MME VIVID

Reactions to Record Label Woes

2007-11-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

Some bloggers call it “suicide.” Other bloggers think the “walls have come tumbling down.” Madonna’s move from Warner Music Group to Live Nation was such a huge blow to record companies that the music bloggers of the world could not resist predicting the demise of the existing record label model. While searching for resources to use in my last post, I came across articles with how-to’s dedicated to taking down record companies and guidebooks to fame and fortune without record deals. The general consensus seems to be “out with the old, in with the new,” which is something that I have my qualms with.

I decided to leave a piece of my mind with a couple of the articles that I read. The first is an article from Rob, a former album cover designer who is now an industry insider. Because of the personal nature of the website the original blog came from, I left a comment at p2pnet’s post about the blog instead:

“While Rob made some great points, I was distracted by the unnecessary analogies and crass wording that he used. It is very difficult to take someone seriously when such language litters an otherwise sound argument.

To get on with it though, I nodded my head in agreement sometimes, but some of the things he said made me wonder if he really knew about the nature of the new record deals that are being made today. Rob said that the future of the music industry would have free music and "musicians make their money from touring and merchandise, and if they need a label, the label takes a percentage of their tour and merch profits." If anyone has been keeping up with the likes of Madonna, Korn, the Pussycat Dolls, or the superstars of the Asian music scene, they would know that that is already being done. The 360 degree deal is real and has been used. Record labels (or record deals, to be more precise) now cover that as well as distribution of music. It's only a matter of time when record labels (or promotion companies like AEG and Live Nation) will be able to provide tour support and management to their artists as well.

"Support artists directly" was another thing that I had a little problem with. After he said that the consumer should illegally download all of their music to avoid paying RIAA affiliated record labels, how would this hurt the artist? (Many music consumers are unhappy with the RIAA, see the graphic on the right)

While it's nice to think that artists appreciate the support of a fan who makes a website dedicated to them, it's hard to believe that the artists will be happy with their music being stolen and none of their royalties being paid. Also, going to see your favorite act at a concert only supports another monopoly, ticketing and Ticketmaster. The best way to really support an artist is to buy their merchandise at a free show. My reasoning behind that? Free show means no middleman has to be paid for selling a fan a ticket, and buying the merchandise is just a trade off between a fan and the artist directly.“

The other blog that I left a comment on was a blog by a member of the USC faculty, Inside Music Media. Jerry del Collano is a professor of music industry, and the founder of Inside Radio. Here’s my input on his blog, titled “Panic in the Music Industry”:

“I agree with the idea that record companies have been in the dark throughout the digital revolution. As you said in a later post, record companies just aren't in touch with their consumers, they can't find the right market to target, and a new trend is still to be found after the trend of hip-hop. Good music is hard to find on the internet alone, and even harder to find on the radio, where these record labels have the ultimate say on what gets airtime and what doesn't.

You said that "all the pioneering is done by big name artists and groups with fan bases and track records." I see the fan bases and good track records and find that it's easier for the big artists to make these risky moves. They have the financial backing. For smaller artists to do anything similar, they'd still have to work their way up the ladder and the only tried and true way to do that is through a really good record deal. I have yet to hear of a grass-roots band without a record label that has been able to reach a wide audience. Even those indie bands that have made it were probably on record labels that were under the umbrella of the Big Four.”

Only time will tell how the music industry will look after the growing pains of digital music and distribution wear off.

The New Record Deal: Covering All the Bases

2007-10-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

Madonna has been setting trends since she arrived on the mainstream music scene more than two decades ago, and at nearly 50-years-old, she is still as popular as ever. Her albums still do well on the charts, her concerts still sell out, and her other business ventures are just as successful. However, last week, the pop superstar left her record label of 25 years to sign a deal with concert promoter Live Nation. For the next ten years, Madonna will be taken care of by Live Nation’s Artist Nation division. The $120 million dollar deal is all-inclusive and, according to Billboard.com, allows for “the exploitation of the Madonna brand, new studio albums, touring, merchandising, fan clubs/Web sites, DVDs, music-related television and film projects and associated sponsorship agreements.” The questions to be answered here are how is this different from what a record label could provide an artist as prolific as Madonna, and will this deal set the trend for future artists?

