Apple's Anti-DRM Stance: Why It's More Talk Than Action

"lucrative status quo: selling songs protected by Apple's Fairplay DRM system, thereby keeping consumers locked into using iPods and iTunes."

Um, I'm not locked into anything. I can play any mp3, or most other non-DRM formats, from any source on my iPod. I can buy a CD and rip it if I wish (takes all of 2 minutes). I can burn CD's of the songs I buy at iTunes and use them in my car or home stereo. I can use my iTunes purchases on up to 5 computers at a time...how many people need to use them on 6 at a time?

And if I ever felt the need to use my purchases where DRM won't let me, I can simply burn a CD and re-rip it. A small amount of work, but hardly "locked". And a lot better than the dead music services that simply cut folks off - remember the phrase "plays for sure"?

That's extra work and extra cost and extra limitations.

Pure rubbish. If Apple was in favor of DRM, why would it offer as much content as possible in the iTunes plus (DRM free format)? Is there any evidence to suggest the other major labels will allow Apple to sell DRM free content? No? End of story then.

I am anxiously awaiting the day when all content will be DRM free. The record labels have gone on record saying that they intend to offer DRM free music to Apple's competitors in order to level the playing field. Until there is evidence to suggest Apple is the bottleneck, I'll continue to the blame with the record labels. Nothing in this article provides a convincing reason to think otherwise.

It's overstating the case, to put it mildly, that buying iTunes Plus tracks "takes far more clicks and energy" than buying protected tracks. You turn on a preference in your account settings to show you Plus tracks when they are available -- a one-time step -- and otherwise the purchase process is exactly the same.

Where Apple could be doing more is with the bitrate of protected songs. 128Kbps was fine at launch several years ago, but it is no longer competitive and sounds demonstrably worse that the 256Kbps (or greater) tracks offered by Amazon and other other stores. Where possible, I buy from Amazon for precisely this reason. I'd prefer no DRM, but it never gets in my way, so my differentiator is sound quality. Apple's tracks just sound worse than everyone else's. This is an area that, I imagine, Apple could fix if they wanted to, without having to get the labels' permission.

Mr. Burrows, I do not agree with you. Your article is more about discrediting Apple than objectively analyzing the facts.
As an aside, it looks chic to use foreign language expression in a text as a way to make one looks knowegeable but one has to make sure to write it properly. There is an 'U' missing in de word 'rigueUr' , so it is 'de rigueur' to check the spelling before posting because it may have the opposing effect.
aurevoir, m dumais

As long as there are both DRM and non-DRM files, there will always have to be an action taken by the user to choose between them. Only one can be a default, and since the record labels won't let the vast majority of tunes be DRM-free on iTunes, that default has been chosen to be the one that inconveniences the least amount of business traffic. When the labels say all can be sold without DRM, those inconveniences will go away.

I might not be typical or an important market segment but I've stopped buying all DRM protected music. I have a lot of DRM encumbered music from iTunes from before the EMI announcement and none after (except the free stuff that Apple gives away every week.)

I won't be buying any new music until it is free of DRM (and preferably a higher bit rate. Maybe I'm alone but this is the clueless music industry you are reporting on. They could see a 80% decline between DRM and non-DRM and decide to call it inconsequential without blinking.

Actually, now that the prices are the same, if the tracks are available DRM free that is ALL that is available. There are no longer DRM encumbered versions of those files. There is also no longer a need (or a way) to select it in options, and the number of clicks is the same as if it were DRMd files. You really need to fix your article...
I am saddened to see that you can no longer choose which files to upgrade (you used to be able to) but at the rate that they are trickling out, it has not been an issue...

It's obvious that few of the commenters have read the entire article.

The first part is inflammatory (nice for the hit count), but you support your argument fully.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point. Apple is not doing ANYTHING (good or bad) about DRM.

They need to throw their weight around for Joe Consumer and musicians by doing more to convince musicians to go indie and/or the Majors into dropping DRM.

The stalemate is between the musicians and the RIAA with Apple in the middle, doing nothing except watching the customers get screwed and profiting from it.

Hey, Apple! Re-design the iTunes Store to have a "DRM-Free" Setting for the browsing experience, or at least a DRM-Free Section that gets refreshed as often as all the other sections.

I bought music last night from iTunes and it was DRM free. I bought the latest Coldplay album a few weeks ago also DRM free. I will only buy music/video that is DRM free from iTunes. It has a selection that is getting bigger all the time.

Interesting argument and conclusion.

If Apple were truly dragging its feet on DRM, all a label would have to do is release the information that Apple refused its offer of DRM-free tracks. Given how adversarial some of the labels have been to Apple, you'd think that would be a no-brainer in their battle to avoid having Apple dominate the online distribution of music. Since they haven't, then it's obvious, your argument and conclusion are false.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one. Clearly, the labels are doing whatever they can to promote alternatives to iTMS, including colluding on selling DRM-free tracks thru Amazon and other stores. The music industry has a long history of collusion.

The DECE is a smokescreen. It purports to be user-friendly, but a true user-friendly system would eliminate the use of DRM to begin with.

Your argument boils down to Apple can convince Zucker, so why can't it convince the labels, and iTunes Plus is hard. That's not much of an argument.

The bottom line is that Apple's DRM, Fairplay, is NOT onerous to users. That's why DRM is not high on customer's list of concerns. That's why the iTMS succeeded in the first place. Nothing has changed. Apple has hit the sweet spot. They have a winning combination of jukebox, music store and music player. Having a Myspace or DECE store, only addresses part of Apple's winning combination.

Here's my guess. Apple is taking notes. When they're ready, they'll scream antitrust from the rafters.

The record companies are in collusion with each other and anyone who they think can help them bust Apple down a notch.

If that isn't a violation of antitrust laws, then burn the book.

After another year or two, Apple is going to eat the RIAA for lunch. When that happens, it will be nice to have a $20B+ nest egg for resigning important acts.