September 29, 2008

We’d better talk about DRM

Posted by : Roger
Filed under : DRM, Mission, Pay for music

There is so much written about DRM, all I can do is add our distilled views of the matter:

  1. DRM is a very immature technology
  2. If DRM is applied to digital entertainment products it should be applied to all
  3. We are delighted to use technologically mature DRM as a method to protect copyright

The discussion goes like this. DRM is so complex because different computers (hardware) and networks (connections between hardware) and software (operating systems and code that ‘does stuff’) all work in different ways. That is why Microsoft which developed a ‘Plays for Sure’ DRM system did not use it on their zune player - they needed a different DRM for their portable player. Absurd, we say. Proof that DRM is an immature technology.

Conclusion: DRM is an immature technology, and it is too early to roll it out.

We had many formats over the past century: first wax cylinders, then acetate 78 RPM discs, then 45 RPM singles, then 33 1/3 RPM LPs, then Stereo, then Musicassettes, then 8-Track cartridges, then CDs, then Downloads, then SuperAueio CDs and many other formats I can’t think of right now (like 4-way stereo for a few moments in the 1970s). The progression should have been: 78s, LPs, Cassettes, CDs, Downloads. But because Downloads are digital, the big companies said - “Oh, well yes, of course, we can slap DRM on Downloads, can’t we?”  They did this in isolation, forgetting that a CD of the Rolling Stones is equivalent to the Master tapes in Abbey Road. Why put DRM just on the download? Why not all digital formats? Let the technology mature, then use it everywhere. But do not use it when the technology is not ready. That’s what we think.

Conclusion: DRM is immature technology, and should be applied to ALL formats when it is a mature technology (yes, that includes copyrighted material whether audio, video, TV, Film, Games)

So that is why we would love to use DRM on Classical.com when it is mature. Because we believe that if all currently available formats have DRM and it is truly interoperable, then copyright owners and artists will make more money. We believe that is good. Artists need money. Their revenue from recordings has plummeted. We love artists, and wist to be a conduit of royalty income to them, from sales of their wonderful recordings.

Conclusion: we want to be the leaders in sensible DRM as soon as the technologies are mature and interoperable between devices.

So what does the mumbo-jumbo of that last conclusion mean exactly? [Yes, I admit I have been so immersed in this ridiculous verbiage I do actually know what it means]. It means that record label owners should insist on DRM being universal - when the technology is ready. Label owners should not let one company (eg. iTunes) use a DRM technology that is proprietary, lock out other retailers, and establish a type of monopolistic control of the market through a proprietary DRM. They call it Fairplay when in fact it is un-Fairplay.

So that’s enough wordplay, and let’s walk away from the whole argument and get some sanity listening to music Recommendations on www.Classical.com- enjoy the msuic itself.

 

… Oh, and lest I forget, the important part of this argument develops as follows: if there is no DRM and we go LP, CD, Download as a simple evolution, there will be less piracy because the music is available and people do not need to steal it. But we admit that the music has not been available for so long that it is hard to get people to stop stealing. So make it available through respected retailers, work on DRM technology, then apply DRM everywhere.

Viewing 13 Comments

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

Recent Posts