Steve Jobs – Thoughts on Music – February 6, 2007 – Found by Nathaniel.:

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none.

Dvorak chimes in on Jobs’ proposal in his latest MarketWatch column:

Music sharing used to be a common thing people did, but it’s now limited to swapping CD’s (or copies of CD’s). As we move to pure online distribution the sharing of purchased music is severely limited by DRM.

This limitation will kill the industry since the social networking (aka music sharing) has been so important to the discovery process.

I would like to finish with the marketing observation that the record industry hates. During the heyday of Napster and open free music sharing and trading, when million of people swapped songs, the CD business was booming. Once Napster was shut down, and along with it the social network of music discovery, sales began to plummet. They are still falling.

Apparently these people are clueless about their own industry and how it works.

John’s right. Whenever there is a lack of exposure to new music the music industry takes a dive. Some of you might be old enough to remember when the music industry crashed back in the early 80s. Experts and pundits at the time laid the blame on piracy and video games. The theories were that kids were sharing music via cassette tapes and that kids were too distracted by video games to buy music. Sound familiar?

So the early 80s had Tom Petty shooting an arcade video game with a gun in one of his videos and Bow Wow Wow pissing off the industry with their pro-copying song “C30, C60, C90, Go.” It all seems so incredibly naive now.

Of course the music decline had nothing to do with either cassette tapes or video games. It was that white kids were sick of what radio was playing. (I’m guessing black kids were sick too, but I cannot speak from their experience.) They were sick of faceless corporate rock featuring bland music by such groups as Styx, Journey, and Reo Speedwagon. They wanted their own music, but no one was playing it.

However, once MTV got into enough homes it started exposing kids to new music and the industry took off big time. MTV brought black music to white kids along with English new-wave, metal, and alternative. (And the surge was certainly helped by the release of the CD format which made plenty of people re-buy their music collections.)

That huge wave continued until the 90s when MTV stopped playing new music. About that same time the radio industry started consolidating and extremely narrow play lists killed off any music diversity heard on the radio. The music industry was stuck exactly where it was back in the 80s: Radio stations playing bland corporate music and fans not giving a damn because they had nothing worth giving a damn about.

It was also at that time that I stopped buying new music. Most of the music I had been exposed to was via word of mouth, sharing mix tapes among friends. Artists such as Husker Du, John Zorn and Fishbone. Once I went to law school and didn’t have time to hang out and share music with friends my exposure to new music ended.

That changed with Napster. The cool thing about the original Napster was that it more than peer-to-peer, it was actually person to person. With modern P2P programs you’re not downloading from one person, but from several people all at once. But with Napster you were connected to one person and they were connected to you. When you saw someone download one of your favorite songs, you’d think, “Gee, if they like that song, they might have something I would like.”

I’d check out share lists of those people and would be exposed to music I had never heard. And I’d chat with people all over the world about music. I went from buying no new music to buying about two or three CDs a month. Bands such as Wilco, the Old 97s, and Pizzicato Five, to name a few.

Of course that ended when Napster pulled its plug. And because other P2P programs didn’t have the same person to person feel, I stopped being exposed to new music and stopped buying new music again. Modern P2P programs are only good when you already know what you want. They’re not designed to expose you to music you’ve never heard. And we have the music industry to blame for that.

As John points out, the music industry has to accept that the vast majority of people only buy music they’re exposed to. People will see a movie based solely on a commercial, but they will not buy a CD based on a commercial, unless they’ve heard at least one song enough times to actually like it. Marketing music is odd because you basically cannot sell it until after the person has already “used” the product.

Nowadays the music industry is holding its assets so tightly that they’re killing themselves off.

If the industry really wants to save itself, here’s what they should do. First, come out strongly against radio consolidation. In fact, press the FCC and Congress to backtrack and open up radio ownership. Push for licenses for as many low-wattage stations as possible. Let’s go back to the time when radio stations existed not solely for profit, but because the owner and DJs loved music. (I have a theory that people with MBAs are unable to love anything that cannot be quantified, so maybe they should be banned from working in the radio industry!)

