Peeve Farm

g r o t t o 1 1

Peeve Farm
Breeding peeves for show, not just to keep as pets

  Blog \Blôg\, n. [Jrg, fr. Jrg. "Web-log".
     See {Blogger, BlogSpot, LiveJournal}.]
     A stream-of-consciousness Web journal, containing
     links, commentary, and pointless drivel.

On My Blog Menu:

InstaPundit
USS Clueless
James Lileks
Little Green Footballs
As the Apple Turns
Entropicana
Cold Fury
Capitalist Lion
Red Letter Day
Eric S. Raymond
Tal G in Jerusalem
Secular Islam
Aziz Poonawalla
Corsair the Rational Pirate
.clue

« ? Blogging Brians # »

Book Plug:

Buy it and I get
money. I think.
BSD Mall

10/6/2003 -  10/8/2003
9/29/2003 -  10/5/2003
9/22/2003 -  9/28/2003
9/15/2003 -  9/21/2003
  9/8/2003 -  9/14/2003
  9/1/2003 -   9/7/2003
8/25/2003 -  8/31/2003
8/18/2003 -  8/24/2003
8/11/2003 -  8/17/2003
  8/4/2003 -  8/10/2003
7/28/2003 -   8/3/2003
7/21/2003 -  7/27/2003
7/14/2003 -  7/20/2003
  7/7/2003 -  7/13/2003
6/30/2003 -   7/6/2003
6/23/2003 -  6/29/2003
6/16/2003 -  6/22/2003
  6/9/2003 -  6/15/2003
  6/2/2003 -   6/8/2003
5/26/2003 -   6/1/2003
5/19/2003 -  5/25/2003
5/12/2003 -  5/18/2003
  5/5/2003 -  5/11/2003
4/28/2003 -   5/4/2003
4/21/2003 -  4/27/2003
4/14/2003 -  4/20/2003
  4/7/2003 -  4/13/2003
3/31/2003 -   4/6/2003
3/24/2003 -  3/30/2003
3/17/2003 -  3/23/2003
3/10/2003 -  3/16/2003
  3/3/2003 -   3/9/2003
2/24/2003 -   3/2/2003
2/17/2003 -  2/23/2003
2/10/2003 -  2/16/2003
  2/3/2003 -   2/9/2003
1/27/2003 -   2/2/2003
1/20/2003 -  1/26/2003
1/13/2003 -  1/19/2003
  1/6/2003 -  1/12/2003
12/30/2002 -   1/5/2003
12/23/2002 - 12/29/2002
12/16/2002 - 12/22/2002
12/9/2002 - 12/15/2002
12/2/2002 -  12/8/2002
11/25/2002 -  12/1/2002
11/18/2002 - 11/24/2002
11/11/2002 - 11/17/2002
11/4/2002 - 11/10/2002
10/28/2002 -  11/3/2002
10/21/2002 - 10/27/2002
10/14/2002 - 10/20/2002
10/7/2002 - 10/13/2002
9/30/2002 -  10/6/2002
9/23/2002 -  9/29/2002
9/16/2002 -  9/22/2002
  9/9/2002 -  9/15/2002
  9/2/2002 -   9/8/2002
8/26/2002 -   9/1/2002
8/19/2002 -  8/25/2002
8/12/2002 -  8/18/2002
  8/5/2002 -  8/11/2002
7/29/2002 -   8/4/2002
7/22/2002 -  7/28/2002
7/15/2002 -  7/21/2002
  7/8/2002 -  7/14/2002
  7/1/2002 -   7/7/2002
6/24/2002 -  6/30/2002
6/17/2002 -  6/23/2002
6/10/2002 -  6/16/2002
  6/3/2002 -   6/9/2002
5/27/2002 -   6/2/2002
5/20/2002 -  5/26/2002
5/13/2002 -  5/19/2002
  5/6/2002 -  5/12/2002
4/29/2002 -   5/5/2002
4/22/2002 -  4/28/2002
4/15/2002 -  4/21/2002
  4/8/2002 -  4/14/2002
  4/1/2002 -   4/7/2002
3/25/2002 -  3/31/2002
3/18/2002 -  3/24/2002
3/11/2002 -  3/17/2002
  3/4/2002 -  3/10/2002
2/25/2002 -   3/3/2002
2/18/2002 -  2/24/2002
2/11/2002 -  2/17/2002
  2/4/2002 -  2/10/2002
1/28/2002 -   2/3/2002
1/21/2002 -  1/27/2002
1/14/2002 -  1/20/2002
  1/7/2002 -  1/13/2002
12/31/2001 -   1/6/2002
12/24/2001 - 12/30/2001
12/17/2001 - 12/23/2001

Monday, April 14, 2003
14:22 - Apple vs. DRM? http://www.oscast.com/stories/storyReader$291	(top)
Judson has found an interesting take on the "Apple's New Music-Purchasing Service" story that's been slowly materializing of late. Since AAC has no built-in DRM technology, Apple's service is going to have to compete against Microsoft's closed, DRM-laden offerings. How can they do this without losing the buy-in of the record labels? Don't the labels require DRM in order for any such service to have legitimacy? Well, apparently not. Here's how the argument goes... Knowing that Apple has managed to get a blessing from each of the major record labels to allow it to move forward with its music purchasing software, the question that many people are asking is, "Why would Apple need to buy Universal's music division in the first place?" The answer? It wouldn't. A buyout of Universal's music division offers Apple a strategic advantage against Microsoft's digital rights management. If DRM gains widespread adoption, it could effectively push Apple out of one of one of its major computing strongholds: content creation. . . . Apple inevitably feared a future in which new music and video files couldn't play on computers not running Windows. If all the major music companies sign on to this DRM strategy, consumers may feel forced to stay "inside the lines" and use only Microsoft-created solutions However, if an Apple-owned Universal Music didn't sign on to such a scenario, being the largest recording company could create the necessary leverage to keep other record companies from doing the same. . . . Additionally, if Apple established a business model that encouraged ripping mixing and burning all while making a profit for both itself AND the recording industries, it would be a win-win-win situation for consumers, Apple, and the recording industry. Win-win-win for everybody except Microsoft, that is. The article goes on to suggest that Microsoft is also now trying to bid on Universal, in an attempt to derail Apple's plans; but that this is driven by pure anticompetition rather than by similar goals. I'm sure most of the recording industry is well aware of the importance of Apple-- more so than the market at large is, in fact, because of the prevalence of Macs in the content-creation field, particularly in video. Macs are everywhere in the studios. Doubtless numerous execs found themselves wondering whether if they bought into some proprietary Microsoft-managed DRM technology, they themselves wouldn't be able to use their own music service on their own Macs. Presumably they understand enough about technology to realize something of the nature of computing; presumably they've undergone an education in recent years as to the meaning of the phrase "information wants to be free". Maybe, just maybe, they've taken to heart the idea that their entire business model has to change in a radical way in order to survive in the Internet age, and that they won't be able to compete with the KaZaAs and Napsters of the world if their alternative is proprietary and restrictive. Thus far the value equation hasn't been able to come out with for-pay, device-bound assured DRM content on top of haphazard, variable-quality, totally free MP3s. So Apple might have a winning formula here. What's good for Apple, it seems, is good for openness in technology in general-- because as long as there are one or more viable non-Microsoft alternative platforms, the economics work out in favor of making the tech open to all rather than making it proprietary to those individual vendors. If Apple's goal is truly to revolutionize the music industry with a DRM-free alternative market path, fighting for open versus proprietary technologies (while at the same time turning a tidy exclusive profit), then I don't see much of a downside for anybody but Microsoft stockholders.