Why DRM Will Kill Mobile Music

So it turns out Russell and I were both thinking about music today -- great minds etc. etc. I want to follow up his earlier comments with some stuff I've been thinking about, brought into focus by something that happened to me yesterday. I was in a record store here in Austin, and I saw the CD of a band I've been hearing on XM and net radio stations that I've been wanting to check out. I was looking at it, flipped it over, and was presented with a compatibility notice detailing the restrictions caused by the CD's DRM -- the first time I've been confronted by something like this. It said that the CD could only be ripped in Windows Media Player, and would only work with MP3 players supporting its DRM, and could only be copied three times or something along those lines. I knew this stuff was out there, I'd just never seen it on something I was thinking about getting.

Although none of this would have been a problem for me, I still didn't buy the CD -- I'm not trying to come off as an activist or agitator, but I've got no interest in making a record label think that, as a consumer, I think that sort of thing is ok, because it's not. It's just stupid. What are we coming to when CDs need compatibility statements? And why should a record label get to dictate on what equipment I play music I buy? Apparently I'm not the only person that feels this way.

The upshot of all this is that you've got the record industry bitching about how file sharing -- and now CD burning -- is destroying their industry, therefore they need stronger DRM. As is par for the course, they've got it backwards: what's going to destroy their businesses is DRM.

Story after story laments how "incompatibility" is slowing the growth of digital music. That's slightly disingenuous: what's hurting things is incompatible DRM, which itself is an obstacle the record companies implemented. Companies like to complain that Apple won't license their DRM technology, but why is it there in the first place? Not because Apple likes DRM, but because record companies insist on it. So if labels aren't happy about this "incompatibility" and think it's hurting things. get rid of the problem by dropping their demands for DRM.

A parallel problem is that DRM often isn't used to "protect" music, it's used as a form of lock-in by device manufacturers and service providers. For instance, if somebody's bought a bunch of music from iTunes, what kind of MP3 player will they buy -- an iPod, or one that can't play their music? The same thing will play out in mobile as service providers, labels and operators all jockey for top position on the food chain. This doesn't really benefit anybody, least of which the end user.

What's funny about all of this is that the DRM doesn't work anyway. The latest Foo Fighters CD features similar copy protection, but that didn't stop it from topping the file-sharing charts. Not only that, you've got bands and labels telling people how to circumvent the DRM -- the Dave Matthews Band tells buyers to rip the CD through Windows Media Player, then burn a copy with it, then rip the copy into iTunes to get the music onto an iPod. Just so we're clear: you've got one of the artists with DRMed CDs telling people how to work around the DRM and make "unprotected" MP3 files of the songs, with one of the labels giving the same advice. Why bother having DRM if you're going to tell people how to get around it? If that's not a tacit admission of its ineffectiveness, I don't know what is.

(Of course, they like to act like this isn't of their doing and point the finger at Apple: "Please note an easier and more acceptable solution requires cooperation from Apple, who we have already reached out to in hopes of addressing this issue. To help speed this effort, we ask that you use the following link to contact Apple and ask them to provide a solution that would easily allow you to move content from protected CDs into iTunes or onto your iPod rather than having to go through the additional steps above." Well, if you didn't put the DRM there in the first place...)

Now, how this all affects mobile is that there will be a huge tide of MP3 players from a number of different vendors coming into the market, in the form of music-enabled phones. So what's going to happen when you've got all these different phones being billed by carriers as iPod killers or replacements and people come to find out their music won't play on them, or they can only listen to music that's been bought from one specific store or service? They're going to get pissed off, that's what's going to happen. They won't buy music that's tied to a specific device or has onerous limitations on what they can do with it -- which will probably rule out any carrier's download store from being a success. Regardless of how the record labels see things, people want to own their music, and owning music means being able to do with it what you like, and play it on whatever device you want. This means that vendors that focus on syncing, rather than playing along with carriers' dowload shop dreams, will be the winners. Few operators understand this, though, and their stranglehold on the retail channel means it's going to be hard for manufacturers to succeed.

