My Rant:

Setting the record straight on iTunes, piracy, DRM and Major Record Labels

Technology moves fast. Faster now than ever before so I can understand why we don't really remember the old days (10 years ago) when the iPod wasn't invented yet, when downloading music meant stealing it and Digital Rights Management (DRM) was in its infancy. Remember Napster? Remember Napster before it went legit? It wasn't too long after Napster got sued by the major record labels (the RIAA- Recording Industry Association of America) that Apple unveiled its new iTunes MP3 player software in 2001, a month before Windows XP was unveiled. The interface was brand new and in typical Apple fashion, they did it better than everyone else. It automatically organized your MP3s, it ripped, it burned, iTunes played internet radio stations- it was a very robust MP3 player. In fact, it still remains to be the best, in my opinion. But what this did for Apple was more than simply offer a "free" MP3 player to its loyal customer base- it later provided an avenue to sell and distribute music online (2003).
This is a very carefully planned market strategy. Not only was the software a terrific piece of software that was immediately installed on every Mac since it was free, but it also provided Apple with control. This is something that record companies were trying desperately to do. Their (record companies') only success was suing other companies who "violated" copyright laws. And even that can be argued if it was really "illegal." But history stands- Apple gained control of music distribution for the first time ever by incorporating DRM into their online sales of MP3s. Digital Rights Management is what enables a song to be played ONLY on the device it was initially downloaded to and no other. In fact, Steve Jobs specifically built the iPod to NOT have DRM on the original iPod because he felt that it would hurt online sales. However, he was soon told that it must. Apple expanded this permission to up to 5 devices so that people with multiple computers could play their song on each one. The iTunes Music Store was opened for the first time and what was most unique about the iTunes Music Store was that it was NOT a website but rather an extension of Apple's own iTunes. Naturally, iTunes became the first piece of Apple software available for Windows. Now both Macs and Windows computers could download protected music from Apple's iTunes Music Store. It was a very scary gamble for Apple because never before did anyone really "buy" music from the internet. However, that, coupled with the iPod, created a huge demand for legal online distribution. The record companies are still enjoying the work and progress of Apple today. Apple only makes about one penny off each song. The rest goes to the record companies. And when all is said and done, probably about 1 penny goes to the artist! This is the current state of affairs in the music industry. It is legalized racketeering in my opinion. The government doesn't know anything when it comes to this kind of business so when the RIAA can afford lobbyists in Washington to convince the lawmakers to amend the 1978 Copyright Laws to be more inclusive of their ownership of artists' work (that is, making it a "work for hire" rather than a negotiable contract), it is no wonder why artists NEVER own their own music when they are signed. As Courtney Love wrote in an article to Salon.com (see link at bottom of article- it is probably the most important one to read in regard to all of this DRM bullshit); Imagine paying a mortgage for 30 years and then after the final payment, the bank says Thank You but they still own your home. In all fairness to the artists, everyone should realize that a record contract is NOT free money- it is a loan that must be repaid via record sales. The strange thing about this loan is that when the artists are done paying the loan back, they don't own the record or "publishing rights"- the record label does. Which is why artists get "royalties" and not record sales. 30 years ago, this may have been a viable solution since the technology required to record and distribute an album was so much money, and therefore risky. Today, it is a fraction of the cost but record companies expect to make more money than ever. In fact, still to this day, a percentage of all recordable CD sales goes to the record companies to make up for all the stolen music that the recordable CD made possible. If this sounds crazy to you, it's because it is!
Anyway... back to the main discussion...
Apple was almost prevented, legally, from manufacturing the iPod! Most people don't know this. First of all, even the codec MP3 is not entirely free. Apple was the first company in the world to buy the licensing rights for it's customers so that the iPod was legally allowed to play MP3s. And then Apple took it one step further. They developed an audio format that was lossless (CD quality) and still almost 1/10th the size of a regular AIF file (your typical CD file format). However, and most importantly, with this new file format came the ability to include DRM. Now the iPod and iTunes music store was almost completely in compliance with record companies' demands. However, the greedy bastards they are, the record companies also required that the iPod be restricted in certain senses. That is, no iPod should be allowed to transfer music. You can put music onto it and you can delete music from it but you CAN NOT move music from iPod to anything else. This is fine if you fail to consider that not all audio files are copy protected material. So what about my own music that I want to share with people? Music that is not copyrighted suffers from this overly restrictive "feature". Furthermore, the iPod shall NOT be allowed to record. If you notice, there are other MP3 players out there that have the capability of recording directly to MP3 via a microphone input. This was another restriction placed on the iPod. You can record voice quality stuff from the iPod but it certainly won't suffice for music or anything requiring decent quality. So really, it is almost amazing that the iPod is as successful as it is considering it is a device riddled with restrictions placed onto it.

If we go back 20 years when CDs first came out, we see a trend and a motivation for new technology that record companies embraced. In fact, they are credited with the emergence of this new technology. After records were replaced by 8-tracks, and then by cassettes, record sales began to plateau (not decline, just remain steady). So in order to get people to re-buy music, the CD was offered. And record companies liked this even more than cassettes because you couldn't copy CDs (at the time) like you could a cassette tape. So because these record companies wanted something else to sell and because technologically, it was possible to offer it, CDs became the media standard for years. Until their worst fear became realized with internet, record companies had always been the key holders AND gate keepers of music recording and distribution.

So now we jump years ahead and nearly everyone has an iPod and now I'm hearing a lot of complaints about Apple and their "proprietary" formats that are totally monopolistic. You are correct when you say it is proprietary and monopolistic but if Apple had its way, it would quickly remove DRM completely because it would make for a better user experience. If you are the least bit familiar with Apple and its products, you know that that is what makes an Apple product, an Apple product. Then you'd be allowed to play these music files on ANY device. You'd be able to share music more freely, artists would have their music more freely distributed, and then there really would be no reason to NOT own an iPod. Apple (Steve Jobs specifically) is confident that the iPod would be the MP3 player of choice even if iTunes music files were playable on other devices. The fact that it is so seamlessly integrated into the operating system and iTunes, the fact that it has the best interface, the fact that it takes only 3 clicks to get to your desired song, the fact that the engineering is so well thought, makes it the best choice. There are others that do a good job- especially the ones that copy these features. But there also remains the fact that there is only one iPod.

Microsoft is now finally in the same market with their Zune device. It also has it's own proprietary format for the purposes of DRM and really is offering nothing new to the table other than an alternative. They do offer a feature which is interesting- you can transfer a song to another Zune and that other Zune can play it 3 times before it is disabled and prompts you to buy it legally. However, who really suffers here are the customers. Choosing an MP3 player has become a major decision. This means that you'll have to decide before hand where you are going to buy your music from because once your library of music grows, you are NOT going to want to have mixed formats that require different devices or softwares to play the songs. Lets all thank the RIAA for looking out for our best interest. Because in case you didn't realize it, all musicians are fans of music but not all fans of music are musicians. Record company execs are all scumbags, though. Record execs are not musicians, they are not artists and they are not sympathetic to end users. They are business people looking to make more business for themselves. I don't fault them for this but I do fault those who blame Apple for complying with the demands of record execs.

check the facts:

Apple and RIAA: "our 99c belong to the RIAA – Steve Jobs" : The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/your_99c_belong/

iPod, the beginning: "The Perfect Thing" : Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/ipod.html

Courtney Love: "Courtney Love Does The math" : Salon.com
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html