Yahoo Music Chief Comes Out Against DRM 304
waired writes "It seem that a trend has begun in the music industry after Steve Jobs essay. Now a senior Yahoo chief has spoken out in favor of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' call for major labels to abandon digital rights technology (DRM). It points out that consumers are getting confused and that the Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time"."
Monkey see, Monkey Do (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Monkey see, Monkey Do (Score:5, Funny)
Next up: Steve Ballmer says he's going to "fucking kill" DRM.
As predicted (Score:5, Insightful)
These people are not dumb, and slashdotter's aren't the only ones that understand the folly of DRM.
Re:As predicted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I'm not arguing with you, just bitching in general.
Re:As predicted (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as with many things, Apple isn't the first with this, but they create a big impact to get the ball rolling: mouse, GUI, ethernet, CD-ROM, USB, MP3 player, online media store...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why didn't everyday people speak out? (Score:4, Insightful)
The very idea of "managed rights" flies in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and what it truly means to be American. It's difficult to say for sure why most people didn't take a far more active stance against DRM. The first reason is no doubt because it'd take effort to do effectively, and most Americans would rather watch the NFL or American Idol instead. The second reason is perhaps because they just don't give a fuck, and that's quite dangerous a stance to be taking.
Regardless, the American people as a whole should have stood up and said NO! to any sort of "rights management" system. DRM is just plain un-American.
How the heck is parent insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think those things mean what you think they mean. "Digital rights management" != inaliable rights as laid down by the U.S. Constitution and liberal political theory. Lets be clear here, the two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. Digital rights management is essentially a technology mechanism to enforce (or hinder the breaking of) contract law. The only thing it flies in the face of is consumer convenience. DRM certainly annoys me as a consumer, but I think things like no-knock warrants, the drug war, idefinite detention without trial, and asset forfeiture laws fly in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers just a tad more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But there's no legally-binding contract between buyer and seller when I buy an HD DVD and the DRM is enforced by law through the DMCA. In addition, DRM is a blatant violation of the intention of copyright, which was merely to support the creator before the material entered the public domain... material with effective DRM will _NEVER_ enter the public domain.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The confusion between those two branches of law creates an unnecessary amount of meaningless noise here on
The irony, of course, is that 'GPL violation' would be completely mea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a little like the US Constitution. If there were no one who would ever want to keep us from exercising our inalienable rights, the Constitution would
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not the case. A GPL violation is a copyright violation. The genius of the GPL is that it uses both license and copyright law to force developers to give up their usual rights under copyright law. If license law is suddenly struck down, no one can use GPL code because they no longer have a right to do so, because of copyright law. If copyright law is struck down, one does not need the GPL to legally
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright law gives a creator the right to license a work. License law gives the creator power to write a set of rules that say how other people are allowed to use the work.
Using the work in a way that isn't allowed by the license is first a violation of the license, and second a violation of the creator's rights as established by copyright law.
The two tend to get rolled together in conversation, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How the heck is parent insightful? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with much of your post, but this is incorrect. "Fair use" is a well-established legal principle, not just a Slashdot mantra. While not its primary goal, DRM does its best to contradict our established rights by preventing even fair use of legally purchased material.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two things worth noting: "fair use" is not part of the constitution -- in fact, the constitution doesn't say anything about how copyright law should be applied, it only says that copyright law can be applied. So the erosion of "fair use" does not fly in the face of the constitution, it possibly flies in the face of established copyright law.
Well, the fair use doctrine is law that enshrines particular interpretation of the constitution, but it is not necessary for DRM to be unconstitutional. The constitut
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of people are likely to think as far as "I like free music", or "they need to be paid", and that is it.
Re:Why didn't everyday people speak out? (Score:4, Insightful)
What really upsets me is DRMed hardware. DRMed media is bad enough, but I can choose not to purchase it. At the rate things are going, soon we'll only be able to purchase locked-down hardware that's both more expensive due to DRM and less flexible. A bought and paid for tangible device that restricts what I can do according to arbitrary rules devised by companies that treat their customers like thieves is unacceptable to me.
