February 7th, 2007
by Michael Swanberg
Steve Jobs recently posted an online open letter regarding DRM that was very interesting. What is DRM and why doesn’t it work?
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management and it’s the stuff that nightmares are made of. It’s horrible for consumers. It doesn’t protect the copyright holders, nor the artists.
| ||||||||||
Okay, let’s get into the meat of it, and I’ll use Steve Jobs’ letter as a guide. DRM is software that prevents consumers of digital content, specifically music and video, from sharing that content with those that do not have the right to hear or watch the content. Or from anyone, actually.
Let’s just use music as an example. Some years ago, the MP3 file format was created, which revolutionized music distribution. As the internet got faster and as file sizes got smaller, it became easy and practical to transfer music files over the internet. Along came Napster and the world went crazy.
I admit, I partook in the Napster thing. I believed that there was a loophole in copyright doctrine that said I can share music with my friends, and so what if I have hundreds or thousands of friends that I really haven’t ever met? The RIAA went nuts and started suing everybody their lawyers could get their hands on, including Napster, who didn’t actually trade the music files but just acted as an introduction service. As horrible as that is, I do applaud the RIAA for at least attempting to educate the world as to what copyright is all about. I no longer share music with anyone save my closest friends, and even that it severely limited. Mostly, as I’ve gotten older, my friends and I have gotten to the point that the cost of a CD or a few iTunes tracks is paltry, especially compared to the fright of a lawsuit, whether baseless or not.
But the RIAA went much further and decided that if music was going to be sold online, that it should be locked down as tight as possible. Along came DRM. Apple’s iTunes uses a DRM scheme they call FairPlay. It works pretty well and is nearly invisible as long as you play by the Apple guidelines of using an iPod only. You are even allowed to create music CDs, which are DRM-free, from your purchased tracks so that you can listen in your car.
But what DRM does is it scrambles the contents of the file. There is a key to unscrambling it, but in order for this system to work, the key has to be hidden somewhere on the iPod. So, if someone can find the key, they can crack the DRM. Part of the evil of the DRM method is that we consumers are buying things (iPods, computers, etc.) and are becoming increasingly unable to control what is on them. That unnerves a lot of people, including me.
But the trouble is, people do not feel that they own what they’re purchasing, and that’s a bad feeling in a capitalist society. People want their music to be open to be used as they see fit. They want to buy other music players and be able to hear their music on them. They simply don’t want one purchase to force them into making other purchases, like a purchase from iTunes means a purchase of an iPod.
As such, a great number of pundits have been making a bit of noise about the exclusive connection between music and the players they are allowed to be played on. iTunes means iPod. Zune Marketplace means Zune. Sony music store means Sony music player. No cross pollenation is allowed.
So, enter Steve Jobs’ letter. This letter, to me, essentially has two points. The point he is hoping people will focus on is that Apple supports the idea of removing DRM from online music purchases. He states that purchased CDs are still DRM free (if you don’t count things like the Sony rootkit debacle; oh what short memories we have) and can be ripped to create MP3 files that can be played on any portable player out there. Steve seems to be telling the world, essentially, “hey, we’re Apple and we’re cool! We want what you want and we want to help you get it!”
I applaud Mr. jobs on this point. He seems to be placing some legitimacy on the idea that music should be sold without DRM. After all, DRM doesn’t work. True pirates still unlock the music. Or else they just rip it from CDs. So, say you want to get a song online for free from a pirate; chances are it wasn’t a cracked iTunes track, but rather came from a CD. So, placing DRM on online-purchased music is useless.
But the main point of Steve Jobs’ letter, which he seemed to try to bury in the “we are cool” message, is that Apple doesn’t have a choice in the DRM, that they are forced by the recording companies to place it on the tracks. As well, he makes his point for why FairPlay cannot be shared with others, so that they can sell tracks that will play on the iPod as well or else make a player that will play iTunes-purchased tracks. His point is that to share the secret of FairPlay is to let it out into the wild.
Essentially, he’s saying that Apple is not going to license FairPlay to anyone, so stop asking.
He’s also telling Europe why their laws won’t pursuade Apple to license FairPlay. “So get off my back!” I can almost hear him screaming.
I wrote a blog entry some weeks back about which MP3 player to choose if you’re in the market. I recommended the iPod, and I stand by that recommendation. But one item that I made clear that seemed to bring on some opposing comments was the idea that locked music might become useless one day.
Essentially, my thought was that some day Apple (or any other online music retailer) might decide that selling music online under the music industry’s strict guidelines is simply not profitable and so they might close up shop. Every buyer of these locked tracks depends, at least periodically, on an internet connection to the store from which they bought the music in order to continue to be allowed to listen to it. If the store ceases to exist, then the music cannot be continually unlocked, and will become just dead space used up on my hard drive.
In Steve Jobs’ letter, he states directly that the terms of their agreements with the various record labels is that they can pull their music off of the ITMS if Apple does not uphold their side of the bargain. This makes my point even louder. If Apple suddenly loses the rights to sell and authorize a portion (or all) of the tracks they offered online, portions of consumers’ music collections may become useless.
This is why I, along with many others, support open standards in music playback. The MP3 standard does not allow for DRM, so it remains the most popular format, even though it isn’t necessarily the best in terms of quality.
As such, I wish that sites like AllOfMP3.com and eMusic.com could become wildly successful and profitable for the music industry. I know there is a lot of controversy about AllOfMP3.com, but I mention them because they sell their music DRM-free, as does eMusic.com. The difference is that AllOfMP3.com is of dubious legality and they sell their tracks for pennies each. I would gladly pay iTunes prices or even a tad more for the music tracks I want, in the format I want (AAC, MP3, OGG, etc.), all without DRM. And that’s the key! If I can have them to use on whatever player I wish, to be copied to as many of my own computers as I wish, then I would loosen the purse strings immensely. But as it is, with tracks having DRM attached to them, I am completely unwilling to purchase music online if I think I might want to keep those tracks for a long time.
Come on, AllOfMP3. Why not negotiate to sell your tracks legitimately (I mean, legitmately by the RIAA’s standards, not just your own)? As long as you can keep your easy-to-use site and your DRM-free offerings, I would spend a lot of money there.
If you wish to read Steve Jobs’ letter, it can be found at http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Related Posts on This Topic:
Dead Rights Management
More DRM Evil
CHUPATHINGY!
Email Woes
Call of Duty 4 Review
