DRM and You
My first true post on here is going to be about DRM, or "Digital Rights Management," and what it means for the consumer.
Chances are that you have heard of DRM before, but did not take major notice of it until the Sony XCP affair. While I won't be getting into that today, I will discuss what DRM is, how it works, and why you should care about it, regardless of what certain executives at Sony might think.
When the original idea of copyright was introduced, the thought was that artists (writers, painters, etc.) would create works to satisfy their natural urge to do such things. In an effort to reward such artists for their work, the idea of a limited copyright was allowed, so that artists could make money off their works until a reasonable amount of time had passed, after which it would be put into the public domain.
The primary concept that held copyright together was the idea that the ability to copy was extremely limited. With books, it would be difficult to copy each individual word and create new "bootleg" books, if you will. Artworks of all kinds faced similar constraints, even as late as the 1980's, when audio casette tapes and VHS came about, as these produced low-quality copies of original materials that were often unsatisfactory. People relied on publishers and labels to produce and publicize their works.
Now we move into today. With the addition of simple components to a computer, nearly identical copies can be made of music and video, with little or no loss in quality. In addition, the Internet makes it possible to quickly distribute music to a wide audience for relatively little cost. Computers make it easy to produce one's own music very easily and inexpensively.
These things can be good or bad. Good in the sense that now anybody, regardless of whether or not they have the backing of a publisher or label, can get into making and selling artwork. Bad because piracy of such materials is increasingly easier and more widespread.
This is where DRM comes in. In order to restrict the piracy of such materials, labels have begun to place what's known as "Digital Rights Management" on their CDs in order to prevent the copying of music. However, this DRM is often overly restrictive, trampling on the users' fair use rights (as established in The Betamax Case before the Supreme Court in the early 1980's) and causing overall instability and other issues. This is where the major conflict with DRM is.
The worst part is that this DRM does not actually stop piracy. For example, it is easily stopped on the Windows line of operating systems by holding down the [Shift] key on the keyboard while inserting the CD. The DRM has no effect at all on the Mac or Linux operating systems. Other systems of DRM were as easy to defeat as using a Sharpie marker on the correct portion of the CD, or other simple methods. The people that the companies are trying to stop from pirating are not being affected. The only effect this has is to limit the ability of music that less tech-savvy users "own." I put "own" in quotation marks because in reality these days, people do not own their copies of music or movies, they are simply "licensing" a copy. When you purchase a piece of software and you agree to a EULA (End User License Agreement), you are most likely agreeing to a license to use the software in a specific way. If you truly owned the copy, you could do whatever you wished with it, including loaning it to friends and making copies.
In my view, the primary issue is that the large role that the labels play in music is outdated. Their business model no longer makes sense in our world. They spend roughly $3 per CD to make, give the artist $0.20, and then take the rest for themselves, supposedly for promotion which is done primarily by radio stations and music-related television networks, which are owned by these companies anyway. In this day and age, the production and distribution of music can be quickly and cheaply done online. The only thing the labels can do is produce physical CDs for those who want them, and to promote the artist.
What surprises me most is that even when a free solution such as the Internet is available, many people prefer to take the high road and buy the CD, not only to feel like they own a copy, but also to support the artist. With or without this DRM, some people will make copies freely via such things as the old Napster or KaZaA or other peer-to-peer services. However, many others will continue to buy and use music as they do today. What this indicates is that people are willing to support artists they like, and I am no exception. The biggest problem appears to be the obscene cost of music. A true artist would want to sell more albums at a lower profit, as it could very well draw more money and more listeners. Providing cheap CDs to people (and remember, the cheaper they are the more they can buy) makes them more likely to want to spend money on live shows, bonus material, clothing, and other, more profitable things for the artists.
But the labels don't want to see that happen, because if these things were to happen, they would be out of business, and with good reason. The labels are obsolete in their current form. I believe that they know this and are using the power they have to extend their lives as long as possible. Their time has come, and it is imperative that we take a stand against them. They seek to make obscene profits for themselves while giving the artists little money from their record sales.
Why do we insist on supporting the label and not the artist? I, for one, am currently boycotting commercial music, because I feel bad for the artists that are not getting their fair share. I know many people do not want to give up their music, so here are some tips.
Chances are that you have heard of DRM before, but did not take major notice of it until the Sony XCP affair. While I won't be getting into that today, I will discuss what DRM is, how it works, and why you should care about it, regardless of what certain executives at Sony might think.