This American does speak out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans use a lot of non-free operating systems and software (which digital restrictions require), but if you take the time to teach them to value their freedom they'll listen and learn. On my radio program, I found it interesting to take a wide angle—people found it interesting to discuss how copyright and patent issues intersect with their everyday lives.
It's critical to not give up the freedom talk and not give into the people who would have you compromise your values in order to placate proprietors. There is a deep thirst for substantive talk and action about issues that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Steve Jobs... Now there is an important human being of god like status. He has lots and lots of money and he's successful, so when he talks.. people listen.
When Jill and Joe American, talk... no one thinks their of any importance because what have they a
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people outside the tech world don't care that much about DRM and don't even know what it is. They rip their music from CDs, and iTunes DRM is so liberal that they don't know music from the iTunes Store is protected. Honestly, DRM isn't as big a deal as people around here mak
Yahoo! did this last year. (Score:2, Informative)
jobs against drm? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:jobs against drm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is hypocritical! (Score:3, Insightful)
Read what you said:
"Pirates who want to breach the OSX EULA and run OSX on non-Apple hardware. That's the only real DRM contained within OSX to my knowledge (You can safely remove iTunes, and plenty of other apps as well). As much as we hate their decision, it is part of their license."
Well, if music has no DRM then it will have a license agreement as well. That means that it is up to the consumer to respect the EULA. So why can
Unture assertions and faulty comparisons. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just not true--at least not anymore. The price of any Apple Computer is completely in line with an equivalently equipped Dell, Gateway, etc. Sometimes, the price of the "PC" is even higher. True, Apple does not have a computer that competes with a $300-something dollar Dell price-wise; however, Dell's computers that do compete with Apple's computers feature wise are often more expensive than the Mac offering. Sometime ago, Apple sold hardware that could reasonably be called overpriced. Now it's just a troll to say so.
The rest of your argument is fallacious as well. Apple does not force consumers to buy a new Mac to run a new version of OS X. The most recent version of OS X runs just fine on Macs that are 5+ years old. Conversely, the RIAA want you to re-buy all of your music every 5-10 years when it becomes available in a different format. What Apple does is not even comparable.
That is completely idiotic. (Score:2)
Removing DRM and allowing free copying of the OS (as Sun has done with Solaris) is the best recipe to get rid of the Pirates.
The only thing Apple would need to do is to say that there is no support for people without proof of purchase.
Here's an alternative answer... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you live in a universe where there is only one widely known operating system, then you have an expectation that everything else will work the same way and zero tolerance for anything different. Switch operating systems suddenly and, after any initial "wow factor" the next response will always be frustration and disorientation.
Now, if you've just dropped $2000 for a new Mac, you have a pretty strong incentive (plus a dose of new-computer-smell intoxication) to get over that hump.
If, however, Joe User ha
Re:jobs against drm? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:jobs against drm? (Score:4, Informative)
It would be similar to the Zune where you can squirt some songs, but not others. Confusing.
Re:jobs against drm? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really see this. Put a big 'UNENCUMBERED' notice next to all the DRM-free songs. Start giving priority to DRM-free music on the front page of the store. Only recommend DRM-free music. Pretty soon, all of the other labels are going to want to re-negotiate their contracts to allow DRM-free distribution.
Microsoftian thinking (Score:2)
All that is way confusing for the user - remember that one of the reasons ITMS has been as popular as it has is that the rules are clear, and the same across everything you buy from the store. What you
Re: (Score:2)
Do the artists that have supposedly asked Apple to remove DRM from their tracks have any current legal standing to do so? (I.e., is their arrangement with CDbaby, which itself has the contract with Apple?)
Might one or more of the major label contracts currently in force with Apple require that all music sold on the same store have the same controls?
How much work would Apple have to do to begin providing differe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They already store unprotected files on the server that are accessible from certain clients [wikipedia.org]. I'm sure they probably thought of the eventuality th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here: http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com]
Re:jobs against drm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All you're really saying is, "I think someone else should suffer to support my ideals." Who cares that dumping DRM or pulling DRM'd music from the iTunes store would probably violate the contracts Apple has with the labels? Who cares that it would give the labels a free ticket to crucify Apple, not only for the immediate loss of revenue, but also to send a message to any other company that dares to try and defy them? Who cares that shutting down the iTunes store all of a
yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point; is Disney going to be DRM-free? I understand he's on the other side of the fence at that company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Jobs was serious about his anti-DRM stance, he would either allow DRM free music on the iTunes store or he would come out with a clear statement as to why he cant allow it
How many people need to repeat..... (Score:3, Insightful)
They will sell only on fully DRM crippled shops.
