Yesterday, most European governments accused Jobs of trying to shift the focus from Apple's DRM conflicts with some continental governments to the record companies. And today, Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman said that the home of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Josh Groban would not drop copy protection.
Despite these protests, DRM's days may still be numbered: EMI, the home of Janet Jackson, the White Stripes, and The Beatles, is seriously considering dropping DRM altogether. Given the recent Beatles hints that Steve Jobs has made of late, could this mean that Apple and iTunes will offer the online debut of the Beatles long-guarded catalog without copyright protection? Seems insane and ironic, but if EMI is up for it....
Okay, so DRM doesn't stop piracy, but I still don't know what completely copy-able MP3s are going to do to stop piracy, either. It's not like I want the record companies to get their way or anything, but don't they help at least some deserving artists get a shot at the big time and maybe even paid? How are artists going to get paid when their MP3s can be copied ad infinitum? What exactly is EMI's financial plan here?
And as I've said before, what's so hard about burning some iTunes-purchased tracks onto a CD, then re-ripping the CD into MP3s that‘ll work on any player, anyway? It still makes a better copy in the end than anything we could have ever put on a cassette tape, for anyone who can remember.
Meanwhile, let's talk about iTunes-purchase video, which you can't even burn to a DVD, much less play on non-iPods.
Here's a quick poll: Would you pay money for non-DRM MP3s from iTunes when you can just copy them from your friend?
http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/samiljan/4453;_ylt=AhSNoV5SRFxe7Zd3gIMY.nwSLpA5
