What I want is to be able to purchase content anywhere I choose and to be able to play that content on what ever device I choose. I want to be able to make digital copies for my own use. I want to be able to play the content without having to be connected to the internet when I play it. I want to be able to take content to a friend's house and watch it with them.
The problem with the business of intellectual property is that you need a system to protect that intellectual property. It is easy to do when you are in a business where companies need a license to operate. It is easy to find out what TV channel are playing your content. The content companies want to keep it that easy. The problem is that might kill their business.
The problem with a single DRM is that it would be easier to crack.
Above is why I never bought music from Microsoft. Something in the back of my head knew this was coming some day. If Microsoft did not rule the market they were going to leave the market. Microsoft is not really leaving the market, they just shifted to the Zune marketplace. All the MP3s in the Zune Marketplace are DRM free. Microsoft is not doing that bad of a thing here.
I know the people in the music industry do not see this as a problem. To them it is no different than switching from cassette to CD. The difference in the eyes of the customer was that upgrading to CD was getting value with that upgrade. Here the customer is not getting any additional value.
I think this is a good example of the music industry alienating it's customers. It is that alienation that keeps people from paying for your product. The story above is why I currently will not buy any music with DRM. It is all MP3s for me now.
George Kliavkoff, chief digital officer at NBC Universal had a great quote about pirated content and portable media:
If you look at studies about MP3 players, especially leading MP3 players and what portion of that content is pirated, and think about how that content gets onto that device, it has to go through a gatekeeping piece of software, which would be a convenient place to put some antipiracy measures," Kliavkoff said in an onstage interview at the Ad:Tech conference. "One of the big issues for NBC is piracy. We are financially harmed every day by piracy. It results in us not being able to invest as much money in the next generation of film and TV products."
Wow, this one is a little disturbing to me. This guy needs to know a little about technology. I cannot find his education listed on the web. Maybe he a lawyer and not an engineer. From this comment you can tell he has no idea what made the Apple iPod successful. It is successful because it is an open platform. I can put my content on it without having to have that content blessed by Apple. If I needed my content blessed by Apple, I would buy a different device.
I would be afraid of any antipiracy software on my portable media player. How is that player going to tell if the content it pirated? Will I be able to put my own content on my player? If I make the content will I have to have it blessed by someone? Will I not be allowed to put content from third parties on my media player?
Right now I have more than one way to get a TV show to my iPod. Being a TiVo User I can use TiVo Desktop Plus to transfer a show to my computer and from there to my iPod. Is that piracy? I am paying for the program, it has all the adds, NBC has not stopped TiVo for TiVoToGo yet.
I know this comment is not really about this generation of Portable media players. It is about the Media players like the iPod Phone and the iPod Touch. Players that are connected to the web. I know he wants to make sure those players have his approval. I know that he wants media players to be closed systems. Cell Phone companies are making people thing this is possible. I think it is a bad idea for everyone including content company. As you close off avenues to content getting to boxes, you like the reasons for people to buy your content.
I am not saying that is a good thing. I have read before that the labels want more pricing control when it comes to music sold on the iTunes music store. The labels want to be able to charge more for the latest albums and Apple has said no (sorry I do not have a footnote for this)
This is a strange game for Universal Music to play. Apple iTunes is the top electronic music store, but it has not taken over the music world yet. Electronic sales has not grown at the rate it was expected to grow. Getting rid of 15% of sales is a big thing, but if you think you can back another player in the electronic sales space it is worth the risk.
The problem with going against apple is DRM. The iPod has something like 72% market share for digital music players. It is larger if you look at the installed base. If you want to sell electronic music to most of your customers, you have to see it in MP3 format. Your customers with iPods will not be able to play it in a non-Fair Play DRM system. I do not see Universal selling non-DRM music.
What I don't know is how the average music fan makes buying decisions. Let's say that Fall Out Boy is putting out a new album. How many sales will they lose if they are not on iTunes? Some percentage of users will choose a different album on iTunes, but how many? Is it different for different artist? Is the risk of not signing the contract with iTunes worth it?