They are not stupid, they use their cartel power in order to ensure a product with a clear competitive advantage does not share any "shelf" space with their wares.
Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time"... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of that song... (Score:2, Insightful)
If Slashdot used DRM... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! I just upgraded to Slashdot Vasta "Bedroom Premium" edition and your post came out:
(The second one was a false positive for "Let it be")
Why didn't he just come out and say Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
And the RIAA won't listen to him EITHER. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) legislation/lawsuit (unlikely as they own the legislatures and have armies of lawyers)
2) have a massive clientele defection (unlikely because they're a monopoly like the telcos) or
3) have their talent pool stop making revenue (crappy quality music, and so on-- also highly unlikely).
Bottom line: he's sucking up to his clientele (us, supposedly) and Wall Street, especially Wall Street who wants to pound the crap out of them for other foollish moves. They should have demanded that Mark Cuban stay with them for a few years after they bought his Broadcast.Com.
It's all PR. Nothing to see here.
Re:And the RIAA won't listen to him EITHER. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't rule this one out.. Some talent is going inde. Some consumers are moving outside the Clear Chanel CD advertising route. Talent now gets exposure on youtube, Google Videos, etc. They put their products on CD Baby and emusic. You get higher quality (192Kbs VBR compared to 128Kbs fixed) with no DRM and lower prices. This trend is growing. Given time it will gain critical mass. It is legal and the RIAA and their team of lawyers are powerless to sotp it. They will have to adopt or die.
Arvil Lavine and Bare Naked Ladies have already moved. I think some of the newest TSO releases are now on inde labels. The RIAA can only screw the talent and consumers so much before they both seek an alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Revenues come from licensing (merchandise), concerts (lots of high-margin revenue), as well as the song marketing themselves. The lyrics and sheet music, coupled with just about everything associated with a 'brand' is revenue production. The RIAA isn't about to let a heavy p
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't going to be death-by-a-thousand-cuts that hemorrages the RIAA. They ha
How politic of him (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of this is just saying, "it's them, not us". Fine for geek politics, but it probably is not going to make a pig's fart of difference to the RIAA/MPAA cabal.
I want DRM to go away to, but it isn't going to happen through these feel-good speeches. It's going to happen through things like the recent EMI announcement (which frankly only applies to a chunk of their catalog that isn't selling anyway).
Re:How politic of him (Score:4, Insightful)
The day after Jobs' Blog Post, the Wall Street Journal had two front page stories above the crease about it. That introduced this issue to probably a hundred thousand people who weren't previously aware of it, and they're overwhelmingly the important, moneyed, influential movers and shakers who it's most important to make aware of it. I was visiting my mother the next weekend, and that WSJ was lying around, and she asked me what it was all about. It was the first she'd heard of any of it. She only had a rudimentary idea of what a Media Player is. I'd tried to tell her about DRM before, but she never listened. Now she knows.
Jobs' Blog Post may be the event that precipitates an interest in this issue that will eventually lead to change. The backroom deals are the conclusion of the change process, not the origin. You're right that won't happen in "the tech press," but for the first time I've seen, this story was just blown a mile outside the tech press.
Re: (Score:2)
SO you are completely wrong, it is
Re: (Score:2)
However... the only way (if ever) DRM is going to be dropped is if they associations are offered big piles of money among other things. Guess what, neither Apple nor Yahoo is g
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, who cares about those damned masses anyway? They're just the ones that spend the money on the products and make the financial world go around. Fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a deal to drop DRM is ever to be worked out, it will be through backroom deals, not in the tech press.
I disagree. If a deal to drop DRM is ever worked out it will be because the governments of the world stepped in and passed laws when they realized they could portray media companies as evil and greedy and get votes by mandating that DRM goes away.
