Oracle Online

From there, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), scurried their armada of lawyers to slap lawsuits on everyone, whether teenager or grandmother, who was found to be in possession of even a single downloaded Backstreet Boys song.

Congress, in turn, folded to every wish of the RIAA, interpreting copyright law under exactly the terms dictated to them by the regulatory agency.

Luckily, Apple, Yahoo! and a host of other companies began providing a cheap alternative to illegal downloadsčfor a nominal fee, of course. Still, the option was legal, inexpensive, and to most, the knowledge that a gang of federal agents wouldn’t be breaking through the windows to confiscate their PCs was entirely worth the 99 cents per song.

The problem with these files is that they almost always contain what are knows as DRMs, or digital rights management artifacts. These DRM make it impossible to transfer files that work on one computer or MP3 player to a different user or storage device. DRM, in theory, protect the music industry from piracy by making music impossible to copy or share.

Last week Apple CEO Steve Jobs surprised many industry insiders by calling for the abolishment of DRM. It seems that Jobs, who has for years stood by the iTunes music-store’s solicitation of music files that contain DRM tags, has turned an about face on the issue. But what spurred this change of heart? Furthermore, where has Jobs been for the past two years, while download sites like eMusic.com have been providing DRM free files for a comparable price?

According to Jobs’ new statement, the CEO now believes that DRM causes too much confusion in those who want to download music and discourages innovation in those who want to sell it in new ways. In this world of digital mediums, compatibility is everything, so why not cash in by making it easier for more people to download DRM free music?
People can already buy music without these nasty little buggers anyway. They’re called CDs.

Jobs, like very few music executives realizes that if the music industry wants to sail out of the low sales records they’ve been setting of late, they’ll need to cater to the needs of a fast-moving (and wealthy) public, not sue them.

Instead of prosecuting teenage boys because they wanted to listen to their favorite artists, maybe music companies should make buying music seem more appealing by accommodating the needs of consumers rather than hampering their ability to listen to music they pay for. For that matter, maybe the federal legislature and the judicial branch should stop letting RIAA thugs attack the public with frivolous lawsuits and start reading the copyright laws they help create and interpret.