of their policies and practices.
You usually seem to bring up MS and their issues in any of these conversations, which is why I don’t understand your disagreement, since Apple is acting the same way in this case (doing everything they can to secure and maintain a monopoly).
BTW, I’d agree that they have some great products, objectively speaking. I just don’t like the way they run their business.
The inconsistencies you mention are all speculation that are heavily influenced by your disgust for Apple. Did I already say that?
You don’t understand my logic because you’re so wrapped up figuring out how you can convince yourself of corporate conspiracy. My disagreement is fairly simple, a company can do “good” things or say things honestly even by going against their own previous actions and a company can do things that benefit the consumer and the company, which nonDRM music would do; benefit a companies bottom line by helping the consumer.
You know that I’ve already brought up the Bill Gates said the same thing, “DRM is dead”. Why isn’t that being brought up as inconstant and untrustworthy?
Anyways, you can have the last word. I just wont understand your reasoning as long as you don’t give Job’s letter the benefit of the doubt.
No, they’re not. The inconsistencies are clear. I’ve pointed out several areas of the letter that do not make sense, and no one has explained why they do.
I’d love to hear an explanation that justifies Steve’s statement you posted above, regarding not being able to license FairPlay because then they couldn’t protect the record companies. As I’ve said time and time again, this doesn’t make any sense. For one thing, MS DOES license PfS and keeps the record labels happy. For another thing FairPlay gets cracked all the time, so they obviously can’t offer that guarantee that he talks about.
Let’s stick to that one small section of the letter and see if you can convince me otherwise. I have an open mind about it, I just haven’t seen anything YET that disputes my point in the previous paragraph.
Okay.
Well, you answer your own question first of all. The letter states the reasoning to why licensing their DRM is a bad idea, keep in mind he’s stating the licensing is an “option” not a declaration that they wont. He goes on to state, as you mention that it’s a bad idea because Apple can’t protect the record labels. You say that since MS does it so why can’t Apple; first they are totally different companies, one is a hardware company that sells music and one is solely a software company. You know how DRM works so you should know it’s completely different when Apple has to patch their cracked DRM then when MS deals with PfS. An example would be when PfS was first cracked and it took a huge effort on MS part to get all companies to apply a patch in tandem with the providers and hardware providers, all to appease the record companies and their contracts. Apple on the other hand just applies a simple update to iTunes that no-one sees or hears of including a software update to their iPod and it’s over. So that’s why Apple couldn’t protect the record companies, mainly because the process of doing so entales a lot more, MS on the other hand is a company designed to work in this fashion so it’s really nothing new. Simply, Apple couldn’t because they’re not a company designed to do so.
The guarantee that you speak of is easy on a closed DRM model. Apply the patches to both the play and the music and you’re done the deadline is met, I’m sure the record companies have a reasonable time for the any hole to be fixed. How can you guarantee something when you don’t control more then just a fix that you don’t know when it will be applied. Yes, MS manages their “guarantee” on fairy dust and imagination because IMO that guarantee isn’t 100%.
So two points to answer your misunderstanding:
Apple never said they couldn’t do what MS does they say they can’t guarantee what MS does. Maybe this is the reson why the Zune MP and Sony are going in the direction that Apple chose originally, because it’s easier to manage and it is a true garauntee to the record companies.
Just because MS does something doesn’t mean anyone else could do the same. MS can’t make a portable music player that sells and Apple might not be able to license their DRM.
A side: Job’s is very calculated and really hasn’t made any executive blunders in both Pixar and Apple (since his return) so I would have to believe him when he says that option isn’t a good one.
I need an explanation now:
Other then the case that Apple doesn’t allow non-DRM now why do you not trust that Jobs NOW thinks DRM free is the way to go?
On the first point, sorry, but that does not convince me. The reasons Steve refers to (and you elaborate on) to explain why Apple can’t (or won’t) license fairplay still just don’t make sense. Yes, it’s easier for Apple to do business if they employ monopolistic tactics; I’m not arguing that.
