It took them years to find that out? Sheesh it took quite awhile. I guess now Apple is our "heroes" yet again.

What a DRM?

It actually DR. M. I see him for my schizophrenia.

I know that at least I would buy more music online if DRM was abolished. It sucks having a music phone and not being able to put my iTunes store music on it.

Mr. Gates,

Read this letter in the entirety and take careful notes.

This, sir, is what "WOW" looks like.

Corporations are innately conservative, and Jobs is as much a man who knows where to place his bets as much as an electronics designer. So, yeah, this is definitley dramatic. Of course, the fact is that, since the iPod is so common, opening the floodgates of download services would mean that the established player of mp3 makers-- Apple-- could crush all other makers, who have almost nil market share (1/10 high-capacity music players, all in all). It's like opening free trade with one rich country and 20 tiny,industrilizing nations.

Sounds like a John Lennon song to me.

Kudos to Apple for speaking out.
Honestly, I think many companies have done this under the radar by letting you rip your CD's without DRM, albeit a few warnings in their software... blah, blah, blah...

My entire collection (which I just happen to finish ripping last week after procastinating many years) is all done in WMA DRM free, so I can move it anywhere I want or transcode to anything I want in the future.

Lucky for me I never bought a CD from Sony witha rootkit, or any other CD that has not allowed me to copy it DRM free, otherwise it would have been returned to the seller. Period.

It's time companies realize there is more to gain from selling DRM free than lock everyone out.

Of course, the fact is that, since the iPod is so common, opening the floodgates of download services would mean that the established player of mp3 makers-- Apple-- could crush all other makers, who have almost nil market share (1/10 high-capacity music players, all in all). It's like opening free trade with one rich country and 20 tiny,industrilizing nations.

i would tend to think the opposite. suddenly people would be able to use music from the larget provider itunes without being restricted to an ipod.

either way steve jobs is not prometheus and he needs to get off his "we're a beautiful perfect corporation" kick. it's starting to grate me.

If Apple were so against DRM they'd offer DRM-free songs on iTunes from bands that don't require it. Instead, Jobs acts as if DRM is an all or nothing proposition. His attempt to lay DRM at the feet of the labels is an attempt to change the framing of the debate to take attention away from Apple and Apple's customer lock in.

In addition, Jobs attempt to lay DRM on the labels is a clever way to try and keep ahead of Microsoft's DRM by trying to publicly put all DRMed music on the same playing field: all or nothing for all companies--Apple, Microsoft, RealMusic, etc.

By saying this does Jobs mean that he will allow a non-iTunes online vendor to put their songs on the iPod and allow iTunes purchased songs onto my iRiver?

uhhh, don't purchased iTunes songs have a form of DRM in them? Only they call it a "protected-AAC".

hey aec007,

Are you kidding me? Kudos to Apple? They are all about closed architecture & control. Look at the mac, look at the ipod and their itunes store. Microsoft has included DRM to please the studios, but at least I can play my music on most mp3 players (although not the ipod obviously). I think DRM is fine as long as we get more rights with our content. We're not there yet, but hopefully we'll get there.

I think he's feeling the heat from walmart and their movie download service (windows format). Now all of a sudden he's preaching "no DRM". I'd be preaching too if all of a sudden there are millions of downloads that cannot be played on my $600 music/movie/phone device. where will the people flock to? Another device, from sony/sanyo/samsung/etc, that will be windows based.

> uhhh, don't purchased iTunes songs have a form
> of DRM in them? Only they call it a
> "protected-AAC".

Did you read the article? He explains why the Apple store has DRM (record labels wouldn't allow it otherwise), and why they haven't licensed out FairPlay to other companies (much easier to compromise, and then labels yank content from iTunes store).

He's saying "wouldn't it be nice if all DRM was gone", and I definitely agree. Sure there might be other motives like what LaughingMan suggested, but I'd love to be able to play iTunes music on my Archos Jukebox instead of only eMusic.

For decades, music was transmitted to consumers on a tangible media. The only way to copy it was to buy and record a tape (which was a bit of a hassle, happened in real time, often required flipping a tape over, and provided only one lower-quality copy). Now anyone can effortlessly email identical copies of an MP3 to everyone they know. Technology is obliterating an entire industry.

Perhaps non-DRM music will appeal a little more to some consumers who may buy (more) music because they didn't like the dumb restrictions. On the other hand, the whole digital music revolution has been 100% about ease of use for consumer, so making it easier to "share" songs will increase the amount sharing (especially when total neophytes can join in).

As much as I would love a non-DRM world, and as much as I understand DRM will always be defeated, I think it's a tough sell to say record companies would have a better chance at survival without DRM... The only way non-DRM would work for record companies would be to increase the power of RIAA and prosecute more people for sharing -- and that would suck much more than living in our DRM world.

(Wearing Apple-hater disguise)

Only you stupid fanboys can support Jobs on this. This is just a ploy for him to sell more Macs and take away my air of superiority because I'm among the few that can make Windows do whatever I want.

