Warner Rejects Jobs' DRM Position

massivefoot writes "Warner Music has rejected the suggestion from Steve Jobs that DRM should be removed from music downloads. In an open letter this week, Jobs said that removing the software would also allow greater usability for customers, as any online music store would be able to sell songs that would work on all players. Warner Music, the world's fourth largest record company, seems far from convinced. "

Strong Argument

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

With a strong arugment like that, how can Jobs respond?

Seriously, that's all the linked article quotes him as saying. Next up we'll discuss what President Bush meant when he said "The Iraq situation is"

The RIAA's response

Here's an MSNBC article [msn.com] with just a few more details. It has the RIAA's response:

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs challenged major record labels to strip copying restrictions from music sold online, but their trade group fired back Wednesday, suggesting the company should open up its anti-piracy technology to rivals instead.

Doing so, argued Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, would eliminate technology hurdles that prevent music fans from buying songs at Apple's iTunes Music Store and playing them on devices other than the iPod.

"We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen," Bainwol said in a statement.

Re:The RIAA's response

Of course, MSNBC is just quoting the AP wire [ap.org] (you have to look at the copyright at the bottom to see this).

But even if Jobs is just doing this to get the EU off his back, you have to admit, this has made DRM a front-page issue. That's diametrically opposed to the approach Microsoft (with Vista) or the RIAA would prefer. They want to pull a fast one and sneak DRM into every part of Joe Sixpack's life without him even knowing it (until he gets his first C&D letter).

So whatever Jobs' motives, I think this is a good thing. Most of the articles I've read on the subject agree that DRM is a bad thing. The "public" is getting ready to kick out the RIAA, and I've got my front-row seat.

"We can't," "They can..."

Well, therein lies the crux of the problem. Apple says it's not practical (or even possible) to adequately DRM music and license the technology to others, because that necessarily means sharing "secrets," and the more people that you share the secret with, the harder it is to keep the secret. That makes sense to me.

The music industry and its players are saying, in essence, "You're a smart company, figure out a way to share the secret with others, and yet still keep the secret." That doesn't make sense to me. Witness what's happened to CSS. When the secret was let out, it was impossible to retroactively say, "Okay, everyone that was using that secret, start using this one instead..."

The thing that really chaps my hide is that let's say that Apple says, "Okay, let's share the secret," and lo and behold, the secret gets out and Apple's DRM is irrevocably cracked open. Who here thinks that the RIAA and the major industry players will say, "Well, darn, I guess that's the risk we ran by telling Apple to do something they warned us was impractical."

Yeah, I don't either.

Re:"We can't," "They can..."

This line of argument is fairly common (even DVD Jon is spouting it), but I hope it goes away soon. Why? Consumers should be doing everything to promote the end of DRM, not try to come up with rationalizations for why a workable, universal DRM scheme might be devised. Jobs has publicly committed Apple to selling DRM-free music if the labels will agree. EMI, at least, seems somewhat open to the idea. eMusic is doing quite well selling DRM-free music. Momentum seems to be building, despite Bronfman's idiocy.

The implication of the argument that Apple could build a universal DRM scheme is that it *should*. Instead, consumers ought to capitalize on Jobs' statement and pile the pressure on. Encourage Apple to sell DRM-free music, now, from those labels that permit it. Buy DRM-free music whenever possible from those download services that offer it. Better yet, refuse to buy any music from Warner, Sony, or any other company that refuses to sell you DRM-free music.

More directly to your point, I am not sure that Microsoft has really "managed it." Reports are that trying to maintain the system has been cumbersome. When things don't work, who is to blame? The device manufacturer? The music service? Microsoft? The fact that the Zune has its own DRM is telling. Control over all pieces of the system solves a lot of problems.

PlaysForSure, moreover, was created when Microsoft was not in the business of manufacturing its own player. It could be a neutral party in working with device manufacturers to make players that met the specifications to be certified PlaysForSure by Microsoft. It seems highly problematic, on the other hand, to force the number one manufacturer of mp3 players to coordinate with its competitors concerning some aspects of how these players are designed and what features their operating systems must have to make the DRM work.

The incentives are always there to make things not work quite so well for competitors. For example, Microsoft's control over Windows gives it a competitive advantage over other companies that try to sell Windows applications. Competitors products "break" mysteriously. Competitors don't have access to hidden hooks into the operating system. Would an Apple-organized DRM system really work all that well for competitors and consumers in the end? I doubt it. If there is to be a universal DRM scheme, a neutral body should design it and maintain it.

