The Open Music Model is an economic and technological framework for the recording industry based there Conducted research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . It Predicts que le playback of prerecorded music Will Be Regarded as a Service Rather than have Individually sold products, and que le only system for the digital distribution of music That will be viable contre piracy is a subscription-based system Supporting file sharing and free of Digital rights management . The research also indicated that US $ 9 per month for unlimited use would be the market clearing price at that time, but recommended $ 5 per month as the long-term optimal price.

Since its creation in 2002, a number of its principles have been adopted throughout the recording industry, [2] and it has been cited as the basis for the business model of many music . [3] [4]


The model ASSERTS That There are five Necessary requirements for a viable business digital music distribution network:

# requirement Description
1 Open file sharing Users must be free to share files with each other
2 Open file formats happy must be distributed in open formats with no DRM restrictions
3 Open membership Copyright holders must be able to freely register to receive payment
4 Open payment Payment should be accepted via multiple means, not a closed system
5 Open competition Multiple such systems must exist which can interoperate, not a designed monopoly

The model was proposed by Shuman Ghosemajumder in his 2002 research paper Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models [1] at the MIT Sloan School of Management . The following year, it was publicly referred to as the Open Music Model. [5]

The model suggests changing the way consumers interact with the digital property market: rather than being seen as a seller. Between the music industry and its consumers. The model Proposed giving Consumers unlimited access to music for the price of US $ 5 per month [1] (as of 2002), based one research showing That This could be a long-term optimal price, expected to bring in a total revenue of Over US $ 3 billion per year. [1]

The research demonstrated the demand for third-party file sharing programs. Insofar as the interest for a particular piece of digital property is high, and the risk of acquiring the good via illegitimate means is low, people will naturally flock towards third-party services such as Napster and Morpheus (more recently, Bittorrent and The Pirate Bay ). [1]

The research showed that this would not be the case, but it would be a good idea to make a decision. [1]

Industry adoption

The model predicted the failure of online music distribution based on digital rights management . [5] [6]

Criticisms of the model included that it would not eliminate the issue of piracy. [7] Others countered That It Was in fact the MOST viable solution to piracy, [8] since piracy was “inevitable”. [9] Supporters argued that it was a superior alternative to the current law-enforcement based methods . [10] One startup in Germany , Playing, announced plans to adapt the entire model to a commercial setting as the basis for its business model. [11]

Several aspects of the model have been adopted by the media:

Why would the big four music companies agree to let DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs have not worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

– Steve Jobs , Thoughts on Music [12] open letter, 2007

  • The abolition of digital rights management. In 2007, Steve Jobs , CEO of Apple , published a letter [12] calling for an end to DRM in music. A few months later, launched a store single individual DRM-free mp3’s. [13] One year later, iTunes Store abolished DRM on most of its individual tracks. [14]
  • Open payment was relatively straightforward to implement, and the iTunes Store offered gift cards, which could be purchased with cash, from its launch in 2003.
  • In 2010, Rhapsody announced a download ability [15] for their subscribers using iPhones .
  • In 2011, Apple launched its iTunes Match service with a modeling model, supporting file-sharing between a user’s own devices. [16] However, the purchase price of the iTunes Store is not enough.
  • Pricing $ 5 per month price, or its $ 9 per month market clearing price, has been adopted by many platforms:
    • In 2005, Yahoo! Music was launched at $ 5 per month with digital rights management .
    • In 2011, Spotify introduced a $ 5 per month premium subscription in the United States with digital rights management . [17]
    • In 2011, Microsoft Zune offert a subscription services for music downloads with digital rights management Known As a Zune Pass , at $ 10 a month.
    • In 2012, Google Play Music launched unlimited music streaming for a subscription price of $ 9.99 per month. [18] Users can upload their own MP3s to the service and download them, but can not download songs they have not uploaded themselves.
    • In 2014, Amazon added DRM music streaming to their Amazon Prime service. [19]
    • In 2015, Apple announced Apple Music , which would offer unlimited streaming of songs encrypted with FairPlay DRM for a subscription price of $ 9.99 per month, and compensate artists on the basis of song popularity. Apple, Inc., and its affiliates. All rights reserved. [20]
    • In 2017, launches a free music website with Royalty Free Music.

See also

  • Comparison of online music stores
  • Comparison of on-demand streaming music services
  • Disk sharing
  • Fan-funded music
  • File sharing
  • File sharing timeline
  • File-sharing program
  • Peer to peer
  • Record industry
  • Subscription business model
  • Threshold pledge system


  1. ^ Jump up to:f Shuman Ghosemajumder (May 10, 2002). “Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models” . MIT Sloan School of Management .
  2. Jump up^ Gautham Somraj Koorma (November 27, 2015). “On-Demand Music Streaming to Battle Piracy” . IRunway .
  3. Jump up^ Marco Consoli (July 3, 2014). “Spotify, he crazy business sbarca a Wall Street” . The Espresso .
  4. Jump up^ Karol Kopańko (June 5, 2015). “Dla użytkowników streaming muzyki jest spełnieniem marzeń, a dla wytwórni – źródłem obaw”. .
  5. ^ Jump up to:b Ruth Suehle (November 3, 2011). “The DRM graveyard: A brief history of digital rights management in music” . Red HatMagazine.
  6. Jump up^ Emanuele Lunadei; Christian Valdiva Torres; Erik Cambria (May 18, 2014). “Collective Copyright” . International World Wide Web Conference 2014.
  7. Jump up^ Sungwon Peter Choe (2006). “Music Distribution: Technology and the Value of Art in Society” . KAIST .
  8. Jump up^ Andrew Traub (November 25, 2009). “Open music model” . US Intellectual Property Law.
  9. Jump up^ Yrjö Raivio (4 December 2009). “Mobile Services and the Internet: A Study of Emerging Business Models” (PDF) . Helsinki University of Technology .
  10. Jump up^ Matěj Myška (December 2007). “Flat Fee Music” (PDF) . Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology .
  11. Jump up^ Playment. “Playment – Our Solution” .
  12. ^ Jump up to:b Steve Jobs (February 6, 2007). “Thoughts on Music” . Apple Inc.
  13. Jump up^ Marshall Kirkpatrick (September 25, 2007). “Amazon MP3 Launches DRM-Free Music Store” . ReadWriteWeb .
  14. Jump up^ Peter Cohen (January 6, 2009). “ITunes Store goes DRM-free” . MacWorld .
  15. Jump up^ Eaton Kit (April 26, 2010). “Rhapsody First Subscription Service in US to Offline Music on iPhone” . FastCompany .
  16. Jump up^ Erik Rasmussen (November 16, 2011). “Cloud Music and iTunes Match” .
  17. Jump up^ Charlie Sorrel (July 14, 2011). “Spotify Launches in the US at Last” . Wired .
  18. Jump up^ Jefferson Graham (June 24, 2015). “First Look – Google Play Music has 1000s of free music playlists” . USA Today .
  19. Jump up^
  20. Jump up^ Popper, Ben; Singleton, Micah (June 8, 2015). “Apple announces its streaming music service, Apple Music” . The Verge . Vox Media . Archived from the original on June 8, 2015 . Retrieved June 8, 2015 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *