Historical Note: The Day Steve Jobs Dissed CDBaby

from the quality-songs dept

Derek Sivers recently had a wonderful post over at the Music Think Tank blog about the day Steve Jobs “dissed” him in a keynote speech. The full story is absolutely worth reading (Sivers, as always, is a wonderful story teller), but the short version is that a bunch of folks who represented independent musicians were invited to Apple soon after the original iTunes store launched (with mainly major label music). They weren’t told they were meeting with Steve Jobs, but he showed up, telling them that the plan was to get “every piece of music ever recorded” into the iTunes store. Apple folks then showed everyone in the room how to upload tracks, and Sivers seemed disappointed that he wouldn’t be able to just use the tracks they already had available, but would have to re-rip and re-enter data:

Then they showed the Apple software we?d all have to use to send them each album. It required us to put the audio CD into a Mac CD-Rom drive, type in all of the album info, song titles and bio, then click [encode] for it to rip, and [upload] when done.

I raised my hand and asked if it was required that we use their software. They said yes.

I asked again, saying we had over 100,000 albums, already ripped as lossless WAV files, with all of the info carefully entered by the artist themselves, ready to send to their servers with their exact specifications. They said sorry – you need to use this software – there is no other way.

Ugh. That means we have to pull each one of those CDs off of the shelf again, stick it in a Mac, then cut-and-paste every song title into that Mac software. But so be it. If that?s what Apple needs, OK.

After the meeting, Sivers wrote up the notes he took from the meeting and posted them to his blog… only to get angry messages from people at Apple about how the meeting was confidential (something Sivers claims he was never told). Either way, they got the contract from Apple, signed it immediately, and got to work. In realizing they had to rip and upload 100,000 CDs all over again, and that it was going to be costly, they asked CDBaby musicians to pay $40 to get their songs onto iTunes. Because of the iTunes activity, all the other major music services also asked for all of CDBaby’s music as well — Rhapsody, Yahoo Music, Napster and eMusic. Apparently 5,000 musicians paid the $40 and CDBaby started ripping all those CDs.

They ripped and ripped and ripped… and at some point realized that Apple had never returned the contract. Months went by. Sivers contacted Apple… and nothing. Finally, five months later, Steve Jobs did a keynote where he announced that iTunes was doubling the number of tracks available, from 200,000 to 400,000… and in the middle, he made a crack about how they were trying to be selective, focusing on quality, rather than quantity, and specifically noting that anyone could just pay $40 to have music uploaded to competing sites, but that Apple only wanted the best. Sivers realized: “Whoa! Wow. Steve Jobs just dissed me hard! I’m the only one charging $40. That was me he’s referring to.” You can see the clip below:

Sivers took this to mean that, despite Jobs’ original statements about wanting all songs in iTunes, this meant he no longer wanted independent music. Following the speech, he sent around a note telling everyone he was refunding the $40 fees, giving back the $200,000 — much of which had been spent.

The very next day? CDBaby received the signed contract from Apple with details about how to upload their 500,000 tracks.

Filed Under: itunes, music, steve jobs
Companies: apple, cdbaby

Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years

from the well-that's-compelling dept

The WSJ is reporting that Apple is getting set to announce that the Beatles’ music is finally available on iTunes, something that tons of online music stores have been trying to offer for years and years without any luck. Given that Steve Jobs allegedly named his company “Apple” after the Beatles’ “Apple Corp.” — it’s been a particular goal of Jobs to get their music into his store (even with the legal fights that have been had over the name). Either way, while I’m sure Steve Jobs will make this out to be the most amazing thing since the invention of electrical power, it’s kind of worth pointing out that the Beatles’ music has been widely available online for years via file sharing options. Putting this in perspective, all this is really doing is giving people a chance to pay money for music they’ve probably already been getting for free. Suddenly, it doesn’t seem like such a big deal, and makes you wonder what the hell took so long.

