Ed Felton explains how the music labels are going to have to eat a lot of crow when they start selling un-DRM'd mp3 files:

Why did the Times (and many commentators) mistake MP3 for “unrestricted”? Because the industry has created a conventional wisdom that (1) MP3 = lawless copying, (2) copyright is a dead letter unless backed by DRM, and (3) DRM successfully reduces copying. If you believe these things, then the fact that copyright still applies to MP3s is not even worth mentioning.

The industry will find these views particularly inconvenient when it is ready to sell MP3s. Having long argued that customers can’t be trusted with MP3s, the industry will have to ask the same customers to use MP3s responsibly. Having argued that DRM is necessary to its business -- to the point of asking Congress for DRM mandates — it will now have to ask artists and investors to accept DRM-free sales.

Here's what I wonder: Will David Geffen's head explode when this happens?

Technorati Tags: music