[shifuimam]

...They bring up some good points.

http://www.michaelrobertson.com/arch...?minute_id=231
http://www.sandisk.com/Corporate/About/OpenLetter.html

Maybe this is going to turn into an Open Letter War.

[Adam Betts]

Open letters to someone's open letter is about as useless as online petition

[ink]

I like Michael Robertson's letter; it's a "put up or shut up" right back at Steve.

The SanDisk one is just marketing blah.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ink 

I like Michael Robertson's letter; it's a "put up or shut up" right back at Steve.

The SanDisk one is just marketing blah.

Agreed.

Although, Stevie's letter was most definitely a very calculated PR move.

[mitchell_pgh]

In my opinion, Steve's letter was a "pass the buck" move. He basically said that he would be happy to not have DRM if everyone agreed not to use it.

That's never going to happen.

I think the Microvision's letter was the most crazy.
Macrovision's Response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter

They are really drinking their own cool-aid over there!

[Dakar²]

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas – vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely.

Right, because when I get anything, I think to myself "I only want to use it here, and don't want to be able to change my mind ever."

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

In my opinion, Steve's letter was a "pass the buck" move. He basically said that he would be happy to not have DRM if everyone agreed not to use it.

That's never going to happen.

I think the Microvision's letter was the most crazy.
Macrovision's Response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter

They are really drinking their own cool-aid over there!

Gruber's commentary about Macrovision's letter was great:
Daring Fireball: Translation From PR-Speak to English of Selected Portions of Macrovision CEO Fred Amoroso's Response to Steve Jobs's 'Thoughts on Music'

[shifuimam]

I just noticed on the Macrovision website that their tagline is "maximize the value of your content and software".

Because preventing me from making legitimate backups of my DVDs so totally maximizes the value of them.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I just noticed on the Macrovision website that their tagline is "maximize the value of your content and software".

Because preventing me from making legitimate backups of my DVDs so totally maximizes the value of them.

You're missing the point. They don't consider the things you buy to be yours. They "you" they're addressing is the big corporations who use their products.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're missing the point. They don't consider the things you buy to be yours. They "you" they're addressing is the big corporations who use their products.

Ahaha that makes a ton more sense.

That sure does maximize value - they can squeeze as much money as possible out of a single DVD by forcing you to buy another one, and another one...

Smart bastards.

[mduell]

Steve's open letter was just blowing smoke to try to distract the European consumer advocates. I don't know why it's being taken so seriously.

There are labels and artists who want their tracks sold on iTMS to be DRM-free, but Apple won't give them that option. Until Apple allows them to remove the DRM from their tracks, nothing Steve says about going DRM-free is worth the paper it's printed on.

[ink]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Steve's open letter was just blowing smoke to try to distract the European consumer advocates. I don't know why it's being taken so seriously.

There are labels and artists who want their tracks sold on iTMS to be DRM-free, but Apple won't give them that option. Until Apple allows them to remove the DRM from their tracks, nothing Steve says about going DRM-free is worth the paper it's printed on.

Ummmm, yeah... that was one of the main points of Robertson's letter.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Steve's open letter was just blowing smoke to try to distract the European consumer advocates. I don't know why it's being taken so seriously.

There are labels and artists who want their tracks sold on iTMS to be DRM-free, but Apple won't give them that option. Until Apple allows them to remove the DRM from their tracks, nothing Steve says about going DRM-free is worth the paper it's printed on.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this view. One of the best things about the ITS in contrast with its competition is its overall consistency. $.99 per track (always). $9.99 per album (for the most part). Usage rights utterly and completely the same across the board. People in the industry routinely criticized other music stores for their usage rights that had "Download and play on 1 PC, but no CD burning" for track A, "Download and play on X PCs with up to Y CD burns" for track B, etc. Or the you can "squirt" this song but you can't "squirt" that one" with the Zune player. Imagine the user confusion and diminished user experience for the average consumer (the vast majority of whom don't even realize the ITS even has DRM because it's so seamless and by far the least draconian), not the technically savvy crowd here, when they run into the inevitable "I can copy this track to my Creative Zen or Sansa but I can't copy that one" problems. Furthermore, what percentage of tracks on the ITS do the Indie labels control that even could be offered DRM free? And is it large enough to warrant implementing a confusing dual-experience for the customer?

