Can Hollywood Learn From Intuit?

Ironica writes "Readers will recall the furor over Intuit's activation scheme for TurboTax 2002, which prompted a lawsuit and subsequently was removed from TT2002 and all future products. Here's an interesting editorial on CNNMoney suggesting that other DRM proponents could take a page out of Intuit's book ... if they have the sense."

Comments

One slight problem...

[Lord Kestrel]

In Intuit's case, they actually saw a loss on the books, and realized it was a Bad Thing. Hollywood hasn't seen any such loss, and so doesn't understand.

Re:One slight problem...

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

In Intuit's case, they actually saw a loss on the books, and realized it was a Bad Thing. Hollywood hasn't seen any such loss, and so doesn't understand.

One might argue that this is because Intuit has competition, while Hollywood is in fact several dominant companies working together in a de facto monopoly.
Losing a customer to a boycott is nothing -- there's a line behind you, skippy.
Losing a customer to your competition, now that's a real problem.

--

Re:One slight problem...

[ZzzzSleep]

I think that Intuit realised that if you treat all your customers as criminals, then they're not going to be very impressed. Perhaps Hollywood has been slow to realise this as there doesn't seem to be one single place where people can voice their complaints.

Re:One slight problem...

[Lord Kestrel]

How much of that "loss" was real, and how much was just made up bullshit? I don't think they can actually lose money, as the amount of content that is released every year by RIAA/MPAA is enormous, and there are always people there to snap it up. A normal user doesn't care what they can't do with a cd, as long as it plays in their Walkman/home stereo.

Re:One slight problem...

[letxa2000]

Maybe, but you might be underestimating what a "normal user" is these days. What you say might have been true in, say, 1998... but these days I think most people at least are aware of the fact that there is "free" music out there, many of them get it free while those people may pass it to their friends which might not be able to get it for free.

Not to mention I think that those people who have enough money to buy any significant number of CDs at $20 a pop are very likely to be people that also have enough money to get a PC and use it.

MP3s and P2P are no longer the realm of techies...

Re:One slight problem...

[deadsaijinx*]

somehow, they actaul claimed billions of dollars in loss. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but how can they possilbe claim billions in loss and still support the lifestyles they do. Unless they were a trillion dollar industry, billions of dollars would be making a big dent in their lives. I could go on and on about how filesharing is helping them out, but I just wanted to mention their ridiculous claims of loss.

Re:One slight problem...

[Lord Kestrel]

I get my concept of a normal user from supporting my sisters with their computers/tvs/vcrs. You would think that they could figure out how to operate them correctly, but they seem to lose all sense and knowledge when they approach anything electronic in nature.

While I do know many younger people have no problems with, and infact embrace technology, it would seem to me like many/most people still haven't a clue how to download music, or copy it onto a cd.

Re:One slight problem...

[geekee]

The percentage of copy-protected CD's is extremely low. Blaming copy protection for RIAA losses is weak, especially given the popularity of p2p networks for trading songs. I think you don't understand. If there's a consumer backlash against the RIAA, it's in the form of people wanting to pay $0 for music instead of $15 and having the opportunity. I don't know anyone who refused to buy a cd because they were worried about copy protection. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who use p2p networks rather than buying cds.

Re:One slight problem...

[geekee]

If file sharing is helping them out, why are revenues down? Your arguement makes no sense. They had no copy protection and revenue went down. Intuit started using copy protection and their revenue went down. Two entirely different situations.

Re:One slight problem...

[tuba_dude]

Revenues are down due at least in part to their slowing of the release schedules for the major artists. According to the statistics, they started slowing down the release schedules about 9 months before they began their attacks. Slower releases mean less revenue, and since it's usually overlooked, it can be blamed on something else, like filesharing.

Can Hollywood Learn From Intuit?

[ryanr]

No, Hollywood is incapable of learning.

But seriously, I joke, I kid...

Hollywood will learn eventually, after they've been subjected to extreme pressure, loss of profits, and humiliating defeat of any copy protection mechanism they can devise. The same goes for any group of companies that have forgotten they exist because their customers allow them to, and not by some natural right.

Re:Can Hollywood Learn From Intuit?

[Saanvik]

If you think nobody will pay for DRM controlled entertainment because they don't like it, you're wrong. We're already doing things we don't like to do so we can see movies.

