Steve Jobs is Right!!!!!

Yesterday Steve Jobs released a letter to the public calling the big four record labels to drop digital rights management (DRM) from their recordings. The developers and users of DRM claim that it is necessary to protect their intellectual property, in essence to restrict the ability of the purchasers to use the content they have been sold in the way that suits them.

Since 1998 the US has been under something called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DCMA) which among other provisions criminalized the circumvention of technologies designed to restrict private use. DCMA also followed the American tradition that dates back to about 1913, where copyrights, which under the original terms of the Constitution were supposed to be for limited times and durations, were extended beyond their original standards. Thus, in one fell swoop Congress restricted the private use of purchased material that was almost unprecedented both in terms of restrictions and severity of penalities but also extended the terms that the owners of copyright could hold these rights.

Jobs stepping into this is a bit of an interesting twist. Apple uses its own DRM to limit the copying of iTunes music to five devices. He claims that as part of the agreement with the big four that Apple was also required to develop a DRM which prevents their music from being copied to alternative devices (other MP3 players, for example). Currently about 3% of the music on the average iPod is purchased from iTunes. He offered two alternatives to the current system. (Assuming that continuation of the current system that limits the purchase and use of music to a single type of player is not a good idea.) The first alternative would be for Apple to license its DRM technology to the other companies (mainly Sony Connect and Microsoft’s new Zune player). But he argues that creates its own problems. Keeping the secrecy of the technology in DRMs is tough and would be a good deal tougher with lots more eyes on it. His second alternative would be to eliminate the DRM from electronic music. That is the current system for people who buy a CD. In 2006 there were 10 times the number of songs sold without DRMs as sold with them. Jobs concluded that “Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.” His case is a strong one.

There are two other footnotes to the story. Yesterday a Norwegian official said that Apple is “skirting” issues on DRM and should be forced to open its DRM system to competitors. Torgeir Waterhouse, a “senior advisor” to the “Consumer Council” said Apple was hiding behind the record companies. As Jobs pointed out in his letter, a good deal of this problem is EU based - of the big four record companies EMI is British, Universal is owned by (French) Vivendi, Sony BMG is owned by Bertelsmann.

The Recording Industry Association of America lost a case last summer with a peer to peer file sharing service. Debbie Foster, who had a case against her dismissed, had sued for the RIAA to pay her legal fees and according to an order from Judge Lee R. West, ordered the RIAA to pay “reasonable” attorney fees. This case was typical of the kinds of things that RIAA has pursued. Ms. Foster had no knowledge that her internet connection was being used for downloading and yet the RIAA went after her with the all the force they could muster. Shame on them-but then that is generally how we should look at their actions. In the Kessler Cycle, discussed on this blog several times, there is a stage where the established technology players try to enforce their outdated technology through courts, legislatures or censures. This may slow the RIAA down from its' greedy and often unconscionable actions against private citizens.