Steve Jobs Speaks Out On Apple FairPlay DRM

Josiah,

Your RSS feed doesn't include links to whatever is in your post. So when I see a post linking to something good, like this one, I have to open it just to open the link.

I can think of a few reasons for doing that, but it is still not nice.

Jeremy

Is this the Prince vs. U2 forum?

Wow... that was really clearly written and explained. I find it hard to believe that he'll really change the music industry's mind, but stranger things have happened.
--
RDS

Sounds like Jobs is asking the companies to remove DRM. Interesting. If Apple is so open to DRM-free songs on on-line music stores why do they still package the DRM locks in the songs they sell from independent labels? Indie labels never required DRM, and you can download unencumbered MP3's from indie music stores like emusic.com. No big record label is forcing Steve Jobs to sell Sufjan Stevens or Bill Mallonee downloads with restrictive DRM locks. He leaves the DRM lock on them so you can't use them on anything but an iPod. I'm sorry I don't buy the "I really wish I could sell this music unrestricted" line.

I own an iPod and like it, but I don't know what I'll own 10 years from now. I don't want to lose "just 3%" of my music because Steve Jobs puts rights software on it. This is why I've never bought a song from iTunes and don't intend to. The best music is on the indie labels anyway.

My guess is that the encryption happens just before the download. After all, each song is ID'd to only work for that user. The iTunes software is probably setup to work one way. (Most Apple programs and hardware are streamlined for consistent operation) The costs of changing this are high and make the process more convoluted.

Indie mp3's make up a small portion of their revenue. Let's be honest, we get a lot of our indie stuff for free (wink wink or oink oink - if you will), and I wouldn't buy non-DRM music from Apple when I can get it for free.

Who buys an iPod just so they can download from the iTunes store anyway?