DRM= down right maddening
I was most struck by Barlow’s comparison of voluntarily paying for music to tipping a server. “In an environment of dense connection... ethical behavior becomes less a matter of self-imposed virtue and more a matter of horizontal social pressure.” (The Next Economy of Ideas, p. 3) The reason we tip is possibly because we want to feel generous, we want to hear the person say thank you, or we want to avoid confrontation with the server or our peers. We’re right there to see all their faces. Social psychology studies on deindividuation have demonstrated that feeling disconnected from our identity encourages us to act in selfish ways. Being chastised over the Internet is nothing compared to being yelled at by a waiter in front of an entire restaurant full of people. I think that for consumers to feel any measure of social pressure through the Internet, there would have to be a way to attach users to their real names and hold them personally accountable for their actions-- not that this is something I'd like to see happen.
“At the end of the day, DRM is the biggest impediment to a legitimate music market. Apple doesn't sell music because of DRM -- it sells music in spite of DRM. The iTunes Store proves that you can compete with free.” (Doctorow, p. 2) Mysteriously, according to Jack Valenti, “There is no business model... that can compete with free. It can't be done.” (Spring, PC World)
We should not be surprised to discover that Jobs is a major shareholder in a media company like Disney Pixar, and that he stands to gain from DRM: “Every movie you buy from Apple is a tax down the line of switching from Apple to a competing product.” Jobs will profit from the arrangement of paying 30 cents extra for non-DRM music from iTunes, profits that will surely offset the cost of people NOT buying iPods or guiltlessly copying music. It seems like such an obvious double standard for Apple to expect users to respect copyright while refusing to honor Creative Commons licenses themselves, but as Doctorow points out, “If you buy DRM, you end up being part of someone's business model....” (p.2)
Comments
I really liked your observation about iTunes as I was thinking the same things - Apple doesn't sell music because of DRM -- it sells music in spite of DRM. The iTunes Store proves that you can compete with free.” (Doctorow, p. 2) After looking a Ruckus and having used Napster in the past, I agree that a business model such as iTunes can complete with free music services by providing with a quality applications and service. In my opinion, Ruckus and Napster are painful to use. iTune incredibly powerfula nd yet simple to use.
Posted by: Dale | April 14, 2007 01:54 PM
I agree with your comment along the lines of physically making users more accountable by attaching their real names to things done via the internet. However, I think that it would be a very difficult thing to do. There will always be someone, somewhere out there that is going to out smart any system created.
Posted by: Erin M | April 15, 2007 12:11 PM
I really liked your post. I never really thought about the social disconnect between something like the internet and something where you have to be present for. I guess thats why downloading music has become such a big thing, because you remain faceless online. I also agree with the comment about providing a quality application. I definitely find ease of use and attractivenss come into the play when choosing which one to use.
Posted by: tcarr | April 15, 2007 05:09 PM
I agree with this post, most noteably because there is much form Jobs to gain from DRM. Actually, his ocmpany's invention of the Ipod, which plays mostly stolen music, and DRM makeing it so that Ipod music can not be transfered is brilliant. I should have thought of that.
Posted by: Rick Sletten | April 15, 2007 08:11 PM
I can definitely see your point in your first paragraph. If the internet was somehow transparent and everybody could view each other I would probably see quite a few people re-evaluating their actions because the accountability walls would be higher and there would literally be an obligation created to pay as there almost is that obligation in the service industry.
Posted by: Jamie Johnson | April 15, 2007 11:54 PM