Cant We All Just Share Along?
I have some strong issues regarding this topic. First, the artists are millionares. This is a fact. Fact, instead of the millionares selling 3 million records, they are going to be selling 2.8 million records. Still enough to eat and keep food on the table I think. Third, a lot of the artists, I'm just focusing in on the artists for now, make more money from indorsements, commercials, and other business adventures aside from the music. My perspective is obviously different then lets say a band like Metallica, or from a different artist. This is because it's not "my" stuff. If I put out a record and I felt that a lot of my music and things were being shared for free, I would be angry.
As for the ipod, there DRM system seems to need some work. The article "Thoughts on Music" says that there needs to be an alternative to just using itunes because only 3% of all the music on ipods are downloaded from itunes, one possible solution, that I liked the best, "Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat." I think this would be the best thing for us to do in the future.
I think that trying to protect and copywrite music and other things is going to be hard to do and someone somewhere out there will find a way to copy it, break through it, and tell other people how to break the copywrite. On a side note, there is already, don't quote me, software out there that can burn dvd's that have copywrite protection on them. I mean the technology is out there to break even the protections. The Wired article was very interesting and talks about how free would't be so bad after all for the companies, "The last time technical copy protection was widely attempted - remember when most software was copy-protected? - it failed in the marketplace, and failed miserably. Earlier attempts to ban media-reproduction technologies have also failed. Even though entertainment execs are exceptionally slow learners, they will eventually realize what they should have understood long ago: The free proliferation of expression does not decrease its commercial value. Free access increases it, and should be encouraged rather than stymied." (Barlow, 1).
Steve Jobs also said that he wanted to uplift the DRM services, "DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy," and offered to embrace a DRM-free music-sales environment "in a heartbeat," if only the big four music companies would let him. (Doctorow, 1).
We are headed into a new world, a free world, this is what I see. Already there are many, many different software companies out there located out of state and charging $20 for a whole year to use there software and download as many songs, even movies, until your full! And when someone shuts one down, 5 others open up. It's crazy. For companies to capitalize on this, they need to do something about the whole system. Instead of trying to restrict the music, offer us consumers something better, or we will go out and get it for free instead of paying $15 for a cd.
Comments
I completely agree with your comments of the DRMs doing nothing for the companies themselves. There will always be people who find ways around them, and in that case, it is just money wasted.
Posted by: Scott Szesterniak | April 12, 2007 12:45 AM
I think that you brought up a good point how we are headed towards a "free world." If the music and film industries were to team up with software companies, they could just charge people an annual or monthly fee to download as much music as they want. In doing so, both the music and film industries and the software companies can make a profit, and the consumers get what they want. I think that this is a more realistic approach than trying to fight the consumers into buying strictly CDs and DVDs and such.
Posted by: Natalya Goncharova | April 15, 2007 02:03 PM
I feel like your post neglected a large portion of the musician population. Using an example like Metallica is like saying the average band is world famous, when in fact many artists, many very successful artists are still left without much money in their pockets. A record deal is more similar to a loan than a signing bonus. The companies give you, let's say $150,000 to live on for a year, use for touring, and production of a record. For an average 4-piece band, that's less than a $30,000 income for a year, to survive on. If records aren't sold, the company actually has the right to charge the band they signed for the losses. Granted, this system is very anti-creative and anti-art, which comes from any combination of art and business since art production, and the final product of an artistic endeavor have no real monetary value unless someone says they do. Just some food for thought.
Posted by: Andrew | April 15, 2007 09:11 PM