The music industry abuses us and we're to blame

Many people have celebrated Apple's announcement that it has sold 5 billion songs on iTunes and it's the world's largest music retailer. Almost everyone in the world is calling this a major victory for Apple and one that we should all recognize as a milestone that deserves our praise.

But I don't.

To me, Apple's success with iTunes and its ability to sell 5 billion songs since its launch is an awful event. In fact, it's probably one of the worst stories I've read all year.

As just one of the millions across the globe who's being treated poorly by the music industry, why should I embrace this news and try so desperately to put a smile on my face?

Try as it might to do things the right way, iTunes is the result of countless negotiations with the record labels that continue to dislike everything we stand for and do everything they can to ensure that we're paying too much for a track that's locked down worse than anything we have ever witnessed in this business.

Why hasn't anyone realized that Apple's success with iTunes is the very reason we're being abused by the music industry in the first place?

Let's face it -- if iTunes wasn't nearly as successful as it is, the music industry would be forced to find new ways to sell music. Sure, the labels may not like Steve Jobs and they've turned their backs on him in the past, but iTunes is a cash cow for these companies.

Considering Apple has sold 5 billion tracks, the company has realized revenue of about $5 billion. Assuming the lion's share goes to the record labels, it's safe to say that iTunes has sent over $3 billion to the record labels assuming the $0.70 estimate is true.

And if it is, why would the record industry want to mess with a good thing?

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's quite easy to see that we're all a victim of the success of iTunes. And to make matters worse, we're the reason iTunes is a success in the first place.

When you "buy" a song on iTunes, you're not really buying it. Instead, you're acquiring the license to listen to a song that can be taken away from you at any moment, can't be sent anywhere you'd like for it to be, and is subject to draconian copyright laws that see you paying too much for too little.

Of course, all of those attributes are the result of negotiations between Apple and the record labels. Instead of waking up and realizing the reality of its situation, the record industry chose to control its services as much as possible and create an environment that has set off a PR nightmare.

Or has it? Have I been wrong all along? Is the record industry really as wonderful as it wants us to believe? At this point, I don't know what to believe. I certainly think it deserves the hell I give it, but if Apple can sell 5 billion songs on iTunes and we sit here and watch the record industry benefit, maybe I'm in the minority.

I'm a firm believer that we should own each and every thing we buy. Why shouldn't I have the right to buy a song on iTunes and do what I want with it whenever I want? I don't think that's asking for too much and in reality, I think it's my right to do just that.

But because iTunes is such a success, we've given the record industry the license it needs to keep abusing its power and ensuring that we can't own music, nor can we transfer it from one place to another.

And why should the labels submit to our will? If the vast majority of people are more than willing to spend $0.99 on a track from iTunes with all of its DRM and ludicrous policies, why should the record industry change a blasted thing? They have us where they want us and there's nothing we can do about it.

Or is there?

The way I see it, purchasing songs on iTunes is only perpetuating our fight with the record industry and we're being forced into a situation where the more we buy, the worse it gets. So unless we stop supporting DRM and the abuse that comes along with it, we'll be forced to endure it.

It's time we all wake up and realize that the music industry is getting us without us even realizing it. Instead of paying the RIAA's meal ticket, we need to cut it off as soon as possible. If we don't, the music industry will continue to laugh all the way to the bank.

The choice is ours. Will we make the right decision?

For more on what Don is up to, follow him on Twitter by clicking here!

[DoughboyNJ]

Amen! Agree 100%
Please, MP3 shoppers, consider DRM-free music from Amazon, Bleep.com OtherMusic or elsewhere before buying from iTunes.
Do it for the future of music.

[Renegade Knight]

I got about 20 songs for free on iTunes on a promotion. Those 20 songs have used up the bulk of my lifetime permissions to use them on computers (I reformat regularly and use multiple computers to boot). They have been a PITA and at "free" were not worth the price.

Even if I were sold on iTunes, iPod and all things Apple and only had one computer I'd still use up my authorizations before I was done enjoying the music. I'm not a fan of paying for things twice.

[devindra_hardawar]

I sort of see your point Don, but at the same time you could also argue that the iTunes Store has done more to help promote new methods of music distribution than *anything* else. Sure, many tracks are laden with DRM, the sound quality isn't CD quality, and AAC files can only be used on iPods. I've personally never used the iTunes Store in my life, but I still recognize the radical way it changed how consumers bought music.

The music industry is an aged behemoth, making change is a slow and terrifying thing for them. The restrictions of the iTunes store made them comfortable with the idea of selling music online. Now that it has been proven successful, they are taking a serious look at the next step of digital distribution--no DRM, high quality MP3s. Just look at the success Amazon and eMusic are having, and Apple's move towards unrestricted MP3s.