I think we all know DRM doesn't work well and is a pain...
You're mistaken. DRM works very well and is a pain because the purpose of DRM is not to stop co
I don't get this "killing our friends" meme (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently nothing can satisfy you? Are you all just terminally apolitical? The enemy of the enemy is our friend. Back them the hell up.
Reminds me of an old saying (Score:5, Interesting)
So Microsoft's standard approach of writing software that confuses users and doesn't work very well is telling the public that this is what all DRM is like. We see this all the time, for example with viruses which are invariably reported as infecting "computers", not just "Microsoft computers". Similarly, the difficulty of learning to use the little beasts is a property of "computers", not of any particular brand.
It reminds me of the old saying: "Nobody is all bad. They can always serve as a bad example."
In this case, though, MS could well be doing us a service. By convincing the gullible public that "DRM is confusing and doesn't work very well", they are inadvertently helping in the fight against DRM everywhere. Even if someone will come up with DRM that works (for some value of "works"), it won't be used, because it won't run on Windows (and on non-MS systems, the crypto geeks will break it within hours of release). Most users will just accept that MS's DRM is what DRM is like, and will oppose its use anywhere as a result.
Of course, one could argue that a correct implementation of DRM is probably intractable. This is mostly because determining which "fair use" rules apply wherever the use might live is a seriously difficult AI problem. It can't actually be determined by a human-level intelligence, as demonstrated by the need to ask the courts rather than just reading the law books. So we need an AI that's much more intelligent than any team of human lawyers, and has deep understanding of all the "IP" laws of every jurisdiction in the world. Of multiple jurisdictions, actually, when Net transactions are considered. We won't likely see this level of AI in our lifetimes.
Discuss amongst yourselves
The obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
In a well duh moment, they figured out the installed base of equipment that can play MP3's is just about everyting. A MS or Apple format locks out all other format players. People don't buy incompatible formats. DRM in any format is incompatible with the majority of media players out there. Before you jump on the iTunes bandwagon... Do you have a DVD player? Do you use Linux? Do you have a MP3 player? Do you have a CD player that can play MP3 CD's in your car or as a portable CD player? iPods are everywhere, but not nearly as everywhere as MP3 players.
Selling MP3's is a much bigger market than selling something that will play on a Windows PC and Plays for Sure devices or just iTunes on Apple and PC platforms and iPods, or worse yet Zunes.
Re:The obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have devices that can't play wma. Well, one. Er, two. So yes, I would rather have mp3.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Enjoy your WMA. Just don't share it with anyone, nobody else prefers WMA. Everyone else thinks it sounds like shit, even at high bit rates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would. What happens if microsoft shifts gears and won't license WMA players anymore? Are there patent issues that could endanger free software players? There are too many unknowns to justify settling on a proprietary compression format.
Film at 11 (Score:2, Funny)
In other new, the Earth is round and the Sun is really far away.
Wow (Score:2)
Although it is particularly dumb in the case of music where in most cases unprotected CDs are available (because CD DRM has been such a trainwreck) so that anybody who owns the CD can produce an unprotected MP3, yet you're not allowed to buy one.
I bet Macrovision and its ilk a
Microsoft DRM (Score:3, Funny)
What does it take to please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last five years, not a week has gone by that there hasn't been an anti-DRM screed posted to this forum. Yet, when finally some industry leaders come out publicly against DRM, the mostly highly modded posts are those claiming it's nothing but a cynical ploy.
You know, I'm just as cynical as the next guy when it comes to proclamations from the CEOs of giant multinational corporations. But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a statement isn't some carefully crafted strategic move based on hidden motives. DRM is a big pain in the butt to online music distributers and equipment manufacturers. The leaders of these industries are now making public statements on this matter. That's a good thing. If you are reading more into it than that, you've got too much time on your hands.
Oh then I guess I won't feel too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Good news but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had stood firm against DRM in the first place, these online stores would have never happened.
Now that they've demonstrated that these stores work, and the public is transitioning to them, they can start making demands.
You have to get your foot in the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the 80s.
