Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: Politically Correct (Astute?) Comments from Jobs on DRM
|
|
| Re: OT: Politically Correct (Astute?) Comments from Jobs on DRM [message #79642 is a reply to message #79607] |
Wed, 07 February 2007 08:09   |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
I'm not 100% sold that this is genuine, that Apple would really open up iPods
to use any software in the world to load and unload music, but if I could
load .ogg files onto a Nano from my Debian laptop I would buy one in a second.
.flac support would really, really be nice too.
But the real point here, I think, is that Apple knows it owns the portable
device market now and they're not terribly happy with the deals they struck
with the media cartels to make that market. Legitimate complaint in many
ways, 'Hey fellas, before us you were stuck flogging CDs nobody wanted to
buy anymore, and we dug the ditches to get you out of that mess. But people
don't like the DRM and we think we can sell a little more now that you guys
aren't allergic to the term 'download.''
But Apple is in many ways a victim of their own success. Having made the
iPod the market dominant portable player, everyone else says (almost certainly
incorrectly), 'Hey, let's make our own brilliant little player for [insert
type of media that cartel wants to flog] and keep from paying Estebahn Jobs
his vig.' And your ISP will want their ounce of flesh, and everyone who thinks
they're getting screwed in the deal will try to find some DMCA reason to
sue everyone else, etc. and so forth.
So I think the Jobs piece is good, though a bit disingenuous. And as I said,
when I can load OGG/FLAC to my iPod from my linux boxes I'd love to have
one.
TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Politically Correct (Astute?) Comments from Jobs on DRM [message #79654 is a reply to message #79607] |
Wed, 07 February 2007 14:08 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Not sure about this bit:
"The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology
to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability
between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this
seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now
and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing
fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin
to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing
some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us
that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks
far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than
a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as
free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that
formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players."
It does seem reasonable on the surface, however I would think that it would
be fairly possible for apple to provide a prebuilt chunk of code to other
providers, without devuldging their secrets. How many peices of software
use the LAME encoder? It's not difficult to make your software modular enough
to accept a prebuilt peice of code which functions within agreed parameters...
I don't agree that Apple would need to reveal all their secrets. I think
that's garbage. I think Apple could very easily design a modular peice of
Fairplay code. Furthermore, like the LAME encoder, the plugin could be downloaded
direct from Apple's website. If Fairplay's DRM was breached, Apple alone
would be responsible for and capable of performing the update, and it would
go straight to consumers.
I think on that particular front Jobs is full of rubbish. I don't know what
his agenda is, but I just cannot fathom how the above paragraph from him
can possibly be true. I am certain it wouldn't be hard to make Fairplay modular,
if they wanted.
I suspect Apple make a lot of money out of having the most popular DRM system
on the planet.
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Politically Correct (Astute?) Comments from Jobs on DRM [message #79655 is a reply to message #79642] |
Wed, 07 February 2007 14:13 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
If you go back through history and read and listen to all of Steve Jobs speeches
I think you'll find that Steve Jobs is opposed to DRM. Apple is a business,
and they have to be profitable and answer to their share holders. The only
business model that would work at the time was to lock the itunes down loads
to Apples hardware the iPod. I think that was the only way the record companies
would agree to open up their libraries to Apple.
When you down load from the iTunes store you can only have 5 or 6 copies
on your Apple devices and burn 5 or 6 CDs. From their you could make many
copies many ways. I believe you can go in to the folder where the audio
files are on your computer and drag and copy the audio files to third party
MP3 players. You can't do it from iTunes but you can do it. So the DRM
on Apple Machines is not much of a DRM system. You can't play everybody's
file formats and DRM-ed files on every MP3 player. So why isn't there people
complaining about Apple's competitor's DRM systems, which are much more restrictive?
Why does everybody want to take a bite out of Apple's ass? I believe many
are conspiring to cripple or bring Apple down.
Apple's business model is based on them selling the software and the hardware.
In this case, the MP3 music and the hardware player. They don't have any
kind of monopoly, you can buy MP3s and thousands of other players. It's
not exactly like they are keeping people from buying MP3s and MP3 players,
there are other choices out there. right now, Apple has to stick to the
deal they made with the record companies. When Apple started to do video,
Apple wanted the Motion picture companies to lower the prices, but the motion
picture companies wouldn't and they set the prices. Apple has had no choice
but to go along with the pricing. They started with television shows first
because the negotiations with the movie houses were so tuff.
