MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Don't they realize they are playing with fire denying the edicts of the Exhaulted Ruler of the Earth?

If they are not careful, he will go beyond his written warning and appear, in person, in uniform, in full hubris, on a stage in front of an auditorium full of lemmings, and announce that he has now canceled all DRM in response to the industry's irreverent reaction to his treatise.

If SJ can get the RIAA to understand that licensing FairPlay makes it more susceptible to being compromised, and they're okay with that, then I say okay! If they agree, and licensing FairPlay doesn't really help to deter piracy, then it might be one more step closer to DRM-free music. And if DRM does stick around, then FairPlay as a great shot at becoming the de-facto standard.

License away!

First Rule of Holes:

When you're in one, stop digging.

JoeL

That's exactly what I was thinking, hairbo.

The RIAA says "License Fairplay" because they believe it's the last thing Steve Jobs will do.

I say license it just to shut them the f*ck up when piracy goes undeterred.

Obviously the morons at the RIAA need a translation. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have billions to waste supporting useless DRM in the hands of other firms. Of course Microsoft was hoping that Janus DRM would become the defacto standard so that MS could control the morons at the RIAA, etc.

Hmm.. The RIAA wants Apple to license out Fairplay to other companies. Then all the other companies can play the iTunes bought music. End result, Apple dominates everything and there is one defacto standard for DRM and DVD Jon can license his tool to others and then there is only one way to remove the DRM and guess what.. we're back to square 1.

Operative word here is "Control". I think SJ's essay worked to give Apple the keys to the kingdom and the eventual demise of the RIAA's powers. The only problem I see with this is all the anti-trust that Apple will inherit for the RIAA's stupidity.

Apples' contract with the Big 4 says if FairPlay fails, it has to be fixed within a matter of weeks or they can pull their music from the iTunes Store.

Does MS have the same contract?

Warning: Conspiracy Theory Ahead! Many of the Big 4 don't like Apple's pricing structure. What if Apple licensed FairPlay and one of the "independent" licensees fails to correct a FairPlay exploit within the contractual terms. Then a major label pulls their music from the iTunes Store and demands new terms, citing FairPlay weaknesses?

Just guessing here, bit I don't think Steve is ever going to license FairPlay if there's a chance some third party holds the fate of the iTunes Store in their hands.

If Steve Jobs can get one major label to agree to DRM-free sales on iTunes and then that label makes a spectacular number of sales, DRM will die. All the labels care about is money and if one label gets a significant competitive advantage, others will want the same.

As has been mentioned previously, the ideal candidate would be the Beatles. They're now all cosy with Apple, they're not currently on iTunes and their music is nearing the end of it's UK copyright lifetime. They don't have anything to lose and if they released their singles one at a time, they could write more musical history by topping the charts all over again. Renewed interest in Beatles music would also generate renewed interest in Beatles DVDs, which would very profitable. Furthermore, Paul McCartney has supported new musicians in the past and he may view dispensing with DRM as a way to help musicians to sell more music.

The response by the RIAA is exactly what Jobs is looking for. For at least the past couple years, Apple was unfairly criticized for selling songs from iTS (formerly iTMS) with DRM as if it was Jobs' decision to do so. With Jobs now on record as being in favor of selling songs and albums without DRM, the onus is now on the RIAA and (hopefully) any public pressure to remove DRM will not be placed on Apple, but the RIAA where it belonged in the first place.

I'm glad the majors came out and gave their predictable retorts in vitriolic fashion. They end up looking like stupid douches.

I do not know much about how DRM licensing works, but it seems like consumers using non-iPod portable players are going to have a bumpy ride. The player software has to be updated too when Apple tweaks the DRM, which happens periodically. Apple does a good job of making this fairly seemless, though hiccups do occur (iTunes 7). These companies have not shown they can do this with Plays For Shit.

The record companies and RIAA are beyond retarded! Seriously, has any member of this illustrious menagerie ever given an actual reason why it's so important to continue with with DRM on online music, but not CDs, or do they all say "just because"?

