Attempts To Stop Music Sharing Pointless?

job0 writes "An interesting paper (Word document) has been submitted by some Microsoft employees (although they are careful to state that that the views are theirs and not necessarily Microsoft's) to the 2002 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management stating that attempts by the record industry to stop music copying will fail simply because a) the growth and availability of affordable broadband and cheap data storage devices and b )ability of users to circumvent any DRM measures means that the number of people willing to swap is growing and will soon outstrip attempts to shut them down. The paper goes to suggest that the record industry should concentrate their efforts on trying music cheaper and easier to get hold off. I wonder if Hilary and friends have had a read. The BBC is also carrying the story." (OpenOffice has no problem with the paper, btw.)

Comments

therefore...

[erikdotla]

Users can circumvent everything... except Palladium! That's right, our patented DRM technology is the ONLY thing that our report indicates will be immune to these devilish file-sharing schemes! Sign your record label up today before your business goes to pot, and recieve a free Microsoft Toaster! (Requires MS Bread and an MS Power Converter, best served on MS Plates with MS Utensils.)

Of course it's pointless

[Blackneto]

Trying to stop any popular activity brings more problems than intended. I'll use as an example Prohibition of Alcohol in the USA. It was a big boost to Organized Crime.
Who knows what kind of problems the MPAA is making for itself by going after something that has been done since recording devices were made available to consumers.

Re:Of course it's pointless

[dkhoo]

Your comparison to Prohibition is very apt. It is the professional piracy syndicates that the RIAA and MPAA should be most afraid of. The more effective their DRM, the more it plays into the hands of organized crime.

Let's say that PERFECT DRM were achieved, down all the way to the speakers, microphones and recording equipment. The only way to overcome this would be:

1. Get a soundproofed professional recording studio, the best possible DRM speakers. Strong encryption forces this.

2. Develop high-quality illegal non-DRM microphones and recording equipment.

3. Rerecord the tracks and burn them to non-DRM CDs.

4. Sell them on the black market to support the expense of the above.

5. PROFIT!

With digital technology (TM), generational losses are limited to just one generation!

Guess who are the ones who have the capability to do this? That's right. Organized crime. By using DRM to shut down file sharing, the RIAA and MPAA force the possible economic benefits from technology out of the hands of the consumer, into the hands of -- not themselves! -- but the mob.

Prohibition all over again. They never learn.

Re:Of course it's pointless

[Bios_Hakr]

I'm not really sure where you are going with this reference to radio. Radio has nothing to do with mp3. When I buy a CD (which happens rarely), I convert it to mp3 and drop it into a directory on my hard drive. When I go to a LAN party, it is shared out along with ISOs (I create custom ISOs of my games and include the latest patches and nocd cracks, mainly because I hate looking for a CD to play a game) of my latest games. If someone wants an mp3, they take it.

The difference between this and radio, is that the person obtaining the mp3 from me never paid the license fee to the copyright holder, but he still has a permenant copy of the song. OK, you could record the song from the radio, but the quality would be crappy and most stations talk at the beginning of the song and fade another song into the end. If you listen to the radio, the station is paying the copyright holder for you. If i'm not mistaken, the fee can be quite high for the broadcaster.

I guess you could make an argument about my purchacing the disc pays the license for all the people I give the song to, but that's not really true in relation to radio.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: Radio is _not_ free. Your fee is being paid by someone else.

BTW, the reason I share anything I buy with someone else is: The people who pirate something would have rarely bought it to begin with. And on top of that, it's my way of dumping the digital tea into the harbour.

Makes sense....

[carlmenezes]

It's actually a case of stating the obvious. However, things never get accepted until someone "does a study" or "submits a paper".
It's the classic water leak problem...the RIAA is trying to bail out the extra water while what they should be doing is plugging the leak - ie. take out the root cause - expensive CDs.

This doesn't mean that file sharing will stop altogether. But it DOES mean that a LOT of people out there would cough up the cash because it doesn't burn a hole in their pockets. It also means that artists would get more revenue.

The problem though is that this means cutting all those profit margins - the RIAA would like to have their cake and eat it too. Sorry. Can't happen. In addition, trying to force the issue would just make sure that they end up with some super strict CD protection scheme which will hurt sales and basically backfire in the long run.

