Apple and the Pirate Everyman
"Don't Steal Music" says the sticker on the top of every new iPod - a 5-20Gb Firewire hard-disc with built in MP3 player. But is Steve Jobs' Apple being disingenuous? Because from the outside, their entire operation seems built around helping information to be free - every effort is being made to make software and music and imagery as easy as possible to create, copy or disseminate. And why? Because they're in the hardware business...
Let's go back to first principles here and quickly scout through some of Apple's offerings. First things first - computer hardware. Apple have done a huge amount to popularise and demystify the writable CD/DVD culture, with almost all of their computers coming with either a CDR or Superdrive as standard. The functionality for such devices fulfils a double function - as a storage media for backing-up or transporting large files or as a way of printing media hard-copies - CD duplicates, home-made DVDs.
Now the software that supports it - iTunes is just an MP3 player with a few bits of fluff on it. But it is a good MP3 player, and more importantly it's a non-proprietary, non-copyright enforcing, song-organising MP3 player. While default players on PCs use technology like Windows Media, iTunes very specifically sticks with the most popular, least controllable and most readily available form of music format. iTunes makes the process of ripping CDs incredibly simple - and that doesn't only mean your own CDs, it means any CD you get close to. And in order to stop the use of these MP3s to be restricted to your computer (even if they might sound great with your high-quality Harman/Kardon speakers), you can also take them anywhere you want with your iPod.
iMovie and iPhoto meanwhile may not allow you to rip DVDs to your computer, but they operate on the principle that if you get digital footage onto your computer it should be as easy as possible to edit them and burn them on convenient media. Create, edit, burn, distribute.
Now to software distribution - OSX's disk-copying software (released as standard) makes it simple to take full images of any install media you have and keep them on your computer. Or burn them to CD and give to your friends. Or put them online. Or distribute them however the hell you like.
But none of this is unique to the Mac platform or to Apple as a company. So what is it about the way that Steve Jobs operates that sets Cupertino apart?
In order to answer this you have to look at their own software offerings. From operating system through all its consumer applications, Apple actually doesn't seem to particularly care if you pay for them or not. The vast majority (iTunes, iSync, iDVD, iMovie, Mail, iChat etc) are completely free. The odd one - like Quicktime - consists of a free element with a small upgrade cost. Some, like the software upgrade to OSX.2, seems like quite an expensive pay-for software option (�í90), but can easily be copied and distributed on CD-R without ever having to type in a software registration key.
It's only at the professional end of the software market where Apple asks for money, and even then that doesn't seem to be there only reason for selling the software. The fact that major music-software companies can be bought up by Apple - companies that then immediately stop selling the PC versions of their product - makes it clear that the financial aspect of the deal is almost secondary. They're simply (for the most part) not interested in selling software.
And this vision extends even further to the way they write their software now - OSX.2 is based on an essentially free form of Unix, iTunes stores all its information in XML, iCal uses a publically formed standard way of holding calendar data. In every area, Apple has pushed away from proprietary software technologies and restrictions and moved towards the creativity, interdependance and freedoms of open standards. Apple has tried - wherever possible - to live by the adage that information wants to be free. It's decided not to fight this aspect of information but instead encourage it, help it to be free. And in fact try to make it as free as possible...
The reasons for all this, of course, are that - for good or ill - at the moment copyrighted material and intellectual property are endangered and cornered beasts anyway. As yet no-one really knows the effects of this development, but I think it is clear to all concerned that (whether or not it is really happening at the moment) the gradual increase in technology, bandwidth and storage capacity provides an enormous potential for simply routing around traditional media-distribution outlets. Whether this will hurt the entertainment and software industries is as yet unclear - because as yet they mostly haven't even tried experimenting with different types of consumer-interaction - but whether it hurts them or not, it will certainly have an impact.
In my opinion Apple sees such battles as essentially over already, and has moved in a completely different direction. Why try to sell the intellectual property itself when you can simply sell the best platform for distributing it? Why worry about software sales at all - when you can work instead on making it so that people have to buy your hardware to use it? And why consider one off payments on products when you can move towards getting people to pay for services (like .mac - the value of which is directly related to the number of free applications that gain more value when you pay your yearly fee).
Apple is one hundred percent ahead of the game here - so far ahead, in fact - that it's completely unable to say it loud and clear. That's why they have to keep saying again and again, "Don't Steal Music", when everyone knows that they're only doing it to cover their own backs. The fact is that they know that however much money is being made through the selling of software, music and copyrighted material, the future isn't in protecting the trade routes - it's in making everyone a pirate...
Comments
Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.
