If true, then
HERE’S STEVE JOBS’ ORIGINAL ESSAY.
EXCERPT:
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. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
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. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
I just bought a new computer, and had to move my itunes library, then register my computer which used up another one of my possible systems under the DRM. My new computer has the Windows Media Center which is far superior to itunes in capabilities, but I cannot use my music in both interfaces either on the same computer due to Apples “fairplay”. DRM is ridiculous and I certainly support it being destroyed.
I was dismayed a couple months ago when I purchased an audio book through iTunes and was then unable to transfer it to my Rio Carbon mp3 player. I ended up paying another $25 for tunebite just so I could listen to it.
Tunebite works by playing the file at high speed through iTunes and somehow uses your sound card to convert it to mp3 while it’s being played. I imagine if you have any other sounds going on while it’s being recorded, such as clicks or new email notifications, they’d probably be recorded as well.
I wanted to try audible.com, but I think I’m going to run into the same situation where it doesn’t work on my mp3 player unless I use some sort of conversion tool. Their loss and mine.
Not sure what happened to that link above. Think I forgot the http:// on the link. It should be http://www.tunebite.com.
DRM is one of the major reasons why I buy CDs rather than buying music online. I never pirate music, but I have a right to make copies as I see fit for my own use, and DRM makes it more annoying and difficult for me to exercise that right. For example, I make copies of some of my CDs to keep in the car, so that I don’t have to risk the original discs being stolen. And I make mp3 copies of my CDs for my own personal use in listening on my computer. DRM is a headache and I refuse to pay for any music that uses it.
I’m not an iTunes expert at all, but can’t you just burn a CD and then rip it back to Media Player? It would cost $.25, not $25, plus you’d have something you can play elsewhere. Does this solution not work for audio books?
Hey John E and for that matter anyone else who is fed up with itunes DRM but dont want to pay $25 to get rid of it. Get to using QTFairUse. Its freeware that will intercept the file being played as its being de-encrypted to take out that annoying DRM stuff and give you a nice clean drm-free backup
You can download it at http://www.hymn-project.org/
One thing though, is this practice morally suspect?
“Does this solution not work for audio books?”
Nope…they’re too big. The book won’t fit on a CD. I did the same exact thing John describes above for the same reason. The results were not spectacular, to say the least.
Thanks for the tip Chris. I did check into the hymn-project back when I was googling for a solution, but I don’t think they supported iTunes 7.0.2 at the time and there seemed to be a lot of comments on their forums that it was broken and didn’t work.
It looks like they might support it now. If so, I just have to be careful not to upgrade iTunes until the conversion software supports it. It’s a cat-and-mouse game.
The only thing I see as being morally suspect is for Apple to sell music and audiobooks without being upfront that I can only listen to it through iTunes or with an iPod. Maybe I overlooked it, but I could not find such a disclaimer when I purchased my audiobook. And I was even looking for it too since I had a suspicion. I can’t see how it would be morally suspect for me to listen to an audiobook that I purchased. If I made copies and distributed it to all my friends, that’s a different story.
By the way, my purchase was The Great Divorce, and The Abolition of Man, both by C.S. Lewis. Both were in .m4b format.
Part1 .m4b 2:31:26, 35mb, tunebite converted to 177mb mp3
Part2 .m4b 1:53:15, 26mb, tunebite converted to 132mb mp3
The sound quality was great. I haven’t played around much with tunebite. There may be settings that would create a lower quality but lower size mp3.
Someone asked about Audible–it does support multiple mp3 players. I don’t know about the particular one listed, but their list of supported players is very long.
The idea of typing in a password to listen to your music is patently ridiculous. I just got an iPod (finally!) to go with my Mac, but I would never buy DRM-ed music from the iTunes store. Buy the CD, and then you can rip to your heart’s content, using whatever settings and format you choose, now and again in the future if need be.
Here’s an interesting article about how evil DRM is and how it has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with taking away your fair use rights:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html
Being totally (well, almost) clueless when it comes to MP3 stuff, I just got the cheapest one I could find and get my 15 yo to help me put my own CDs on it.
By the way (or should I type, btw), is it morally suspect to load library CDs onto my player?
an interesting response from reps of the music industry:
Music Industry Group Fires Back at Apple
Nancy,
As long as you purchased the cd legally, you are free to rip and load to any device you have or want to use. But those rented or borrowed, I wouldn’t.
Rip in this respect is the term used when a cd is uploaded on the computer.
Well, I don’t know about audiobooks bought through the iTunes store, but I buy them through Audible.com all the time and burn them to cds through iTunes. You just make a playlist containing the audiobook, right click it and choose Burn to CD. ITunes divides the book into 79-minute segments, burns the first one and pops the disc out so you can put in a new one.
Jobs’ cry against DRM is a sham
Money quote: DRM is about putting up walls against competition so you can use laws like the DMCA and other evils to stifle fair market competition. Apple has a dominant market position and is using DRM to keep everyone else out.
I never pirate music, but I have a right to make copies as I see fit for my own use
Of course you do realise that the *only* persons who have the right to make copies of any copyrighted work are the copyright holders themselves and those that they specifically licence to make copies. Beyond that, any copying you do is illegal, including ripping data off of a CD for use on an mp3 player. What we need here, I think, is more anti-copying measures, and not less.
Of course you do realise that the *only* persons who have the right to make copies of any copyrighted work are the copyright holders themselves and those that they specifically licence to make copies. Beyond that, any copying you do is illegal, including ripping data off of a CD for use on an mp3 player. What we need here, I think, is more anti-copying measures, and not less.
