As we all know by now Steve Jobs called for the music industry to drop DRM. The CEO for Warner Music Edgar Bronfman replied in opposition and strangely said the following:
“We advocate the continued use of DRM,” said Bronfman. “The notion that music does not deserve the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit.”
The “legacy product” to which Edgar was referring is the music CD. Steve Jobs remarked that CDs have no DRM protection yet they make up “over 90 percent” of the music industry’s market.
I find it odd that a product that currently gives an industry 90% of its profit is somehow over the hill and out of date. This isn’t like a legacy operating system. Once Microsoft releases a new OS, people basically stop buying the legacy OSes. But apparently people are still buying CDs by the bushel.
Edgar’s argument appears to be that it doesn’t matter that CDs lack DRM as they’re not going to be around much longer anyway. But maybe it’s not CDs that are legacy, maybe it’s only CDs that are free of DRM that are about to be put out to pasture. Mmm….
Update: Hilarious comment by Sladen that everyone should read:
“They don’t like downloads and they don’t like CDs. Just what do these idiots like?”
Job’s reality distortion field never ceases to amaze me, the reach it has and how it affects people is quite remarkable. I really wonder is he’s truly behind the idea of DRM free music downloads.
1. “I really wonder is he’s truly behind the idea of DRM free music downloads.”
Probably not.
Well, they already tried to replace ordinary CDs with those awful pre-scratched ones that wouldn’t work in many CD players or DVD players or almost anywhere else (cars, for example).
They don’t like downloads and they don’t like CDs. Just what do these idiots like?
A technology that exists from the 80s can correctly be labeled a legacy product. Optical disc technology in general faces an uncertain future and will rapidly follow magnetic tape into obscurity. Why own a few titles when you can access the entire catalog for a subscription fee? A subscription based model is the future, with files temporarily stored on flash memory and hard drives. Why do we need to permanently own entertainment anymore?
4. “A technology that exists from the 80s can correctly be labeled a legacy product.”
You’re right, but you’re missing Edgar’s argument, which is basically that it doesn’t matter that CDs lack DRM as they’re not going to be around much longer anyway. How else does his comment make any sense unless they plan on getting rid of DRM-Free CDs?
#3, they like money. That’s all. They don’t like making the product, they don’t like selling the product, the don’t like the artists, and the don’t like the customer. Think about it. CD’s are ‘legacy’, artists are given next to nothing in royalties and have to pay for everything, and then the customer is ALWAYS treated as a criminal. I just as soon music go away and start over without big conglomerate record companies. I’m REALLY hoping there is a big exodus of artists from these companies to being self-promoted. They’d make more and have more control over what they do. FREEDOM!!!
JT, the reason we need to own entertainment is so we dont have to pay to rent it over and over. I like the subscription model, though I think they charge too much for it. But there are some songs that are timeless and you like and wish to revisit often – why should I continute to have to pay over and over to access those songs?
Subscription services are great for trying out new music risk free, but long term, Ill buy albums or tracks every time.
#4 – We need to permanently own our entertainment because otherwise it can be taken out of circulation and “disappear”. How many things on the Web vanish or get modified right now? I don’t want me music to enter that model as well.
#3 #6 these people are in the wrong business, they don’t like to sell product, just to get money, they need a business where people will just freely give up money… I suggest they move into casinos…
#9: If the music companies got into casinos, they’d have us all playing with chips that no one would be able to cash out.
You can have a subscription model without DRM. See eMusic for details. You can’t rent digital content, but you can lower the costs so lot’s of people buy it.
#9, actually, they have an even better business. Insurance! I live on the Gulf Coast and we paid and paid every month, then, when Katrina hit, they all took a powder. This is the business for music executives! Take and take and take and give nothing in return! And make record profits during the year of Katrina! Yep, that’s the racket for them alright!
What’s interesting to me is the assumption that copyrights are moral and right and absolutely needed. In the US, the concept was endorsed only for a limited time by Jefferson. If Bob Dylan wrote “Absolutely Sweet Marie” today he might get sued by the MPAA, because the line “To live outside the law you have to be honest” was filched from Don Siegel’s 1958 film noir, The Lineup, written by Stirling Silliphant.
For a good read and convincing view of how misused copyright has become, see “The Ecstasy of Influence” in this month’s Harper’s, readable at http://tinyurl.com/yv5qtc . Incidentally, the artist makes strong argument that a healthy and yeasty public domain is needed for the arts to flourish. The PD has all been killed off by the entertainment industry, now that orphaned works are no longer available through the public domain. That’s the majority of works during the 20th century, for those who think the matter is trivial.
The US and world copyright laws badly need rethinking, but it won’t happen while pols like Diane Feinstein are owned by the big international entertainment conglomerates.
I am reminded that satelite radio is worth every penny every time I take a trip longer than about 30 miles, which for me is about every other day. I guess you can do the same sort of thing with an iPod, but then Osama isn’t going to be captured live on an iPod.
Same thing for cable TV. At $60 bucks a month, having access to OnDemand is the absolute killer service. The local DVD rental store simply doesn’t have the selection of movies, nor the OnDemand TV shows. I tried NetFlix for a little while, between my inherent flakyness at returning the movies, and the day or two delay betwen getting new movies it simply was not worth the cost. The DVD rental place a 10 minute walk from my house is a better deal. As I understand, I can get basic cable for about $20 bucks a month, but then I lose the ability to play those thousands of “free” movies with a few button presses of my remote control.
Have played with the new version of Windows Media Center in Vista, I am now pining for some sort of Media Extender. My birthday is coming up, maybe my wife will get me an XBox 360?
But then, I don’t have the complex about ‘owning’ a movie or song, just because I listened to it and liked it. I’d rather pay the reasonable monthly fee and not have to worry about finding new good stuff. I think the editorial content by the service providers is a good value.
#17,
So does your date like it when the two of you go to a movie theater movie, and you try and save a few bucks by sneaking your beverages in?
Lol.
#16
You don’t need a complex, you’re pwned.
#16
You don’t need a complex about ‘owning’, you’re pwned!
#19,
You are free to continue using the quality free content on YouTube.
I get to use my satelite radio for about two years for the same cost as a hard drive iPod.
I get to watch quality movies, way more than are available on the internet, bittorrent or otherwise, for less than the cost of a terrabyte NAS device… for about two years.
Still think I’m getting the better value. Or do you have some math that proves otherwise? Remember you are still paying something like 60 bucks a month for a quality internet connection.
#22
Me thinks you assume to much. We all know what assumptions mean.
pwned again.
#19 and #20
Wow, sorry about the double post John. The first one (#19) went through without entering the capcha.