Music has made the progression over the years from vinyl to cassette to disc to digital format. The digital format seems the least secure in the sense that one file, can theoretically, be accessed and used by an unlimited number of people. Since before proliferation of MP3 players, there has been some websites providing either illegal music files, or the means of obtaining these files (Napster). These websites were not subject to DRM, and hence were widely used, by millions of people globally.
Now, most music websites are subject to digital rights management. This is good for the artists, whom otherwise would be losing out on revenue because of illegal downloading. But the fact still remains. If someone can get music for free on one site, they'll most like opt to get it there, rather than pay for it.
DRM needs to be absolute. All music websites would have to be under the control of DRM. This would inevitably mean the demise of many of these websites, which in turn would benefit the music industry even more, because there would be less sites to regulate.
The purchase or obtaining of music, I feel, will eventually progress to being mostly bought on digital format, as opposed to on discs. Without the intervention of DRM, the music industry will undoubtedly suffer, and who knows what else...
2 comments:
I am not sure that you really understand what DRM is. You seem to imply that it is some kind of legal process or governing body when in fact it is a series of proprietary technologies that limit the ability to play or copy a track or tracks. overall though this is reasonable post but it would seem that the success of iTunes+ and Amazon's DRM free music store might contradict it somewhat.
This post was published after the deadline, I have marked it this time but unless there is a good reason, I won't do so again.
Post a Comment