This is so completely wrong. See “fair use” rights.
Also, the circumstances in which copying is legal can differ from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One should be aware of this fact when making sweeping statements.
BillyHW, OK..you are right about sweeping statements. WHER I AM RIGHT NOW, if I have bought the cd legally, I can rip it, put it on MP3 etc.
Ultimately, the industry will have to realize that $14 for a CD is far too much. They can either foist their will onto the public, or they can give the public what they want, and judging by the success of AllOfMP3.com, they want lots of music and to pay less for it. Like digital photos… people take a lot more of them because they are cheaper. Sell the tunes for 10-25¢ and they easily will make up for it in volume. There’s room for a lot of music on an iPod.
Recently I had a glitch on my iPod that left all my downloaded music unplayable and I could only play music from CDs that I had ripped.
This really angered me. I had spent hundreds of dollars downloading songs and some stupid bug suddenly convinces my iPod that I did not have the right to listen to what I bought.
I had a similar experience when I bought a DVD through the self-checkout at WalMart the other day. The DVD caused the alarm to trip as I exited the store. An associate had to go through my entire purchase inside the store while I just stood there wondering why I go to a store that treats a regular paying customer like a thief.
I say nuts to both. I will pay extra to get the CD to avoid the dreaded DRM and avoid WalMart and try to shop at as many mom-and-pop stores as I can.
I have had it with these companies that have the audacity to treat their paying customers like low life. If that is their idea of customer service, let them find their customers somewhere else.
BillyHW:
My (albeit imperfect) understanding of fair use in copyright is that one is allowed to reproduce excerpts from copyrighted works for the purposes of reviewing or analysing their contents.
Now, my knowledge of United States copyright law is limited. I am not an expert on the matter, nor have I had the time to pour over the pages and pages worth of text that comprise our copyright laws. Most of what I know about this subject comes from second-hand sources, which summaries the laws so that your average do-do (me) can understand them. However, I do not believe that fair use under copyright law covers the unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted works for one’s own use.
When you purchase a copyrighted work, any copyrighted work, you are buying one copy of it. You are not buying the rights to make as many copies as you want of it; you are acquiring a single copy of it. If I purchase a novel, I am entitled to have that one copy of the novel. I am not entitled to scan all of the pages of that novel onto my computer and start printing out as many copies as I see fit, whether for my own use or the use of others. This same principle applies to CDs, music, software, et cetera.
It should be noted that when school teachers make photocopies of textbook pages to distribute to their entire classes, they are breaking the law. Taping television shows with a VCR is also illegal. No one ever said being on the right side of the law is convenient 😉
Also, I would, if I were you, avoid criticising people about making sweeping statements, when you make sweeping statements yourself. I was “completely wrong”? Surely, even if fair use did allow one to make copies of a work that you had purchased for your own private use, what I said about copyright holders being the only ones allowed to make copies of copyrighted works would still be a valid rule; just a rule with some exceptions. So I think I would be partially wrong in that case, and not “completely wrong”, as you have so harshly put it 🙂
It should be noted that when school teachers make photocopies of textbook pages to distribute to their entire classes, they are breaking the law.
I will like to answer you on this one. This is not entirely correct. It all depends. For example, If I purchased the book/materials FOR A CLASSROOM (as MOST charge you extra FOR you making thos extra copies) I am OK. But if I get it off of “cheap beep.com” for personal use…then I am crossing the line with what I can and can not copy.
Also, speaking from a Catholic view, Our diocese should have, I forget the name, but paid for us (those in parishes) the right to use videos in their classrooms. Otherwise, if this hasn’t been “paid” you are right, we should not use it in that setting.
Another thing, I have copied material for my classes, catechism classes, and all I had to do was call (eg Our Sunday Visitor)and get an OK to copy the material. What they don’t want you to do is to copy the WHOLE book, or whatever it is. They ask you to purchase it then. Also, the same applies with English classes and making copies of poems for the children, etc.
So you can not say that those teachers are breaking the law because they may have permission to do so.
I like the way Steve Jobs deals with the music industry, also in regard to pricing
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
Brian Day:
Apple has a dominant position in music players, and as Jobs correctly points out, every iPod ever made will play unencrypted MP3s. The iPod had a dominant market position long before the iTunes Music Store introduced Fairplay DRM. To this day, Apple earns far more revenue from iPod sales than from iTMS music sales, and has a much higher profit margin on iPod sales than on iTMS sales. (Most of the revenue from iTMS goes straight to the big four media companies.)
It is in no way true, as the author of that bitter and prejudicial opinion piece says, that ‘DRM made the iPod’. For instance, I have a 60-GB fifth-generation iPod. It contains something over 4000 songs (plus photos, video, and a backup of all my working files), exactly one of which is encrypted with Apple’s DRM. I downloaded that one song because iTMS was offering it as a free promotion one day. I listened to it once, didn’t like it, never got round to deleting it.
So far, iTMS has sold about two billion encrypted songs. Apple has sold about 100 million iPods. I assure you, there are a lot more than 20 songs on the average iPod. I’m sure you can do the math.
A word to the wise: Don’t even bother looking for the ‘money quote’ in an article that contains phrases like ‘DRM infection’ and ‘laughable change of heart’. Charlie Demerjian is an anti-DRM ideologue, and instead of blaming the recording industry for refusing to license online music sales without DRM, he would rather shoot the messenger. That’s fine; he’s entitled to be as illogical and bigoted as he wishes. But that doesn’t make him a reliable source of information. The Inquirer bills itself as a source of ‘news, reviews, facts, and friction’. The article you cited falls squarely in the last category.