How can anyone that enjoys art support such a law as is in front of the French Assemblé Nationale? For those who don't know, this law would make the fines for downloading music and sharing it online almost nil. In addition, it would make it legal for people to circumvent current DRM on music purchased online if it is done to be able to play it on other devices than for which it is built. While the second part is far from an obvious problem, it is simply shows a lack of foresight by the authors of the law.
Let's start with the obvious problem, legalized file sharing of music if the user pays a fee to do so. This fee then gets shared with the highest amounts going to the most popular songs. The money that is being discussed would in no way replicate what can be made by a band through retail sales. I'm the first one to admit that music is fairly expensive and there is a tremendous amount of crap out there. Yet, my solution to that is I don't buy the crap. I'm sick and tired of people complaining that the music isn't worth the cost. THEN DON'T BUY IT! I personally think cars are overly expensive for what you get. Should it then be legal for me to just walk onto a lot and take a car? I don't think anyone would agree that it should be. Yet, many want to be able to get music for free. Millions steal music every day through illegal file sharing. If you make the file sharing a pay service, why does anyone believe this will make users stop from getting it free?
The second part of this section is not well-publicized. Movies are excluded from this process. Why is this so? Shouldn't movies, music, books, and artwork all be classed together? It's all different forms of art. What makes a book or a movie special that they shouldn't be shared in the same manner? Are the movie lobbyists stronger or better at their job? Isn't it just a matter of time before they are included as well? If this happens, we will see the end of art as we know it. Musicians, authors, filmmakers will be forced down to a select few. We will once again become a society that supports art only through the select wealthy who can afford to fund an artistic endeavor without expecting profits in return. Whether we like it or not, this means artificial censorship. The only art we will see is that art which the wealthy enjoy.
So, how about removing DRM for the purposes of playing music on other devices that on which it was intended to be played? Seems like a reasonable request. Yet, in essence this legalizes the production of software to do just that. What this means is that anyone can rip the DRM from the music with the intention of trading it, sharing it or reselling it. How quickly do you think this would be become the norm? Why pay even the minimal fee to use 'legal' peer-to-peer' networks when you can get it for free? This is already the problem now. The only think stopping a lot of people is that the quality is not as good on the free stuff. This DRM removal legalization would in effect remove this hurdle. After that, all the music appearing on these illegal services would be exactly the same file quality without the DRM. Piracy would increase.
Do I think DRM is a good thing? No. Do I wish it could be done without? Of course. Yet, humanity has proven that hassles like DRM are a necessity. There are too many people who either don't mind stealing or don't know they are stealing to try to say anything different. There is absolutely no excuse for no being within the guidelines of Apple's or Microsoft's DRM. Almost anyone who complains about it, has one thing in mind and that is stealing the music.
So, in the end, such a strategy would result in the loss of money to artists and, thus, the end of art. One of my problems with this entire issue is that Apple has singularly been chosen to take the brunt of the hits. Why does no one talk about how Microsoft's DRM is only available for Windows OS? Apple has its available for both Windows OS and Mac OS. One of the reasons to not switch between Windows and Mac is that a person may have thousands of legally purchased songs on their Windows machine with Microsoft DRM attached and no way to transfer them because Microsoft locks them into one OS. In addition, it is not impossible to transfer the songs purchased through iTunes to players other than iPod. It's actually easy, even if time consuming. Yet, everyone want to attack Apple for hooking up the player and the music service together. It's one of things that makes Macs so great. The system is intertwined with the hardware. I say this is a strength, not a disadvantage. Still, if you want choice, you have it. However, Apple has always prided itself on quality over quantity. Certainly, Apple's products are far from perfect, but they are certainly better than anything anyone else has produced. I say this about both the iPod and Macintoshes themselves.
Consumers have a choice. Buy songs with Microsoft DRM, Real DRM or Apple DRM (as well as others) or buy CDs without the DRM and rip them into your computer. I like the iPod and iTunes, but if I didn't I would be purchasing CDs, not clamoring to be able to remove the DRM from songs purchased on online music stores. Of course, they have one other choice that this French law would highlight and that's stealing the music. Unfortunately, most of the people that would like to see this law in place fall into that category. They steal now, they simply want to make it legal and improve the quality of the music they steal at the same time.
Comments