Interesting article, the majority of which I agree with strongly, with a couple of minor caveats:
"The fact that major music-software companies can be bought up by Apple - companies that then immediately stop selling the PC versions of their product - makes it clear that the financial aspect of the deal is almost secondary."
A little disingenuous - surely the reason Apple cease PC support is a longer-term move to drive musicians to buy Apples and thus increase Apple's market share in that sector, which I would call a definite financial reason ;)
"In every area, Apple has pushed away from proprietary software technologies and restrictions and moved towards the creativity, interdependance and freedoms of open standards."
I agree with this statement for the most part, with the distinct exception of the Quicktime player, which while based on an industry standard, certainly doesn't count as an open standard. How come I still can't download a Quicktime codec to use in my choice of video playing software? Answer: because Apple aren't keen on the idea of a user being able to use a freeware player to do what it costs money to do in QuickTime - such as play a movie in full screen mode! This does seem to be at odds with the other recent trends in Apple's free software releases, so I'm hoping that will change...
I would say that Apple may be appearing - in the short term - to be playing a dangerous game by providing tools that could be used to facilitate copyright infringement. However, I also suspect they will be moving to cosy up with the music and film industries ala Microsoft and hitting Apple users with the same kind of Digital Rights Managements (DRM) "features" that Microsoft are busy fitting Windows Media Player up with. In fact, as I have to download most movie trailers in Quicktime format, I'm inclined to wonder why the movie industry would be making Apple its partner in such ventures unless they had some kind of "understanding". (Conspiracy theorist? Moi?).
I also wonder how long it is before we see Apple bringing out their own specification of Microsoft's Palladium technology.
Palladium - broadly speaking a technology to facilitate DRM at the hardware level - is going to be implemented on PCs within the next ten years. It would be nice to think that in the near future, Apple could potentially capitalise on this and emerge as a "free media rights" platform when such technology on the PC prevents PC users from saving anything onto their hard drive that Microsoft doesn't want there.
The question is, will Apple end up implementing their own version of Palladium?
→ Posted by: Marcus Wetherell at November 19, 2002 8:14 PM
I'm pessimistic that Apple will continue to maintain such openness when it comes to digital media restrictions. Sooner or later, I fear, they will succumb to pressure from other, more powerful business interests.
That said, now is the time to buy Apple hardware and to take good care of it. As computer systems get more restrictive, "classic" hardware from a brief period of freedom could become a great thing to have. I'm betting that 2003 will be a banner year to invest in Apple hardware.
One thing I'm curious about is how Steve Jobs feels as a corporate leader straddling the two worlds of hardware and content (Apple and Pixar). He must have some heated discussions with Michael Eisner.
→ Posted by: Mike Gerhardt at November 20, 2002 1:28 AM
This article is way off. Although Apple hasn't yet taken the draconian closed standards DRM measures that Microsoft has to monopolize the distribution of media content, casting Steve Jobs as pro media piracy seems absurd considering he is also CEO of Disney's most successful moviemaking wing Pixar. Seems to me that Apple is making ease of use paramount to their strategy, while Microsoft is content to continue to erode fair use rights in favor of monopolizing several industries through key buyouts and threats of burying opponents through leveraging existing monopolies, flooding the marked with temporarily cheap hardware, or litigation.
→ Posted by: Andrew M. at November 20, 2002 6:56 PM
I see your point, but I think it's more to do with petty piracy. I think that real pirates use better machines to copy things:
link |link
these are small examples.
→ Posted by: dorian at November 20, 2002 7:35 PM
Yeah interesting... but I think you got one thing wrong. Sure, the future isn't in protecting trade routes. But it's not in making everyone a pirate either. It's in making everyone a creator. In economic circles it's called democratising the media industry.
→ Posted by: Anthony Hunt at November 20, 2002 9:57 PM
Apple isn't going to win over market share by controlling content and limiting access to its applications, like Microsoft is doing. Instead it can only attract new users and new developers by keeping things open. It doesn't have the advantage of the masses only the advantage of being open, free and right.
→ Posted by: Ry Rivard at November 21, 2002 4:53 AM
Just a nitpick -- the i* apps aren't free, they are included in the cost of the operating system, or even the hardware in Apple's case.
