Tuesday, March 22. 2005
Rent, Lease, or Buy - Which Model Is Right For You
Not too long ago I would have laughed if you had asked me to rent music and pay a monthly fee to do so. Now I am not so sure. I have tried most of the services that are available to "legally" download music from the web and mostly I am left disappointed. Without exception after I have used the service for a few days or weeks I feel constrained. It is hard for me to put my finger on the exact reason, but I think its a combination of several things. What happens if my hard drive dies? What happens if I get a virus? What happens if I want to change services next month?
Imagine what my computer looks like now. I have half a dozen songs from one service and three songs from another service and about 100 songs from a subscription service. I try the services because I cannot give my readers good advice if I do not try the various schemes for selling/renting digital content. But, because I am no longer paying the monthly subscription, I do not have access to those 100 songs I downloaded. The other songs have to be played through "authorized" players and so again I feel constrained. I have some open source software that I like for playing music but cannot use it with any of the content I downloaded.
Way back in the 1980's, the movie industry was basically force fed movie rentals, something the industry did not want. The rental industry became an enormous windfall for them. At the same time, the music industry would not allow compact discs to be rented for various reasons but primarily because they thought it was too easy to copy music. Early on they thought people would just copy the CD to cassette; later they knew people would just do a CD to CD copy. Fast forward to the late 1990s and audio compression becomes simple to use and everyone with a computer had an almost unlimited supply of music.
Now the music industry seems to be embracing the idea of music rental but with a slightly different twist. Now instead of going down to a local store and renting a CD, they want you to pay a monthly fee for access to very large music libraries. All you have to do is pay your monthly fee and download anything you care to try. So what's the catch? Well, once you choose a service, you are sort of stuck with them. You can only play those songs so long as you are paying the monthly fee.
As I said in the opening paragraph I viewed this whole concept with skepticism but after thinking about this for quite a while I began to change my mind. I began to look at the idea of cable and satellite monthly service fees. Imagine if there were a way to pay $40 per month to a service provider and in return this provider will allow you to download any episode of any television show you want to watch. The catch is that you cannot access this show unless you are paying for the service. For some reason this sounded more feasible to me than the idea of leasing my music collection. Why?
I think this goes back to the idea of ownership. When I buy a CD, I "own" that CD. I know that there are many interpretations of CD ownership and that the RIAA argues that I actually don't own it. However, I can basically do whatever I want with a CD. When I am done with said CD, I can give it to a friend and he can do with it as he pleases. This is the way it has been for 80 years. Phonographs, 8-tracks, cassettes and compact discs have all worked this way. You went to a store, you bought a piece of plastic, and you took it home. I never considered that there was another way and certainly not that there was a better way.
So maybe ownership of the media is not all its cracked up to be. If I add up the amount of money I spend every month on digital entertainment then the idea of a monthly service fee really starts to look attractive. With television I pay a monthly service fee to have access to channels that broadcast the shows I like. My DVR or VCR will record any show that I don't have time to watch immediately. Why do I still not like this idea? Here is the difference.
This is where the idea is flawed. Is it not enough that the average consumer needs to know the difference between all the different formats?
I am willing to consider that maybe I am wrong about the value of ownership and that some things just work better as a monthly service or as a rental. Heck, I am even willing to consider the idea that maybe our fathers had it wrong and that ownership is an antiquated idea. I am willing to consider these things, but after the reflection I've done on this topic, I am not willing to accept them. Take a little test and ask yourself the following questions and decide for yourself how you feel.
Author: Jimmy Palmer
Imagine what my computer looks like now. I have half a dozen songs from one service and three songs from another service and about 100 songs from a subscription service. I try the services because I cannot give my readers good advice if I do not try the various schemes for selling/renting digital content. But, because I am no longer paying the monthly subscription, I do not have access to those 100 songs I downloaded. The other songs have to be played through "authorized" players and so again I feel constrained. I have some open source software that I like for playing music but cannot use it with any of the content I downloaded.
