I've gotten really into the abominably-named Frou Frou, which I discovered on the Garden State soundtrack. I was interested in hearing more of their music, and it was suggested to me that I check out the solo albums put out by the singer, Imogen Heap. Now that's a name I can feel good about telling people I listen to.

So I found the album on Amazon and got ready to order, only to realize that the CD is copy protected. I listen to all my music on my MP3 player, and have little use for CDs other than as a delivery medium, so a CD that I can't rip is of no use to me. I did some research on the type of copy protection it has, to see if it could be subverted. I couldn't find anything definitive, but I found several postings suggesting that it was actually related to the dangerous rootkit-installing XCP DRM software that Sony has been catching so much flak for lately. The software is written for Windows, so I suspect I could rip it safely on my Linux machine. But I read that the Imogen Heap CD in particular also contains a Mac version of the DRM software, and with Mac OSX's similarity to Linux, I didn't want to take any chances.

Instead, I checked a few BitTorrent sites and had the album on my computer within an hour. I found the outcome mildly ironic. Of course, I've already ordered the CD as well, because I do really like her music and want to support her. But the CD will never leave its jewel case. I suspect many other people who choose the same workaround won't feel the same moral obligation to buy the CD, which is a shame. She shouldn't be penalized for the actions of her distributor.

It's not like it hasn't been said enough by others, but the approach the RIAA and record labels are taking to try to limit the ongoing digitalization of music is terribly misguided. They're trying to restrict these new mediums of exchange, clawing desperately to hold onto the traditional ways of doing business that they're comfortable with. Perhaps this is just another conflict that boils down to conservative vs. progressive, but it seems so obvious to me that record labels would do better to try to embrace (and profit from) these new distribution mediums, rather than trying to beat them down because they're scary and new.

Does anybody really think they'll succeed at stopping the online transfer of music? Of course not. All they accomplish with these lawsuits and excessively restrictive copy protection schemes is to engender an even stronger feeling of 'us vs. them.' Consumers who previously wouldn't have thought twice about buying the music they enjoy now develop a (not entirely inappropriate) sense of righteous indignation toward these companies who treat the paying customers like criminals. And when they've been driven into that mindset, is it surprising that many decide to obtain their music by other means?

What's unfortunate is that the ones who bear the brunt of this moral vindictiveness are not the labels but the artists, who had little to do with it. Record contracts are arranged in such a way that it's very unlikely for the label to lose any money if the album doesn't sell. Nearly all of the costs involved in making an album are paid for by the artist out of their meager royalties, so any burden for loss falls squarely on the artist. (That link is a very good read, by the way).

So we have what's called in economics an externality. The labels make a decision to apply these restrictive, hostile tactics to protect "their" property, and the cost of that decision is borne, not by them, but by the artists and the consumers. That's the only reason I can imagine why this approach didn't immediately strike them as misguided. No matter how much the costs outweigh the benefits, it's a net gain for the ones making the decision.