Yahoo Music Chief Comes Out Against DRM

waired writes "It seem that a trend has begun in the music industry after Steve Jobs essay. Now a senior Yahoo chief has spoken out in favor of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' call for major labels to abandon digital rights technology (DRM). It points out that consumers are getting confused and that the Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time"."

Monkey see, Monkey Do

Monkey see, Monkey Do

Re:Monkey see, Monkey Do

Monkey see, Monkey Do

Next up: Steve Ballmer says he's going to "fucking kill" DRM.

As predicted

nce one major corp came out gainst DRM other would begin to speak up as well.

These people are not dumb, and slashdotter's aren't the only ones that understand the folly of DRM.

Re:As predicted

Anyone could have predicted that Yahoo would back up statements by Jobs concerning DRM. Yahoo, after all, is partnering with Apple to provide some of the IMAP "push" functionality with the new iPhones.

Re:As predicted

You're right, Yahoo have made this point [ymusicblog.com] in the past. In fact, there was a Slashdot story [slashdot.org] on it at the time.

Why didn't everyday people speak out?

What bothers me the most is that we had to wait until these corporate executives spoke out. What we needed, at least in the United States, was every Jill and Joe American speaking out against having their rights "managed".

The very idea of "managed rights" flies in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and what it truly means to be American. It's difficult to say for sure why most people didn't take a far more active stance against DRM. The first reason is no doubt because it'd take effort to do effectively, and most Americans would rather watch the NFL or American Idol instead. The second reason is perhaps because they just don't give a fuck, and that's quite dangerous a stance to be taking.

Regardless, the American people as a whole should have stood up and said NO! to any sort of "rights management" system. DRM is just plain un-American.

How the heck is parent insightful?

The very idea of "managed rights" flies in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and what it truly means to be American

I don't think those things mean what you think they mean. "Digital rights management" != inaliable rights as laid down by the U.S. Constitution and liberal political theory. Lets be clear here, the two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. Digital rights management is essentially a technology mechanism to enforce (or hinder the breaking of) contract law. The only thing it flies in the face of is consumer convenience. DRM certainly annoys me as a consumer, but I think things like no-knock warrants, the drug war, idefinite detention without trial, and asset forfeiture laws fly in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers just a tad more.

Re:How the heck is parent insightful?

"The only thing it flies in the face of is consumer convenience."

I agree with much of your post, but this is incorrect. "Fair use" is a well-established legal principle, not just a Slashdot mantra. While not its primary goal, DRM does its best to contradict our established rights by preventing even fair use of legally purchased material.

Re:Why didn't everyday people speak out?

DRM is just plain un-American.

What really upsets me is DRMed hardware. DRMed media is bad enough, but I can choose not to purchase it. At the rate things are going, soon we'll only be able to purchase locked-down hardware that's both more expensive due to DRM and less flexible. A bought and paid for tangible device that restricts what I can do according to arbitrary rules devised by companies that treat their customers like thieves is unacceptable to me.

This American does speak out.

Everyday Americans have been speaking out. I'm such an American and I haven't been waiting for executives to speak on the issue. I've been speaking out to anyone who would listen/read on my local community radio station (I had a show for a few years until the station became remarkably undemocratic), on my blog (which I maintain to this day), to Jack Valenti's face in front of an audience (when he came to my town on his anti-"piracy" tour) and related letters to the editor, and with my friends while we discuss media matters (virtually weekly at a local bar).

Americans use a lot of non-free operating systems and software (which digital restrictions require), but if you take the time to teach them to value their freedom they'll listen and learn. On my radio program, I found it interesting to take a wide angle—people found it interesting to discuss how copyright and patent issues intersect with their everyday lives.

It's critical to not give up the freedom talk and not give into the people who would have you compromise your values in order to placate proprietors. There is a deep thirst for substantive talk and action about issues that matter.

jobs against drm?

So, when is itunes going to be drm free? With all of jobs' crusading against drm, you'd think he would start within his own company.

Re:jobs against drm?

As soon as the labels will let him sell without DRM.

Unture assertions and faulty comparisons.

Oh yeah I forgot, Jobs wants to make sure that he can sell overpriced hardware!