Way back in the 1980's, the movie industry was basically force fed movie rentals, something the industry did not want. The rental industry became an enormous windfall for them. At the same time, the music industry would not allow compact discs to be rented for various reasons but primarily because they thought it was too easy to copy music. Early on they thought people would just copy the CD to cassette; later they knew people would just do a CD to CD copy. Fast forward to the late 1990s and audio compression becomes simple to use and everyone with a computer had an almost unlimited supply of music.
Now the music industry seems to be embracing the idea of music rental but with a slightly different twist. Now instead of going down to a local store and renting a CD, they want you to pay a monthly fee for access to very large music libraries. All you have to do is pay your monthly fee and download anything you care to try. So what's the catch? Well, once you choose a service, you are sort of stuck with them. You can only play those songs so long as you are paying the monthly fee.
As I said in the opening paragraph I viewed this whole concept with skepticism but after thinking about this for quite a while I began to change my mind. I began to look at the idea of cable and satellite monthly service fees. Imagine if there were a way to pay $40 per month to a service provider and in return this provider will allow you to download any episode of any television show you want to watch. The catch is that you cannot access this show unless you are paying for the service. For some reason this sounded more feasible to me than the idea of leasing my music collection. Why?
I think this goes back to the idea of ownership. When I buy a CD, I "own" that CD. I know that there are many interpretations of CD ownership and that the RIAA argues that I actually don't own it. However, I can basically do whatever I want with a CD. When I am done with said CD, I can give it to a friend and he can do with it as he pleases. This is the way it has been for 80 years. Phonographs, 8-tracks, cassettes and compact discs have all worked this way. You went to a store, you bought a piece of plastic, and you took it home. I never considered that there was another way and certainly not that there was a better way.
So maybe ownership of the media is not all its cracked up to be. If I add up the amount of money I spend every month on digital entertainment then the idea of a monthly service fee really starts to look attractive. With television I pay a monthly service fee to have access to channels that broadcast the shows I like. My DVR or VCR will record any show that I don't have time to watch immediately. Why do I still not like this idea? Here is the difference.
If I stop paying my cable company the monthly fee for their service, my VCR still works and so does my DVR. All of the recordings I have made will still work.The concept is flawed. If I buy a CD player, every CD will work in it. If I buy a television, it will work with all cable companies in my country. If I buy an FM radio it works with every FM station. However, if I buy a new audio player I have to buy one that works with a particular service?
If I stop paying for my DRM "protected" music I no longer have access to it.
If I switch cable companies I don't have to get a new television to work with the new cable company.
If I switch music service providers then I might very well have to buy a new portable player due to incompatibility.
This is where the idea is flawed. Is it not enough that the average consumer needs to know the difference between all the different formats?
AAC, MP3, MP4, MP3-Pro, VBR, OGG, WMA, APE, WAV, RA, FLAC, SHN, VQFThis alphabet soup of acronyms is enough to confuse anyone. On top of this now we are asking the consumer to choose between DRM schemes and service providers also. I pity the poor parent trying to buy their 14 year old a birthday gift. Choice is a very good thing but I think most consumers will agree with me that an audio player should play audio just like a television will play television no matter where the content is being transmitted from. With very few exceptions people with DRM-based audio players have never considered what will happen in a few years when they want a new player. Most of them are going to find out that they are "stuck" with one particular set of devices and that there are features or bells or whistles that they cannot get on their device.
I am willing to consider that maybe I am wrong about the value of ownership and that some things just work better as a monthly service or as a rental. Heck, I am even willing to consider the idea that maybe our fathers had it wrong and that ownership is an antiquated idea. I am willing to consider these things, but after the reflection I've done on this topic, I am not willing to accept them. Take a little test and ask yourself the following questions and decide for yourself how you feel.
- Would you rather rent music or buy music?
- Would you rather rent movies or buy movies?
- Would you rather rent a book or buy a book?
- Would you rather rent furniture or buy furniture?
- Would you rather rent a car or buy a car?
- Would you rather rent a house or buy a house?