To show the difference, the record label model must be explained. According to Donald Passman’s work All You Need to Know About the Music Business, an artist can expect a record label to cover “all recording costs, including artist’s advances, fees to producers and arrangers, copyists, engineers, and musicians” upon signing a record deal. This makes a label, first and foremost, a primary source for financial support. After that, a record label is there to help an artist secure licenses and royalties for the albums they create, develop marketing plans, and then manufacture and distribute these albums in exchange for the copyrights to the music. Thus, the record label only profits from album sales. This type of record deal is the standard, and does not normally include management, merchandising, touring costs, or endorsements, all of which can generate about one-third of an artist’s income.

To capitalize on the aforementioned sources of revenue, record labels have taken to offering artists record deals vastly different from the standard. In today’s market, many times tours and merchandise can be more profitable than album sales, especially with the rise of piracy and online downloading. In an article from Entertainment Weekly, writer Rob Brunner says, “The most reliable money [in the music industry] is in still-healthy areas like touring, publishing, and licensing.” So now, with respect to Live Nation, an artist should expect a label to not only promote their albums, but their concerts and their merchandise, too. This has led to record deals becoming more than just recording contracts. More labels are offering artists 360° deals (also known as a multiple rights deals) that cover all bases. Countries in Asia have already adopted the 360° deal in order to capitalize on their artists, making them superstars with expensive tours and television shows to promote their albums. Economist writes that there are only a handful of American artists with this kind of deal today, saying that “few established artists have accepted 360° deals, though the labels trumpet the exceptions, including Robbie Williams, the Pussycat Dolls and Korn.”

Most established artists are wary of venturing into these multi-rights deals in fear of losing profits to record labels, but others believe that more involvement creates better music. Rolling Stone magazine’s Steve Knopper thinks that record labels looking to sign new artists will have to search for better quality acts with greater staying power. This provides a record label with an “incentive to work hard,” because more than just record sales are at risk. Better working relationships between artists and labels can be made, because it is in both parties best interests’ to succeed and make profits. In Madonna’s case, the profits will be split between herself and her concert promoter-record label hybrid. (see the stock quotes to the right).

Technology has influenced changes in the music market, forcing record labels to adapt. Music retailers like Tower Records have been forced to close, EMI is downsizing, Radiohead released an album without a record label, and Sony BMG, one of the biggest players in the industry, experienced an increase in losses. If Madonna’s deal proves lucrative, Live Nation will have an edge over these record labels, as it has the resources to provide an artist a good concert schedule, and would then have the clout to offer even more. For record labels to stay in the industry, they should take after Live Nation and team up with concert promoters to plan successful, lucrative tours and negotiate with their artists a deal that covers everything from management to merchandise, but for now it seems that Madonna has made a good move and the future of music lies with this new trend.

Music and Advertising: A Natural Partnership

2007-10-23T10:39:00.001-07:00

When I first thought of music in advertisements, my head filled with images of perfectly coiffed women (like the Andrews Sisters) singing a catchy tune about toothpaste or some other mundane item brought to life by the harmonies and melodies of a really good jingle. In reality, today’s music in commercials rely more on music from popular and independent artists but the effect is still the same: a good song gets people to think about the product. In advertisements, music is seen primarily as a mnemonic device and mood setter, but is ultimately an incredible marketing tool for artists and the companies they partner with.

The partnership between music and advertising began in the early 20th century, when radio companies prohibited the use of direct advertising. To appease their sponsors, companies tried to “blur” the lines between what was an ad and what was actual music, and thus came the “jingle,” a short, catchy song with advertisements written into it. Because it is easier to remember something when it is put to tune, jingles were great for advertisements. If a jingle was catchy enough, the likelihood of someone choosing a certain brand the next time they needed dish soap or a soda was higher.

Today’s jingles are less ubiquitous, but surely someone remembers being a Toys R’ Us kid or knows the numbers to call for Empire Carpet. With the lavish commercials of today, music has found its use as a mood setter. As with movies, music can liven up a commercial or make the atmosphere sad or melancholy. For example, in this HP commercial for a photo printer and this Joga Bonito soccer commercial, music plays a big part in creating the atmosphere. Both songs are playful and upbeat, which add to the general perception of whatever is being advertised.

Presently, music is one of the best marketing tools and provides mutual benefits for both the artist and the advertiser. This is illustrated by the recent success of the new Apple commercial featuring the music video of up-and-coming artist, Feist. Feist gained popularity, despite being unknown to mainstream media, and the anticipation of the new iPod nano increased because of the well-executed commercial that Apple released. (A Screencap of the Music Video to the right)

Because entertainers are often of such high profiles, when they partner with other companies to produce limited edition merchandise or allow certain companies or television shows to use their talents, it helps advertisers reach a whole new audience. An example would be the Britney Spears and her Pepsi ad campaign that debuted during the Superbowl in 2001. The response was so great that news magazines were grading the commercials like they would movies. Another good example of this partnership with music is the release of the limited edition U2 iPod (like the one on the left)—which can be seen as a perfect example of using star power (as in U2’s popularity) to sell a product. At the time, iPods were not nearly as popular as they are today, and the U2 iPod was a start in celebrity endorsements for the music player that is now commonplace.

