Consumer choice for DRM: Scoble vs Doctorow

Cory Doctorow replies in thunder to Robert Scoble's take on buying DRM'd music files.

Microsoft set a good example that Apple has been too stupid to follow, and it's time for the company to do it again. When Microsoft shipped its first search-engine (which makes a copy of every page it searches), it violated the letter of copyright law. When Microsoft made its first proxy server (which makes a copy of every page it caches), it broke copyright law. When Microsoft shipped its first CD-ripping technology, it broke copyright law...

I'll tell you what you should do: you should get yourself tools to turn AACs into OGGs or MP3s right now, so that you can buy any car stereo you want and play your music on it. If you can't get those tools, you shouldn't buy AACs (Student: "What do I do if three thugs follow me down a dark deserted street in the middle of the night?" "Master: Don't walk down a dark deserted street in the middle of the night.")

Comments

[Unseelie]

I can't seem to find the original article, but Cory seems to be missing two things here:

1) I'm fairly certain that if Apple had thought that they could have sold music minus the DRM, they would have done so. It's not entirely Apple's choice.

2) He's conveniently leaving out the fact that Microsoft's music solution ALSO incorporates DRM.

Based on some of his other writings, it seems that Cory holds Apple to a higher standard than other companies, such as Microsoft.

[Bryan]

Hm, perhaps not.

1. Apple's music business is based essentially on cooperation with the music biz, who is fully behind DRM. How else could Apple sell music? It doesn't own a swarm of tunes. Perhaps, down the road, stuff coming from Garageband could go through some Applezone without DRM - but who would want the intermediation?
   
2. Nah, Cory's no MS fan. He knows MS' IRM scheme well enough. We can assume this.
   

I think Cory holds Apple higher because he respects them more, and hence expects better. But I won't ventriloqize - go ask.