This is just not true--at least not anymore. The price of any Apple Computer is completely in line with an equivalently equipped Dell, Gateway, etc. Sometimes, the price of the "PC" is even higher. True, Apple does not have a computer that competes with a $300-something dollar Dell price-wise; however, Dell's computers that do compete with Apple's computers feature wise are often more expensive than the Mac offering. Sometime ago, Apple sold hardware that could reasonably be called overpriced. Now it's just a troll to say so.

The rest of your argument is fallacious as well. Apple does not force consumers to buy a new Mac to run a new version of OS X. The most recent version of OS X runs just fine on Macs that are 5+ years old. Conversely, the RIAA want you to re-buy all of your music every 5-10 years when it becomes available in a different format. What Apple does is not even comparable.

Re:jobs against drm?

Most of the indie labels (approx. 30% of sales) already do want their music sold without DRM.

Re:jobs against drm?

Jobs has said that doing a mixed store with some DRM and some non-DRM isn't something he's interested in doing.

It would be similar to the Zune where you can squirt some songs, but not others. Confusing.

Re:jobs against drm?

I don't really see this. Put a big 'UNENCUMBERED' notice next to all the DRM-free songs. Start giving priority to DRM-free music on the front page of the store. Only recommend DRM-free music. Pretty soon, all of the other labels are going to want to re-negotiate their contracts to allow DRM-free distribution.

Re:jobs against drm?

I said it before, I'll say it again, the minute that Apple backs down on its "every music file is exactly the same and gets the same treatment" is the minute that along with some songs without DRM, we also see some songs that you can't burn, some that you can't play more than once a day, some that cost $500, some that cost $0.02, some you can't download, some you can't put on your iPod and some that you can't ever backup. Apple's plan is very honest and very forward, it's either all or nothing with DRM, and that's exactly where their barganing power lies.

Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time"...

wow... that's about 25% better than I had expected.

I'm reminded of that song...

It's the end of the world as we know it! Yeeeeeah yeah yeah...something like that. It was only a matter of time. If it takes Steve Jobs to kick start an industry wide backlash against DRM, then so be it.

If Slashdot used DRM...

Hey! I just upgraded to Slashdot Vasta "Bedroom Premium" edition and your post came out:

It's (premium content blocked) something like that. It was only a matter of time. If it takes Steve Jobs to kick start an industry wide backlash against DRM, then (premium content blocked).

(The second one was a false positive for "Let it be")

Good news but...

I've never understood why tech companies listened to the music industry in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the tech companies are far bigger in monetary value and hence far more powerful than the music industry in the first place so don't understand why these companies supported, rather than fought DRM from day one.

If it weren't for this I'd believe these companies coming forward now were coming forward of their own free will and not because they're getting scared at the fact that governments and lawmakers, particularly in the EU are turning against DRM.

Re:Good news but...

I've never understood why tech companies listened to the music industry in the first place.

If they had stood firm against DRM in the first place, these online stores would have never happened.

Now that they've demonstrated that these stores work, and the public is transitioning to them, they can start making demands.

You have to get your foot in the door.

Re:Good news but...

I've never understood why tech companies listened to the music industry in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the tech companies are far bigger in monetary value and hence far more powerful than the music industry in the first place so don't understand why these companies supported, rather than fought DRM from day one.

I can explain this to you. Your problem is that you are a rational human being. You must understand first of all that the music industry is irrational. Imagine the following conversation, which illustrates the problem:
Tech company: We'd love to sell your music in non-DRMed format.
Music company: We're not interested in selling it without DRM.
Tech company: We're not going to sell it with DRM!
Music company: Fine. Don't sell it. Get nothing. We can live without online sales. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to sell it with DRM. No negotiations. No exceptions. That's how it will be done. Take it or leave it.