Music in film and television shows is also a good draw for the advertising industry. It allows audiences to cross over. Often, when a popular television show plays the song of an unknown band, the next day there will be a scramble to find out what song played and who made it. Advertisers sit on the premise that fans of the artist will tune in to view a show they would not usually watch just to hear the song, and then those who watch the show regularly will like the song and end up becoming fans of the artist. One notable television show is Grey’s Anatomy. A couple of bands have become popular because of the music played during key scenes and the opening credits. PSAPP is one of these bands, and the other is The Fray, who owe their hit “How To Save a Life” to its proper placement in the doctor drama (and also on its soundtrack, see right)

Though advertisement music has come a long way from jingles and catchy tunes, the effect is still the same. That song from the iPod commercial is what people look for online, and whole websites are dedicated to identifying music played in advertisements. Music and advertising are able to coexist and work together to achieve integrity for products and artists because of its ability to appeal to the masses. Entertainment revolves around the two mediums of audio and video, and together, music and advertisements have staying power.

Radio: What to Expect and Why

2007-10-09T08:16:00.002-07:00

Bloggers have been predicting the death of radio since the Internet became a viable source of music. Some also thought that iPods, podcasts and software programs would overtake the need to listen to music over the airwaves, but according to statistics taken by American Media Services last month, nearly 80% of Americans aged 25-34 still listen to an AM/FM radio daily. Though it seems that radio is one of the oldest technologies when it comes to playing music, the medium remains popular. With that in mind and looking ahead, one could be safe to conclude that tomorrow’s radio will continue to capture audiences, especially when paired with creative marketing, integration with new technology, and an increase in consumer awareness.

The radio still attracts listeners today because it is free, far-reaching, and easy to receive. “You don't have to be wealthy to own a radio,” says the National Association of Broadcasters’ President/CEO David Rehr, “In fact, you can buy one for a buck. And you don't have to be stationary to listen to radio— it's in your car, MP3 player, or headphones.” Record companies find the radio to be a valuable promotional tool, and the broadcasting industry has been quick to keep radio alive with creative marketing, through programs like National Association of Broadcasters' Radio 2020 initiative. The initiative seeks to revitalize the popularity of radio with a variety of online and print advertisements. NAB claims to have launched Radio 2020 with the consumer in mind, and has been “analyzing hundreds of reports, interviewing scores of radio stakeholders, fielding a dozen focus group sessions and conducting telephone research with over 5,000 consumers” in order to “reignite” the radio market. This is proof that broadcasting companies have taken it upon themselves to update their hardware to work with the growing demand for higher quality music, in order to maintain the radio’s presence in the public’s ears.

Since record labels have already ironed out the problems with standard radio waves, the up-and-coming “descendants” may have trouble with recording industry groups. These “descendants” include High Definition radio, satellite radio, online radio and podcasts. With the recent disputes over royalties brought to online radio stations by SoundExchange, the leading performer’s rights organization, online radio may become too expensive to keep on air. Radio can take advantage of new technology by integrating and utilizing the possibilities of using the different mediums to make everything work together. A good example of this would be iTunes’ tagging software that broadcasting companies and Apple have created together to install on HD radios. The software has already been added to the next generation of cars and stereos, allowing listeners to hear a song on the radio, push a tag button, and then later open iTunes to preview and download the song. The average music lover does not usually buy a full album anymore, and the iTunes/HD radio tagging program seems like a way to keep singles popular.

The example of iTunes’ tagging software shows that efforts have been made to integrate radios with new technology, but broadcasting companies still have much to address in regards to consumer awareness. Listeners complain of long commercial breaks, short playlists, and a loss of good radio personalities. One successful market example would be the Jack FM style, where there are minimal commercial breaks, no radio personalities, just the promise of “playing what we want.” Jack FM’s playlist is often larger than that of a regular radio station, and was created as a “direct reaction to listeners’ demands for a more diverse and engaging musical mix than is found on tightly formatted mainstream radio.” As for radio personalities, satellite and online radio stations have become a place for individuals of all different backgrounds to broadcast to the public, and listeners have the ability to listen to more shows than ever before. Both satellite and online radio have experienced mild success, and broadcasting companies have been able to cater to their consumers in ways they could not provide before. If listeners want more variety, a station they can run themselves, or a special station just for Elvis tunes, broadcast companies have the ability to acquiesce to the listener’s requests and create those stations just for those niche audiences.

