DVD Jon responds to Steve's DRM letter

Aaron Priven (#14), just in case you weren't aware, Microsoft licenses the PlaysForSure DRM but it's own Zune does not support it. The Zune instead uses its own DRM (not to mention its own Windows app, as opposed to just using WMP). In other words, to say that Microsoft licenses it's DRM is actually only partially true. It licenses only one of its two music DRMs.

Why should I even care what some character called DVD Jon says or thinks?

As for songs being sold on iTunes with DRM that are available elsewhere without DRM (i.e. emusic) then go buy them from emusic, you are the consumer and you have a choice.

I have no inside information, but I'll bet that the labels forced Apple to include a clause in the contract that forbids iTunes from selling non-DRM music. After all, it would make them look bad if music from Nettwerk had no DRM but everything from the majors did.

Yeah, right. If Apple is only DRMing tracks because of the music industry, why did it also DRM the VP and presidential candidate debates before the 2004 election? It gave those out "free," but DRMed them, so you couldn't share.

Don't tell me offering them unencrypted would confuse people. That's BS. People who just wanted to use them on iPods or in ITMS would see NO CHANGE FROM BEFORE, except they could make unlimited copies. And those who wanted to use the tracks on other devices would be able to, where they couldn't before. More freedom isn't bad.

PlaysForSure is a non-entity. Why would anyone try to crack DRM for a music store no one uses? iTS has what, 95 percent of the market, and I'm to believe that the

I'm as Appley fanboy as the next guy, but I think there are good points to be made here.

1) Some significant amount of music available on iTunes is also available on eMusic. Why can't Apple put at least *that* music up for sale without DRM?

Maybe there are good reasons for this -- maybe iTunes doesn't support making the distinction and it's work to make it happen; maybe their current contract says otherwise and they'd have to have them sign a new one -- but it's a very valid question.

2) Microsoft licenses its DRM; why can't Apple? Apple says it's more prone to security breaches if they do, but there's no actual evidence of that, is there, since there aren't big differences in security breaches between Apple's DRM as Microsoft's. I think people are entitled to be skeptical of this claim by Jobs.

Ultimately, I think Jobs's statement on this is basically correct from his point of view -- the consumer *would* benefit most from a DRM-free world, at least with regard to owned content. Of course, Apple, as the leading seller of both players and music, can afford to be magnanimous, and would benefit from any market expansion.

But his point of view also dismisses the desirability of subscription-based and rental-based models for distributing content. I personally agree with this for music -- I don't want to rent my music -- but I would much rather rent videos than buy them. I can imagine that others might feel differently. A world without DRM is a world without digital subscription or rental services -- and a world where one of Apple's few competitive disadvantages goes away.

Jon's not arguing for Apple to remove all of the current DRM, but, that if Steve is serious about not liking DRM, that he could remove the DRM from the music tracks sold on the iTS which don't require DRM by contract (many Indie labels) and by artists (such as Fiona Apple and Sarah McLaughlan) who have explicitly asked to not have DRM on their music.

So far, Apple has refused.

I highly doubt that Steve Jobs is really anti-DRM. He's against getting thrown out of countries such as Norway, and even more against licensing FairPlay and being responsible for the entire digital music industry, from store to player manufacturers, keeping up its end of the bargain (I'm not sure I blame him on that front).

If Steve wasn't in real trouble in Europe, his thoughts on music would never have gone public.

Jon created a GUI to DeCSS, thats it. The algorithm itself was created by a german guy.

Misleading Statistics... yes, a bit. They would be no matter how you phrased them, however. For example, Jon says that number of downloads per user is more meaningful, but it isn't necessarily. I had already bought some music off of the iTunes store before I had an iPod. Believe it or not, those downloads did not factor into my decision to get an iPod.

To be cynical, it may be that the lock in isn't as great as Apple wanted it to be, so now they are willing to jettison it.

Zune's DRM a business decision? Maybe, but it does demonstrate that DRM is arbitrarily dividing the market. Also, we don't know all the details that went into the decision. Also, I'm sure the other MP3 player manufacturers are a little annoyed at MS for fragmenting the market further, but that's another topic.

Artists not wanting DRM? That may be true, but we don't know the terms of the agreement with the labels. It may be that Apple is required to do an all or nothing deal. Also, it may be that Apple just doesn't want to deal with the development effort in having some songs with DRM and some without. You can pretend it's easy in your arm chair development environment, but if they started doing it, it would a change from the status quo and would therefor cost them time and money (and produce possible breakage points).

I have nothing but respect for Jon, but again, he acts like Apple can simply take off the DRM wrappers and the labels won't sue Apple out of existence. They will yank ALL their music. End of story.

Steve wrote this because he's clearly fed up with being treated like an idiot by the music industry. I can't believe the kneejerk response is to put all this back on Apple-- THEY HAVE NO POWER!

Right, they have iTS. So what? The RIAA and labels are so uber-delusional they wouldn't think twice about yanking all their content from the store. Then what? Apple's leverage is gone, and the music industry would act like they were the victims (never mind the boost in sales the Zune store would see, as MS would ride in on their demonic horses).

Jon doesn't get it. Yeah, Apple could turn off DRM instantly. They could sell the iPod to MS too. That's not the point. They are hamstrung (in fact, hostages) by the deal they had to make with the labels. IMO, Steve just got done with a lengthy arbitration for extending this contract, and he's probably a little bitter about the deal... What we're seeing is the work of a team of lawyers, etc... This isn't just Steve, he's got shareholders to think of.

But of course, it's all Apple's fault for making a great device and having to play ball with a clearly moronic group of a-holes who wouldn't know a Fair Play from a gaping gut wound.

Obviously it'd be better if they sold the iPod to MS and quit the business all together, right? Yeaaahhh....