The RIAA likes to say that file-sharing costs them sales, a statement based on the completely flawed assumption that every person that illegally downloads a song would have paid for it. This simply isn't true for any number of reasons, while there have been plenty of musicians who have gained new fans from file sharing. The reality of the situation is that pointless, stupid, ineffective DRM is going to cost them more sales than any file-sharing network.

Comments

[Scote]

I'm not sure that people won't pay to "rent" music as opposed to buying it. But one thing does seem certain, people don't want to have to pay twice for the same music!

Of course, my theory is slightly flawed since people will pay up $4 for a ring tone when the whole song is only $0.99...

[mick]

I've created a blog to explore ideas of how we can create a open source way of making music work.

http://wheel.blogs.com/kesho/

Just getting started.

[Joe]

"The latest Foo Fighters CD features similar copy protection, but that didn't stop it from topping the file-sharing charts."

How does that show that DRM doesn't work? If anything, it shows that users aren't going to complain about draconian restrictions on the music they buy, no?

[adam]

so we lose the big labels and the music industry gets a complete overhaul and the uptight prickwads running the industry no longer are, generations cycle, evolution trudges on. it sucks, but it wont stop, it's the end of a dynasty. buckle your seat belts.

[mick]

I think it does show that it doesn't work. People are voting with their wallets.

[Bob]

You argument against DRM is unpersuasive. There are two equally valid solutions to the problems you pose regarding fragmentation across different platforms:

1. No DRM.
2. One single monopolistic DRM standard across all platforms.

Obviously your argument needs more work if such diametrically opposed solutions are equally valid.

[Marlin]

isn't having One single monopolistic DRM standard across all platforms the same as having none? And what the record commpanies say about people that download free music would buy if it wasn't free is bull! for some if they can't get it free they just don't get it! besides the record companies still make more money than anyone else, the only reason they are complaining is that they ar not getting the millions more they think they should. they'er just greedy!!!!!to bad ya' can't say it to their face!

[Scote]

"Obviously your argument needs more work if such diametrically opposed solutions are equally valid."

Why? Just because the two conclusions you posit are opposite doesn't mean that Carlo is mistaken.

[sedgy]

remember the arguments on VHS vs Betamax. And then remeber how CD and DVD caught on like wildfire. And what happended when the DVD players became multiformat .... change is inevitable here lol the real suckers are the ones buying into DRM now, ipod today ipax tomorrow :) joy

[Gen Kanai]

Why don't you tell the Japanese customers of KDDI's AU platform who are enjoying 10 million downloaded songs that DRM will kill mobile music?

http://www.kddi.com/english/corporate/news_release/2005/0617/

10 million downloads in 6 months. DRM? What DRM?

[The 15-Minute Hipster]

Thanks for an excellent post. You articulated exactly why I'll pay $28 to buy a CD as an import rather than download it off the iTunes store. The bulkiness and poor usability of most DRM is inexcusable.

[Paul Whitaker]

Given your interest in this topic you may be interested in this blog.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/

Mr Lessig is a key guy working on the Creative Commons license and his book "Free Culture" is really good. At least what I've read of it so far.

[Carlo Longino]

Joe -- if the point of the DRM is supposedly to stop file-sharing, I would say that having a song from a "protected" CD as one of the most popular on file-sharing networks is a clear indication the DRM has failed to stop the file-sharing.

Bob -- I disagree. All the DRM does, even a single standard, is frustrate users. DVDs had a single standard, and it's not done a lot to stop them being copied.

Gen -- What happens when those users want to listen to those songs on an iPod or MP3 player, or buy something from the similarly popular iTunes Japan store (http://www.kanai.net/weblog/archive/2005/08/11/19h31m02s) and want to listen to it on their phone?