Second, treat internet radio as a marketing tool and not a source of direct revenue. Real radio only has to pay the composer for playing music. Why should internet radio be any different?

Third, create a music television channel that plays nothing but music videos. Then spin it off and give it complete independence so it’s free to innovate and play any form of music. Don’t let it become a drone of the corporate music industry.

Fourth, accept that music is more than just a product. It’s not a new floor cleaner or a dessert topping. It’s an integral part of people’s lives. People use music to shape their identity in ways no other product can. Locking up music is about as asinine as locking up your first kiss or your first roller coaster ride. It’s a part of our identity and culture and people should be allowed to revel in it, not be locked away from it.



  1. moss says:

    Cripes, that’s an enormous piece, Steve. And it’s nice to see Steve Jobs agreeing with John.

    Now, if some Cult of Mac — and Cult of anti-Mac — people will look at what Jobs is talking about as a business analyst, maybe we can move forward towards getting the lawyers out of the way of music-making.

  2. SN says:

    1. “Cripes, that’s an enormous piece…”

    Thanks. Now you know why my wife always has a smile. 😉

  3. YeahRight says:

    I’m still miffed that before the internet, record companies could not guess how many people lended their records,cd,tape to friends. Now with the internet, they look at the amount of downloads and see $$$ for all the downloads. I’m sorry but a lot of people download many many songs but don’t even listen to them. They listen to some but not all the downloaded music .

  4. JT says:

    The music industry will eliminate DRM or the consumer will eliminate the music industry!

  5. Jerk-Face says:

    God SN get a life. If I wanted have long winded diatribes shoved up my ass I’d be spending my time in a library not on the internet!

  6. Greymoon says:

    Well said SN, well said.

  7. Eric Phillips says:

    I would love for this to happen. I have a label and think DRM restrictions are bogus. Right now you can get Dom’s album at http://www.dominiquevouk.com, without DRM and at 192Khz MP3 through the Snocap service.

  8. TVAddict says:

    I think John has been right in another area as well. Music for downloading should be lossless. There is no real reason for downloading the crappy compressed versions. Another reason I went back to CDs

  9. curmudgen says:

    SN, You are twisted and when I grow up I want to be just like you!!

  10. Mac Guy says:

    It’s about time someone with a bit of pull in the industry came out and called for some calm in this calamity of lawsuits against people who just want to dig some music. I’m tired of hearing how the RIAA (and MPAA, for that matter) is trying to squeeze every nickle and dime out of decent music fans. It’s exhausting to hear about every attempt the RIAA makes to stick their hands deeper and deeper into our pockets, grabbing hold of anything they can find.

    The least they could do is give us a reach-around.

  11. Rick says:

    Anyone see that the RIAA published a reply…saying they were glad Apple was planning to license Fair Play?

    Nice, that is really being on top of it…

  12. Angel H. Wong says:

    But that would mean that russian/chinese hackers would have nothing else to do…

    Except hack OSX :3

  13. GregA says:

    Actually, the RIAA is finished now. The lawsuits are done. They have been ordered to pay attorneys fees. So I don’t really care what they say anymore.

    http://tinyurl.com/39om77

  14. Wanderley says:

    Why can’t Apple (and others) make non-DRM music available as well alongside their current DRM-laden tracks?

    What could be more damaging to the image of the “big 4” labels than having their music being sold side by side with unprotected music? I bet lots of artists and small labels would love the opportunity.

    Then let the consumers decide what they want to do. Lock themselves into a device (be it an iPod or Zune or whatever) or be free to take their music with them beyond the expected lifetime of the current technology?

  15. C0D3R says:

    The real message here is that Apple accounts for less than ten percent of music sales.

    Already Apple accounts for less than five percent of personal computer sales and less than zero percent of cell phone sales.