Also, it's not like CD sales have decreased. How many studies need to be published before they get it into their heads that sharing music also increases an artist's popularity?

Corporate greed makes you stupid and blind.

Re:Makes sense....

[SmallFurryCreature]

What many people don't seem to realize is that this is the RIAA, and the MPAA job. It is like asking a crack dealer to accept that crack is bad for youre health. But that is what he is therefore. These trade organisations where created by the industry to fight these kind of battles so the the music businesses themselves can go on with day to day business. If you look at the different companies then you will see that all of them seem to be trying their own little thing to follow the trends.

Don't forget that most music companies are giants. While to us a year may seem an awful long time to a multinational it takes that long to decide on the brand of coffee machines installed in the cafeteria. You can imagine how long it will take them to come up with a complete revamp of their business model. If you don't believe me try finding an example where a industry has changed their way of doing business in less then a decade. About the only one I can come up with is that "Prepay" on mobile phones. And this was a bloody long development wich went from prepaid cards for phoneboots to now Prepay for landlines.

The digital file isn't the only thing people want

[Kirruth]

A product like, say, a movie DVD gives the buyer a number of benefits. One of these, the ability to watch the show in high quality on demand, comes with the digital file, and this file will always be copiable.

The physical commercial DVD offers a number of other benefits though. There are the sleeve notes, photographs, the idea that the item is part of a collection, or provides some kind of link to the people who made the show or its stars.

There will always be people who just want the digital file, but there will also always be others who want the other benefits. Just as in the same way that some people will drink water from the faucet whereas others buy branded bottled water.

they don't need to "stop" it

[ryochiji]

As it's been pointed out before, they don't need to "stop" p2p networks to stop file sharing. I speak for my self when I say this, but I believe many others will agree: If the music industry gets off our backs (i.e. no excessive DRM), and sells music for a decent price (i.e. lets us buy songs individually and for less than $1.00 each), I will stop using P2P services.

Yes, people will always "illegally" share music. But if given good enough of an alternative, I think a large portion of current P2P users will go back to legitimate means of getting music. And the industry will still make money.

DRM promotes "piracy"

[thoth_amon]

Not only is DRM ineffective at stopping real hackers, it actually promotes filesharing. Why? Because of all the things you can't do with a DRM disc:

1. Back it up
2. Make a playlist from it
3. Play it in your car or DVD player
4. Play it on your iPod/Nomad/etc

It's far easier to download your song from any one of a dozen filesharing services. All that's needed is one guy who figured out how to rip it. Many CD-ripping programs, including open-source programs, have already developed ways to circumvent most common forms of CD copy protection.

All DRM schemes are horribly misguided because they make it difficult/unpleasant to be honest, because they are easily circumvented, and because only a few people need to circumvent them for the whole world to benefit.

The ONLY solution that I can think of -- the general solution to piracy -- is to make it not worth the trouble to pirate the songs. If you can get a 320-bit unencumbered MP3 from (say) EMI's site, for $1, without having to hassle with remote queueing, poor quality, getting the wrong file... Most people will pay the $1 and that will be that. I would. But I would never pay a dime for DRM material unless it was for a research project on how to crack it. If I can't put it in my MP3 collection, it's useless to me.

The record industry is like any other evolutionary system -- they'll either adapt or die. I have no doubt some companies will survive and prosper. But those who think they can keep pushing the '70s industry model forever, propping it up with DRM and other nonsense, will spend all their money and then die.

All the current legal efforts are the last desperate attempts of a doomed evolutionary niche to be relevant. They are fighting so hard because they have little time left.

Piracy has always been the same problem anyway

[91degrees]

People assume that they have certain rights, which legally they may not have. They will often wish to make a compilation tape (legally), and also often want to give the compilation tape to someone else (probably not legal)

In this case, the law doesn't matter to people. They know they're not doing anything wrong, and would be quite shocked to be accused of stealing. They aren't stealing. They bought the tape/CD. You can argue that they're wrong, but I'm not the person you should convince. Everyone else is.

The thing is that people want to be able to do this. Even if you can stop them with a perfect DRM system, people will not accept it. It prevents them from doing something that they want to do, and the vast majority have no moral qualms over. If the majority disagrees with the law, then surely the law is wrong, not the people.