The greedy bastards in the record industry have tried to pressure Apple in
to raising their prices so the record companies can make even more money
than they already do. Look it up. According to things I've read Apple pays
an average of around 80 cents a song. The record companies are doing fine,
but for those kind of people it's never enough. They are the kind of people
that are never happy unless they are taking advantage of somebody.
It seems like everybody is trying to take a bite out if Apple right now.
Apple is facing a multitude of frivolous lawsuits right now. This is a
huge drain on them, that is why they are trying to settle them quickly and
they are making huge pay outs. I think they are just trying to move on quickly.
Why fight it. I believe there are many forces trying to bring them down
right now. Just one of many cases is a south korean company that cloned
the gum stick iPod shuffle. It is identical accept they used Apple's market
strategy and put them out in multiple colors before Apple could. Apple stopped
the sale of the product until it made it's way to court. The corrupt south
Korean court ruled in favor of the south Korean company and now that company
has filed a 100 million dollar suit against Apple. Just go look at the copy
cat product their identical.
This is what they are up against.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/101262/apple-faces-100-million-l awsuit-over-shuffle-lookalike.html
Apple is now being pressured by the EU through european governments, so the
jig is up. Apple is profitable and now everybody wants a piece of them.
So do they fight every body in court or open up. I think they think that
they are innovative enough to keep being profitable in other ways. I think
jobs asking the record companies to open up is genuine. He has given many
speeches where he has stated that he is opposed to DRM in the past. Apples
star cash cow product the iPod can't maintain it's position forever, the
market is becoming saturated with MP3 players. I think they know the time
is coming and it's the right thing to do.
Anyway, the bottom line is Apple has no choice but to have some form of restrictions
in order for the iTunes music store to work. That is the deal they have
with the record industry. I believe Apple is will to change, but it's really
up to the record industry.
James
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
>
>I'm not 100% sold that this is genuine, that Apple would really open up
iPods
>to use any software in the world to load and unload music, but if I could
>load .ogg files onto a Nano from my Debian laptop I would buy one in a second.
>flac support would really, really be nice too.
>
>But the real point here, I think, is that Apple knows it owns the portable
>device market now and they're not terribly happy with the deals they struck
>with the media cartels to make that market. Legitimate complaint in many
>ways, 'Hey fellas, before us you were stuck flogging CDs nobody wanted to
>buy anymore, and we dug the ditches to get you out of that mess. But people
>don't like the DRM and we think we can sell a little more now that you guys
>aren't allergic to the term 'download.''
>
>But Apple is in many ways a victim of their own success. Having made the
>iPod the market dominant portable player, everyone else says (almost certainly
>incorrectly), 'Hey, let's make our own brilliant little player for [insert
>type of media that cartel wants to flog] and keep from paying Estebahn Jobs
>his vig.' And your ISP will want their ounce of flesh, and everyone who
thinks
>they're getting screwed in the deal will try to find some DMCA reason to
>sue everyone else, etc. and so forth.
>
>So I think the Jobs piece is good, though a bit disingenuous. And as I said,
>when I can load OGG/FLAC to my iPod from my linux boxes I'd love to have
>one.
>
>TCB
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Politically Correct (Astute?) Comments from Jobs on DRM [message #79658 is a reply to message #79656] |
Wed, 07 February 2007 15:58 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>According to things I've read Apple pays an average of around
>80 cents a song.
>
>And for a record label who has invested half a mil or more into
>a band, that equates to HOW many downloads to break even? So
>you're saying that in this field, Apple should be able to turn a
>profit selling iPods, and turn a profit selling downloads, but
>the labels should get what? Squat? Or less than squat?
Neil PLEASE!
Apple is just one of many resellers of the record industries products. News
flash Apple helped turn them around!!! The Record Companies were dyeing
on the vine. Apple came up with a business model that worked. There were
other companies that were around like mp3.com that didn't really work, it
wasn't until Apple got in to the game. Apple is NOT screwing the record
labels. Apple has help the labels sell their product!!!
Who do you think get screwed when an artist gets 8 to 13 cents a record that
sells for $10.00 to $20.00? Who do you think makes all the money? In a
typical record deal, that half a million dollars has to be payed back by
the band or artist before the artist sees any profit. If the artist is
not profitable the record company gets to write off the loss! It's a nice
little deal they got going with the government. If the artist doesn't make
it they go bankrupt, and are often sued by the record company.
Speaking of nice little deals, if you started a record company, how many
radio stations a crossed the country and the world would you be able to have
your artist played on and in regular rotation??? What access would you have
to the market place? Yes, I feel so sorry for the record companies and the
families that own and control them. Do you know what it cost to wing people
around in a Gulf Stream 5 on a regular basis? I'd sure like to have that
write off.
