Teens Don't Buy Legit MP3s Because They Can't?

iSeal writes "According to a recent study, 13-17 year olds are both the most likely to pirate music, and also the most likely to own a portable MP3 player. Yet, as this article goes on to say, the lack of credit card ownership prevents teens from buying music online. The author maintains that since regular record shops don't sell MP3s, or gift cards to places that do sell MP3s, its practically impossible for teens to buy legit MP3s on their own. From the article: 'If the only way to obtain music online continues to be through illegitimate means, then we are no better off than in the days of Napster.'" I'm not sure I agree with some of the conclusions here (you can buy iTunes cards at Walgreens), but it's an interesting discussion.

Comments

well then

[macadamia_harold]

Yet, as this article goes on to say, the lack of credit card ownership prevents teens from buying music online.

Clearly, the only solution is for the RIAA to start providing teenagers with credit cards. That can't possibly go wrong.

Re:well then

[MassEnergySpaceTime]

Even if teenagers had credit cards, I think teenagers would still more likely opt to illegally download mp3s just because it's "illegal", therefore it's cool to do so.

Re:well then

[Mike89]

That's not at all the reason why. The reason (at least for me) for getting MP3s 'illegally' is because I have such a varying taste of music and munch through it so quickly, it's not economically viable for me to buy the amount of albums I actually download just to try out an artist. I'll download an artists discography and randomly insert their tracks into my regular playlist, usually as I go to sleep. If a track wins my attention, I'll remember it and it'll become part of my regular listening. However, most bands cannot capture me with more than a couple of songs. For the bands who do, I don't want to buy low-quality DRM ridden MP3s via some crappy software. 3 bands have managed to "Woo" me enough for me to spend money on them, so I go to CDUniverse and use my Paypal account (doesn't require credit card) to get their albums (or DVDs) posted to me. One local band (The Living End) has managed to get me as a fan, and I've bought all their releases bar one since I started liking them. I downloaded the one I didnt buy (illegally), and didnt like that much of it. But, I've gone 2 of their concerts based around that release, so theyve more than made their money back off what I "deprived" them of by downloading it. I bought their live version of the same album because I like the songs live. So, no, we don't download illegally just because it's cool.

Re:well then

[hackstraw]

Even if teenagers had credit cards, I think teenagers would still more likely opt to illegally download mp3s just because it's "illegal", therefore it's cool to do so.

In the US, I have noticed a trend since the 60s and 70s to make more "normal" things illegal, and it makes the tension between the system and the government and the people very high. Abraham Lincoln said it best:

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things
that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Which was then followed up by HS Thompson:

"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."

So much is illegal, but its not "that illegal", and that is crap. In societies where sex, alcohol, and drugs don't have these insane and intense laws and taboos against them, they do less of them than here. In societies where pornography and nudity are more tolerated, they have much less rape, child abuse, and teenage pregnancies than we do. In societies where drugs are legal, they do less of them than we do. And the legal consequences keep getting more severe here.

Back to MP3s, I think its completely stupid that after 10 years of them being around that its still basically illegal to get them. I just got an iPod, and nobody told me that I couldn't just put MP3s on it. What Apple did, was pretty slick to appease the record business, but its a PITA that I have to go through hoops to put my legal MP3s on it from multiple computers. Honestly, if I knew this from the beginning I wouldn't have bought it. I will never buy "legal" MP3s from "legit" sources, because my freedoms will be limited even more. Instead, my plan for new music is to buy used CDs, rip them, and sell them back. And even that takes a bunch of silly effort. I have so much music, and its a pain to manage it between my home, my car, and work, and elsewhere.

Re:well then

[sm62704]

Arr! Avast, matey! Shiver me timbers!

Many teens don't think of legally downloading music as pirating music

Are you part of the pigopoly, or have you just been brainwashed by them? Stop calling a spade a "pointy shovel". It's copyright infringement, not "piracy".

Re:well then

[sm62704]

It's like arguing that borrowing from a friend first results in lost sales.

It's like arguing that listening to the radio first results in lost

Re:well then

[ZorinLynx]

This only happens if you configure your iPod to let iTunes manage it completely. It'll also ask before it wipes out anything on the iPod.

If you set the iPod to manually manage music, you can use it on as many computers as you wish without a problem. Heck, you can even copy DRMed iTunes tracks from a number of different authorized machines to it, and it'll play them all without a problem.

Please, stop circulating FUD just because you don't know how to use the software. :)

-Z

Re:well then

[sm62704]

I hear that, man. What I feel like driving changes from day to day. It's not economically viable for me to own every car model made so when I see a car I want to drive I just make a copy of it. If I like it enough maybe I'll buy it.

