Giant record firm EMI has apparently decided to make a bold move and release some of its copyrighted material in digital form without the protection of Digital Rights Management (DRM) software.

Digital rights first came to mass scrutiny almost a decade ago when peer-to-peer music sharing site Napster rose to popularity and got too big to hide from music companies and celebrities alike. With the dawning of the iPod dynasty, Apple came up with the iTunes music store that had content embedded with anti-copy code.

Critics of DRM say that the policy constricts the market and does not make for a more dynamic market where the small fry of the music scene can show the world what they've got. Proponents of DRM, on the other hand, say that their policy protects the artists and upholds intellectual property and copyright laws.

The rationale behind EMI's move is yet to be revealed, but it may very well be that a more selective DRM policy can be used to breed the break-out of unknown talents while preserving the interest of established record artists to give them what's due.

Industry insiders claim that within the month, EMI should hold a mews conference in London in cooperation with the Apple corporation to announce the move.

Here's another new chapter to add to the Steve Jobs/DRM saga. According to the E-Commerce Times, a branch of the Free Software Foundation known as DefectiveByDesign launched an online petition last week urging Apple CEO Steve Jobs to set an example by removing DRM protection from iTunes.

The petition was filed in response to Jobs' February open letter on the abolition of DRM and reads, "You can set the ethical example and be the first 'major' to drop DRM. You can set the example in the region of video and movies. You have the direct power to do this." It reached its original goal of one thousand signatures about five hours after going live.

DefectiveByDesign plans to keep the petition open until April 1. It will then be sent to Jobs along with a jester hat.

Although Apple and Cisco temporarily settled their dispute over the name "iPhone", industry analysts warned that this does not mean Apple will suddenly open up its more profitable technologies, in particular, iTunes.

Instead, the more likely scenario is that Cisco and Apple could partner in the near-term or lower profile projects that could include integrating Cisco's Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP technology into Apple's iPhones.

Market researcher IDC senior analyst Danielle Levitas said she doesn't expect Apple to open up iTunes any time soon. Associated Press quotes her saying that Apple partnering with Cisco is more about Apple preparing to tackle the "connected-home" market where digital entertainment is delivered through a variety of devices.

Eventually, Levitas said that Apple would open up, and Cisco would be the first to benefit, but this would not happen in the next 12-18 months.

It must be remembered that earlier this month, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs urged the world's major music companies to abolish DRM that were preventing Apple from selling music that would play on any device. One analyst said that Cisco could use  the iPhone name as a negotiating tool to have Apple open up to the idea of cooperation with other companies.

 

Here's an interesting, and somewhat unorthodox, justification for pirating cooked up by The Ish blog. As the author notes, what happens if the stuff you get for free is flat out BETTER than what you get by paying iTunes?

The above picture reflects the differences that can occur between using iTunes and piracy and, as noted in the article, there's quite a large difference between the two:

As you can see in the above image, by purchasing the episode from iTunes rather than just pirating it, i actually get less of the show. Â?and to be honest, pirating this episode took maybe 2 to 3 minutes more work (emphasis theirs).

Of course, that isn't to say it's full proof. DRM is still an issue, even if Steve Jobs himself is trying to make it a non-issue. Quality will also be an issue depending on how much "ARR!" you put into your piracy activities. Still, there's an important point to be made here: If a service can't live up to the expectations of consumers, and there's a free alternative that's equal to or better than the service given, what good would it do for us to pay?

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is on a roll. It was just yesterday when we reported that the outspoken official took a shot at the music industry with his focus being on DRM or Digital Rights Management. This time, Jobs had a couple of not-so-friendly words for the public schools in general, with emphasis given on teacher unions.

To make the long story short, Jobs' message stated that the only way to improve the state of education in America is for school principals to learn to fire bad teachers. He then said that the unions directly contributed to the demise of public education:

What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good? Not really great ones because if you're really smart you go, 'I can't win.' I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way. This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy.

After that rather harsh comments, the Apple official then went down to business and talked about his proposals. According to Jobs, he dreams of having textbook-free schools in the future. In lieu of these, Jobs said that students may have a free online information source that is being updated by experts regularly. Think Wiki.

He added that instead of channeling funds for printing books that become obsolete in no time, we could use the money by buying "delivery vehicles" such as computers and faster Internet. With the Wiki-like project, Jobs believes as well that some of the brightest minds will definitely contribute.

Lastly, Jobs remembered his earlier statements against the educational system well. He closed his speech with "Apple just lost some business in this state, I'm sure." The teachers and other guests present during his speech supposedly applauded Jobs.

Steve Jobs' anti-DRM statements have apparently scared movie and recording studios. DRM, or Digital Rights Management refers to control of access of copyright owners  to associated  digital works and devices; something that Apple and even Microsoft could eliminate in putting up an online music store within reach for anyone.

Recently, an elite group comprising of the world's largest recording and movie studios, Coral Consortium, has released an open letter to Steve Jobs saying "We have been wrestling with the issues around interoperability for some years and have concluded that it is not so much a technology problem as a business problem."

DRM has been an issue of technology, it would seem, until some up-and-coming bands and artists who weren't able to earn themselves a recording deal from any of the major recording companies were finally able to sell their songs through iTunes. Recording companies insist that DRM-protected downloads are still better than those that are not, that if your music or movies for sale are readily available on the internet, they're not very valuable, consumer-wise.

Recording and movie companies are surely facing tough competition. For sure, downloading DRM-free MP3s now is a business issue rather than one of technology; and the business issue is appearing to be bested by the techie companies already.

