SunnComm recently struck a deal with Microsoft to work together on a package of copy-protection techniques for labels. The smaller company will protect the ordinary CD audio tracks against copying, while Microsoft will provide tools to put additional copy-protected versions of the songs on the CD that can be copied to a computer hard drive or MP3 player but not traded online.
This so-called second session, containing files that can be used by computer music aficionados but not widely distributed, has come to be a key goal for the labels.
Second session technology is nearly 10 years old. CD Plus or CD Extra (Blue Book) adds a second session to the CD. Audio CD players play the Red Book session; computers can see it and the Data session as well.
Smart companies use the second session to add extra material - lyrics, videos, photos games etc.
The thriving 'singles' market in the UK largely consists of CD-Plus CDs. They succeed because they add the CD experience, creating extra value for computer users, who are thus willing to pay more for them.
Abusing second session technology to create CDs that are less useful in a computer is stupid. It will reduce the value of the CDs to the computer user, as Jupiter shows below, and make them less likely to be bought.
I hope whomever owns the trademark on 'CD-Plus' and 'Enhanced CD' refuses its use in this case - they should be called CD-Minus or Retarded CDs.
Posted 4:33 PM by Kevin Marks
DRM Destroys Value - Jupiter has proofDRM Destroys Value - I've been saying this for a while, but Jupiter's new survey backs it up with figures:
According to the study, nearly twice as many online consumers are willing to pay $17.99 for a CD that has unrestricted copy abilities versus a CD at only $9.99 that cannot be copied.
That is a somewhat convoluted sentence, but it is pretty clear that DRM would cost the companies more than their profit margin to use (and it wouldn't stop copying in any case).
Posted 10:51 PM by Kevin Marks
World of EndsDavid and Doc explain the nature of the internet in terms anyone can understand.
I QuickTopic'd this one too. annotate it here
Posted 7:55 PM by Kevin Marks
Yet another 'destroy the internet to make it safe for music' proposalI've put Lionel S. Sobel's DRM as an Enabler of Business Models: ISPs as Digital Retailers proposal up on QuickTopic so it can be commented on point by point. You can read just the commented paragraphs. too
Posted 4:19 AM by Kevin Marks
When did you stop beating your business model?The Harvard 'Digital Media in Cyberspace' project may be promising, but it's premises concern me.
How can we control piracy and protect consumers' rights?
This very question is phrased in a tendentious form. They're customers, not consumers. Piracy is boarding ships and stealing the contents. If you're concerned about copyright enfringement, say so.
Should the government regulate digital media, or should the market be left alone?
There is no market yet. One needs to be created, and the government will not be able to do so easily. There is scope for private market creation though.
Must technology inventors be accountable to content creators?
No, but they will empower creators over publishers and distributors.
While the answers to these types of questions have been pondered, the future of digital media distribution remains uncertain.
Distribution is not the problem. Payment is.
Any potential solution must balance the interests of consumers, artists, entertainment industry and technology manufacturers—only then will we have a foundation for future growth.
My solution balances the interests of Creators, Promoters and Customers. The industries involved should adopt it, or something like it, or they'll be washed away in a classic Christensen 'Innovators Dilemma'
Posted 12:17 AM by Kevin Marks