    Let’s get some perspective on Apple’s role as a bit player, and maybe go a week without any published nonsense from Cupertino.

  16. hmmnice says:

    Fourth, accept that music is more than just a product.

    This gives me the warm fuzzies, but you know corp america will never see it that way. I think you hit it with your people with MBAs incapable of loving anything comment. Individuals in the upper strata of corp america and gov’t, generally, have no souls. I’ve met people like this. Tell them about how a certain part of a certain song gives you goose bumps, and they will give you a blank look and suggest some prescribed medication.

    They are empty shells.

    BTW, i think Soulseek is an excellent sharing proggy that does connect you with other individuals with similar tastes on a 1 to 1 basis. Its also good for independant and undergroundish stuff as opposed to the corp sludge.

  17. god says:

    Uh, #16 — last time I checked NPD numbers for music sales, Apple was 4th in the U.S. — after WalMart, Best Buy and Target. They passed Amazon by the end of Q3 2006.

    And you think 10% market share [if correct?] is insignificant. I guess Amazon is really insignificant, now. At least we needn’t worry about you ever being hired into retail corporate management.

  18. Jerk-Face says:

    18. Question: When you hit your thumb with a hammer, do you scream out your own name in vain?!

  19. TJGeezer says:

    The RIAA lawsuits work by intimidation. Not many have actually gone to trial, and I believe I have heard before of one the RIAA lost after some victim of their extortion refused to buckle. It’s just the RIAA’s deep pockets and, as 17 put it, empty-shell lawyers that people are terrified of, so the more often RIAA loses a suit, the less scared people will be. Downward spiral for their extortion. Bravo!

    As for Jobs, good for him. It’s about time. And I disagree that what he says about DRM is inconsequential, if only because he in effect controls Disney these days in addition to the biggest online music service. If online music sharing scared the cold-eyed RIAA dons, why would the stance of the biggest online music supplier not count?

    What I’ve haven’t seen is anyone speculating that maybe, given all the negative reaction to Microsoft/Ballmer’s DRM stance, Jobs is doing this at least in part to stick it to Microsoft.

  20. ChuckM says:

    Didn’t Steve make a few billion off of DRM over the last few years and now he wants to kill it?

    Something very fishy about this. Very used car salesman like…

    As well, I could have sworn I saw Bill Gates say the same thing a few weeks back on TV.

    Me too! Me too!

  21. Greg Allen says:

    I’ll say it again … I support the idea of DRM.

    Have any of you lived in a country that didn’t respect copyright laws? I’ve produced music in that scenario and, I tell you, there is no money in it. The music, publishing and software industries die off because they can’t make any money.

    You can maybe sell a couple thousand CDs — if you are very famous and then the bootleggers get ahold of it and start selling the same CD for a slim margin over the actual media cost.

    The problem I have with DRM is that it over-reached — violating what we traditionally consider ownership. If I buy a copy of music (or software for that matter), I believe I have the right to use around the house and in the car, in all or any machines I have. I also have the right to make a back-up copy for safekeeping. I also have the right to sell it used, after I’m done with it.

    If DRM could allow this without a big hassle, I don’t think I’d complain much about DRM.

    I think the final answer is to make music and software cheaper. If it is cheap enough, people will pay for the safety and convenience of getting the music from a legitimate source.

    Some publishers are getting a clue about this in the “copyright free” world and producing much cheaper editions for that market. I think it works.

    If Windows was fifty or a hundred bucks, a lot of people would buy it. But at $300 (nearing the average yearly wage!) they risk the viruses.

  22. Brian says:

    Who cares if Stevie Boy is opposed to DRM? Do you think the record labels care? If he is so opposed to it, why doesn’t he allow iTunes to be used with any portable MP3 player? Why are entire countries banning iTunes for its monopolistic practices?