 

Fred Amoroso, the CEO of DRM, electronic licensing e-licensing, and software asset managment provider">Macrovision, the original DRM company, has made a response to Steve Jobs' open letter regarding the role of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in the current electronic content marketplace. In his response, Mr. Amoroso highlights four major points.

First, is that DRM is just broader than music, and that DRM has an impact across many forms of content across different media. Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to just music.

Second, Amoroso asserts that DRM increases, rather than decreases consumer value. He says that without reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM, there will only be a delay in consumers receiving premium, quality content in their homes in the way they want it.

Third, Amoroso believes that DRM will increase electronic distribution. He says that if owners of high-value content are asked to enter or stay in an environment/platform that offers no protection for their content, there will be no reason for them to enter.

And finally, Amoroso notes that what DRM needs is for it to be interoperable and open. He says that true interoperable DRM will speed the shift to the electronic distribution of content and make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home. He adds that it will also enable an open environment where content is portable across a number of devices and not held hostage in just one company's product.

Amoroso expounds:

As an industry, we can overcome the DRM challenges. A commitment to transparent, interoperable and reasonable DRM will effectively bridge the gap between consumers and content owners, eliminate confusion and make it possible for new releases and premium content to enter the digital environment and kick off a new era of entertainment.

We feel that we should have enough self-control to not laugh out loud at the use of words like "enabler" and "not decreases consumer value", and take those points suggested by Mr. Amoroso with reason. We're not sure about you folks though. We'll leave the laughing, nitpicking, and debating for and against DRM to you guys.

Anyway, here's a pseudo-analytical look at this. Jobs' letter said something that implies something like this: "The industry wants something impossible, like a unicorn headed for candy mountain." Macrovision's response is this: "Yeah! Candy Mountain rocks! Let's grow pink wings, turn into unicorns and fly to Candy Mountain!"

Double plus ungood. Read the exec's letter yourselves via our "read" link below.

After creative Apple chief Steve Jobs sent an open letter to Torgeir Waterhouse of the Norwegian Consumer Council about his feelings against DRM, Yahoo! and Monster Cable also aired similar opinions on the limiting technology.

Dave Goldberg, head of Yahoo! Music, told Silicon Valley Watcher that he long advocated removing DRM because there is already a lot of music available without DRM. "It also just makes things complicated for the user," he said. Goldberg noticed that Yahoo! Music experiments found that non-DRMed music actually experienced a boost in sales.

Monster Cable's top chief, Noel Lee, was also found to have supported Jobs' ideas presented in his open letter. Lee elaborated, "Monster Cable shares Mr. Jobs' vision of breaking constraints for legal music downloads. We've always believed in the power of music. So much so, we launched Monster Music to introduce high definition surround to the world without restrictions."

The manufacturer of high performance cables' music service, Monster Music, sports a format called SuperDisc for high-definition surround tracks and completely DRM-free music. The company successfully negotiated DRM-free files with Universal Music for a SuperDisc release called "Away from the Sun."

We've read it. And we can't believe it. There's a 28-page proposal to solve the problems posed by DRM and its limiting features, and even revenue and security solutions for the music rights holders. It was submitted by a New York intellectual property rights lawyer Bennett Lincoff to RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol and Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

In an open letter to Bainwol and Jobs, Lincoff honored Jobs for his views over the inefficiency of DRM to provide what the customers need. The technology only sorts what the record publishers would ask from it. People, who were enraged or dissatisfied at what DRM did do well, were quick to circumvent (or find circumventions) to rid themselves of the DRM limitations.

Lincoff suggested a whole new approach to the licensing issues. As he described it, the Internet just cannot accommodate "the music industry's traditional sales-based revenue model." Without an alternative business model, Bainwol cannot even begin to think about eliminating DRM anytime soon.

The proposal outlines a totally new approach to licensing music, and this time, it is a fair distribution of royalties. We mean fair, as in only those who actually contributed to the creation and publishing of the music actually get paid.

The entire system revolves around the current system established for public performance licensing. It's the system that allows or disallows certain musical performances from being played in certain territories. Should an artist decide to hold a concert in a certain country, any performance identical to those that will be done in the concert by the real artist will be prohibited.

It's a rather simple idea, but we found many complexities and difficulties in implementing it. Of course, if the music industry is really concerned in intellectual property rights and the satisfaction of their customers, the solution isn't far from reachable. Unfortunately, because the approach is new, it isn't tried and tested. Just like record companies DRM experiments, there is a possibility it could seriously fail.

Click the "Read" link below to hop over to the open letter. A link is provided there to see the proposal.

The internet is filled with interesting reads, and this new statement from Steve Jobs, Apple's head honcho is definitely deserving of some talk. On the agenda for his "Thoughts on Music" piece? Opening up DRM, the future of the music player industry, and... Did we just say opening up DRM?

Well, in a sense. In his article, he discusses the current state of digital rights management and music, noting that Apple doesn't have power over the music it sells:

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the "big four" music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI.

Despite that, music players are big business, which is why he now discusses three possible scenarios for the future of digital music.

The three scenarios? First, there's staying the course and maintaining status quo, where music companies and Apple don't really make that great a profit from the less than 3% of purchased music on all iPods in existence. Second is Jobs' idea to sell their Fairplay DRM, attempting to make it the standard by which all DRM would work. Definitely unlikely, given the nature of business these days. Lastly, and probably the one we all like: the abolition of digital rights management.

You guys should definitely check out Jobs' article and then make your own decision. Which one of the options really piques your interest, eh?