Thoughts on Thoughts on Music

[Ad box removed; this image serves to flag pages that need to be updated in my log file.]

All the cool kids are talking about Thoughts on Music, an open letter posted under Steve Jobs's byline on the Apple Web site.  In it, he claims that iTunes uses DRM because the major music labels demanded it, that it would be really cool for everyone if they weren't forced to use DRM by the major labels, and so the major labels ought to stop demanding it.  I have a few semi-random thoughts.

First of all, "envelope" is not a verb.  The word you're looking for is "envelop," with no "e" at the end.  I expect a company of Apple's stature to get that right in a document with this much visibility.

I believe the claim that it's all the labels' fault - almost.  That's certainly in keeping with the major labels' modus operandi.  However, I'm not sure I can completely absolve Apple from any blame.  Apple stood firm on "no differential pricing," even though the labels wanted that very much too.  I'd have to know things I'll never know about how the negotiations went, in order to know whether Apple could have stood firmer on "no DRM." And the open letter certainly downplays the benefits the DRM actually has for Apple.  Jobs says that only 3% of songs on the average iPod came from iTunes...  but I bet if we drilled deeper into those statistics, it's really more like "2% of iPods contain only songs from iTunes"; those users are locked in in fact even if in theory they could be getting music from some other source.

And the availability of iTunes, with its huge catalog including current major-label music, adds value to an iPod far out of proportion to the actual number of songs one might buy that way.  Even if I only ever buy three or four songs from iTunes, the ability to do that - and have them be exactly the songs I wanted, when I wanted them, with known good data and metadata is a very big win and makes an iPod more attractive than a "Joe's Bargain MP3 Player" that can store and play just as many of the non-DRMed MP3 files I can supply myself from peer-to-peer.  And that iTunes benefit is only available to iPod users, and that iPod feature is only available to iTunes users, and Jobs can't tell me he hasn't made a lot of money from that state of affairs.

There's a mention in there of there being no DRM system for CDs.  That's not entirely true.  It would be more accurate to say that there's no DRM system that really works for CDs.  Really, there can be no DRM system that really works at all; Jobs alludes to this in his discussion of a "cat and mouse game," but doesn't really face the fact that the good guys must always eventually win.

The real difference is that with a system like iPod/iTunes, the DRM-mongers can delude themselves more effectively than with a system like CDs.  Because a CD has to play on CD players, there's not much that can be done to make it uncopyable - if you break the copier, you break many other CD players, because the copier is just like many other CD players.  With iPod/iTunes, you can keep changing both ends in step with each other and you can tell yourself (or your trading partners) that that makes it a lot harder for the good guys.

There's some discussion of the technical facts behind DRM in the open letter, with talk of "secrets" and how the more people you have to share the secrets with, the harder it is to keep them secure.  The technical details are left very vague, and that's reasonable.  It almost comes across as advocating security through obscurity, but I think that's just because of the deliberate vagueness.  I'm sure that Jobs, or his advisors who contributed to that part of the piece, are aware of what's really going on and just didn't go into detail that wouldn't add to their points.  It would have been nicer if they hadn't seemed to leave open the possibility that working DRM might be possible in the first place; they lose face if they admit it doesn't work after they've been selling it for so long, but they'll lose more face the longer they wait before coming clean on that point.  The basic claim, though, that working DRM is harder when it's open, is true - if you believe there are different degrees of impossibility.

My own opposition to DRM is ideological.  I object to DRM because it's DRM, not because it's inconvenient or because of business or economic concerns.  As I've said before, I think that's one reason for the failures of communication that sometimes happen between people like me and people in the music and movie business - I say "No DRM!" and they hear "Yes copying!" Really, I don't care about copying, I care about DRM; that's what the debate is all about for me.  I recognize that for a lot of other people the debate is about other things.  I'm pleased that Steve Jobs and the speechwriters and company behind him are speaking out against DRM. Sure, it's obviously times as a ploy to deflect the Norwegian anti-trust criticism, but so what?  It'd be nice if they were doing it because they agreed with my ideology, instead of for business reasons - but I also think they're right that DRM is bad business too, and if that's what it takes for them to reject DRM, I hope they succeed in their efforts.

UPDATE:  Now we get to see the media machine in action.  EMI has announced, by refusing to comment on the rumours, that they're planning to start selling DRM-free MP3 files.  That looks to me like an attempt to prevent Apple from taking credit for it when it inevitably happens.  And Warner's unfavourable response shows some masterful media manipulation.  They've succeeded in convincing most news outlets to run it under headlines about Warner refusing to provide "free" music (which to the average reader, means music that doesn't cost money), or refusing to "give up copyright protection." What this is actually about is giving up DRM - they'd still get to sell music for money, and have it protected by law, the same as they always have and the same as books, movies, and all other creative material.