Author: Jimmy Palmer
Comments
actually i just read an interview (http://www.corante.com/vision/digitalmedia/kusek+leonhard.php) with the authors of a book (http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/) that purports that someday we will all "rent" music. that is, we will treat it as a utility, like electricity or water. for a set monthly fee you can listen to the entire catalog of available music delivered to you just like turning on the faucet. this idea does actually appeal to me except for two problems, one of which time and technology will solve, the other it will not solve.
first, when you subscribe to one of the services you must be clear that you are emphatically not getting some sort of definable product. you are purchasing the ability to listen, at will, to any of the millions of songs that are available. forget terms like, "downloading" or "transferring", these should just not be used. think more in terms of customized radio playlist instead of having a bunch of bits dropped onto your player. in this mode it's more like personal satellite radio than anything we now have. the problem with this is that you'll need to ubiquitous and continuous access to the repository of music something that just doesn't exist right now. when it does, (and works properly) i'll sign-up in a hot minute. until then i'll keep acquiring my music from CD or non-DRM downloads.
the second issue is that of the presence of a physical product that you've bought. right now i split my music purchases between downloads and CD purchases. most of the downloads i buy are either older recordings where perhaps (and i'm showing my age here) that i have on vinyl, or compilations of different artists or "best-of" type recordings. these i don't feel any particular need to digest the entire contents of the CD and associated packaging. however, if this is an artist that i feel strongly about, or have seen in person, then i like the idea of physically owning the CD. this way i also get all of the included literature, lyrics, photos, and personal notes that the artist wanted to convey. i think there will always be a market for this material, it just won't be the only market for distributing music.
first, when you subscribe to one of the services you must be clear that you are emphatically not getting some sort of definable product. you are purchasing the ability to listen, at will, to any of the millions of songs that are available. forget terms like, "downloading" or "transferring", these should just not be used. think more in terms of customized radio playlist instead of having a bunch of bits dropped onto your player. in this mode it's more like personal satellite radio than anything we now have. the problem with this is that you'll need to ubiquitous and continuous access to the repository of music something that just doesn't exist right now. when it does, (and works properly) i'll sign-up in a hot minute. until then i'll keep acquiring my music from CD or non-DRM downloads.
the second issue is that of the presence of a physical product that you've bought. right now i split my music purchases between downloads and CD purchases. most of the downloads i buy are either older recordings where perhaps (and i'm showing my age here) that i have on vinyl, or compilations of different artists or "best-of" type recordings. these i don't feel any particular need to digest the entire contents of the CD and associated packaging. however, if this is an artist that i feel strongly about, or have seen in person, then i like the idea of physically owning the CD. this way i also get all of the included literature, lyrics, photos, and personal notes that the artist wanted to convey. i think there will always be a market for this material, it just won't be the only market for distributing music.
#1
matt on Mar 22 2005, 15:14
Producers of music, television and movies are all faced with the same challanges today. How can get paid for for stuff.! However I believe that the solution for theese three are not necesarry the same. Because they are consumed in diffrent ways (at least today).
I buy my music, because I want to be able to enjoy it whenever I feel like it, over and over again. I rent my movies because most of them I only see once. I mean, compare how many times you have seen your favourite movie to how many times you have listened to your number one album.!? Television and radio to me is about three things:
1. Entertainment for my spare time.
2. Introducing me to entertainment I'd never find on my own, and
3. Education, news and documentaries helps me keep up to date with an ever so fast moving world.
But then again, I'm only of one of those old guys trying to kling to my dusty old ways. I was born in the late 70's for crying out loud.! I'm probably not even close to any of the target audiences that the media business is focusing on.
I buy my music, because I want to be able to enjoy it whenever I feel like it, over and over again. I rent my movies because most of them I only see once. I mean, compare how many times you have seen your favourite movie to how many times you have listened to your number one album.!? Television and radio to me is about three things:
1. Entertainment for my spare time.
2. Introducing me to entertainment I'd never find on my own, and
3. Education, news and documentaries helps me keep up to date with an ever so fast moving world.
But then again, I'm only of one of those old guys trying to kling to my dusty old ways. I was born in the late 70's for crying out loud.! I'm probably not even close to any of the target audiences that the media business is focusing on.
