I will be speaking at the Flow Conference in Austin, Texas on October 9th at a round table about music and copy protection.  I’m posting here my position paper, though regular readers should be familiar with my opinion on the subject.  If anyone’s heading to the conference, please contact me in the comments, email or Twitter.

The other panelists will be (links go to panelist’s position papers).

Patrick Burkart, Texas A&M University (convener)

Danny Kimball, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Ali McMillan, University of Western Ontario

Moderators: Marnie Binfield and David Uskovich

This is the question the roundtable will be discussing:

More and more music fans, artists, and labels are rejecting DRMed file formats in favor of more lenient digital music sharing policies than what are available through most commercial music service providers. Under what conditions do music fans resist copy protections? When have music labels dropped copy protections? What is the disposition of digital music distributors towards DRMed formats?

My response

Thanks to technology, more people are creating and listening to music than ever before. With computers and the internet, it is cheaper and easier to produce and distribute music. Instead of embracing technology, music companies are using technology like DRM to stifle innovation and user value, trying to control their evolving industry.

DRM gives record companies the feeling of control over their music – control they no longer have. But the economics of music are changing. The cost of distributing music has dropped to almost nothing, making music infinitely reproducible by anyone. Music companies used to decades of controlling distribution need to adjust to a new marketplace where plastic discs don’t matter. This means radically changing music’s business models.

Musicians and publishers feared the first digital music device, the player piano, more than a century ago. In 1906, John Phillips Sousa and music publishers asked Congress to ban the player. Instead, Congress instituted the compulsory license system still used today. This took away control from publishers, but helped everyone make more money by embracing the benefits of the technology, selling piano rolls to make songs more popular and performers more valuable.

Computers and the internet can be just as profitable when embraced. Musicians like Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Jill Sobule, Kristin Hersh, and Maria Schneider are experimenting with new business models using infinite goods to sell scarce goods. Reznor posted his own music on file-sharing networks while selling premium editions of his album with a Blu-Ray slideshow, vinyl version, and signature. Reznor grossed $1.6 million in the first week even though his music was freely available online. Sobule and Hersh let fans support the creation of their albums by selling private performances, chances to sing on the album, or executive producer credits. Music companies study file-sharing networks to target advertising and decide tour locations based on the popularity of artists.

Most music companies treat new technology like the enemy, using DRM to limit what technology can do. DRM aims to prevent file-sharing, helping music companies control distribution of an infinite good, while taking away value from paying customers. Music companies expect customers to pay more dollars for less value.

But DRM does not stop file-sharing. Only one MP3 file is needed to spread to thousands of freeloading fans. Almost every form of DRM gets circumvented within days meaning one file always makes it onto file-sharing networks. EMI began selling DRM-free files on iTunes partly because DRM has no effect on piracy.

While DRM fails at its only purpose, it succeeds in making music less valuable, treating paying customers like criminals, and causing technical and public relations nightmares from installing malware (Sony rootkit) to failing devices (Blu-Ray players that don’t play all Blu-Ray discs). DRM-free stores like Amazon and Wal-Mart evolved out of necessity. Music companies forced Apple to lock iTunes with DRM limiting files to only play on iPods. As Apple sold more music, it sold more iPods. When Amazon and Wal-Mart launched their music stores, they had to offer them DRM-free so songs could play on iPods. The music industry handed Apple control over its digital future, from pricing to marketing, because of DRM.

Some DRM validation services get canceled, leaving companies with expensive public embarrassments and unhappy customers with useless music. Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft all canceled support for their DRM. Yahoo and Google offered refunds or DRM-free alternatives to all customers while Microsoft, due to public outcry, reinstated its DRM.

It’s up to the music industry to develop business models that embrace the promotional value of its music to sell more valuable scarce goods. Entertainment has used this model for decades: Television provides free shows supported by advertising and music uses the promotion of radio to increase album sales. There is more money to be made embracing technology rather than fighting it. People can listen to and share music, becoming bigger music fans, and increasing demand for scarce goods like concert tickets and collectibles. Thanks to computers and the internet, every MP3 is a promotional tool.

The music industry needs to adapt to the changing marketplace. Use technology to give customers more value: give people a reason to spend their money. DRM takes away value from customers, causes public relations nightmares, and provides no benefit except a false sense of control. Instead of fighting file-sharing, embrace it as a competitor and offer a more valuable customer experience, not try to control the experience. More value means more money. And that’s good business.

Work Cited

Doctorow, Cory. “Microsoft Research DRM talk.” Microsoft offices, Redmond. 17 June 2004. 1 Sept. 2008 <http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt>.

Masnick, Mike. Techdirt. 1 Sept. 2008 <http://www.techdirt.com>.