→ Posted by: cappy o at November 21, 2002 2:03 PM
I'm a bit confused by your petty quip above simply because they sound as if they're coming from an extremely disgruntled, Microsoft-controlled British PC user.Yet I still feel compelled to address some points you've made simply because they seem untrue, misleading and "disingenuous" in their own right:
Here are my thoughts to your thoughts:
I'm sure you agree software based on open source having open standards is the way to go as your own site, "Powered by Moveable Type" is donationware, which is how many in the open source world acquire funds. Interestingly though, I don't see "Tom Coates" or "plasticbag.org" anywhere on the Moveable Type donor list (though you've probably contributed $$ anonymously, I'm so sure). Why rip Apple for embracing this same concept with iTunes, or why rip iTunes for being flexible?
By your statement "iMovie and iPhoto meanwhile may not allow you to rip DVDs to your computer," you are agreeing that Apple has not made it as easy to burn and distribute DVDs. So are they making users into pirates?
Please be more realistic: Apple did not create Napster, Kazaa, Hotline or LimeWire; those who use those services - independent of OS or hardware - seem to be the ones with whom you really have contentions. So why is Apple solely to blame?
Lastly, the iPod as of yet is not able to download mp3s without a host (i.e. desktop computer). It's Sony who's making their mp3 players capable of connecting to and downloading straight from the internet! That and Sony's mp3 players so far are NOT Mac compatible. Who's making pirates now?
I don't mind critiques of Apple or of their practices because I like the open source movement and will support it. But to suggest Apple is the only one in the game trying to earn money while you neglect the fact Microsoft owns more than half of the desktops in the world seems to be extremely myopic journalism. I would like to see a re-write of this article taking into consideration more factors than just Apple which adversely affect copyright and intellectual property protection.
→ Posted by: Jerome at November 22, 2002 5:43 PM
Also, I would say that Sony itself is more "straddling the fence" when it comes to the DRM conundrum. Sony makes lots of computers and also (directly instead of indirectly like Pixar) makes lots of movies and other copyrighted media (Sony Music group etc.).
→ Posted by: Dead_Ed at November 22, 2002 6:49 PM
By your argument, you make me into a pirate because I use a Mac. Just because I can break the law, doesn't mean I do. Do we blame car manufacturers for making cars that can go fast, when the speed limit is so much slower?
Ultimately, it comes down to the responsibility of the user. If they want to steal software/music, they are going to do it regardless of the platform they are on.
→ Posted by: Nathan at November 22, 2002 7:15 PM
Apple makes music easy to rip and burn, which is *not* piracy. They make it easy for me to convert my CD collection to an iTunes jukebox (and maybe carry that collection around with me), and that's not piracy either.
In some circles, downloading music illegally must be so common that folks think "everybody does it." But I don't know anyone who does (seriously). It's pretty easy to avoid, *especially* if you only use Apple products.
→ Posted by: Mark at November 22, 2002 8:35 PM
Some of the responses to my piece above are surprising to me - because I tried fairly hard throughout the piece to not actually express my opinions about whether or not this 'piracy' was a good thing or not. Or whether or not it's even relevant whether it's a good thing or not - because essentially I don't think that it is.
What we're calling piracy here is just one aspect of a larger movement - where information of every kind travels, spreads and is used, manipulated and transformed in the best and fastest way possible. I think Apple is helping this world come into being at the moment, while companies like Microsoft and Sony are trying to work against standards, towards proprietary models and to restrict that speed of movement. It's fairly obvious to me that Apple are going along with open standards for the same reasons that Linux have - because if you make things open you have nothing to lose, only market-share to gain. Which is why I don't necessarily believe that they'll be pushing this agenda forever - but even if they don't, there will always be a manufacturer, a software or operating system developer or an application developer who gets the same kind of satisfaction from helping information be free...
I don't think it matters whether we like it or not and I don't think it even matters if it's morally right or wrong either. In fact the only thing that matters is... is it the future? I tend to think that it is, and that one aspect of this is that copyright and intellectual property are going to experience some kind of change whether we like it or not...
A couple of replies to people: Yes people pay for the iApps when they buy the hardware (even if you download them separately) - but that was in fact part of my argument... They become an incentive to buy the hardware rather than a product to buy themselves. Which is what I said - Apple sells hardware!
No - I don't make you a pirate when you buy a Mac. Individuals choose to pirate software or music and I'm not recommending it or saying that it's something that I believe in. I do think it's a side-effect of the greater shift in play here though...
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at November 22, 2002 9:15 PM
There exists no entity on earth that possesses the power to "make anyone a pirate". That is a personal, ethical choice on the part each of us. It is not the job of Apple Computer or Microsoft to police our computers. It is their job to make great functional products. It is an absurd statement to suggest that any product manufacturer wants people to break the law. It is BEYOND ABSURD that Apple Computer feels the need to post 'DON'T STEAL MUSIC' on their iPod. Could you imagine buying an automobile that comes with a big red sticker that reads: 'DON'T RUN OVER PEOPLE'?