I see no sense in renting music. I do not rent books, magazines or any creative material, with the exception of movies. Movies are by-and-large not worth seeing a second time, they are not reference, as magazines can be, and they take more-or-less undivided attention to consume (unlike music). We consume music in a myriad of ways...driving, walking, traveling aboard airplanes, trains, busses, etc. We should not be hamstrung by archaic DRM requirements. I do believe in some sort of protection against unbridled piracy, but this should not make it so ridiculously cumbersome for legal consumers.
The problem with DRM is simple: It stands in the way of the single consumer benefit of "digital" music: portability.
Ever since the player piano, music has been on a one-way track toward being more portable; allowing us to enjoy it wherever we are whenever we want. That's why CDs were popular, not because they were a higher-quality format than vinyl (though [eventually!] they were), but because they were more portable. Recall that the first popular CD players were 'walkmen', not home-based players. Portability is what drives consumers to new music formats. MP3 became popular initially because there was so much pirated music available, but really took hold because it is the one true standard for portable, perceptual-encoded (i.e., small-file-size) music.
DRM is all about limiting portability. As such, it defeats the very purpose of the digital music revolution. It renders useless the primary consumer benefit of perceptual encoding.
I don't see people writing about this often enough. Hey, maybe I'm wrong!
Eric.
Ever since the player piano, music has been on a one-way track toward being more portable; allowing us to enjoy it wherever we are whenever we want. That's why CDs were popular, not because they were a higher-quality format than vinyl (though [eventually!] they were), but because they were more portable. Recall that the first popular CD players were 'walkmen', not home-based players. Portability is what drives consumers to new music formats. MP3 became popular initially because there was so much pirated music available, but really took hold because it is the one true standard for portable, perceptual-encoded (i.e., small-file-size) music.
DRM is all about limiting portability. As such, it defeats the very purpose of the digital music revolution. It renders useless the primary consumer benefit of perceptual encoding.
I don't see people writing about this often enough. Hey, maybe I'm wrong!
Eric.
#4
Eric Lyons on Mar 23 2005, 10:43
How do you feel about cell phone companies and how they "lock you in" on their particular series of phones? If you switch companies (at least you can keep your phone number), then what about that cool phone you recently bought that is now pretty much useless?
The major Intellectual Property companies have now believed for a decade that their future lie in the eradication of consumer ownership of media.
Video On Demand was the first such scheme that showed promise of working, though it's taken years to develop properly. They tried to integrate the physical media into the process with the Divx DVD standard (no relation to the DivX media codec as far as I know) where you had to buy the DVD, only got two days viewing time out of it (unless you purchased additional license rights) and then couldn't play it on another player. Now we have subscription services like the reborn Napster or satellite radio or even the NetFlix/Blockbuster rental system that are long on promise.
However, the ultimate goal of the Intellectual Property corporations is to eventually eliminate physical media all together. That would eliminate the rental venues, unless they switched to something akin to VOD.
It would also end the consumer's rights under Fair Use, which is the ultimate intention of the industry. Previous court precedence tended to side with the consumer because fixed media was involved. In addition, devices like VCRs were legal because of "time shifting". In the VOD world, you have no rights to copy the intellectual property. You have no rights to back up the property. There is no physical medium for the information, thus no rights for the consumer.
Is this going to help the CREATORS of intellectual property? Not really. With very few exceptions, most artists aren't billionaires. They negotiate contracts with labels or distribution companies to release their work, and get a tiny royalty based on the number of units sold.
Will this benefit the consumer? In some ways, yes. Imagine having access to a library of 100,000 movies you could watch on any given night. Imagine being able to access an archive of historical footage going back to the invention of the camera. Imagine being able to listen to any recorded song by any artist. Imagine having access to every book ever written, now in digital form. There's a catch, though...you have to pay for every single one you watch, look at, listen to or read. Every single time. Yes, on demand will eventually eradicate the public library, because the publishing companies will become the public library. Public, that is, for pay.