I'm not defending the RIAA by any means, but it's clear to me that Apple's efforts have helped digital distribution more than they've hurt it.

[cannabisindica]

I agree - I like Macs and switched over to them. But, I never buy my music from iTunes.

[JranZu]

I will never use iTunes or any iPod device just because it locks me in. I also believe that people should pay for songs if they have them on the MP3 Players or Computers. I still by CDs from the store, rip them to my computer, and then I can move them around however & wherever I want. I have from time to time had a hard time getting a song, or didn't want to pay full price for a CD just to get one track and I download those from wherever is cheapest. Then find another copy of it in MP3 format and just use that (public library, friend?s personal library, etc.). I figure once I paid for it I should be able to get from whatever source I can find. Personally I think if the record industry would release songs at 30 cents and DRM free right from their own websites (cut out all the middle men) then nobody would bother to pirate them and they would sell 4 times the amount making even more money. Hell at 30 cents I would repay for a song that I couldn't find or accidently deleted without much thought.

[forkintoaster]

this is so silly, just burn the track to a CD and then play it anywhere you want. What is the issue? if you put it on you ipod then you can put it in your car or home stereo with a connector cable. This entire article is silly. Of course you can take it with you where ever you want.

[forkintoaster]

this is so silly, just burn the track to a CD and then play it anywhere you want. What is the issue? if you put it on you ipod then you can put it in your car or home stereo with a connector cable. This entire article is silly. Of course you can take it with you where ever you want.

[sirshagg]

I switched to amazon.com since they don't use DRM and are usually cheaper.

[coop777]

Don - a little known non advertised way around this issue within itunes - purchased songs can be added to a playlist, which can then be burned to cd in WAV format which removes the DRM. Once burned to disc, you can do what you want with it. Apple has obviously recognized this issue and quietly given users a way around it.

I do agree with the context of your article - just thought you should know.

[bpgveg14]

Way to express all the negative, and NO solution!

How about along with your rant, Don, you list the GOOD ways we could deal with the situation? Not doing so just makes you sound like a whiner.

[Godwhacker]

You make a lot of good points, but iTunes, Amazon, and others now sell plenty of music without annoying DRM. Annoying is all it really ever was. Sure, you are limited. You can't convert file formats easily. But you can burn them to a CD, then rip as an unprotected MP3.

But we can all help to end that announce once and for all by pledging to only purchasing DRM free music. Where we lead, the market will follow. The consumer really has all the power.

[biltz987]

I don't mean to quibble, but it seems that this was written a year ago. Much of your argument is a bit outdated. And, even worse, this argument has been written about ad nauseum. Heck, I've thought about a million times. Hardly an original thought.

Anyhow, many of iTunes offerings are DRM-free AAC (which can be used on iPod, Zune, SONY, Creative, etc., MP# players). Napster has a comaprable catalog and more DRM-free MP3 (NOT WMA) songs than iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, etc., and because they are MP3s they can be played on any MP3 player. Rhaposody also offers DRM-free downloads. Then there is eMusic, Amie Street, HD Trax, 7 Digital (not all are DRM-free, but the awesome new Pogues box set is!) and a host of others. Yes, DRM on purchased songs is evil, but the options for freedom from the dark side are growing all the time. Ideally, we should get it all DRM-free now, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as you are making it out to be.

[biltz987]

Burning to CD and then importing is hardly "little known." Most iTunes buyers with half a brain know this. That is NOT the POINT!

[darwilliam]

Don's letter is laughable, the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business with HUNDREDS of thousands deaths a year due to defective products (Vioxx anyone? Hormone replacement anyone?). Or the "Health care" business which won't help you when you really need it. Or our own government spending your money to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street? Abuses you? Make your own music, it's a free world, or go to a communistic country and let the government pay for the music - see what you get. It takes a steel stomach to run a music company - a record company - where every penny you spend is a bet, and if you don't bet right you lose your business. Look: every iPod in the US, on average, has over 90% of the music stolen, that is "shared", the musician doesn't get paid, the label that was the "vc" and risked it's money to record the music doesn't get paid, the songwriter doesn't get paid. And that's the abuse you should be crying about. When was the last time you gave any money to a musician without hearing the final product? That's what the labels are forced to do over and over, high risk and most of their product stolen. So for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight. (And if you're not and don't "share" that is take music from the web for free, my apology, but everybody else in the world does, and you freetards are the reason the ISPs will seen be filtered, which is pathetic, but that's what France and England are starting to do in order for creative people to get paid.)

iTunes is an example of a fair system that pays everybody, (it should probably variable pricing that would be the fairest American style model) but but since only 10% of the music that's heard on you iPod is paid for, for you to complain you're being "abused" by the music business is... you know what it is. Man, get a life.

