{"id":3568,"date":"2004-08-18T01:31:10","date_gmt":"2004-08-18T05:31:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/08\/18\/reals-freedom-of-choice-campaign-and"},"modified":"2004-08-18T01:31:10","modified_gmt":"2004-08-18T05:31:10","slug":"reals-freedom-of-choice-campaign-and-price-cuts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/08\/18\/reals-freedom-of-choice-campaign-and-price-cuts\/","title":{"rendered":"Real&#8217;s Freedom of Choice Campaign and Price Cuts"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name='a746'><\/a><\/p>\n<p><P>Today, Real <A href=\"http:\/\/news.com.com\/RealNetworks+slashes+song+prices\/2100-1027_3-5312143.html?tag=nl\">announce<\/A>d a campaign to support interoperability and an amazing, if temporary, 50% price cut on all songs and albums at the Real Music Store.&nbsp; Let me take each issue in turn.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>1.&nbsp; As for the <A href=\"http:\/\/www.freedomofmusicchoice.org\/\">Freedom of Choice campaign<\/A>, it still doesn&#8217;t answer <A href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/07\/30#a738\">any of the questions<\/A> I had before.&nbsp; Why did Real use the proprietary Helix if it wants interop?&nbsp; Why did it sue Streambox?&nbsp; But, all things considered, not speaking to these points doesn&#8217;t surprise me.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>What surprises me is <A href=\"http:\/\/www.publicknowledge.org\/content\/press-releases\/press_release.2004-08-16.4611152974\/view\">Public Knowledge&#8217;s support<\/A> for the Freedom of Choice campaign.&nbsp; Yes, Real happens to be supporting interop in this narrow instance and, yes, <A href=\"http:\/\/www.publicknowledge.org\/\">PK<\/A> only addresses that narrow point.&nbsp; I still don&#8217;t see why Real deserves such pronounced support for this. These are the same guys who sued Streambox, and it&#8217;s not like I&#8217;ve seen them at the forefront of DMCRA campaigners (which is not to say they haven&#8217;t contributed; I don&#8217;t know what\/if they&#8217;ve contributed).&nbsp; At the very least, PK&#8217;s support should have been qualified with a statement that <A href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/05\/28#a678\">broader issues<\/A> are at stake here and the DMCA is at the root of <A href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/05\/15#a674\">the problem<\/A>.&nbsp; I know PK has the best of intentions here and I respect them a great deal, but I strongly disagree with the manner in which they have supported this campaign.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>If you look closely, Freedom of Choice&#8217;s goal is not really the same as Public Knowledge&#8217;s in this regard. Freedom of Choice urges companies to license their DRM standards. PK, in advocating for the repeal of the DMCA, argues that you shouldn&#8217;t even need a license. Real shouldn&#8217;t have to beg Apple to license and then put themselves in <A href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/07\/29#a731\">legal jeapordy<\/A>; neither should Streambox or 321 Studios. Legitimate circumvention and reverse engineering for interop should be allowed in general.&nbsp; But in the press release, PK merely states that interop is necessary to create a better alternative to P2P and tech companies and copyright holders should work together on this issue.&nbsp; Nothing whatsover is said about the DMCA or DMCRA.&nbsp; PK ends up sounding like just another group that supports the <A href=\"http:\/\/www.freedom-to-tinker.com\/archives\/000578.html\">mythical &#8220;open&#8221; DRM standards.<\/A><\/P><br \/>\n<P>That&#8217;s too bad, because they&#8217;re far more than that.&nbsp; They are concerned not just with making tech companies shake hands in this narrow instance, but in creating a generally better legal environment.&nbsp; Instead of patting Real on the back for this, PK should have told them to put all that marketing money into ensuring the DMCRA gets passed.&nbsp; <\/P><br \/>\n<P>Maybe PK thinks that by pushing this narrow campaign along others will eventually buy into the broader point. Perhaps other tech companies will also become born again interop believers.&nbsp; I suspect that many will simply pursue whatever is in their immediate interest, as I believe Real is doing now.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>2.&nbsp; On the pricing front, I think this could be an interesting turning point in the market.&nbsp; If Real actually throws some marketing muscle behind the discounting, we may start to see some limited price competition.&nbsp; Wal-mart&#8217;s lower pricing is basically insignificant because hardly anyone even knows about their site, I suspect.&nbsp; If Real&#8217;s buyers increase by several multiples, it will put pressure on every other Store, regardless of the fact that Real will be losing money on every sale.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>Remember, Real pursued a <A href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2003\/10\/12\/arts\/music\/12HARM.html?pagewanted=2&amp;ei=5007&amp;en=ccd1925d9ba7f1d2&amp;ex=1381377600&amp;partner=USERLAND\">similar price drop<\/A> with Rhapsody.&nbsp; Burns originally cost 99 cents, and then Real temporarily dropped them to 49 cents.&nbsp; Burns tripled, and Real subsequently set the price permanently at 79 cents.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>Which is not to say that Real&#8217;s move will vault them ahead or will enhance the long term prospects of the downloads market.&nbsp; Subscriptions still have the best prospects.&nbsp; This price drop will simply be interesting as a real world test of what consumers might be willing to pay for online music.&nbsp; It can lay the foundation for strategies and biz models that may help lead to price competition and drops generally.<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today, Real announced a campaign to support interoperability and an amazing, if temporary, 50% price cut on all songs and albums at the Real Music Store.&nbsp; Let me take each issue in turn. 1.&nbsp; As for the Freedom of Choice campaign, it still doesn&#8217;t answer any of the questions I had before.&nbsp; Why did Real [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-big-ideas"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3568\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}