Of course any “guarantee” against cracking (whether from MS or Apple) would be false, since all schemes proposed so far have cracks / workarounds. My point is that obviously the record companies do not demand such a guarantee, or even a claim of one, since they are working with both Apple and MS.
I also have previously agreed that Microsoft is moving more in the direction of Apple in regards to their new DRM scheme. The funny part I see about this is that if the roles are reversed, and MS had a dominant player on the market, YOU KNOW that a lot of people would be railing against them for maintaining a monopoly by not licensing their DRM to other companies. Hopefully you don’t dispute this, so I just wonder why it’s OK for Apple but not for MS?
As for the last question, the primary evidence is the subject of this article. It would be trivially easy for Apple to sell DRM free music right now, if in fact they really did want to. There are lots of labels and independent artists who have asked them to and been denied. The only logical explanation (outside of Apple just not wanting to do it) would be if they had agreed not to as part of their deal with the big four, but if this was the case then they should say that. They haven’t.
In addition, I do hope that Steve meant what he said (at least some of it), but like I said before, it’s very easy for him to say that now when he knows he won’t have to back it up with actions (at least as far as the big four go). He’s already chosen not to back it up when it comes to other content owners, so even if it was his honest opinion it would still remain inconsistent.
[...] http://freepressblog.org/2007/02/14/apple-put-up-or-shut-up/ [...]
That guy gets it why don’t you, ha ha.
Why this circle? I thought I gave good logical reasoning behind your questions but you still cease to question your own fallible personal opinion. My opinion may be wrong too but you weigh so heavily on it as your logic behind your criticisms.
Your clearly not getting my points and it’s hard to do this when you either aren’t listening and/or questioning your own opinion. Or maybe I’m just not writing well enough to get my points across.
No, that guy does not get it at all. If anything, his stance is closed minded, since he clearly did not address the issues I’m talking about.
In his second point, he refers to the reason I already listed here (guess he didn’t bother to read that) as the only legitimate reason that Apple would require DRM on music that doesn’t want it. BUT, the problem is that if that’s the case why wouldn’t Apple simply say that, instead of just insisting that DRM be applied to music that doesn’t want it without providing that explanation.
He also ignores the issue / question of why Apple does not license its DRM, which is another (seperate) issue that I’ve talked about here and had no good answers for.
[BTW, I tried commenting on that guy's site, but you have to be logged in. As a side note (in case that guy reads this) you might want to adjust your theme to not give the comments box unless people are logged in then, because it's really annoying to type up a whole comment and then only be told after you submit it that you have to be logged in to comment.]
I definitely am getting your points, but they are not valid answers for my questions in my opinion. Apple doesn’t license their DRM because it would be harder for them to do so? Well, of course, but that’s not an excuse. It was easier for Microsoft to exploit their monopoly position too, and for plantation owners to own slaves for that matter, but that didn’t make it right.
I am definitely listening, and I don’t think that my opinion is infallible. There’s a difference between me having an open mind (which I do) and just accepting answers that don’t make sense (which I won’t). In this discussion so far, I think I’ve honestly considered every question posed, and explained why they didn’t sway my opinion. If a reasonable answer comes along, my opinion will be changed and I will happily admit it.
UPDATE – I just checked that guy’s site again, and it looks like he’s using Blogsome, which is a hosted service. So I’ll let him off the hook for that usability issue, since he probably can’t modify his theme. That’s something WordPress should address, though – if only logged in users can comment, then don’t show the comment form to users who aren’t logged in.
I don’t let him off the hook for criticizing this post without reading it all the way though.
Oh shit..you just compared slave ownership to Apple not allowing non-DRM music with their DRM music in iTunes. Wow…
You still don’t get my point that your opinion is clearly solidified, like a Nazi’s hatred toward Jews.
That last bit was a joke to help alleviate that horrible comparison…wow.
[...] How much do you have to hate Apple before you compare their practices to slave owners? [...]
Obviously you’re still not reading my comments carefully, since that remark was in relation to their not licensing their DRM, not their refusal to sell DRM music from artists that want them to.
But seriously, it was obviously an exaggeration / joke, but the Microsoft part of the comparison was totally serious.
Yeah, I noticed after the comment.