So I signed up for my two week trial with the intention of downloading a few of the Wier songs and then cancelling. But I still had about 20 downloads left. So I downloaded the entire EP “The Tain,” by the Decemberists, but instead of the five parts being individual songs, the entire EP is offered as one 18 minute song. So I downloaded some other random songs. While the selection is far from limitless, it’s certainly very deep and incredibly varied.

So, 24 songs later, despite my intention to rip off eMusic, I decided that they have earned my $9.99. The downloads go through the eMusic manager, which is really fast and really easy to use, and it’s cross platform. Also, did I mention the downloads are non-DRM, fully-portable, already-tagged MP3 files?

It’s easy to use services like mp3sparks and the like to get songs for cheap, but I don’t mind supporting my favorite artists when the price is right and I get to own a copy of the music that doesn’t impose random limits on me.

So, eMusic earned my $9.99 for what will eventually be 55 songs; I firmly believe that $9.99 for 30 songs is a reasonable price. So, if you’re so inclined, I encourage you to support eMusic. They are approaching things in a way that is actually right for the consumer.

I feel, even for this Red Sox fan, who purchased over $250 of content from Major League Baseball, who in turn, revoked DRM and made his content worthless. BoingBoing covered the MLB DRM fiasco too.

The fact is, DRM is for suckers. It’s BAD for the consumer, and it only benefits the content provider, who rarely has the best interest of the customer in mind. I am a big baseball fan, but thanks to this, I will never purchase content from MLB. Then again, I wouldn’t have anyway if it was tangled in DRM.

Either way, shame on you, Major League Baseball!

The record industry is crumbling, as it should, and music is slowly coming back around. If artists make only a few cents per recording, why wouldn’t they prefer to charge 25 cents a song and take home almost 100% of that? If “internet piracy” is such a problem, why not reward the true artists who can compel us to see them live, buy their merchandise, etc?

Yes, the days of DRM, the RIAA, in fact all record labels are drawing to a close. Mark my words: the music landscape will be dramatically different in a decade.

The concept of “distrust the customer” is growing, and it’s forcing people to do the “wrong” thing more often. Who is most inconvenienced by anti-skip technology, FBI warnings, and CSS, the DVD content protection technology? There is no doubt: it’s the legit DVD consumers! Because pirates crack that in seconds, so only the real, paying customers even have to see it. Who is put out by the online activation of Microsoft products? Not the pirates – the real customers!

How do big dinsaur companies like AOL and Verizon and Discover Card, who have lost their ability to innovate and serve, gain customers? They don’t, they just refuse to let their customers leave. And that is what’s missing from life today: no one gives a shit about their customers anymore.

Yes, these are the days of restrictive cell phone contracts, where military men leaving for duty abroad are fined $200 by their carriers for terminating their contracts. These are the days when voting machine manufacturers, those doing the work of the nation, refuse to allow their software to be audited. This is the age where police, who once served at the pleasure of the public, scare law-abiding citizens like we’re in the Commuist Block.

Because in place of customer satisfaction, we have inflexible rules.
And, as a result, in place of protection, we have proactive litigation.
And, as a result, in place of common sense, we have strong government lobbies.
And, as a result, in place of the USA, we have a shell of liberty.

So it’s all the more disarming and alarming when it comes from your own circle. David “Dawg” Grisman, a mandolin player who moonlighted with the Dead for a period, has apparently sued Google, Inc and YouTube for copyright infrigement. The Grateful Dead! The ones who stood for free taping. The ones who insisted that their music was best enjoyed live, who built a mega-following not from selling their tapes, but from playing great music and presenting a show.

This is a sad day, as “Dawg” has truly cashed in a little of the overflowingly positive Grateful Dead karma; karma that was already bruised from the scuffle the Dead had with the live music archive, archive.org.

Only Microsoft actively strips out features – actively DOWNgrades their systems just to sell you more of the same product again. Apple sells OS X client and OS X server. Linux allows you to install anything you want. Not Microsoft.