No more curling up with a good book. No more scanning your shelves for a good DVD. No more flipping through your record collection.
To quote the punk band Fear, "No more nothing."
Once information is out of the hands of the common man, that may well be the case.
Video On Demand was the first such scheme that showed promise of working, though it's taken years to develop properly. They tried to integrate the physical media into the process with the Divx DVD standard (no relation to the DivX media codec as far as I know) where you had to buy the DVD, only got two days viewing time out of it (unless you purchased additional license rights) and then couldn't play it on another player. Now we have subscription services like the reborn Napster or satellite radio or even the NetFlix/Blockbuster rental system that are long on promise.
However, the ultimate goal of the Intellectual Property corporations is to eventually eliminate physical media all together. That would eliminate the rental venues, unless they switched to something akin to VOD.
It would also end the consumer's rights under Fair Use, which is the ultimate intention of the industry. Previous court precedence tended to side with the consumer because fixed media was involved. In addition, devices like VCRs were legal because of "time shifting". In the VOD world, you have no rights to copy the intellectual property. You have no rights to back up the property. There is no physical medium for the information, thus no rights for the consumer.
Is this going to help the CREATORS of intellectual property? Not really. With very few exceptions, most artists aren't billionaires. They negotiate contracts with labels or distribution companies to release their work, and get a tiny royalty based on the number of units sold.
Will this benefit the consumer? In some ways, yes. Imagine having access to a library of 100,000 movies you could watch on any given night. Imagine being able to access an archive of historical footage going back to the invention of the camera. Imagine being able to listen to any recorded song by any artist. Imagine having access to every book ever written, now in digital form. There's a catch, though...you have to pay for every single one you watch, look at, listen to or read. Every single time. Yes, on demand will eventually eradicate the public library, because the publishing companies will become the public library. Public, that is, for pay.
No more curling up with a good book. No more scanning your shelves for a good DVD. No more flipping through your record collection.
To quote the punk band Fear, "No more nothing."
Once information is out of the hands of the common man, that may well be the case.
Sounds like your actually asking for some sort of mandated standard for digital music format and delivery. After all the reason why your TV and Radio works is because there is a mandate in place that defines how Radio and Television is transmitted.
#7
Jack Sparks on Mar 23 2005, 18:14
Some very helpful points have been posted here. A rent-per-play system absolutely favors the music labels and no one else.
And if labels stand to make money from each and every song played by customers every time, then the system only further encourages promotion of those artists who sell the most broadly--or can be packaged in such a way to secure the widest audience.
People should not be fooled into thinking that tomorrow's digital music libraries will adequately represent their distinct tastes (outside of Clear Channel-like programming) nor should they expect those libraries to store specific music indefinitely.
For my part, I am fully prepared to ignore artists (however great their reputation) whose labels embrace what are plans for increasingly costly and cumbersome access to music. It's their loss, not mine. And artists who understand this should and will consider alternative distribution models.
And if labels stand to make money from each and every song played by customers every time, then the system only further encourages promotion of those artists who sell the most broadly--or can be packaged in such a way to secure the widest audience.
People should not be fooled into thinking that tomorrow's digital music libraries will adequately represent their distinct tastes (outside of Clear Channel-like programming) nor should they expect those libraries to store specific music indefinitely.
For my part, I am fully prepared to ignore artists (however great their reputation) whose labels embrace what are plans for increasingly costly and cumbersome access to music. It's their loss, not mine. And artists who understand this should and will consider alternative distribution models.
#8
Tony Pierogi on Mar 25 2005, 09:10
I think your insights describe, in a nutshell, why people will (at least for the time being) continue to download music illegally.
It was refreshing to read someone's well constructed train of thought amongst the flood of news reports.
I would add one more point of view which have not been considered here: One time versus Repetitive use.
We read books and watch movies ONCE (rarely more than twice).
