Apple CEO Steve Jobs has written an open letter, in which he tackles the thorny subject of Digital Rights Management.  

DRM is a technology which attempts to prevent or limit the copying of digital content such as music and movies, and which controls the transfer of data between devices.  The major record labels have made DRM mandatory for any service selling their music, and of course it's been less than a hit with most consumers.  Apple's DRM, which is used on songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store, is often criticized for being particularly crippling.  

Jobs notes that although 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold last year, another 20 billion were sold in unprotected format, on CDs -- from which unprotected MP3 files could easily be produced.  So, Jobs asks:  why should people have to jump through DRM hoops with the music they buy from him, but not from other retailers?  

He may have a point, and no doubt he feels that he could get a bigger slice of that other 20 billion song pie, were he able to unshackle the music on the iTunes Music Store.

But then what would happen if DRM suddenly disappeared?  Would we see another fiasco like the original Napster free-for-all, which helped usher in DRM in the first place?  You can bet your portable digital audio player that the record labels don't relish that idea.

Read Steve Jobs' open letter here.

Update:  Oh, my.  Steve's gone and started something.

Up-Update:   The recording industry responds.

"Theft" by any other name is still thievery. The more shackles put on the practice - the better.

People in this business risk enormous amounts of time, effort and resources to participate in this field.

That consumers think they are entitled to "free music" continues to be a ridiculous notion.

Let 'em record it off the Radio.

While I generally agree with you -- and even if the music industry didn't pay my salary, I'd still generally agree with you -- I disagree with "the more shackles the better" angle.  

The Sony BMG rootkit fiasco immediately comes to mind.  In case you missed that one, some of their CDs were loaded with antipiracy components which installed themselves on users' PCs without their knowledge, were in many cases impossible to remove, and which were found to have created serious security vulnerabilities, leaving the end users open to all kinds of cracker attacks.

I'm all for artists, copyright holders, et al. protecting their intellectual property, but using surreptitious tactics like this is just going too far -- and the courts apparently agree.  Sony BMG had to recall the affected products, was hit with numerous lawsuits, and is now having to settle up with affected users -- and suffered a lot of PR damage.

One might say that this is just a case of an eye for an eye -- and if it only took down the people who proudly proclaim they're "Stickin' It To The Man" by making copyrighted stuff available to anyone who wants it, then I'd have nothing to say about it.  However, a lot of unsuspecting law-abiding folks got caught in the net as well.  To me, that is a problem.

Unfortunately, we're in a vortex.  The people who originally expressed their dissatisfaction with high CD prices by infringing copyright (think: the original Napster) are the very ones who are to blame for this mess.  If they'd acted responsibly and just refused to buy the music, not only would the record labels have taken another look at their pricing policies, but we wouldn't have been subjected to all of this copy protection nonsense in the first place.

And now, the RIAA/MPAA sues more people, and we get more convoluted DRM schemes, and all of that enrages more people, and those people are even more determined to Stick It To The Man as a result, and more people get sued, and ...

If you don't believe me, just try making a positive comment about the RIAA on Slashdot or Digg sometime.  You'd better make sure you're wearing your asbestos suit.

OK, the can of worms is now open.