See how stupid that sounds? What's troubling is that in the future it may well be feasable; billions of nanorobots that can build nanorobots or anything else, and anyone can have anything they want (Star Trek replicators?).

It will end poverty. And you bastards will fight it tooth and nail.

Re:well then

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, you can even copy DRMed iTunes tracks from a number of different authorized machines to it, and it'll play them all without a problem.

So I can legally buy music on more than one of my machines, and listen to all of it on the same iPod!?!? Wow, DRM is super!

The sad part is, they've actually convinced you that's a special feature.

Re:well then

[ContractualObligatio]

What a wonderful self-justification. The artists that you've paid money to have been paid more than enough even when you've ripped off an album, and those to whom you've paid nothing weren't up to your arbitrary standards and don't deserve any money at all. If you like an artist, and they put in the effort and expense to record an album, but you only like some of it - fuck 'em, let's rip than one for free. Hey, I went to a gig, didn't I?

Presumably you're tight for cash if you've only paid out for three bands, otherwise you really don't like music much. Because 3 bands suggests a limited taste in music, not "such a varying" one. Or maybe you simply lack any respect for the effort it can take even to produce something people don't like e.g. you don't get a refund in a restaurant just because you didn't like the chef's style. Of course, if you want to encourage mainstream middle of the road shit, rather than have artists who feel free to take risks while still wanting to make a living out of music - go right ahead.

That's not downloading illegally because it's cool - it's downloading because it's free.

DRM

[BerkeleyDude]

I don't buy MP3s because there's no freaking way to just buy the files - not stream them, not download DRMed crap, but just buy the plain old MP3s.

Rhapsody? iTunes? Can't do that.

Only independent websites (e.g. magnatune.com) have the decency to give you something worth paying money for.

Re:DRM

[reub2000]

Try eMusic. I *heart* their merge records and matador collection.

Re:DRM

[bartron]

because there's no freaking way to just buy the files
Where I buy all of my mp3's from I can do jsut that....DRM free ;)
Bartron

Re:DRM

[LordEd]

hey, are you trying to imply something by placing some of your word's letters in bold? Or am i just reading extra meaning from your odd message colouring?

Re:DRM

[TheRaven64]

Allofmp3.com pay artists at the same rate as radio stations; something to the order of $1 per thousand listeners (which means a thousand downloads in their case). And that's only if the artists actually claim the fees, which is likely to cost more to do than they will receive. While it may be legal, and certainly is convenient, it doesn't address the key problem:

I want to be able to download music, in a format of my choice, at a reasonable price, and have the artists compensated adequately.

This is a real problem for our society, and it extends beyond music. Did you know that someone who puts an amazon link to a book on their site receives a greater share of the sale price than the author? Which do you think contributed more to society? Napoleon described the British as a nation of shopkeepers. Two centuries later, his comment could be applied to much of western civilisation. Advertisers and sellers are worth more than creators. Just look at the darling of Wall Street, Google. The only product they sell is advertising.

Re:DRM

[linuxci]

What the heck kind of payment processor doesn't do both Visa and Mastercard? I bet they're losing a non-zero amount of business due to this stupidity.

No amex either :)

It seems odd that it's like that on allofmp3. Perhaps in Russia MC has higher fees that Visa. Most countries though seem to lump Visa and MC together so there's no real difference what card you have, they're both accepted equally.

In the UK, a retailer who wants to start accepting cards usually is offered the following:

• Debit cards only - Maestro (Switch), Visa Debit (Delta), Solo, Electron. These are the cheapest to accept
• Credit + Debit cards - as above + Visa and MC

Then the merchant is free to add Amex and other more expensive to process cards to their system should they choose. I try to use Amex when possible because their rewards are better but I do understand why merchants may not want to accept it.

Re:DRM

[rdoger6424]

It's most likely an unfortunately acquired habit. A fairly exotic one at that.

More productive research

[Seiruu]

IMO, much more interesting to know is who

1. Wouldn't buy them anyway if they couldn't have gotten them through illegal means (IMO the majority)
   
2. Would buy them anyway after getting them through illegal means (somewhat split with the third option)
   
3. Wouldn't buy them after getting them through illegal means
   

Debit Cards

[jjeffrey]

OK Credit Cards aren't available to under 18's but in the UK at least you can get a debit card from as young as 13 - a lot of kids have them and they work on iTunes here.

Not the same in the US?

