Since its creation in 2002, a number of its principles have been adopted throughout the recording industry, and it has been cited as the basis for the business model of many music subscription services.
The model asserts that there are five necessary requirements for a viable commercial music digital distribution network:
The model suggests changing the way consumers interact with the digital property market: rather than being seen as a good to be purchased from online vendor, music would be treated as a service being provided by the industry, with firms based on the model serving as intermediaries between the music industry and its consumers. The model proposed giving consumers unlimited access to music for the price of US$5 per month (as of 2002), based on 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.
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).
The research showed that consumers would use file sharing services not primarily due to cost but because of convenience, indicating that services which provided access to the most music would be the most successful.
Criticisms of the model included that it would not eliminate the issue of piracy. Others countered that it was in fact the most viable solution to piracy, since piracy was "inevitable". Supporters argued that it offered a superior alternative to the current law-enforcement based methods used by the recording industry. One startup in Germany, Playment, announced plans to adapt the entire model to a commercial setting as the basis for its business model.
Several aspects of the model have been adopted by the recording industry and its partners over time:
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.
The abolition of digital rights management represented a major shift for the industry. In 2007, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, published a letter calling for an end to DRM in music. A few months later, Amazon.com launched a store single individual DRM-free mp3's. One year later, iTunes Store abolished DRM on most of its individual tracks.
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 2011, Apple launched its iTunes Match service with a subscription model, supporting file-sharing between a user's own devices. However, the subscription price did not include the cost of acquiring content, which would still have to be purchased on a per track basis from the iTunes Store.
Pricing close to the model's suggested $5 per month price, or its $9 per month market clearing price, has been adopted by many platforms:
in 2012, Google Play Music launched unlimited music streaming for a subscription price of $9.99 per month. Users can upload their own MP3s to the service and download them, but cannot download songs they have not uploaded themselves.
In 2014, Amazon added DRM music streaming to their Amazon Prime service.
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 reportedly wanted to enter the market with a lower price but was pressured by record labels to adopt a higher subscription fee.