Re:Sharing is not infringement in many countries.

[mangu]

Until you can convince me that your music is worth paying for, you are $10000 in the red. And you'll never be able to convince me just by mentioning how much you spent. A crappy 10 second teaser won't do it either. I need to listen to a music several times before I decide to spend any money on it.

Look at it from your clients point of view: if you think you are entitled to get something for your $10000, why can't we make sure we are getting something worth it, before we pay $10 for your CD?

Follow the money

[Get Behind the Mule]

"Follow the money" was Deep Throat's advice to Bob Woodward, and that's what will define the conflict that is yet to unfold in the music industry. The record companies have been making gazillions for doing little of value for a long time, and now technology is tearing away the means by which that has been possible. They are going to fight ruthlessly to maintain the status quo. Look for lots of cash flowing to politicians, who in turn will try to prop up a doomed industry with draconian law. It's going to be a long, nasty, high-stakes battle.

Although the RIAA loves to squawk about the artists losing money due to file-swapping, the fact is that the artists get nearly nothing in the present system, and the corporations keep almost all of the moolah. This despite the fact that they contribute literally none of the value that consumers pay for when they buy music. You can't just replace Alicia Keys with Madonna; but it is completely irrelevant whether a CD is published by Warner, Universal or my cousin Vinnie.

They've been able to do this because they have had control over three elements of the music business:

1. Production (studios, CD manufacturing)
   
2. Marketing (promotion, concert tours & control of most of mainstream radio)
   
3. Distribution (ownership of most of mainstream record stores, control over CD rack space in the stores)
   

Now, technology has loosened their grip on all three of these areas, especially the last. Neither the corporations nor anyone else can control how music is distributed any more -- it is, or could be, entirely in the hands of consumers. And distribution networks have a "word-of-mouth" effect on spreading knowledge about new music, so that corporate marketing is a little bit less important. And although they still run the studios, and probably always will, manufacturing CDs is almost obsolete now. All you need is a file; the costs of replication are nil, and consumers can do it all themselves.

I believe that most consumers would be willing to go along with schemes by which they pay for copied music, as long as the music costs significantly less than it does now (say, $1 for a CD), and if most of it goes to the artist (say 90%). The record companies will get much, much less than they do now, because we hardly need them any more. Of course, they do some work that is necessary and should be compensated, but it will end up being much closer to their true economic worth -- and that means a very small fraction of their current income.

But before that happens, they are going to bite and scratch and scream, and it's going to be ugly. They have a multibillion-dollar cash cow, and they will do everything in their power to save it.

Why I buy CDs.

[Big Mark]

I have a fat unmetered broadband pipe to my PC. I can download entire albums in the tiume it takes me to fix a coffee. Yet I still buy three or four CDs a month. Why?

I'll tell you why.

1) CDs sound better.
Most Internet monkeys can not encode mp3s to save themselves. My sound setup cost me a bomb so I can tell the difference between 192kbps and the CD itself.

2) CDs are not just music.
Some album sleeves are works of art in their own right (e.g. Tool - Lateralus). There is also an assosciated boast factor in having proper CDs compared to home-burnt ones - like the difference between a beige box and a Cooler Master. There are subtle physical differences, but the Cooler Master owner is infinently cooler than Mr. Beige. And that's partly why he bought it.

3) If I didn't buy CDs, the artists would stop making music.
Even if I'm talking about purchasing demos straight from the bands themselves. Giving the band my money, no matter how indirectly, helps ensure that they will continue to make music in the future.

Hint: go get CDex and use the LAME encoder at 192kbps (or make it vorbis). All my CDs are ripped like that, and my WinAmp list all sounds great.

-Mark

Sharing is Communism. ;P

[ArcSecond]

Not to beat up on you any further (I see the other geeks have done a pretty thorough job of that), but I disagree. Your investment of time, talent, and money in making the album is just that: an investment. Nobody guaranteed you a profit.

Now, given the REALITY of the situation these days, you have a choice: sign a contract with a label, let them run things, and hope you get some money out of all their hype and networking. And get pirated, if anyone likes your stuff.

Or, you can go directly to letting people pirate your stuff, and with a little marketing effort of your own, hope that enough people want more of the same to make your money back.