Frankly, I don't care if Apple continues to use Fairplay, or not. I find the iPod and iTMS to be the best solution by far, and Fairplay doesn't restrict me in any way. I don't think Apple should be forced to go to the trouble of licensing Fairplay though. That doesn't seem fair. Unless of course, the industry is willing to drop their option to remove their catalog if it's breached. They're putting the onus of responsibility for the entire industry on Apple's shoulders, while Apple is getting the smallest piece of the pie for their trouble.

I don't know how accurate it is to claim that there is no DRM on CDs. Certainly many CDs are completely free to use in any manner one wishes. However, there are a fair amount of CDs being sold these days with special anti-piracy technology built-in. This technology makes the CDs work fine in car stereos and the like. But try to use this CD in the computer and it either doesn't work at all or forces you to use special use-limiting software in order to access the music. Some of the CDs have even been known to install security-compromising rootkits (ala Sony). All in all, the RIAA has been placing motivation out there right now to keep people from using CDs in a DRM-free fashion. While anti-piracy technology does not specifically use any sort of encryption or licensing keys to protect the music, the fact that it forces the user to use the CDs in a specific way makes it much like DRM. For this reason, I don't see how anti-piracy and DRM are different. Consequently, I think it's a somewhat weak argument to say the music industry is not pursuing DRM for their CDs. The RIAA really really wants DRM no matter what the format is.

And of course, that makes it really unfortunate for the consumer.

All the RIAA comments are 'grist for the Apple mill' in their court case against Norway et al.

Steve wins both ways: either the DRM stays and Norway has to take the labels to court instead, or DRM is removed and the case goes away.

The third benefit is that if DRM goes away for music sales, the subscription model instantly dies because it is either unpopular since it alone contains a DRM, or we all buy subscriptions and download unlimited songs to keep permanently.

On the hardware front we have already seen the hardware manufacturers inability to keep up with Apple's iPod design, or iTunes integration. Apple cannot lose unless we choose cost over cool design.

Sell the RIAA the whole FAIRPLAY package to RIAA. Make it a cahs plus free licensing for life deal.

Apple wins big now and RIAA can deal with the headaches of keeping DRM current.

Anybody else notice how that big Ford ad breaks the links to the other articles at the bottom of the page. It has done it all day in Safari. Only seems to happen when you roll over it on your way down to the article links.

MW--Social.... hah! welcome to it.

'Apple does a good job of making this fairly seemless,'

'Seems seamless to me.

Why can't MS make it's proprietary DRM software work on the Mac????????? They could, they just don't want it to.

RIAA is in so many words saying to Apple "we'll have it our way and you'll play nicely with us". Well, at least they're right about Apple being smart enough to work with the music community on more open solutions, and it's too bad that the RIAA is positioning themsleves to <not> be part of Apple's solution.

I think Steve's best legal argument is the reality he's stated that i) the music industry required Apple to do FairPlay as a condition for putting their music in the iTunes store, and ii) that these same companies will hit Apple with huge liabilities if FairPlay is ever compromised and not patched quickly.

Apple knows that the only way they can keep FairPlay secure is to keep it within Apple, as they would have no control over how quickly a Microsoft, Creative, Samsung or other competitor would patch FairPlay on their systems. In fact, in this scenario it could be in a competitor's own best interest to drag their feet a bit on writing a patch.

I believe that RIAA and the music companies understand this. They have no problem asking Apple to push the proverbial boulder uphill (by licensing FairPlay), as they would love to have this big, new legal club hanging over Apple's head as a way of controlling the market leader.

Steve is correct in the content and timing of his open letter, and he should not under any circumstance back off, retract or otherwise clarify his position as the RIAA and music industry are now screaming for him to do. It's time for the music industry - not Apple - to change its business model.

In My Honest Opinion.

Did the RIAA not read Steve's letter? It says quite plainly in the letter that allowing other people to share the "secrets" in the Fairplay DRM will effectively render it useless.

These recording industry folk need to get a lesson in PGP and other security systems.... Idiots.

What the hell? Did the dolts in RIAA HQ even read Steve's letter?

MW: Doubt it.

Well, were right back where we were before.

LOL. The Pirates don't even have to try and bypass the DRM. All they have to do is buy one CD and they can make as many perfect high quality copies as they want.

