My guess is biggest task (BY FAR, I mean BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS) in removing DRM from some tracks, is just identifying which tracks those should be. There are millions and millions of songs. It’s no big deal at all (really!) to add a bit to each of them to track whether to DRM them and to write to code to handle this. But then where do you get the data to put in that field? This would involve some sizeable gruntwork, enough so that it would be very advantageous to design a let-the-artist-flip-their-own-DRM-bit web interface.

In any case, this kind of administrative work would NOT be a significant hurdle for Apple.

But they aren’t going add ANYTHING to the whole system to meet the request of a single artist. I forgive them that. But that is all. I do not forgive them for not having a method implemented to let the artist choose the DRM status of their song in general, because there is simply no excuse for that. And if you haven’t implemented now, for whatever reason, there is still no excuse for not implementing it tomorrow. Especially if you claim that you would prefer to sell tracks without DRM.

Nobody is going to believe that you want to give away all your clothing when somebody is standing there asking for your socks and you say nothing to them.

Steve Jobs has the technological capability to implement this with relative ease, and he claims he would prefer to sell DRM-free music. Nobody should believe a word of it (and he shouldn’t EXPECT anyone to believe a word of it) until he starts facilitating the removal of DRM from tracks where nobody has asked for it to be applied.

Right now, we can consider this a grace period. But if Apple does NOT start releasing some DRM-free tracks, and soon, then logic DICTATES ABSOLUTELY that Steve Jobs was LYING when expressed a wish to do so.

Needless to say, he is very favorable to DRM. However, even tough he sings the old “DRM-is-needed-to-prevent-piracy-and-ensure-rightowners-are-compensated” tune, I think he has a point when he says that DRM can enables new types of media consumption that are simply not possible in the “analog” world. I’m thinking here about, e.g., music or video rental – in which models the consumer does not own but rents the content. Other models, such as “right-locker” architectures (described, I believe, in “Code”), which do bring a true value to customers, are other such examples.

For discussing this in the past with him, I know M. Lessig will disagree (or has he changed his mind since then?). Yet, allow me to formulate this proposition, which should reconciliate M. Jobs and M. Amoroso:
– DRM are useless (and proved so) for protecting content sold under the standard “ownership model” (where the end user has the right to use the content for as long and as frequently as they wish)
– DRM are necessary to enable new distribution and usage models (where the end user do not “own” the content

so say it takes an extra engineer to implement non-DRM (providing you don’t want your innovator writing easy code instead of adding new features). That engineer will be asking questions to get up to speed, and require more signalling with others to integrate the code. He’ll take up more of the project manager’s time. It’ll require an extra test procedure for quality control, and perhaps a person devoted to testing that feature.

Then you have the store processing side of things. You have to set up an extra procedure to handle the encoding upon receiving new music from the record company. This isn’t a high level job, maybe with high turnover, so you’d probably have to train everyone on that staff to watch for these things, instead of being on autopilot mode. Most people will likely make some mistakes, because they more often than not encode the other way most of the time. So add another bit of quality control, or if mistakes get made, more support staff to deal with the angry record companies or customers.

Then think about the fact that iTunes comes out with a new version once a month or so, and also releases international versions at a fair pace, though that has slowed down. Oh, add another quality assurance tester for international.

So now you’ve added complexity to at least 50 people’s jobs, created new ones, without any added revenue to Apple. And they’re not making oodles of money off iTunes. (iPod revenue and staff would be in a separate accounting division.)

Then there’s the Apple corporate hiring culture, which is to avoid adding people whenever possible, because more people means more process and complexity, and takes longer to get anything done. And is harder to undo if you make a mistake about staffing up a new feature/division. Say they did all this, then decided to get rid of DRM. They’d have extra people…

So basically, by adding non-DRM music, you increase the complexity, increase failure, increase time for new features to get to market, and decrease revenue, for something that most people don’t care about. Most people just want their stuff to sync after they plug in the iPod. How it gets there doesn’t matter. But they’ll get mad if it starts being not so seamless and breaks more often.

That’s no reason not to do it. But it’s unlikely to be a legal reason, or a negotiation thing with the indies. It’s more likely that Apple just prefers simple solutions.

And so it really would be easier if there weren’t DRM. Think about all those international versions, think about revving the software every month. If Apple didn’t have to add DRM, everything would turn over much more quickly.

The argument that some seem to be making is that since Apple has benefitted from DRM, Steve Jobs must be lying when he says he is against it. That arguement is flawed. First, who is to say that Apple would not benefit even more without DRM? Second, don’t over look the possibility of idealism. Not everyone is strictly out for themselves.

If Apple responds that the big four record labels insist that Apple not provide services that smaller record labels want, we then have an antitrust issue: a cabal of industry leaders conspiring to cut out the little guys.

…and Jobs would much prefer that Apple stay out of this fight. By forcing regulators and the market to focus on the parties that insisted on the limitations, Apple doesn’t have to take on the role of “recording industry annoyer” for itself. That strikes me as fair – the industry wants one thing, the market wants another, so let the market decide – at which point Apple can jump in with the new solution.

It’s possible that in the short-term, its not technically feasible to have the iTMS sell only some stuff without Fairplay, especially if it is deeply embedded in many layers of the software and service. And if Jobs thinks things will change before long, its a sensible business decision to wait for the change, and then switch everything all at once.