Why the Music Industry Cannot Stop mp3s

Technorati Tag(s): Music, Industry, Opinion

Music piracy is nothing new. We've been doing it since the recordable magnetic double-sided tape.

The difference between the old ways and mp3s is that mp3s do not degrade with each new copy. With a tape, once you reach the third generation of copies the songs sound dull and seem to come from another room. With mp3s, as long as they're originally encoded at a good enough bitrate from a good enough source, you're all set. There are minor problems with bass and high fidelity, but after getting to 172 kbps and above, those stop mattering as well.

That is one of the big three reasons why mp3s are so popular.

The second is easy shareablity, portability, transferrability. Thanks to a small file size, transferring a song takes virtually no time at all. Also, the transferred song is durable. As long as you have a copy of the file somewhere--and that somewhere is, of course, the internet--you needn't worry about losing that song.

The third reason is similar to the reason why amazon is so popular for books: you get the whole deal. Hard to find songs, hard to find artists, you get them here. And it's always waiting for you.

The music industry, though, just can't seem to understand that the reason why people prefer mp3s is not just that you can get them for free, but because mp3s are--compared to CDs--a terribly awesome format.

The problem with mp3s for the music industry, though, are the same as most of its benefits: most of its benefits are directly attributed to it being a computer file format. And computer files, by their very nature, by being software, exist in a medium that is literally free for all.

I have started downloading mp3s of almost all the audio cassettes--English, at least--I have collected over more than a decade. Think about it: carrying a hard drive the size of your palm beats carrying stacks of audio tapes any day.

Though a lot of those audio tapes have certain sentimental and nostalgic attachments, and though I certainly won't throw them away, if for no other reason than simply for the covers, mp3s--or more advanced encoders--are simply the way for music.

Is there a viable merger for the obviously unstoppable music sharing phenomenon and the music industry?

There is one, and I'll mention it last.

With the advent of the iPod and its general popularity, there is a chance that Apple and RIAA might enforce some sort of filter which would enable iTunes to detect ripped mp3s and delete them or lock them till they're bought.

But that would soon be made redundant by some company who creates a player which doesn't give a shit about copyright--pretty much like iPod is now.

What else can the music industry do? Perhaps they could provide mp3s on the AudioCD itself. They have done so with Springsteen's Devils and Dust, and it is certainly a welcome idea.

What else? Artists could go independent. George Michael offered all his songs as mp3s on his website. For no charge. Other artists offer their mp3s for some price.

But that's now. Once our current generation of recognized artists die away, then what? If artists sell their own songs, how can we know what is crap and what is not?

The music publishing industry works pretty much like the book publishing industry. How many online novels from anonymous, unheard of novelists have you read? How many did you like? Exactly.

When you're holding a published book in your hand--although certain bullshit like Dan Brown does pass through the publisher's hand--you have a certain assurance that the book has passed a level of approval.

How many self-published novels have you read? Exactly.

So, artists selling songs is not the future. Neither are CDs.

There's a debate going on about how CD sales are actually up since the mp3 boom, but any sort of hardware media device for music is going to die soon. People simply won't be bothered to carry CDs when they can lug all the music in the world in their shirt pocket.

Come on, which of these would you prefer to carry around on the bus: your laptop or your desktop PC? Exactly.

Similarly, video DVDs shall die too. Already we can download a DVD quality movie (a DivX rip) that is the size of a CD-R.

The only conventional format for arts that will not change is paper.

The Ebook revolution failed.

Big time.

Ebooks are still around, but most people simply prefer holding a paper book than reading off a screen. People like taking the book wherever they go. You might argue that palmtops provide a similar convenience, but still, reading off a screen just cannot beat reading off paper.

As simple as that.

Audiobooks are gaining popularity, sure, but they're an alternative to reading a book; not a substitute.

Audiobooks are perfect when you cannot read, or cannot find decent conditions to.

But audiobooks limit the reader's trip. They offer a version of the book filtered through the narrator's own interpretation of the words and the dialog.

Audiobooks are almost always offered in mp3 format, though, and that's the viable solution for music I mentioned earlier:

Make the music available only in a software file format. Discard CDs altogether.

If the music industry had made a deal via which buying mp3s was simply way too cheap to download free mp3s, we'd still have a viable solution. But they're not doing that. If, say, an mp3 album cost you as much as your newspaper, you'd feel ridiculous downloading for free. I would.

For every person who does not buy a ten dollar album, you will find ten people who will buy a dollar album.

It will even out. And, as I said, if it's cheap enough, people will simply feel too embarrassed to download illegal copies.

But of course, because the music industry is full of nincompoops, that's not gonna happen.

In the meantime, I feel absolutely no guilt downloading Frank Sinatra's oldies.