→ Posted by: Steven James May at November 22, 2002 9:30 PM
Interesting.
I wrote up a short post on this earlier on my blog but I think I may have been a little bit too hasty in quickly judging this to be another one of those "copyright is doomed" pieces.
Well, it is, but it is also more.
The point about Apple's business strategy being different from most other corporate computer companies is a good one.
It is a strategy that democratizes content production and distribution. What I disagree with is the idea that copyright is in some way a "cornered beast" today.
If it is a cornered beast, then it has always been cornered. Ever since Dickens raged against the Americans for copying and distributing his books without paying him his due.
The movie industry is making more money than ever. We have more television channels than ever. And the music industry has only seen around a ten per cent drop is sales (caused mostly by mismanagement, a bona fide economic slowdown as well as the fact that most of its products are rubbish).
If we would have seen a forty per cent drop in music sales, as well as a corresponding drop in film industry profits, in a healthy economic climate, then, yes, copyright is an endangered beast.
But a year where the film industry sees record profits and the planet's most 'pirated' movie (Spider-Man) shows record profits, all in the middle of a budding depression?
Don't think so.
You are right about how the changing technology fundamentally alters the way we approach media and content. I just haven't seen any evidence, yet, that this is endangering the concepts of copyright and 'intellectual property'.
→ Posted by: Baldur Bjarnason at November 23, 2002 7:33 PM
Well that's the huge question isn't it - is this kind of technology hurting the entertainment industries or not. Personally, it seems to me that at the moment it probably isn't. Whether it will is another thing completely. As technology has escalated it has moved towards the most free and simple means of distribution. This brings up the most basic aspect of economics - if a product is not scarce, it can have no cost. If we are to accept that this kind of technology will become increasingly available, increasingly cheap and increasingly mobile, then don't we also have to accept that the capacity of companies to charge for it will decrease in proportion? That is - at least - if they continue to approach their business in the same way.
The traditional approach to dealing with a lack of scarcity is to provide a service around its delivery, a higher quality product or a means to do something new with it (like help make it portable). Open Source software companies make their money out of helping to support people using the software. People who sell bottled water are essentially providing portability and an 'enhanced' quality to something that all Western people can get their hands on pretty easily and unbelievably cheaply... God only knows what the model will be for music or video (movie theatres, in my opinion, will remain profitable for as long as they continue to offer the incredibly scale and quality of their productions), but it seems undeniable to me that they'll need a new model in due course...
Two more things: There's a nice piece at the BBC here: Efforts to stop music piracy 'pointless' which was found by Doc Searls
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at November 23, 2002 9:08 PM
This stems from the eventual idea that computers will end up the controlling applience for all the household appliences. with that in mind you can look at the computer from the following angle:
- Do you pay extra for the software in your Stereo with it's digital tuner, and programmable/random track selection for CD's
- Do you pay extra for the software in your DVD player with it's ability to play encoded movies onto your TV screen
Those are the 2 most obvious places software is used in appliences yet the cost of the software within them is never listed seperately
when you go to buy the applience. Apple are seeing computer's heading the same way (and have done for a very long time).
Another itme to think about, IBM once said something like, there is no money in the software. They said this about the time Microsoft was asking to write DOS for them, in the short term, IBM clearly wasn't right, but perhaps they were right in the long term?
→ Posted by: Anonymous at November 25, 2002 12:11 AM
Software companies are NOT the judicial branch of the U.S. governement... nor any other government that I'm aware. So... instead of doing legal intervention with spyware, encrypting, etc. leave this to the proper authorities. Even the feds can't come into my home without a proper warrant that must be proved up in front of a judge. So why does Microsoft and other companies assume that they can? Not promoting piracy, but I'm certainly against the 'big brother' aspect of certain software and operating systems that are out and are currently being developed. Whatever happened to freedom?
→ Posted by: Doug Stringham at November 25, 2002 12:52 AM
1- I have at this moment a 20Gig library of MP3s, 99% of which come from the 'net or friend's CDs. My computer is plugged directly into my stereo and I have an iPod for when I'm on the move (car stereo or headphones). A dream come true: all my music, anytime anywhere.
2- Everybody is always talking about music and movies when copyright is mentioned. Ironically many of the journalists and pundits are published authors... I want what I just described above about "my" music to also apply to TEXT media... I want every book I have ever read (and have yet to read) in digital format (preferably in some XML/PDF form) and fully searchable at all times. Writers think it's hard to make a buck now? Just you wait!