Radio stations are no longer limited to the dials of a boom box, and a simple radio is just as capable of playing music as any other media device that may be available to the public. Apple has FM transmitters for its immensely popular iPod line, demonstrating that the radio has not lost its appeal. Apple and companies like Apple have acknowledged the power of the airwaves and are now focused on developing the next reincarnation of radios. Though it may seem dated, new marketing ploys, new technologies, and better understanding of its listeners are making the radio more relevant to the masses. The radio is not an appliance of yesteryear; it is a viable source of music for today’s listeners and will continue to capture audiences in the coming years.

Live Music: Taming the Ticketmaster Giant

2007-10-02T08:15:00.000-07:00

To many music lovers, there could be nothing better than seeing a favorite artist perform live. The concert-going experience is like no other and it seems that ten-year-olds feel the same way. Ticket sales to the Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds (image to the left) concerts have broken records. The tour will stop in 54 cities and arenas across the nation to capitalize on the success of Hannah Montana, a wildly popular Disney television series about a regular teen with a superstar secret identity. Millions of kids wanted the opportunity to breathe the same air as their favorite actress/singer, but tickets to Hannah Montana’s concert sold out within minutes. Irate parents are blaming Ticketmaster (the leading ticketing company) like many other Ticketmaster users who feel that they have been cheated or ripped off. Many reports, like this one from the National Ledger, suggest that there is some kind of “Ticketmaster conspiracy"with ticket brokers and promoters concerning profits made by concert tickets. Some even accuse the company of being a monopoly (see this article on Pearl Jam's case against Ticketmaster in the 90's). Ticketmaster will lose its position at the top of the ticketing pyramid if it does not address the power of the following three things: unhappy consumers, the Internet and concert promoters looking to make a bigger profit.

First, Ticketmaster has not done enough to keep its customers happy. Convenience fees on top of base ticket prices are getting steeper and steeper. For the upcoming Rihanna concert at the House of Blues (screencap of Ticketmaster’s online buying page to the right), what should have been a $37 ticket (if sold by an independently run box office) became more than $50. Also, because Ticketmaster is the official ticketing agency for the two largest concert promoters, AEG Live and Live Nation, tickets to the most popular shows sell out quickly. For the parents of Hannah Montana fans in Kentucky, only 4,000 of 11,000 possible seats were sold to the general public (take a look at the article here). Ticketmaster also auctions off the best seats for events instead of selling them at set prices, in efforts to tap into the profits of auction sites like eBay and ticket scalpers. Though Ticketmaster prices are reasonable at times, those tickets are usually hard to come by and Ticketmaster is not doing enough to get more of those tickets to make consumers want to use their services. Increasingly, buyers who cannot find what they want on Ticketmaster will then turn to other websites, like Tickets.com and pay even more money. In fact, many venues and groups are trying to switch back to selling their own tickets. Unless there is a change in Ticketmaster’s method of selling tickets, Ticketmaster’s online box office may bring itself down with its high convenience charges.

An online box office is efficient, reliable, and usually convenient. As Business Week magazine says in the article "Ticketmaster Faces a Full Court Press," “The Net is shaking up the ticketing market by giving artists and venues a way to sell tickets directly to fans.” There is no need to wait in line or talk to anybody else anymore; a simple left-click can secure the best seats in the house. In that simple sense Ticketmaster online is a wonderful idea, but it is no secret that the Internet has turned the music and ticketing industries upside down. Now, there are many other online ticket brokers to choose from, including auction websites and online scalping. The only problem is that those tickets charge sometimes five times as much as Ticketmaster would. Again, Ticketmaster needs to secure more tickets to sell. Though Ticketmaster is the first place most concert-goers will go to purchase a ticket, it is difficult to justify the need for Ticketmaster when independently, a ticket can be sold through other websites, including a promoter’s website or an artist’s fan club just as easily, and possibly for a better price.