I suspect the reason behind this phenomenon is that books, jokes and movies are basically Stories = Mysteries that require solving. The source of our joy and entertainment comes from participating in solving these mysteries by reading or watching.
Not knowing what will happen next is a key requirement for being able to enjoy the process of solving a mystery. Once we arrive to the end off this discovery process however, the mystery is gone. And unless we forget the story, it is quite impossible for us to pretend not to know what will happen next, after we have already seen the story once.
Therefore, repetitive use of Books and Movies is rare, because their main attraction (suspense, surprise) is of a non-reusable nature.
We listen to music over and over and over...
The process of listening to music creates joy via a completely different mechanism than that of solving a mystery. Music helps us achieve a particular mental/emotional state that we enjoy being in.
Much like eating to achieve a non-hungry state, munching chocolate to soothe a craving, sitting next to a fire to feel warm... once we achive these states, we are happy. And the best thing is that the process of achieving these states does not require something non-repetitive, like a mystery. By repeating the same behavior over and over, we are (usually) able to achieve the desired results every time.
Therefore:
We WANT TO OWN our MUSIC, because we need to have repetitive access to it. And ownership guarantees unrestricted access.
We DO NOT CARE TO OWN our MOVIES, because once seen, we are unlikely to be able to use them as a source of enjoyment again.
And since our mind compares these two different ways of using a product, we are outraged when forced to have to pay the same price for a one-time movie experience and a repetitive music experience.
{Naturally, there are other types of reasons for wanting to own a Book or a Movie: such as the joy of being able to share it with others, use it as a reference, or simply enjoy the non-story related parts (nudity, beauty, etc.) over and over.}
I would add one more point of view which have not been considered here: One time versus Repetitive use.
We read books and watch movies ONCE (rarely more than twice).
I suspect the reason behind this phenomenon is that books, jokes and movies are basically Stories = Mysteries that require solving. The source of our joy and entertainment comes from participating in solving these mysteries by reading or watching.
Not knowing what will happen next is a key requirement for being able to enjoy the process of solving a mystery. Once we arrive to the end off this discovery process however, the mystery is gone. And unless we forget the story, it is quite impossible for us to pretend not to know what will happen next, after we have already seen the story once.
Therefore, repetitive use of Books and Movies is rare, because their main attraction (suspense, surprise) is of a non-reusable nature.
We listen to music over and over and over...
The process of listening to music creates joy via a completely different mechanism than that of solving a mystery. Music helps us achieve a particular mental/emotional state that we enjoy being in.
Much like eating to achieve a non-hungry state, munching chocolate to soothe a craving, sitting next to a fire to feel warm... once we achive these states, we are happy. And the best thing is that the process of achieving these states does not require something non-repetitive, like a mystery. By repeating the same behavior over and over, we are (usually) able to achieve the desired results every time.
Therefore:
We WANT TO OWN our MUSIC, because we need to have repetitive access to it. And ownership guarantees unrestricted access.
We DO NOT CARE TO OWN our MOVIES, because once seen, we are unlikely to be able to use them as a source of enjoyment again.
And since our mind compares these two different ways of using a product, we are outraged when forced to have to pay the same price for a one-time movie experience and a repetitive music experience.
{Naturally, there are other types of reasons for wanting to own a Book or a Movie: such as the joy of being able to share it with others, use it as a reference, or simply enjoy the non-story related parts (nudity, beauty, etc.) over and over.}
#10
Anonymous Coward on Mar 28 2005, 22:32
For my part, I'd prefer to borrow furniture from my library. ;)
Your perhaps disingenuous inclusion of furniture, cars and houses into the intellectual property debate highlights something interesting: reusability. Many commenters have already touched on this topic. But to me the key is that good music doesn't wear out like a couch, nor does it "wear out" like a movie (i.e. by being watched too often). Less than stellar music I could stand to rent, but for the things that I currently consider timeless, I must own them. But then the "rentable" music is the stuff I already get (ubiquitously) from the radio, so why should I bother paying for it? So right now my option is to get it for free. (Legally, no less.)