I want to know what Universal music's plan is. I do not think at will marketing to iTunes is a good plan on its own. I think there needs to be some other plan along with it. I wonder if Universal also sees it this way. I wonder if this is a sign of weakness for iTunes?
People are taking about the data embedded in the new DRMless iTunes. People do not have to worry about DRM, but they do have to worry about their e-mail address going with the file. That means if you give your DRM free file to anyone, you have to trust that they will not share it with the world.
This will be interesting to see what happens. I wonder how well people have to protect their files. If I leave my network unprotected and my files get shared every where, will I be responsible? Lets say my computer gets stolen, can I get sued if those files end up on the net? What if someone is being vindictive and shares my files without me knowing? In none of these cases did I share the file. I did not take action with malice of forethought. What would the copyright cops do to me in those situations?
I know that including the email address along with the file is a good idea. I know that this is a reasonable thing for copyright holders to ask for. I just want to make sure that a signal song from one person is going to get out into the open. It is just going to happen. The people who own the copyrights should only go after people who do this all the time.
I hate when people try to change language to fit there needs. Oh, consumers think that DRM is a bad thing, we need to start calling it something else. If we do that people might not realize that we are still controlling the rights of the content.
"I don't want to use the term DRM any longer," said Zitter, who added that content-protection technology could enable various new applications for cable operators. One example could be "burn-to-own DVDs," where a consumer would use a set-top box with a built-in DVD burner to record a movie onto an optical disc, thus eliminating the costly current process of pressing DVDs and distributing them physically at retail. Another possibility, says Zitter, is "early window exhibition," either in the form of making a movie available through video-on-demand (VOD) the same day as the home video release or allowing home theater users to pay extra to see a high-definition version of a theatrical release in the comfort of their home.
I really do not mind HBO not offering HD content On Demand. This is a market choice they are making. Other companies can provide HD content and HBO can miss out. They have to be able to measure how many subscribers are not signing up for HBO because of this.
What I don't like is the idea that they want cable providers and hardware companies to limit the use of their hardware because HBO is afraid of what people might do with their content. I do not want my hardware limited. I think this is where DRM gets the bad name you are trying to avoid.
Reading the comment above has a funny comment about "burn-to-own DVDs." People already think they have this right. They do not think that they would have to pay HBO extra money for home recording. Since they could do it with VHS and DVD, they are not expecting not to be able to do it with HD-DVD. I wonder what consumers will do when they find out.
I would really like this to come down to business choices. A movie studio would never refuse to screen a movie because there is a chance it might get bootlegged. Getting bootlegged is a cost of doing business. In the end, what HBO does not want is for the market to set the value of their product. They want to find barriers to keep the value of their content high. I think this is a mistake.
It is finally happened. It looks like one of the major record labels if finally breaking ranks. It appears that EMI will allow their music to be sold on iTunes without DRM. This is not really a surprise. People have been talking about this for months now. People have thought EMI would be the first company to break rank. They are the weakest of the major labels. People have thought that they would be the most likely to take the risk.
Will this be a typing point? This is hard to say. How to listeners, fans, and customers decide what music to buy. It has little to do with where they can buy it or what label the band it on. The number one people buy music is because they like it. If EMI does not release music that people like this will not help them. What it might help is with getting more people to pay for music they might get some other way.
This is a good start. I do not think that we are close to other companies joining EMI. I think that companies are going to resist a lot before they agree to also go without DRM. The number one thing customers can do is vote with our wallets. Lets all go and download songs from EMI when the DRM goes away.
It looks like HD DVD and Blu-Ray has been cracked. That did not take very long at all. I am not sure how long the industry predicted it would take. My guess is that they did not think it would happen before the formats got popular.
This is a great example of how a DRM system does not work correctly. A DRM system has to either have a public key like DVDs. The problem with public keys is that people have all the time in the world to break them. Very smart people try to break the keys just for the challenge. The other choice is to have a system where the keys are always being updated. The problem with this included having to have the device get updates and not being able to play all content on all devices.