I'd say the odds are pretty tight either way. Playing gigs aint exactly a goldmine either, though. So tough for you: you are finding out that being a musician/composer does not guarantee you a life of leisure and wealth. Join the club.

So cry me a river about your production costs. If you had a reasonable expectation of making money on it, you probably already did before the mp3s started flying around. And like everyone says: prove that pirating hurts sales overall.

Anyhow, it comes down to this: do you want people to hear your music, or do you want to make money. They can't BOTH be your first choice, man.

Re:The Future...

[octalgirl]

If the big labels continue to impose restrictions on CDs, the bands that are really into music will simply leave the label.

No, they won't. Because they have iron-clad contracts and they are not allowed to leave unless the label kicks them out. The labels have full control, and the artists will be just as trapped as the music lover. Look at Dixie Chicks, they tried to leave Sony, and after a long court case they finally settled and came to better terms (Sony realized how bad it would look to let them win, esp after earning over 200mil off of them while the girls only got 50k each). Anyway, they are still with Sony, that's how strong those contracts are.

Something I sent to the RIAA

[foniksonik]

Back when this first came up in major news... june 2001:

This is in regards to the proposed plan to 'protect' copyrighted audio recordings distributed via CD.

I think you are making a big mistake, as other consumers will confirm for you when your products are either boycotted or wholesale pirated as a result of this 'protection'. Regardless of what you do to 'protect' this material individuals will make recordings and redistribute to the demanding public. (Any CD player that supports your new 'protection' is certain to have a standard AV port, a really easy way to re-record audio data.)

Ever hear of a thing called supply and demand? Nothing you do will stop this. The only thing this proposed plan will do is take away any control you currently have.

The biggest problem you have created for yourself is pricing albums at $15 - $30 each. Consumers feel as if they are paying enough to justify redistribution to close friends, etc.. especially when they may only really enjoy one or two of the songs on the album. Selling singles of hits isn't enough.. the radio usually plays those particular songs enough.

Your only rational recourse is to create a distribution channel which adds value to your products which consumers will pay for. Obviously they don't feel the current situation provides enough.

One idea is to create a subscription service, wherein the user would get to pick out several songs or albums from the genre they subscribe to. Consumers might prefer to have a complete set of songs from which to make their selection instead of the mixed and potentially corrupted selection they have from online sources. For this service you could charge a monthly rate dependent on the genre or number of downloads, etc. use a focus group or something to decide how to bill people..

I think you'll find that all people want is the selection of songs they get to listen to without the overhead of buying every CD that comes out. People also like the fact that when they 'get over' a particular song they don't feel like they wasted their money. Some music does 'get old' rather quickly.

What I'm saying is that you need to abstract the value you are selling from individual recordings or artists. Music is an ephemeral sensation... what gets me going one day may change the next, that's why radio works, they can adjust for the current environment. Not to mention that there is sooooo much music available now, compared with 20 years ago. Personally I don't have the time to listen to it all but I can listen to the song a friend recommends or sends to me via ftp etc... do you get it. We don't have time to go to the store to buy the cd that has one song we like and if we're going to take the time to buy it online we may as well spend the same amount of time finding a free copy.

By providing 'free' access to all the types of songs that I like you would make it alot easier and quicker for me to find the music I enjoy. How about charging me $15 a month for access to 'hip-hop' or 'rock' genres with a full search on title and author so I can grab 20 songs I really want to listen to that month. What's to keep me from keeping them and trading them? Nothing, but why would I want to go to all of that trouble when I have the convenience of my monthly selection online. Storing all that data is a real pain. Keeping track of which song is on which cd is also a pain. Programmers have spent lots of time trying to make free software to keep track of that stuff and none of them do it right. Plus, you get $15 monthly from me just so I have access to new titles, old titles, whatever, in a convenient and time saving system, w/o the overhead of storing them all, etc.

Okay, do you get it finally. We want service, selection; added value. We won't pay for anything less (ie: cd's with just the songs on them)

Sincerely,

My Favorite Quote

[GeorgeH]

While not from the paper in question, my favorite quote on the topic is "The marketers can compete with free; it just has to be better. Look at bottled water if you don't believe me," - Jonathan Potter, Digital Media Association.
(Found at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1982

Pretty much sums up my feelings on how the entertainment industry can survive.