Wouldn't everyone understand "copy-blocker?" Well, if not I challenge you (everyone) to think of a more intuitive handle for DRM.

You're right. This is a hugely important explanation and it must be dumbed down enough for even stoned artists to understand it because they may be the most creative (and at risk) among us. Posterity needs them.

Lewis Carroll's copyright on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland expired seven years after his death. Artist Disney got it for free and now the Disney Corporation will own his version forever and will likely forbid any derivative works like Walt's.

Thanks a lot Sonny Bono.

Andi has exactly the right term: copy blocker. There is no simpler way to express it. What you have to realize is that the biggest obstacle to intellectual property theft historically has been the physical cost in actually doing it. For example, I challenge you to make a reasonable business out of taking the latest Harry Potter to Kinko's and running it through the copy machine. It's cheaper to buy it at the bookstore. But when the cost of copying HP for your friend is a simple mouse click, guess what? The simple 'used book store' takes on a whole different meaning!

Unfortunately DRM is mostly about keeping honest people honest. Their is no technically possible solution to this for the real crooks - they'll break it regardless of all our efforts (trust me - I made a career out of this for a while). For all the noise about the closed solution of iTunes, has anyone noticed that the average consumer could care less? When Jobs says he wants to get rid of DRM he really isn't saying that - he's simply admitting that it's a Quixotic effort, all for naught. A perfectly effective (from a "big picture" business perspective) DRM system would not stop copying at all but simply pop up an annoying reminder that

"YOU ARE STEALING - I HOPE YOU DON"T MIND THIS!"

That would stop enough folks from doing the "wrong thing" to make the argument moot, or at least make the IP owners carefully examine the current arguments on how to create value when the cost of goods goes to zero :)

Ask a more basic question: what is the value of intellectual property at its core? The actual content, or the rarity of its existence? Am I paying the price because I actually think that's what it is worth, or because there is limited supply and I want my unfair share? If I can make a perfect (digitally speaking) copy of any Picasso, what, really, is the original worth?

The reason DRM is so crucial to bring into simple terms is that it represents the core of so much of what is economically important to us, at least in terms of things beyond basic survival. Without a new set of concepts, both philosophical and legal, to create an underpinning for our new digital world we will struggle with truly silly arguments from both sides, neither being completely right or wrong.

When the first copyright law was passed by the British Parliament the American Colonies' premier copier Ben Franklin was a toddler of three, there were fewer than a billion people in the world and 99% of them were illiterate.

The concept worked more or less until recently. DRM has never worked, the analog hole will never be blocked. A new, yet untried solution is needed.

Jargon aside: The biggest iPod user I know won't buy music from iTunes because of the hassle with the format. He buys the CDs and them rips them. Me too.

No one likes spending money on a product and then being told how they can and can't use it, especially when the work arounds are so easy and obvious (worst case: burn your iTunes to a CD, then rip it; best case: download any of the software out there that will quickly/easily crack the format).

Steve Jobs is right: 90% of the music sold (CDs) has no restrictions. Putting restrictions on the "new product" (downloadable) that isn't on the old product (CDs) is just hurting adoption.

If Apple was fighting for market share, they probably wouldn't be making this case. I think Mr. Jobs feels secure enough with the iPod's market position to tout this restriction-free approach now.

Putting copy restrictions on legally purchased software is about as useful as telling a drug-runner that guns are illegal.

When Apple lets me freely use the music that I purchase, I may actually start buying music online. Until then, I'll stick with CDs.

--Chris

Totally right as usual, Paul. I like the new earnest thing :-)

You can't make people pay for what they can get for free someplace else. And most won't be guilt-tripped into it, either. We pay for what we feel is worth it, so give people something worth paying for. Give the music away (already being done), but include a 5-second product mention or message of your choice on EVERY track recorded from this day forward. Your player device can be registered, like a mobile phone is, and if you want a particular file/song to always play ad-free, you'll need to have $.99 added to your device's monthly billing statement for that particular song. That revenue is then shared with the artists, since it will be earned and tracked on a song-by-song basis. If the listener is willing to endure the 5-second message, so be it - make the most of your ad! ALL tracks from now on would need to be imbedded with this type of technology for it to take hold, and any existing pre-ad tracks are grandfathered. Go ahead now, shout me down.

perhaps Jobs merely saw the writing on the wall. that is, that EMI was headed in this direction anyway. Note that emi is in negotiations with msft for drm free music on Zune platform and perhaps others. it's always good to beat msft to prnewswire, if you are Steve Jobs.

regards