Home Page
02. 1.2007 (previous | next)
Music Markets

Press stories say the record labels are considering releasing music in unprotected form. DRM Watch is skeptical, noting:

The logic goes something like this: digital music sales are up but not enough to offset the decline in CD sales. Therefore, to increase digital music sales, the best hope is to make digital products more attractive by jettisoning DRM and making music files freely copyable.

This is going to boost digital music revenue? We'd love to see the assumptions, models, or research on which this seemingly bizarre assertion is based. Where are the studies that show, for example, the effect of existing -- or hypothetical better future -- DRM on piracy and compare that to the rate at which overly restrictive DRM drives people to illegitimate means of obtaining digital music?

DRMW thinks DRM will get better, but sees no path to its disappearance. Nor do I.

Reporters as a class seem to assume that DRM is bad and that the labels should get rid of it, but they are a bit unclear on exactly how the industry or the artists would make any money if all music were freely transferrable. Do they think consumers would suddenly see the light? "Well, since you people are now being so nice, we will pay you voluntarily." Yeah, right! Remember those folks who hoped to make a living letting people pay for software if they liked it? Don't see a lot of them around lately, do you? Only a reporter or an academic could regard this as a viable business model for music.

posted by James DeLong @ 1:56 PM | Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(1)


Comments

You're exactly right. The worst part of it is that journalists actually have a stake in all this too. Behind only musicians, they are the ones whose livelihoods are most threatened right now by our culture's mass disregard for copyright. Every time some blog or message board posts the full text of a newspaper story -- keeping clicks away from that paper's website -- the journalism biz takes another blow.

I've never really understood the newspaper industry's passiveness in policing the Net for infringement. The LA Times and Washington Post successfully sued FreeRepublic.com awhile back, but that seems to have been about it. Don't these guys understand the damage?

Posted by: Tom at February 3, 2007 6:36 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page