More on the DRM Debate

In my previous post I discussed my personal sentiment on this week's announcement by Apple and EMI. Since blogging earlier in the week, I've done some research on the blogosphere's reaction the the announcement. It seems that there is similar backlash but for a wider variety of reasons. The drawbacks I failed to mention were keenly caught by several other bloggers that I will share.

To start, engadget.com congratulates EMI for taking such a bold step. However, it points out that if Jobs was truly committed to launching DRM-free downloads, then why does he not offer the Disney catalogs? After his acquisition of Pixar last year, he became a huge shareholder in the Disney conglomerate. It's intersting that Hollywood, Lyric Street, Disney and Mammoth Records all still remain encrypted. Additionally, while in theory DRM-free music is more easily distributable, the new downloads are AAC only. Several mp3 devices do not even play AAC encoded files.

On theinquirer.net, Charlie Demerjian points out that the new files are not backwards compatible. Meaning: if you bought the file with DRM, you're stuck with it. You can't prorate what you've already bought -- you have to spend the $1.29 for the new file. Essentially, you're spending $2.30 for a song. Does this sound like a great deal to you? While clearly editorializing on the announcement, he makes a good point that this announcement seems like a huge media blitz. It's not actually better for the consumer, it merely makes Apple and EMI out to be great innovators simply because they finally took a step in allowing consumers to actually use the music they pay for.

P2pnet.net also mentions that it's no secret Jobs wants to ease the pressure off of himself in Europe. Norway, Germany, France... all have singled Apple out as illegally monopolizing the industry with DRM. It's in Jobs' best interest to drop DRM and distance himself from the issue as much as possible. By doing so, he stands to lose little and gain a lot of great press. This would also explain why he hasn't leapt to eliminating DRM from his own catalogs.

Still other sites like TidBITS.com cynically predict that Apple will find some other way to "watermark" consumers to track their filesharing and distribution habits. Some way, somehow, the RIAA will figure out how to sue their law-breaking consumers.

To say the least, consumers and bloggers are not convinced that this agreement is the change the industry needs. The other major labels are still firmly opposed to DRM free music and peer-to-peer free filesharing still exists. It certainly remains to be seen if this is the balance between the opposite ends of the spectrum.