Steve Jobs supports DRM-free music

Gargoyle (Gargoyle) Steve Jobs sees three possibilities for the future of legally-downloaded music. One, we change nothing and continue with DRM schemes. Two, Apple plays nice guy and licenses their FairPlay DRM to other companies to encourage interoperability. Three, we get rid of DRM altogether. Believe it or not, our liege of the glossy white hardware iPod supports option three.

February 7, 2007 10:52 AM ET in News,

Steve Jobs sees three possibilities for the future of legally-downloaded music:

One, we change nothing and continue with the DRM scheme of each manufacturer supporting top-to-bottom exclusive systems (like the ones employed by Apple, Sony, and Microsoft). Interestingly, he seems to imply that the widely-used PlaysForSure WMA scheme is irrelevant, and it would appear Microsoft agrees.

Two, Apple plays nice guy and licenses their FairPlay DRM to other companies to encourage interoperability. Jobs acknowledges that Apple could make a tidy profit by licensing the technology, but fears that it would become harder to patch holes in the DRM when it is spread over multiple companies and players. On top of that, secret details on how the DRM works are more likely to leak when they are held by multiple companies.

Three, we get rid of DRM altogether. Jobs knows this is the best option for consumers, and doesn’t think that the insistence of music companies on DRM for downloaded music makes sense. Last year, over 90% of all music was bought DRM-free on CDs. What’s the point in making it more difficult to sell such a small proportion of the total music sold, then? Jobs thinks that if the major music companies allowed their music to be sold without DRM, more companies would be willing to invest in online distribution and portable players, and everybody wins.

Still surprised that a major provider of DRM-protected tunes wants to get rid of DRM? Steve Jobs isn’t the only one. Bill Gates doesn’t like DRM, either.

4 Comments:

  1. Esso
    9 Feb '07, 4:40 am

    DVD Jon Responds to Steve Jobs' DRM Address

    In his most recent post, Johansen said with a grin and a wink, “Licensing FairPlay is quite feasible, it’s just that Steve doesn’t want to do so. Of course, from a business perspective I don’t mind.”
  2. Gargoyle
    9 Feb '07, 5:58 am

    In other news, Warner Music still hates consumers.

    Warner Music has rejected a suggestion from Apple boss Steve Jobs that record companies should remove copy protection software from digital music downloads.

    Its boss Edgar Bronfman, said Mr Job's proposal was "without logic and merit".

    He didn't explain why, though. Probably because anybody can refute the logic of a record executive.

  3. Gargoyle
    9 Feb '07, 6:03 am
    Quoting Esso
    View Post
    DVD Jon Responds to Steve Jobs' DRM Address

    Good find! I dig this:

    “Microsoft’s Windows Media DRM 10 (marketing name PlaysForSure) has not had more security breaches than FairPlay despite the fact that it has been licensed to dozens of companies,” adding that Microsoft’s decision to make the Zune DRM a closed system was a business decision and had nothing to do with DRM security.

    Dvd Jon: 1, King Steve: 0

    Still, whatever anyone thinks about the high-profile figures and companies involved in the debate, at least Steve Jobs has stimulated debate on the topic.

  4. RADA
    11 Feb '07, 5:32 am

    From The Inquirer

    Rant An open letter to Steve Jobs, you are a hypocrite

    By Charlie Demerjian: Friday 09 February 2007, 08:20

    DEAR MR JOBS, you are the lowest form of hypocrite. It didn't dawn on me when I was reading your recent piece on DRM, nor when I was writing my response, but it did afterwards.
    I was busy answering emails generated by my article, a strangely complimentary set of letters given the topic, when it dawned on me. Your entire business is based on DRM, top to bottom, and without it you would wither and die.

    If you consider Apple has three product lines, the Mac, the iPod and the upcoming iPhone, all are DRMed to the gills. The iPod we all know about, that one is obvious. The Mac is a little more subtle, the DRM prevents it from running on anything but your hardware. It will even break on an Intel reference board that is almost totally identical to yours.

    DRM has two functions, to prevent copying and to prevent interoperability. You are using the the latter functionality as a shield to fatten your margins and totally lock out competition. Your entire computer business model depends on DRM. Remove the artificial locks and it works fine.

    Then there is the iPhone. Those of us privvy to its secrets know it is locked down hard, you have even saidas much. This DRM infection starts with a trusted boot loader and will fail with non-signed firmware. From there, you can lock out any competition with more DRM. This was a management decision, not a technical need.

    So, when it comes to DRM being used to pry open your anti-competitive infrastructure, you decry it. When it comes to you using to to exclude and tax others, then it is mandatory. What a joke you are.

    While I know this won't happen, here is what you need to do to put your money where your mouth is. First, completely open up or license OSX to anyone who wants it and let it run on whatever hardware they want. Second, do not lock down the iPhone in any way shape or form. Both can be done on a whim, there are no technical impediments, only management decisions.

    If you do not do these things, you will expose yourself to be the true hypocrite that everyone thinks you are. DRM is unacceptable when used against you, but the best thing in the world when done by Apple. You can change things though, all it takes is a memo.

    Charlie Demerjian

Troll-free since 2003 ®