As CNet points out in its Digital Media blog,
Microsoft's now-defunct MSN Music service stopped issuing DRM keys for
the music it sold to customers. Yahoo Music made the same announcement
last week. As a result, customers of either of those services may no
longer be able to access music they paid for. As CNet's Greg Sandoval
suggests:
" If Apple ever stopped issuing keys for its FairPlay digital rights management then, just like at Yahoo and MSN, iTunes users would be prevented from moving their music to different machines or devices. That would affect most of the 5 billion songs the company has sold. (Following much public criticism, Microsoft said it would continue issuing keys for another three years and Yahoo is offering refunds.)
To be sure, the likelihood of Apple shutting off DRM keys anytime in the foreseeable future seems remote at best. Apple is the Internet's largest music retailer and may be the largest music retailer overall. The company is riding a wave of excitement over the new iPhone 3G, which besides being a phone and Internet-enabled device, is an excellent music player. Apple appears to be on track to dominate retail music sales for a long time to come. Still, things do change. Who can say what will happen at Apple in 5 or 10 years? That's a long time from now. But the truth is, DRM's threat to iTunes users' music libraries is real."
There are a number of reasons I don't own
an iPod or iPhone. Apple's iTunes FairPlay DRM is one of those reasons.
DRM is a technology that unfairly burdens those who pay for content
while providing little (if any) real deterrence to those would illegally
copy and distribute that content. I know Apple (now) offers content that
is DRM-free. However, they're still offering the bulk of the content
they provide with DRM attached. Until, like Amazon.com and some other
services, they offer only DRM-free content, I'm not interested in iTunes
and by extension the iPod or iPhone.
I realize that what
I'm about to say somewhat contradicts the above, so I will need to
explain it afterward... While I don't like the concept of "purchasing"
content that is saddled with DRM, I don't have a problem "renting"
content with DRM attached. For example, the Rhapsody and Zune services
allow you to (in essence) download as much content as your device (be it
a PC or a portable media player) will hold as part of a
subscription-based service. That content is DRM protected and can only
be played on a specific device or devices. I am accepting of DRM in this
circumstance because it is serving a purpose for me. It's allowing me to
load my media player full of content that I can listen to at my leisure,
more content than I can probably afford to actually "own". If I decide
that my collection wouldn't be complete without this or that album, I
can buy it free of DRM from the same service and not have to worry if my
player dies or my subscription lapses. Would I prefer to be able to
"rent" content without DRM? Sure. Do I expect that to ever be an option?
No, since it would eliminate pretty much any reason to "buy" the
content.
So, as I said, it's something of a contradiction.
I don't want an iPod or iPhone, because the default situation is that my
"purchased" content will be saddled with the FairPlay DRM. At the same
time, I do own a Zune because Microsoft's DRM allows me to "rent"
content I might otherwise be unable (or unwilling) to buy and try it out
for a while. I presume Apple's FairPlay DRM allows for this "renting"
concept as well, though as I understand it this isn't the way iTunes
operates presently.
Another reason I don't want an iPod or
iPhone is the iTunes software itself. For Windows users, Apple has
developed a nasty habit of including "non-iTunes" software with iTunes
updates by default. I don't like Safari, and don't want it on my PC. I
have no interest in the troubled MobileMe service, and don't want that
on my PC either. The fact that Apple tries to add these things to my
system without my asking for them is unacceptable and, quite frankly,
arrogant.
Leave a comment