This SO reminds me of when the movie companies fought against the VCR. A battle which they lost..... and subsequently made billions more dollars in profit because they did.

Don't speak for me, MDN. I have hundreds of "DRM-laden" songs and it doesn't affect me one bit. I listen to my music wherever and whenever I want. People against DRM fall into one of two camps:
- those that don't like the "idea" of DRM
- those that try to use their music in creative ways (in a movie or MP3 player)

Steve won't license Fairplay.

The reason he gives for not doing so is bullshit, but that doesn't matter because the players know that it is bullshit and know the real reason he won't license it.

Steve hold a stranglehold on Fairplay because he believes that the only way digital music will ever succeed is for it to be reasonably priced.

The labels spent the past two decades creating the CD album sales system whereby consumers are stuck paying $18-$20 to buy a CD for the one song they want.

Steve knows this one the main things that made Napster take off like wildfire, and keeps P2P in business--faced with the options of paying $18 for a song, and several tracks of unwanted crap glommed on, or downloading for free people will download for free. Given the choice of downloading for free and facing prosecution and buying for 99 cents a good percentage of people will buy. The majors hate this 99 cents business and want Apple to license Fairplay to them so they can take their songs off iTMS and sell them themselves for $5, $6, $7 a track.

The majors think this is a great idea, while Steve knows that this will simply drive the growing percentage of people that will pay for digital music to go back to P2P.

Scew em. I'm going back to taping stuff off the radio. Anyone know anyone who still sells casettes?

Are these guys serious?

"A recording industry group fired back Wednesday at Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, suggesting his company should open up its anti-piracy technology to its rivals..."

Yea, why don't the lables share their artists with their rivals? Or with consumers?

What a bunch of d*cks.

Impasse.

The price for Apple licensing FairPlay at economically reasonable terms to competitors must be a number of performance-guarantee disclaimers to the RIAA -- that basically tolerate a DRM-free [cracked-FairPlay] for a period of time until the "kracks" can be patched. Figure that a large body of DRM-protected tracks will be liberated during those "windows of opportunity" and DRM loses much of its meaning.

What they want perhaps is Apple to license it without the performance disclaimers, thus putting Apple in default of the original terms and therefore vulnerable to a contract negotiation.

My house has a lock, and I and only I (and members of my family) have the keys. My windows have locks too (but no keys).
My car has a lock and key. In fact, there is a chip embedded in the key so ONLY that key (not a copy) will start the engine.
Physical CDs are placed in those larger plastic "lock-boxes" so that it is harder for someone to shove it down their pants and walk out of the store with it.
Retail store owners lock up their shops when business hours are over and only they have the keys.
Your cable modem has a unique serial number assigned to it that is entered into your local providers computer system to allow you access to the Internet.
Your ISP assigns you a unique IP (unless you have the option to pay more for a dynamically assigned one).
Your NIC has a unique MAC address.
Your computer has a unique serial number.
You use passwords every day to access online banking, commerce, and other types of sites.
Most software that you buy requires that you enter a serial number or key on initial installation/registration.
Those who drive have unique license plate numbers, VIN numbers, and drivers license numbers.
We all have a unique social security number.
If you own a credit card, the number on it is one of a kind, unduplicated, and unique to your card only.
When you go to an ATM or use your debit card at a store, you enter your PIN to verify authenticity.
Cable/Satellite boxes are "keys" to decode/descramble signals.
HD television - when you have an HDMI, component, or even S-video cable going from your sat/cable box into your HD TV, the television itself cuts ALL video from the outputs. There is not one HD TV that does not do this. PERIOD. It will only let you output at the inferior composite or RF level (these analog levels are practically unwatchable on an HD TV). You are forced to go with a vendor supplied DVR (i.e. non removable media) to record in HD.

The list is endless.....

DRM is in place for the same reason those things above are protected - PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL STEAL. PERIOD.
DRM is not going anywhere - if it curbs 1% of the piracy out there, then that is enough for people to implement it.