Yes, the music industry really is that dumb. They would rather not sell it at all then sell it without DRM. Remember, their goal is to rip you off. They have proven time and time again that they would rather sell one CD for $18 than 3 for $10 each. This is irrational behavior, but they have been very consistent in it. If they can't sell you something at their price and on their terms, then they don't want your money. They really don't. It truly is "their way or the highway". So when you realize that the only deal that could be made was to sell music with DRM or not sell it all, is it any wonder that Yahoo and Apple and everyone else agreed to DRM? There weren't going to be any sales without it. Besides, they were able to make the major labels take the heat for DRM, which is totally fair, so it wasn't a difficult business decision to sell DRM music since they could make money off it and they wouldn't have to answer to pissed off customers who don't like DRM since it wasn't their fault the music had DRM. It really is that simple. Make money off selling DRMed music or make nothing.

Remember too that I am talking about the major music industry companies and smaller labels or individual artists have a more rational outlook. How rational is it to decide "We'd rather sell one at $18 than 3 for $10 each", but that is exactly how they operate.

Why didn't he just come out and say Apple?

The Yahoo chief's thoughts were echoed by SanDisk founder and CEO Eli Harari, who wrote: "Proprietary systems arent acceptable to consumers. In recent months, there has been a rising chorus of complaints in Europe about the anti-competitive nature of closed formats that tie music purchased from one company to that companys devices, and tie that companys devices to its music service."

And the RIAA won't listen to him EITHER.

They're like telcos: you can only hurt the RIAA/music licensors in one of three very basic ways:

1) legislation/lawsuit (unlikely as they own the legislatures and have armies of lawyers)
2) have a massive clientele defection (unlikely because they're a monopoly like the telcos) or
3) have their talent pool stop making revenue (crappy quality music, and so on-- also highly unlikely).

Bottom line: he's sucking up to his clientele (us, supposedly) and Wall Street, especially Wall Street who wants to pound the crap out of them for other foollish moves. They should have demanded that Mark Cuban stay with them for a few years after they bought his Broadcast.Com.

It's all PR. Nothing to see here.

Re:And the RIAA won't listen to him EITHER.

3) have their talent pool stop making revenue (crappy quality music, and so on-- also highly unlikely).

Don't rule this one out.. Some talent is going inde. Some consumers are moving outside the Clear Chanel CD advertising route. Talent now gets exposure on youtube, Google Videos, etc. They put their products on CD Baby and emusic. You get higher quality (192Kbs VBR compared to 128Kbs fixed) with no DRM and lower prices. This trend is growing. Given time it will gain critical mass. It is legal and the RIAA and their team of lawyers are powerless to sotp it. They will have to adopt or die.

Arvil Lavine and Bare Naked Ladies have already moved. I think some of the newest TSO releases are now on inde labels. The RIAA can only screw the talent and consumers so much before they both seek an alternative.

How politic of him

It's all fine and well for both Jobs and this guy to come out and say cast down the DRM, but it really is just pandering to the masses. If a deal to drop DRM is ever to be worked out, it will be through backroom deals, not in the tech press. I think we all know DRM doesn't work well and is a pain, but it is not up to these delivery vehicles (iTunes et al) to drop the DRM. It is a condition under which they are allowed to sell the licensed product. No DRM, no product to sell. It's that simple.

A lot of this is just saying, "it's them, not us". Fine for geek politics, but it probably is not going to make a pig's fart of difference to the RIAA/MPAA cabal.

I want DRM to go away to, but it isn't going to happen through these feel-good speeches. It's going to happen through things like the recent EMI announcement (which frankly only applies to a chunk of their catalog that isn't selling anyway).

Re:How politic of him

The surest way to be sure DRM never goes away is for there to be no pressure to make it go away. Before, very few people knew what it was, or were mad about it, and of them, many (most?) blamed it on Apple and Microsoft, not the recording companies. Putting public pressure on them and making people aware of the issues and the origins of the problems is the only thing that will ever give them the impetus to strike these backroom deals you're talking about.

The day after Jobs' Blog Post, the Wall Street Journal had two front page stories above the crease about it. That introduced this issue to probably a hundred thousand people who weren't previously aware of it, and they're overwhelmingly the important, moneyed, influential movers and shakers who it's most important to make aware of it. I was visiting my mother the next weekend, and that WSJ was lying around, and she asked me what it was all about. It was the first she'd heard of any of it. She only had a rudimentary idea of what a Media Player is. I'd tried to tell her about DRM before, but she never listened. Now she knows.

