|
|
Posted by Ablang on 07/15/07 23:21
Expert View: DRM-Free Comes at a Price
05.30.07
DRM should be eliminated, and the elimination should be retroactive.
By Tim Gideon
Apple's announcement that EMI's record catalog will be available
through iTunes, free of DRM (Digital Rights Management), is exciting
news for digital-music lovers. There will no longer be restrictions on
how many copies you can make of the files you buy, and those files
will play outside of the iPod-and-iTunes world without issue.
Speculation within the industry is that other major labels will follow
suit. Both David Pakman, CEO of eMusic (which has been DRM-free from
the beginning), and Avvenu CEO Richard French told me recently that
they believe audio DRM will be extinct in about a year. Our own Dan
Costa wrote a column a few weeks ago ("DRM Is Dead,") predicting the
same thing.
I'm no fan of DRM, so why am I still annoyed?
Well, two reasons: pricing and the damage done. First, Apple will be
offering these DRM-free tracks at a higher cost: $1.29 instead of 99
cents. Apple says the price is justified because it is not only
eliminating the DRM, but increasing the bit rate to provide better
sound quality.
Hmm. Let's just bypass the insulting fact that we've been paying for
lower quality all this time (since it's not a new gripe) and tackle
the real issues here: The increase in bit rate is minimal and will be
imperceptible to most ears. So, while you're ostensibly paying more to
get better sound quality (which is still not CD quality), what you're
really paying more for is the record label's "sacrifice." Since it's
letting you actually own your music files now, it wants extra cash.
I'm sure glad it doesn't work that way when I buy clothing, furniture,
or, um, CDs.
Now on to the damage done: those now inferior tracks that you bought
on iTunes over the past half-decade? They'll still have DRM and still
be "protected" (from your desire to share them). If Steve Jobs truly
believes DRM should be eliminated, the elimination should be
retroactive. This could be achieved by sending iTunes customers new
DRM-free versions of all of their previous purchases via an iTunes
update, or by updating the software to ignore all past DRM encryption.
It could be done, but I doubt it'll happen. The labels are pulling the
strings here, and for years now they've been getting fans to pay twice
or even thrice for the same music-all those "digitally remastered
limited editions"-usually bundled with "bonus material" that wasn't
good enough to be released on its own. What a treat! When DRM is
finally dead, "Higher Bit Rates" will be the "Limited Editions" that
companies turn to in order to sell a song again. I'm not arguing
against higher-quality files-I'm just arguing against charging more
for them. They could be sold at different bit rates for the same
price, allowing the consumer to choose between saving storage space
and higher fidelity.
Though DRM-free tracks are a step in the right direction, asking
people to pay more for the elimination of what never should have been
there in the first place is insulting. And the idea that these
slightly higher bit rates justify a 30 percent price increase? A
crock. As Pakman recently blogged, "The customer now decides which
music is successful and how much they are willing to pay for it."
Until higher bit-rate, DRM-free tracks are 99 cents, I won't be
buying.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2139983,00.asp
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|