[Mike Rhee]

Carlo-
I think some of your points invalidating DRM are true. Currently, it's mostly used as a tool for exclusivity in both software and hardware, limiting the user's ability to use music freely. But the problem is no different than the evolution of the phonograph to the cassette or the cassette to the CD. As we all move towards a physically intangible digital medium of music, each of our personal collections are going to be slowly decimated. We have to deal with that. I know some people who are still "getting around" to converting their LP collections. Sometimes it's hard to let go, I know. As far as DRM goes, it's still a technology in it's early phases. Eventually the choices will narrow down, by nature of the market. We'll have to see if the best technology prevails.

I think your overall argument that DRM is choking the future of digital music is flawed, primarily because it's grounded in the now fading era of the LP. A record used to be something you owned, could physically touch, and look at, unfold. The idea of the album as a physical entity is dying. But with that, we enter a realm of access to music that's unlimited, instant, and unbounded by physical or temporal limitations. Take the digital rental music service pardigms that are out there now; Rhaphsody, Yahoo, Napster. These services take the ownership element out of music, an element that didn't belong in the art form anyway. I think people shirk from the idea of renting music because we lose the tangible element. Even psychologically, it's kind of weird. At least with an iTunes purchase we can rest assured the songs will be there for as long as we maintain the file on some storage medium. Using digital music is going to require a shift in mindset for all of us who grew up buying CD's and leafing through the booklets while it spun in our players. But the idea of sharing music as a digital community, constantly circulating new songs that link to other new songs, passing over one album to the next, finding new artists, all without the constrictions of availability or individually purchasing each record, is a fascinating idea. This utopian music fantasy is a ways off, I know. But if this is where music is heading, it's going to be an exciting place.

[Dogger]

"Obviously your argument needs more work if such diametrically opposed solutions are equally valid."

Obviously your grasp of logic needs more work if you think that the above statement is valid.

[Master Cheeze]

I am a local moron. But I can say with out any knowledge about DRM that something that smells like a bad thing usually is a bad thing. I don't necessarily condemn it, however, I think there is a hassle factor that has to be acknowledged. I mean let's look at the average joe, I don't have a padlock on my fridge, my drinks and other stuff like Mel Gibson in the "Conspiracy Theory" movie. Why? because it's stupid. I do lock my house, it feels safe. But isn't DRM a little like having someone else's locks on every little piece of software that you own? I think if they are going to go all ape, they should extend cool services like, I don't know, re-issue you CD's for life. You only have to buy one copy and you will always have access to it from their archives anywhere. Then this "Music" service is available at the gym where you work out, at work, or at home, or on your TV. It has a continous count of how many times you listen to it. Maybe, they offer you a special discount if you have a history of buying during certain times or from certain authors alot. I mean with the advent of TIVO, advertisers are hurting to get products to the consumer. Businesses need to rethink their business models from telling people about the products and services to providing services that advertise themselves. I could think of more, but I just thought that needed to be said. I mean really, look at Divx, who did they think they were making us pay for the RIGHT to view a movie again? It's like a slap in the face or a knee to the groin! People don't pay because they like spending money, they pay because something they saw had value.

[Starxxon]

Remember that the iPod plays MP3's and that's why this is different from mobile phones. It's also because of that that the "iPod Tax" concept doesn't make sense. "iTunes Music Store RIAA imposed Tax" would be more appropriate.

As for mobile music being big in Japan, 10 millions downloads in 6 months?

Apple sold 1 million songs in FOUR DAYS when they unveiled the iTMS.

While working on a survey from some company, we've found that most people don't want to listen to music on their cell phones. Also, most people are getting really annoyed at all the extra features pushed by cell phone companies.

I guess that all the cool kids could prove me wrong (they like these "features"), but that's why Apple has this partnership with Motorola, just in case :)

[Starxxon]

oops, that should have read:

Apple sold 1 million songs in FOUR DAYS when they unveiled the iTMS in JAPAN.