Apple iTunes, Amazon Kindle, Fostering Creativity, and Copyright.

When I first came across Apple considering free access to iTunes, I was a bit stunned. This would be a bold move for Apple, the expert on vendor lock-in (with Dell a close second):

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Apple Inc. is mulling a plan to upend its iTunes business by giving people unlimited free access to the music library if they're willing to pay more for the iPod and iPhone devices they use for playing and storing the digital media, according to a report published Wednesday.

Some analysts threw cold water on the plan outlined in the Financial Times, however, saying Cupertino-based Apple would risk creating an "accounting nightmare" and alienating some artists if it started giving away songs on its iTunes online store...

Well, I see both sides. On one, I see that music prices do need to approach zero - especially if artists expect their copyright to last 70 years after their death, per the Sonny Bono Act (or, perhaps more properly, the Mickey Mouse Protection Act). I know it is difficult being dead, what with all the grass to be cut and every month, but there have been some wonderful increases in grass cutting technology that decrease that cost now. More seriously, though, with copyright extensions as long as they are and so much music available - people don't want to budget for music. Imagine the conversation between 2 blue collar workers:

'Payday! What are you going to do with your money?'
'I was thinking of getting some new shoes, the mortgage payment, and squandering the change on iTunes so that those rich dead people pushing up grass can afford people to cut the grass.'
'Yeah, it kind of sucks that we pay the dead people whose grass we cut. Maybe those communists had a point. Capitalism ain't helping us none.'

Of course, we can rest assured that there are no people who cut grass in graveyards out there thinking communism is a good thing - it is a fictional conversation I just made up to be a little humorous - because that's where iTunes is heading. Music prices go up, volume goes up, disposable income goes down... guess what? Less sales. That this might be something that gets worse over time as the public domain is further eroded by the Mickey Mouse Act means little to the average person - after all, you can't miss something until it is gone. A pity, that.

So then I did some more digging and found eMusic: Apple's bundled-music device would be anticompetitive and scratched my head. Anticompetitive? It reeks of competitivity. Vendor lock-in and free music is sort of like putting arsenic on Homer Simpson's donut. Well, except Homer will come back to life in another episode of the Simpsons. Pakman agrees:

Apple is in for a fierce legal fight should it ever release a device that offers all-you-can-eat music, according to David Pakman, CEO of rival digital music service eMusic.

"It smells like classic Sherman Antitrust Act to me," Pakman said. "I only know what I've read but the plan sounds very similar to the tying practices Microsoft used with Windows/Explorer. And Microsoft is still paying the penalties for that one."...

No, the Sherman Antitrust Act is not related to the Sherman Tank - Pakman (not Pacman) is referring to the very first act against monopolies, and is named for Senator John Sherman(a man who apparently liked his wastebasket where his legs were supposed to go under the desk). So what Pakman (not Pacman) is referring to is the fact that it is unfair for his company, eMusic, would have to compete with that. And he is right. It probably would be anticompetitive. Or it could be really competitive and require eMusic to take a big hit off of what their accountants might call a 'relief fund'. There is a pun in there.

The same article quotes

...Maxwell Blecher, an antitrust expert with the Los Angeles firm of Blecher & Collins, agreed that Apple could face legal challenges for bundling if other music vendors are indeed prevented from distributing songs to such a gadget. "Apple is going to argue that they compete with lots of other similar devices," Blecher said. "You have to look at whether there are exclusionary aspects or conduct. In that debate lays the outcome of any lawsuit."...

..."When Apple came out with the iPod, only Apple could deliver music to it," Blecher said. "They accused Apple of exclusion. When they did the iPhone, it was impossible to shift to other carriers. They said that was exclusionary...any time you have high market share and restrict competition in any way, you're going to raise antitrust concerns."...

Hmm. Sort of like Amazon's Kindle and the Amazon proprietary DRM format - though workarounds have happened, there is still vendor lock-in with the Kindle. Why did they name it the kindle? Isn't that what people start fires with?

So then I read Apple may bundle unlimited iTunes with iPods:

This latest concept is similar to Nokia's "Comes With Music" program set to launch later this year. Nokia is reportedly rolling an $80 fee into the price of compatible phones for one year of access to Nokia's music store, which includes music from labels like Universal.

Apple's plan is different in several respects. Since the average iPod owner buys about 20 tracks from the iTunes, Apple wants to make the premium about $20, arguing that it should cover the average consumer's downloads. Then the owner can make unlimited music downloads from the iTunes Store for the life of the device. Once downloaded, the tracks are yours to keep, even if you get rid of the original iPod or iPhone. And since iPod and phone owners tend to replace devices fairly regularly, the record labels would be getting the fee whether or not the consumer makes any further downloads. Silicon Alley Insider did the math and thinks it's a good deal all around. But according to the Financial Times' sources, the labels are looking for numbers closer to the $80 Nokia is reported to be paying.

This, in a sick and twisted underhanded way, makes sense - you see, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). The consumer is paying, it is simply a difference in how they pay.

The unspoken core of all of this is that while music has become cheaper to produce, the copyright extension named after the failed skier means that people will pay more, for longer, for.. the same amount. Think about it. A person who is 21 listening to someone the same age would have to pay the artist during their lifetime. Meanwhile, the listener may have children and grandchildren that they cannot legally share the music with, so the children and grandchildren will have to purchase the same music. Let's say that the artist dies at age 91. That means that not until the original listener's grandchild is about to have grandchildren will that song enter the public domain. 6 generations paying for the same song. Huh? You got it.

Sad, ain't it? The same applies to written works - like on the Kindle.

Now here's the thing. How does this create a need for creativity from artists? Those one hit wonders will be rolling in it. Write one book or perform one song that is decent and consistent in sales over a period of 140 years, and you'll be set and not have to publish more stuff. And meanwhile, those blue collar workers will probably figure out how to remix some music of weedwhackers and classical music that will be all the rage. No one will cut the grass. No one will milk the cows, Daisy will explode, and the butcher will be out trying to mix Rap with Grunge and a side order of Chopin.

Being creative is work. It is. And artists deserve to be rewarded - so often, publishing companies rip off artists, and it really isn't fair. Self publishing makes things more reasonable. Knowing that, the publishers need a new gig to stay in business - and that would be controlling the devices the consumers use since they can no longer control the artists. There is innovation and creativity coming out of this - but not out of the artists - because in the end, the artists and users will be screwed again in a new and imaginative way thanks to copyright law. You folks should have listened to Lessig. Shame on you.

As it is, I'm thinking of training grasshoppers to play some classical music. They might die, but if I create a corporation and deed the copyright to the corporation, I get 120 years from the creation date to make a killing at $0.50 a download. Even if it sucks.

I suppose I'll get cremated. That way the people at the graveyard will have more free time to come up with that one hit that will sustain them for the rest of their lives.

Obla di, Obla da...