« New Sci-Fi novel tackles libraries in the future | Main | Survey about student educational technology standards »
February 09, 2007
Steve Jobs speaks out about Apple DRM
Any of us in libraries offering downloadable audio books to our users have faced the iPod conundrum. Most users have iPods as their portable music players (heck, I do). But no company, including Apple or Audible, offers a platform from which libraries can offer their users iPod compatible audio books. So--what do we do? We buy what is available in the hopes that we can serve as many users as possible, while at the same time lobbying Apple, OCLC, and Overdrive (and others) to make audio books that will work for iPod users. So far, no response. Until this week.
Steve Jobs posted an essay, "Thoughts on Music," to the Apple site. The essay basically disavows any responsibility on Apple's part for the DRM-showdown between Apple and everyone else. The article seemed logical at first, until I realized that Jobs left out one major fourth option as a solution to the problem: for various DRM-system creators to get together and try to figure out a schema that will satisfy and work for everyone involved--including book and music publishers. Is there some reason that they can't do this that I'm not aware of?
Why don't they do this in my opinion? $$$$$. Because then they (both Apple and Microsoft) wouldn't have a lock on their markets, and they would potentially lose money. I think the opposite is true--if you open up DRM to allow any content to work on any device, I think you would see an increase in overall purchases of digital content. Right now I am hearing from people who are hesitant to get into the digital content market because the DRM is so limiting. For Jobs to miss this basic option in his article shows me that he either thinks the people reading it are stupid or that he doesn't care about cooperating with other content providers. In either case, it is clear that protecting corporate profit is the #1 goal here, users be damned.
UPDATE: A colleague e-mailed me to let me know that the Coral Consortium, a cross-industry group of many big-name content and technology providers who are promoting interoperable DRM, sent a formal letter to Steve Jobs pointing out the very same fourth alternative that I pointed out (and that anyone with any knowledge of DRM would have noticed).
February 9, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5506545fb8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Steve Jobs speaks out about Apple DRM:
Comments
Hey Librarian!
I was glad to see your idea about the "unmentioned option" in Steve's essay. Why isn't anyone talking about this? They could totally get together, or get some system going. I was reading another blogger, who had another clear alternative. In this essay, Shelly Palmer was saying that they could just tie the DRM into an auto-update.
Why aren't more people talking about using a mechanism like Software Update?
- Phillip
Posted by: Phillip | February22, 2007
"Do you think most musicians, writers, painters, designers, etc. would be willing to give away their creations for free? I do not. Everyone has to eat."
Everyone has to eat, and apparently some must eat more than others. If this case for DRM is so cut and dried, then why do many of the independent artists and labels (denizens of the "Long Tail" as it were) exhort Steve Jobs and Apple to remove DRM from their music when it is sold on iTunes?
It's been played out in so many music business tragi-comedies, shouldn't we know by now that trusting the likes of major labels to protect the interests of artists is a questionable proposition?
"To me, it's like the security gates they have in front of stores--you can't just grab a product and walk out the door with it without paying for it first. Same with DRM--you can't grab a digital product without paying for it first, and protecting it, with DRM."
This paranoid assertion that we need more gates, more cameras, more tags to keep us honest is a pretty disturbing one from a librarian. Especially in that it assumes the worst of human nature.
Digital content is freely shared now and sold in physical formats (e.g. the audio cd) that do not prevent sharing. If one is trustable enough with a copy of Dark Side of the Moon on disc (ostensibly representing, as the highest quality version commercially available, a "master copy" of that content), why do the major labels (and the RIAA) feel they have the right to manhandle the consumer of that same music if it is purchased on-line in some lossy format (and at a comparable price to the physical, unrestricted store-bought copy!)?
It's a terrible business model that's broken here and DRM is not going to fix it.
Posted by: patrick battleship | February19, 2007
Aww thanks Karen :)
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) | February12, 2007
Right on, Ms. Sarah! I was skeptical of Jobs' article but couldn't quite explain why, even though vendors have shared with me in the past that Apple can't be worked with. You nailed his omission.
Posted by: K.G. Schneider | February12, 2007
You raise some good points Harold. I do not like DRM. A world without DRM would be a happy place. However, I think it is unrealistic to believe that it is going away any time soon. Products are created so they can make the producers some money. The removal of DRM would create an atmosphere where people creating digital content in any way would not be able to make any money from doing so. Do you think most musicians, writers, painters, designers, etc. would be willing to give away their creations for free? I do not. Everyone has to eat. As a result, DRM is a reality of our time. To me, it's like the security gates they have in front of stores--you can't just grab a product and walk out the door with it without paying for it first. Same with DRM--you can't grab a digital product without paying for it first, and protecting it, with DRM. I have yet to see any arguments for a world with no DRM that would in any way satisfy the people creating the content that the DRM is made for--the original creators (e.g. a band) or their distributors (the record company). If the big boys aren't convinced, it isn't going to happen. In the meantime, having one DRM scheme that works with all content and all devices is a worthy goal, and I support any group that is working toward that goal.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) | February12, 2007
Creating a universal DRM scheme that works with every device imaginable is something Jobs left out on purpose although he hints at this by talking about (not) licensing FairPlay. He effectively says DRM is a tool forced on consumers by the music industry, a tool he has to maintain and keep up to date in the "war" between DRM makers and hackers. He also says that the only way to give consumers what they want is DRM free content.
You write "if you open up DRM to allow any content to work on any device, I think you would see an increase in overall purchases of digital content." True, but by the same extent if you remove all DRM you will see the same, except to a much larger degree.
The Coral Consortium seems like a nice institution. I am sure they have very fine meals in big expensive restaurants regularly. Interesting list of names too: Sony, MPAA, RIAA. All names we have learned to associate with good, wholesome and honest business practices. (Or not.)
I have no intention of ever trusting anything written by a consortium with any of these names associated with it, this seems like just another desperate attempt to push DRM down the throats of consumers.
Posted by: Harold | February12, 2007
