Comments on: Apple’s DRM dilemma

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:50:20 +0000

This is typical nonsense we hear on this: that every one of the labels has to stop demanding DRM before Apple will allow any of them to. This is a clear marketing tactic that seems to work on Apple fans, but doesn’t work on the rest of us.

If Apple had the slightest opposition to DRM (And I see no evidence that Mr. Jobs was trying to do anything than pass the buck), they would release DRM-free as each musician and label has been convinced. Today it might only be 5% of the music, but it allows a clear path for that 5% to grow to 100%.

Gates insisting that it is a binary decision between 0% and 100% is total nonsense. This is not a sound business decision, but the misdirections of a master marketing magician. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain — the scary noises you see may appear to be the labels, but the persons really controlling the debate are the hardware/software vendors like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc.

Canadians should sign: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:51:23 +0000

DRM isn’t a dilemma for me. I won’t buy DRM products. Nor will I buy subpar low end quality bit rates and believe I’ve gotten a deal at the same prices I would pay for a physical product. Without the quality there it’s not the same even at a reasonable price, which 99Â¢ per tune isn’t.

Now the labels are saying they’ll consider taking out the DRM but have to raise the price? That sounds like the joke of the day to me. I mean their saying they want more to put it out without DRM when they have to pay more to put the DRM in the first place.

It doesn’t prevent the removal of the DRM files. Go to any p2p site and you’ll see the latest up for offer. So this is nothing but another attempt at blatant price gouging. Even though it would be in their best interests to drop the DRM and lower prices, they still cling to the idea of milking the cash cow for all it’s worth. The issue here is if the grass is green enough to attract the cow. For me it isn’t and I don’t think it will be for the majority.

I would encourage the labels to cling to the DRM like it was breath itself. It will be the fastest way to the funeral home.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:25:45 +0000

I agree. If enough artists come together in unison against DRM it could affect a change. But there needs to be enough of those who are signed to major labels joining in for deliver the blow.

–nerdbrain

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:22:41 +0000

Proper analysis would have highlighted the fact that Steve Jobs qualified his statements about non-DRM music by stating that only *after* the Big 4 capitulated on DRM will the iTunes Store embrace it. This makes sense, in context. Apple doesn’t gain anything from going through the hassle of selling a few songs without DRM. Yes, they can do it as a show of support, but to only limited effect: in the end it would mean nothing, ask Yahoo!. In fact, that is the position Yahoo! is in now. Are people flocking there to buy music?

Remember, Jobs did not base his conclusions on philosophical arguments relating to ownership, he merely pointed out how impractical and ineffectual the whole system is. That is why, when opinion blogs (and some music execs) state that his views are hypocritical, they are wrong. They say, ‘why not sell (your) movies without DRM?’ This is reading what Jobs wrote as a philosophical argument against all DRM. Which, of course, it isn’t. Also, some homework on the matter would have showed that even just a few months after the iTunes Store opened Jobs stated in a RollingStone magazine interview (in 2003) that they had early on reached this same conclusion, but were not able to convinced the labels.

Jobs isn’t stupid, nor is he an anti-capitalist hippie: he’s just that saying music DRM just don’t make no sense! And we can all agree. Allow yourself to admit it – you’ll feel better.

–nerdbrain

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:15:23 +0000

I think it’s sad that the musicians don’t band together ad try to change this. Without their music, the labels have nothing to sell.

I mean, there are clearly musicians — such as composer Shelly Palmer — who have major concerns about DRM. Why isnt there more open dialouge?

The blogs are here, but I don’t the Big Four care enough to read them.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:10:58 +0000

only when they were inserted through his anus, after a short stop in his wallet.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:04:26 +0000

Do those Apple brain implants hurt?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:00:21 +0000

Jobs isn’t stupid, nor is he an anti-capitalist hippie: he’s just that saying music DRM just don’t make no sense! And we can all agree. Allow yourself to admit it – you’ll feel better.

–nerdbrain

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:41:47 +0000

I agree with the basic premise that you say (that Apple could most likely easily sell non-DRMed music along with DRMed) and said as much in a blog at MyMac.com (http://mymac.com/showarticle.php?do=something&id=1919). One of the responses I got implied that it was due to Apple wanting to keep the purchase of audio content the same no matter what the copyright holders allowed and I can kinda see that. However considering what Steve himself said in his “open letter”, I find that to be contridictary. If Steve has said that he doesn’t want DRM on files served up by Apple, then Apple shouldn’t DRM those files when they are allowed to. The only other excuse that COULD be possible is that the deals that Apple has made with the content copyright holders excludes serving files without DRM that are hosted on Apple’s servers. I’ve asked this question before and gotten no response.

My one complaint about your blog is related to podcasts. Apple doesn’t host those files so there is no need to go beyond whatever protection is native from the content creators.