Thursday, November 27, 2003
The end of MP3.com
While on the subject of DRM, I came across this article that informed me that MP3.com has been sold to CNET (who are planning their own digital download service). While a sale alone might not be bad news, CNET's plans for MP3.com are truly a tragedy. They plan on killing all the archives on MP3, archives where I found such delightful artists as Zero 7 and Astral Projection.
Musicians received this announcement on Friday.
"Your personal information, music, images, related content or other information will not be transferred to CNET Networks, Inc. or any other third party... Please note, however, that promptly following the removal of the MP3.com website, all content will be deleted from our servers and all previously submitted tapes, CD-ROMs and other media in our possession will be destroyed. We recommend that you make alternative content hosting arrangements as soon as practicable."
CNET will follow Wal-Mart, Real Inc. and Apple Computer into the DRM business, infecting as many computers as they can with restrictive software controls that close what for a brief period has been an open computer platform. They all hope that this tentative business model, the terms of which are set by the entertainment "industry", will somehow turn them a profit. Or at least give the illusion of doing so, until a better idea comes along.
One such idea is the tremendously popular notion of 'compulsory licenses' - a flat rate fee to be levied by some rich nitwit, somewhere (as a society we can choose who and where at our leisure) - but which potentially provides us with free music private sharing and a way of ensuring the creators are recompensed. It's handicapped with a Stalinist name, right now, but even the libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation has thrown its weight behind the idea.
The author of the article, Andrew Orlowski argues in an earlier piece that the profitability of digital downloads was a big lie.
The problem with this gold rush is, as Jobs himself reminded us last week, there's no money in it for the retailers themselves. The difference between Apple and the arrivistes (and, for that matter, the 800lb gorilla Sony, which will enter the business next year), is that Apple makes money from iPod sales. Sony will outflank Apple thanks to its huge vertical integration advantages: it owns the content and has a historic presence as a consumer manufacturer. But for the others, it's hard to see where the money comes from.
If this is true (that digital downloads per se are not profitable), I can understand why Itunes is just a front for selling Ipods and why Moby thinks a new distribution model may be in the offing.
Musicians received this announcement on Friday.
"Your personal information, music, images, related content or other information will not be transferred to CNET Networks, Inc. or any other third party... Please note, however, that promptly following the removal of the MP3.com website, all content will be deleted from our servers and all previously submitted tapes, CD-ROMs and other media in our possession will be destroyed. We recommend that you make alternative content hosting arrangements as soon as practicable."
CNET will follow Wal-Mart, Real Inc. and Apple Computer into the DRM business, infecting as many computers as they can with restrictive software controls that close what for a brief period has been an open computer platform. They all hope that this tentative business model, the terms of which are set by the entertainment "industry", will somehow turn them a profit. Or at least give the illusion of doing so, until a better idea comes along.
One such idea is the tremendously popular notion of 'compulsory licenses' - a flat rate fee to be levied by some rich nitwit, somewhere (as a society we can choose who and where at our leisure) - but which potentially provides us with free music private sharing and a way of ensuring the creators are recompensed. It's handicapped with a Stalinist name, right now, but even the libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation has thrown its weight behind the idea.
The author of the article, Andrew Orlowski argues in an earlier piece that the profitability of digital downloads was a big lie.
The problem with this gold rush is, as Jobs himself reminded us last week, there's no money in it for the retailers themselves. The difference between Apple and the arrivistes (and, for that matter, the 800lb gorilla Sony, which will enter the business next year), is that Apple makes money from iPod sales. Sony will outflank Apple thanks to its huge vertical integration advantages: it owns the content and has a historic presence as a consumer manufacturer. But for the others, it's hard to see where the money comes from.
If this is true (that digital downloads per se are not profitable), I can understand why Itunes is just a front for selling Ipods and why Moby thinks a new distribution model may be in the offing.