As long as there are theives, DRM will exist. That means a LONG, LONG time.
We are all punished for THEIR crimes, but that's just the way it is.
Quit crying and embrace objective reality.
Boo-Fucking-Hoo

I don't understand why RIAA would even suggest Apple to license FairPlay. Obiously they must not understand the encryption technology. I am not an expert on encryption, but I think I understand the basic idea behind it. The algorithm itself is fairly simple. You have a stream of data you want to encrypt. Then you have a random number generator. The random number generator is an equation used to come up next random number in sequence given a number, which usually the previous random number. You can come up with many variation of this equation. Once you have sequence of random number you take a block of data and XOR it with a block of random number block. If you want to decryt the data, you just XOR with same block of random numbers. I'm sure there is better more detailed explanation of encryption algorithm than this one on Wikipedia. So for the DRM and encryption to work, encryption and decryption software must have same random number generator. PGP as someone suggested as a model of open source encryption software do provide pretty good privacy as its name suggests. However, there is a catch. When someone encrypts an email message with PGP, hacker does not have the content of message. In the case of FairPlay or any DRM encryption, hacker does have the actual unencrypted file (if you can play one music file, then they have both encrypted and unencrypted file). Once hacker has the two files cracking the code or finding the password becomes trivial exercise (they don't even have to use brute force method). Only thing protecting the integrity of DRM is the secret algorithm used to generate the random number, not the password. So, I believe anyone who suggest DRM can be open sourced is wrong.

There is now NO reason Apple computer could not become a record company since they have bought the rights to the Apple Records name! Forget about dealing with the RIAA, Apple could now directly deal with bands and artists through the iTunes/iTMS model. And the bands/artists would probably get a much bigger slice of the pie.
Now that would be revolutionary! Just sign 5 or 6 major bands and give them 50% of the take!

Good. Now license Fairplay at a price that makes it impossible for anyone else to meet the 99¢/tune price point. Slaughter the rest of the market, own digital downloads, and then make another call for the removal of DRM when you own 25% or more of the music industry.

If I were Apple, I'd thank the RIAA for their brilliant idea and laugh all the way to total dominance of internet music sales.

RIAA and the music companies want DRM.

I don't.

Simple solution:

I don't buy DRM-protected downloads; I buy CDs and rip them.

And as for worrying about people stealing music, have thoese Dodos ever heard of PUBLIC LIBRARIES? For the price of a library card (free), people who are dishonest can check out all the CDs they can handle and rip them on their computer.

So much for DRM protecting the music, eh?!

Denial. Tough stuff, that.

You are all missing it! This is the thing Apple wants to happen. SJ didn't just wait to post his letter until now for no reason. He is a genious! Apple Computer becomes Apple Inc., Just as soon as they end up owning Apple Corps. Now they can produce music and start getting artists from major labels and become huge in "making music" part of the deal. Common, the writing is all over the place. Why would SJ pen this letter now? Why would he want to piss off the very people that are keeping iTunes going? Because he now holds all the cards and is showing his "ace in the hole". Apple is going to start producing CDs. Look out Sony, Warner and all you other dinosaurs! Jeez SJ is brilliant! Apple Inc. is now, before our very eyes, the new Sony.

Apple as Record Company

I'm hoping that Steve's open letter was a symbolic shot across the bow of the music industry. I'm hoping that the recent Apple Inc. vs. Apple Corps make-nice includes the right for Apple to sign musical talent to a contract and to distribute music *as a music company* without any objection from Apple Corps. Who knows, maybe Apple Inc. is the new Apple Corps.

If Universal Music Group, Warner Bros, et al don't want to distribute their catalogs without DRM and Apple has now publicly stated its preference for no DRM, then Apple has to make a decision. I'm hoping that their next move will be to announce that it is forming a new record label, called Apple Music, maybe, and whose sole means of distribution will be through DRM-free downloads at iTS. Maybe their first signing could be... The Beatles? How appropriate. Would that put a bee in Bronfman's bonnet, or what?

We can dream, can't we?

MW: could -- it could happen.

@ZachCube: Hey! I wrote that!

MW: one -- there can be only one.

...the television itself cuts ALL video from the outputs. There is not one HD TV that does not do this. PERIOD. It will only let you output at the inferior composite or RF level...

