20070208   

Michael considered fate at 12:07   |   Permalink   |   Post a Comment

I've been avoiding this weeks DRM issue du jour because I know my readers probably don't care, but I can't hold out anymore. Apple's FairPlay DRM - the software that "protects" music sold on the iTunes Music Store - is closed source. Steve Jobs wrote in an open letter published Tuesday on the Apple website titled "Thoughts on Music" that, to paraphrase, "the existence and use of DRM is completely driven by the music companies." He went on to say that if music companies would allow DRM-free music then "Apple would embrace this wholeheartedly."

This may be postering for the European community which has been stepping up their attacks on Apple's iPod-FairPlay juggernaut. Norway has previously demanded a change in Apple's policy and now France and Germany are jumping on the bandwagon.

However, let us all remember that Jobs has less of an interest in DRM than he does in selling more iPods. We'd like to believe that he is all for a free market:

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future.

But let's be honest, he just wants more iPods in more hands more often. Anti-DRM sentiments don't make a whole lot of sense for Apple. Firstly, only in their darkest moments did the company decide to license Macintosh clones (back in the 90's) and that didn't last very long. Apple has, historically, been a closed and secret fort - in goes your money, out comes shiny toys. For Jobs, unless he truly believes in Apple's ability to remain squarely in the forefront of the portable media player spotlight with the iPod, there is no incentive for him to open up the music.

Finally, depending on how you measure things, Jobs' claim that "So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music." is patently wrong. Most liberal usage rights my ass! "Where are the DRM-free music downloads of indie bands willing to sell their music anyway they can?" asks DVD Jon. Probably not there because of a clause in the contract which reads something like: "You can't sell other music than ours - especially DRM-free - are we fuck you. We fuck you, Lebowski!" I'm not blaming Apple outright as it is clearly the music companies that are the paranoid androids but does it matter in the end?

The Economist seems to think that Jobs' stance is right, albeit self-serving.

But at the end of the day this is all as transparent as a rock stars girlfriend. Jobs, in the all-important final paragraph, writes:

For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

If this isn't a blatant attempt to get Europeans to shut up about the interoperability issue and go attack the music companies instead, than I don't know what it is.

Cham-peen of the consumer, defender of freedom my ass.