Vista doesn’t address some of the core architectural problems with Windows. The registry, the start shortcuts, the myriads of places to store data and programs makes the system a litterbox after some time. Put simply, manging Windows is a pain in the ass, even the most die-hards of the Microsoft camp that I know admit that. My laptop is managed to an insane degree – I authorize every single cookie, I have a hosts file a mile long, I regularly run crap cleanup utilities. So I consider my laptop fairly clean. And yet, the last several weeks, logging in is a 5-7 minute process as I wait for it as it is “Applying personal settings.” THIS is an area where, if there were significant improvement, I would be impressed. But it’s not addressed. The mess is still there. And most users will crud up their systems til the point of being unuseable and eventually call me for help.

The most important thing that some brush over is the DRM foundation and the license. These are the most important aspects. I liken it to the US – “If I’m not a terrorist, why do I care if they listen to my phone calls?” This nonsense is the same basis for “I haven’t seen DRM, so it doesn’t bother me.” One of the largest motivations for the very creation of Windows Vista was to support protected content. That is what makes money for both Microsoft and their partners. Your system is tied up with DRM. And the pathetic license pretty much grants you the most narrow use that law would likely allow. How can they legally limit you from using the system virtually? Not to mention – does their bootloader still obnoxiously disrespect/overwrite any other bootloader you’ve installed?

A bunch of half-assed applications that people won’t even use – such as their new photo management application – don’t cut it. Vista just doesn’t tout a new way to use your computer, new features that are compelling, and frankly, it’s all about limiting the user in a package that pretends to make you a more powerful computer user. And ultimately, that’s my point: I *might* tolerate some of the underlying inconvenience if the system actually made me work better. But I don’t think it does. I don’t care about the photo manager, I don’t care about the contacts, I don’t care about Windows Mail, I don’t care about the new look, I don’t care about “Phishing Protection,” I don’t care about an IE sandbox, I don’t care about per-app volume sliders, I don’t care about the pathetically late fast system search, and I don’t care about address space layout randomization. In fact, the only thing I think is really good is UAC, but reports from my contacts suggest it’s as much a pain in the tail as anything, and that it may even be turned off by most users.

I also find it interesting that Coding Horror finds Vista’s best feature to be something that Spotlight on OS X has done for well over a year now.

I may end up running Vista at some point when I upgrade my work laptop. I certainly will not run it at home, I will sooner more to Linux than Windows for my personal stuff. But when I do, sadly, it will be as one of those “OEM” suckers, people who simply can’t avoid the Windows tax.

You may be tempted to call me a Mac fanboy, but if there’s any truth to that, it’s mostly because of two things: 1) I detest Microsoft’s business practices, and 2) even if I didn’t, Vista just doesn’t offer the user much in terms of improving productivity beyond a UI overhaul. Vista will not make me a better, faster, or smarter computer user. If anything, it will simply make me happier with my window decoration. There is almost nothing compelling about Vista for me, and I will certainly not be in line to get it.

If you’ve read my blog over any period of time (and I’m relatively certain that no one has), you’ve probably noticed my not so subtle conversion from Windows to Linux back to Windows and then firmly to a Mac. We are all Mac at my house now, and I don’t try to cover that up. At work, where I choose everything from a technology standpoint, we are Windows 2003 and Microsoft SQL Server, so I’m not especially anti-Microsoft. Anyway, fair disclosure.

Read on for the details.

It all started with this Zune review in the Chicago Sun-Times. Reviewer Andy Ihnatko concludes – well – here’s a quote: “The Zune will be dead and gone within six months. Good riddance.” There are plenty of choice quotes peppered through the article, but all essentially come to the same conclusion – that the Zune is aimed at pleasing the big record companies and not the user. Ultimately, the user interface is not intuitive; the setup is painful, with reports trickling in from around the internet of failed Zune software installs; the wireless capabilities are intentionally crippled; and the device is cheaply built, with the “scroll wheel” – which is lifted directly from the iPod – not actually being a scroll wheel, but rather, a wheel-shaped piece of plastic over four buttons shaped like a plus sign.

And while they all may be valid, the reason you simply cannot buy a Zune can be boiled down to three little words: Plays for Sure.