In the end DRM is not going to work. There are too many holes. It is not the matter of building a better mouse trap. It is a matter to not treating your customers like rats. I do not think the content industry will learn this lesson anytime soon.
This means the music industry is losing more money putting DRM on music than it is saving by keeping sales. This is money that could be coming to the labels bottom lines. This money could be helping you. Instead you are wasting it. Just think of all that money you wasted suing people using P2P networks. That must have been a pretty penny.
I know that the music industry will come out against this report. They will say it is cutting into their bottom line. They will say that something has to account for the lack of sales. It could not be that the music coming out sucked and that the people running record labels are out of touch. It could not be that you had no idea how to promote your music on the internet until Myspace dropped. I think I am going to believe the study.
It looks like the forces of status quo in the music world are lining up against Steve Jobs in the fight over DRM. I expect the Record Companies will not just rollover to for Steve Jobs. My guess is that think the record labels think they have the control when it comes to iTunes and Apple.
Let me be clear: we advocate the continued use of DRM in the protection of our and of our artists’ intellectual property. The notion that music does not deserve the same protections as software, television, film, video games or other intellectual property simply because there is an unprotected legacy product available in the physical world is completely without logic or merit.
But let’s not lose sight of the core issue. By far the larger issue for consumers in the music industry is interoperability. As a content company, we of course want consumers to seamlessly access our music and to use the music they have purchased on any platform and with any service, physical or digital.
The issue is obscured by asserting that DRM and interoperability is the same thing. They are not. To suggest that they cannot co-exist is simply incorrect. At Warner Music, we continue to seek a balance between appropriate protections for our intellectual property and a robust and satisfying music experience for consumers. Interoperability sure would enhance that balance, while eliminating DRM would do just the opposite.
We will not abandon DRM, nor will we disadvantage services that are successfully implementing DRM for both content and consumers.
I recognize that there are interesting music business models that only work with strong DRM. Any kind of music rental service like Rhapsody only work DRM. You have to be able to turn off the music if the customer quits paying for it. The problem with this business model is that it depends on the music companies putting DRM an the rest of their music also. It is the only way money can be made off the business model.
Bronfman makes a classic mistake in his argument above. He claims that Music deserves the same protection as Movies, Software, or Television. He is saying that Intellectual Property is Intellectual Property no matter what the form. He is making the mistake of viewing music the way he wants to view music, not the way his customers want to view music. Most of the customers I know view all these forms as different from each other. That is what is important in the end.
I think Apple has more control than the companies recognize. I am not sure if the average person could tell you what label their favorite artist is on. The average record label might say this is unimportant. The record label controls distribution. A major artist would not need to be with a able to get their album on iTunes. If they cut out the record company, they might be able to take the smaller sales that would come from not having a physical CD.
Steve Jobs has called for an End to Music Copy Protection. Steve Jobs' essay it pretty interesting. Before I read the essay I thought this was pretty surprising. After I read it I could see where he was coming from. He would rather get rid of all DRM than open up FairPlay.
I will agree that DRM systems are bad for customers. It is bad because it makes the usability of products bad. It makes it so products cannot work with each other. It makes so companies have to twist like pretzels to get those products to work. It makes it that customers are screwed when those products do not work together.
The problem with DRM is that it is a drain on the economy. It is a greater drain then piracy. If people are going to pirate music the flaw is with the business model. The flaw is how people make money off the product. The flaw is how the artist get paid. In the end if the people who own intellectual property do not realize that we will all suffer.
The risk companies run with too much DRM is the customers will turn away from their products all together. In the end that is much worse than piracy.
I have been connecting up links over the last couple of days. I wish I had something to write about them, but I cannot come up with anything smart. Here are the links.
This story makes me a little happy. I do not like the idea of copy-protected CDs. I like having the physician CD and I like to use MP3s on my computer. I just wish this went to court. I would like to see a real judgment on this case. The record label was smarter then that.
