Sometimes things seem so easy and obvious that it feels odd to say them out loud. I feel, however, that the obvious may have escaped us as an industry in the world of digital distribution.

Do we really think we will create a viable market based on digital rights management and noninteroperable files that limit consumers' abilities to transfer and listen to music however they want? Are we serious when we think that customers are satisfied with a subscription service that, once one quits, all of their music vanishes and, while they are subscribers, their songs will not play on an iPod? Or, equally as bad, a store that sells à la carte files only playable on one brand of portable player? Imagine if you had to own a Sony CD player to play a Sony-manufactured CD! Not gonna happen. Has anyone else had a talk with a college kid?

Consider all the resources being wasted on this futile feeling that we have to have complete control over the music allowed to the public. Imagine these resources going toward developing and promoting talent. Think of all the great artists you have heard who need us to get them above the radar. I would rather be putting money behind them than into the pockets of tech companies and lawyers looking to perpetuate this insanity and leech off our business.

We have never had complete control of our music—we give it up every day when we sell open-format CDs—and any method we invent to seize control will most likely be easily and cheaply circumvented by someone in short order. Our challenge is not to stop anyone from taking a song without permission, but to encourage the vast majority of people to pay for songs.

I am suggesting that we move to an open format—MP3 seems the logical choice. Yes, there will be those who simply do not buy the music, but rather rely on their friends and certain peer-to-peer networks for free music, but they are doing this now anyway!

Most kids would opt in to an open-format service that, for a reasonable amount, would give them legitimate access to songs, including hit songs, that could play on an iPod, a Rio, a phone, wherever they wanted.

In this fashion, digital retailers would compete on their ability to be retailers and not tech companies. Interesting and cool promotions would return, and kids would choose what stores to visit based on factors other than compatibility with their portable players. Most importantly, they would not flee to P2P, which is where the open files are now. In other words, we would help create a legitimate marketplace and cut into the billions of files that are shared with zero remuneration.

Do we not see how our very paranoid nature is empowering tech companies to dictate marketplace terms to us? At MIDEM this year, I heard EMI Group chairman Eric Nicoli speak about listening to the consumer. He is on the money, but will EMI actually put its music out in the environment that consumers want? In the end, it is the majors that have to make this shift. A few digital stores, like eMusic, are shooting for this, but they cannot license major content.

The result: As we continue to pour more and more money into protecting our shrinking world and making tech companies rich, we are losing any type of real connection with the consumers, the fans.

We are aggressive at Cherry Lane. We have cut percentage-based mechanical licenses for open-format subscription services that allow labels to get creative with pricing.

We need more publishers and labels to get onboard and give this a shot. If we picked up even 20% of the frustrated consumers who turn to P2P for compatibility and availability, we will all be very, very happy. Who's in?