阅读史蒂夫乔布斯的“音乐思想”之间的界限

史蒂夫乔布斯的“关于音乐的思考“论文是一篇非常好的文章,也是苹果公司的一个有趣且积极的战略举措。

Is it a challenge to the major record labels? An answer to the increasingly hostile European governments (Norway, France, Germany) that are pressuring Apple to “open up” the iTunes Store? A message to the press to clarify Apple’s stance on DRM? A big fuck-you to Microsoft?

这就是所有这些。

音乐公司

对于音乐标签,是的,这是一个挑战乔布斯写道:

If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes storeEvery iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

除了在iTunes Store上对非DRM音乐的明确承诺之外,很难将其解释为其他任何内容如果它是虚张声势,那么只需要在四个主要标签中的一个标签上写一个简单的两个字符的声明即可:“OK”。1

It is the case, though, that there already exist music labels that wish to put music on the iTunes Store without DRM protection — some of the independent labels have already bought into exactly what Jobs is arguing: that DRM does not combat piracy and that interoperability can only happen with DRM-free licensable file formats.

Jon Lech Johansen指出兰德尔斯特罗斯的这件作品在上个月的纽约时报中,提到了代表Avril Lavigne,Sarah McLachlan和Barenaked Ladies的Nettwerk音乐集团。他们出售他们的音乐eMusic的DRM-free; they want to do the same on iTunes, but Apple has, to date, refused如约翰森写道, “行动胜于雄辩”如果Apple允许独立唱片公司开始通过iTunes销售无DRM音乐,那么它将消除对Apple诚意的任何疑问。2

关于“开放DRM”系统的呼吁

以挪威监察官Bjoern Erik Thon为例请引用两周前路透社的报道:

“They must make iTunes music compatible with other players than the iPod by the end of September, or we will take them to court,” the ombudsman, Bjoern Erik Thon, told Reuters.

“iTunes is imposing unreasonable and unbalanced restrictions that are not in accordance with Norwegian law.”

He said the courts could impose fines on iTunes until songs downloaded through iTunes could be played on rival devices to the popular iPod.

当然,并不是唯一一个要求苹果“开放”FairPlay的人但是,正如我之前写过的,DRM和互操作性是互斥的互通性一个好主意您可以播放已下载并在任何品牌的音乐播放器上付费的音乐,这是公平的“打开FairPlay”听起来不错,但是,正如乔布斯所说的那样,几乎没有实际意义如果你真的想要互操作性,那么你想要的是什么没有DRM,而非“开放”DRM。

乔布斯将行业的选择归结为三种选择:

  1. 继续现在的事情。
  2. Apple将FairPlay授权给其他公司。
  3. 在没有DRM的情况下在线销售音

至于为什么#2不起作用,或者至少是一个坏主意,乔布斯写道,当FairPlay被破解时会发生什么:

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leakA successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in useThis must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated waySuch an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the piecesIt is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

现在,你可能会问为什么,如果乔布斯在争论反对DRM, would Apple care if an “open” FairPlay licensing model made it harder for Apple to fix any potential cracks? The problem is that, as Jobs mentions earlier in the essay, Apple’s deal with the major labels requires Apple to quickly close any FairPlay cracks, “or [the music companies] can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.” How could Apple assume responsibility for firmware updates for devices made by other companies?

乔布斯继续:

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.

翻译:我们不会将FairPlay许可给其他任何人实际上在桌面上的唯一选项是现状和丢弃DRM。

Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

翻译:PlaysForSure很糟糕。

Also, licensing implies payment; presumably, if Appleto license FairPlay to other electronics companies, what would stop them from setting the price so high that no one would accept it? Or, what if, say, only Sony were willing and able to pay Apple’s licensing fee? (Microsoft, surely,可以支付任何价格,但肯定会拒绝。)如何解决这些关于互操作性的投诉?

如果你的回答是这些国家可以合法地迫使苹果公司以低廉或甚至自由的方式许可FairPlay,那么苹果公司就会把他们的iTunes商店带走。

视频

安德鲁Shebanow将视频称为“房间里的大象”:

Why didn’t Jobs make the same courageous stand against DRM on video? Unfortunately, the answer isn’t very pretty: Apple doesn’t have anywhere near the same clout in the movie and TV business that it has in music, and has only signed film deals with two of the major studios as a result.

