Music Execs Confuse "Choice" With Making You Pay Over And Over Again
from the let's-try-this-again dept
JeffVCheesedOff writes in with a link to a BBC story where they ask a bunch of recording industry execs questions about the digital music market and file sharing. The answers are exactly what you'd expect, with all the typical "it's just wrong" and "no musicians would ever make money" quotes that you've come to expect -- despite the fact that they're simply not true. However, Jeff pointed out one particular quote, concerning copy protection technology that he found particularly upsetting for a good reason. John Kennedy from the IFPI (the international version of the RIAA) is quoted as saying: "Without DRM, the explosion in the availability of music via digital channels would not have been possible. The purpose of DRM is not to alienate music fans, it is actually to improve your access to music. There are now at least 10 ways in which you can legally enjoy music - the list includes: ringtone, master ringtone, phone download, phone stream, a-la-carte download, disc, subscription, online stream, UMD music for PlayStation, kiosk and video. Without DRM, these options simply wouldn't be possible."That is, of course, flat out wrong. You could do pretty much all of those things without any form of content protection. It would appear, however, that what Kennedy really means is that these new options are simply more ways for the industry to get you to pay again for what you already paid for. To make this even more amusing, another questions asks about why people should be forced to buy the same song multiple times... and he blames the tech industry: "I agree with you we'd like nothing more than for you to be able to download or transfer music securely between your phone, your home and work PC, a couple of your players and your home Hi-Fi system, for example. But we don't make the technology, we create the music. It's the technology companies that hold the key to achieving this." Of course, maybe if he didn't insist on putting copy protection on everything, then it would work just fine.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
He's a horrible person, I'm sure, but the bolded line shows what he means. To these people, because technology cannot allow transfers to happen "securely" (ie without any possibility of illegal copying) they are then forced to cripple the musics with DRM.
It's retarded logic, but it's not outright lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
screw it..
if they would just embrace 'new' technology, like this newfangled 'internet' idea and make their music more easily available they could be raking it in
just sell us the damn music, not your contraints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw the big boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]