Also, Ticketmaster’s big concert promoters (promoters are basically the people behind the tours making sure people come to these concerts) are always looking for a way to cut costs and keep the most profit. One of the easiest ways to keep the money is for the promoter to sell tickets to their own concerts. Judging from Ticketmaster's profits of over $100 million from Live Nation alone, it is really more lucrative to stay in charge. If AEG Live follows Live Nation’s decision to end its contract with Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster will probably be reduced to a secondary ticket-buying website for the most popular live concerts.

All in all, there is still hope for Ticketmaster if it wants to maintain its hold on the live music industry, but it will be a while before the public can again be comfortable with the company. Ticketmaster is said to be “investing heavily in technologies that could allow it to provide better marketing data and sell more tickets than rivals (Business Week)”. If that is true, then hopefully the other 9,000 Ticketmaster clients will benefit from it, and not go the way of Live Nation. Ticketmaster needs to respond to its consumers needs better to lose its reputation as an unreliable rip-off and become a primary source for live music performances yet again, hopefully by the next time Hannah Montana goes on tour.

Responses: The Future of the Music Industry

2007-09-25T08:51:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that a lot of blogs have been pondering and hypothesizing the future of the music industry lately- probably because of all the recent legal issues and changes the music industry has been through. As Benjamin Disraeli said, "Change is inevitable," and like all other things that may change, the music industry has to adapt to survive as well. Some have found the digital revolution to be beneficial; mostly consumers and performers like Tila Tequila utilized online marketing strategies (check out her ad to the right) before even being signed to a label, and now the girl has a music career, a clothing line, a reality show on VH1, as well as a couple million friends on myspace. On the other hand, the digital age has hurt some people- namely huge record companies, huge artists, and the people behind their music.

Personally, I think that the consumer is getting the best of both worlds while the industry is adapting, where music is readily available and the genres are plentiful. I stumbled upon a couple of posts that talk about the future, and I found my reactions to them to be a little different. One post, from Martin Weller, an Educational Technology professor at Open University in the UK said some things that I just couldn’t agree with about the future of music and content. The other post, over at NYTimes Freakonomics blog by the authors of the bestseller (cover art to the right) by the same name, resonated with me on many points, especially about the record industry model and why today’s consumer is hard to reach. I left comments at both sites, see below:

In response to this article at The Ed Techie, I left this comment:

“As a person who has studied and continues to study the music industry, I find it difficult to hypothesize the future of music itself in regards to content like you have. Music is an ever-changing form of expression, and I know you speak of it as a product (which it is) there are a few things I disagreed with:

You said that "Economics will be the main driving factor in the liberation of content and has focused on individuals or small groups creating content."

In relation to the record label model that is still dominant today and will probably continue to be dominant for at least the next 5 years, economics is the main driving factor behind the restriction of content. The huge record labels give people what they want to hear, or at least what they think they want to hear- even if it's horribly produced teen pop from the 90's. No matter how many different artists these labels sign, what makes the most money will get the most attention.

"Increasingly bands are establishing an online presence, allowing free downloads of their music to build a following, touring, and recording an album, and only then seeking a label."

This is only true for a handful of bands at the moment. Where do you find a band with the money to use professional recording equipment? Most artists still need the financial backing that a record label can provide. A lot of the online super-bands were signed to very small labels, and then signed to bigger names after their small successes.”

I also left a comment on this Freakonomics post:

Like the person above, I wanted to bring up the fact that record labels and artists do not get that much from those 99 cents you paid for their song on iTunes- but other than that, I found myself nodding in agreement throughout my perusal of this post.

"Instant gratification has removed some of the the demand. Music feels like it has become more disposable and cheap, with less staying power....
The Christmas Eve-type excitement and anticipation that used to accompany entertainment seems to have disappeared."

The idea of instant gratification resonates with me, as I wondered why I didn't treasure my new music as much as I treasure my old music library. It's because music has lost the ability to create anticipation. I find it true to say that because things can be previewed or pirated before they are released, they are somewhat less amazing when they are finally released.

"I don’t pretend to know what the industry will look like in ten years, but the funny thing about all of this is that music itself is healthier than ever. The Internet, combined with low-cost (or even no-cost) digital tools, has led to an explosion of creativity, with millions of amateurs making music for every conceivable genre, sub-genre, and microgenre, and then sharing their creations online."

Again, I agree. I read a post on another blog where the author said that the economics of the music industry is ruining the quality of what music is made. I think that is untrue, music is flourishing. It can be likened the the rise in literacy after Gutenberg's printing press- give them books they will learn to read, give them the tools to make music, and they will make music!