EA released the long-in-development Spore this weekend, packed with repressive DRM.  Gamers have responded by flooding Spore’s Amazon with one star reviews (more than 650).  EA limits Spore to only three installations.  Uninstalling the game does not increase that number, leaving paying customers to prove they legally purchased the game to EA for permission to play the game.

All this happens in the name of preventing piracy. But Spore has been available on Bittorrent sites for almost a week sans DRM. This leaves paying customers to deal with restrictive DRM.

EA knew a public relations nightmare was brewing when it announced the DRM back in the spring.  After public outcry, EA removed part of the DRM requiring a validation check every 10 days, but EA kept the three installs limit that is frustrating gamers.

So piracy is running free and paying customers are pissed off.  How is DRM supposed to work again?

After Google Video and Microsoft’s PlayForSure showed what not to do, Yahoo Music decided it wanted to be an example for what not to do in digital media.  Yahoo announced it will discontinue support for its DRM at the end of September, locking DRMed tracks to a single computer.

Microsoft tried to discontinue its PlayForSure DRM a few months ago, but has agreed to leave it up for a few more years.  Google Video discontinued its DRM, offering refunds for all purchases.  Only after some outcry did Yahoo agree to refund customers or provide DRM-free tracks.

All this ends up being expensive for everyone involved, whether its maintaining servers or refunding every customer you’ve ever had. Soon consumers will realize DRM deprives them of value they expect, like owning the music tracks they paid for.  Of course, consumers can always go to file-sharing networks which are free and DRM-free. That’s the competition, remember.

Shameless plug: I’ll be at the Flow Conference Oct. 9th in Austin, Tex. speaking on a roundtable about music and DRM in case anyone’s in the area.

For the doomsaying that PC gaming is in it last throes, game publishers keep releasing games. Several publishers including Infinity Ward and Crytek blame piracy for low sales of their PC games, Call of Duty 4 and Crysis respectively. Thus publishers are packing their games with more and more restrictive and complex DRM, a surefire sales pitch to increase sales.

Electronic Arts released a PC-port of Mass Effect last month and users are already complaining they are being locked out of the game. The company restricts the game to only be installed three times and uninstalling it doesn’t reinstate an install. This is a step up from the proposed DRM which would have rechecked the game’s serial number every 10 days, requiring an internet connection to play a game that doesn’t require an internet connection. After the internet backlash, EA dropped the 10-day check, but made sure Mass Effect was still to difficult to be worth purchasing.

The upcoming game Spore is likely to have similar DRM.

The challenge for PC game publishers is not piracy, because pirates will pirate games. Fighting these pirates becomes an arms war of technology that the pirates constantly win. Publishers waste their time and money fighting them, and alienating paying customers at the same time.

Stardock takes a different approach. Their games contain no DRM and don’t require keeping the CD in the drive to play. Users with valid serial numbers get regular updates with rich lists of new features. Obviously pirates get their hands on Stardock’s games, but the publisher makes a significant profit with a loyal fan base and, shockingly, not spending so much money.

Brad Wardell, founder of Stardock writes:

Anyone who keeps track of how many PCs the “Gamer PC” vendors sell each year could tell you that it’s insane to develop a game explicitly for hard core gamers. Insane. I think people would be shocked to find out how few hard core gamers there really are out there. This data is available. So why are companies making games that require them to sell to 15% of a given market to be profitable? If you need to sell 500,000 of your game to break even and your game requires Pixel Shader 3 to not look like crap or play like crap, do you you really think that there are 50 MILLION PC users with Pixel Shader 3 capable machines who a) play games and b) will actually buy your game if a pirated version is available?

He goes on to explain why Stardock is successful without copy-protection.

When you develop for a market, you don’t go by the user base. You go by the potential customer base. That’s what most software companies do. They base what they want to create on the size of the market they’re developing for. But not PC game developers.

PC game developers seem to focus more on the “cool” factor. What game can they make that will get them glory with the game magazines and gaming websites and hard core gamers? These days, it seems like game developers want to be like rock stars more than businessmen. I’ve never considered myself a real game developer. I’m a gamer who happens to know how to code and also happens to be reasonably good at business.

Stardock games, like “Galactic Civilizations II sold 300,000 copies making 8 digits in revenue on a budget of less than $1 million” according to Wardell. Sins of a Solar Empire was the best-selling PC game of February, ahead of Call of Duty 4 and a World of Warcraft expansion.

Stardock is not praying for people to actually buy their games. They cater to a large enough market, spend an appropriate amount to make the game, and provide an on-going service to encourage people to pay for the game rather than pirate it. People pirate Stardock games, just like they’re pirating EA’s DRM-filled Mass Effect. But Stardock is making huge profits and not pissing off its paying customers. Revolutionary.

Media and software companies release reports that piracy costs them billions of dollars, destroying their business, funding terrorism, or hurting poor farmers. These companies lobby governments to pass laws, sue fans in court, or ask people to spy on others in order to prop up business models that are becoming obsolete. Companies should stop fighting piracy and treat it like any competitor - by competing and out innovating file-sharing services to provide a better value allowing everyone to make more money.

