So the RIAA, greedy as always, now realizes it could sell more licenses to listen to songs if Apple were more amenable with its use of DRM. Now, who do you suppose came up with the idea of an encryption scheme to prevent duplication of media files?
Daring Fireball: Interoperability and DRM Are Mutually Exclusive:
So what Apple could do to achieve ITMS interoperability is simply remove the DRM from the music it sells via ITMS and deliver the files in non-encrypted AAC format. Users would be happy, as they’d get files unencumbered by FairPlay restrictions. The manufacturers of other digital music players would be happy, because AAC is an open format; they would not have to pay a licensing fee to Apple or Microsoft or anyone else to enable their gadgets to play these hypothetical non-DRM-encrypted AAC files from ITMS.
But that’s not what the music industry wants. Yes, there exist legal download stores that sell music in MP3 format (e.g. eMusic.com) — but they don’t have content from the major record labels, because the major record labels refuse to allow their music to be sold for download without DRM. The music industry’s insistence upon DRM is what put the ITMS in the position that Apple now enjoys; the record industry is decrying a lock-in advantage that they themselves handed to Apple so they could deny their customers (i.e. us, the people who listen to music) the interoperability they now say they want.
I expect Apple would be happy to get out of the DRM arms race, as more people would buy from them (DRM being a sticking point for many music listeners). I wonder if this will come up in the next discussion of license renewals?