In fact, I don't remember seeing a Macrovisioned tape until the mid 90s. And, even then, it was trivial to remove.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good news but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can explain this to you. Your problem is that you are a rational human being. You must understand first of all that the music industry is irrational. Imagine the following conversation, which illustrates the problem:
Tech company: We'd love to sell your music in non-DRMed format.
Music company: We're not interested in selling it without DRM.
Tech company: We're not going to sell it with DRM!
Music company: Fine. Don't sell it. Get nothing. We can live without online sales. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to sell it with DRM. No negotiations. No exceptions. That's how it will be done. Take it or leave it.
Yes, the music industry really is that dumb. They would rather not sell it at all then sell it without DRM. Remember, their goal is to rip you off. They have proven time and time again that they would rather sell one CD for $18 than 3 for $10 each. This is irrational behavior, but they have been very consistent in it. If they can't sell you something at their price and on their terms, then they don't want your money. They really don't. It truly is "their way or the highway". So when you realize that the only deal that could be made was to sell music with DRM or not sell it all, is it any wonder that Yahoo and Apple and everyone else agreed to DRM? There weren't going to be any sales without it. Besides, they were able to make the major labels take the heat for DRM, which is totally fair, so it wasn't a difficult business decision to sell DRM music since they could make money off it and they wouldn't have to answer to pissed off customers who don't like DRM since it wasn't their fault the music had DRM. It really is that simple. Make money off selling DRMed music or make nothing.
Remember too that I am talking about the major music industry companies and smaller labels or individual artists have a more rational outlook. How rational is it to decide "We'd rather sell one at $18 than 3 for $10 each", but that is exactly how they operate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if you look at it from their perspective, it's entirely rational. Their model is built around maximizing revenue on a per-album basis (see monopoly price setting). Selling _more_ albums means selling more varied albums, which in turn dilutes the efficiency of marketing, fractures the market, spreads more money to the producing segments like artists and composers, entails more risk, and which all have to share play
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you haven't studied Economics in any shape or form. The music industry, like all industry, is interested in maximizing profit. Maximizing sales does not mean maximizing profits. It is entirely possible that selling one CD at $18 produces more profit than three CDs for $10.
You're free to disagree with the way they operate,
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood why tech companies listened to the music industry in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the tech companies are far bigger in monetary value and hence far more powerful than the music industry in the first place so don't understand why these companies supported, rather than fought DRM from day one.
The tech companies listened because the music companies hold copyright over the content of interest. Whether they like DRM or not, the tech companies ca
Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it all plays out and the new digital arts business models begin to make money, we can look back and remember the *AA for t
Back the truck up, Chuck (Score:2)
Their content? They wrote it? They sang it? They played backup in the studio?
Pepsi Lite, Budweiser Beer, Ford Focus, Motorola A1200...all products sold by the corporate entities that made them. 'Love, Love Me Do!' Licensed content. Not 'their' content'...and, yes, I've known my share as well. None of them cast a shadow taller than a rat.
'But they all live in the real world.'
Bullshit. Not one media exec has EVER lived in the real world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's that supposed to mean? The real world, like the one 20 years ago where anyone could duplicate a casette tape? It wasn't as fast as downloading a song and compiling a CD if you have broadband, but it wasn't that hard to do. And yet the publishers didn't go out of business.
The ONLY reason "DRM" exists is because they think they're smarter than me and they can make MY computer prevent me from copying, so they try to do it. E
Re: (Score:2)
Apple have a pretty poor track record at actually inventing stuff, but they've got an excellent track record of turning existing but underused ideas into decent implementations and carving out a market for them (Graphical user interfaces, laser printers & DTP, local area networks, the modern laptop, MP3 players, USB & legacy-free computers, small form factor computers...)
Heck, if you had to endure
Media Execs in the Real World (Score:2)
No, they don't.
In the real world, they became media execs thanks to a lack of DRM. All they have to do, it look at where all their money came from: sales of non-DRMed media. In the real world, you don't tell customers, "fuck off, we don't want your money anymore," and replace a proven business model with a fantasy that some snakeoil/Macrovision salesman put into your head.
How can these execs claim they would love to sell content without DRM, as though it were some hy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)