• Do you dislike watching trailers in the theater?
• Do you dislike the fact that when you watch a DVD, you often can't skip opening sections on a disk?
• Do you still go to the theater and rent/buy DVDs?

I have to answer yes to all those questions, and so do a lot of people. Why do you think DRM will be any different?

Re:Can Hollywood Learn From Intuit?

[fishbowl]

>Do you dislike watching trailers in the theater?

Not at all! I like them very much. Not the self-promotion in the local cinema's trailer, or the slideshow, but I do like the trailers. The ones that represent movies I dislike, I get to see what I'm not missing. All the groaning and cringing I would do during the movie, I'm done with, and I will NEVER be in a position where I think I might enjoy the film. The trailers for the films I *do* like, are part of the experience that is not included in the movie itself.

I remember the first trailer for Alien, back in '77 I think. I knew that was a movie I had to see. Think about how you feel when you see clips for movies you really anticipate, like Star Wars (admit it), or LOTR.

>Do you dislike the fact that when you watch a
>DVD, you often can't skip opening sections on a
>disk?

What I dislike about it, is the theory that the production company owns both my DVD *AND* my $20.

For rentals, I don't really give a crap. I think it would be cool if there was a writeable trailer section so the rental places could put localized adverts, current trailers, etc. It doesn't really bother me that I can't skip them, but it does bother me a lot that it's a crime in the US to make a device that can skip them. I don't really believe the DMCA will stand the test of time, but I also realize that "the test of time" takes a hundred years or more.

>Do you still go to the theater

Hardly ever. Only for the films that I really, really don't want to miss. The ones that come every 5-10 years, if that. LOTR. Maybe I'll go see the Matrix, probably not. Certain foreign films that I'll only ever see screened one time and might never make it to home video. This has more to do with my life priorities than my regard for the film industry.

>and rent/buy DVDs?

Again, there are certain films whose subjects or whose importantce transcend "entertainment" and are essential. I'd buy them for 4x the price. Rentals are cheap enough also, and I don't see the problem, DRM or no.

My problem with the restrictions of digital copyright stems entirely from my views as a musician. I do not appreciate being constrained in my means of production by artificial barriers. Many of the barriers between amateur and professional music production are created specifically to raise the bar, and are not really based that much on technical merit.

Also the whole attitude about copying music actually works against the independent artist who doesn't seek any money at all from his work, but would like it to be heard, shared, etc.

Whenver I hear something that implies that "downloading copyrighted material" is always wrong, or a crime, I see red -- because that blanket statement would also cover my own copyrighted work. But what if I *want* it to be downloaded, P2P'd, etc? Copyright law is going in a direction that will severely curtail the rights of independent content producers.

Fat Chance ...

[molarmass192]

I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA will learn from this, NOT! Intuit has competition from Quicken, neither the MPAA or RIAA have competition in the sense of a true replacement product. Scooby Doo is not an acceptable replacement for The Matrix, just like Eminem is not an acceptable replacement for Christina Aguilera. The MPAA and RIAA will stop the fight when their coffers are bare and they're leveraged to the hilt. Is this "the smart thing" to do? No, but then again these guys are too stubborn to see a good thing when it keeps hitting them upside the head repeatedly. The idocy of their fight against un-DRM'd MP3s simply blows me away. They could have 98% of all the file sharers in their back pocket happily charging credit cards if they'd just stop being so friggen obtuse.

Ther big difference between movies and software

[sould]

Is that Software has to be updated every few years. Software makers don't expect to pay coders a flat fee to produce a product and sit on the profits for the next 70+ years.

Movie makers do. They pay artists a flat fee to make a movie, grab all copyrights & sell the movie for the next 70+ years.

So - Software makers dont *need* DRM as much as movie makers.

We're going to have to wait for (or force) a change in the (frankly corrupt) Hollywood business model.

So. No. Hollywood won't learn.

Re:Ther big difference between movies and software

[Steveftoth]

Only because software is so young and the technology moves fast.

Also, most software written for PCes at least won't run on current machines without kludges. I mean it kinda works, but it's hard to integrate WordStar into a workflow with any new program. Basically, if you want to use old programs, you can only use old programs.

And of course, most old games just don't work any more. Maybe wing commander one still works, but I don't know. Anyone tried to play Ultima One for the PC lately?

PC software makers innovate because that's what everyone else is doing and it hasn't stagnated like movies have.

