TheNetStudio.com

Internet Music Collaboration

Think.Code.Repeat.

The Architect's Blog
May 3rd, 2009

Resolving the issues of improper data sharing.

Recap

In my first article I addressed the reality of improper digital content sharing. I outlined the dichotomies inherent in current computer and Internet technologies which enable that sharing. I explored how these dichotomies make improper content sharing a reality that cannot be eliminated without destroying other good uses of the same technology - Such as banking and e-commerce. And I gave specific technical explanations of the four major technologies that enable improper content sharing, and how they are used for both good and for bad.

About This Article, and About Me

In this article I would like to turn to what I think are some broad ways in which content creators and owners can harness these same technologies to their advantage. I will focus primarily on music sharing because it is something I am interested in, and because music sharing presents some of the most difficult challenges.

But first let me draw some context. I am a computer geek, I focus on network architecture, system security, and how to best use technology to enhance productivity and improve business processes. In my spare time I am also a working musician. I compose and record my music, and others in my own home project studio. I am passionate about music, musicianship, and the artists that create the music that touches our lives. But I am not in any tangible way a part of the music industry.

That puts me at a major disadvantage: I don't know how the music industry works, what the industry thoughts are on these issues, or what the industry might be doing at this very moment to deal with the problem of improper content sharing. So take my thoughts and opinions for what they are: A hobbyist musician and computer geek, who understands the core technologies and issues of file sharing. And someone who has some strong opinions on how to improve the problem of improper digital content sharing and copyright violation.

Motivation, Behavior, Technology

In my first article I mentioned that the problem of improper content sharing is not a strictly technical issue. And I believe that any solution can not be a strictly technical solution. I believe there are three major pieces of the file sharing puzzle that must be resolved together to produce an effective and permanent solution. I will call them: Motivation, Behavior, and Technology.

Motivation: Why do people feel it is OK to illegally share content? Why are they angry at the music industry? Why are they ambivalent about file sharing?

Behavior: Why do people seek out software to illegally share content, install that software on their computers, and then actually share files, even when they know it might be illegal? It is one thing to think about it, and quite another to go through the trouble of installing the software.

Technology: What technology is used by file sharing programs? Can that same technology be harnessed by the music industry to allow proper digital content sharing that respects the rights of the Copyright owners?

A Little About Digital Music Files

Illegal music sharing is particularly unique in the digital content world. That is because music files are ALWAYS transitional. Music files are only a way to store a REPRESENTATION of the music - they are not the music itself: They require a playback device to convert the saved music representation back into listenable music.

I believe that understanding this fact is critical, because it reveals something that can not be overcome. Mainly, that their will ALWAYS be a way to improperly share music. Let me give a simple example: A musician records a song, and saves that song as an MP3 file. That MP3 file is then downloaded via the Internet, and played back on the consumer's computer, or copied to an MP3 player. For the listener to then HEAR the music, the playback device MUST eventually "push air".

Regardless of the recording devices, the encoding/decoding devices, or the playback system: The song must eventually be played back in the air, recreating the song's original sound waves, to be heard by our ears.

I think this is critical to the issue (and any solution), because this is where everything eventually falls apart. It does not matter whether it is a vinyl record, CD, tape, MP3, or ANY OTHER format - Once the audio is played back it can be re-recorded. I will address this issue later in this article. But for now, I want to mention this important fact, because any solutions I propose in this article will not be able to overcome that issue.

This article is written to explore solutions that I believe can decrease the widespread problem of improper music file sharing. But I make no claim that it can be eliminated altogether.

Digital Music Distribution

Digital distribution of music is a reality. The consumer has spoken, and the horse has left the barn. Without acknowledgement of that, we can do nothing to improve the situation. Oddly, the very thing that the music industry appears to fear the most, could actually be their saving grace. With a solid plan, and proper technology, the music industry could actually BENEFIT from Internet distribution of music.

Say WHAT?! Are you NUTS?!

OK, I admit it won't be simple, or even easy. It will likely take some mistakes, some pain, a major change in philosophy, and some investment to improve the current situation. But I do think it can be done.

Suing Your Customers. Maybe Not A Great Plan.

First, the "music industry", as embodied by the RIAA has given the impression that it takes a hostile stance toward it's customers. That is never good.

Really - For just a moment, be honest with yourselves. Do you think people will like you and want to help you if you sue them, or if they think you might sue them? How about if you sue teenagers, grandmas, and technically illiterate parents? I submit that rather than want to help, they will probably want to see you suffer, and fail.

I believe this may have contributed to the Motivation, and Behavior part of the issue.

It's a bad strategy. Sorry. It might be the best option that the RIAA could think of... And it might be legally (and morally) OK. But it's just a bad strategy. I think suing SOME people for illegally sharing files is OK. But they have to be OBVIOUSLY bad guys. The public has to view them as pirates that purposely harm others (because that is in fact what music piraters do).

I would submit that when the RIAA found itself suing the wrong people, they should have stepped back, apologized and taken the opportunity to tell their story. They should have shown the face of an underdog fighting for fairness, rather than a bully unwilling to back down and show some grace.

It Starts With Education

In order to tell their story, I would submit that the RIAA should embark on an education campaign. This campaign should use not only traditional media, but should really focus on new media such as MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and others to educate a tech savvy public that improper downloading is harmful to the artist, the industry and to America.