What did it cost Apple to set up the infrastructure at the time that they
did? What did the technology cost to develop to create the iTunes music
store, and develop the iPod? It wasn't free, and the record companies couldn't
do it by them selves, or they would have. What did the advertising cost
Apple? Do you think the record industry help Apple with any of the cost?
The answer is NO! They went it alone. Apple helped turn the record industry
around.
>
>of COURSE Jobs would like to see no DRM - what does he have to
>lose by that? Absolutely nothing; especially since he's not
>investing any money in the front-end of making the music itself.
>
>Neil
Apple could, and would make more money with the DRM in place. they are open
to doing something different, and opening up. what more do you want? What
they have in place is not true DRM. You can have multiple copies. The industry
should thank god for Apple!
James
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Politically Correct (Astute?) Comments from Jobs on DRM [message #79695 is a reply to message #79658] |
Thu, 08 February 2007 10:02 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Neil PLEASE!
Man, you just simply do not understand business at ALL, do you?
See my responses to your comments below:
>Apple is just one of many resellers of the record industries products.
News
>flash Apple helped turn them around!!!
While making shitloads of money for themselves in the process...
doesn't do much good to have an iPod if you can't play anything
back on it, BUT WAIT - if we sell people the music for the iPod,
too, then we'll make even MORE money! Nothing wrong with that,
it was a win-win for both Apple & the labelss - but don't come
across like Apple's so charitable & generous that they decided
to save an entire floundering industry out of the goodness of
their hearts.
>There were other companies that were around like mp3.com that
>didn't really work,
Yes, IMO there was too much unprofessional crap on mp3.com;
yeah there was some really good indie stuff, too, but you had to
filter out a hgundred pieces of crap in order to find one gem...
wasn't it Phil Spector who said "LP's are just two good songs &
ten pieces of crap" ? lol mp3.com was two good songs for every
like five hundred thousand pieces of crap.
Which proves what? That consumers either DO like to be force-fed
by the biglabelstarmakingspinmachines, or they actually in fact,
have some discernment, after all.
>Who do you think get screwed when an artist gets 8 to 13 cents
>a record that sells for $10.00 to $20.00?
Yes, I'm really sorry for people like Britney Spears, Snoop
Dog, and J-Lo who the labels built up to the point where they
can have their own clothing lines, perfume brands, etc, etc,
and make millions upon millions of merchandising $ that the
labels never even get to touch - where would these people be
without the labels' money launching them in the first place?
Even the mid-level artists do pretty well... they make shitloads
more than any of us do, and while that may not put them in the
same league as the A-listers, they still end up with a damn good
set of mansions & exotic cars out of the deal.
>Who do you think makes all the money? In a typical record
>deal, that half a million dollars has to be payed back by the
>band or artist before the artist sees any profit.
And why should it not have to be paid back first? Should the
labels be a big fucking charity that doles out tens of millions
per year to however mnay bands/artists & then let the artist
reap all the profits first?
>If the artist is not profitable the record company gets to
>write off the loss! It's a nice little deal they got going
>with the government.
If you own a washing machine repair business & you show a loss,
then you get to write it off... nice little deal you got going
on with the government innit?
>If the artist doesn't make it they go bankrupt, and are often
>sued by the record company.
If the artist doesn't make it and they go bankrupt, then they're
probably no worse off then when they got signed a year ago.
>Speaking of nice little deals, if you started a record company,
>how many radio stations a crossed the country and the world
>would you be able to have your artist played on and in regular
>rotation???
I have a little record company, and the answer is: very few.
>What access would you have to the market place?
Hardly any. It takes a lot of money & muscle to break through
the noise, no doubt. But this is an entirely different issue
altogether... how many iTunes (or Rhapsody, or EMusic) downloads
are NOT from major-lable artists? Hardly any in proportion,
really; so the fact that people have access to indie stuff now
is irrelevant, they're still buying/seeking out that which is
most aggressively marketed to them by Radio/MTV/Fuse/Etc.
>Yes, I feel so sorry for the record companies and the
>families that own and control them. Do you know what it cost
>to wing people around in a Gulf Stream 5 on a regular basis?
I dunno, do you know how much it costs to swill gallons of
Cristal every night or pour a pound of blow up your nose every
month? Those poor artists getting screwed, how dare the labels
own a corporate jet when they should be giving some more of that
money to those people we see on MTV Cribs... hey, that guy's
still got room for a seventh quarter-million dollar car in his
driveway - how about we give some of it to him?
Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jan 03 12:51:20 PST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02377 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