With DRM-free music, it doesn't matter. As Jobs said, it the clearly the best solution for consumers.

Re:Deaf ears

So, Jobs says "it's no technologically possible", their response is "we're sure they can do it".

Jobs said "it's not technologically possible" with qualifiers. Jobs' point is that DRM itself is "not technologically possible", that there's always going to be a way and someone will find it. Licensing Fairplay is "not technologically possible" because they can't "protect the protection" to the limits stipulated in their existing contracts if they license it.

The art of negotiation. Get the opponent to demand you give them what you want to give them. By advocating for removing DRM, the record companies will now demand Jobs open Fairplay DRM to others. Jobs will accomodate their demands by rewriting the contracts to reduce his responsibility for problems.

Now if Steve had started by asking to rewrite the contracts, the record company would have responded by demanding a share of all iPod sales, higher per song prices, etc. Now he has them demanding they rewrite the contracts so he CAN license Fairplay.

Shocking!

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, at this response. Don't these companies work logically, with policies dictated by common sense rather than a dogmatic fear of trying new things? Particularly companies like Warner, who as we all know prides itself on being at the cutting edge of business, striving always to find new ways to make music affordable and available to all- .. wait, what?

they're asking the wrong people

In an open letter this week, Jobs said that removing the software would also allow greater usability for customers, as any online music store would be able to sell songs that would work on all players. Warner Music, the world's fourth largest record company, seems far from convinced.

And what, if anything, would music labels know about customer usability and convenience?

Um, okay.

TFA isn't exactly rife with detail, is it?

One Last Blow

It's somewhat understandable that the labels see Apple as a competitor now after they tried and failed to exert price control. But they're going to die clutching a bunch of soggy back catalogs once someone creates a new haven for artists.

Suggestion

Now that the Apple / Apple court case is sorted out, why doesn't Apple Inc. just become a record label?

Of Course

It's the false fear that if DRM doesn't exist their income will plummet to 0, which isn't the case. Peopel that want music for free have been and still are getting it for free. Removing DRM may convert those people that get it for free BECAUSE of DRM to actually pay for music they can use anywhere.

One of the reasons why I used allofmp3.com for my music was becuase it was in a format I could use anywhere and that wasn't restricted by DRM.

And it's a problem when your record company is trying to cling to a failing business model. The gloriousness of CD's back int he 90s was that reguardless of the brand of player, location of it, and the age I could play my CD's on it. It makes no sense to restrict music under the false veil of "protection".

Logic eh?

"without logic and merit".

This from an industry that thinks it's logical to/that:

* Get a share of the profit from iPod sales.
* Adjusting for inflation CD should cost around $30! Why can everyone see what a great bargain they are!
* If it's on your computer and you didn't legally download it, you must of pirated it!
* The quality of music has nothing to do with lower CD sales.

I know they don't read this but...

STOP treating your customers as thieves and maybe they will buy your product more often.
STOP dishing out crap, your customers will buy quality music.
DRM does not stop pirates any more then closed window will stop thieves if you leave the door open.

This meme irritates me.

* The quality of music has nothing to do with lower CD sales.

I'm sorry, but this is the same brand of BS as the old saw 'things were sooooo much better in my day, and everything since is crap' in every area of every art-form/discipline/job area/whatever since time began. Music doesn't get better or worse; it changes. Due to Sturgeon's Law, 99% of it will be crap, just as 99% of music when you were growing up was crap. Since we are a more media inundated society, the sheer quantities are higher, but proportionately it is the same.

Familiarity with certain styles will make a person more tolerant of mediocre talent in particular genres or styles, but not tolerant of mediocrity in others. To a person who listens to Rock, they might enjoy John Q. Crappy's rock band but can't stand the local sucky hip-hop artist. It doesn't mean that rock music is better. The same goes for generational changes with music, only you have to deal with the additional power of nostalgia.

And, it should be noted that CD sales of Beethoven, Stravinsky, et al. are dropping just as precipitously as modern pop artists, so I would submit that even the 'appearance' of diminshing quality is not a significant causal factor.

The culprit is a simple cultural acclimation to a technology that the industry simply hasn't taken advantage of. And they will probably die for it. Are you crying? I'm not.