Re:Debit Cards

[jjeffrey]

Oops sorry slip of the tongue - I do know the difference between the US and Canada - apart from anything else the US would never get in to the Commonwealth :-)

Re:Debit Cards

[jjeffrey]

iTunes is effectively a different site in each country though, accepting the local methods of payment. For example in the EU, Maestro/Switch.

Re:Debit Cards

[Anonymous Coward]

And on the iTMS you can buy Pre-Paid cards from Tescos/Sainbury's/Asda, you can set up an allowance funded by your parents' credit card or can recieve a non-physical gift over the internet. There are plenty of ways that an under 18 can access legal music, the reason they don't is because 79p is worth a lot more to a 13 year old than it is to a 24.

Re:Debit Cards

[Pc_Madness]

Indeed, the prepaid cards for iTunes are everywhere, so its not so much an excuse of not being able too cos of a lack of a credit card.. but more the fact that most teens that age don't have money, and if they do, why would you want to spend what little you have on something everyone else is getting for free? I know I got funny looks when I announced I bought some songs from iTunes (and regret it since cos of all the hassle the DRM has caused me).

Re:Debit Cards

[lwells-au]

I just checked on the Australian iTunes Store* and the options listed are Visa, Mastercard or American Express. No debit card option that I can see. I would also point out that whilst teens don't have credit cards because they can't, I would estimate a reasonable percentage in their late teens and early-20s also don't either because they have no great need or don't trust themselves not to get themselves in to debt (like me!).

Just as in the UK and US, iTunes Store cards are easily available in Australia (in Coles supermarkets no less). There are two problems I see with the cards though:
1) You can't just pay for the songs you want as you basically are buying store credit. Cards are available in A$20, $50 and $100 which makes perfect sense as a gift, but if one only have a small amount of disposable income (as most teenagers do) the idea of having to expend what s/he might consider a reasonably large amount in one go to buy the couple of songs s/he wants is probably less appealing than the individual song purchase system available to credit card holders.

2) Having to buy a "music card" takes away from the immediacy of a purchase. One has to get off one's backside and go and get a card. Why wouldn't I just go to the record store and buy a CD single (or album) instead (particularly given point 1) since the effort is about the same?

Basically I think it makes the barriers just high enough that even those within the teen demographic that would go to the effort of purchasing the music if they had a credit card, are more likely to opt for the illegal download because they can have it Right Now and not have to worry about expending a large (in their eyes) amount of capital.

Two quick provisos: I'm not endorsing this behaviour and excusing copyright infringement, and I certainly don't believe that every teenager -- even if they did have access to a credit card or the above two issues were not evident -- would purchase music rather than illegally download it (but that holds for all ages, to varying degrees).

Re:Debit Cards

[TheRaven64]

I thought it was completely bizarre when I lived in Canada for three years and they'd done it the other way. I couldn't figure out why anyone would think it was a good idea to introduce a new, incompatible card type.

In the UK, the reason is historical. In the '70s, there were three credit card suppliers; Access, Mastercard and Visa. Visas were only issued by Barclays (Barclaycard and Visa were synonymous when I was growing up). Mastercard was predominantly a US brand, and was quite uncommon. Access has since been bought be Mastercard, and so they are more common.

Most banks didn't issue debit cards at all. They would give you a cash-card, which you could use to withdraw money from a machine and (optionally) a credit card. The Switch brand was created by a group of UK banks to avoid paying fees to a third party for issuing debit cards. Barclays, already a Visa issuer, issued Visa Delta cards under the band of 'Barclays Connect,' as a replacement for cheques which were still common at the time.

These days, there is still a distinction between cards issued by banks (which are tied to a bank account) and credit cards, which are often issued by a third party. My credit card, for example, is provided by Egg, with whom I do not have a current account. For minors, Visa Electron and Solo cards are common. These are similar to normal debit cards, but perform a balance enquiry prior to authorising payment, so you can not go overdrawn using one (minors can not enter into contracts placing them in debt in the UK).

Re:Debit Cards

[Mr2001]

In America, we don't have a Switch/Interacc type of debit card. Anything issued by a bank is Visa or Mastercard branded.

Actually, we do... your debit or credit cards probably have logos on the back like Star, Plus, Cirrus, Instant Cash, Interlink, etc. Those are debit networks, and when you use your debit card at a store and they give you the option to enter your PIN instead of signing, they're trying to get you to use those networks instead of the Visa/MC network (which charges higher fees). Before the Visa check card was introduced, that was the only way to pay electronically from your bank account.

