I had a discussion on AIM about DRM…
… and have figured out where I stand. Here’s one of my message’s to a friend:
“Yes, I agree that creative property (IP), is central to our economy, but I don’t believe fist-tight control (aka, DRM) is the way to go about it. Take RadioHead for instance — they released their last album for free (0$), and have made millions from people who decided that it was worth paying for. We need to find business models that don’t contradict consumer’s rights and freedoms, and instead find ways to compensate those who should be duly compensated. Is a recording really worth paying for, or is the singing of the song, in person, in front of the live audience, really what people want? I don’t know, but I know people want to give their money to the artists. How much money do you think, per CD, goes to the artist, and how much goes to the RIAA? In a world where we don’t need CD’s to distribute media to the masses, why should we be paying an obsolete conglomerate for a service they no longer provide? In my opinion, the RIAA is drowning in a failing business model, and are unsuccessfully trying to force their value upon their consumers through DRM and legal action.”
I was a bit surprised when that came out because, for an AIM message, that’s not the usual fair. I instantly said, “Wow, this is blogable!”
Without detailing too much of my previous discussion, I was hoping to get some separate opinions. Is DRM the way to go when protecting our creative content — and protecting our creators? Or is there something different, another way, perhaps?
I would wager that there are literally thousands of artists on the ‘Net that release their music for free to try and get “known.” You know about RadioHead because the conglomerate they signed onto invested millions, if not more, to negotiate radio contracts, market their music outside the UK, and make their band a household name. That is not something the group could’ve done when they first started. Which is likely why the signed with EMI in the first place. Now, IMHO, EMI deserves to get a return on that investment.
Now to turn the discussion to DRM. The technology itself isn’t a good or bad thing; as with anything, it’s how it’s used that really matters. I do not believe that by buying a song/album entitles you to do whatever you want with it. The terms of use are strictly up to the copyright holder in addition to the rights granted by fair-use. The problem, IMHO, is that people see music/movies/etc as nothing more than bits to be downloaded, and since copying it doesn’t “cost” anything why pay for it. It is very easy to forget the cost that went into recording and marketing the album or making and releasing the movie. The anonymity that the ‘Net seems to provide makes this even easier to forget. Unfortunately, if no one paid for anything most movies and songs would no longer be made as the artists would find some other way to make a living.
Unfortunately most people are not altruistic. I’ll take your RadioHead example, analysis of the first 29 days of availability showed that only 38% of the global market were willing to pay anything at all. Taking that and the ease of copying this stuff I don’t see an alternative to DRM.
The labels do need to wake up and figure out that the physical market is dying and they need to find a more universal method of delivering their content to the masses. iTunes is a good first step, and I have never actually run up against their DRM restrictions, but the industry needs to do more.
the problem with DRM is it dosen’t actually work. You can tell because every thing is avaliable from torrent sites. The only modratelly effective solution has been sueing people into complience. Also you have to relize if you wanted to you could record all you off the radio legally. So as a socity we don’t see music priatcy as wong.
I’m not sure I agree with that. I think a good analogy is speeding. Everyone knows it’s wrong, but they do it anyway because they don’t think they will get caught.
People fail to realize that the record industry made Radiohead and gave them the financial support to develop into a world class act.
There is no way, if they were just now releasing Pablo Honey for pay-what-you-want that they would make millions.
I just realized Shawn had already said what I said. i agree with that guy