|
Jobs' open letter on DRM does indeed raise some profound questions. Fundamentally, he asks the labels why they are so dedicated to DRM when only 3% of the total music on iPods is covered by it. The rest comes from ripped CDs, or from pirated music. In either case, it is sitting unprotected on people's computers, available for sharing at the push of a button. He is asking -- since payment is already optional, why not concede it and make things easy for consumers?
But the real question for Jobs is: Do you have an explanation of how the music industry can survive as a vibrant creative force (rather than a mass amateur hour) if payment is totally optional?
The tone of the letter, like so many discussions of copyright, assumes the problem belongs to the labels, that the situation is copyright holders vs consumers. This is not so. The problem is a joint one for creators, middlemen, and consumers. The producers want to produce music; this requires money for support and reward for risk. Consumers want the music, which means they must have mechanisms to channel money to the creators. Destroy those mechanisms and you will destroy most of the creativity -- not all, to be sure, but most, and all of the best stuff.
The nature of the problem is obscured by the fact that there is a huge backlog of existing music produced under the old assumption that people would be required to pay to get it. This can be looted by P2P and the creators denied their expectations. In addition, music is supported by people who buy CDs, either because they don't want to bother with P2P, fear the viruses and spyware that accompany it, or out of moral obligation. There will also be some new music produced by ad support and patronage. Device makers, such as Apple, may find that they must subsidize creativity to persuade people to buy their toys. The crisis is in slow motion.
Jobs is arguing is that these mechanisms are sufficient, that they will keep enough revenue flowing to the creators even if payment is optional.
I don't believe it. In this scenario, over time, more and more people will come to resent the fact that they are paying for the free riders, and will cease to pay. Trusted P2P networks will develop. Ads and sponsorships will not make up the revenue shortfall. Vertical integration with device makers will not work because the device makers would not be able to keep the music from being ripped to other devices.
So, eventually, in a decade or less, all the Gen Yers who now accuse the the labels of greed will turn around and blame them for being so inconsiderate as to go bankrupt, and bemoan the fact that all the potential creators have gone off to engage in law professing or some other low trade.
At the point, there will be great clamor for effective IP protection that allows the industry to be rebuilt, and it will happen. Today's DMCA and contributory infringement doctrines will look ridiculously permissive.
So let us cut out this intermediate stage and figure out how to solve this joint problem without going through a decade of pain.
In the long run, DRM simply must be a big part of the solution, though this may take many possible forms. Personally, I think the main enforcement mechanisms will be DRM on both CDs and digital transfers combined with deep packet inspection of P2P transmissions and a filtering out of pirated content. At present, this idea seems unsettling, but faced with the alternative of truncated creativity the public will not only tolerate it but insist on it.
So the labels are correct to keep the option of DRM alive. As the stock of CD players turns over, it will be possible to introduce DRM into that medium, In the meantime, it is important that illicit transfers of music have at least some barriers. Sure, these can be cracked, but the principle is important. In the physical world, there is are legal and moral gradations between entering a house through an open door, opening a closed door, and breaking open a locked door. The same holds in the digital. As the saying goes, it is important to keep honest people honest and lazy people lazy.
Jobs could help out in some ways, primarily by permitting differential pricing. everyone would be helped if prices could be cut prices -- Bill Gates got rich by cutting the price of software and expanding the volume. If the price of music is low enough, then it becomes easier to get it legally than to take it. But this also requires a better system of micropayments. At the moment, I think, a huge chunck of the cost of a download is probably transaction cost.
The labels will probably experiment with some non-DRMed music just to see what happens. They certainly should do so, to get information about people's willingness to pay if it is optional.
But in the end there must be a new social compact among all the players on how to ensure continuing creativity. And I don't see how to get there from here without including DRM as a part of it.
posted by James DeLong @ 9:46 AM | DRM & Watermarks, etc.
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(6)
|