Matt Mason promotes this in his book, The Pirate’s Dilemma, calling piracy a sign of innovation as pirates experiment to make processes more efficient.

Some of America’s greatest innovators were thought of as pirates. When Thomas Edison invented the phonographic record player, musicians branded him a pirate out to steal their work and destroy the live music business, until a system was established so everyone could be paid royalties. Edison, in turn, went on to invent filmmaking, and demanded a licensing fee from those making movies with his technology. This caused a band of filmmaking pirates, including a man named William, to flee New York for the then still wild West, where they thrived, unlicensed, until Edison’s patents expired. These pirates continue to operate there, albeit legally now, in the town they founded: Hollywood. William’s last name? Fox.

New technology has repeatedly challenged media companies, from Edison’s phonograph to television to cassette tapes. After lawsuits attempted to quash the innovation, media companies embraced the new technology and found new revenue streams, making more money as a result. The home video market Hollywood so desperately defends now would never have existed had Universal and Disney’s lawsuit against Betamax succeeded. Instead of suing file-sharing networks, media companies need to embrace the new technology as a new way to make money.

The current state of media and software is quite good. Media companies are making more money every year. Even the music industry is making more music while more people are listening to music. The recording industry is plummeting at a rate so fast piracy cannot be the sole factor, as studies have shown.

But piracy has become an obsession for media and software companies, hurting themselves and their paying customers with DRM and restrictive policies that limit the value of their products. Microsoft, Google, and Major League Baseball have all discontinued DRM serviced, meaning people who legally paid for goods no longer get to use them while pirates continue to download DRM-free goods for nothing.

Piracy offers a compelling alternative. Piracy offers unlimited free downloads of an almost complete collection of every movie, song, TV show, book, or game ever made using a variety of easy to use programs. Pirated content has no DRM, meaning you can put your music and movies on every computer and portable device you own. On the down side, pirated content is has unreliable quality and inconsistent download speeds, but since its free, these are minor negatives.

Why should someone pay for a service with less services?

Media and software companies need to recognize piracy is not going away - it’s a competitor. No matter how many lawsuits the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA file, piracy grows. These lawsuits increase publicity for many sites and services, working against the lawsuit’s purpose - Pirate Bay, the leading BitTorrent tracker, is now one of the 100 most trafficked websites thanks to publicity from these lawsuits. And for every file-sharing service closed down, dozens more pop up. File-sharing is too useful and thus valuable.

To compete, media and software companies will need radical changes to their business models. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick constantly refers to leveraging infinite goods to sell scarce goods.

In a competitive market, the price of a good is always going to get pushed towards its marginal cost. That actually makes a lot of sense. As competition continues, it puts pressure on profits, but producers aren’t willing (or can’t for very long) keep selling goods at a direct loss. Sunk (or fixed) costs don’t matter, because they’ve already been paid — so everything gets pushed to marginal cost.

Movies, music, and software have high upfront costs but negligible reproduction costs - it’s as simple as copy and pasting a file.

This means leveraging infinite goods to sell scarce goods, like concert tickets, collectable merchandise, or advertising (people’s time and attention is very limited). $20 for DVDs and CDs worked under the old, obsolete business model. The new media economy requires new business models that offer more value to consumers. Plastic discs don’t offer $20 of value anymore, meaning new price models and revenue expectations need to be developed. Just because the recording industry used to be making $10 billion a year doesn’t mean is deserves to always $10 billion. As Masnick points out, should the automobile industry be blamed for putting horse-drawn carriages out of business? The industry has to innovate and adapt to market forces to continue making that money. That’s how capitalism works.

Several progressive artists and developers are experimenting with new business models. Radiohead’s pay-your-own price for their new album was a good start. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails earned $1.6 million in one week selling special editions of his new CD, a CD that you could also download for free. Indie record label Fueled by Ramen used viral marketing to build valuable brands around its bands rather than relying on disc sales. The potential for rewarding business models exists, but will require risk and experimentation and an understanding of the evolving marketplace. Media and software companies need to recognize what their customers want and give it to them. Suing isn’t the answer. Embracing is. And that’s how both piracy and business can win.

We all have holiday wish-lists, but some things are less realistic than others. If Santa really existed, these are the seven things I’d really want this holiday season.

7. Good Wii games

Let’s see some more quality first-person shooters, some real-time motion action games, and well-developed stories. And mini-games are great if they offer some real variety. And let’s make use of the Wii-mote before releasing more peripherals, please.

6. Some civil presidential election commercials

It’s the holiday season.  I don’t want to know 101 ways Democrats and Republicans hate children.  Save that for January when we all get our credit cards bills.

Continue reading…