Apple Refuses to Remove DRM even when Artists do not want it
By now we all know that DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) is serving the interests of one company only - Apple. An interesting article published today on the NYTimes provides ample evidence to confirm this and it even says:
Among the artists who can be found at eMusic are Barenaked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, who are represented by Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver, British Columbia. All Nettwerk releases are available at eMusic without copy protection.
But when the same tracks are sold by the iTunes Music Store, Apple insists on attaching FairPlay copy protection that limits their use to only one portable player, the iPod. Terry McBride, Nettwerk’s chief executive, said that the artists initially required Apple to use copy protection, but that this was no longer the case. At this point, he said, copy protection serves only Apple’s interests .
Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research, agreed, saying copy protection “just locks people into Apple.” He said he had recently asked Apple when the company would remove copy protection and was told, “We see no need to do so.”I call for a ban on the Apple store, it is time for us to stop being suckers. If artists agree to sell their music without DRM, Apple has no right to refuse it. Enough is enough, it is time for consumers to fight for their rights and show Apple that this is an unacceptable behavior.
If we do not wake up right now, it will soon be too late. It is quite obvious to me that Apple is only waiting for the right time to remove MP3 support from its iPod. If they feel they can do that without compromising sales, they will. Needless to say if they ever reach that point, we are doomed.
Citizens of the world wake-up, it is time to ban the iTunes store.