Well, Nick is right this time, and so is Steve Jobs.

In answer to your question about "what is the model" I would simply point to the success of the site www.allofmp3.com. It is successful, because the music is priced right and it offeres what users want-unencumbered mp3 files. It just an example of a grey-market doing the market research for free, which everyone will benefit from, eventually..

e_f, while I typically side with your views, using allofmp3.com as a model is bad rhetoric. It was hosted in Russia, under a different set of copyright laws. It would clearly be illegal if hosted in the U.S. and thus is a poor choice for any U.S. policy debates.

It would clearly be illegal if hosted in the U.S. and thus is a poor choice for any U.S. policy debates.

??? Unless those policy debates are about changing the law, surely? Would you discount the example of a foreign legal system in which slavery has been abolished when considering how to amend your own legal system to abolish slavery? Of course not.

What do you think of Nick Carr's contention that "DRM has little or no effect on piracy?" How much do you expect music industry revenues to fall if they abandon DRM? 10%? 50%? 90%?

I ask because I haven't seen you forthrightly address the darknet critique that undergirds Nick Carr's argument. If that argument is right--if the vast majority of piracy occurs over P2P networks, which aren't affected by DRM--then why would you think that DRM will avert the impending music catastrophe?

The statement that "DRM has little or no effect on piracy" is not necessary the right focus. DRM, and the DMCA, deter piracy sufficiently to facillitate business models. I believe Apple played with this little phenomenon when deciding to make MP3s playable on the iPod.

Asking how much revenue would fall without DRM is a blind question. Prices and offerrings would be adjusted to accomodate the lack of DRM.