Jobs' Blog Post may be the event that precipitates an interest in this issue that will eventually lead to change. The backroom deals are the conclusion of the change process, not the origin. You're right that won't happen in "the tech press," but for the first time I've seen, this story was just blown a mile outside the tech press.

I don't get this "killing our friends" meme

Jobs finally decloaked, and stood up against the RIAA. Now Yahoo. And all I see is... people... calling them names.

Apparently nothing can satisfy you? Are you all just terminally apolitical? The enemy of the enemy is our friend. Back them the hell up.

Reminds me of an old saying

[TFA] points out that consumers are getting confused and that the Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time".

So Microsoft's standard approach of writing software that confuses users and doesn't work very well is telling the public that this is what all DRM is like. We see this all the time, for example with viruses which are invariably reported as infecting "computers", not just "Microsoft computers". Similarly, the difficulty of learning to use the little beasts is a property of "computers", not of any particular brand.

It reminds me of the old saying: "Nobody is all bad. They can always serve as a bad example."

In this case, though, MS could well be doing us a service. By convincing the gullible public that "DRM is confusing and doesn't work very well", they are inadvertently helping in the fight against DRM everywhere. Even if someone will come up with DRM that works (for some value of "works"), it won't be used, because it won't run on Windows (and on non-MS systems, the crypto geeks will break it within hours of release). Most users will just accept that MS's DRM is what DRM is like, and will oppose its use anywhere as a result.

Of course, one could argue that a correct implementation of DRM is probably intractable. This is mostly because determining which "fair use" rules apply wherever the use might live is a seriously difficult AI problem. It can't actually be determined by a human-level intelligence, as demonstrated by the need to ask the courts rather than just reading the law books. So we need an AI that's much more intelligent than any team of human lawyers, and has deep understanding of all the "IP" laws of every jurisdiction in the world. Of multiple jurisdictions, actually, when Net transactions are considered. We won't likely see this level of AI in our lifetimes.

Discuss amongst yourselves ...

The obvious

In the article it is stated the DRM free MP3 tracks sell faster.

In a well duh moment, they figured out the installed base of equipment that can play MP3's is just about everyting. A MS or Apple format locks out all other format players. People don't buy incompatible formats. DRM in any format is incompatible with the majority of media players out there. Before you jump on the iTunes bandwagon... Do you have a DVD player? Do you use Linux? Do you have a MP3 player? Do you have a CD player that can play MP3 CD's in your car or as a portable CD player? iPods are everywhere, but not nearly as everywhere as MP3 players.

Selling MP3's is a much bigger market than selling something that will play on a Windows PC and Plays for Sure devices or just iTunes on Apple and PC platforms and iPods, or worse yet Zunes.

Re:The obvious

I wonder if "mp3" includes "wma without any 'DRM' crap". I ask because I rip/convert to wma now, as every device that I own can play it, and it's half the size of mp3 for the same quality. Does that make me an OMG TOOL OF SATAN? Would you choose to buy an mp3 or ogg format track over a smaller wma one (sans 'DRM') for the same price?

Music Industry ?

I didnt know Yahoo was considered part of the 'music industry'...

They sign any good bands lately?

Film at 11

"...and that the Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time" "

In other new, the Earth is round and the Sun is really far away.

Master Chief Goes Against DRM

Really that's what I read at first. For a moment I thought, "YEAH BABY! You find those DRM guys, you take those DRM guys down!"

Okay, time to lay off the Halo books for a while (and maybe of the caffeine).

DRM free week

So let Jobs and Goldberg put their money where their mouths are - lets have a week (or longer?) where they will only sell non-DRMed. Any record company not willing to go without DRM won't have any sales for that period. I for one would be interested to see what the sales numbers would be.

Personally, I would be willing to pay for non-DRMed tracks (and I do from http://bleep.com/ [bleep.com])

Microsoft DRM

Microsoft DRM does not work 100% of the time on any of my linux boxes.

What does it take to please...

...the Slashdot crowd?

Over the last five years, not a week has gone by that there hasn't been an anti-DRM screed posted to this forum. Yet, when finally some industry leaders come out publicly against DRM, the mostly highly modded posts are those claiming it's nothing but a cynical ploy.

