Some feedback on Jobs' open letter

[jdc]

http://playlistmag.com/news/2007/02/07/drm/index.php

they still dont get it.

according to SJ -- 10% of all music sold is DRM -- so way arent they after the other 90% instead?

[chas_m]

Like the guy who wrote that Jobs' letter was a play for the iPhone -- man how far up their own rear ends ARE these people?!

READ THE FRIGGIN' ESSAY. It's not coy, nor is it cloaked in double meanings. It's all laid out simply and elegantly.

Having seen some of Steve's other writing, I should mention to the Doubting Thomases out there that YES, Steve HIMSELF wrote this article. He's actually a very good writer.

Read through that essay and remember this is the head of a couple of multi-billion $ corporations talking openly and honestly about his views and vision for the future. It's staggeringly clear, well-written and marshalls its points extremely well.

And can you BELIEVE the press this thing has gotten, both within and outside the technosphere? Talk about bringing an issue into the light!

It's really well done, and it's so gratifying to read someone who can articulate his position so incredibly well, while at the same time expressing a bold view that you didn't expect from a regulation-bound, stockholder-accountable corporate officer.

Bravo.

[mikebw]

The only part about his letter that I find at all confusing is this:
"music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded"

Is he saying that downloading the music is the illegal part? Because the way the RIAA seems to understand it is the act of uploading is the punishible offense. I don't believe anyone has been prosecuted for downloading music they don't own. I would agree with Jobs' point of view, if in fact that is what he meant.

Anyway, I'm glad Jobs put up this letter. I really clarifies things for me. It seems that especially now with some foreign countries actually banning the iTunes Music store we need a change. A wise man once said "surely this is untenable".

[Sam3]

The RIAA has things backward because it's easier to prosecute an uploader, there's a locatable IP address and a certain machine that the song resides on. In reality it is the downloader who is doing the illegal act. For example, I may have put songs up that I wish to listen to at another location, but you come along and download some of my songs, I didn't give you the OK to do that.

Of course, most people who upload songs WANT others to download them, because they like those songs and want others to hear them. That's the social aspect of music, that's how new bands get discovered. During Napster's heyday, when sharing was exploding, CD sales were up, the minute Napster was closed, CD sales started tanking.

[jeffNOTjon]

Dvorak agrees with Sam3 ... "During the heyday of Napster and open free music sharing and trading, when million of people swapped songs, the CD business was booming. Once Napster was shut down, and along with it the social network of music discovery, sales began to plummet. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Jo...print=true&dist=printTop

[mikebw]

It is true for me, that I have discovered new bands and songs via P2P file sharing that I have then purchased legally. Some foreign stuff you just can't hear anywhere without having to buy the whole CD. With P2P you can sometimes find a song or two to see what it's like, then buy the CD.