→ Posted by: bopuc at November 25, 2002 3:45 AM
I am the most angry person I know. The reason being that I have never pirated *any* software. I don't have *any* copied CDs or MP3s. I don't have *any* movies taped off HBO or whatever. I *DO*, however, tape my CDs to play in my car tape deck. I *DO* want the right to burn my own legally purchased CDs to my computer and play them on an MP3 player. I am absolutely infuriated because the RIAA's "anti-piracy" crap strikes at the heart of the legitimate user more than at the pirate. The pirate will hack their stupid protected CDs and will go about their business unfazed. I, the legitimate user, will find that my Shakira CD will crash my computer if I try to play it, and there is no way for me to keep my hands clean and still enjoy my purchase. I will be forced to use illegal patches, hacks and cracks to enjoy my legally-purchased music.
I am being FORCED to become a pirate in order to enjoy my fair-use rights. The very people who claim to be against piracy are forcing me into it. And I will go the RIAA one further: I will happily become a pirate as a protest if it goes any further. I have about 550 legally purchased CDs, lots of rare stuff and imports, and I guarantee that every single CD will find their way onto the net just to spite these people. I have never done ANYTHING wrong to these people, and yet they are coming down on me without reason. It's bad enough that they "obsoleted" my extensive record collection, and refuse to reissue the majority of my albums on CD. They are a bunch of greedy corrupt thieves. As you can tell, I have recently lost all respect for the recording industry. I'm going to buy USED CDs from now on, and CDs from independents where possible. They're forcing me to become anti-establishment. It's just not right what they're doing.
I don't have a Mac, but I am thinking of "switching". The more I hear about Apple's ideology, the more I like them. If they are the system of "pirates" and the free, then that's definitely where I am going. I've had it with Microsoft, the DMCA, and the RIAA, and they haven't even started to put the pressure on yet.
I'm not contributing to a fascist nightmare police state. No way. I watch as the government wipes our rights and freedoms away like they were a mistake and am eerily reminded of pre-WWII Germany. Bush is following in Hitler's footsteps far too closely for my taste. There's no balance in the world anymore, and this anti-piracy movement is actually a small sliver of the larger anti-freedom movement. Be afraid. The world is a' changin', and it's not for the better.
→ Posted by: A Random Gent at November 25, 2002 7:35 PM
As it seems to tie in with at least some of what is being said here with regards to MP3s and piracy, I thought I'd mention a recent article in The Register which compellingly suggests that recent record sales have fallen, not due to piracy, but because of a reduction in the actual number of releases by the record companies.
Oh, and sorry for the boorish length of my initial post, if I could edit it I would, believe me...
→ Posted by: Marcus at December 23, 2002 1:39 PM
Seems to me, your RESEARCH is quite incomplete ...
Quote:
"Apple is one hundred percent ahead of the game here - so far ahead, in fact - that it's completely unable to say it loud and clear."
---
Surely you jest !?
Seems that "Wintel Users" are the Veterans in this arena ...
Search google for "WAREZ" (Name given to things Pirated)
The RESULTS might just suprize you ... Hmmm
Seems that PC Users indeed CORNER the perverbial market ...
How could this be ?
Perhaps the AppleÆ Users are Using their Harware/Software and Rebelious ways
to FEED the booming WintelÆ WAREZ MARKETPLACE !?
Get a grip ...
Sounds like a jealous rant to me ...
Invest in a new iMac G4 and quit-yer-bithcin'
→ Posted by: PHREK at March 27, 2003 5:22 PM
In response to the first comment...
QuickTime is very much an open codec. Absolutely any application in OS X can take advantage of Quicktime - it's built right into the Mac OS. And as far as I know, the same is true on the PC side.
→ Posted by: Sam Walker at December 3, 2003 1:21 AM
Hello Tom,
your article is great in many ways it casts light on current trends and movements towards the end of copy.right. From the other comments I feel that most of your critics haven't got your point. But what is next? Lets look even a step further: With the fall of copyright patents will be next. Without patents, commercial research will cease while research at universities will become the single leader for innovation. Young people (20-30) will spend their most creative phase not in making money but in doing research which will become public domain immediately after (consider it as a way for a career jump-start for inventing cold fusion at age 25 and making it public domain). What will this mean? Research will explode, because with every knowledge freely available it will become terrifically easier to comine existing things into new things.
We are at the dawn of a great age: the information age. And as Tom pointed out, companies will not be able to stop this information from being free. So Apple is going the right way: It is relying on hardware sales, not software(=information)-sales and will thus ultimately succeed.
→ Posted by: Andreas at January 26, 2004 9:18 AM