Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Thoughts on DRM

dan39dan39 New
edited February 2007 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
Very interesting article on DRM from Steve Jobs. It addresses the reasons why iPods (and Zunes) are using DRM the way they do, and why it's a lose/lose situation for everyone. http://apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

Comments

  • bjrnbjrn
    It's still interesting that Apple's iTunes store places DRM on tracks by musicians and companies who do not require it. So to say that they'd rather not have DRM at all is not true.
  • StashStash ✭
    DRM is pointless. It oppresses those who don't abuse it and pay for things and is barely a minor inconvenience to those who do...
  • dan39dan39 New
    edited February 2007
    Right bjrn, I'm sure the whole article is one big lie. You figured it out.
  • bjrnbjrn
    Yep. It's because I have a tin-foil hat, see.

    Seriously though, I was a bit careless in my typing, what I meant was that it's not just the big four that force them to DRM most of the tracks, they choose to put DRM on tracks themselves. I do think the piece comes off as being a bit disingenuous because of it. I'm just thinking that if he wants to point the finger he could try to fix things on his own side.
  • dan39dan39 New
    edited February 2007
    Well, it's probably more like this:

    From BusinessWeek.com
    "The request couldn't be better timed, say industry insiders. While some critics in the music industry have carped about Apple's strategy for years, the industry as a whole has been showing an increasing openness to loosening at least some demands. The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major labels, wants changes that would let users play downloaded music across a variety of devices. But before that effort could gain traction, Jobs has taken the upper hand, says Bob Cohn, who founded and later sold eMusic, the leading seller of non-DRM music, mostly from indie bands. Regardless of what direction the industry takes now, Apple can now claim the moral high ground. "He may be counting (on the idea) that the labels will still not give up on DRM," Cohn says. That lets him "play the hero to consumers." Or if the labels do drop DRM, then Apple can claim credit, rather than be blamed, says Cohn. "It's a PR ploy, and he'll come out ahead either way." "
  • WallPhoneWallPhone
    "It's a PR ploy, and he'll come out ahead either way."

    I was wondering why he was 'selling' DRM to consumers and pointing the finger rather than explaining why it won't work to the music industry and asking the consumers to provide support against it.

    Of course, iTunes is his cash cow, and he doesn't want to upset the heifers.

    No criticism, just a well-done play.
  • dan39dan39 New
    The iPod is his cash cow. iTunes doesn't make that much money, but it's whole existence is to sell more iPods.
  • MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    You know, that's pretty ironic because (and I realise I'm probably not an average consumer in this respect) if i was to buy a portable device which i intended to play legal music on, an iPod would be at the very bottom of my list. I'd much sooner pay £10 a month for napster than £0.8 a song for iTunes. If i was just gonna illegally download mp3's and wanted something to play them on, then i'd choose an ipod.
  • dan39dan39 New
    Minisweeper, I'm just a bit confused by that logic. So, you'd rather pay: £10 Month x 12 Months x 50 years = £6,000 (that's assuming 0% inflation) rather than owning all of your music at a simple rate of £0.8 per song? I think you would need to listen to an awful lot of music for the subscription model to actually be worth it. And that's not even considering the price of inflation. With the subscription model, in 20 years the price per month could easily reach £40 per month to keep your music from disappearing. Whereas if you own your music, you don't need to keep forking over money every month to keep listening to it. My understanding is that the subscription model seems like a good deal in the short term, but ends up being a terrible deal in the long term (unless you listen to a ridiculous amount of music).
  • y2kbgy2kbg New
    there are some drm removers, so after a year of download just rid you files of it. oops does that break a law.....
  • MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    I did actually put in a bracketed sentence about whether the subscription model was false-economy when I originally wrote my post but i removed it half-way through composure. You might be right but I think it's largely a psychological thing. I know i can listen to whatever I want and it doesnt cost me anything different. £10 a month would equate to roughly 12 songs on iTunes...To set myself up with a couple of hundred songs as a base to suit for various moods/occasions/etc would cost me the equivalent of a year or more subscription to Napster, followed up by the purchase of new songs as they were released/whatever at a rate probably higher than £10 a month. So actually I dont think it's such a bad deal. I've never bothered working out how many songs i listen to per month, or how often i listen to new songs, but knowing i can just play something for the hell of it 'without it costing me anything' gives me that little bit extra freedom. If i wanted to check something out but I knew I'd have to pay £0.8 (or more likely £3 to check out a few songs from an unfamiliar artist) I probably wouldnt bother - and that'd be a shame. On a similarly themed note, by last calculation I spent approximately £500 on gig tickets for gigs during 2006, and I'm already up to £100 or so this year; so £10/month for a napster subscription is relatively insignificant. I do see what you mean about only having to ever pay for a song once with the iTunes model though. And you may well be right. But I hope I've atleast put up a reasoned argument...
  • gigingergiginger New
    PR fluff.
    I can't really see anything beyond that. I agree with his sentiments but it just seems like he's trying to pass the blame onto someone else instead of offering a real solution. If the ITMS went DRM free then would Apple release a tool to remove the DRM from files they'd already purchased? Seems like a fair thing to do.

    DRM really is one of the worst things to happen in computing. It's calling you a criminal without you even committing a crime. Disgusting.
  • MySchizoBuddyMySchizoBuddy
    edited February 2007
    DRM-free will hurt Microsoft more than it will hurt Apple Without DRM, the subscription model can't exist, and MS will loose the only advantage it has over Apple.
  • WandererWanderer
    I don't know what all the fuss is about.
    I regularly burn CDs from my iTunes library.
    Never had an issue.

    Posted: Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 7:42PM (AEDT)

  • dan39dan39 New
    edited February 2007
    That's the whole crux of the debate. Why should consumers be restricted with DRM on legal music downloads, when they can easily buy CDs without DRM? And why should music download companies be burdened with DRM software when A) it doesn't work, and B) the CD makers don't have to? Nobody wins.
  • NickENickE New
    this is why I use allofmp3 :-P
  • StashStash ✭
    I agree with everything dan39 just said, and they're just the reasons that it's a complete waste of time and effort.
This discussion has been closed.