3 ms·

Music was supposed to be copy-protected, too: the RIAA fought tooth and nail to kill Digital Audio Tape, and then settled for the AHRA which mandated all "consu

Music was supposed to be copy-protected, too: the RIAA fought tooth and nail to kill Digital Audio Tape, and then settled for the AHRA which mandated all "consumer" digital recorders have DRM in them. The problem was that this was legally ineffective[0] once PCs got CD drives and enough storage and processing power to deal with the firehose that was CD-DA. Insisting on DRM for legal music downloads was their way of putting the genie back in the bottle, but that also gave Apple a monopsony over all digital music, much like the App Store does for iOS software today. Going DRM-free let the labels sideload MP3s onto people's iPods and cut Apple out of the equation. But they would have never agreed to do it if Apple was willing to license FairPlay on FRAND terms like Microsoft did with PlaysForSure. More generally, consumer copying technology was never really "supposed" to exist. It's often been said that "copyright was supposed to regulate publishers, not consumers", which I agree with. But the flipside of this was "consumers weren't supposed to become casual publishers", which is what the AHRA, DMCA 1201, and DRM as a whole was/is trying to achieve. But that's largely failed, and we live in the world where everyone is a publisher all the time, which is why everyone has to be regulated like a publisher all the time. [0] See RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia

scarface74 5y ago
Let’s not skip over the fact that Jobs himself publicly encouraged the music industry to license their music DRM free. This was originally posted on the front page of Apple back in 2007. https://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/ https://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_pos...
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  It's kind of funny, because at the same time Jobs is explaining why DRM sucks and basically can't be standardized, they were also developing the iPhone which would go on to repeat the whole "only we sell things wrapped in this DRM" thing... except without the sideloading option. The article you linked adds it's own commentary which has aged like milk. Jobs wasn't so much opposed to DRM in general, as much as he just didn't like it on music. This probably has more to do with the fact that Apple was not a music label[0], and thus he was predisposed to look at music solely as a consumer[1]. When it comes to things Apple does publish[2], such as software, they are extremely protective of it. [0] And legally, cannot, because of numerous trademark lawsuits with Apple Records, the record label of The Beatles [1] "They don't want to rent their music" https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8744963/steve-jobs-jesus-people-dont-want-music-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8744963/steve-jobs-jesus-p... [2] "Publishing" in this case means funding the creation, marketing, and physical manufacturing of some creative work. This is primarily what a music label does, and is part of the reason why they take so much from artists.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    The market changes as far as your second foot note. No one has ever made a successful business with subscription music. By “successful” I mean “decently profitable”. Spotify makes around $3 million a quarter in profit. https://www.barrons.com/articles/spotify-has-finally-found-a-profitable-tune-51635346820 https://www.barrons.com/articles/spotify-has-finally-found-a...

scarface74 5y ago

Let’s not skip over the fact that Jobs himself publicly encouraged the music industry to license their music DRM free. This was originally posted on the front page of Apple back in 2007. https://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/ https://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_pos...

kmeisthax 5y ago
It's kind of funny, because at the same time Jobs is explaining why DRM sucks and basically can't be standardized, they were also developing the iPhone which would go on to repeat the whole "only we sell things wrapped in this DRM" thing... except without the sideloading option. The article you linked adds it's own commentary which has aged like milk. Jobs wasn't so much opposed to DRM in general, as much as he just didn't like it on music. This probably has more to do with the fact that Apple was not a music label[0], and thus he was predisposed to look at music solely as a consumer[1]. When it comes to things Apple does publish[2], such as software, they are extremely protective of it. [0] And legally, cannot, because of numerous trademark lawsuits with Apple Records, the record label of The Beatles [1] "They don't want to rent their music" https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8744963/steve-jobs-jesus-people-dont-want-music-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8744963/steve-jobs-jesus-p... [2] "Publishing" in this case means funding the creation, marketing, and physical manufacturing of some creative work. This is primarily what a music label does, and is part of the reason why they take so much from artists.
- scarface74 5y ago
  The market changes as far as your second foot note. No one has ever made a successful business with subscription music. By “successful” I mean “decently profitable”. Spotify makes around $3 million a quarter in profit. https://www.barrons.com/articles/spotify-has-finally-found-a-profitable-tune-51635346820 https://www.barrons.com/articles/spotify-has-finally-found-a...