Satriani vs. Coldplay? See Journey.

Copyright claims have been on the rise since the the music industry became digitized, but is this the correct response to change? There is no question that property rights are paramount to the function of any industry, but the music industry's response to alleged infringement has been overly aggressive and ill-conceived.

One major function of property rights is to balance incentives to invent with incentives to innovate. In the case of music, copyright claims have stifled the innovation that arose from the digital revolution. See Girl Talk's Gregg Gillis who has built his career on mash-ups and remixes. Armed with his laptop, Gillis uses hundreds of samples per album without obtaining rights by claiming fair use. This has made him a target for copyright cops and slowed his ability to release albums. Now that he's released both Night Ripper and 2008's acclaimed Feed the Animals, he argues that his use of samples increases exposure for all parties involved. Proponents of traditional copyright point to established precedents set in the 80s when rappers began paying for their use of samples. However, up until recently, artists never before used samples in such large quantities.

It's not only DJs who have been targeted in the copyright wars. Guitarist Joe Satriani has recently filed an infringement suit against Coldplay for alleged theft of a riff. Satriani claims Coldplay stole the melody of "Viva La Vida" from his song "If I Could Fly" (see below for evidence). True, the Satriani's chorus sounds alarmingly similar to the Coldplay's verse, but is this lawsuit material? The blogosphere has echoed a resonant "no," while some Coldplay haters are supporting Satriani's suit. The chord progressions are similar but not not identical (click here for the music theory analysis). In addition, it's virtually impossible to write a completely original song without unintentionally borrowing material.

Check out this video from College Humor which it illustrates how 30+ songs are based on the chord progression from "Don't Stop Believin'." It's also a fun stroll down memory lane via song. Rigorously pursuing copyright infringement is not the way to support an already struggling industry. Copyright of some kind is necessary to create incentives for creating songs, but we must reevaluate what constitutes fair use versus infringement.

Here's a comparison of Satriani's "If I Could Fly" with Coldplay's "Viva La Vida." Decide for yourself.

DRM: Not Dead Yet

During its final appearance at the annual Macworld expo, Apple announced that it was phasing out DRM (digital rights management) on all songs purchased from its Itunes Music Store. If you're unfamiliar with DRM, perhaps you're familiar with a message like this: "This computer is not authorized to play [insert song title here]."

The problem with DRM is that it limits a customer's use of legally purchased mp3s, often malfunctioning and allowing less than the 5 authorized users. I almost never purchase music on Itunes, but there's a price for convenience and I paid it. I purchased "Late Nite Radio" by John Denver to play on my college radio show this past semester. When I sent it to my co-host to play through her computer, it wouldn't play. I received the above error message even though I had only authorized one account!

Even though I vowed never to buy another song from Itunes again, I understood why so many others do. The Itunes Music store provides maximum convenience in a world where Itunes is the music software of choice. The consumer's quest for minimizing opportunity cost blinds them to the two major flaws of the Itunes Music Store: 1. songs are DRM-protected (until now); and 2. they come in a file extension(.m4p or .m4a) that's incompatible with other music players. Apple previously made some unenthusiastic attempts to offer DRM-free tracks, but they were only available from the Itunes Plus Store, which was (a.) more expensive than the regular Itunes Store; (b.) limited in selection; and (c.) poorly publicized by Apple.

Following Macworld, it seems like the age of DRM may be at an end. Alas, that would be incorrect. DRM is alive and well at Apple, as Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has highlighted below:

• Apple uses DRM to lock iPhones to AT&T and Apple's iTunes App Store;
• Apple uses DRM to prevent recent iPods from syncing with software other than iTunes (Apple claims it violates the DMCA to reverse engineer the hashing mechanism);
• Apple claims that it uses DRM to prevent OS X from loading on generic Intel machines;
• Apple's new Macbooks feature DRM-laden video ports that only output certain content to "approved" displays;.
• Apple requires iPod accessory vendors to use a licensed "authentication chip" in order to make accessories to access certain features on newer iPods and iPhones;
• The iTunes Store will still lock down movies and TV programs with FairPlay DRM;
• Audiobook files purchased through the iTunes Store will still be crippled by Audible's DRM restrictions.

DRM is now virtually obsolete in music, so there's still reason to celebrate. Still, hopefully Apple learns quickly that the DRM model is not the correct way to protect against piracy. Apple, along with other companies in piracy-afflicted industries, must find more sustainable solutions to profit from the new way the industry works. Ditching DRM is the first step.

Source: Apples Shows Us DRM's True Colors - Richard Esguerra, Electronic Frontier Foundation