DRM Debate

I had an idea the other day . . . Hey! Why all the shocked expressions? I get them every now and then. Annnnyway, There have been a lot of stories on the net and in the papers about DRM (Digital Rights Management).

On the one hand, you have the huge recording industry representing the rights and earning potentials of themselves and their artists.

On the other hand you have the consumers who would like to buy their music at a fair price (one time) and be able to use it on their various devices at home, work and school. Much the way you can with CD's and cassettes.

On one side of a coin in one of the hands, some people say that the music shouldn't cost as much because you don't get anything physical (just a computer file) so it is cheaper to produce and distribute.

On the other side of that coin, others say it should cost more (or should be bought more frequently) because files can be so readily copied (as opposed to CD's and cassettes).

On one side of another coin (possibly in the other hand), are downloading services that are linked to giant companies (like Apple and Microsoft) who want to assure that the downloaded music will play only on their own proprietary devices and who want to limit the number of times the music can be copied by the purchaser or limit the number of devices to which it may be copied (or both).

On the other side of that second coin are individuals within the downloading business who would like to do away with DRM's altogether, saying it would stimulate sales rather than deflate them.

On one side of a third coin (in . . . let's say the first hand) are the actual pirates who fall into two categories. First, the really bad guys with deep pockets and a lot of technology, so no matter what anybody does about DRM's, they will find a way to defeat it and sell the pirated music. And secondly are some punk kids who, though amateurs, are mini versions of the pirates.

On the other side of this third coin . . . well, you get the idea. There are a lot of factions fighting over the rights and ownership and profit in a presumably shrinking market. (Sales have actually gone down in a heavily controlled DRM environment.)

Now, I was watching Turner Classic Movies the other day and a couple of things hit me at the same time.

A) The movie was uncut (without commercials).
B) It would be really easy to copy it onto tape or DVR.
C) They rotate through their movie library much the same way a radio station rotates through their playlist.
D) It would be hard to sell because of the constant TCM logo at the bottom of the screen.

This meant that I could copy it for myself or some close friends and it would be commercially unfeasible to try to pirate because of it's availability for free and because of that damned logo.

So why can't the music industry do the same thing? Charge a basic cable type of pricing to provide access to the readily available music. And encode the music with a subsonic tag (that can't be stripped out of the music later) to identify it's source.

If people want to download a lot of music, then after a set number of downloads covered by the basic cable type fee, charge a per download fee similar to the current pricing. But with no further restrictions. And cut out this nonsense of proprietary licensing. If I buy it -- it is mine.

Everybody will be happy except the pirates and then I can get back to writing the funny stuff.


.