Both the music industry, The Economist magazine and outspoken entrepreneur Mark Cuban have responded to Steve Jobs statement against copy-protected music.

The music industry, represented by the RIAA argued that rather than removing the digital locks, Jobs and Apple should license their copy-protection to others. While that completely misses the argument Jobs presented, it also speaks to the industries motives.

The argument can be made that the music industry has been a strong proponent of licensing the copy protection, because it would allow them to control their distributors more easily. Currently, Apple's strong position with the iPod gives it unprecedented negotiating powers with the label. The result has been uniform pricing and relatively flexible usage scenarios. I would argue that the music industry would prefer a scenario where they could play distributors against each other and extract a scenario more favorable to them.

Billionaire Mark Cuban, who previously argued that "no one would buy YouTube" and that "BitTorrent is doomed" suggested an advertiser supported model.

The Economist weighs in with their characteristically thorough analysis and concludes: "Mr Jobs's argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right."

Finally, two labels weighed in directly. The first, EMI, is apparently leaning towards a DRM-free future while the other, struggling major label Warner music has apparently condemned the idea as "completely without logic or merit."