5 ms·

Why didn't he push for the same idea in video then? DRM in video disks was always obsolete and removable, so for all practical purposes (besides DMCA-1201 and s

by shmerl 8y ago

Why didn't he push for the same idea in video then? DRM in video disks was always obsolete and removable, so for all practical purposes (besides DMCA-1201 and similar anti-circumvention junk) they are DRM-free.

scarface74 8y ago
There is a longer story. Around 2006, everyone trying to sell digital music was failing because it wasn’t compatible with the iPod. The music industry was trying to get control back from Apple. They wanted Apple to license FairPlay. Apple refused and Jobs posted his alternative to Apples home page - let everyone sell DRM free music. The music industry wanted Apple to allow variable pricing, sell albums only, pay a license fee on each iPod sold to them, and pay a deposit to insure against piracy. Apple refused all of their demands. So the music industry started licensing every other competitor to sell DRM free music that did acquiesce to their demand in 2007. Only one publisher was on board with Apple from day one -EMI. That was the same year the iPhone came out. Apples license didn’t allow them to sell music over cellular. That’s why you could only by music on the phone when it was connected to WiFi the first year. The next year, Apple did come to an agreement with the other labels. The movie industry didn’t make the same mistake. They license movie rental and purchases to all comers from day one. Besides, unlike the days of the non connected iPods. You could buy a movie from anywhere (except Apple) and stream to any device.
- shmerl 8y ago
  I don't see DRM-free options as a mistake though. I suppose it's good that Apple played a role in forcing one DRM obsessed segment into adopting DRM-free approach, but video could learn from music industry, which successfully profits despite the absence of DRM, and do the same thing. Streaming doesn't replace DRM-free purchasing, thus the issues in the parent topic itself.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    By the same mistake I meant letting Apple be the dominant force in video like it was in downloadable music. It could dictate terms.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      Right, which I guess highlights that DRM is really about the classic urge for control, rather than tool against piracy and etc.
    - thirdsun 8y ago
      But how does this relate to DRM or explain the lack thereof? If every platform can offer DRM-free movies, similar to the music I can buy everywhere, how does that put Apple in a dominant position? Sounds more like an equal playing field to me.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        The music industry getting rid of DRM was never about the customer - it was the only way that the music industry could both reduce Apple’s stranglehold on digital music and let competitors sell music that was compatible with Apples dominant devices. The movie industry doesn’t have that issue. Anyone can license and sell video that works on Apple devices via an app an Apple is not dominant in the video delivery devices market like it was in the music market during the iPod era. Apple can’t dictate terms. Getting rid of DRM was suppose to give the music industry back its power (and then Spotify happened). Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. But most studios are happy to be a part of Movies Anywhere that let you sync purchases between Apple/Google/Amazon/Vudu.
        shmerl 8y ago
        > Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. In the sense of paranoid control, it doesn't. In practice it will increase their profits, since they'll address the market that they currently ignore, switching some users from pirating to buying the same thing legally.

by shmerl 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

There is a longer story. Around 2006, everyone trying to sell digital music was failing because it wasn’t compatible with the iPod. The music industry was trying to get control back from Apple. They wanted Apple to license FairPlay. Apple refused and Jobs posted his alternative to Apples home page - let everyone sell DRM free music. The music industry wanted Apple to allow variable pricing, sell albums only, pay a license fee on each iPod sold to them, and pay a deposit to insure against piracy. Apple refused all of their demands. So the music industry started licensing every other competitor to sell DRM free music that did acquiesce to their demand in 2007. Only one publisher was on board with Apple from day one -EMI. That was the same year the iPhone came out. Apples license didn’t allow them to sell music over cellular. That’s why you could only by music on the phone when it was connected to WiFi the first year. The next year, Apple did come to an agreement with the other labels. The movie industry didn’t make the same mistake. They license movie rental and purchases to all comers from day one. Besides, unlike the days of the non connected iPods. You could buy a movie from anywhere (except Apple) and stream to any device.

shmerl 8y ago
I don't see DRM-free options as a mistake though. I suppose it's good that Apple played a role in forcing one DRM obsessed segment into adopting DRM-free approach, but video could learn from music industry, which successfully profits despite the absence of DRM, and do the same thing. Streaming doesn't replace DRM-free purchasing, thus the issues in the parent topic itself.
- scarface74 8y ago
  By the same mistake I meant letting Apple be the dominant force in video like it was in downloadable music. It could dictate terms.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Right, which I guess highlights that DRM is really about the classic urge for control, rather than tool against piracy and etc.
  - thirdsun 8y ago
    But how does this relate to DRM or explain the lack thereof? If every platform can offer DRM-free movies, similar to the music I can buy everywhere, how does that put Apple in a dominant position? Sounds more like an equal playing field to me.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The music industry getting rid of DRM was never about the customer - it was the only way that the music industry could both reduce Apple’s stranglehold on digital music and let competitors sell music that was compatible with Apples dominant devices. The movie industry doesn’t have that issue. Anyone can license and sell video that works on Apple devices via an app an Apple is not dominant in the video delivery devices market like it was in the music market during the iPod era. Apple can’t dictate terms. Getting rid of DRM was suppose to give the music industry back its power (and then Spotify happened). Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. But most studios are happy to be a part of Movies Anywhere that let you sync purchases between Apple/Google/Amazon/Vudu.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        > Getting rid of DRM doesn’t do anything for the movie industry. In the sense of paranoid control, it doesn't. In practice it will increase their profits, since they'll address the market that they currently ignore, switching some users from pirating to buying the same thing legally.