EMI and Apple recently announced that iTunes will be offering digital rights management (DRM) free music at a higher bit rate (256kb AAC versus 128kb AAC that's standard at the iTunes Store), and for thirty cents more that the same DRM encoded song, this coming May.

Joyous celebration erupted in many corners of the world, as many proclaimed that this was the first of many blows to digital music DRM. They feel that this will ultimately result in the demise of all copy protection schemes for music, and finally bring the digital music world to parity with the ways things were in the heady days of vinyl albums and cassette tapes.

Other record labels are sure to follow EMI's example and offer DRM-free music on iTunes and other download services, charging more for the privilege. It seems like a win-win solution, doesn't it? Everyone makes out: The consumer has more choices in how they get their music (and choice is usually a good thing), record labels won't look like greedy bloodsuckers who are bent on extracting every last drop of creative life-blood of the artists they supposedly serve, and teen girls can rock out to Nelly Furtado's 'Promiscuous' in glorious 256kb AAC encoding until their eardrums melt.

But is that really the way of it? Will DRM-less tunes open a new era in music loving or will it just become an interesting historical footnote?

There is no doubt that DRM, in it's current incarnation, is useless as a deterrent to music thieves; anyone with half a brain, the barest minimum of technical expertise, and criminal intent can circumvent any of today's DRM schemes, including those from Apple and Microsoft.

Today, if you want to, you can buy music from iTunes now and play that music on ANY music player, not just Apple's iPod. The steps in making this work is a bit convoluted, but it does work:

1. Buy and download the music you want from the iTunes Store
2. Burn it to a CD or CD image
3. Import the music back into iTunes or whatever music system you wish
4. Make sure the metadata (the information that accompanies the music, like song titles, artist info, and album art) is intact.
5. Done.

The Apple/EMI deal removes steps 2 thru 4; a time saver and a nice reduction in complication, but the process was hardly complicated to begin with.

I imagine a similar process is possible to circumvent Microsoft's DRM setup, so going DRM-less will really solve little, except to make the process of buying and using music a little less painful for honest folks.

What about the thieves? Won't DRM-less music make their thieving easier, thus putting everyone back where we started with the nefarious illegal music mongers giving away untold zillions of dollars worth of free music to anyone willing to download it, thus leaving the poor artists penniless, destitute, and with poor personal hygiene?

In a word: Yep!

But here's the thing: it is that way now. Honest folk currently buy what they want to listen to, or borrow CDs from friends and rip them, make compilation CDs for special people in their lives, or...well, you see where I'm heading. Honest folks use the music they've bought on vinyl, cassettes, CDs, and now digitally downloaded to compliment and enhance their lives, and isn't that what music is about?

I'll grudgingly agree that music consumers should not offer up their music libraries to anyone capable of downloading it, but I'll also agree that the music that we buy is ours to do with what we want. There's a line somewhere in there that people should not cross when it comes to doing stuff with the music they own, but where is that line? When do we stop being honest folk and become godless music plunderers hellbent on depriving shoes, bowls of weak gruel, and cough medicine from the kids of the artists we've ripped off?

Music companies, as well as entities like the RIAA, have artists believing that the very people who supports them through music purchases are also the very people who are depriving them of payment for their work. It's a magicians trick: redirect the attention with bluster, lawsuits, and rhetoric while the real culprits continue to enjoy growth and profits.

Artists want to get paid for what they produce, and while no one wants to have his or her work freely distributed and not get a penny for his or her efforts, I believe that many artists would prefer to offer their work using the model of artist/consumer commerce that has been in place for hundreds years.

Hundreds of years?

Absolutely. When the Medici Family and other patrons hired artists during The European Renaissance the work that the artists produced and was paid for belonged to the patrons. Michael-Angelo is associated with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but the chapel, and the artwork on the ceiling is owned by The Catholic Church. If the Pope wanted to scrub the ceiling and hire someone else to paint something new, a beach scene perhaps, or if they wanted to replicate the ceiling in another chapel, he could. The artist had little to say about the situation, and did not get paid each time a replica was made.

Like the art patrons back in Renaissance Italy, I believe we own what we buy from artists and that includes personally using it for the occasional compilation CD or slide show background tune.

The problem is that we actually don't buy from artists, do we?

We buy from the representatives of artists, otherwise known as the record labels, and they are the ones who have mucked up the artist/patron relationship.

Greed, which seems to be the root of everything that is screwed up in the world today, has made the music labels think that they are the prime element in the creation and enjoyment of art. After all, without them, would the world have known Billy Holiday, The Beatles, Macy Gray, or Nickel Back?

Perhaps not, but without the talents of the artists and the willingness of consumers to spend a buck or two on the arts, everyone would be without; artists without an audience, patrons without fresh artists, and distributors without anything to distribute.

Digtial music distribution helps keep the middleman honest: It's harder for music companies to claim exorbitant distribution costs when the distribution mechanism is a website. DRM-less music removes one of the fictitious reasons artists "need" the support of the record companies and puts the artists a wee bit closer to their audience.

What EMI and Apple have done should be commended; they have taken a realistic look at the system and have decided to do something about it. It's a small step, but it shows that the companies, especially EMI, are not adverse to change, which could lead to all sorts of good things for everyone involved.

The other element in this equation is the consumer; you and me. We have allowed others to dictate what is good or bad, and how much we should pay, and I think it's time we've taken back some of that control, and we do that with our wallets.

I believe the EMI/Apple deal is a small, but good start, and that it deserves our support. I intend to buy as much as I can afford from EMI when Apple makes DRM-less music available on iTunes. I suggest that you do the same. If you don't have an iTunes account, get one and buy EMI tunes exclusively.

I also suggest that you buy from independent labels whose policies are not based on greed. Magnatune, Spotted Peccary Music, and Abet Music are the first labels that comes to my mind, but they are, by far, not the only independent labels around. Check out The Association of Independent Music (AIM), a listing of indie labels in the UK, and browse News Pages Guide to Independent Record Labels for more labels.

The point is this: Big record labels got that way because we, the artists and patrons, made them that way. All of the DRM crap is just that, crap designed to keep the current system in place for as long as possible, thus keeping big labels big and us little guys, the artists and the consumers, running in circles.

If we get pass the crap we find that the relationship between artist and patron is intact and going strong, and can get even stronger if we keep finding ways to remove more of the crap.