Open Letter?

...Open Letter? Does anyone have a link to this letter cause the article doesn't link to one...

In related news...

... Steve Ballmer rejects suggestion to release Vista under GPL.

Who would have thought?

Warner are without logic and merit

Here is the complete list of Warner's songs that are currently unavailable for "unofficial" download thanks to DRM:

...

...

...

Those record execs must know what they're doing though. I'm sure they have a perfectly logical reason for selling the genuine customer a worse product in order to not prevent something.

Expected...

Well who expected they will accept it? Me not. But atleast he tried :)

In related news, Warners agrees deal with last.fm

Warner Music Group and Last.fm Strike Wide-Ranging Content Agreement

02/06/07

First Major Music Content Agreement for Leading Online Social Music Network

Warner Music Group Corp. (NYSE: WMG) and Last.fm, the social music networking site, today announced a broad partnership to offer WMG's renowned music catalog available over multiple services offered by Last.fm in the U.S. and Europe. This announcement marks Last.fm's first content agreement with a major media company and underscores WMG's commitment to offering consumers unique ways to experience its artists' music.

With more than 15 million active users per month currently, Last.fm is a service that analyzes what its users listen to and then presents them with an array of personal recommendations based upon their tastes including custom radio streams, music charts, users with similar tastes, and more.

As part of the partnership, Last.fms music fans will have access to WMG's catalog through Last.fm's free, advertising-supported radio streaming service and its soon-to-be released premium, subscription-based interactive radio. Through a phased rollout, U.S. music fans will have first access to these services with the European markets following suit in the coming weeks. Fans will be able to discover new music from the WMG catalog with Last.fms intelligent radio and music recommendations and share their radio channels with other subscribers.

In making the announcement, Alex Zubillaga, Executive Vice President, Digital Strategy and Business Development, WMG said, This agreement reflects WMGs dedication to fostering the growth of community-driven music discovery services. We want to enable fans to experience exciting ways to uncover new Warner Music artists, and to enjoy innovative approaches to customizing their digital music experience.

Martin Stiksel, cofounder and chief content officer of Last.fm said, We are very excited to have reached this agreement with WMG. This constitutes a major development for our social music network. Our innovative approach to music discovery and online radio now gives our users access to some of the greatest music ever recorded.

About Last.fm

Founded in 2002 in London, Last.fm is the online, social music revolution that connects people with music and artists with listeners. By joining the Last.fm community, music fans can choose to share their music preferences by linking their media player (e.g. iTunes) to the Last.fm database. This database is populated continually with over 500 million monthly track submissions from Last.fm music fans. As a result, Last.fm can intelligently recommend songs, artists, local concerts and even other members based on their musical tastes. Learn more about Last.fm at www.last.fm.

About Warner Music Group

Warner Music Group became the only stand-alone music company to be publicly traded in the United States in May 2005. With its broad roster of new stars and legendary artists, Warner Music Group is home to a collection of the best-known record labels in the music industry including Asylum, Atlantic, Bad Boy, Cordless, East West, Elektra, Lava, Maverick, Nonesuch, Perfect Game, Reprise, Rhino, Roadrunner, Rykodisc, Sire, Warner Bros. and Word. Warner Music International, a leading company in national and international repertoire, operates through numerous international affiliates and licensees in more than 50 countries. Warner Music Group also includes Warner/Chappell Music, one of the world's leading music publishers.

Source: Warner Music Group [wmg.com]

Bronfman

Bronfman is the grandson of a bootlegger, but unlike Kennedy, he shows exactly zero sense in his fat head. An elitist gangster who is now on his way to screwing up his second corporation. Having accepted Gates's bribe on the Zune -- wow, he must have made $100,000 on that deal by now -- he now speaks with a golden tongue. What a maroon.

I think all you eager Apple-haters should notice one thing: what's the RIAA's opinion on all this? Why, they adopt the "Norwegian Consumer Orgy-Borgys" position on all this: that Apple should bite the bullet and share the profitable portion of its business with all the losers. The RIAA. Do you get it now, morons? In response, Jobs offers a truly free market, and the labels, most of them, run in fear. (Though I heard a rumor that EMI is actually considering it.)

