gwinter
07-22-2006, 10:32 AM
Chris' post about Experiments in DRM-Free Music (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/index.php?action=expand,10773) prompted me to finally make a post here.
I've never purchased digital music; I'd rather get a CD. But why? For me, purchasing a CD is more than just "getting-the-music-so-I-can-listen-to-it". No, the CD is the work of an artist that I'm adding to my collection. And I feel a certain kind of satisfaction when I do so. It sounds strange? But perhaps it is not so different from those who are collecting stamps, or coins, or whatever else the case might be.
So what does that have to do with digital music? It wouldn't give me the same kind of satisfaction as a "collector". The problem is, I have this feeling that the files are changing all the time, when the information tags are updated for example. I'd rather have something static, something that feels like collectables.
So here's my proposal. The file should be digitally signed so that we can tell if it has been altered. DRM-like technology can be used. Let me emphasize, however, that I'm not saying DRM should be applied; all I'm saying is that the file shouldn't be changed. The responsibility of the music studios, then, is to carefully select an appropriate encoding (both the technology and the particular implementation of the technology), in order to produce files with high quality.
Next, they would have to add the appropriate metadata (name, album cover, etc) to describe the audio track. And here's another thing about metadata. The question is, what should be included and what not? Remember that the file cannot be altered. My thought is that any objective items (track name, number, cover album) can be included. Things like genre, comments are subjective and should not be included. They might be important to user, but such things are subject to interpretation and can even change, so such infomation should be stored externally in the user's player software, rather than tied into the audio file itself.
If the music studios do the above, then I would feel they've made an effort to "add value" to the digital music files that they're producing, rather than just the "ripping-from-CD-and-selling" impression that I have of them now.
I've never purchased digital music; I'd rather get a CD. But why? For me, purchasing a CD is more than just "getting-the-music-so-I-can-listen-to-it". No, the CD is the work of an artist that I'm adding to my collection. And I feel a certain kind of satisfaction when I do so. It sounds strange? But perhaps it is not so different from those who are collecting stamps, or coins, or whatever else the case might be.
So what does that have to do with digital music? It wouldn't give me the same kind of satisfaction as a "collector". The problem is, I have this feeling that the files are changing all the time, when the information tags are updated for example. I'd rather have something static, something that feels like collectables.
So here's my proposal. The file should be digitally signed so that we can tell if it has been altered. DRM-like technology can be used. Let me emphasize, however, that I'm not saying DRM should be applied; all I'm saying is that the file shouldn't be changed. The responsibility of the music studios, then, is to carefully select an appropriate encoding (both the technology and the particular implementation of the technology), in order to produce files with high quality.
Next, they would have to add the appropriate metadata (name, album cover, etc) to describe the audio track. And here's another thing about metadata. The question is, what should be included and what not? Remember that the file cannot be altered. My thought is that any objective items (track name, number, cover album) can be included. Things like genre, comments are subjective and should not be included. They might be important to user, but such things are subject to interpretation and can even change, so such infomation should be stored externally in the user's player software, rather than tied into the audio file itself.
If the music studios do the above, then I would feel they've made an effort to "add value" to the digital music files that they're producing, rather than just the "ripping-from-CD-and-selling" impression that I have of them now.