Well, this is interesting, as they say, or we say, sometimes, when things are interesting, mainly. Erm, where was I? Oh yes, Apple boss Steve Jobs yesterday called on the major record companies to start selling digital music without copy-protection DRM.
This is interesting, of course, because arguably Jobs and Apple are benefiting more than most from the major record companies' ongoing love affair with digital rights management (or, I should say, to be precise, restrictive digital rights management). After all, for as long as the iPod is by far the market leading digital music player, and while the only DRMed music that will play on an iPod is that sold by iTunes, and while the majors won't sell their music in non-DRMed MP3 format, then iPod owners will continue to be locked to iTunes, and iTunes users will continue to be locked to the iPod (except for music from indie labels, of course, who do sell MP3s), which is all surely good news for Apple.
So why is Jobs now speaking out against the record industry's love affair with DRM? Well, if I was being cynical, I might suggest it's a PR move to throw the growing consumer resentment towards the interoperability that exists in the digital music sector (caused by proprietary DRMs like that owned by Apple) onto the record labels rather than technology firms. As previously reported, consumer rights bodies in Europe, and especially Scandinavia, are getting increasingly tetchy about interoperability in the digital content space (or, rather, the lack of it), and Apple, as the most successful company in the sector, are getting more criticism than most. What Jobs is probably doing with his anti-DRM polemic is trying to convince people that the problem isn't that restrictive DRM technologies created by companies like Apple won't work on rivals' players, rather the problem is the major labels' insistence on using DRM in the first place. On one level he's right of course, though Apple's business model is hardly that consumer friendly either.
Indicating his motivation for his new stand on DRM, Jobs wrote on Apple's website yesterday: "Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies".
Going over familiar arguments for why major record companies should drop their insistence regarding the use of controlling DRM, Jobs continued: "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".
Responding to Jobs' DRM comments, David Packman, the boss of the US's number two download platform eMusic, echoed the calls for major labels to dump DRM - though that's not so surprising, eMusic being the leading supplier of non-DRMed MP3 downloads. Packman told CMU: "Consumers prefer a world where the media they purchase is playable on any device, regardless of its manufacturer, and not burdened by arbitrary usage restrictions. DRM only serves to restrict consumer choice, prevents a larger digital music market from emerging and often makes consumers unwitting accomplices to the ambitions of technology companies. eMusic has always sold music in the way consumers want, and by focusing on the needs of the customer, we have sold more than 100 million downloads in the past three years. More than 13,000 independent labels share this view. We are hopeful the remaining four will one day join them by licensing their complete catalogues and reap the benefits of consumer demand for music's 'long tail'".
DRM, of the restrictive kind, is very much out of favour at the moment of course, being generally dissed at Midem last month, and at the MusicTank Think Tank on digital music in London last night. Yet the consensus is that, while the majority of those working in the record industry now see that the use of restrictive DRM is flawed on more or less every level, the majors will not change their policies on the matter for some time. Even if (and probably especially if) Steve Jobs tells them they should do.
Elsewhere in Apple iTunes news, there's much speculation as to if and when (mainly when) there will be a big announcement from iTunes regarding the Beatles catalogue. As reported yesterday, Apple Inc have now formally ended their long long running trademark dispute with Beatles company Apple Corps, which many see as a stepping stone to an announcement that the Beatles catalogue is about to be made legitimately available digitally for the first time.
Some reckon that an announcement is imminent, while others say that, despite the settlement of the trademark dispute, it will be a while before anything happens with the Beatles. Others are speculating what the deal will be once it is announced - will the Beatles company, long protective of the value of the fab four's music, sell off their catalogue at 99 cents / 79 pence a track like everyone else. Or can we expect a premium digital box set offer? Or a 'higher unit price for better audio quality' offer?
Who knows and, some are asking, who cares? Yes, some reckon the arrival of the Beatles to digital isn't actually as big a story as others say. Those people point out that anyone who wants Beatles MP3s has already ripped them off CD or downloaded them via P2P. As Digital Music News Editor Paul Resnikoff writes: "Maybe in 2000, when consumers were unfamiliar with their options, and forming new habits, this [Beatles going digital] would have had a serious and lasting impact. But that window has quickly passed".