Re:Ther big difference between movies and software

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of royalities? Actors get them, writers get them, directors get them, producers get them.

In order: sometimes, not often, sometimes, and yes.

Keep dreaming

[NetDanzr]

It would be surely nice to see similar action being taken elsewhere, but I don't think it will happen.

TurboTax is an unique piece of software in the sense that it has a very specific goal. It is used only once, and then it needs to be replaced by a newer version. Combine this with the fact that it would appeal even to users who would never install anything else on their computers, and you get a large number of disenchanted customers. You will never get the same protest base with programs like Windows, which come largely preinstalled, or different office suites, which the user installs and forgets, until he replaces the computer.

As for entertainment products, there is a possibility of such a backlash only when the products don't work on common players. The people who want to play CDs on their computers may be vocal, but they are too small of a minority to hurt the companies' revenues signifficantly, in the case of a boycott.

Boycott Intuit.

[mrsam]

I've been using TurboTax for eight years now. This "product activation" nonsense was a rude surprise for me this year. I certainly did my part in bitching, pissing, and moaning as loud as I could.

And, I might take this opportunity to mention that product activation wasn't the only thing that made doing last year's taxes with TurboTax a completely disgusting, and revolting experience. Almost every other screen was filled with Intuit's sales pitches for other unrelated garbage that I didn't need, or want. First, Turbotax haggled me to upgrade to a premium version of TurboTax. All they want is my credit card number to "unlock" the extra crap; there's nothing to download. Of course, after reviewing the list of additional "features" in the premium version it was pretty clear that no more than, perhaps, 1% of people could possibly use it.

Then, TurboTax haggled me to use Intuit's electronic filing service, against for a premium cost. Then, another sales pitch to upgrade to premium TurboTax features, Finally, TurboTax wanted me to pay for storing my tax return in an "electronic vault", for safekeeping (whatever the fuck it means).

This year, doing my taxes was a totally nauseating experience. Literally, my wallet had a bullseye painted right on it, in bright red colors, and Intuit tried everything they could to grab as much of it as they can. I JUST WANT TO DO MY TAXES AND LEAVE MY WALLET ALONE.

Intuit is hoping that this controversy is over. But I hope that it's not over. Even though Intuit is now furiously backpedaling and groveling that's not enough for me. I will follow through on my promise, and no matter how many times Intuit will now swear that their spyware/DRM is history, I will still use a competing product next year. And if I like it, I'll continue to use it. If not, I'll perhaps go back to Turbotax the following year.

I firmly believe that Intuit should not be allowed to get a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by issuing a bunch of warm-sounding press releases, full of vague and nebulous promises. They must still have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, and I'm hoping that others feel the same way too, and will still use some other competing tax preparation package next year.

Re:Boycott Intuit.

[IronClad]

I certainly did my part in bitching, pissing, and moaning as loud as I could.

I did too, making a point that I had been their customer for 6 years straight. In fact, I don't thinks the issue is "Can Hollywood learn from Intuit?" Rather, the issue is, "Can Hollywood's consumers learn from Intuit's consumers?"

Piss. Moan. Tell them about the titles you will *not* buy because of it. Compare them to seal-clubbers and boys who wear Jeff Foxworthy shirts to school. Tell your neighbor all about region coding. Send your congressman a voided check saying "this is what you would have got if not for your support of the DMCA (or replace with the name of your particular nasty legislation)."

Even an issue backed by a silent majority of consumers will fail without a vocal minority getting the message across in this day of megacorps, highest-bidder legislation, and perpetual copyright.

Provide competition for the RIAA

[lightspawn]

One might argue that this is because Intuit has competition, while Hollywood is in fact several dominant companies working together in a de facto monopoly.

Providing an alternative to the MPAA that will be as attractive to an average consumer is not really feasiable, but for the RIAA it can be done.

Imagine a P2P sharing network that contains only legal content (how? probably something to do with only allowing non-anonymous posting, and a DMCA-protected login (flame away), among other things). Consumers have a legal, non-threatening way to get so much new music RIAA can feel a two-digit-percentage sales drop (on top of the current situation). You'll effectively be cutting off the RIAA's "ear supply", if you will.

In less than a year, they'll sign up for accounts to post some of their own tainted music.

Re:Provide competition for the RIAA

[geekee]

Like people are going to download music they've never heard before instead of what they hear on the radio. The RIAA makes money by sorting through the crap, picking bands they think people will like, and promoting them. That's their contribution to the music field. I won't even go into the economics of bands producing music with no chance to earn money from their work.

