I hated DRM before it was cool

From some random ZDNet-employed tech pundit:

Apple goes to great lengths — usually through its digital rights management technologies (what I call C.R.A.P.) — to tightly control the relationship between its software, its hardware, and, in the case of the iPhone, the relationship of both to carriers and the Internet (God forbid you should attempt to acquire new audio online for your iPhone — music, ringtones, etc — through anything but the iTunes Music Store).

Just the latest in a long string of Apple hatred (and now litigation) based on their "FairPlay" DRM system. Apple can't be exonerated of their complicity in the foisting of DRM on us consumers, but let's review the facts.

1. Apple does not force you to use DRM-crippled music either in iTunes or on the iPod. In fact both products were capable of using the de facto industry standard (though unfortunately patent-encumbered) MP3 format before FairPlay existed in the market—i.e., before the opening of the iTunes Music Store.

2. Apple themselves sell non-DRM-crippled tracks through their own music store.

3. Apple is neither the only, nor the worst company to use DRM.

I happily use an iPod and iTunes (and a Mac). I have never paid money for a single DRM-encumbered track from the iTunes Store (though I do own a few such tracks via gift cards and Pepsi caps). I've been an eMusic subscriber since their plans included unlimited downloads. I find it unconscionable that the RIAA could sue a family into oblivion for simply depriving them of potential (that means neither real nor certain) revenue to which they (and the courts) think they have a right.

But why is it suddenly cool to hate Apple for using DRM (based on utter fabrications), and not actually support ditching it entirely?

And if you hated Bush before it was cool, see here.