They don't buy MP3 files because nobody sells them

[TERdON]

I'm not at all surprised that teens don't buy MP3s. Almost no one sells them! iTunes sells AAC tunes, so that doesn't count, and almost all others use WMA. The only exception I can think of allofmp3.ru and indie record companies which only cater to a niche market...

It explains ring tones at least

[LiquidCoooled]

They can pay with mobile phone credit.

iTunes gift cards

[Rik Sweeney]

In the UK there are quite a few places you can buy iTunes Gift Cards / Vouchers (Tesco, Sainsbury, Argos). Coca-Cola are doing a promotion at the moment where you get a free download from iTunes with each bottle bought. Of course this is limited to 3 per household and you also need to like Coca-Cola*

You also need to have an iPod and iTunes.

*This isn't strictly true as you could buy the bottle for the voucher and give away the drink, or not drink it at all

I disagree

[Propagandhi]

I had a debit card when I was 15-18 so I could have bought music off the web had I chosen to and had the option been available. The real problem is that teens don't have that much cash. All my money was going into my ball and chain at the time (otherwise known as D&D), the ability to pirate music was there so I did it. Pirated music was a lot better than no music at all.

Re:I disagree

[lumkichi]

For the fortunate ones that have a bank account when they were very young that might have worked. The fact is there are a lot of teens who don't have bank accounts until they go to college. They simply don't need it -- their life is cash. And as far as I know, anyone can buy an iTunes card at Walgreens or CVS. But teens without credit cards cannot use them in iTunes program until it is validated -- the validation process requires a credit card before the stupid system will give them access to the credits that they paid for. The message is clear: Don't pirate software, but you can't buy our mp3's because you don't have a credit card. So you'd better go somewhere else or steal a credit card number from your parents. Stupid iTunes...

Re:I disagree

[jellomizer]

For your case that is a bad (Really Bad, So bad it makes me angry) excuse to illegally download music. Saying I do not have enough money form of entertainment because I spend to much money in an other form of entertainment, so I have to steal the first form. There is a thing in life called "budgeting" it is a concept that most Americans fail to grasp.
The first step to this "budgeting" is to realize what You need to live Food, Shelter, Heat, Water, these things you always need to make sure you have enough money for, as you are probably a bratty teenybopper, who thinks they are a supper smart hacker type, I will assume that Mommy and Daddy give that to you. The next thing to budget for are for things that will allow you work with society, Taxes, Cloths, culturally relevant Communication tools, transportation, and education. still Mommy and Daddy are still flipping the bill for most of these. Finally the rest of the junk you can buy with your spare money because you really don't need it. Now if you want some junk more then other junk. Then you have a choice how much of Junk A you need vs. Junk B. So fyou example you can buy a book for $30.00 that tells you all about different attributes of Dragons xor (xor is a computer science term meaning "exclusive or" meaning one or the other but not both) 30 songs off of iTunes, or you can balance the approach and get the old version of the book for $15.00 and get 15 songs off of iTunes. But saying I need to steal music because I spent all my money on D&D is no excuse and I hope the RIAA sues your ass.
There are other reasons for illegally downloading music some I agree with and others I respectfully disagree with, but yours is wrong and stupid.

Re:I disagree

[unapersson]

The industry always wants to have it both ways though. They want to create this desire to have the hottest new things they are producing at the time. While pushing this desire at a group that doesn't necessarily have the resources to buy what they're demanding they "must have". So this whole sharing situation is a natural result of that marketing.

They want teens to buy CDs, DVDs and games by getting hold of as much of their part time job or parents money as possible. That's why the losses to piracy figures are so laughable, they're claiming loss of money that just isn't there. It's the money budgeted for luxuries that has already been absorbed by another one of their arms.

Re:I disagree

[eepok]

Watch your vocabulary friend. He said nothing about his reason being an excuse, so get off your holier-than-thou rant and read the post for what it said.

Summary: I believe teens just don't have enough money to entertain themselves in all the ways they'd prefer. Music is easy to get for free, so they pirate.

Was there a request for validation or suggestion that his reasoning was just? No. Ok, so back off.

Re:I disagree

[It'sYerMam]

You probably disagree that it's a good excuse because it isn't an excuse at all - it's a reason. It doesn't have to justify pirating, but it is one cause of it, so we can understand it.

Re:I disagree

[ronocdh]

Yes, it is very good to expound the virtues of budgeting, especially (I think) to young Americans. However, you must understand that the concept of budgeting is innately obscured when the ownership of an item not well defined. I'm sure you believe that the artist or the record company holds exclusive ownership of a CD, as that's what it says on the paper documents those parties've hard arranged. The problem is, digital content is infinitely duplicable!