Americans understand the value of hard work and fairness. And they understand that when people work hard they should be paid. The RIAA should communicate and explain that when people are paid, the great machine called the American economy runs well. And everybody benefits. But when Intellectual Property is stolen, the economy grinds and wheezes - An industry suffers, the artist suffers, and we all suffer.

That means that the campaign should include a simple explanation of what Intellectual Property is. And how music is also Intellectual Property. That an artist shares their thoughts, experiences, advice, and emotions through the expression of words and music. And that the listener benefits from that transfer of knowledge and information, and that the artist should be compensated for the benefit that the listener receives.

This is a fundamental shift in paradigm, because some listeners may not fully associate the MUSIC ITSELF with their purchase. The consumer has come to think of a "product" as a physical item. Even the terminology: "I bought a record", or "I bought the latest Stones CD" implies a physical item. The industry must begin to help the consumer understand that even without a physical CD package the MUSIC ITSELF is what they are buying, even if it is just simply a nebulous downloaded stream of electrons.

The listening experience needs to be connected to the purchase experience such that listening to a song is associated with paying for it. Right now the purchase experience is largely associated with holding a physical item, and that must change. To turn a phrase: The listener must be re-oriented from buying the "bottle" to instead buying the "wine". Or more aptly - the experience that the wine provides.

In addition there should also be a couple of artist initiated and artist run organizations that do the same education. If the message comes FROM the ARTISTS it will have much more impact than if it comes from the RIAA, which consumers have come to view very negatively. This should NEVER be contrived. Rather, an honest appeal from artists for music consumers to do the right thing could have a very positive impact.

Recent surveys also indicate that there is still some confusion about which music services are legal and which are not. The RIAA should also address this problem with a campaign called something like: "Sounds Right". It should have it's own logo, and it should be mandatory for any legitimate music service to display the "Sounds Right" logo. This would be a logo indicating that the service has made proper licensing agreements with the music industry, and all the music it offers is legal.

I would also suggest three separate levels that indicate increasing suport for the artists and the industry. This campaign could not only ensure that music fans know which services are legitimate, but would allow them to purchase music only from those services that support artists at the highest level. If done correctly this could bring significant peer pressure on music services companies to outdo each other in supporting artists.

The CD Is Dead. Long Live The CD

The second thing that the industry has to do is embrace music downloading and kill the CD. I know this seems very counter-intuitive, but first of all - The consumer has spoken. They are even willing to break the law, because they like downloading music more than purchasing CDs. Imagine how powerful a statement from the music industry and artists would be if they endorsed and embraced Internet music distribution.

But MUCH more importantly, music files that are re-recorded, or "ripped" from CD's and shared CANNOT BE TRACKED! This is a significant issue.

If the music industry were to go to a strictly Internet based music distribution model, they could watermark, fingerprint, or otherwise uniquely identify their MP3 files, and dramatically improve the enforcement of copyrights.

Innovating New Technology

To do that, the music industry should hire the best digital music software creation minds to develop a way of uniquely identifying a song file. It might be watermarking, it might be fingerprinting, or it might be something completely new. I submit: If these programmers can create polyphonic auto-tune, they can certainly create a music fingerprinting system.

This system should be vetted IN THE OPEN. Other programmers and security experts should be encouraged to test it and try to defeat it. This would be a good way to help ensure that the system is truly reliable. It should also be unobtrusive, and completely modular so that it can easily be replaced as it improves and changes. The goal is not to defeat ALL improper copying, just the majority of it. The industry should also work with lawmakers to pass legislation that makes removing these watermarks illegal. This watermarking system would be a requirement for any music distribution site. Any downloaded songs would then contain the watermarking.

Once the system has proven itself to be completely reliable and unobtrusive, the music industry should create a simple downloadable verifier for everybody to freely use on their computer systems. This program would simply work like a virus scanner to ensure that the consumer did not accidentally download improper music. It would also help parents ensure that their children are not sharing files illegally. The program should be small, have NO IMPACT on system performance, and do one simple thing: Check music files for watermarks, and proper licensing.

A second free program should also be made available to web site owners, who allow file uploading and downloading to allow them to ensure that their users are not uploading improper content. This should also be a very simple scanner that can run in the background to help web site creators and operators to be a part of the solution.

In order to qualify for the higher levels of the "Sounds Right" certification, Music Services web sites would be required to run this program in "delete" mode.

Reaching Critical Mass

Remember our issue of re-recording music? Once digital distribution and watermarking reach their tipping point, the industry can begin to confidently say that any music file that has NO WATERMARK was re-recorded, ripped, or modified. And thus MAY have been improperly copied. This is probably the most useful part of watermarking all digital content. Not only can you trace it's origins, and attribute ownership, but in a system where all digital content is watermarked, anything not watermarked can be identified as possibly rogue!

Final Thoughts

I believe the approach should be one of fairness and grace. Consumers should, in the majority of cases, be given the benefit of the doubt. In other words, these programs should NEVER be used to litigate every person that accidentally uploads or downloads improper content. This would ensure failure. Rather, a simple message that sharing improper content is illegal and harmful to their favorite artist should suffice. It should then allow the user to delete, or better yet, pay for the content. This is an approach that I think the average music consumer will have no problem accepting.

I understand that these solutions will cost money, change the industry, and likely be a rough road. It may also mean that the music industry will need to re-think music packaging. Music sharing and downloading obviates the need for packaging. That is: MP3s do not need fancy packaging. In a way this is positive, but it will require the industry to re-think WHAT it sells, and HOW it sells it.