Years after the demise of the original Napster and openly available "free but legal" MP3 downloads music lovers and tech-geeks alike (and hell, just about everyone else too) still gripe about the up-and-coming evil that is DRM (Digital Rights Management). I've even seen Slashdotters complain about the Apple's DRM on iTunes downloads....
But, I bet they never imagined the iPod (and its immense popularity) may begin to contribute to the continued availablility of DRM-free music files...
Ethan Smith and Nick Wingfield wrote an article in this Wednesday's Wall Street journal entitled "In a Turnabout Record Industry Releases MP3s". Here they site several examples of big record companies (such as EMI and even Song BMG) giving up some ground when it comes to providing DRM-free digital music files. The article sited 5 artists on major labels that are now offering DRM-free MP3 files via YahooMusic. It is currently the convention of many labels to only sell digital music files that are restricted by Antipiracy software of some kind.
Why the turn around? Because most antipiracy measures prevent the most popular MP3 player in the world (the iPod, of course) from playing those files. While Apple has been widely criticized for not opening up the iPod to other file/DRM formats, it has remained steadfast in maintianing it's proprietary technologies for the iPod.
So what are we seeing here? More open MP3s being made avaialable because people are targeting the iPod nation? Whoda thunk? Personally, I think this was bound to start happening...the record companies have to break and this is only the begininning. Simply put DRM-laden digital media (pix and vids included) is simply tubby. It's a pain to worry about how many plays you have left on a file, or whether or not the file can do to a CD or an MP3 player. No one wants limitation on their personal digital media collections. And while digital song sales have risen to almost 150 million quarterly in the US, pirated files still make up an estimated 90% of total digital song files downloaded. People are willing to pay for music...that's not the issue here. What people don't want is for most of their money to go to big music labels and get restricted access to the products they purchase.
I think we're starting to see a positive turn-around in the digital music revolution. And while, not everything about the iPods dominance is positive, there is definately some good coming from it. Hats off to YahooMusic exec David Goldberg for widdling down the record companies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is a little off subject but I was watching one of those shows on VH1 about how much some singers make. I think when a band is first starting out they need the money from their sales but after you start making millions of dollars a month on promotional campaigns, I personally dont feel sorry if people dont pay for your music. They make enough money to feed a small country for months, but instead they invest in multiple BMWs and other worthless bling!
Hey, Steph, I totally agree with you in that the entertainment industry is WAAAY TOOO HUGE! I sincerely believe artists should be paid for their paaintings, their writings, and songs. Generally, I support artists more by going to concerts, rather than in buying CDs and DVDs....but I DO buy a CD if I think it will be worth it.
But really, the problem here isn't the artists at all (well in most cases). The really scrooge is the recording industry and agents and managers. There is too much beauracracy in all of it, and frankly I think it stunts real art today.
That aside, you point stands that many artist are probably too filthy rich...look at the pop and rap industries. I believe it is up to those individuals to recognize that society has allowed them to gain their wealth (through fan-ship). They have a duty apply their wealth responsibly and for the benefit of society...but hey...SOMEbody has to keep Ferarri in business too...
peace!
Thanks to the owner of this blog. Ive enjoyed reading this topic.
Post a Comment