If you purchase a car, and it's sitting in your driveway, I would have a very hard time convincing myself that it is also mine. If, however, you zap that car with a ray gun, making an exact copy of it, and offer it to me, it becomes more difficult for me to resist believing I can own it, too, as it is an item separate from yours (though identical in likeness). The fact that you bought it means it's yours, and the fact that you then offered me something derived of it implies that I may take it without informing the builder of the car, because you own the car--you aren't just "leasing" it; you gave money and need never give the car back.

Another example, addressing your budgeting argument: Johnny likes to cook, but he also likes to decorate his house with flowers. If he spends all his money on food to practice his cooking, then he won't have any left to buy flowers from the florist. Perhaps, though, just out his window, in his neighbor's lawn, is a garden full of gorgeous flowers. His neighbor bought the seeds from the florist and tended them until they grew into many pretty specimens. Perhaps Johnny could lean out the window and dig up just one flower, to plant in his own yard, waiting for it to be properly pollinated and then reproduce into his own lush garden. The likelihood of this "perpetration" (as I suspect you'd call it) increases proportionally with the neighbor's acquiescence to Johnny's plundering.

This means that in order for this to stop, one shouldn't be scolding Johnny, but the neighbor, for not respecting the florist's hegemony in dispensing the ability to culture plants.

Music is a cultural force, and the people, not the corporations, own culture. I am not defending ripping off artists, but I am suggesting that you examine your notion of "ownership" of intellectual property. There was a time when it was a magnificent compliment to have one's ideas reproduced in another's work (think classical Greece), and don't act like monetary gain was the motive. Perhaps the difficulty we're having now is that the bands making music today are doing it for entertainment rather than for artistic purposes. The internet is here, and social networking hasn't been, perhaps never can be, documented in its fullest extent; the record companies are no longer necessary. I want to experience music in the social environment of the internet, then electronically send money directly to those who created it. This means that I could download Britney Spears if I wanted, but you know what? I wouldn't pay for it. That awesome obscure metal band, though, that I think understands all I love about heavy metal? I could PayPal them $50, a hell of a lot more than they'd get from a regular CD purchase. Money should be used only to support what one wants to see more of, at least when it comes to art. Record companies fear the transition to such an economic model, but they know that people wouldn't shell out the big bucks for cookie cutter bands and trashy entertainment. Integrity would rule, and the record companies can't capitalize on that, because they work on exploiting the current economic system, that demands money before experiencing the art.

Also, if you don't believe people would spend money like this, zero dollars for some things, and fifty for others, then you haven't found an artist you truly love, and that's sad.

I don't buy MP3s because...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no fucking point. If the cops ever stop at my house, I'm screwed anyway: I copy CSS protected DVDs (illegal), I listen to copyprotected CDs on my MP3 player (illegal), I have and know how to use Wireshark (formerly known as Ethereal, soon to be illegal where I live), I encrypt my data (my own data, not illegal but encryption means I'll never get my hardware back). I might as well go all the way. That's what legislators need to get through their thick heads: If you make normal behaviour illegal, you produce criminals. Not only do you hang a sword over the head of good citizens, you also cause more illegal behaviour. If people don't have a fighting chance to be law abiding citizens, then they stop caring about the saner parts of the law as well.

Re:I don't buy MP3s because...

[Oligonicella]

Right, stealing was made illegal by the government. Thou shall not... Laws are codifications of things people want. Prohibition was driven by people and codified. Later, people decided it was a bad idea and 'decodified' it. Do the same for copyright, drinking, or whatever else you don't like. If you're in the minority opinion and the law truly doesn't abridge your civil rights. Oh well, be a criminal. Just don't whine when caught.

Re:I don't buy MP3s because...

[transporter_ii]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Re:I don't buy MP3s because...

[LordLucless]

"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt."
        - E. C. Stanton

Oh yes, the problem of paying.

[WWWWolf]

Sure, I'd buy a lot of stuff online. If only paying for the stuff wasn't such a great big pain.

Why is it that international banking is such a great big headache? When the money or goods - virtual or not - cross the borders, everyone seems to be grabbing part of it, if not the governments then the people who transfer it?

Why isn't there a simple, universal, reliable, regulated method for transferring money internationally, no matter how big or small sum? A simple service you'd get automatically when you open a bank account, anywhere, in any bank in the world?

