Slashdot Mirror
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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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...
.: Max Romantschuk
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!
From the article (emphasis mine)
But Mr Berman said it was vital for the industry to establish a single digital rights management technology as part of a strategy to popularise legal downloads among consumers.
and
While Apple has been widely praised for bringing online music into the mainstream market, some labels have complained it has priced tracks too low, making it difficult for them to make a profit from them.
If a single format will allow for competition between online music stores and at the same time increase the user base, I would expect the prices to drop. But given the second statement, I suspect they would like us to pay more.
This can only happen when the DRM-scheme they will be proposing is more restrictive then Apple DRM. So this has nothing to do with interoperability. It's about standardizing to a format they have more control over.
Do they ever learn?
Not at all. Do you honestly believe that the labels are doing this for your (the customer's) good, to enable you to choose the mediaplayer and format you want? Then you're truly naive. Labels are greedy, greedy and greedy, in that order. The only reason that they are banding together on DRM now is that they are afraid that they will lose control (=revenue) over their digital music offerings to Apple, Microsoft or some other digital content provider. Which would serve them right.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
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.
"While Apple has been widely praised for bringing online music into the mainstream market, some labels have complained it has priced tracks too low, making it difficult for them to make a profit from them."
But they are making a profit. My question is, how much? Just once, I wish I could see a quote like this backed-up by a statistic (one that makes sense, mind you).
I don't know what "open" means in this case, but AAC is patent-encumbered. If you want to distribute an encoder or a decoder you have to license those patents:
So, in a way, the submitter already messed it up.
One thing is clear, because Apple's iTunes Music Store has been successful, Apple has a great deal of clout during negotiations. If the music industry can make on line music a commodity with uniform standards, the music industry would be back in complete control.
Already, the music industry is getting full of itself with the success of iTMS. $.99 per track is no longer enough money for them. Rather than looking at the success of $.99 tracks, the music industry sees the success as a chance to raise prices, but Apple managed to stave them off. They don't want that to happen again.
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.
But this way we only need to break one DRM scheme.
They made this mistake before an lost to the pc....don't make the same mistake twice.
So you are saying apple should make the same mistake that IBM made instead. Apple has somewhere from 3%-5% of the market share for Desktop Computers sold. While IBM has about the same market share now. Sure their platform is more popular but they made the mistake and their product became to command and to much competition. Apple has been pretty consistent with the 3%-5% market share for many years. Unlike the most PC guys who Shoot up to 25% they stay there for a few years then shoot down to 1 or 2% Gateway anyone? Apple is able to keep control of their product set and the technology they can go to and they are not bound to staying with one platform. Like the old macs to the PowerPC to the 64bit PowerPC. Any other PC manufacture would kill themselves doing this, but it works for Apple, the reason is because they didn't open up their Computing specs and allow anyone to use their OS (Well they did for a while but apple lost a Lot of money from that).
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
.at least that is the impression I get from reading your replies.
For example, I bought Deep Purple on vynil, several times cos they got fucked at parties, then I bought it several times on cassette, cos the tapes got chewed, then I bought it on an indestructible cd, and it died, then mp3 came along.
The music industry have NEVER EVER EVER been about selling music.
What they have ALWAYS sold and we have ALWAYS bought was the MEDIUM, eg vinyl, cassette, cd red book, whatever.
In the new digital age there is essentially no medium, only the data itself.
DRM in ALL ITS FORMS is quite simply nothing other than a DESPERATE (for failure = bankruptcy) attempt by these companies to impose pseudo medium characteristics onto medium free digital data.
I don't know why nobody gets this.
It's not just the RIAA, it is all big media business, hollywood as well as music biz as well as publishers as well as anyone who'se stuff can be distributed as digital data.
Talk of this version of drm vs that version of encoding versus this methods of copyright protection is all bullshit, because it is missing the point.
NOTHING LESS than imposing pseudo physical properties (the scratched vinyl, the chewed cassette, the skipped cd) onto digital media will satisfy these bastards.
Because anything less means their revenue stream crashes, permanently.
Wake up, this is essentially an American Big Media Corporation tea party vs the rest of the world and its consumers, you cannot afford to give these bastards even a nanometer.
America will end up as a digital cultural backwater, with everything inside its borders DRM'ed up the wazoo, and everyone outside the borders sticking 2 fingers up.
And this shit less than 24 hours after a post about the BBC (or rather hackers at the beeb before their bosses get tech savvy and twig) pushing for a open source codec in the community which by definition is not going to meet the needs of those who seek to make a fat living selling copy after copy after copy of the same thing to you, claiming to be selling you the media, but in fact merely peddling the medium itself.
wake up FFS
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
If one service ever got popular enough, major artists could sign directly to Apple and sell their music WITHOUT signing to a major label!
And they think they're going to stop that from happening by cutting the heads off the tall poppies?
