Does Apple wants locking in music or not?

I don't think that music, written by people's hard earned money, should be free. If Apple can distribute and make money for itself and also give earnings back to the song writers I think that is fine. I think it is also okay for Apple to lock in their music and out of of sources. Sort of like VHS and Beta battle or others. The European cartel should got after Microsoft and the cronies that continue to monolize the internet and operating systems.


from macworld@lm.macworld.com

Looking To a Post-DRM World


By Dan Moren mailto:macuser@macuser.com

For years people have argued about how much Apple has benefited from
locking people into an iPod/iTunes ecosystem, with iTunes Store
purchases only playing on iPods and no other portable devices. But now
Steve Jobs has published an open letter, in which he says Apple would
drop the FairPlay DRM system from iTunes songs if music companies gave
the OK. Goodbye, lock-in myth.
http://playlistmag.com/news/2007/02/06/jobsletter/index.php?lsrc=mcweek

How might a DRM-free world affect Apple? I suspect brand loyalty and
quality of service would keep iTunes popular. Apple seems to have no
fear of competing with other online music stores. And it should
continue to dominate the music player market as well: The iPod doesn't
have 70 percent of the digital music player market just because you
can buy tracks from the iTunes store. As Jobs himself points out, the
vast majority of the tracks stored on iPods are unencumbered by DRM.
Some of them are pirated, but lots of them are ripped directly from
CD.

The iPod is a success because of its design and its functionality.
Would some sales be lost if there was no iTunes/iPod tie-in? Probably,
but I'd be surprised if Apple somehow lost its dominant position:
people are not going to flock to the Zune just because DRM is
unlocked. It will certainly make competition in the MP3 player space
fiercer, but for the consumer, that's all to the good; they'd rather
competition was driven by technological innovation than by restrictive
lock-in.

What the music industry hasn't wanted to admit -- because it runs
counter to the record labels' established logic -- is that DRM-free
music could actually boost sales, by taking away the stigma of
second-class citizenship that haunts the download services in the eyes
of the digerati. At the moment, record companies are reacting out of
fear of the unknown, and that's something that doesn't traditionally
help businesses in the long run. Sooner or later, all of their
restrictive measures are going to fail, and they're either going to
have to adapt or be destroyed. And trust me on this: consumers aren't
going to be broken-hearted either way.

Jobs's letter goes a long way to answer questions that consumers and
governments have been asking about Apple and DRM practically since the
iTunes Store's debut almost four years ago. The big step still remains
for DRM to be actually abolished.

Your move, record labels.


* Apple News *

Partners, rivals react to Jobs' anti-DRM comments
In the aftermath of the open letter in which the Apple CEO said his
company would sell DRM-free music if the major record labels allowed
it, at least one of the four largest music companies noted it's been
experimenting with DRM-free songs.
http://playlistmag.com/news/2007/02/07/drm/index.php?lsrc=mcweek

Apple, Beatles reach new settlement
Apple and Apple Corps -- the Beatles' management company -- have
settled their legal differences, paving the way for the Fab Four's
music to potentially wind up on the iTunes Store.
http://playlistmag.com/news/2007/02/05/applecorps/index.php?lsrc=mcweek

Apple ribs Vista security in new ad
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/06/vista/index.php?lsrc=mcweek