Only fanboys want there to be no more DRM. I'm not a fanboi because I hate Apple (j/k Bill, ignore this lolz) and everyone knows that the Zune is better and that putting DRM wrappers on everone's music is soooo much cooler.

Down with Apple.

The reason Apple doesn't sell minor label or no-label music without DRM might be found in the design of the program. The files on Apple's servers that give you the music you buy are unprotected AAC's. It's when you download them that the specific iTunes client you have downloaded (and given your password to) slaps the DRM onto the thing - on the client side.

I'm not sure it's still this way - I remember a while back someone making a program to buy iTunes music on Linux and found that he had purchased unprotected music.

I imagine it's a logistical issue. Rather than trying to keep track of which songs need DRM and which ones don't, and rather than confuse the customer (most of whom don't have any idea their music is DRM'ed to begin with) who might be flummoxed as to why he can share one album and not the other, and rather than risk making a mistake and putting the wrong music up without DRM, it's significantly easier to just put it on everything. DRM as a concept is not so keen, but at least Apple's is the least restrictive out there.

Still, an interesting statement from Steve. Maybe it'll pave the way for a new approach to the stalemate.

Do you hear that? Its the sounds of iTunes sales going down exponentially!

Don't see why iTunes sales would go down honestly. I think they'd go up. I'd be more likely to buy online when I know it's a safe long-term investment. I have an iPod and buy CD's or use eMusic. My collection of 10,000 songs is overwhelmingly DRM free (with maybe 100 or less iTunes songs). Oh, and it's not pirated either. I purchase used CD's on ebay or Amazon, and use legal download services. I've bought a couple of hard to find things on iTunes, but I overwhelmingly use CD's as my source.

Not sure why everybody thinks the iPod only plays DRM music - it doesn't - it plays all MP3's. Sure it doesn't play DRM WMA files - but neither does the Zune from what I hear - that has a whole new DRM approach.

It's about money and Apple does wants more. I don't use iTunes because of the fraking DRM. eMusic, DRM free or purchase of the CD is the only way to go since I don't want to be married to Apple and or enjoy my music from multiple devices, iPod, TiVo, etc.

NO DRM will mean more sales on iTunes :)

2
-- C --

what?! steve jobs says that now, but he's been strongly refusing to let any other company support files purchased from the itunes music store???

surely if he believes this, he'll say that anyone who buys tracks from the itunes music store can use them with any player - then give all the other companies - Cowon, iRiver, Creative... the right code to let it sync etc.

that way, apple would still get its money from selling the tracks, and we wouldn't have all the issues we have now.

even better, let's just change the music stores to sell straight MP3 files with no DRM at all, at a decent bit rate! (yes i know, dreams are free..)

My entire collection (which I just happen to finish ripping last week after procastinating many years) is all done in WMA DRM free, so I can move it anywhere I want or transcode to anything I want in the future.

Wouldn't have been my first choice for an archival format. At least you have the original CDs to fall back on.    ; )

surely if he believes this, he'll say that anyone who buys tracks from the itunes music store can use them with any player - then give all the other companies - Cowon, iRiver, Creative... the right code to let it sync etc.

[...]

even better, let's just change the music stores to sell straight MP3 files with no DRM at all, at a decent bit rate! (yes i know, dreams are free..)

Are you kidding me? Kudos to Apple? They are all about closed architecture & control. Look at the mac, look at the ipod and their itunes store. Microsoft has included DRM to please the studios, but at least I can play my music on most mp3 players (although not the ipod obviously).

Yeah, Microsoft doesn't have a 'closed architecture & control.'

You, Sir, are an idiot.

LaughingMan, Steve Jobs is not an "electronic designer." He got good marketing skills, but an EE.

I thought all music is free....

my tune:

la la la boom shaka shaka be wop dee doobie fa la la boom tee a doobie doobie dip do©.....

now that it's on the net I'll sue anyone if I hear them humming it......anywhere......anytime...ya'hear!

Why don't people read the article in its entirety before posting? I can't believe how some people who have the ADD-riddled attention span of a gnat with a lobotomy and who can't focus on something for than one paragraph feel obligated to post their unenlightened opinion here (as fact, no less).

I completely disagree with Steve about the math on trapping people. Those who feel trapped (I am, but willingly so) feel that way because we have spent WAY more than $22 on the iTunes store. His logic spreads out the entrapment equally among all iPod customers which is a logical flaw, IMHO. There are many iPod owners who have never bought a song on ITMS and many who have bought tons.

That being said, to those of you "anti-DRM at all cost" peace child free spirits who just last week tried to put Apple in the same camp as Microsoft as DRM loving money mongers in the last ITMS debate here: Apologize. Publically. Now.

I think Steve is encouraging us consumers to write to the record companies if we want change. I'm up for it. You?

