Labels Push for a Unified DRM Standard

thejoelpatrol writes "Bad news for Apple fanatics but good news for all the crazy slashdotters who want an iPod but feel dirty using Apple's DRM: the labels are getting together and insisting that online stores standardize their DRM methods. Being the providers of the music, the labels clearly wield a lot of power, but so does Apple: without iTunes, the online music business is next to nothing. Will Apple give in? Not if they can help it -- they're on top of the world. Before anyone messes it up, AAC is an open format, while the Fairplay DRM standard is not."

Comments

Ultimately, no DRM is the best DRM.

[Max Romantschuk]

Even though I do understand that content creators wish to protect themselves I believe that no DRM is the way to go.

The main thing is to focus on having a well working and simple delivery model, and to make sure the content isn't over-priced. DRM ultimately pretty useless, since it can always be broken eventually. If it's simpler to buy the content from a reputable store than getting it over P2P the model will work.

Tim O'Reilly wrote and excellent piece on the subject in 2002, and it still applies today: Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution

PS. I'm sure a lot of you will disagree, but at least I can claim to be a content creator myself...

It might not be good for Apple to fight this

[Maestro4k]

While iTunes is the most succesful online music store out there, and the iPod is a huge success, with the studios joining together to insist on a standard DRM Apple could end up the big loser here. The studios are likely to not give a damn about how big iTunes and the iPod are, they certainly haven't given one about killing off CD singles, moving to an online music market (it took Apple to really change their stance) or even to consider alternatives (such as compulsary licensing) to solve the file-sharing problem. If Apple refuses to budge, or even license, their DRM to competitors, the studios may just standardize on something else, forcing Apple to change to it if they want iTunes to still have licenses to sell music from those studios.

This should be interesing, Apple is very good at being independent and wanting to be different, but this looks like that strategy won't work out. They must keep the studios happy or the studios will happily take away the music.

Personally I wonder how this would affect older devices (like iPods) that might not be able to play the standardized DRM. The article makes no mention of this, and while I can't see Apple in particular (and other digital music player makers) wanting to make their older products incompatible, I really would not be surprised if the studios could care less if that were to occur. If it does there will be quite a few incredibly angry folks out there!

Re:It might not be good for Apple to fight this

[midifarm]

First of all 90% of all studios are completely independent of any record label. It's the labels and the RIAA that is concerned with DRM. I'm not even sure the artists themselves care about DRM, they just want to be fairly compensated for their artwork.

what it will take for all of this to get resolved will be something similar to what Peter Gabriel is trying to develop. Perhaps a union of sorts to bring the labels to their knees. For the most part, other than distribution and PR the labels aren't needed for anything. If musicians learned to think and operate for themselves, this might be a moot point.

A wonderful example is Ani DiFranco. Whether you like her music is irrelevent. She's 100% self promoted, from albums to concerts. It's her production and her money and it's worked out very well.

I'm just waiting for an established giant to buck the system. When U2 or Aerosmith abandons their label and promotes their upcoming release via online distribution only (George Michael is doing this) the others will follow suit. Just hire a PR agency and collect a check, only a much larger one.

Peace

Re:It might not be good for Apple to fight this

[Alsee]

I for one am happy to see chaos interfering with DRM crap.

And actually things are looking pretty good for maintaining that DRM chaos. There is no way in hell Microsoft is going to give up it's own DRM system and adopt the Apple system (even if Apple offered it), and Apple has absolutely no reason to give up their own system. They are THE dominant player in the feild. Why the heck would they want to switch to somthing incompatibile with their huge user base of iPods?

If the RIAA tried to force the issue they seriously risk an anti-trust smackdown, they are already treading that line pretty close with their current iron fist over online sales.

I also find it quite comical that the RIAA is whining about Apple prices being too low. The marginal cost of providing downloads is miniscule. Lower prices would drive up volume. Hell, selling non-crippled formats would drive up volume. Many independant artists are willing to accept lower prices per download, hell, there are many artists happy to get their music out there for free. Any attempt for the RIAA to strong-arm Apple into raising prices would also be likely to raise anti-trust issues.

Hmm, now that I think about it having the RIAA jack up download prices might be a good thing. Its just that much more pressure for people to move to non-RIAA DRM-free cheap or even free music.

-

Re:It might not be good for Apple to fight this

[Falsch Freiheit]

I really love most of Ani DiFranco's music, but the one very confusing thing with her is that while her CD cases basically give permission to copy her music, her label is still a member of the RIAA.

( http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp -- "Righteous Babe" is on the list.)

I'm terribly curious why a label started by a successful and totally independent artist feels the need to be a member of a customer-hating semi-evil organization like the RIAA.

How long is it...