When the original idea of copyright was introduced, the thought was that artists (writers, painters, etc.) would create works to satisfy their natural urge to do such things. In an effort to reward such artists for their work, the idea of a limited copyright was allowed, so that artists could make money off their works until a reasonable amount of time had passed, after which it would be put into the public domain.
The primary concept that held copyright together was the idea that the ability to copy was extremely limited. With books, it would be difficult to copy each individual word and create new "bootleg" books, if you will. Artworks of all kinds faced similar constraints, even as late as the 1980's, when audio casette tapes and VHS came about, as these produced low-quality copies of original materials that were often unsatisfactory. People relied on publishers and labels to produce and publicize their works.
Now we move into today. With the addition of simple components to a computer, nearly identical copies can be made of music and video, with little or no loss in quality. In addition, the Internet makes it possible to quickly distribute music to a wide audience for relatively little cost. Computers make it easy to produce one's own music very easily and inexpensively.
These things can be good or bad. Good in the sense that now anybody, regardless of whether or not they have the backing of a publisher or label, can get into making and selling artwork. Bad because piracy of such materials is increasingly easier and more widespread.
This is where DRM comes in. In order to restrict the piracy of such materials, labels have begun to place what's known as "Digital Rights Management" on their CDs in order to prevent the copying of music. However, this DRM is often overly restrictive, trampling on the users' fair use rights (as established in The Betamax Case before the Supreme Court in the early 1980's) and causing overall instability and other issues. This is where the major conflict with DRM is.
The worst part is that this DRM does not actually stop piracy. For example, it is easily stopped on the Windows line of operating systems by holding down the [Shift] key on the keyboard while inserting the CD. The DRM has no effect at all on the Mac or Linux operating systems. Other systems of DRM were as easy to defeat as using a Sharpie marker on the correct portion of the CD, or other simple methods. The people that the companies are trying to stop from pirating are not being affected. The only effect this has is to limit the ability of music that less tech-savvy users "own." I put "own" in quotation marks because in reality these days, people do not own their copies of music or movies, they are simply "licensing" a copy. When you purchase a piece of software and you agree to a EULA (End User License Agreement), you are most likely agreeing to a license to use the software in a specific way. If you truly owned the copy, you could do whatever you wished with it, including loaning it to friends and making copies.
In my view, the primary issue is that the large role that the labels play in music is outdated. Their business model no longer makes sense in our world. They spend roughly $3 per CD to make, give the artist $0.20, and then take the rest for themselves, supposedly for promotion which is done primarily by radio stations and music-related television networks, which are owned by these companies anyway. In this day and age, the production and distribution of music can be quickly and cheaply done online. The only thing the labels can do is produce physical CDs for those who want them, and to promote the artist.
What surprises me most is that even when a free solution such as the Internet is available, many people prefer to take the high road and buy the CD, not only to feel like they own a copy, but also to support the artist. With or without this DRM, some people will make copies freely via such things as the old Napster or KaZaA or other peer-to-peer services. However, many others will continue to buy and use music as they do today. What this indicates is that people are willing to support artists they like, and I am no exception. The biggest problem appears to be the obscene cost of music. A true artist would want to sell more albums at a lower profit, as it could very well draw more money and more listeners. Providing cheap CDs to people (and remember, the cheaper they are the more they can buy) makes them more likely to want to spend money on live shows, bonus material, clothing, and other, more profitable things for the artists.
But the labels don't want to see that happen, because if these things were to happen, they would be out of business, and with good reason. The labels are obsolete in their current form. I believe that they know this and are using the power they have to extend their lives as long as possible. Their time has come, and it is imperative that we take a stand against them. They seek to make obscene profits for themselves while giving the artists little money from their record sales.
Why do we insist on supporting the label and not the artist? I, for one, am currently boycotting commercial music, because I feel bad for the artists that are not getting their fair share. I know many people do not want to give up their music, so here are some tips.
- Go to live events. There's nothing quite like a live event. The artist gets a majority of the money from those and you get to hear your music. It's a win/win!
- Listen to independent artists. My personal favorite artist, John Vanderslice, is an independent artist. He is not affiliated with a major label and even his CD sales go primarily to him.
- Buy used CDs. Money from these sales do not go to record labels, as these sales have already been made. This is a cost-effective legal way to continue to enjoy commercial music, even if you have to wait a few months to buy that new CD.
posted by Trip @ 11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home