"Much of the reduction in sales is the direct result of industry cost-cutting. The major record labels have cut large numbers of staff and severed ties with many artists. Such moves are not necessarily bad business choices, but they suggest that less attention should be given to revenues and more to profits."

Profits are already given a lot of attention. Take the rise of hip-hop. Hip-hop music generates so many hits, the radio is constantly playing the latest and most popular songs of the gigantic genre- why? Because hip-hop is considerably easier and cheaper to make. You don't need to pay a band to make the music, all you need is a computer and a catchy hook. If it becomes a hit, you have much more profit. If it doesn't catch on, nothing to worry about, it cost nearly nothing to make."

DRM Backfires: Why Digital Rights Management Doesn't/Didn't Work

2007-09-18T06:48:00.000-07:00

What the Rubik's cube did for the 80's, the iPod and its iTunes software have done it for this generation. The iconic advertisements like the one to the left have helped sell more than 100 million of the oh-so-distinctive iPods. Earlier this year, the people at Apple Inc. celebrated the success of iTunes, Apple’s online music store where almost 70% of online music downloads are sold. Over the past year, iTunes has accumulated sales of more than 3 billion songs, charging $0.99 a single- a single encoded with DRM. DRM, or Digital Rights Management, is a set of limitations built into a digital file. Now, credit has to be given to the music lovers who are perfectly fine with paying $0.99 to legally own a copy of a music file, but others (the majority, it seems) seek ways to save money or circumvent the restrictions of DRM encoded files. Though its intentions were to curb piracy and protect the copyrights of the people behind the music, many companies are moving away from the practice of adding DRMs in their present form to downloadable files because, frankly, everyone is just frustrated. Some even credit DRMs with the rampant use of peer-to-peer file sharing, bittorrent and- though it may sound extreme- piracy. Digital Rights Management on music is now backfiring because of its restrictive nature, the availability of DRM-free music, and piracy.

First, it must be said that when one legally buys a song in any form (on CD, mp3, aac, even on cassettes), they own a copy of that song. To illustrate this, a comment from this article at Red Hat Magazine’s blog does it well:

“When we buy a book….We pay for the pages, the covers, the bindings of that book and the privilege of reading the words of the author. We do not own the words of that author…. but we can sure let others read that same book without legal consequences for breaking a law.

Now…DRM says that when we buy a book, we are the only one allowed to read that book. If our wife wants to read it, she must buy her own copy… If we try to copy that book for posterity or protection from harm, the ink has been made not copyable...”

-Roger

In the present version of iTunes, most songs are encoded with DRM limitations- which means that consumers are not allowed to burn the songs onto a CD more than 7 times, not allowed to change the format of that song to make it compatible with other programs or devices, and they are not allowed to put that song on more than 5 authorized and compatible computers. Buying music that can't be used anywhere but a certain program on a certain device? That equals a monopoly in the digital music world. As Cory, one blogger from boingboing.net put it, "DRM is protection from competition." DRMs prevent the people who buy music from online stores like iTunes from taking full advantage of their music.

Online music consumers also have to deal with music from other outlets. Other online music the fact that it is very easy to get DRM free stores, such as eMusic and Wal-Mart Downloads, sell music that is DRM free. Why should you buy a song with DRM limitations if you can get it, legally, just as easily? It has to be pointed out that while digital downloads are gaining popularity, most albums are still sold on CD. When one buys a CD (and they are DRM-free, thanks to consumer backlash) they are given the freedom to play that CD on any CD player they may come across, take the songs from that CD and play it on their computer, put those songs onto their non-iPod portable media player, and even make unlimited copies of that CD- provided that they do not distribute those copies or make a profit off of them. If the music industry wanted DRMs to be effective, restrictions should have been set on all aspects of music distribution.

Even Steve Jobs, (pictured to the left) CEO of Apple Inc., says that DRMs are hurting the music industry more than helping it. Piracy has become even worse than before, and Jobs finds that the restrictive environment of music forces people to turn to “alternative” methods. According to him, research shows that out of 1000 songs on an iPod, only 22 are legally copied files. DRMs have failed to stop piracy, and that is possibly the biggest reason why the system just doesn’t work. In an open letter by Jobs, “Thoughts on Music,” he requested the four major record companies to think about opening their libraries to DRM-free downloading on iTunes. And if Steve Jobs, the main man behind iTunes and Apple, says that “DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy,” then maybe someone should believe him. iTunes has just launched a DRM-free library where the music will cost $0.30 extra, but be compatible with other libraries and devices. The end of DRM may be soon.