Because people go for the "it works for me" kind of approach. To American companies, credit card "works for me". As long as there's a stopgap measure that covers 85% of who they consider their market segment at the time, there's no problem. They just happen to ignore the tons of people who silently mutter "well, I'd love to get this, but I can't".

Sure, I'd love to buy music. I'd love to buy tons of music. I use Linux and have a (non-Visa-logo) Visa Electron. No iTunes for me? Well, looks like I'm still sticking to ocremix.org and remix.kwed.org for my music needs, then, it's not like other people are producing much music worth listening to anyway.

There used to be some sort of non-DRM MP3 store that had grand total of two songs available and required SMS messages as payment. That rocked. Yay. Too bad they never went past the pilot phase. Would have been the perfect model.

Think of Google. They went for the "long tail" thing - index every nook and cranny of the web, make web advertising easy for small sites, both as advertisers and as advertising space sellers, and make life easy for advertisement viewers too. Then think of search engines of 1996. Small indexes, tons of big-name advertisers, ludicruously priced annoying ads, "let's just focus on the big sites because that's where the money is". That didn't go too far, now did it? And where's Google now?

(Not saying Google Money Transfer would be a particularly good idea - PayPal is a private company and has a lot of problems not found in banks. Not saying Google should necessarily go to the music store business either. =)

Re:Oh yes, the problem of paying.

[WWWWolf]

Perhaps you work on getting the Linux and Open Source community more open to the concept of allowing DRM, and not making it as evil the Devil. Because God forbid people actually making money off their labor, and how dare they try to protect their work! The Linux and OSS Community is great at screwing them selves over.

I guess this has been explained tons of times already, but here goes: Random Linux users probably don't care if there's DRM or not. Random Windows or OS X users probably don't care if there's DRM or not. I don't personally mind if iTunes would run on Linux with the exact same restrictions it has on Windows or OS X.

It's just that trying to fit DRM in existing open source projects is extremely problematic because everyone wants transparency. Current DRM depends on secrets. It depends on technology that wants things to be secret, all the while Linux folks are all about openness and interoperability.

Open source folks are more than happy to implement your DRM if you have a completely open specification. If you can't release the specification because it depends on a "secret" part and releasing it would undermine the whole thing, then it's a crappy attempt at DRM that will be undermined by l33t Hax0rz one day anyway, so why bother.

And as for myself, nobody needs to copy-protect things they sell to me. I won't copy them. Honest. The only P2P client I have at hand is Azureus, and that's for legit downloads only. I buy books and computer and video games and DVDs - not that much music, because CDs are overpriced and I have a radio too - and none get copied around. At worst I lend the stuff to my friends and family, and at that time I can't use them myself. So if you're a content provider, I have to ask, what is this DRM thing actually helping you for, anyway? What's the point of "protecting" the files, if I'm not copying them around anyway? (Don't say "you could" - stick to the facts. Don't say "someone else could" - stick to my case.)

iTunes & MP3s?

[Aceticon]

I'm not sure I agree with some of the conclusions here (you can buy iTunes cards at Walgreens), but it's an interesting discussion.

iTunes is selling MP3s? Since when? Last i heard they where only selling DRM encumbered stuff (which is the reason i personally haven't bought anything from iTunes ... and i do own an iPod).

International Teens

[owlman17]

I live outside the continental US. If I were a teen, I couldn't buy from iTunes or Napster or Rhapsody, etc even if I wanted to. Heck, not even if I begged. Probably the only legal option available for us outside the USA is eMusic.com. (Which is also good since they sell regular non-DRM mp3s.) So teen or no teen, people living outside the US are far likelier to just get that stuff off illegal file-sharing.

It's too bad CDs aren't around anymore

[bwalling]

I remember back when I was young, we could go out and by music on optical discs. They played in your stereo, in your car, and you could even rip them to MP3. You could even head down to a used record store and pick up used CDs for around $8. Of course, back in those days, we had to walk both ways, up hill, in the snow.

Re:It's too bad CDs aren't around anymore

[evilviper]

I remember back when I was young, we could go out and by music on optical discs.

Yup, I remember those days too... $20 a disc, for a CD that is 66% empty, which has exactly one song on it you actually like.

Those were the days.

Re:It's too bad CDs aren't around anymore

[Jesselnz]

Where the hell does everyone get the "$20 for 1 good song and a bunch of fillers" thing from. When I buy a cd I pay $10 or $15 for 40 to 60 minutes of music that I actually like. If an artist is able to release a whole album with just one good song... then that probably means they suck.

Re:It's too bad CDs aren't around anymore

[shark72]

"Where the hell does everyone get the "$20 for 1 good song and a bunch of fillers" thing from."