这是真的,这就是为什么这篇文章的标题是“音乐的思考”,尽管它真的是关于DRM的但除了苹果在音乐方面的相对影响力之外,还有另一个不同之处电影/电视Jobs makes the point in his essay that 90 percent of all music is sold DRM-free on CDs; DVDs, on the other hand, are copy-protected.

长期来看,我认为电影业的地位是站不住脚的他们越紧,人们就会越多但是在这方面它们至少比音乐行业更加一致 - 电影人员正在通过复制保护来锁定所有客户。

这场辩论即将出现在视频中,但今天不是今天。

杀死DRM会杀死订阅模型

值得注意的是,如果没有DRM,基于订阅的音乐商店将不存在订阅服务的重点是,当您付费时,您可以下载所需的所有音乐,但是当您停止付费时,您已经下载的所有音乐都停止工作这需要DRM。

哦,谷歌,我多么爱你

Apple并不害怕竞争

I’ve seen a lot of speculation over the last few years that it’s really Apple, not the music (and movie) companies, that insists upon the use of DRM for the iTunes Store, so as to use the lock-in effect to competitive advantage科里多克托罗已经敲打鼓这么多年了据我所知,唯一的来源是2004年的一个声明从一位不知名的Apple律师到EFF的Fred von Lohmann

锁定提供竞争优势是不可否认的如果没有人抱怨,我怀疑我们是否已经看过乔布斯的这篇文章但正如乔布斯指出的那样,每部iPod平均只售出22首iTunes Store歌曲,受DRM保护的歌曲占大多数iPod存储的音乐总量的一小部分乔布斯说Apple并不需要它Apple is not Microsoft; the only competitive advantage Apple needs is the quality of its products.

反应

约翰马可夫在今天的纽约时报上有一个故事受到音乐行业高管的反响不出所料,他们并没有完全唱哈利路亚:

A senior executive at one company, who requested anonymity to avoid straining relations with Apple, said that while labels might experiment with other forms of copy-protection software, “we’re not going to broadly license our content for unprotected digital distribution.”

新闻一闪,先生匿名:CD是数字的,不受保护的,并且质量高于iTunes上的压缩格式。

马可夫的故事还在继续:

The global music trade group, the International Federation for the Phonographic Industry, based in London, has long pushed for “interoperability,” saying Apple should license its digital management system so that iTunes music plays on devices other than the iPodBut the industry has also stuck with the idea of some kind of digital control to prevent wholesale copying of musical tracks.

换句话说,音乐行业需要一种神奇的DRM格式,而不是Apple,而不是微软 - 完全控制所有数字音乐还有独角兽和彩虹。

Officially, the industry chose to respond Tuesday by seizing on one idea that MrJobs raised — licensing Apple’s own copy-protection system — even though he went on to reject it. “Apple’s offer to license FairPlay to other technology companies is a welcome breakthrough and would be a real victory for fans, artists and labels,” the Recording Industry Association of America said.

老实说,你不得不怀疑运行RIAA的人是否会受到阻碍。

但对乔布斯作文的最敏捷回应是微软:

Jason Reindorp, marketing director for Zune at Microsoft, said Mr. Jobs’s call for unrestricted music sales was “irresponsible, or at the very least naïve,” adding, “It’s like he’s on top of the mountain making pronouncements, while we’re here on the ground working with the industry to make it happen.”

“他当然是明显的大师,”先生Reindorp said, adding that “the stars were already aligning” to loosen the restrictions.

The way Reindorp whiplashes right from calling Jobs “irresponsible, or at the very least naïve” to calling him a bandwagon-jumper two sentences later — that actually makes total sense to me他几乎经历了所有五个阶段的悲伤 - 拒绝,愤怒,讨价还价,沮丧,接受 - 仅用了两段。

Zune团队“与行业一起”做的唯一事情就是喷气彼此。


  1. 人们可能会争辩说,如果四家主要音乐公司中的一些(但不是全部)同意允许Apple出售无DRM的音乐,那么该文中的语言并不完全清楚苹果会做什么然而,乔布斯的文章清楚地暗示了苹果是鼓舞人心的音乐公司这样做如果其中一家,两家或三家公司同意这一点,苹果公司拒绝允许它,直到所有四家公司同意,苹果公司和史蒂夫乔布斯本人就会被谴责为骗子和伪君子That’s not going to happen. ↩︎

  2. I can imagine a counterargument that it wouldn’t be worthwhile for Apple to implement DRM-free iTunes music for indie music labels without at least one of the major labels on board, but such an argument reeks of foot-dragging. ↩︎