I've been thinking about free digital downloads for a while now, and with the success such models have seen in the last seven months or so (since Radiohead's In Rainbows was released), it would seem only natural that the record labels would recognize that value in their product should not be based on money or profits. Automatically I realize that the kind of suggestion I have made is detrimental to the music industry and the artists that produce music, even when some of the said artists are embracing free download business models. Nevertheless, it is not surprising in the least to see the music industry fighting tooth and nail to retain some control over the business they rightly think they should control.


The only problem is that even while they awkwardly drop the means that prohibited music's success digitally, namely the anti-piracy technology digital rights management, it is just far too late to retain the control they feel is due. Dan Moren of MacWorld has noted this very problem that the labels are facing by dropping DRM, especially considering Apple Inc.'s(NASDAQ: AAPL) iTunes Store is the industry leader "holding tremendous sway over the music-buying population." He also makes it clear "by selling DRM-free music, the record labels are tacitly giving that music away" and have "conceded the war on piracy."

DRM-free files allow anyone to trade music with no loss in quality. Moren concludes that this tactic, which sounds nice and friendly to the listener and consumer, is actually a tactic designed to "undercut iTunes" by providing other download stores the same quality products as iTunes, making songs from stores like Amazon.com Inc.'s (NASDAQ:AMZN) MP3 store usable on Apple's iPod.

But with free digital downloads enjoying huge success the opposite seems probable and very likely. Take, for instance, Coldplay's recent free download of single and album track "Violet Hill" from the band's forthcoming fourth album. At the end of the download period, EMI announced that it had been downloaded over 2 million times. In just a week that is very impressive. If anything, the move was successful since it spread the word about the new album far sooner and much friendlier than simply releasing the song on iTunes and expecting listeners to shell out money to hear it.

The problem seems to be that these methods are not gaining any uniformity. Radiohead first tested the method for two months late last year before releasing In Rainbows on CD at the start of this year. I have that digital copy in my iTunes library still, which tells you I did not run out and buy a physical copy. The method was very exciting and obviously successful as Radiohead is now constantly cited as an innovator in the field. As promising as that might be, the band have gone on record to say that they will not repeat it, calling it a "one-off". Even when it happened it was called a marketing gimmick to sell that eventual CD. If this is the type of future the method has then it will lose its flavor very quickly as bands and the music industry revert to the typical processes.

Does that revelation or claim necessarily devalue the music involved? No, but it does mean that the music involved is forever linked to the method and whether it achieved success down the line. If independent artists can make the process work without the industry, even for "one-off" releases, then the music industry should be able to come up with a viable and appropriate method that successfully merges free downloads with profits. Touring is always available, and live music hardly means that the actual product is lessened or devalued. If the pace of change can be made static and less unpredictable then these methods will be viable across the board instead of for "one-offs" or single tracks.