Is the Jerkoff serious about DRM free music? Do you believe in fairies?

As the argument rages between the Jerkoff and the four major record companies about removing digital rights management (DRM) restrictions from music, some stuff has been factored out of the arrangement. Or are we the only ones to notice….

Fact number one is that the iPod was launched in 2001, two years before the April 2003 launch of iTunes in the US and later launch elsewhere. Prior to the launch of iTunes, sales of the iPod were not exactly shooting through the stratosphere as they are now. Apple was a late comer to a very crowded market.

Pundits and Jobs who point to the fact that only 2 billion songs have been downloaded to iPods - an average of about 20 per iPod sold - ignore the fact that every single one of those songs were destined for just one brand of device - an iPod.

Fact number two is that Jobs, now the champion of DRM-free music, has until recently been a very vocal opponent of European efforts to force Apple to make iTunes downloads interoperable with other players and iPods interoperable with downloads from other online stores. He claimed it would encourage piracy.

If the Jerkoff really does believe in DRM free music and is totally opposed to the pro-DRM stance of the record companies then why not, as an interim step immediately license FairPlay to other music player manufacturers? Why not make iPods compatible with PlaysForSure and Zune DRM? The same questions could be asked of Gates and Microsoft, who have so craftily copied the Apple model with the Zune player.

Can we talk? We mean, can we talk? The current situation is that if you happen to be an iTunes user, you're going to also be an iPod owner. And if you're an iPod owner, you're most likely going to be an iTunes user. Does anyone seriously believe that Steve Jobs wants to change that?

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9487/1023/