Once online distribution gets big enough, all you'll need is *one* non-major label contracting with a significant fraction of the online distributors and that label will *be* a major.
The only way the music industry could pull themselves out of this is to start their own services and refuse to contract with any independents like Apple. And if they do that, it doesn't matter whether Apple uses "industry standard DRM" or not: they have to fuck Apple, AOL, Real, the whole shooting match or lose.
Wow, where are my hip waders? A friend of mine is VP of artist development at a record label. He seemed to feel that if they could sell CD's for five dollars each without producing the CD media, in his words, "We'd be rolling in money."
Using 12 tracks as an average for most CD's at a dollar a track makes it already hugely profitable for record companies and the first thing they want to do is try to squeeze you for even more. Okay, figure most people don't download whole CD's, they buy single tracks. They're still making a ton of money.
Amazing that it never seems to be enough for them. Then to come out and lie about their profit margin so brazenly just astounds me.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
And what's so funny about it is that O'Reilly *still* does not sell unbundled, non-DRM'ed, digital downloads.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
popularise legal downloads among consumers
Most of my downloads have no DRM at all, but they're perfectly legal. They're in MP3 format direct from the artists.
some labels have complained [Apple] has priced tracks too low, making it difficult for them to make a profit
Most of the 99c I pay to iTunes goes to the label, and their marginal cost for that purchase is zero. As near as I can tell, the only people making a profit from iTMS are the labels. And it's not at all certain that they'd make more profit at a higher price: they may make more money at a lower price, and they must know it... they're smart enough to have learned basic economics.
So, yes, it's all about control... but it's not necessarily about making more money directly from music sales. They want to make sure they are the ones pulling the strings so that online music distribution doesn't give artists a way to bypass the labels, and keep most of the 99c you pay iTMS for themselves.
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!
Here's what happened:
Microsoft, whispering into RIAA's ear..
"You know that Apple DRM has been hacked, and blah blah closed system, blah blah, doesn't support artist's rights, blah blah, Windows Media Miracle Solution!"
RIAA:
"Good point."
Dead iPod
Microsoft: Profit!
Go shove it. As soon as they try to screw us out of affordable/iPodable online music sales, we'll go back to stealing.
I recorded a CD and released it online. I also allow some of the tracks to be downloaded for free at MacIdol. And here's what I've found...
As I have made more tracks available for free downloading, CD sales have INCREASED. I think I know at least one reason. We all can recall an artist that we sorta liked on first listening, but then liked more and more as we listened more and more. When you allow several songs to be downloaded for free, you increase your chances of this happening. If people dig the music enough, they might order the CD. If they don't, then you've lost nothing. But they still have your "free" songs out there and they have friends, and you never know.
And instead of releasing the worst songs from the disc for free, I released what I thought were the best songs. I wish big artists would do this.
I'm in line to get the CD into iTunes, but the waiting list to get in is long, so it can take months for a little guy to get in. But I just see iTunes as another way to get exposure. Once the CD is on iTunes, I will still allow free downloading of some songs, because I really believe it will help, not hurt, CD sales. My freely downloadable songs are located at:
http://www.macidol.com/jamroom/bands/999/music.php
Music - www.richardmac.com
>> 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.
/K
Um, how is this good news? Apple's DRM is actually fairly innocuous in practice. I don't feel the least bit dirty using it. Do you honestly believe that something foisted on us by the labels will be more end-user friendly and less proprietary?
Personally, I think we should get away from actually believing that a college student in Finland sat down and wrote an operating system.
A programmer from IBM passed the confidential trade-secret information for emulating UNIX to "Linux Tovald" who uploaded the program to an FTP site.
If you think a college student could just sit down and emulate an industry standard operating system, then you should go work for The O'Reilly Factor and not spend so much time trolling, troll.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Also lets get a few other things straight.. Balmer was wrong in saying the most common format was stolen music, actually the most common formate is PREVIOUSLY bought music (ie CD's) his methodology in saying that was that .mp3 = stolen. Balmer was in no way trying to say people download from elseware, he was just trying to scare the labels into using Windows user rights free DRM.
Also your right iTunes is ecensially a iPod selling tool... but last I checked Apple owned 70% of the market for music devices as well... so its working. Likewise, Apple DOES make 3 cents a track.. .03 * 1 mill isnt chump change. Also Apple is selling the distrubution method. Remeber the lables HAVE tried this before... they failed misserably.
Also might help if you used tags to format your post ;)
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Labels don't want a unified DRM, what they want is *any* DRM that they can use to directly sell to consumers themselves. They can't use Fairplay, which rules out iPods. So unless they're going to go the Doomed to Fail Sony route of providing a whole soup to nuts system, they *need* an open DRM so they can bypass Apple and Microsoft and sell directly to consumers. I would rather have the labels die a quicker death.