[bkieller]

iTunes also provides a large - and different - distribution mechanism for Indie acts. It allows bands/artist to consider being able to succeed without the need of being 'signed' to a Label. Isn't that the real answer to minimizing the power of the record companies? I think you completely missed the point <?>.

[darwilliam]

Don's letter is laughable, the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business with HUNDREDS of thousands deaths a year due to defective products (Vioxx anyone? Hormone replacement anyone?). Or the "Health care" business which won't help you when you really need it. Or our own government spending your money to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street? Abuses you? Make your own music, it's a free world, or go to a communistic country and let the government pay for the music - see what you get. It takes a steel stomach to run a music company - a record company - where every penny you spend is a bet, and if you don't bet right you lose your business. Look: every iPod in the US, on average, has over 90% of the music stolen, that is "shared", the musician doesn't get paid, the label that was the "vc" and risked it's money to record the music doesn't get paid, the songwriter doesn't get paid. And that's the abuse you should be crying about. When was the last time you gave any money to a musician without hearing the final product? That's what the labels are forced to do over and over, high risk and most of their product stolen. So for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight. (And if you're not and don't "share" that is take music from the web for free, my apology, but everybody else in the world does, and you freetards are the reason the ISPs will seen be filtered, which is pathetic, but that's what France and England are starting to do in order for creative people to get paid.)

iTunes is an example of a fair system that pays everybody, (it should probably variable pricing that would be the fairest American style model) but but since only 10% of the music that's heard on you iPod is paid for, for you to complain you're being "abused" by the music business is... you know what it is. Man, get a life.

[darwilliam]

Don's letter is laughable, the music business abuses you? Want to try the pharmaceutical business with HUNDREDS of thousands deaths a year due to defective products (Vioxx anyone? Hormone replacement anyone?). Or the "Health care" business which won't help you when you really need it. Or our own government spending your money to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street? Abuses you? Make your own music, it's a free world, or go to a communistic country and let the government pay for the music - see what you get. It takes a steel stomach to run a music company - a record company - where every penny you spend is a bet, and if you don't bet right you lose your business. Look: every iPod in the US, on average, has over 90% of the music stolen, that is "shared", the musician doesn't get paid, the label that was the "vc" and risked it's money to record the music doesn't get paid, the songwriter doesn't get paid. And that's the abuse you should be crying about. When was the last time you gave any money to a musician without hearing the final product? That's what the labels are forced to do over and over, high risk and most of their product stolen. So for you to plea for them get have a "new business model" would be sincere if you weren't on BitTorrent or Kazza tonight. (And if you're not and don't "share" that is take music from the web for free, my apology, but everybody else in the world does, and you freetards are the reason the ISPs will seen be filtered, which is pathetic, but that's what France and England are starting to do in order for creative people to get paid.)

iTunes is an example of a fair system that pays everybody, (it should probably variable pricing that would be the fairest American style model) but but since only 10% of the music that's heard on you iPod is paid for, for you to complain you're being "abused" by the music business is... you know what it is. Man, get a life.

[dcapi]

I agree with Devindhra. Steve Jobs is by no means a philanthropist, but iTunes first proved to record companies that digital distribution was possible and desirable. Without them it might've taken years longer for digital music downloads to arrive.

In addition, the eventual iTunes monopoly is the only thing that forces record companies to maintain .99 prices. Because iTunes forced this price model upon them, much to their displeasure, they formed Amazon music etc. to compete, with better terms such as DRM free and cheaper prices. But if iTunes disappeared, prices on Amazon and other services would skyrocket for popular songs.

[dcapi]

I agree with Devindhra. Steve Jobs is by no means a philanthropist, but iTunes first proved to record companies that digital distribution was possible and desirable. Without them it might've taken years longer for digital music downloads to arrive.

In addition, the eventual iTunes monopoly is the only thing that forces record companies to maintain .99 prices. Because iTunes forced this price model upon them, much to their displeasure, they formed Amazon music etc. to compete, with better terms such as DRM free and cheaper prices. But if iTunes disappeared, prices on Amazon and other services would skyrocket for popular songs.

[bugm3n0t]

I've got to disagree with Don's perspective. As an independent musician, it was surprisingly easy to get my music on iTunes, so it is empowering a grass-roots rise in the ability of local musicians to sell their own music without the labels. And the success of iTunes is encouraging sites like Amazon.com to offer their music DRM free, which would NEVER have happened if Apple hadn't demonstrated the demand for individual downloads. I've used multiple computers over multiple years, and have found the iTunes restrictions to be no more than a triviality. (After all, you can still burn those tracks to your own CD and use them as you wish.) iTunes is giving power to independent musicians to challenge the old distribution models of the big record companies.