The Apple-EMI announcement signified a victory for everyone; well, almost. Apple gets to sell, exclusively for now, high quality EMI media. Consumers have a choice of $.99 DRMd songs or $1.29 DRM-free songs; and can upgrade previously purchased songs to DRM-free. EMI can charge over the standard iTunes $.99 to recoup lost sales from copying. So who loses in the Apple-EMI deal? Copyleftists, who want to ban DRM and seek to repeal the DMCA for moral reasons, lose.

Apple and EMI have taken a step in advancing the digital media market. A landscape with dual DRM/DRM-free offerings is the most likely future for digital entertainment. The Apple-EMI deal signals a balancing of DRM with DRM-free goods, with price adjustments to compensate for the tradeoffs between copyright holders, media product/ service firms and consumers.

In the digital media market, copyright holders face the difficult task of working under supply/ demand, consumer choice and a rapidly innovating market; they will leverage DRM to the extent that consumers remain drawn to their offerings. The copyleftists, on the other hand, have it easy. Copyleftists argue that DRM is "evil", and prod artists that its in their interests to ditch DRM (while criticizing artists' enforcement efforts to stop illegal trading of DRM-free files). Copyleftists find freedom in a natural right to others' creations, and sometimes they even admit it!

And how much does the Apple-EMI scenario, if it is considered good for consumers and innovation, reflect the views of the copyleftists?

The Apple-EMI situation indoes not reflect well on the lessons of the copyleftists. DRM is not "evil," it is simply one kind of commercial product that can be complemented with DRM-free goods. Neither is DRM bad for business, at least not when you have to bet your bank account on it, as EMI still does. Apple and EMI seemed to have simply ignored the lessons of the copyleftists and established their dual DRM/DRM-free offerings for more better reasons: artists, consumers, innovation.

Those who seek repeal of the DMCA based on the anticircumvention provision might be unhappy that because market forces can induce interoperability, their position becomes moot. What need is there to repeal the DMCA on the grounds that it stops interoperability, if copyright holders and consumers can arrive at a solution in the marketplace? Interoperability was never the goal of DMCA critics; rather, criticizing the DMCA was philosophically consistent with the copyleftists manifesto. It was a way to commoditize creativity in the name of a less creative revolution.

Critics of DRM and the DMCA may claim some victory in the Apple-EMI deal. They may celebrate it on the superficial level that a major label is offering music without DRM, and ignore the fact that business interests and market pressures, not copyleftists principles, brought the new offering. It may emerge that the copyleftists can be happy even when their views prove of no value; but did they ever really consider their positions to be serious ones in the first place?

posted by Noel Le @ 8:17 PM | DMCA, DRM & Watermarks, etc., Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)