I can't imagine why Steve Jobs would want no DRM. Everyone knows its in Apple's best interest to keep people locked to their system and if they can keep people staying with Apple then they win. Apple wants to sell players and the best way to sell new players is to make sure tunes bought from their store can only be played by their players. If you have the majority of mp3 players and best selling digital distribution platform for music why would you want people to be able to buy tunes and use them on another player, especially when Apple's goal is to sell more players since they make more money on it.

This sounds like what Gates said in a similar account only a few months ago.

Oh Snap! Apple is going for the kill. There can be only 1....iPod that it.

Reminds me of Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Back then I remember having the same two thoughts: "No WAY that's gonna happen" and "Wouldn't it be cool if that happened?"

Steve Jobs is my hero. The record industry has been contemplating going DRM-free for a while, and Jobs is just the man to help push them over the edge. Yay for consumers, Apple, and the biz in general. Say what you want about Jobs' agenda in writing it ... I think it's awesome.

Maybe if it was DRM free, people would *consider* buying it instead of pirating it...

For the record, Bill Gates has already expressed his anti-DRM sentiments.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-fut...

But he is a pragmatist and formostly, a business man. What the RIAA and MPAA dictate is what he has to follow (more precisely, the money).

Steve Jobs is no different, nor is he any better.

Steve Jobs has only spoken out aginst DRM due to the recent and upcoming rulings against iPod/iTunes in Finland, the Netherlands and soon, France and Germany. Europe doesn't play by the same set of Looney Tune rules as the U.S. In fact, that's precisely the reason he's deigned to say anything at all, though he doesn't want it to be readily apparent. It's only in the very last paragraph on Apple's Web site that you see only the tiniest mention of his little problems in Europe. It was put there by design. Most people won't bother reading that far, but they are still able to come away with that grand, "Steve Jobs just farted a boquet" religious epiphany.

The dominoes are about to fall against the iPod/iTunes hegemony and Steve Jobs is simply saying what he must. As long as the money continues to roll in, he couldn't care less about DRM or no DRM.

So, according to the wishes expressed on Gizmodo regarding this DRM crap, we now have two powerful men who might be able to do something about it.

The ultimate power is in the hands of the consumer -- just stop buying DRM crap.

As it has been eluded to and not directly stated, Steve Jobs suplicated the RIAA gods and included a DRM system that was 1) legitimate (keys sent back to the store to verify) 2) closed (so others cannot cannibalize it and crack the decryption as quickly) 3) for ownership (you can keep copies with out subscription and unlock DRM by burning an audio CD of the files) and 4) standardized in price (so that artists cannot create a $26 CD)

To complain about Jobs doing this is ironic because the lawyers surely had control of the details and compromise in number of iPods, cd's burned/playlist, computers, and now shared LAN connections per day (which changed when the new contract was assumed). Or complain because your player does not have the opportunity to play the music, previously Samsung players could straight out of the box but the RIAA was not so fond of these USB MP3 players with easy to hack systems containing the key to the system. Additionally, Indi record labels on iTunes are required to include DRM becuase... the RIAA will have legal rights to leave their contract if anyone can sell without it (see Lawyers again). Maybe identifying this as an Apple thing is even less acceptable when you look at people paying monthly for unlimited music which in most cases cannot be burned to CD and is lost when you stop subscribing. I feel like that is worse and should be addressed as well.

My one low blow to the whole of the conversation is on the ZUNE, it's tragic DRM and the fact that Microsoft sold out worse than Apple and even killed FairPlay which was tolerable. Apple Closed? Zune Closed?

Be smart and look at the way the world works in this type of situation rather than how you want to take sides for one guy or another. DRM is shit, companies are forming to take it down (DoubleTwist), and Apple is trying to place an additional pressure on what is fair. Artists provide a service which people find overvalued. Perhaps this is just one more step to show that.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/11/27/itunes.code.ap...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/200...

Europe doesn't play by the same set of Looney Tune rules as the U.S.

As Jobs said, get the European-controlled 2 1/2 of the big 4 record labels to drop DRM and you'll have music that plays anywhere. Why do the simple things have to be so difficult?

"No, they just want to force a US company to capitulate to their Looney Tune ideas on "interoperable" DRM."

Fair enough -- but let's not forget the fact that Microsoft's "Plays For Sure" DRM is "interoperable" DRM.

So the problem is...?

Personally, I've never purchased anything crippled by DRM and never will. People who buy DRMed crap are the reason it works as a business model. If consumers realized this we wouldn't need Steve Jobs to pretend he's some sort of hero with his meaningless sermons. The iTunes store could actually be like emusic.com, free of DRM and actually selling more music than it does currently.

The real Looney Tunes are all of those DRM consumers who are feeding Big Music's greed.

Just say "No!" to DRM in the same way any sane person says "No" to AOL.

I agree digital rights need a change, I know that people can pirate or get music illegally easily. The music may be slightly altered though, but people are going to keep doing this, there a re a few changes that need to be made, but i'm ok, because I use subscriptions on my Zune