Bananation

I got a (RED) iPod as a gift last Christmas. It was pretty easy to get started with the iTune Jukebox, an interface that facilitates the transferring of songs from CDs to iPod. I was having a kick transferring songs after songs until the "Keith Urban - Days Go By" CD. It doesn't allow me to transfer the songs to my iPod. I knew I have picked a 'Copy-Protected' CD. It is among the copy-protected CDs released by EMI. Last year, the company abolished its copy-protection on all their CDs. If they have followed SonyBMG's footstep earlier, I could be listening to Keith's songs on my iPod now.

I am not upset that I was unable to have Keith's songs on my iPod because there are more unprotected CDs than protected CDs among my collection. Afterall, copy-protected CDs only enterted the market not long ago. The move by record companies to protect their music irk the consumers because copy-protection was executed at their expense. These CDs not only restrict playing on their existing media players, some plant booby traps in the form of malware in their PCs. The latter created a backlash against Sony BMG which led to the elimination of copy-protection on all CDs eventually.

The copy-protection on CDs rose from the abuse of the right to the CDs that consumers bought. The fine print at the back of every CDs state clearly what can't be done to that CD. A typical one read like this: "Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting of this recording prohibited." In layman term, this means just enjoy the music and don't mess with the CD. After working in the music licensing industry for 6 years, I spoke to a lot of ignorant individuals and companies that were clueless about this. The basis of imposing restriction on consumers is this: When record companies sell their CDs to music retailers, who in turn sell them to consumers, they did not sell away their right to the songs in the CDs. Just think. Hypothetically, if all copyright owners (record companies, composers and publishers) reached a consensus to sell away their rights of every song released in a CD, don't you think that an average CD will cost a bomb and not price at SGD18.00?

Copy-protection on CDs is a passé. Another form of copy-protection - Digital Rights Management or DRM entered the music industry with the rising trend of selling music out of the brick-and-motar way. This time, copy-protection on music that are sold online i.e. digital music. Unlike copy-protection on CDs, DRM affects both the consumers and online muisc retailers, and indirectly the digital device manufacturers such as Microsoft (Zune) and Apple (iPod). Basically, DRM restricts access to and usage of digital music.

On 6 February, 2007, a call to drop DRM was exalted by Apple CEO, Steve Jobs. Since the release of his powerful missive, titled "Thoughts on Music" on Apple's website, techies and music fanatics are reading between the lines as Mr Jobs outlined 3 scenerios on the future of DRM technology and recommended its abolishment. The major four record companies, Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI are currently adopting a wait-and-see attitude towards Mr Job's proposal.

Though I have been speaking the tongue of copyright, I want to enjoy my music in peace without knowing the details of their business fight. Sooner or later, I will get to reap the fruit from their battle as Mr Jobs had put it across in his proposal:

"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

His arguements were not new in the industry; however, they were louder because he is the world most famous and powerful apple seller. Every company argues from their point of view to their advantages. In other word - a hidden agenda. Apple didn't introduce iTune for consumers' convenience, Microsoft didn't produce Zune for no reason, the record companies didn't sell music to advocate the value of music, and consumers didn't buy a product just because the sellers advertised it as the best. All parties know what's the best for them.

The prevalance of online piracy demonstrated the vulnerability of music in the face of technology. Consumers no longer enjoy the music in the way it should be like the older days, and technology no longer delivers music in the way it used to. Thus, the tussle of the 3 Cs - Copyright owners, Content providers and Consumers.

When music are shared freely online for free, the record companies (copyright owners) will not be happy because their CD sales are affected. To counter this, they took infringers to court and imposed copy-protection on their CDs and later digital music. Each DRM is different from another, such as Microsoft 'Playsforsure" and iPod "FairPlay". That's when licensing comes into the picture. With every company writing their own DRM software program, this means that music consumers purchased from a particular online store can only be played on the so-called official player of that store, ex. iTunes only goes with iPod. The restriction pisses consumers and heated discussions storm into online forums and blogs. Somebody has to do something. And Mr Jobs did. He proposed an interoperable system which consumers could buy music online from any stores and play them in any players. Consumer will surely be happier, but it would be at the expense of the (1) content provider (i-Tune), which means exposing the DRM (in the form of licensing) to competitors, a scenerio which Mr Jobs painted as leakage of secrets, and the (2) copyright owners, which means no protection to their music, turning it into easy prey for pirates.

