Randall Stross goes after Digital Rights Management (DRM) as invoked by both Apple and Microsoft (
NY Times link here). He picks up on Melanie Tucker v. Apple Computer Inc. over what she calls factory installed crippleware for what Apple calls "FairPlay": "When you buy songs at the iTunes Music Store, you can play them on one and only one line of portable player, the iPod. And when you buy an iPod, you can play copy-protected songs bought from one and only one online music store, the iTunes Music Store."
Then he describes how MS does the same thing or tries - through its PlaysForSure copy-protection standard, which is now replaced by a new standard for the MS Zune player, not compatible with the old songs. As consumers, the "rights" enjoyed are few. As some wags have said, the initials D.R.M. should really stand for "Digital Restrictions Management."
Apple defends itself by claiming the music companies - Universal, Warner Music Group, EMI and Sony BMG insist on it. But there are independent companies that supply MP3 formatted songs. Stross thinks that may force users of DRM restrictions to give them up, but for the time being, Apple protects those songs as well on its iPod.
There is a lot more detail in the story, but Stross reaches an optimistic conclusion. He quotes Dave Goldberg, the head of Yahoo Music, who believes that "today's copy-protection battles will prove short-lived. Eventually, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, he predicts, all portable players will have wireless broadband capability and will provide direct access, anytime, anywhere, to every song ever released for a low monthly subscription fee." It has already happened in South Korea, but only after CD sales collapsed.
All true, but it doesn't get rid of copyright on music.
"...every song ever released for a low monthly subscription fee."
Presumably only the ISP fee?
And post-WiMax, no subscription fee - just the electricity costs.
If you want to pay musicians or DJs, you can do so directly.
(off-topic) Have you seen
this one on slashdot:
"But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit. In findings that 'astounded' the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumors in both animal and human tissue experiments."
Given that the government pays for twice as much biomedical research as the drug companies - I suspect if he can't get funding it is because it doesn't work as well as he claims. And if big pharma isn't interested in proceeding without a patent - well there are a lot of Indian pharmaceutical firms with long and profitable experience producing drugs without patents. Sounds like posturing to me.
