Submission + - Why is the RIAA against music download services?
GuyverDH writes: I've been sitting here scratching my head, trying to come up with a reason beyond greed as to why the RIAA is against download services, whether they be pay services or non pay services.
As I tried to sift through information, it suddenly came to me. I think I know the reason they do not like download services. It (the non DRM'd download services) is not defective by design. Let me re-state this. The original download services did not have DRM. They didn't care about piracy, they cared about defective by design. DRM free downloads can be copied off to backup media, and re-used on just about any platform. Essentially the user would NEVER have to buy another copy of that music again. This, in my opinion, is the real reason the RIAA is against this.
Let's look at the history of the music industry.
One of the first commercially available music formats was the vynil album. It had the built in defect that the media was easily damaged. Small scratches were enough to make the media unusable.
Next we had tape — reel to reel, 8-track, cassette, DAT. All of these had the inherit defect that they were easily damaged. The tape was easily mangled or erased, either by dirty heads (as the tape dumped magnetic residue onto the heads), or because of different speed reels or other components that the tape was routed through.
Next we had optical media — Compact Disc, Music DVDs. These were probably the most defective media ever created or adopted by the RIAA. Why? Because something as simple as a fingerprint is enough to cause the media to fail (at least until it's cleaned). The act of cleaning the disc, if not done properly, is enough to permanently damage it.
Finally, the digital file format, DRM free. P2P file sharing services were the anti-defective by design. Not only were the files DRM free, but they were in formats that just about anyone could read. There is also the fact that simple replication to additional media (backup tapes, discs, other hard drives, flash media, etc...) gave the end-user the ability to re-create any failed media without re-purchasing the music.
Every one of these media formats were designed with a built in defect. They were designed to fail during normal use. They were designed to fail in a way that we'd blame the media not the industry that used the media. They were designed to fail to increase their revenue streams through re-purchasing music due to media failure.
Guess what? We fell for it.
This, I believe, is the reason the RIAA is against DRM free digital music distribution.
It's not about pirating. It's about lost revenue due to the fact that people aren't having to re-purchase music over and over and over and over again due to (surprise) failed defective by design media.
Give it some thought. Maybe I've gone over the deep end, but I truly think this may be the root cause.
As I tried to sift through information, it suddenly came to me. I think I know the reason they do not like download services. It (the non DRM'd download services) is not defective by design. Let me re-state this. The original download services did not have DRM. They didn't care about piracy, they cared about defective by design. DRM free downloads can be copied off to backup media, and re-used on just about any platform. Essentially the user would NEVER have to buy another copy of that music again. This, in my opinion, is the real reason the RIAA is against this.
Let's look at the history of the music industry.
One of the first commercially available music formats was the vynil album. It had the built in defect that the media was easily damaged. Small scratches were enough to make the media unusable.
Next we had tape — reel to reel, 8-track, cassette, DAT. All of these had the inherit defect that they were easily damaged. The tape was easily mangled or erased, either by dirty heads (as the tape dumped magnetic residue onto the heads), or because of different speed reels or other components that the tape was routed through.
Next we had optical media — Compact Disc, Music DVDs. These were probably the most defective media ever created or adopted by the RIAA. Why? Because something as simple as a fingerprint is enough to cause the media to fail (at least until it's cleaned). The act of cleaning the disc, if not done properly, is enough to permanently damage it.
Finally, the digital file format, DRM free. P2P file sharing services were the anti-defective by design. Not only were the files DRM free, but they were in formats that just about anyone could read. There is also the fact that simple replication to additional media (backup tapes, discs, other hard drives, flash media, etc...) gave the end-user the ability to re-create any failed media without re-purchasing the music.
Every one of these media formats were designed with a built in defect. They were designed to fail during normal use. They were designed to fail in a way that we'd blame the media not the industry that used the media. They were designed to fail to increase their revenue streams through re-purchasing music due to media failure.
Guess what? We fell for it.
This, I believe, is the reason the RIAA is against DRM free digital music distribution.
It's not about pirating. It's about lost revenue due to the fact that people aren't having to re-purchase music over and over and over and over again due to (surprise) failed defective by design media.
Give it some thought. Maybe I've gone over the deep end, but I truly think this may be the root cause.
