For years, computers have been converging to be able to do the same thing. Whether you use a Mac, a PC, a Unix box, or a Linux computer, you can surf the we, check your e-mail, edit photos, and write letters, and you can share your files used to do any of these. And in most cases, you could choose from many differnet applications to do this. Writing a letter, for example, could be done in Microsoft Word, Corel Wordpefect, SUN StarOffice, OpenOffice.org, and many others with the same file being compatible on all these programs. While sharing files wasn't seamless yet, it was approaching that. Technology was becoming less of a choice about what functionality one wanted since functionality was becoming more standard across all computers, and more a choice of personal preference for style, ease, and comfort.

And music was no different; music files worked on any computer, any operating system, and any program. And unlike word processing, music could be done seamlessly. Until now. With online purchasing of music, music files can no longer be shared and functionality does vary from program to program. Only Apple's iTunes will play a song purchased form Apple. And you need an iPod if you want to take your music with you. This reduction of choice is reversing the direction of technology.

The problem is whether it is possible for record companies to make profits while allowing their songs to be sold without copy protections that tie songs to a single vendor's technology. Record companies argue that any freedom will allow pirating to blossom and will cut into their profits. They point to their falling profits over the past few years. Others argue that while cumbersome, ultimately people who want to steal will steal. Kazaa, for example, is still up and running and can be used to trade music illegally. The negative effect of opening up technology is likely minimal. Rather the ease of use and possibility of choice will make people more likely to buy music online.

I like to believe those who argue for freedom are right. I'd hate to see computer technology become less interoperable and see less choice. However, I'm not sure they are right. I can't seem to find any historical precedent for this. In fact, I'd argue there's precedent the other way (sort of). Microsoft Windows, Micrsoft Office, and Internet Explorer formed a triumvirate that allowed Microsoft to claim an overwhelming market share in all three. Microsoft just make sure that the three worked well together and that files for these applications didn't work well with other applications or operating sustems. I'm worried we may be about to see another similar skewing of the market towards one company's products. The new RealPlayer is an attempt to get digital music back onto the the path of freedom and choice.

Here's hoping freedom and choice will win.