… it doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.
Andy blogs today on Apple’s response to the French plan to force all DRM-enabled music stores to make their schemes interoperable. Andy’s blog is very, very funny; Monty Python would be proud. (“pssst. Tell him we already got one!”)
I followed Andy’s link to the BBC story carrying Apple’s sky-will-fall doomsday scenario, including their odd taunting of the Parliament with threats of “free movies for iPods” that will be a boon to their business. Apple seems to think that interoperable DRM means *no* DRM. (Even if interoperable DRM means no DRM, will the sky indeed fall? Maybe not.) The real zenith for me, however, was the I-am-not-making-this-up pullquote below:
Jonathan Arber, analyst at market research firm Ovum, said: “This is potentially a big blow for Apple, whose iTunes/iPod business model is built on its very lack of interoperability with other devices and services.”
I obviously agree, and I will point out once again that there are huge risks and disadvantages if colleges and universities subscribe to iTunes U as a platform for storing and distributing academic content. Lack of interoperability equals vendor lock-in. What’s good for business isn’t necessarily what’s right for the academy to adopt.
Ok, I’ve been following this with some interest. And, I suppose, that I agree in principle with the notion that what’s good for business might not be good for the academy, but what’s the alternative? Paid subscriptions, the way we do it for copyrighted material? I don’t really understand enough about the way that Apple operates I-tunes, but this has been a big issue, Non? The problem of copyright protections. It seems to me that I-tunes solves this problem in part. Obviously, one is cynical enough to appreciate Apple’s desire to make a buck, etc. Was Microsoft’s anti-trust problem in Europe ever resolved?
I wonder what new deviousness Apple will come up with to circumvent the legislation.
Yes, copyright protections are at the center of this tangle, cunningly interwoven with the drive toward not only market dominance but monopoly. The alternative is a robust server that can host these materials and put them out freely–but then the materials won’t be locked down to specific campuses, etc., and we’re back to copyright problems.
Looks like a good time to re-examine certain copyright issues, but that opportunity will vanish if we perfect the current system…. Seems a perverse argument, to insist on preserving fear, uncertainty, doubt, and confusion in an effort to reach a better answer, but that’s where I am right now.