The other day I was talking to someone in the newsroom about a mural that's going on the wall, depicting what the managers like to call "new media". You know, cell phones, laptops and the like. The largest item on the mural would be a huge, shiny white iPod, stirring me to ask the graphic designer, "I don't know man. Do you think we should really put an iPod on there?"
My argument was that it'll look dated when iPods eventually goes out of style, or a newer and sleeker model becomes commonplace. Seriously, it'll be like those big blocky cell phones that are always the fodder of eighties flashbacks in sitcoms and cheesy movies.
Of course, my input was likely disregarded, but it did spark something in the back of mind. You see, I'm the proud owner of an iPod and I'm beginning to realize that sometime in the near future I may not have one, leaving me with dozens of "tagged" music files. These files, encoded with Apple's DRM, will prevent me from moving my valuable music collection to another library or device. Precious music lost. Valuable money wasted.
As a result, I've been limiting my online purchases. I'm buying only tracks that I can't find at the local record store and getting the rest at the brick-n-mortar stores. And, I can't deny the fact that it's reassuring to actually have something tangible, like a CD case or disc to hold in my hands after spending my hard earned cash on something as intangible as music. But, in a culture where everything is readily available "on demand", finding a cheap alternative to mashing the download button isn't easy. That's a lesson I learned today while out CD shopping.
Like the rest of the country, I was a huge fan of The Killers debut album, so I figured that I'd probably want to have a hard copy of their new album
"Sam's Town" for future posterity. I could've bought the album from iTunes for $9.99 (and got a bonus track and music video that I'll never ever watch).
My first impulse was to drive down to the local indie record store. I'll help out the locals, and get my music fix. Since it was release day the CD was on sale, yet it was still ridiculously priced at $12.99. Yeah, I know it's only a few bucks more, but I just couldn't bring myself to buy it. I justified this to myself by noting that if I had decided to buy the CD there a few days later it'd cost me $16.99 - which is the whole reason I stopped buying CDs in the first place. Jackasses.
I eventually ended up at the Best Buy down the street, and found that they also had a release day special. The disc, normally costing $13.99 was reduced to $9.99 (and came with a bonus CD containing two unreleased tracks). Now that's a steal! I bought it. Sure, I felt guilty about not spending the money locally, but store owners need to realize the "price of doing business" is also hurting their business. And I don't feel bad for sticking it to Apple because eventually, their DMA will be sticking it to me in return.
I really don't know what the solution is to this dilemma. My experience today was a microcosm of what's going on in the music industry right now, but without all the illegal downloading and whatnot. I'd like to propose a DRM that copy-protects the material, but expires after two or three years, giving enough time for the luster to wear off a new album - by which time there's less chance for it to be mass distributed. I'm fine with Apple borrowing my idea if that means my copy of Paris Hilton's "Star Are Blind" will still be transferable a few years from now when the world suddenly realizes her true genius. (half-joking)
Anyway, I say all of this to you because it was something that was bouncing around in my head this afternoon as I quietly battled against iTunes and the RIAA.
And the funny thing about all of this is:
After this entire rant - after all this ridiculous frugality - I have to admit that I don't really like the new Killers album all that much.