Why is the iPod successful? More on this in a second, but it ultimately boils down to the fact that Apple was able to integrate digital rights management – or DRM – without hindering the user experience. Most iPod/iTunes users haven’t even noticed that their music is locked down like this.

As a direct response, Microsoft began their Plays for Sure campaign. They based their content restriction on their flagship Windows Media Audio, or “WMA” format. As a result, you can have restricted or unrestricted WMA files. But be aware: WMA files only play on Windows unless you have either (for Macs) third party software or (for Linux) an illegal crack. These files are NOT cross platform. To make things even easier, your Windows Media files are all managed through the already integrated Windows Media Player which – if you’re not in the EU – has already been shipping for some time fully integrated into Windows. Sweet, right?

In order to placate hardware marketers *and* offer a wide product line, Microsoft locks in their DRM scheme and calls it “Plays for Sure” as in – buy this device and your music plays for sure! This way, they must’ve believed, people won’t be scared of the lock-in, but rather know that there is guaranteed compatibility.

Fast forward to now – the Zune comes out, and guess what doesn’t play at all (for sure)? Right! All of your old WMA files, all of your “Plays for Sure” songs, songs you’ve paid for – Gonzo. Zero. Cero. Zilch. Nada. Nuttin. They are flat out unusable on the Zune. Someone, somewhere, decided to take a different spin with the Zune, and all the old tracks you bought are now useless on this device. In other words, prepare to buy all of your purchased music again, at least, if you intend to use any of it on your Zune.

Furthermore, have you made yourself at home in Windows Media Player? Because you can kiss that goodbye too. Microsoft ditched WMP for the new Zune software. Not only that, but even if you load unrestricted files onto your Zune, they become restricted on your Zune! So if you download a free mp3 podcast – or better yet, your band’s demo song, which you WANT to give away – and beam it over wi-fi to someone, a practice inexplicably called “squirting,” – which is pretty much the only cool feature missing from the iPod – they get 3 days or 3 plays (whichever comes first, natch) to check it out. How incredibly useless.

Did I mention that the RIAA gets a cut of every Zune sold, because the chairman of Universal says that if you buy one of these devices, you’re obviously a thief who downloads music illegally? Well, [[http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003380831|it happened]]. Microsoft must acknowledge that people who use portable music players are thieves, because they are cutting in the music companies on the sale of the HARDWARE. Explain that one!

You see, the way I see it, the iPod is a success for three reasons:

1. Ease of use for a user
2. Useful features that users want
3. Unobtrusive DRM

Users don’t care about the record companies. Apple treats them like they are: third rate money grubbers who are unable to adapt to a new business model who will eventually become their own demise. But they get paid, because they have to, and users aren’t subject to that nonsense. The iPod caters to the user. You barely notice the DRM, the software to manage your songs is effortless, cross platform, and logical, the device can be used as a hard drive, and the music is fairly priced.

But the best reason is the DRM itself – the DRM is built around the Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) codec, which is built on MP4, the successor to MP3. It’s unlikely we’ll see this fall by the wayside. When someone “cracks” the rights management of Apple’s “Fairplay” DRM – which happens regularly – Apple simply updates it.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has now demonstrated that if they don’t have a high enough market share, they will screw their customers, obsolete their audio collection, and introduce a new revenue stream, forcing you to re-buy all of your music if you want to use an updated device. They have updated WMA several times, several times have broken compatibility, and ultimately built a parallel system.

You can’t have any faith in the Zune. If you dedicate ANY of your time and money to it, there is no guarantee whatsoever that you won’t be abandoned in the next 6 months, year, or even two years. Your music will be useless, your music stream could become suddenly unavailable, and your purchases unplayable elsewhere. In short, nothing is ever “for sure” with Microsoft.

The iPod, conversely, has a long history and is selling like hotcakes. Even the third alternative, which is choosing from the rich and varied line of portable players for the Windows Media line – is a poor choice now that Microsoft themselves have stopped supporting it in their new products.

In fact, there are really *no* compelling reasons to buy a Zune. They aren’t prevalent, there are no third party devices to extend its functionality yet, and investing in the “assume you’re a thief” DRM scheme is risky at best.

