Hopefully they will start to crack each other's software so that people can start transfering music between devices and apps. Patrick, this is what I meant in that last post of yours on this subject. I want a free-for-all where anyone can crack anyone's software to weasle their way into the interoperability game provided that they make a good faith effort to not break it for a "smash and grab" spree.

Without these guys going at it and making it possible for music and other products to move around effortlessly, the digital market very well may end up stifled in its longterm growth.

Mike, here's where you and I will always disagree. You take a consumer perspective, that you have a "right" to move content around and do whatever you want with it, and no law or technology should stop you. I can see where, if one has spent good money for something, one could think that way.

I view it from the perspective of the artist, who I firmly believe holds all "rights" to her content until she chooses to surrender them. She should, in my mind, be free to dictate what platforms will accommodate her content and which won't, and what use and flexibility each purchaser will gain at various price points.

I don't believe a consumer has a "right" to play a PlayStation game on an XBox. I don't believe a consumer has a "right" to take a Napster to Go subscription song, for which no individual download fee has been paid, and strip its DRM so that it can be burned onto a CD or given to friends, either one or a million.

You say you don't want people (hackers) to "break it for a 'smash and grab' spree." I'm glad. But the Boucher "fair use" bill and all other attempts to eliminate anti-circumvention restrictions count on everyone playing nice. Far better, in my opinion, to allow the market to continue to move toward interoperability and multiple consumer uses so circumvention becomes rather moot. This "nascent" series I'm doing is showing, I believe, that more content is being released, in more consumer-friendly and interoperable formats, every day.

After all, you bring up DRM here, but the MySpace-Snocap model actually offers DRM-free MP3s.

Here's something I posted elsewhere about the likelihood that MySpace or any other non-DRM music site will take over the "Studios" or gain prominence in digital music. Some folks argue that the cost savings in selling music directly to consumers will out-balance increase in piracy rates w/ these sites, resulting in a business model where artists can take more of the cut without the Studios and other middlemen. Well, I'm skeptical, as non-DRM MP3 downloads may increase piracy rates. More below...

*******
I’m not very astounded when someone neatly draws up a new business model and allocates “optimal” incentives to all parties involved, yet projected developments never materialize. There's often a miscalculation of incentives for those with the largest potential risks and profits (here, its the artists).

I’m not sure I buy (the) arguments that “DRM-encumbered music had the early lead because the largest incumbents insisted on it” as a reason why non-DRM music does not currently dominate, it may well be the reason why non-DRM music turns out to never dominate.

...I’m all supportive of businesses with lower margins that can force incumbents to lower prices (that’s “competition”), but I’m skeptical. Here’s why…

I’d still like to make sure current profit levels for artists can remain where they are with few inherent profit limitations from DRM-free downloads. Some artists may still feel that DRM will benefit them, and if thats not an option w/ eMusic and MySpace, they may still go to the Studios, or at least to Internet mediums that enable DRM as well as DRM-free MP3s.

If eMusic and MySpace get big in digital download markets, the Studios may yet dominate the music industry, as I don't see major artists needing to sell directly to users if they’re happy with their current paychecks. Is there any widespread evidence this is not the case. Will artists start doing their own promotional and marketing work because of this. Even if true, at most eMusic and MySpace may serve the lower and middle market artists, and those the Studios don't see enough profit potential in to offer contracts to. But I highly doubt they will replace the Studios.

Honestly, some of this (economic arguments for non-DRM MP3 downloads) sounds like a stealth argument against DRM clothed in language that portends to account for the needs of those with the most to lose (artists). The justification sounds like: "piracy already happens, so why not integrate it into the business plan and get rid of DRM which has costs more than it has done good, we'll use the reasoning that profits will still accrue to creators as reason to get rid of DRM."

If business models like eMusic and MySpace never turn out, it might be because incentives (of artists) enabled by DRM are underestimated.