Re:Provide competition for the RIAA

[TyrranzzX]

Are you suggesting a 2nd cartel that competes with the RIAA to be more evil and put out music so horrible as to make a soda can bleed?

In all actuality, the internet itself is huge competition for the RIAA and major media organizations, and the only reason they aren't doing poorly financially is because (big suprise here) mainstream media companies don't report on what they are doing bad and they already have name. Going to MSNBC and beliefing whatever they tell you is so much easier than using google to do research on something and coming up with an opinion on it.

The only point when they will see a huge drop in sales is when a kid puts a music CD into his computer and is asked to register it in order to be allowed to play it or puts a music cd into their walkman and finds out it doesn't play. They will, as most sheeple do, ask their geeky friends for help of whom they never listen to or care about, and becuase we're all socially starved psychopaths, we'll tell them the truth and suggest a filesharing app, and some bands.

And at which point they will type in "metal" or "techno" and find the stuff all the geeks like, which is actual music not pop music made by some gal *cough*Spears*cough* who gets shuffled around by helicopter from execuitive to execuitive handing out blowjobs.

The internet cuts out the middleman; them. They stand to loose everything they have if they can't lock down on this new medium. Special interest groups stand to loose a lot, political groups stand to loose a lot and large companies stand to loose a lot. Afterall, most bands that are smalltime like the exposure on a peer 2 peer application. They can stick performance dates in and make some moolah as well as have people buy recordings. No need for the RIAA atall. Linux is getting better by the hour; no need for M$oft in a year or 2. And if you try to pull something on the public, they will write their friends in otuer countries; good luck trying to keep that one bottled up.

Re:Provide competition for the RIAA

[nmos]

The RIAA makes money by sorting through the crap, picking bands they think people will like, and promoting them. That's their contribution to the music field.

Only in approximately the same sense that McDonalds does this for food. It makes them a safe choice but not necessaraly the best, or even good.

I won't even go into the economics of bands producing music with no chance to earn money from their work.

The vast majority of bands allready do this.

Re:The problem is not entirly Hollywood's

[IO ERROR]

Indeed. I remember the copy protection wars of the 80's. All that software copy protection did was annoy legitimate users and give warez traders an opportunity to learn how to reverse engineer. The companies that dropped copy protection stayed in business, as a general rule.

Now the (MP|RI)AA are going to learn the same lesson the hard way, it seems. Though I predict that they just won't get it, and will go out of business. And honestly, I can't wait. When they go under, we'll have a lot less bad music and bad movies, and the good stuff will be easier to find.

We knew it all along, and they still don't get it.

[Rimbo]

This is a small article in a relatively unknown magazine, and even there, Intuit's claim that the consumer backlash was "completely unexpected" tells the real tale:

They still don't get it.

This isn't about technology, rights or anything. This is about simple plain good business sense. This is about bad management. It is a fallacy for a company to think that their product is so delightful that people will put up with being treated like a criminal for the right to use it. Intuit only has one major competitor (H&R Block's Taxcut). The RIAA has thousands of small labels that are chomping at the bit in anticipation of the market the big labels are about to surrender.

The nice thing about a market economy is that the RIAA's folly is our opportunity. It's actually in the small labels' best interests for the RIAA and Microsoft to continue down the DRM path.

So let's keep this news quiet, okay?

Can Hollywood Spare A Change

[nemski]

Can Hollywood change? I doubt it, so the onus is on the public -- the music buying and movie buying public -- and the artists who particpate in the new technology like Phish and Pearl Jam. If the fans support musicians who have embraced technology, then Hollywood will change. Now, don't get me wrong, they will change only when they see they can get a buck out of your pocket.

They won't learn

[ShatteredDream]

They can't even grasp basic economics. They flood the market with trash like Dumb and Dumberer and Final Desination 2 and wonder why, according to Jack Valenti (can he be trusted at all?), they gross an average of only $52M a year. The movie studios basically know how to make a movie that will bring in heaping piles of cash. Look at the Matrix and LOTR. The problem is that they are so greedy that they can't accept that at the end of the day, if they produce a few good movies a year and call it even, they will more likely than not come out ahead more easily than if they put out many times that.

