Stop Trying to Protect Music!
Wow! I guess I didn’t realize that there was so much talk around this subject. I think my opinion on it all is this: Each younger generation is smarter than its elders and will find workarounds for any DRM protection system. Thus, Jobs’ third recommendation for the future of protecting rights over the Internet is probably the best. The big four music producers should stop trying to DRM their music and focus their time, energy, and money on increasing CD sales. From the associated press article I learned, “Some analysts suggest that lifting the software restrictions could boost sales of online music, which currently account for around 10 percent of global music sales.� If online music only accounts for 10% sales, then I would really recommend focusing their energy on increasing CD sales. Likewise, “ . . . the dream of a copy-proof song or movie is a logical absurdity.� At least if a consumer is buying the CD at full price, then the companies are profiting even if the music is shared after that. Somehow, they need to allow customers to see the benefit of owning a CD.
Furthermore, Barlow asserts, “The free proliferation of expression does not decrease its commercial value. Free access increases it, and should be encouraged rather than stymied.� Sometimes, allowing music to be shared increases how many people can hear it and increase other things related to music: like increased concert going, increased collateral sales, etc. I found this quote from Jack Valenti hilarious, “We are testing new kinds of protective devices and technology like encryption, and [digital rights management] tools from Real Networks and Microsoft. If both or one of those is workable, and if customers want to use either, we'll try it right now� (Spring 1). This just proves that either the article is outdated and he is very under informed or not up-to-date, or he just really doesn’t understand the nitty-gritty of how easy it is for smart “geeks� to breakthrough these types of protection tools.
Comments
Hi Kaitlin
You mentioned that 10% of the music sales are online and the other are in forms such as CD's. The companues should put their effort into increasing CD sales without DRM.
I think the companies making money is just the tip of the iceberg. They have purchased the rights to market and distribute the music from the artist. "The company" makes most of the money from the sale of CD's and the artist only gets a small percentage unless the artist takes the distribution in-house. Prior to receiving their royalty fees for the music, the agent for the artist has to take their cut. I think the key to the issue is the question whether the artist is losing potential royalties due to unauthorized duplication.
Mike
Posted by: md2506 | April 12, 2007 08:58 AM
Yah, the Valenti article is dated all right. Valenti died a few weeks ago, didn't he? I think his ideas and fears were MORE outdated, though. And the analogy about the replacement car did not make sense, esp. when you consider Barlow's ideas about the products NOT being products.
I see the reason behind the film industry's fear. There is a lot of money at stake, and very few films actually make money. The big studios are usually too big to be very nimble.
Posted by: Ramonac | April 14, 2007 09:38 PM
I agree with you that there's really no harm done if one consumer were to purchase a CD or DVD and then share it with others. I think that companies should see that as free promotion. Some people are careful in spending money on products that they know are not going to be a waste of money. As long as a consumer purchased the product, it gives the company money and then additional income from the free advertising that the consumer would make in sharing it with others.
Posted by: Natalya Goncharova | April 15, 2007 02:10 PM