But Bronfman manages to frame his demand for absurdly extended privileges, far beyond standard copyright, as being a call for "the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property," and the news outlets are printing that quote just as if it wasn't exactly the opposite of the truth.  He doesn't want the same protections for music as for other media.  He wants absurdly extended privileges far beyond standard copyright, and the anti-DRM side are the ones who want the same protections for music as for other media; but he's won a small victory by getting the debate framed in his choice of terms.  Jobs, similarly, is succeeding in getting his corner of the debate framed in his own choice of terms.  If we want to win this, we're going to need equally competent media technicians in our camp.

[Ad box removed; this image serves to flag pages that need to be updated in my log file.]

Comments

owen from 74.120.31.7 at Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:41:11 +0000:
It's all Bill Gates' fault.

Software="intelectual property"

is the E=mc^2 of our generation...

Chris from 64.235.97.125 at Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:49:34 +0000:
After "Anime Music Music" we have "Thoughts on Thoughts on Music"... Sounds like we have a wee bit of a meta bent going on these days.

That aside, yes, DRM cannot ever work unless you can get away with breaking a couple laws: antitrust, anticompetitive, and thermodynamics. You basically have to have something that no one else can emulate (the first two) and no one can copy. At the same time as 'not being able to copy' (because that's what you're trying to accomplish: not allowing users to copy things) you must permit 'being able to watch/listen' (because that's what users are paying for) and 'being able to copy' (because that's the only way you can have more than one of something to sell to users).

*double take* 'not being able to' and 'being able to' at the same time, why that's impossible.

And that's the point.

kiwano from 206.248.138.76 at Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:38:12 +0000:
Funny thing I remember about the software industry and DRM is those old video games, where you'd frequently get stopped mid-game, so that you could answer a question about what the 3rd word of the first paragraph on the 4th page of the manual is. I also remember that whenever I got an illegal copy of one of those games, it had been cracked so that you didn't actually need to answer the question correctly.

Actually, if that's DRM, then is strace illegal in the USA per DMCA?

Matthew Skala from 67.158.72.8 at Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:56:27 +0000:
"whenever I got an illegal copy of one of those games, it had been cracked so that you didn't actually need to answer the question correctly."

I remember that often one would want to get an illicit copy even if one had a purchased copy, for precisely that reason.

"Actually, if that's DRM, then is strace illegal in the USA per DMCA?"

Shh.

BlueNight from 71.213.139.190 at Sat, 12 May 2007 23:30:57 +0000:
However you try, DRM is an attempt to simulate uniqueness. Uniqueness is an analog property of physical objects. Computers know only the identical, the copyable, the non-unique.

Gates recognized something that the other MIT students didn't -- that hardware is only half of a working machine. The software is the virtual gears and sprockets that make the machine work.

"Why should I provide you with virtual tools for free, simply because copies cost me nothing to make and nearly nothing to distribute?" THAT is the genius of Bill Gates.

"Since all copies are identical and easily manufactured, I really only have one product. Therefore, I will sell users the privilege of using my product, instead of the product itself." THAT is the genius of Bill Gates.

Most garages won't let you show up to work on your own car with their tools. Most book stores would toss you out if they caught you using a page-scanner.

I'm thinking they'll end up with a USB dongle system. When you buy the next generation of high-definition video disc, it has a dongle that matches a unique ID encoded into that individual copy of the disc (easy to implement in software, no hardware changes necessary). The disc/dongle combo will be harder to crack, and the storage cases will finally have justification for being taller than CD cases.

Linux owners wishing to play it will, of course, be left to their own devices... unless the video disc consortium creates a proprietarily licensed codec that 1) is free, 2) is fair, and 3) is uncrackable.

Add Comment

Your name (required):
Your email address or URL (optional):
Type "bonobo" for anti-spam purposes:

This form is for posting public comments to be read by other people who visit this Web site. If you have a software support question, or other material directed to the page author instead of to the general public, please send email instead.

All the data you enter, and your IP address, will be saved and displayed. Don't enter secret information. HTML is not accepted; it will be displayed as plain text. Your comment will only be added if you enter valid data in all required fields; if it isn't, use the back button and try again.

I, and I alone, reserve the right to remove postings for any reason.

Copyright © 2007 Matthew Skala
Updates to this entire site: [RSS syndication file]
Updates to this category (copyright) only: [RSS syndication file]