You know, I'm just as cynical as the next guy when it comes to proclamations from the CEOs of giant multinational corporations. But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a statement isn't some carefully crafted strategic move based on hidden motives. DRM is a big pain in the butt to online music distributers and equipment manufacturers. The leaders of these industries are now making public statements on this matter. That's a good thing. If you are reading more into it than that, you've got too much time on your hands.

-Yahoo Exec No longer Works at Yahoo-

http://news.com.com/2061-10811_3-6158998.html?part =rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news/ [com.com]
He no longer works at Yahoo. Besides , David Goldberg (The exec) has been very vocal on this issue for over a year , so this actually might be the reason why he and his buddy "look forward to going back to our entrepreneurial roots" as was stated in Yahoo's press release .

Oh then I guess I won't feel too bad...

...about making many many copies of my Mac OS X Leopard OS update DVD!

From the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" files...

Either sell a DRM-free product or shut up.

I'm already having enough political smoke blown up my ass by the 2008 presidential contenders, Gavin Newsom, Bush/Cheney, and Scooter Libby. I don't have any room left for corporate smoke...

Gee there's a novelty

>> Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time"."

Wow. So its just like every other technology from Microsoft then. Acutally I think it actually working half the time is somewhat optimistic.

Oh fucking nosies

I guess the obligatory music industry retort "well, if they'd just license the tech to other MP3 players we'd welcome that" is due to come in soon.

No - wait.

just look at MSN Music

I had an MSN Music account that I used to buy only 5 or 6 songs. It's a good thing I didn't buy more songs as that DRM site bit the dust thanks to Microsoft and Zune. Can you transfer files from MSN Music to Zune? No, of course not, that would be too easy. And recently after using a beta version of WMP 11, I installed the final release and guess what, I could not get the MSN Music software to install. Great, now my MSN Music songs will never play. I worked with their technical support team for a bit before I finally gave up and chalked it up as a loss. The funny part was when I asked if I could transfer my MSN Music to Zune, they said to burn the music to a cd and rip as MP3 so Zune could play the non-DRM MP3!!! This DRM stuff is crap.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I've always got the impression that DRM was only considered a necessary evil by the content providers such as Apple and even Microsoft, meant to appease the record companies cocaine-induced paranoia about us inherently evil people who, by the very dint of being computer savvy, are inherently prone to raping and pillaging their vaults.

DRM only makes their programming more complex and costly for music distribution and playback applications which they essentially give away for free. They only play ball with the studios because their rights to distribute the content are threatened if they don't use DRM.

Cheers

I like DRM

I'm serious. I use napster, and I love my ability to get so many songs for just $15 a month. It's great. Much better than buying songs for 99 cents a piece. Much better than going through the hassle of trying to find the music for free on the internet. I just plug my creative labs zen player into my computer, click and drag the songs I want to hear, and that's it. I really do love it. So there. Flame me.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

Noone claims Jobs invented anti-DRM, but it's a bigger deal when a major player comes out against it than when a regular guy does. I mean, someone like me has no soapbox, and someone like Cory Doctorow has only a small one. Steve Jobs can command a major audience. Additionally, he's about the only guy benefiting from DRM. If he wants it gone, that says something.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

I hated DRM before it was cool.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

True, but if the *AA goes with no DRM they have to admit to courts and governments and to CONSUMERS that they were not only wrong, but their declining sales are because their products SUCK for the most part. Worse yet for them is the fact that they have to face stockholders and tell them this is true, unless they keep clinging to the lie that consumers are all thieves and criminals.

When it all plays out and the new digital arts business models begin to make money, we can look back and remember the *AA for the asshats that they really are, how they abused the legal and political systems, and how they tried to criminalize the consumer (their source of revenue).

That said, I think this will have to end up like a bullfight with a million picadors and if we are lucky, a quick final blow to put the *AA down.

Back the truck up, Chuck

"...would love to sell all of their content without DRM"

Their content? They wrote it? They sang it? They played backup in the studio?