[Bin_jammin]

before the record labels are sued as being a monopoly? I imagine the indy labels all rising up in a class action suit, but I mean seriously, it's been 5 years of announcements like this on an average of once a week or more, I want my music, I want it free (of restrictions) I'll pay a resonable price for decent music I enjoy listening to, and if I want to buy something on CD I'll go to a used CD store. I'm not just on music burnout, I'm afraid I've burned up all the fuel I've used to burn the pyre of hatred for the acts of RIAA and MPAA.... someone help, I need a transfusion.

Creative Commons

[Anonymous Writer]

They should use Creative Commons for part of a standardised DRM scheme. The whole concept of having XML data describe different licensing methods so that they can be understood by software would be the way to go.

Apple was there first

[klaasb]

The rest should follow the leader.....

After that Apple should open up their DRM to others.

They made this mistake before an lost to the pc....don't make the same mistake twice.

i'm all right, Jack

[pelorus]

I guess the problem is that the ignorant media are saying that Apple's DRM is "proprietary" (which it is) but implying that other online stores are not (because they use WMA-DRM).

Of course the labels want a standard - a standard they control. they want to be able to raise the price when they want and sue anyone who breaks it. Sadly it's exactly this sort of promise that Ms will make for them.

So, AAC is open but patent-encumbered. Not a problem. The file format doesn't really matter anyway, the issue is the DRM. And by it's nature it's going to bug people whatever happens.

In my case, I'm not worried. I can use Apple's DRM'ed files and I don't need to worry about it. Definitely a case of "I'm all right, Jack"

M

Apple is fucked

[melted]

Record labels have nothing to lose here. Revenues they get from Apple are laughable.

Apple, however, can't:
1. Make tracks more expensive - nobody's gonna buy them
2. Share the DRM format - bye bye iTunes revnues
3. Implement stronger DRM - nobody will buy tracks
4. Tell the record labels to fuck off - where are they gonna get the music then?

I think they're royally fucked.

Re:Apple is fucked

[Anita Coney]

Every single thing the guy says is true, exactly how does that make him a troll?!

I know it's hard to admit to the Apple converted, but Apple has NO power in the music industry. The record companies will drop Apple in a second for any reason.

First, as Melted pointed out, the music industry really doesn't earn that much money from iTunes.

And here's a second reason, that's even more important. The music industry does not want ANY service getting too popular. If one service ever got popular enough, major artists could sign directly to Apple and sell their music WITHOUT signing to a major label! The music industry will sure to bring down ANY service that starts to get that much power.

Re: O'Reilly & DRM (was: Ultimately, no DRM...

[turnstyle]

"Tim O'Reilly wrote and excellent piece on the subject in 2002..."

And what's so funny about it is that O'Reilly *still* does not sell unbundled, non-DRM'ed, digital downloads.

Opinion: Summary of Article

[ljavelin]

Here's a summary of the article:

• Apple is doing very well with iTunes
  
• Apple sets a USD 0.99 maximum price
  
• Industry wants to sell at a higher price
  
• Providing alternative DRM on the iPod will let the record industry create an independent music store for the iPod
  
  • An industry-controlled store could exclusively offer different music selections to iPod users, like "the next Britney Spears"
    
  • An industry-controlled store could sell their product at any price... most notably, a price significantly higher than Apple's cap of USD 0.99
    
  
  

The industry HATES Apple's $0.99 price point. If they could charge more, they would.

Of course, the industry could license Apple's DRM! And the license fees would likely be very very inexpensive. But Apple isn't likely to license their DRM without a stipulation that songs must be less than $1.00.

Yay Apple! I'm no Apple fan, but this is the GOOD THING FOR ALL... even if you're NOT an iPod owner!

Um... no.

[Guppy06]

"good news for all the crazy slashdotters who want an iPod but feel dirty using Apple's DRM"

What part of "I don't pay money for DRM" don't you understand? I don't care where in the equation the DRM came from, I will not pay money for either DRM software or the DRM hardware required to run it.

The only "exception" I have to this rule is with DVDs: I'll buy a DVD so long as it's not published by a member of the MPAA, and even then I play it on a region-free DVD player.

Re:Case Study...

[NtroP]

I listened to (and downloaded) a couple of tracks from your "Florida Songs" album and just purchased CD. Good stuff!

I think it's great that independent artists have the means to produce their own art and distribute it without having to deal with the Music Mafia.

I wonder if iTMS would allow an independent artists to stipulate that they wanted to release their music in non-DRM AAC format or even Loss-less format through iTMS. It would be great if they offered a whole section devoted to "open/indy artists" who were offering their content in this way.

I know that I for one would frequent that section often, if only because I believe in supporting "the good guys".

Are you definitely going to be on iTMS? Once you are on it, is getting your second album on it easier?

Keep up the good work!

will y'all quit yer bitchin

[b17bmbr]

download drm'd aac songs, export them to cd audio, then rip the new cd. no drm. lossless. sounds great to me. downloaded digital music is not going to be the absolutely highest quality. it takes $1000 stereo system to hear a tiny difference in quality of a $0.99 song. holy crap. apple's drm is the least invasive and lest restrictive. would you rather microsoft's drm?