Sympathy, are you serious? I was not aware of this, thanks for the heads up.
___________

...have thoese Dodos ever heard of PUBLIC LIBRARIES? For the price of a library card (free), people who are dishonest can check out all the CDs they can handle and rip them on their computer...

MJK. waaay ahead of you buddy.

I used to be Zune Tang/Peterson, but people made so much fun of me I changed my name to go incognito. I also had a bad experience once.

Oh, and since I still cant learn to spell exhaulted I guess everyone knows I'm on a pc and not a mac by now.

Steve should respond in about a week with another essay along these lines:

"We just tried the RIAA's iTunes licensing idea, and Microsoft, the other major player with DRM, wants no part of our Fairplay technology at any licensed price. I even offered to give them code and keys for free, but they don't want it, will never use it."

"Now where were we?... Oh yes, back to removing DRM, as it is quite silly... Seriously, wanna break our DRM, I can give you 869,000 Google links to "Fairplay hacks." Any questions?"

Best,

Steve

Maybe it's just me but I see this Jobsian viewpoint as an attempt to prevent the Norwegians from carrying out their threat over itunes music and ipods being a closed a system. It's too coincidental to have these two events happening over a five day period. Of course the real villains in all of this are the record companies and their RIAA/IFPI allies.

Personally I won't touch DRM/inferior bit rate music and have no qualms breaching copyright whatsoever. It's called sharing with your friends and family. Example: Whilst on holidays I visited my cousin at Surfers Paradise (the waves were really small so it wasn't a surfer's paradise) and handed over my ipod photo to his son and told him to scroll through and write down what he wanted. Does this make me a pirate. According to the copyright holders it does make me a pirate. Amongst the majority consumers they would use another descriptor…normal.

Its RIAA Guyana Brand Kool Aid. Should produce similar results for the industry.

I can see it now...

If Apple were to go DRM-free, it would spell the end of all music subscription services, as a subscription model is impossible without DRM. They are choking on Apple's success now. Just watch and see what happens if Steve is successful with this campaign!

Dear Majors!, if you were rigth about DRM, I should pay only € 3.00 if I've regularly bought/DL it from any internet store before and I go to the shop and purchase the P. Floyd's "Dark Side of The Moon" CD!
Let me explane it.
I've paid Apple € 11.99 for the lastest remastering of DSOTM.
So, I have got the rights to listen to DSOTM for all of my life! And this is exactly what I'm doing: listening to all the music I've purchased!
Well, now I want to buy a hard copy of DSOTM and because I've just got the rigths to play it, I want to pay only for the media, the sleeve and lyrics (if "rarely" they will be there), plus something for the better quality and the shopper.
In my opinion € 3.00 are enough! If you want the full price you had to give me back those € 11.99 I've previously paid You through iTunes, MSN-Music or other stores!

/Stefano

PS
I'm sure only a a few bucks will remains into the hands of Apple/Microsoft/, while the most into Yours.

@alanaudio

I reckon you guessed it in one. The Beatles will be distributed DRM-free.

The music industry are behaving like spoilt children. They have had the market all to themselves for years and they just see Apple as an arrogant upstart who needs to be put in his place.

They don't get it. The old days are gone, and Apple is the new kid on the block with the biggest shiniest toys and the most money to spend.

How long before Apple begins to negotiate deals directly with the artists, bypassing the record companies altogether?

Mitch Bainwol (is that an anagram for something?) is either thick, or he understands precisely what Steve Jobs is saying but chooses to ignore it. He does so at his peril. Steve Jobs has drawn a line in the sand and his letter must be seen as an element in a well planned strategy. He doesn't suffer fools, and this guy sure sounds like one.

This is going to be interesting...

I think the music industry needs to abolish the RIAA. No exaggeration - If the RIAA had its way we'd still be listening to music on wax cylinders. Get the RIAA out of here!

In other news, rumor has it that EMI is at least thinking, maybe even talking about distributing music sans DRM as per SJ's suggestion.

SydneyStephen: "Mitch Bainwol (is that an anagram for something?)"

As a matter of fact, it is:

Mitch Bainwol = I'm a Win blotch.

Wow, what lengthy posts on this issue. To simplify it, If the bad guys have all the guns and the good guys have none, then who wins? No-brainer.