The music industry has an excuse, music fans are often fickle and can throw out a band after one CD because their style "isn't cool anymore." Most music is disposable because people don't want anything artistic or refreshingly original. I listen to old stuff by The Cult occassionally as well as more recent stuff like Stabbing Westward. You don't see that kind of rock anymore. It's the same tuned-down, crunch-your-head-off distortion filled, 3 power chord bullshit. I mean WTF is up with a band like the All American Rejects? I just started playing bass a week ago after having been playing guitar on a semi-active basis for 5 months and can play at least one of their bass lines they're that fucking simple! Swing, Swing has only 4 notes in the entire bass line and you just hit them as 8th notes in sets of 8. Again, pathetic... even I a total newbie write cooler bass lines than that. I want my recording contract now that I know that the bar has been thrown out, not lowered.

The IP cartels are greedy and they're not bound to full market forces. Whoever heard of a Korn CD competing with a TRUSTCompany CD? They don't, except for this week's $15 allowance. Buy one this week, buy the other next week. They won't learn because the government is going to step in like a good fascist state and save them from the pirhannas of capitalism that are now about to descend upon them. America will slip backward, other countries will take our economic lead, but a bunch of neocons will be able to sleep peacefully at night knowing that the market is safe for Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit. Too bad that a bunch of our IT sector will be in ruins and our economy's growth will be fizzling out. "Property rights" will be have been protected, except for your right to modify your DVD-R/RW or DVD player so it can play non-CSS DVD-Rs. Hey, property rights in the neocon world belong only to those who produce, not those who consume.

I'm a neo-liberal/libertarian and yes, I openly and freely admit that I vehemently hate neo-conservatism and wish enlightenment for them first, and if that doesn't work a pox on them.

OH I love this comment!

[ehudokai]

"The customer reaction was unexpected."

They really thought that creating softwer that when installed actually wrote something on my MBR was not going to upset me?

How dumn are they?

Up till this year I used turbotax for the past several returns, but this year I use TaxAct. And although their interface was not as nice as turbotax, it saved me money and didn't tamper with my machine!

..No, because it doesn't have to...

[phuturephunk]

..Users of the Turbotax software can be considered outside the realm of normal consumers..There's a big difference between the mindsets of a person who goes out to buy a tax package to use for Uncle Sam's extortion and your garden variety 1337 kiddie trading DVD rips on IRC rather than taking a trip to the Suncoast to buy it..Apples and Oranges man, apples and oranges.. ..See, I look at it like this: Most Turbotax users are going to be pretty saavy at doing their taxes no? They're probably middle income with some post secondary education, and they're spending hard earned money on a tool thats going to help them go through an experience which, given the choice between tax time and a root canal with a rusty pair of pliers..the pliers win..The majority of people sucking up entertainment media are NOT of that mindset..(One only has to look to reality TV to see this..)..

Dare I say it, but I believe MOST people wouldn't really make a protest at this..Yeah yeah, the ocean of geeks freqenting this site would disagree, but keep in mind that this is NOT indicative of the American Mindset..Most suck up whats on the TV set as truth and don't question..If the company tells them to go out and buy a DRM approved player, they're going to do it because they can't even CONCEIVE of bucking the trend for a brighter day, much less form any kind of resistence to the status quo...

The two products (Tax Software Vs. Your Favorite Movies) are fundamentally different in design and need as well..Entertainment, due in no small part to the structure that media has set up for itself is a fleeting thing..People want spectacular *POP* to everything that they buy, but having that puts one in the mindset that they shouldn't have to pay a great deal for it, or give any creedence to its artistic merit (which, nowadays in movies and music, there is little..)..Chances are if told that they have to obey the copy protection, given the price is right, they'll do it..Whereas with tax software, because of the above mentioned psychology, the anxiety level when dealing with the product itself is MUCH higher..(Now what 13 year old girl is REALLY gonna become the next Che Guevera of the digital world because she can't rip her favorite N'sync CD to a non-DRM MP3 player? Chances are, she's just gonna get mommy or daddy to buy the pass to use it on said MP3 player in addition to the home stereo..)..

Apples and Oranges...

Tax software, however, is a cash cow

[John3]

Intuit gets to sell you the same software each year with minimal changes. Sure they create bloatware versions with videos and extra garbage that nobody uses, but the core product is the same thing they were selling five years ago. They update the tax tables, make the changes for any changes in the law, and sell you the product all over again.

