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.
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.
posted by Gary Benz @ 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home