One more interesting aspect of bringing furniture into the picture is that it makes me think about quality. The value of hearing a live music performance is that the quality is better than the pre-recorded CD, which in turn is more valuable in that respect than the crappy MP3 or WMA encoding. That's also why I pay a premium to see a movie in a theater, as opposed to viewing (lower quality) TV broadcasts or video rentals. To me that means the price-point of MP3s should be lower than CDs. Why is that not the case now? I don't have an answer, but it's something to think about. It does mean I'm pretty unlikely to buy my "master copy" of a song in MP3 format. (And along that line, here's a real poser: why do people pay wireless companies two dollars or more for a few seconds of a song, when the whole MP3 is available for under a buck? That one really mystifies me.)
As I implied, another reason I want to buy music that's "timeless" is because I want to keep it forever. I have been listening to some songs for over a quarter-century, so those are clearly keepers. I would like to keep those for as long as possible, so a durable medium (and CD is only fairly good for this, in my view) is an important consideration. In theory I'd be happy to buy a copy of a high-quality MP3 from a service, if they allowed me to download "my" copy from their server any time I needed a fresh one. Otherwise the risk of loss is too great. (And my insurance doesn't cover replacing lost data on my hard drives, in stark contrast to melted music CDs.)
My other important reason to own versus renting has also been covered, namely immediacy of access, or ubiquity. My local librarian wonders why I own so many books; to her I reply that I don't know when I will want a particular one. I have a hundred or more unread books at home, which I think is a wonderful thing, though not a good allocation of resources. I suppose that if I could get any book at any time, and pay for it at that time, I might rent books. But if I'm constrained in any way, again I'll hit the library and (eventually) get it for free. This also applies for music and movies, by the way.
Your perhaps disingenuous inclusion of furniture, cars and houses into the intellectual property debate highlights something interesting: reusability. Many commenters have already touched on this topic. But to me the key is that good music doesn't wear out like a couch, nor does it "wear out" like a movie (i.e. by being watched too often). Less than stellar music I could stand to rent, but for the things that I currently consider timeless, I must own them. But then the "rentable" music is the stuff I already get (ubiquitously) from the radio, so why should I bother paying for it? So right now my option is to get it for free. (Legally, no less.)
One more interesting aspect of bringing furniture into the picture is that it makes me think about quality. The value of hearing a live music performance is that the quality is better than the pre-recorded CD, which in turn is more valuable in that respect than the crappy MP3 or WMA encoding. That's also why I pay a premium to see a movie in a theater, as opposed to viewing (lower quality) TV broadcasts or video rentals. To me that means the price-point of MP3s should be lower than CDs. Why is that not the case now? I don't have an answer, but it's something to think about. It does mean I'm pretty unlikely to buy my "master copy" of a song in MP3 format. (And along that line, here's a real poser: why do people pay wireless companies two dollars or more for a few seconds of a song, when the whole MP3 is available for under a buck? That one really mystifies me.)
As I implied, another reason I want to buy music that's "timeless" is because I want to keep it forever. I have been listening to some songs for over a quarter-century, so those are clearly keepers. I would like to keep those for as long as possible, so a durable medium (and CD is only fairly good for this, in my view) is an important consideration. In theory I'd be happy to buy a copy of a high-quality MP3 from a service, if they allowed me to download "my" copy from their server any time I needed a fresh one. Otherwise the risk of loss is too great. (And my insurance doesn't cover replacing lost data on my hard drives, in stark contrast to melted music CDs.)
My other important reason to own versus renting has also been covered, namely immediacy of access, or ubiquity. My local librarian wonders why I own so many books; to her I reply that I don't know when I will want a particular one. I have a hundred or more unread books at home, which I think is a wonderful thing, though not a good allocation of resources. I suppose that if I could get any book at any time, and pay for it at that time, I might rent books. But if I'm constrained in any way, again I'll hit the library and (eventually) get it for free. This also applies for music and movies, by the way.
Creo que este tipo de acciones por parte de las grandes compañias, solo genera una perdida de libertad individual.
The author has not allowed comments to this entry
