Josh, I disagree with your 4th option, it's no more viable and in fact pretty much the same option as #2.
The only thing is apple will be on the recieving end of microsoft's inablility to support it's DRM across a wide array of device... as is CLEARLY the case with playsforsure and the fact that microsoft has completely ditched playsforsure for a new proprietary drm on their Zune... it's all shit for shits sake. Wether it's apple's DRM or Microsofts is hardly the point. I thought Steve addressed that when he pointed out Microsoft's failure with plays for sure. I DO however have a HUGE point. Why does Steve Jobs need the major label's permission to sell non-DRM music!? Apple is in a perfect position to start selling non-drm mp3's from major independent labels to prove the model... the exact same way emusic is! Surely there have been many viable labels that have come to apple with big enough independant arts who want to sell non-drm mp3's. Steve needs to put HIS money where his mouth is. I have a forth coming post on this. An open letter is an act in futility, a final straw... the act of the little guy down in the trenches... I find it rather off that someone who has so much power and resources feels compelled to publish an open letter. Steve jobs needs to offer those who want it the opportunity to by non-drm music.. . surely the labels cannot and have not made their contracts on selling OTHERS musicians music non-drm... such would clearly be anti-competitive behavior. Steve jobs has no-one to blame for the perpetuation of DRM but himself. I'd also like to point out he's the head of pixar... and has he tried selling pixar movies without drm. All this said and clearly 2007 might well be the death of drm on mainstream music at least. It's my belief that it may perpetuate for some time in niche markets... such as HQ proprietary markets... like ... Blueray... and HDDVD... which will never be mainstream... and only ever have tiny market share, because they're so damn closed. It's quite simple... the center of the marketplace *must remain open*, to be competitive. And law must remain within the capacity of human choice. The minute law is dictated by technology it divorces itself from the fine balance required to for humanity to function. There is no doubt we're in a prohibition era... an era of lawlessness caused by a seperation between law and reason. law mus remain in the realm of reason and human choice. Black markets such as P2P filesharing or so called darknets are a symptom... as is steve jobs monopoly over music... they are symptoms of society out of balance. At the center of that imbalance is intellectual propery law... copyrights, patents and trademarks which are incompatible with a culture that has in just a few short years completely shifted into the digital paradigm. In the digital realm everything is a copy and everythingnis copyable. Anyway, Steve jobs is not saying anything we haven't already been saying for 5 or more years... there's nothing new there, but he is saying it from a powerful position of authority. I don't think there's anyone else who could claim such authority on the subject. And again, Finally, he had better get off his lazy butt and start offering non-drm music from independant labels who want it. He's a brilliant idiot! He has the means they're just so obvious he has yet to grasp them. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 2/7/07, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Posted a reaction on my blog (trying to blog more these days)... > > <http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2007/02/steve_jobs_take_1.php> > > -Josh > > > On 2/7/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Really interesting. And not just related to music. Online video > > content is getting seriously locked up with DRM, and exactly the same > > argument applies: > > > > Steve Jobs: "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely... 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... these same music companies continue to sell > > billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music." > > > > I have ripped many of my DVDs to my Mac and iPod, and TV is taped and > > digitised and YouTubed. Trying to DRM content sold legally on online > > stores is pointless, expensive and even counterproductive. As I > > banged on about a couple of weeks ago, the BBC is obsessed with DRM, > > as so many broadcasters are - they just don't Get It, and yet they > > could be leading the way since they're uncommercial. > > > > They're limiting the growth of the technology and marketplace in > > pursuit of an expensive lost cause. The assumption is No DRM = > > Unlimited Piracy = No Revenues & Problems with the Regulator. > > There's a whole lot of politics here, but what annoys me most is that > > DRM limits the choices of companies like Apple and the BBC in > > developing their technologies and content, when could really take > > things forward in a progressive way. > > > > We need to put pressure on the advocates of DRM to educate them - > > they have 20th century mindsets and are afraid of the internet. But > > who do we persuade and how do we do it? Jobs must have tried to > > persuade the music companies' managements personally, and I would > > guess he's done it energetically and articulately for years. And yet > > it still hasn't worked. No wonder he's pissed off - it's Apple who > > are getting sued, not the Big 4. (that's only part of the Story, > > though, isn't it? iTunes aside, Apple have been getting more and > > more insular and walled recently, it feels, so perhaps they been > > infected with the DRM bug by their music biz partners and need to > > take their own advice) > > > > > > On 7 Feb 2007, at 01:03, Joshua Kinberg wrote: > > > > This is more related to the digital music industry, but I think its > > important nonetheless: > > <http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/> > > > > Very interesting that Steve Jobs, whose company has probably benefited > > most from DRM, is now taking an anti-DRM stance. > > > > -Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