Why, from the Big Book of Piracy Rationalizations, of course! Here's the TOC:

1. CDs cost $20.
2. CDs only have one good song.
3. All CDs have DRM. All of them.
4. Artists Don't Make Money Selling CDs
5. Except The Ones Who Are Really, Really Rich, So It's Still OK
6. Artist Only Make Money Touring
7. "If they can't or won't play live, or their musical style is not fit for live performances, then they're just not good artists and don't deserve to be compensated through music sales" And Other Comebacks When People Inform You That You Are Wrong
8. If An Artist Is In It For The Money, They Aren't Really An Artist: Beethoven, Strauss, Mozart and Others Who Were Fabulously Wealthy
9. Record Companies Don't Deserve To Make a Profit, and All Record Company Employees Should Work For Free
10. "The Record Company Provides No Service" : How A Sheet Of Lyrics Is Identical To A CD
11. The Artists Are Needy: Record Companies Don't Pay Them Enough, So You Don't Have To Pay Them At All
12. The Artists Are Greedy: They Don't Deserve Their Fame. Piracy Lets You Take Them Down a Notch.

Appendix:

1. Why Musicians Aren't Deserving Of Your Respect, While Other Artists Are
2. The Montgomery Freedom March, Gandhi, and P2P: Great Examples of Civil Disobedience
3. Why The Golden Rule Doesn't Apply When You're Dealing With Musicians
4. "I Pirate Because I Don't Have Any Money!" : Explaining How You Manage To Pay Your Broadband Bill Each Month, But Music Is Too Expensive
5. "Artists Did OK For A Thousand Years Without DRM, So Why Do They Need It Now?" : Why YOU Deserve The Benefits of Broadband, P2P, and Other Modern Technology, But Content Creators Don't

Re:Lack of CC ownership... I don't think so

[cplater]

First off, Apple has changed thier policy, and will not allow you at least one redownload of content after a catastrophe. It amazes me that people assume this function is there in the first place. When you buy a CD, and then you loose it / scratch it /etc., do you expect the record shop from where you purchased to replace it? Why do you think iTunes constantly reminds you to backup your content? It's your responsibility to manage your data, not Apple. As far as buying music you don't like, the same thing happens w/ CDs these days. This is one of the reasons that iTunes has a place. You can buy just the one song you're interested in, and skip the rest of the CD if you don't like it.
It seem the bigger problem is with the music industry today, and the crap that's out there these days. I couldn't agree more. Hopefully iTunes, et. al. will force the record companies to rethink their stratagies, and stop pushing out crap. IMNSHO they have yet to realize that the problem with the music industry is that the current artists are putting out crappy records which is the reason for the decreases in sales.

Er...

[Peet42]

"(you can buy iTunes cards at Walgreens)"

How does that help someone who owns a portable MP3 player? (As distinct from an iPod)

not just teens

[Scudsucker]

I would bet that the vast majority of pirates have a very high debt to income ratio, and couldn't buy more than a small fraction of their collections even if they wanted to.

Re:not just teens

[deanj]

They should do what the rest of us do. Wait until they have to money to pay for it.

Otherwise it's just an excuse.

Re:Maybe tens simply lack the money?

[Gilmoure]

That reminds me, my daughter's 6th birthday party is tomorrow and I need to pick up a case of beer. Kids like Miller, right?

wrong

[Unknown_monkey]

Clearly the solution is that the **AA's should be able to prosecute any teenager that doesn't have an actively used credit card. Because they're stealing music. That has to be the conclusion of the article.

Maybe this is the credit card companies' fault?

[smchris]

I know a kid who went bankrupt in high school so I see the problem. But this is a good point. In today's economy, _shouldn't_ a teenager have access to credit in order to participate?

The question is how to do it. Being old, I remember when credit card companies had "learner's" college accounts with limits like $200-$400. Maybe the companies have become so insanely greedy sending out applications for $10K-$20K limits for people's dogs that they just don't want to be bothered with miniscule accounts that train young people to be responsible? But they should.

Broader issues

[scottsk]

Maybe teens aren't the mindless droids that the RIAA members think they are and don't want the sort of junk that RIAA members are producing? Maybe they're buying used CDs and ripping them? Maybe they're discovering classical, jazz, and progressive rock? Who knows, but I have trouble believing that any segment of the population would be inhibited by friction in collecting money in this day and age! Hard to imagine a teen couldn't use a family paypal account. Or that some venture capitalist wouldn't throw a few million at TeenzMp3Rockz.com to create a way for parents to pre-pay for music at MyDRMLockin.com or iLoveDRM.com...