Filed Under: beatles, itunes, songs
Companies: apple

Now That Apple Has A Trademark On 'There's An App For That,' Will It Sue Sesame Street?

from the steve-jobs-v.-big-bird dept

You may recall that, last year, Apple got quite upset at Verizon Wireless for running commercials that parodied Apple’s “there’s an app for that” tagline, with “there’s a map for that,” which tried to highlight the better coverage found on Verizon Wireless’ network. Well, last month, Apple was officially awarded the trademark for “there’s an app for that,” so now we can wait to see who Steve Jobs decides to sue.

Personally, I think he should go after Sesame Street. CNET points out that Sesame Street just did a video mocking the “there’s an app for that,” tagline which they used in a song about the “iPogo” device. Considering Apple’s aggressive nature when it comes to trademark issues, you can see how it might not be happy with the iPogo/There’s an App for That sketch, but even Steve Jobs wouldn’t stoop to suing Big Bird, would he? Or, maybe there’s an app for that kind of lawsuit, too…

Filed Under: sesame street, there's an app for that, trademark
Companies: apple

Apple Tells Labels, Unilaterally, That It's Increasing Song Previews To 90 Seconds

from the who's-going-to-sue-first? dept

A couple months ago, rumors made the rounds that Apple was going to double the length of song previews in iTunes from 30 to 60 seconds. An expected announcement did not appear, however, apparently because the music publishers (who in the past have already claimed — without success — that Apple should pay performance fees on those 30 second previews) felt Apple first needed to get permission from them, as well as the labels. So it’s interesting to see that, at least with the record labels, Apple appears to be taking an aggressive approach, sending out letters simply telling labels that their deals have changed and song previews will now be 90 seconds:

It’ll be interesting to see if Apple did the same thing with publishers… because you’d have to imagine that the publishers would quickly file a lawsuit if that’s the case. According to Greg Sandoval, over at News.com, Apple is still negotiating with the publishers. That article includes a typically ridiculous quote from Rick Carnes of the Songwriter’s Guild:

“It’s like giving away ice cream samples–someone has to pay the cost,” said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America. “I think it would be a good thing for consumers to go to 90 seconds. But they’re tripling the amount of time, and they want it for free. I think there ought to be compensation. I believe anytime you use music, you ought to reward the people making the music.”

Does Rick really believe that? If so, the Songwriters should fire him as their leader. What he should be looking for is what will maximize the revenue overall, not what will maximize the revenue per use. If you get paid per use, and it means shorter previews — but that means many fewer sales and less overall money for the artists, then Carnes with his “anytime you use, you pay” philosophy is doing serious harm to the songwriters. And, of course, the actual evidence goes against Carnes. Studies have shown that such longer previews increases purchasing, but the publishing folks and the songwriters like Carnes are more interested in licensing than in direct sales anyway (even if that’s really short-sighted). It’s too bad that the Songwriters Guild would be represented by someone without their best interests in mind.

Filed Under: music, previews, publishers, rick carnes, songwriters
Companies: apple

Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps

from the drm-vs.-gpl dept

Slashdot points us to the interesting bit of news that the developer of the popular VLC media player is complaining that the way in which Apple distributes apps through the App Store (including a port of VLC) contradicts the GPL license for VLC by putting all sorts of restrictions and DRM on the product. The FSF is noting that Apple’s response to similar complaints in the past isn’t to remove the restrictions, but to remove the software instead. Pretty sad considering Steve Jobs’ own words about DRM, which apparently he doesn’t even believe for any industry outside of music. Just for the fun of it, let’s take a look at some of what Steve Jobs said three years ago:

[One] alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. 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 store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

Now there are some caveats there, focused on music, but it seems like much of that certainly applies to other areas as well, so perhaps Steve Jobs can listen to Steve Jobs.

Filed Under: app store, copyright, drm, gpl, vlc
Companies: apple

Jailbreaking Your iPhone? Legal! Jailbreaking Your Xbox? 3 Years In Jail!

from the copyright-law-at-work dept

Bunnie Huang is no stranger to absolutely ridiculous legal claims concerning trying to hack an Xbox. After doing so, he had trouble publishing a book on the subject, over fears that telling people how to modify a piece of electronics they had legally purchased might somehow violate copyright law (anyone else see a problem with that?). Now, techflaws.org points us to the news that Huang is scheduled to testify on behalf of a guy facing jailtime for modifying Xboxes. But US officials are trying to bar his testimony, claiming it’s “not legally relevant.” Technically, they’re probably right. But, from a common sense standpoint, Huang is trying to make a bunch of important points.

