Some people have tried to paint the recent announcement by Apple as example of Apple innovating and Microsoft following. Headlines like "Microsoft changes tune on selling DRM-free songs" are simply misleading - none of the technology companies truly wanted DRM, but they were a necessary evil in selling music that they did not own.

As I've discussing in previous posts, Microsoft, Real Networks, and Yahoo! were all instrumental in the anti-DRM movement. Most labels seem to get it - these decisions and stratregy are more often coming from the corporate parents, not the labels themselves.  In fact, Gates criticized DRM months before Jobs' manifesto a month ago, and EMI had been reportedly been considering releasing DRM-free tracks in MP3 format for awhile.

This initially-exclusive deal with EMI simply demonstrates Apple's significant marketshare for purchased music and influence in the market. The mere fact that Apple was lucky and/or powerful enough to convince a major label to do something they were already going to do is not "innovating". If anything, Microsoft's press release was not a "me too" but rather trying to point out that this wasn't, in fact, an Apple "innovation".

Some are also speculating that these are not "really" DRM-free.

I’m kind of curious on whether this ‘DRM-free’ will truly mean ‘DRM-free’, or whether it will just mean as the release states that those premium tracks will be able to be played on any kind of average digital player, in addition to Apple’s superb ones.

I’m betting on that those ACC premium tracks will all be tied to their purchasers…

As I've said before, I think shame is an ideal form of DRM. Watermarking is a great idea because 1) it doesn't prevent people from using the content as they see fit, 2) it discourages casual sharing (particularly to those you don't know or trust) and 3) has the same effect on "real" piracy (i.e., none).