Re:WTF?

[TheRaven64]

I don't know if this is the case in the US, but in the UK there are two categories of debit cards. The fist are things like Visa Delta and Switch. The second, newer, ones are things like Visa Electron and Solo. They can only be used in places that use an electronic system, and perform a balance enquiry before authorising transactions. The traditional type, however, can be used anywhere, including places that use the old-style machines that take an imprint of the raised portions of the card. A payment with one of these cards will always go through[1]. If you do not have enough money in your current account to cover it, then you will go overdrawn. Once you are overdrawn, you are in debt, and have achieved this using a debit card.

[1] Up to a per-transaction limit guaranteed by the bank. This is typically £50-100. Any transaction bigger than this will only be honoured if the money is available; electronic machines check this before performing the transaction.

Not exactly true

[93 Escort Wagon]

There are banks that offer pre-paid credit cards to teenagers, with their parents' approval. My daughter gets her allowance on one that USAA offers. It's gotten to the point where she hates cash - when she gets paid after babysitting, for example, she'll immediately give it to me and ask if I could transfer money to her card.

Apple should be happy, because that seems to be where the majority of her money goes (and yes I have regular backups in place for her computer).

Don't fix what ain't broken

[Sarcastic Assassin]

The author maintains that since regular record shops don't sell MP3s, or gift cards to places that do sell MP3s, its practically impossible for teens to buy legit MP3s on their own.

Who wants to walk out of a record store with a card with which to buy music later, rather than a physical copy of an album?

Too many of these posts seem to be missing the point. Sure, you can buy iTunes cards at Walmart (or the British equivalent), but what teenager hangs out in Walmart? Maybe if they sold iTunes cards at McDonalds or the local pizza joint, they might see a small bump in sales.

Addressing the larger question, teens don't buy legit MP3's because it doesn't make sense to fix what ain't broken: Napster was popular before online music stores were, and was a convenient, easy way to get the music you wanted. I used Napster when I was 13, and when it was taken down I moved to Kazaa. Why? Probably because online music stores weren't popular yet (if memory serves me right; if not, please feel free to correct me). My point is a teenager would rather find another program to download music (music that is of acceptable quality) than convince their parents to let them spend money (money of their own, or their parents' money) to download music. (On a personal note, I'd rather download an album than buy it, but if I Really Like(tm) the album, I'll buy a physical copy)

I also question how often and how much an average teenager downloads. I'll probably download about an album a week, but I almost never get around to listening to it (they're usually archived), and more often than not I'll delete it after I do listen to it. Hardly any of the albums I download make it into my regular-listen MP3 collection (which is ~1000 songs, and very few complete albums).

Canada... no DUH

[thenewme91]

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but this article links to a PC World CANADA Article. Do any of you live in Canada?

FYI, Banks in Canada do not issue Credit Cards to persons under 18? Why? Because they need a credit check, for which permission can only be legally granted by a legal adult (person 18 or over, assuming they're not detached from their parents (you can be independant from your parents @ 16 and then grant the bank this permission) or whatever that legal term was). Want to be sure? E-mail Toronto-Dominion Canada Trust (TD Canada Trust), RBC Royal Bank, Scotia Bank, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada (CIBC) or any other Canadian bank and ask. Their websites can be found with Google.

Prepaid credit cards are sold in Canada as gift cards by two small bank companies in B.C., and the service fees are extravagant... not to mention no one has heard of the things. ( Visa and Mastercard think that Interac (see below) removes the necessity for prepaid credit cards. The government seems barely aware of them, since it doesn't recommend them as part of their choosing a credit card pages on their website. ) While it *IS* possible to get a debit card in Canada from a young age, this debit card only comes with the "Interac Direct Payment" service (and maybe access to PLUS in the USA). Until recently, it was impossible to use this online, and even now, with "Interac Online" only a few retailers support the system. Most Canadian retailers (iTunes Canada anyone? How about Canadian Tire? Best Buy? Future Shop?) still want credit cards... not to mention credit card companies are practically the only way to get money outside the country. (Interac is a CANADIAN debit system.)

I know things are different in the USA (prepaid credit cards) and UK (online debit) and other European countries (Swatch/Maestro or whatever), but at least look at the source. In Canada, where we probably have (I think) one of the lowest rates of population per square kilometer, kids can't buy legitimate MP3s online.

And there goes the problem of the Internet - it's world wide. But business isn't. And because laws are different in different countries. For now, anyway.