Back in 2004, EFF fellow Cory Doctorow gave a speech to the Microsoft Research Group about why they should steer clear of DRM technologies. In it, he offered a challenge to Microsoft:

American film studios didn’t want the Japanese electronics
companies to get a piece of the movie pie, so they fought the
VCR. Today, everyone who makes movies agrees that they don’t want
to let you guys get between them and their customers.

Sony didn’t get permission. Neither should you. Go build the
record player that can play everyone’s records.

Because if you don’t do it, someone else will.

It’s a reasonable response to an implicit question: why are technology corporations so gung ho about DRMs, when previously they’ve fought lawsuits for the right to produce similar technologies like VCRs? Doctorow’s answer is that they shouldn’t be at all; the people who make MP3 players and DVD players should be on the side of the consumers, not the studios and record labels.

Two years later, that message has finally creeped to the top of the food chain at some very big companies. Shortly after Microsoft launched the Zune, the iPod killer that has done little to meet, let alone exceed, expectations, Bill Gates comes out with a bold statement: there are “huge problems with DRM.” Or maybe not so bold; the internet hive mind commented that maybe this was all sour grapes coming from Bill; after all, he just put out a music player that doesn’t seem to be selling particularly well, and more importantly isn’t creating the buzz it should be. Besides which, Microsoft still doesn’t have anything to compete against the might of the iTunes Store, try as they might with the Zune Marketplace. So sure, Microsoft can decry DRM—they aren’t making money off it like Apple is.

Today, the other shoe dropped. Straight from the desk of Steve Jobs comes a letter that seems almost tentative in approach, but is arguably more surprising than what Gates said two months ago.

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music.

The internet hivemind has plenty to say about this too: why is Apple making consumers do all the work of lobbying the music industry? Why doesn’t Jobs take his message directly to the music labels and make them see sense? And hasn’t Apple in the past been very protective of FairPlay, especially when certain countries have told Apple to open up their offerings on the iTunes Store?

Well, if it turns out what Jobs is saying about the music labels is true, then in effect he’s had no choice; his arm is being twisted only slightly less than Gates’ arm was when Microsoft agreed to the outrageous policy of paying Universal a royalty for each Zune sold. And you have to admit that there are some benefits for Apple as well should iTunes go DRM-free, namely the opportunity to sell to the entire ecosystem of music devices not sold by Apple. Even though the iTunes Store was started as a way to sell more iPods, arguably the iPod is established enough that it can stand on its own as a brand. Furthermore, Jobs himself acknowledges that very few people are locked into an iPod because of the iTunes Store anyways, so even if they wanted to leverage the DRM to keep people on the Apple ship, they couldn’t. And iTunes doesn’t really need the iPod either, because it has become the defacto leader in the digital music business. When you think about buying music online, chances are you’re not thinking of eMusic or Rhapsody or the Zune Marketplace; you’re thinking of the iTunes Store, whether you want to or not. At this point, it’s far more likely that Apple is turning away customers who would love to buy via the iTunes Store, but can’t because they decided to buy a Sandisk or Creative player instead.

As for why Jobs is telling consumers to do all the work? Well, partially because Apple has never had much leverage in this area—after all, look at the hoops Apple and Microsoft have had to go through to get their own music stores set up. But a better answer is because consumers have already been doing a lot of the work. Who, after all, petitioned the government of France to make their first challenges to Apple’s DRM system? Who’s responsible for the plateauing of revenues from digital music? Who’s responsible for buying music from smaller labels and indie artists, ones that aren’t part of the RIAA and in some cases fight its policies? Who’s responsible for the class action lawsuits against Sony in the rootkit fiasco? For passing around the Steve Albini article about how the major labels screw over their talent? For telling Circuit City and DIVX to get lost? It certainly wasn’t Apple.

Okay, fine, but how much does Steve Jobs’ letter change, anyways? Right now, next to nothing; the iTunes Store will continue to sell DRM-encrusted files, the record labels will continue to tell you that ripping your own CDs is illegal and you should really be paying $34 for a CD, and—if all goes well—you will continue to buy the majority of your music in non-DRMed forms. Which doesn’t mean you can’t buy it online; hell, I dropped five bucks on the last Charlotte Hatherley single, available as DRM-free MP3s. eMusic continues to sell all its music in MP3 format as well, an obvious example for the rest of the industry to follow.

But what has changed is that major corporations are now acknowledging years of consumer frustration over the creation of DRM technologies, a major break from the previous party line of “everyone loves DRM, there is nothing wrong.” Whether that will mean anything in the near future is hard to say; after all, the brand new Windows Vista is chock full of advanced DRM technologies and the iTunes Store won’t be selling un-DRMed AAC or MP3 files any time soon. But finally, companies are starting to cotton on to Doctorow’s message: consumers want the record player that’ll play everyone’s records. If they understand that, how long before they start making the player that plays everyone’s records?