In today world of technological prodigies and anti-copyright mavericks, software programs can be developed to circumvent these so called copy-protection if secrets of the DRM is leaked. As Mr Jobs put it:

"Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players."

Sorry, sir but consumers will embrace it with a heartbeat given the flexibility to play downloaded music on more players. The industry by now should know what is of interest to the consumers. And in actual fact, they care alot because their products and invention are nothing if nobody is buying them. But at the same time, content providers care a lot whether DRM can be abolished in the long term because firstly, the consumers don't like it and secondly, It would be hell to modify the existing DRM should the leaked secret get emploited by DRM haters. Hence, Mr Jobs suggested a third alternative - to abolish DRMs entirely. He seemed to have consulted his crystal ball and was pretty confident that the big four music companies would agree to let Apple and (others) distribute their music without any DRM protecton. His reasoning?

"The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy."

He made a good and strong point, and I totally agree with him. DRMs is a good try to curb online piracy but not effective. It will not work because no matter how secured the copy-protection is, it is still not written by God. A locksmith can break a lock made by another locksmith. DRM is a software program written by a programming genius and its codes can be broken by another programming genius. When there is a will, there is a way. Terrorism won't stop because terrorists are convinced that their action is perfectly righteous according to their religious belief. Therefore, crippling their network by an eye for an eye strategy will not work. Re-brainwash the brainwashed terrorists is the key to effectively bring the world to peace. In more civilised term "Education". Likewise for music piracy.

Copyright organizations, record companies and educational institutions worldwide have preached against piracy. Websites of oganizations like Pro-music and IFPI have enough information on copyright to turn away any pirate who sincerely wants to be a good citizen. So are they any improvement after all have been said and done? Surely yes. A handful out there must have already learned to respect copyright. The lessons are pretty easy to understand; it is just a matter of whether they want to be taught or prefer to be stubborn and learn their lessons the hard way. The industry was optimistic about copyright education on its onset, but is now acknowledging the fact that nothing beats the free culture of online music.

In my opinion, it all boils down to how a person perceives the value of music. I'm not talking about its monetary worth but its creative value to the industry and its personal value to you and me. Let's sidetrack from music and talk about jeans. Considering factors like colors, design and styles remain constant, would a jean lover buy a pair that instantly shapes the butt to that of Ricky Martin or J.Lo and costs only SGD18.00, or wear a free pair that doesn't accentuate the butt? Someone who truly loves music will hold its creation in high regards and
will not mind paying SGD18 for a CD even if he/she is offered a free pirated copy. The free culture of online music is for the greedy and the fake music fans. As Eminen had said: "If you can afford a computer, you can afford my CD". On the same note that computers are so affordable nowadays, anyone can be a 'Pirate of the Musicbean'.

Statistically, the age of people who engage in online piracy falls between 15 - 35. I name this group 'domestic pirates' who steals music comfortably at home. To educate these pirates, we have to first educate their family members. The industry and authority could collaoborate on an educational kit 'Music Piracy and your Family' and mass mail it to every parents. The objective is to reach out to parents who are computer illiterate and ecourage them to attend basic computer and Internet classes to effectively understand their kids' online activities. At the same time, the educational materials should be directed at (1) convincing parents that online piracy is the same as walking into a record store and taking CDs without paying, and (2) changing the mindset that when people do get caught, they can't be their kids. When copyright education is delivered door-to-door to each family, the concerted effort by all the other parties (copyright organizations, record companies, educational instituitons) is reinforced. When more people become anti-piracy, pirate syndicates will be losing their customers. Copyright education is not for these illicit organzitions because their mission is to make money. The plausible way is to first target their customers, reduce their demand and punish them by laws.

If music is treated as a free entertainment without an appreciation of all the hardwork behind, combating piracy is a losing battle. And please don't bullshit that music will be extinct one day if piracy continues. Personally, I don't see that it will be possible unless it is the end of the world. Ongoing education and down-to-earth facts are the essence to a healthy environment for everyone to enjoy music - peacefully.