    This is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black here. If the record industry tomorrow said ‘ok guys, no more DRM’, does anyone think for a second that Jobs wouldn’t have the same stupid controls on ‘his’ iTunes?

    Look, he says something that everyone obviously knows in a desperate attempt to get the apple fanboys screaming lustily, all the while he knows that saying this will have absolutely no effect on DRM.

    These comments are a non-story.

  23. ChrisMac says:

    I’m tired of seeing Time Warner and Sony and the lot still hammering the ip i used to pull one song or one movie a week ago.

    PS
    song was ok (got it faster off the net than to rip from my cd)
    movie sucked (insert almost any movie here)

  24. tallwookie says:

    This has got to be Steve’s best idea since the ipod.

  25. Mac Guy says:

    #23 – Actually, I think a lot of people are eyeing this proposal by Apple. Apple was the first company to create an online store, supported by the music industry (and later, the TV and film industries), where people could pay for music the way it SHOULD be paid for: at the user’s discretion, one song or album at a time. You can knock Apple all you want, but let’s face it – no one else could get them on board before Apple.

    If you had actually read the open letter Jobs posted, you would have noticed that in order to even open the iTunes Music Store (as it was then called), Apple was contractually obligated to use DRM in all of the music it sold. Dropping DRM in the manner you suggested would have been a breach of contract, opening up Apple to (more) lawsuits. Apparently, you fail to see that contracts can often mean something tangible, especially in a courtroom.

    Realistically, if the music industry accepts the truth that DRM was a GIBI (Good Idea, Bad Implementation), it will be a long ways from now. I’m not holding my breath, but I am keeping a watchful eye.

    And yes, I am a Mac fan, but make no mistake about it – I’m not one of those fans who blindly follow Apple, falsely believing they’re infallible. I love Apple, but I can also be one of their biggest critics (and with authority, since I support Macs at work and deal with their screw-ups day in, day out).

    *shrug* Time will tell.

  26. Thomas says:

    In essence what we are all saying is that in a DRM-free world, you need to make the product cheap enough so that it is no longer worthy of people attempting to steal it. That sounds fine on paper (screen) but IMO it would drive the cost you could charge down to pennies or less per song. The record companies would be relegated to portals where people can find music. In short, we are asking the recording industry to give up control over distribution other than CD’s which would quickly die presuming that uncompressed content were available. Somehow, I doubt that the big executives are ever going to be willing to give up that power. A more likely play is that the recording industry pushes everyone into DRM content online and kills off CDs (assuming they survive that long).

  27. ChrisMac says:

    We’re all computer fans..

  28. SN says:

    22. “I support the idea of DRM”

    “Have any of you lived in a country that didn’t respect copyright laws?”

    You’re talking about two entirely different things. Sure, they’re both means of protecting IP, but they have completely different ways of carrying it out. In a world with perfect DRM, copyright laws would be completely unnecessary.

    The world existed for centuries protecting copyrights without DRM, I’m not entirely sure why DRM is needed now. The more the industry piles it on, the worse shape they get.

    Or are you one of those people who really believed that the music crash in the 80s was caused by cassette tapes?!

  29. James says:

    If I owned any sort of buisiness that existed anywhere, I would listen to and be afraid of Steve Jobs. He takes over companies for fun, I’m conviced all his losses and gains of power in apple over its history have been a big game for him. Then he bent Disney over like it was nothing. The man is brilliant, and when he wants something he likes to get it. That said… I’ll still never buy a mac.

    Honestly, it wouldn’t shock me if Jobs hijacked the music industry just for fun. Even if he couldn’t take over the labels, I’m sure he could make a new label and steal all the artists. If he can’t do it with the apple name he could do it as a subset of Disney, which is more art/entertainment anyway.

  30. ChrisMac says:

    don’t fool yourself.. Steve can hardly bend at the knees..

    it’s got nothing to do.. with you.. or with me..

    it’s all free cause it’s 1’s and zero’s


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 11618 access attempts in the last 7 days.