Leave it to Steve Jobs to go from controversy to PR coup in a matter of words—1,800 of them, to be exact. That's how many it took for the Apple chief executive to issue a dramatic about-face that could recast Apple's role in the long-standing debate over copyright protection software. His company is under increasing pressure from governments in Europe and consumers around the world to loosen restrictions on music downloaded from the iTunes music store and what songs can be played on the iPod.
In a carefully worded statement, Jobs took the onus for lifting those restrictions off his company and put it squarely on the music industry. At issue is the so-called FairPlay software that prevents iTunes songs from being played on non-iPod music players and keeps music purchased at other services from being played on the iPod. Apple embedded FairPlay into iPods and iTunes at the behest of the music labels, and now Jobs is calling on those companies to stop requiring digital music distributors like iTunes to use copyright protection technology. In the final paragraph of the essay, "Thoughts On Music," posted to Apple's Web site on Feb. 6, Jobs said that convincing music labels, like Viviendi-Universal (V), Britain's EMI and Sony-BMG (SNE) to allow their music to be sold online without digital rights management (DRM) technology would "create a truly interoperable music marketplace"—one that Apple would embrace "wholeheartedly."
View: The full story
News source: Business Week
In a carefully worded statement, Jobs took the onus for lifting those restrictions off his company and put it squarely on the music industry. At issue is the so-called FairPlay software that prevents iTunes songs from being played on non-iPod music players and keeps music purchased at other services from being played on the iPod. Apple embedded FairPlay into iPods and iTunes at the behest of the music labels, and now Jobs is calling on those companies to stop requiring digital music distributors like iTunes to use copyright protection technology. In the final paragraph of the essay, "Thoughts On Music," posted to Apple's Web site on Feb. 6, Jobs said that convincing music labels, like Viviendi-Universal (V), Britain's EMI and Sony-BMG (SNE) to allow their music to be sold online without digital rights management (DRM) technology would "create a truly interoperable music marketplace"—one that Apple would embrace "wholeheartedly."
View: The full story News source: Business Week
Bill Gates sells his (former) corporate soul to the same entertainment industry, then likewise recently voices his opposition to DRM as he leaves Microsoft in official capacity.
The devil doesn't like to go back on his deals, and these two leaders have ushered their customers down the DRM force-feeding path.
These pleas are too little, too late.
</soapbox>
Monopoly. It's a word that doesn't _just_ apply to companies beginning with 'M'
Steve is safe in suggesting that because it won't happen. There is no valid reason to prevent licensing of fairplay to other manufacturers other than to lock you into the Apple brand.
Steve is safe in suggesting that because it won't happen. There is no valid reason to prevent licensing of fairplay to other manufacturers other than to lock you into the Apple brand.
There are these things called contracts. They are legally binding. Apple cannot just go and license Fairplay, they would need the approval of the record labels.
"Monopoly. It's a word that doesn't _just_ apply to companies beginning with 'M'"
That's better (factual) now.
Steve is safe in suggesting that because it won't happen. There is no valid reason to prevent licensing of fairplay to other manufacturers other than to lock you into the Apple brand.
There are these things called contracts. They are legally binding. Apple cannot just go and license Fairplay, they would need the approval of the record labels.
I was under the impression Apple owns the right's to it's DRM, not the record companies.
"Monopoly. It's a word that doesn't _just_ apply to companies beginning with 'M'"
That's better (factual) now.
Apple: we're fleecing you, we own the market but remember - we're you best friends
Steve is safe in suggesting that because it won't happen. There is no valid reason to prevent licensing of fairplay to other manufacturers other than to lock you into the Apple brand.
There are these things called contracts. They are legally binding. Apple cannot just go and license Fairplay, they would need the approval of the record labels.
I was under the impression Apple owns the right's to it's DRM, not the record companies.
"Monopoly. It's a word that doesn't _just_ apply to companies beginning with 'M'"
That's better (factual) now.
You're right, because various governments have shot the monopolistic hopes and ambitions of that certain 'M' company down.
iPods and iTunes would not be where they are today if Apple wanted a truly interoperable music marketplace because then more customers would be buying cheaper, better music players to play their music on and fewer would be buying iPod.
But for the millionth time, so what? iTunes customers (or potential ones) should do 5 minutes of homework and realize that this is how iTunes is setup. They know that songs bought on iTunes will only play on iPod and it's their own choice to buy into this lock-down format. If they fall for it and end up with GB's worth of music then its their own problem if they one day want to play it on a different device. Too bad, so sad, it was the customer's own chocie and decision and they have to live with it.
O RLY? The Apple hater/Microsoft fanboy is psychic too. Awesome.
O RLY? The Apple hater/Microsoft fanboy is psychic too. Awesome.
O RLY? The Micrsoft hater/Apple fanboy is so cool for calling people who criticise Apple M$ fanboys!!!!1!!2!!!one!!!!! Now the iPod commercials may not teach you this but according to this thing called logic (I know, many Apple users may never have heard of this word before so bare with me) if the music you buy only works on one MP3 player then naturally you will buy that MP3 player rather than a different one that cant play your music. Awesome
S*** didnt think of it that way, my bad. But still before Zune there were no music services exclusively for one MP3 player.
Job's reply is that the iPod can play non DRM media just fine and thus if you buy an iPod you aren't locked into iTunes. and then he goes on to blame the record industry for using DRM.
Now then about the whole licensing thing... Appl doesn't license their DRM, and as I remember Fairplay is fairly easily cracked on files, certainly easily stripped, but I believe there's also tool to remove it if you don't have the license. Now he blames less control and security for not licensing it.
Yet, the inferior, according to many(not me),company called MS made a DRM called playsForSure. Now this anyone can license, and on top of that, it's extremely configurable in how strict it is as far as what you are alllowed to do with the files and how you use them. Yet in my experience it's taken for longer for cracks to come for this system and they seem far less easy to use than what is for iTMS, where new cracks pop up the day after they change it.
Heck Real even cracked the Fairplay in reverse, selling songs with "fake" fairplay protection.
in other words, Jobs is full of BS
but just cause they have a stupid hate for a company saying the same thing, they suddenly turn face
If he wants no DRM, he should do it in the begin starting with Fairplay. Apparently, fairplay is not fair at all. Only ipod can play and it can not be played on other player. Now, EU demands his DRM files to be allowed playing on other devices he turned back and cockily demand no DRM, then it can be played in other player.
It is a cocky, bs, son of the b***ch behavior...
Don't you detect that? Too bad, Apple starts to walk in cocky M$ path like in the 80s
I'd really like to see the record labels ditch DRM to watch how Jobs reacts.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.