Whose Music Is It Anyway?

There was an interesting column by Walter S. Mossberg in today’s Wall Street Journal in which he posits that media companies have gone too far in curbing consumers’ activities. At issue is the use of Digital Rights Management software that more and more is imbedded in music and video files in order to restrict further, illegal distribution.

Viewing it strictly from the lens of a consumer, I can't really disagree with his overall conclusion that consumers should have broad leeway to use legally purchased music and video for personal, noncommercial purposes in any way they want. But to a certain extent I think he miss the point for underlying his conclusion is, I think, a basic misunderstanding of what one purchases in the first place. When you buy from iTunes, for example, you don't buy unrestricted music. You buy a restricted version of that music and pay a price that presumably is an acceptable trade-off for those restrictions. To a certain extent, even the purchase of music via the LP was restricted--you needed a record player. In any event, theoretically, if what you want is an unrestricted version of that music, the price you're charged should be higher to compensate the owner of the music for the risk that some Marxist, or teenager, will illegally send it downstream. Considered in that light, it's hard to believe it's taken the music owners this long to utilize what is essentially a hedge against its risks--Digital Rights Management. Thus, while as a consumer I'd like greater freedom (or at least the opportunity to buy music in an unrestricted format), I understand that that's not what I purchased. I just wish that the various on-line services engaged in much greater disclosure of this fact.

On a related front and although technically not a DRM issue, the same concepts are being employed by the likes of Rhapsody, Napster and Yahoo Music by restricting the number of players to which you can download subscription music. (To the unintiated, these services not only allow you to purchase tracks, they also allow you to pay a monthly rent to essentially download an unlimited number of tracks to your mp3 player. As long as you keep your subscription, you can c0ntinue to listen. Let the subscription lapse and the license to listen magically expires.) Napster is the most restrictive, allowing a subscriber to download to only two devices per subscription. The other two services allow three active devices. To add an additional device, the subscriber has to deactivate one of hisr other devices for at least 30 days, which is just long enough to invalidate all of the music you previously downloaded to that device. These restrictions are undoubtedly driven by the record companies as the tradeoff for making their content legally available. Apparently the fear is that allowing more devices on a given account will only encourage people to share accounts with hundreds of others, thus depriving the record companies of revenue. But in essentially taking the default position that pretty much all of their customers are criminals, the record companies continue to place at risk their ability to leverage the internet to their economic value.

But in designing everything for the worst case scenario, the record companies and their surrogates--Napster, Rhapsody and Yahoo and the other similar entrants--create real world problems for families of three or more, each of whom posses an mp3 player. Since none of the services offer "family" discounts, you'd have to purchase a second fully paid subscription in order to satisfy every member of the family. My humble guess is that most are not opting for the second restriction with more opting to just junk the idea of a subscription altogether.

I think subscription music is a good idea that has little chance of succeeding as long as the record companies remain this paranoid. At some point they'll embrace the digital age and the great commercial possibilities of alternative and cheaper methods of delivering their content, but I won't hold my breath that it will occur anytime soon. In the meantime, they'll continue to leave mega dollars on the table and while watching their antiquated business models crash and burn.

Justice DeLayed

Who knew that the currently defrocked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay would seek vindication on a technicality? After loudly proclaiming his innocence and seeking to blame the indictments on a vast left-wing conspiracy (see NY Times article here), the Hammer has dispatched his crack legal team to get him out of this mess on a technicality. The motions recently filed seek to vindicate DeLay by arguing, essentially, that the underlying conduct he engaged in supposedly wasn't illegal when he did it. In one particularly rich paragraph, DeLay claims that he is being indicted for the money laundering of "funds", but the funds in question where in the form of checks and checks do not meet the definition of "funds" under the Texas penal code. I suspect they still spend the same, though.

Nonetheless, whatever the merits of the case, we do know at least that DeLay's filing makes short work of the the major tenants of his professed innocence--that he did nothing wrong and that he is being victimized by the left. Perhaps he can skate on the technicality. Many criminals do. But always keep in mind that a finding of "not guilty" doesn't necessarily make one innocent.

Judy, Judy, Judy

Usually I’m quicker study than this but I have to admit, it took me way too long to get this whole Judy Miller/New York Times/Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson/Karl Rove/Scooter Libby thing. I attribute it to the fact that I’ve been out of the journalism game for too long, particularly as it is practiced by the so-called media elite in D.C. and the City.

At its core, the story is about the branding and marketing of the war in Iraq and the Administration’s dogged determination to crush any debate or dissent. The brilliant Frank Rich wrote about that in yesterday’s Times where he lays out the scary but true life story of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG that was fast at work selling the war in Iraq to the American people long before W claimed he had made up his mind. Here’s the link: http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/opinion/
16rich.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20
and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fFrank%20Rich

But while understanding the underlying story is of graver concern for the welfare of our nation, I think we should not lose sight of the train wreck that is now Judy Miller. After reading the Times story about the Miller debacle and Judy’s own unintentionally funny mea culpa (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html) I can now fully understand the Times’ angst. As some Times editors readily acknowledged, Judy Miller was not the ideal candidate for this kind of principle. Miller admits now that she got the whole WMD story wrong, blaming, typically, not herself but her sources. It was pretty clear, though, to everyone else in that newsroom and outside that Miller’s stories on WMD were not credible and that she had become a stooge, as it turns out, for the WHIG.

Sensing her career spiraling out of control, Miss Run Amok used the on-going special prosecutor investigation and her subsequent subpoena to determine the source of the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as the perfect opportunity to resurrect her flagging career on the back of the First Amendment. The problem, of course, was that this forced the hand of the Times, who now must realize how badly they were handled by Miller. In the first place, according to Miller’s own account, she’s not even sure if Libby ever revealed Plame’s identity to her. But that’s almost beside the point as it’s pretty clear that Libby had given a voluntary waiver to Miller about a year before she went to jail to allegedly protect that source. Miller’s claimed doubts about that waiver just don’t ring true, know matter how she spins the notion that Libby was truly telling her not to testify. Miller sounds like someone desperate to find a diversion. Frankly, Mary Richards heading to prison to protect her source on the old Mary Tyler Moore show was more credible.

The irony here, of course, is that had Miller just testified when first subpoenaed, her career would like have been saved. I think most folks would have ultimately given her a pass on the wrong WMD stories. Believe it or not, people still use yesterday’s newspaper to protect the hallway from dog droppings. But by falsely raising herself as the standard bearer for journalism, Miller has brought nothing but shame to the Times and herself. For that she doesn’t deserve any more plaudits. She deserves to be fired.