Let me conclude with a quote from Saturday Night Live’s weekend update from last weekend: “On Tuesday, Microsoft released their iPod competitor, the Zune. Zune, as in ‘Hey, your Zune isn’t as cool as my iPod.’“

But why is AllOfMP3 so popular? It’s not just because its non-DRM files – it’s also because it’s the right price. Some people out there believe that 99 cents is a good price for a song. They buy from iTunes. Maybe 99 cents is a good price, but not for a DRM’ed file it’s not.

Others buy in droves from AllOfMP3. They pay 2 cents a megabyte, which is much fairer – short songs are cheap and long songs are more expensive. But I submit that if AllOfMP3 DOUBLED their prices, their business would not change in a significant way. I submit that if they TRIPLED the price, it still wouldn’t be majorly effected. See, paying a dime for a song is great, but I’d gladly pay a quarter or even 40 cents without blinking. There’s a value associated with these things, and people know this. Furthermore, people are WILLING and, often, even WANT to buy and own something legitimately if it’s the right price. But when they are overcharged, or with DRM’ed file, sold an inferior or limited product, they feel cheated, and begin to rationalize stealing in a Robin Hood fashion.

If DRM’ed songs were legit and 10 cents a piece, I probably wouldn’t buy them, but MANY MANY more people would, and MANY MANY more tracks would be sold to the same customers who buy now. If they were 40 cents, you’d probably see another appreciable growth.

My point here is that 99 cents is too much for a restricted digital file containing one song. There are two major flaws to the product – it’s overpriced and it’s limited in use. Fix one of the two and you’ll see your market explode. But go the opposite way – higher prices and more restrictive DRM – as things seem to be going, and you’ll watch your increasingly savvy market come up with more inventive ways to get their music. AllOfMP3 is just the beginning.

I had no problem agreeing to Apple’s EULA with OS X, promising that even though I owned the software, I wouldn’t install it on non-Apple hardware. I have no problem agreeing to buy an application and install it only once on one computer. I don’t mind having to “activate” software over the internet. So I’ve always thought of myself as not being very “into” the DRM battle. These things didn’t and still don’t bother me, because they don’t limit me from doing things I ought to be able to do.

Recently, I went to a friend’s house to help him backup his data. He had purchased all of his music from Apple through the iTunes store via iTunes on Windows, and here he was – committed to iTunes, period. In fact, his “protected” music was no intrinsically tried to iTunes. Same goes for his older Windows Media (WMA) files. They weren’t something he could copy to Linux or a Mac. They were tied to Windows. And it occured to me: this is precisely what I was trying to avoid! This was why I encoded all of my music and MP3 and Ogg Vorbis. This was why I never bought songs online. This was why I converted so many of my old documents to PDF or OpenOffice.org XML. I had saved myself from ever going through this nonsense.

Now, many will saw I’m just slow and I’m realizing what many have known for ages, but the fact is, it doesn’t always register until you experience it. Why do we put up with this? Why do we buy things that destroy legitimate use in order to prevent mass piracy that .001% of users might engage in? Why is is acceptable to buy music that limits the platform and method by which we can play it? Why do we accept our own data – whether it be file formats (such as MS Word documents), or media formats (such as copy-protected DVD) that prevents us from accessing our data?

It’s important to distinguish between software limitations and rights management. It’s fair to ensure you paid for software before you can use it. I’m not for thievery, I’m not for mass piracy, I’m not for chaos and anarchy. It’s not legal to buy a DVD and copy it for all your friends, and it shouldn’t be permitted. But it shouldn’t be restricted by software. I don’t believe everyone has a right to free music. But I don’t think it’s fair that if I buy a CD, I can’t rip it.

DRM affects EVERYONE.
You may not see it: perhaps your iPod just seemlessly works for you.
You may not feel it: you pop in your DVDs, they play.
You may not notice lock-in: everywhere has Microsoft Word, so I can save all of my data here.

But we’re all experiencing it slowly, as we become more and more dependent upon technology that controls and limits. DRM Day was yesterday, and I’m going into this year heads up about DRM.