Intuit realized that many customers were sharing their product with others and that probably looked like lost profits.

But if someone lets a few others copy TurboTax, odds are one or two of those people will buy their own copy next year rather than hassle with chasing down the shared CD to install the program. Instead Intuit alienated the users that purchased the product as well as those who didn't. When they asked their buddy to borrow the copy of TurboTax, they were told "Sorry, the CD has some lame copy protection stuff". Now the purchaser and his/her buddies say "Intuit s**cks".

Re:No DRM a mistake for Intuit too.

[mad.frog]

Absolutely. The problem wasn't the activation process per se, but the fact that it was actively annoying to typical users... it's as though they decided on a particular license to enforce, without actually examining how legitimate users were really using the software.

Rule #1 of all DRM schemes should be to make 'em just restrictive enough to keep the honest users honest... since the crooks will find a way to rip you off no matter what.

Re:On the other hand...

[dentar]

Significant wallet power means not buying their tripe, and making sure they know it.

Significant wallet power also went to Apple's new site to download buck a piece songs. Apple has already sold millions of them.

The market has spoken and RIAA/MPAA -STILL- hasn't listened to it.

Can Hollywood learn from Intuit? NO!!!!!!!

[Newer Guy]

Hollywood didn't learn from VCR's, didn't learn from videodisks, didn't learn from DVD's and now can't learn from digital media. To put it simply, Hollywood's arrogance won't LET them learn!

Re:Every few years

[Ironica]

Every so often, you get a band or movie that has a cult attraction, but the laws should not be based on the exception to the rule.

The MPAA would not care one whit about piracy if it relied on initial box office to line their pockets. A whole lot of the gross revenue from your typical movie is expected to come from video sales, television licenses, and so on.

IP can depreciate or appreciate over time. The Star Wars franchise isn't a case of no depreciation; it's worth a whole lot MORE than it was when it was first released. But what I was trying to point out is, these "exceptions" are more a commercial phenomenon than an artistic/creative one. Part of the problem with copyright is that it treats all creation, regardless of purpose, producer, or medium, the same. But there's a whole world of difference between the IP protection needs of a sculptor, a progr^H^H^H^H^Hsoftware engineer and a multi-million-dollar movie machine. Those "exceptions" are what everyone in the Industry is working their asses off to create. When it happens, it's not a fluke, it's a success. The rules *should* take into account the overt goal of the work, IMO.

D.R.M. is D.U.M.

[Another AC]

So Apple sold 2 million songs in about 2 weeks at 99 cents each, right?

Why would these people buy these songs instead of just downloading them for free on Kazaa/Gnutella/etc?

Getting a song for free:

- cost: $0
- ease of use: pretty easy
- time to get: depends
- availability: depends
- quality: depends
- platform: mp3s will play on any system
- usage restrictions: none
- legality: not legal.

Getting a song from apple:

- cost: 99c / song, $9.99 / album
- ease of use: really easy
- time to get: really fast
- availability: about 20% of commercial music
- quality: guaranteed good.
- platform: mac only
- usage restrictions: medium-restrictive D.R.M.
- legality: legal.

And those are basically all the issues.

So apparently, ease of use + time to get + quality + legal vs cost + platform + restrictions results in $1 million a week for apple. Not too shabby!

Now what if they dropped the last two strikes against them (besides cost).. platform and usability restrictions? As they upped their cd library they'd soon find the ONLY advantage Kazaa would have would be price, whereas apple would now win (or at least tie) in every other category! How much money would they maybe gross then?

They make $1M a week now right? Let's say opening up the service to non-mac users (95%+ of the users) only triples their revenues. Let's say dropping all restrictions on use again doubles the usage. Finally, let's say them quintupling their collection to include everything ever recorded doubles their revenues again. It looks like they stand to make about $625 Million a year from this service.. if they'd just loosen up on the DRM (and complete their selection)!

Re:D.R.M. is D.U.M.

[CashCarSTAR]

There's one further point.. Generally speaking, most people will want to reward a producer, as long as they feel as if its a fair transaction. I think that is another thing in favor of Apple's service, as it is very fair IMO. Of course, to me, it's still not P2P and it's still RIAA controlled. As in my opinion, the P2P wars have less to do with actual infringement than they do with content control, and making sure the big labels keep the mindshare. Not that I'm a strict boycotter or anything, but even within the big labels stuff gets shoved under the rug.