First, let’s take a step back, and realize just how ridiculous this situation is. If you buy a piece of electronic equipment, should you ever deserve jailtime for then modifying it? With most things you buy, you have every right to then make changes to it. Yet, when it comes to gaming consoles, suddenly that can get you jailtime. The culprit? Of course, it’s the ever-present DMCA, and its anti-circumvention clause, which lets any device maker put in some “technological protection measures,” and suddenly it’s illegal to modify what you thought you legally owned.

Now, supporters of the DMCA will note that every few years we have the lovely “exceptions” process, whereby the Librarian of Congress gets to (somewhat arbitrarily) choose what things won’t get covered by the anti-circumvention clause. Just a few months ago, for example, it was deemed “ok” to jailbreak your mobile phone. So, here’s the conundrum: it’s perfectly legal to jailbreak your iPhone, but you can get thrown in jail for jailbreaking your Xbox. Explain that.

Huang wants to testify on behalf of Matthew Crippen, who would jailbreak Xboxes. Huang planned to show the jury just how easy it was to mod an Xbox. While he doesn’t say so, my assumption is that the idea is to show that, and then suggest that the anti-circumvention provision does not apply because it shows that the Xbox’s technological protection measures are not “effective,” and the anti-circumvention provisions are only designed to apply to “a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” Similar arguments have actually worked in Europe, though I’m not sure if they’ll work here.

Either way, I’m guessing the court won’t allow Huang to testify for a variety of legal reasons, but even if he doesn’t, it would be nice if the court and anyone else could explain why jailbreaking an iPhone is fine while jailbreaking an Xbox gets you jailtime.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, bunnie huang, circumvention, dmca, iphone, jailbreaking, xbox
Companies: apple, microsoft

Apple Trash Talking Spotify As It Prepares Its Competitor

from the all's-fair-in-love-and-competing-with-steve-jobs dept

There’s yet another rumor going around that Apple is getting ready to launch a subscription music service. That’s been rumored for ages, and it would be surprising if the company didn’t do it. In fact, many were surprised that after Apple shut down music locker Lala that it didn’t immediately launch a cloud based subscription offering. But, perhaps more interesting, is the fact that Apple has also been spending time trash-talking Spotify to music industry execs. We had mentioned, when Apple shut down Lala, that it would be a good time for Spotify to figure out how to launch in the US. The company has been trying for quite some time now, and the record label demands are basically impossible to meet. And it sounds like Apple is encouraging that. As Greg Sandoval reports:

In meetings in Los Angeles recently, Apple executives told their music industry counterparts that they had serious doubts about whether Spotify’s business model could ever generate significant revenues or profits, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions.

But Apple executives worried about the effects of a free music service might have on the rest of the market. They noted that it’s tough to sell something that someone else is giving away, the sources said. One industry insider said it is only logical that if Spotify were allowed to launch a free-music service here, at a time when Nielsen recently reported that the growth of digital sales has flattened out, it could eat into the businesses of proven revenue-producers like Apple and Amazon.

Ah, the amazing ridiculousness of confused short-term thinking. While I also have questions about Spotify’s ability to generate significant revenues long-term, the recording industry is making a huge mistake if it buys into the idea that Spotify is likely to cannibalize digital sales. If you look at reports in places where Spotify is widely available, such as Sweden and the UK, the reports suggest that what Spotify actually cannibalizes is unauthorized downloading. Yes, there are a bunch of reports that suggest Spotify gets people away from The Pirate Bay and into a system that at least gets the labels some money.

