In his proposal to end digital rights management control (DRM) over the distribution of music Steve Jobs notes three alternatives:
- Each manufacturer can proceed on a top-to-bottom proprietary system which is not interoperable with other manufacturers’ system.
- A common standard can be agreed upon (Jobs, of course, proposes Apple’s FairPlay DRM system).
- DRM can be abandoned altogether.
The software industry faced this problem about 20 years ago in software distribution and finally decided to abandon copy protection schemes.
In his exposition Mr. Jobs notes the interests of manufacturers, music companies, and consumers but I don’t see any mention of the interests of the artists who create the works upon which the industry depends. Certainly you can’t look to player manufacturers or music companies (frequently the same thing) to look out for the interests of artists. As the industry is presently constituted artists not distributors assume the costs of recording and promotion. The risks are assumed by the artists not by the distributors.
The concept of copyright is to protect and incentivize artists not to protect the profits of distributors. The concept is badly in need of an overhaul.
So, where are the artists in Mr. Jobs’s consideration?
Interesting article by Steve Jobs. You’re right, artists are missing – perhaps it’s because they must, for the most part, go through a distributor to sell their music. Distributors are the gatekeepers to getting CD’s in stores and like Steve said, that’s where 90% of music is sold.
But that’s my point, Andy: the interests of the “music companies” i.e. the distributors and those of the artists are at odds.
Yeah, I don’t have an answer. As long as distribution companies are the keymasters for CD sales and radio airtime, then artists’ concerns will be a low priority. I keep hearing how the internet was supposed to change all that, but change is slow I guess.