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Steve's open letter was just blowing smoke to try to distract the European consumer advocates. I don't know why it's being taken so seriously.

There are labels and artists who want their tracks sold on iTMS to be DRM-free, but Apple won't give them that option. Until Apple allows them to remove the DRM from their tracks, nothing Steve says about going DRM-free is worth the paper it's printed on.

Those indie artists do not have the authority to nullify Apple's contracts with the major labels, and the iTunes Music Store is not going to go the Microsoft different-rights-for-every-song route.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this view. One of the best things about the ITS in contrast with its competition is its overall consistency. $.99 per track (always). $9.99 per album (for the most part). Usage rights utterly and completely the same across the board. People in the industry routinely criticized other music stores for their usage rights that had "Download and play on 1 PC, but no CD burning" for track A, "Download and play on X PCs with up to Y CD burns" for track B, etc. Or the you can "squirt" this song but you can't "squirt" that one" with the Zune player. Imagine the user confusion and diminished user experience for the average consumer (the vast majority of whom don't even realize the ITS even has DRM because it's so seamless and by far the least draconian), not the technically savvy crowd here, when they run into the inevitable "I can copy this track to my Creative Zen or Sansa but I can't copy that one" problems. Furthermore, what percentage of tracks on the ITS do the Indie labels control that even could be offered DRM free? And is it large enough to warrant implementing a confusing dual-experience for the customer?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Those indie artists do not have the authority to nullify Apple's contracts with the major labels, and the iTunes Music Store is not going to go the Microsoft different-rights-for-every-song route.

Consumers certainly have noticed the pains of DRM, and they're not happy about it, but most of them are clueless enough to accept "that's just the way it is" when it comes to technology.

I'm not advocating the complex schemes that some other music stores have implemented with PlaysForSure, where the number of computers/burns/days varies by song. I'm advocating a simple "this song is unrestricted" vs "this song has DRM" system. Consumers already have this level of inconsistency when their music libraries are a mix of songs ripped from CDs and purchased from iTMS. Would you advocate adding DRM to all music ripped from CDs just to create a more consistent experience for the customer?
If a customer buys a CD from CDbaby and rips it or purchases the same track from iTunes, why should the rights for the resulting file in their library be different when the label/artist aren't requiring that they are?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not advocating the complex schemes that some other music stores have implemented with PlaysForSure, where the number of computers/burns/days varies by song. I'm advocating a simple "this song is unrestricted" vs "this song has DRM" system. Consumers already have this level of inconsistency when their music libraries are a mix of songs ripped from CDs and purchased from iTMS. Would you advocate adding DRM to all music ripped from CDs just to create a more consistent experience for the customer?

That's hardly comparable. Steve himself even pointed out the difference between CDs and digital music. CDs have a variable pricing model, whereas iTunes Store songs are always 99 cents. The iTunes Store is consistent with itself and with the deal Apple has worked out with the recording industry. Would I like for iTunes Store songs not to have any DRM? Yes. Do I see fair logic behind them having DRM even when they don't have to? Yes.

I'd rather Apple push for a DRM-free distribution model than just go, "Oh well, you can buy this shitty music without DRM and take it up the ass for all the decent tunes," which seems to be the attitude most of the folks against Steve's essay are espousing.

[HackManDan]

EMI removing copying protection from iTunes songs

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Steve's open letter was just blowing smoke to try to distract the European consumer advocates. I don't know why it's being taken so seriously.

Quoted for posterity.

V

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by ink 

I like Michael Robertson's letter; it's a "put up or shut up" right back at Steve.

The SanDisk one is just marketing blah.

Looks like Steve "put up."

I'll be interested to hear the silence coming from Michael Robertson.