Pepsi Lite, Budweiser Beer, Ford Focus, Motorola A1200...all products sold by the corporate entities that made them. 'Love, Love Me Do!' Licensed content. Not 'their' content'...and, yes, I've known my share as well. None of them cast a shadow taller than a rat.

'But they all live in the real world.'

Bullshit. Not one media exec has EVER lived in the real world.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

But they all live in the real world.

      What's that supposed to mean? The real world, like the one 20 years ago where anyone could duplicate a casette tape? It wasn't as fast as downloading a song and compiling a CD if you have broadband, but it wasn't that hard to do. And yet the publishers didn't go out of business.

      The ONLY reason "DRM" exists is because they think they're smarter than me and they can make MY computer prevent me from copying, so they try to do it. Everything else is BS.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

This Jobs invented "hating DRM" bullshit is as tiresome as all the other Apple "invented X" bullshit.

Apple have a pretty poor track record at actually inventing stuff, but they've got an excellent track record of turning existing but underused ideas into decent implementations and carving out a market for them (Graphical user interfaces, laser printers & DTP, local area networks, the modern laptop, MP3 players, USB & legacy-free computers, small form factor computers...)

Heck, if you had to endure DRM I think most people would choose Apple's "if all else fails you can make a CD and rip it" over Microsoft's "plays-for-a-given-value-of-sure until we pull the rug".

Jobs may have had ulterior motives for putting his mouth where his money is, but the end result is that he's got the anti-DRM issue a lot of coverage outside of slashdot and off-the-record industry whingeing.

Media Execs in the Real World

But they all live in the real world.

No, they don't.

In the real world, they became media execs thanks to a lack of DRM. All they have to do, it look at where all their money came from: sales of non-DRMed media. In the real world, you don't tell customers, "fuck off, we don't want your money anymore," and replace a proven business model with a fantasy that some snakeoil/Macrovision salesman put into your head.

How can these execs claim they would love to sell content without DRM, as though it were some hypothetical possibility? They did it, and it was wildly successful. All those billions of dollars are what these "real world" people are saying they would love to have?

Ah, well. Execs get paid whether they live in the real world or not, but owners/stockholders don't. Sooner or later, they're going to want to get back into the having-customers-and-making-money business, and these execs will need to find new jobs.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

Well...it could be worse. At least the Jobs Reality Distortion Field is now being used for a good cause.

Re:JOBS DIDNT START GOING AGAINST DRM

Even if this is true, it doesn't mean much when you've got a statement from Microsoft saying "We're happy with DRM as it is right now."

Maybe not old, but irrelevant news?

why is parent being modded down?

The guy really did resign [mediapost.com]. Maybe Yahoo didn't like his stance on DRM?

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

Is this the "real world" where all their DRM and copy protection doesn't stop piracy for an instant? The one where I can buy a DRM-ed album at the iTunes Store or a completely unprotected CD in any one of hundreds of places in just about any city or town?

How does putting DRM on a tiny proportion of their music matter when the vast majority is completely open to piracy?

I think your executive friends need to visit the "real world" the rest of us live in. DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and even if an argument can be made that it's all about stopping piracy, it's clearly fundamentally failing in that goal.

A new and better solution is required, not just the old "well it's failed in every way imaginable but I'm sure if we keep doing the exact same thing something magical will happen" strategy currently in use.

As for the "Jobs inventing hating DRM" line - who actually said that? Sounds like Artie MacStrawman to me. He gets quoted here a *lot*.

Re:JOBS DIDNT START GOING AGAINST DRM

That's not correct. Gates spoke out about the current DRM not the concept.

From the TechCrunch article (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-o n-the-future-of-drm/ [techcrunch.com]) (emphasis mine)
Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.

His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."

He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."

"No one has done it right, yet" and "DRM is not where it should be" can't be read as saying DRM has to go, but that it must be more sophisticated.

Gates wants DRM, make no mistake about it. His interview was just FUD attempting to harm the online music industry. He should know all about the issues of legality with online sales, so his quote about being legal is either a complete distortion of the truth or a gaping hole in his understanding.

If you hate fanboys, you'll have to admit you're wrong on this, or be labelled a Gates fanboy.

Re:The Jobs Fanboyism Is Sickening

I know many media execs

Not the right ones, apparently.