What we need now is a consumer movement. You want to start a boycott of all online music until they drop DRM? I'll sign that petition. Will I angrily denounce Apple for not sharing its DRM? Not on your life. That's the RIAA's position, chowderheads.

So we're keeping track, right?

EMI (potentially) gets our business.

Warner does not.

Favorite artists who are on Warner labels get letters saying that their new albums will not be purchased as long as they continue to do business with Warner, along with a full explanation why.

Record companies don't care about their customers, but bands care about their fans. If we can get artists to jump ship to the companies that "get it" (or better yet, take the plunge and try self-distribution), and get the message out to new bands not to sign with the companies that don't get it, that will send make the message louder and more clearly than anything else. The media companies are not really the "content creators," as much as they like to throw the term around. The message can't just be "adapt or die;" it has to be "adapt or we (artists and fans alike) will kill you off."

Dog bites man!

Yeh, I know, this is news, but... at the same time... it's not news, you know what I mean? What else were we expecting them to say?

Time to take the DRM fight up one level

Love or Hate Apple most people here will have to agree that Steve Jobs essay makes a strong case as to why DRM will not work in the long term.

Thought it's no surprise that due to pressure in certain European countries Apple is re-evaluating their options, I still think this could potentially be a good thing, specially if consumers back up the 'sell DRM-free music' option. This might be as good a time as any. Who knows maybe this is the year that the DRM fight goes up one level.

A lot of the things that Jobs states in his essay are true. More devices with the same DRM scheme will be harder to update once the DRM scheme gets cracked. No matter what new DRM scheme is developed someone will crack it. He told the recording industry 'big four' this when he approached them about the iTunes Music Store, and it's true today as well.

Personally, I stopped buying iTunes music because I recognize that the DRM limits my options with it, and frankly I like choice. I do have an iPod and chances are any music I buy will go on it, and I probably upgrade to an iPod because it does what I need. Over 90% of the music on my iPod is DRM free. I do like to support artists I like and in fact I've bought a good amount of music from iTunes at one point or another not because I wanted DRM music, but I felt at least I had to support the artist in some way. In other cases, I've bought one song from iTunes and bought the CD from a store once i decided I liked that artist.

Steve Jobs also stated in his essay:

Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free.

So what it comes down to is us the consumers who "bitch and moan" about DRM, to take this opportunity while it's still fresh in the RIAA's mind, and write constructive, honest, and polite letters to them letting them know what we think.

Because ultimately DRM-free music is not Apple's concern, it's ours.

Thank God

The best thing that can happen for the music world (and world overall), is to have the labels (and major publishers) lose control of the market. Right now, it is a monopoly. If the labels/publishers try to keep their work in CD format/drm music, then they will slowly lose control of the musicians. I think that even now, the musicians are realizing that they make MUCH more money AND have the control by using the internet, none-drm downloads combined with regular shows.

Offhand, I disappointed to EMI's move. The longer that the major labels try to control everything, the quicker will be conversion to having ppl control their own future.

You know, this is really funny

A few months back the Dutch organization of the music industry (BREIN) claimed that it wasn't the music industry that forced DRM on their tunes, but instead it was Microsoft and Apple who forced them to do it. They didn't want it, but they couldn't have it any other way. (Right in the face of the news that eMusic had just launched their European shops, but meh, who's counting...)

Right here, we have proof that it's the other way around. Jobs essentially offered the big music companies an opportunity to show that it was indeed Apple who forced DRM into iTunes, and clearly it shows that it's in fact the music industry that wants (and think they need) DRM.

Will this backfire for Jobs?

This clearly will gain Jobs friends in the public domain, everyone dislikes the strict DRM apple has to some extent. But music companies have long memories, and Steve Jobs has effectively bought some publicity and goodwill from the public by making the music companies look like bad guys- This, they will not like. Long after the public applause has died these music companies will know plainly that Jobs bought credit at their cost.

New Format War

The New Format War isn't going to be about Media formats, but which DRM will prevail, that is IF Apple tries to license FairPlay to other companies.

Re:PR Stunt?

Steve Jobs knew no major music label would accept a proposition such as that.

You mean like EMI [slashdot.org]?

Re:With no due respect to Warner

I want to know when they will strip the copyright off DVDs. Bye-bye, DRM... and any assurance that your music is genuine, uncorrupted, and that the MIBs won't come knocking on your door someday. Eh, damn 'em. I'm sick of DRMs myself!