Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Exec Speaks Against DRM
AWhiteFlame writes "Dave Goldberg of Yahoo spoke against DRM on media files last Thursday at the Music 2.0 conference in Los Angeles. From the article: 'According to attendees, Goldberg pointed to the experience of eMusic, which offers its subscribers access to MP3 files without any digital rights management attached. Rights management restrictions have created a barrier for consumers, he said, making it a hurdle to transfer music to portable devices, and creating incompatibility between music services and MP3 players ... A Yahoo spokeswoman said that Goldberg was 'basically trying to move the industry forward,' and wanted to prompt industry-wide discussion about what the consumer experience is."
...DRM will only hit the buffers when ordinary users realise they're paying for their own shackles. At the moment I suspect it's still only a tiny minority of users who care about this issue, so "the market" still makes it worth record companies' while to impose DRM. Hence, while Emusic is a great service, it only has quite a limited selection - and even more limited if you live in the UK, and run up regularly against "This is not available for download in your country" notices even on Emusic.
Very, very interesting... that this is the guy saying 'DRM hurts the customer experience' speaks volumes, because he's speaking from the experience of the online music retailer. He's speaking from the experience of running a service which ostensibly makes the same offering, but gets it's ass handed to it by iTMS... and you just know Yahoo has done the research and it all comes down 'customer experience', i.e. there's stuff people would like to and expect to do that they get annoyed about when they find they are restricted by DRM, be it keep 'their' music after the subscription ends, burn a CD, or put music on an iPod without ( to the average user, very difficult ) DRM-stripping and format conversion.
People are quick to blame the iPod's FairPlay-only DRM and Apple's refusal to license that, or to open up the iPod to Windows DRM, but really, it's the DRM in general that's hurting things, and part of the reason that iTMS is doing so well may have less to do with the iPod ( though there is a bit of that ) and more to do with the overall 'consumer experience', including the lighter DRM restrictions; you can burn MP3 CDs, you get to keep your music 'forever', you get to move your music between several computers, put it on as many iPods as you want, etc... as much as record company execs want to pretend the users don't care about that stuff, it's clear that they are wrong.
Disclaimer : I don't buy music online, I still buy CDs... about as many as ever, which is not many, because they're so damn expensive...
I can only speak for myself, but my problem is with the entire idea of DRM. DRM in any implementation is going to limit what I can do with my music. If it didn't set any limits, then it wouldn't be DRM. (To be fair, Apple's implementation isn't too bad, since it allows the creation of a lossless, non-DRM encombered version by burning to CD. Still this step seems like a waste of time, plus you do loose the compactness of the original file).
Now, this doesn't mean I should be allowed to upload my music or share it with 100's of my not-so-closest friends over the internet. However, trying to find technical solutions to this problem is the wrong way of going about it. By putting DRM on a item I can purchase, it makes the file I can "steal" (without DRM) more valuable. Why the heck would I want to buy something when I can get something better for free? All this DRM stuff does is limit what law abiding people can do with their music.
DRM is also unecessary to shut down all the P2P networks that exist for sort of copying you speak of. There are already laws on the books that make this illegal. The process is slow, but one by one the P2P networks that exist primarily for doing this sort of thing are dissappearing.
The reality is the P2P networks are a convenient smokescreen to justify DRM. Ask yourself this question (or actually finish this sentence):
If P2P networks never existed I'd be able to buy most songs over the internet...
1) with no DRM.
2) with DRM.
3) not at all.
#2 is probably the most likely outcome, but that just proves that P2P networks are not reason for DRM. #3 is actually a pretty likely possibility, because without P2P it is not clear if the music industry would of gotten off their collective butts and allowed selling music over the internet. I think we both know what the likelihood of #1 actually of happening is.
Please explain to me, then, why every VCR you can buy in stores has a Macrovision circuit, which causes the video signal to become intentionally degraded if you use a Macrovision signal (like a rental VHS tape played on another VCR, or a DVD player) on the line input - and not necessarily only if you happen to be recording that signal on the VCR. This is the same as DRM and it's worked its way into just about all the consumer-level VCRs out there, and it's been around for ages.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Upload it to a P2P server, and people will hear it. If it isn't pure shit, they will open their wallets and beg you for more.
Once it's uploaded to the P2P server it has become free. There is no need to open the wallet for something they can get.... FREE.
Back to your original point, I'm not going to buy a song I've never heard.
Using this logic you wouldn't buy the follow-on work I produce either because.. you haven't heard THAT yet either. So again, you want it free.
At this point one would have produced two works desired by people and realized nothing for it.
How do we do it? Volume!
Cogito Ergo Sum
Here's my "consumer experience":
I stopped listening to music. It's too much hassle. Between bullshit restrictions on what players I can buy to go with what music stores and what artists are on what website and who does what with their precioussss intellectual property, FUCK IT ALL.
Beethoven, perhaps the greatest musician of all time once said something along the lines of he dreams that there should be but one big warehouse where all the artists of the world can drag their art to and come away with what they needed.
That's called the internet people, his dream has come true but you so called "musicians" and "record labels" have botched it. I don't listen to new music anymore. It's too hard for me to get some tunes that are still true to the spirit of music and art. I have my small collection of rock and roll and jazz and classical and I do just fine popping it into the car once in a while.
So ROCK ON Yahoo! man, I hope they listen to you. (disclaimer: I hate Yahoo and worship Google)
yes... maybe Yahoo doesn't like it because they have to pay royalties to Microsoft for the DRM technologies? Going unrestricted means:
;)
- no royalties for a DRM system to pay
- systems easier to implement
- customers more satisfied
- good for the image...
The don't own any DRM technology, and thus have no interest in such, adding some only frustrates customers and make them look bad. These days, they only want Google to look bad
Consider you bought 100 cds, at an average of $15 each - that's $1500.
Now consider you put that $1500 in a savings account and collect 4% on it. You'll get back $60/year which is exactly what yahoo music costs.
So assuming prices/rates dont change, it costs the same to buy 100 cds outright or to lease unlimited music for the rest of your life.
My tastes change pretty frequently, so it's a better deal for me to lease my music. That may not be true for you.