RIAA negotiates DRM with XM and other digital radio operators

OK. I have to comment on this.

First off, I am an XM Radio subscriber. I pay about $10 per month for the privilege of listening to high fidelity music without the bother of commercials.

I don't want the cost of my subscription to increase. It's expensive enough, though I really enjoy not having to listen to DJs blather on about thus and such. XM Radio has DJs, but they talk about the music, and not about news, sports, or sponsors.

Recording songs off the satellite isn't the same thing as taping songs off LPs or FM radio. The fidelity is vastly different. A tape just wasn't going to be as good as the original. At a decent bitrate, MP3 quality can be indistinguishable from the original CD. XM Radio, likewise, is of a similar quality: very good. You really could supplant your purchase of the CD with a timely rip off the satellite.

But, the real question is: does this casual recording harm or benefit the music biz? Enthusiasts, just as moi, believe it ultimately improves the profits of big companies. I will buy the CDs if I like the band, because I want the media. If someone gives me some pirated MP3s, I will listen to them, and I may or may not buy that particular album, but if I like the band (and probably 60% of the time I do not), I will buy their other albums on CD. In the case of a band I had not previously known about, that counts as a win for the music industry. They get incremental sales that they wouldn't have gotten any other way. If I don't like the music, then the whole thing is a wash: nothing lost, nothing gained.

Usually I don't buy music one song at a time. I'm from a different generation, one that thinks of albums as indivisible collections of art, and prefers to own the whole thing. I guess that means I don't listen to very much pop music, because pop is all about the hits. That's fine. But, would I record individual songs off XM Radio, if I could?

The short answer is, probably. Some of the music I want probably isn't available at your neighborhood MP3 source. But, if the songs were available and cheap enough, I would be willing to "buy" them. Just don't insult me with questionable quality. To my ears, 128K bits isn't good enough. I can hear the difference, and I insist on ripping all my CDs at 192K bits. And even that isn't as good as the CD. So, if I want the right level of quality, I would probably record my own songs.

But, I would still categorize this along with the occasional un-owned MP3. I would never subsist on singles, alone. I would always buy albums, because that's how I want to acquire (and enjoy) my music.

Many music fans listen only to hit singles. Many pop albums are mostly trash, so, how can you blame them? There will never be a way to eliminate the casual trading of songs between users, unless you outlaw all home recording. Perhaps that's what the industry biggies want, but because I do most of my listening at work or while I'm at my computer at home, the net effect would be to throw a wet blanket on my (and many others') listening behavior. I will never return to shuffling CDs, again--I would simply not buy. I think there are enough just like me that will keep home recording going. Give a geek a challenge, and they will always please you with the clever result. Throw up a barrier, and we'll just come up with another way of recording our music, that you can't control.

I think it's unconscionable for an industry to make a common practice of suing its customers as a way to stay in business. Stupid and counter-productive, too. The movie studios are having a hard time these days because of 1) crappy movies, 2) a crappy theater experience (shabby seats, that piss smell, commercials before the movice, and $20 for refreshments), and $10+ for movie tickets. I have to pay $10 just to be shown commercials?!? Give me a break. What kind of fool do you take me for? This is not a rant about movies, but it shows that if you take your audience for granted, and abuse them enough, they will go elsewhere. The movie industry is sucking wind. I'd rather rent the movie and see it at home than go through an expensive, uncomfortable ordeal just to have it on the big screen. My point? If they're not careful, the music industry will experience the same thing.

I am in favor of allowing music fans fair use of the media. That's the historical perspective, and that's what we (the paying customers) want. We will ultimately get our way.

However, it's also perfectly OK to sell songs online. There should be more of it, not less. But price is a sensitive point. $1 may be too little for some songs, but too much for most others. Make the price low enough and you will eliminate the barriers, especially if you can offer something of a value-added nature: better quality plus other goodies. How about embedding the lyrics in most commercially made MP3s? How about adding other things, such as album art and/or band pics? Cheap and easy to put together--and not something that most 14 year olds can do themselves. Certainly, not as well.

There are ways for big companies to make money in the digital world, but the old ways aren't working very well, and changes will have to be made. Smashing the users in the mouth, though, aren't the kinds of changes that will make things better, in the long run. Just ask your neighborhood movie producer.

Thanks for reading.