Filed Under: cloud, music, streaming
Companies: apple, spotify

Apple Ordered To Pay Over $600 Million… For Patent Infringement Of Cover Flow?

from the you-can't-be-serious dept

I’d been meaning to write about the absolutely ridiculous Mirror Worlds patent infringement lawsuit against Apple for a few weeks now, not realizing a ruling was going to come so quickly. A few weeks ago, the Yale local newspaper had a really laughable one-sided article talking about how Apple had “stolen” the technology behind three of its offerings: cover flow, spotlight and time machine, because a Yale spinoff company, Mirror Worlds, had sued Apple for patent infringement. The original lawsuit covered four patents:

• 6,006,227: Document stream operating system
• 6,638,313: Document stream operating system
• 6,725,427: Document stream operating system with document organizing and display facilities
• 6,768,999: Enterprise, stream-based, information management system

The Yale article only takes the side of Yale computer science professor David Gelernter, who whines about not getting “credit” for his brilliant invention. Either that, or perhaps (just perhaps) multiple people were able to come up with the same basic ideas. This is what’s so frustrating about reporting on patent issues. Everyone likes to report on how ideas were “stolen,” when the vast majority of cases involve independent invention (often of obvious ideas).

This case went quickly, and amazingly the court has ordered Apple to pay over $600 million, claiming that it infringed on three of the patents and that it has to pay over $200 million for each of the three products that infringed. Apple is appealing, noting that, at the very least, charging $200 million on each product is, in effect, “triple dipping.”

What’s left unsaid is the blatant insanity of having to pay anywhere near $200 million for the way in which you display CD covers in iTunes. How anyone can see such a verdict and not think the patent system is horribly, horribly broken is beyond me.

Filed Under: coverflow, david gelernter, patents, reasonableness
Companies: apple, mirror worlds

Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?

from the cheaper-to-settle dept

A company going by the name Sharing Sound LLC, which of course does not appear to do anything, got hold of some exceptionally broad and absolutely ridiculous patents on “distributing musical products by a website over the internet” (6,247,130 and 6,233,682). Go ahead and read the claims on both of those, and realize they were filed in 2000, well after online sales of digital goods was available (I should know, I worked for a company focused on selling software online through nearly identical means described in the patents — in 1998).

Earlier this year, however, Sharing Sound sued a whole bunch of companies over these patents. Included was Apple, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody, BDE (Kazaa), Sony, Sony/Ericsson, Amazon, Netflix, Wal-Mart, Barnes & Noble and Gamestop. Late last week, the news came out that Apple had settled and paid up. Along with that, people noted that most of the other companies had already settled.

I defy anyone to explain how this patent is a valid patent. The folks at M-CAM broke down a whole bunch of prior art when the lawsuits were first filed. Anyone who was anywhere near the online web store world for digital content would look through the (very, very, very simple) claims in the patent and just laugh. There’s no “invention” there at all. It’s a joke.

So why did so many companies settle? The easy guess is that the settlement terms were simply less than going through with the lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive, even over totally bogus patents. So it’s often just easier and cheaper to pay up. Of course, now that gives Sharing Sound more ammo to say “look at all these big companies who settled” when they continue to go after lots of other companies. This is a perfect example of how bad patents still “win” lawsuits.

Filed Under: music distribution, patents
Companies: amazon, apple, barnes & noble, gamespot, microsoft, napster, netflix, rhapsody, sharing sound, sony, wal-mart

Italy Demands Apple Remove Joke iTunes App; Starts Legal Action Against App Author

from the humor-sensors? dept

btr1701 passes on the news of how Italy’s tourism minister apparently has absolutely no sense of humor. There’s an app in the Apple iTunes store for iPhones and iPads called “What Country,” which summarizes every country in quick stereotypical snippets. It’s meant to be amusing. For example:

Britain is characterised by “tea, weird sense of humour, football hooligans and rain”, while Germany is summed up with “beer, discipline and autobahns”. China is reduced to “overpopulation, kung fu, Great Wall, Tibet and tea ceremony”, while the most defining characteristics of the US are “melting pot, hamburger and the American dream”.

As for Italy, well, it’s summarized as “pizza, the Mafia and scooters.” And, apparently, Italy’s tourism minister, Michela Vittoria Brambilla, has such a lack of humor that she declared the app “offensive and unacceptable,” demanded that Apple remove it from the store and (most ridiculous of all) is asking the state’s attorney to take legal action against the author. Apparently, someone thinks it’s illegal in Italy to make a joke about Italy.

Filed Under: apps, italy, jokes, liability, mafia, pizza, scooters
Companies: apple