Have you heard the good news about digital music lately? Sure, music sales are declining, there's talk of copy-protecting CDs, and record companies are suing kids and grandparents for downloading music. But impressive innovation is also under way, from better portable digital music players and software for collecting and listening to music to improved music quality and easy-to-use new online services. We review all this and more in our cover story. You'll find more choices than ever in players. The tiny Creative Labs Nomad MuVo NX is small enough to use as a keychain, but thanks to the increased density of flash memory, it can hold over 4 hours of music. The larger Apple iPod, still only about the size of a deck of cards, can hold up to 40GB of music—about 10,000 songs. And thanks to hard drives that are more compact, the midsize models can store 1.5GB of music—a couple hundred songs. The new online services are even more impressive, and the best is yet to come. RealOne Rhapsody 2.1 cleverly combines a monthly streaming service with permanent downloads—terrific if you're willing to pay a monthly fee. If not, Apple has led the way with its Apple iTunes Music Store, the first service to offer major-label songs for individual sale, with no monthly fee. Other services, such as BuyMusic.com, have followed in its footsteps. I'm also impressed by MusicMatch's integration of per-song downloads in its music-playing software. And I recently saw a preview of the upcoming Napster 2.0, which will offer a monthly streaming service as well as per-song downloads. Meanwhile, EMusic continues to offer the best selection of independent music.

I doubt these services will stop everyone from using peer-to-peer file-sharing services, but they're very viable alternatives for people who want to download music legally. And that's a very good move indeed.

Music, the Pirates, and Me

The recording industry wants you to be afraid, very afraid, and that's why it's suing hundreds of people for downloading music. It doesn't seem too concerned that these people include preteens and grandparents. The more publicity such cases get, the more people will be afraid to use peer-to-peer file-sharing services.

I understand why the music industry has turned to legal action. Its threats to sue were ineffective in curbing piracy, and its attempt to stop the distributors of the file-sharing networks failed, partly because these networks also have legitimate uses.

Some of the reasons for downloading music without paying make sense. For example, some people use peer-to-peer networks to find music that is unavailable elsewhere, which I consider similar to die-hard music fans trading bootlegged concert tapes. This doesn't bother me, and it rarely bothers the artists involved. And until recently, getting individual songs legally without paying a monthly service fee was difficult.

I know people want music for free, but that does not make illegal downloading right. Getting music free doesn't change the record companies' often-criticized business practices or put more money into the hands of the artists. Creating recordings still takes talent and money, and the musicians, the engineers, and all the others involved deserve to get paid.

On the other hand, the music industry should do more to make music available legally and easily. I'm still confused by a few things: Why is it that I can view almost any popular music video for free on the Web, but I need to subscribe to a service if I just want to listen to the music? And why is it that independent artists and labels often make a song or two available for free in order to get exposure, but most major labels would never do that with their artists?

My big concern is that the record companies' obsession with piracy will drive them to impose restrictions that punish people like me who pay for music. At home, we buy CDs regularly, and I usually copy them to our Media Center PC. I often also copy them onto my notebook so I can listen to music during my hour-long commute. All this flexibility means I'm buying more music than ever.

Meanwhile, the record industry is blaming piracy—not the economy or CD prices—for the decline in CD sales over the past couple of years. But according to research firm NPD Group, 60 percent of music consumers with access to the Web have not downloaded any music for free, and sales to those people are down 7 percent. And fewer than 10 percent of consumers age 36 and over report purchasing less music because of downloading. Rather, sales among that group are down simply because there's less music they're interested in buying.

Personally, I would be more likely to spend additional money on music if prices were lower. And I'll probably buy fewer CDs if they become copy-protected. Let's hope that in its zeal to stop pirates the music industry doesn't hurt legitimate customers. In the meantime, let's just enjoy the (legal) digital music.

Spam Wars Heat Up

With spam comprising 60 percent of all e-mail, according to research firm Gartner, the battle to eliminate spam is getting reinforcements. California recently passed a tough new antispam law that bans unsolicited commercial e-mail to Californians. It's too early to see how effective this will be.

I have more faith in technological fixes, so I'm glad to see that antispam software keeps getting better. McAfee and Norton recently introduced solutions that with any luck will get more people to use antispam software. Developers are doing a better job of reducing both spam and false positives—the blocking of legitimate mail. For reviews of the latest software.

Several techniques have been developed to reduce spam. Blacklist programs block mail from particular addresses, but they're rarely helpful, since spammers change addresses frequently. Filtering is often a better approach, as it blocks mail that looks like spam. The downside is that a filter can't block everything and will occasionally block legitimate mail. Many of the personal antispam solutions use whitelists, which allow mail only from people you know, and challenge/response mechanisms. These techniques ensure that the mail you already know you want gets to you, but they can also reject newsletters or other computer-generated messages you may want, such as flight change notifications.

The more widespread antispam software becomes, the less effective spam will be. And that may go a long way toward curbing the problem.

Patently Confusing

The number of lawsuits involving software patents continues to increase, with the courts recently delivering steep judgments against some big companies. I'm not sure they deserve these outcomes.

Microsoft is appealing a judgment of over $500 million for violating a patent that lets people access interactive programs in Web pages. eBay recently lost a case involving patents for an automated payment system on auction sites. Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry wireless e-mail gadget, lost a case filed by a smaller company claiming that the BlackBerry infringes on its patents. RIM, while appealing that case, has accused Good Technology, maker of the GoodLink wireless e-mail device, of the same thing.

Intellectual-property laws protect the work of those who've spent years coming up with unique technology. For years, copyright laws did a good job of protecting software. As someone who creates content for a living, I support strong copyright laws. But over the past few years, more and more software patents have been issued, as have "business process" patents, which I find a troubling trend. Patents for software and business processes often turn out to be patents on ideas, which are not patentable, and not processes, which are. Drawing the line is almost impossible.

It's also somewhere between difficult and impossible for companies or individuals to track all the possible patents they could be violating. I'm hard pressed to see where "one-click checkout" and "Buy It Now" are unique processes. In the long run, the big companies may be the only winners. To protect themselves, they are creating patent portfolios and going after smaller competitors. And it is getting more difficult for standards bodies to create royalty-free standards, which have been so important for the Internet and open-source software. This litigious environment can only deter the development of new products and services.

Given the complexity of the law and the inexact science of granting patents, software patents seem to be restricting innovation rather than promoting it. The time has come for the patent office or Congress to take a closer look.

Discuss this article in the forums.

Copyright © 2004 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. Originally appearing in PC Magazine.