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."
...considering Yahoo's music service uses a propretary media player (Yahoo's) with a propretary DRM implementation (Microsoft's) on the subscription model where your music is all deleted when you cancel your subscription... by DRM.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
...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.
On the contrary: Jack Valenti Testimony at 1982 House Hearing on Home Recording of Copyrighted Works
To quote: But now we are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape. And it is like a great tidal wave just off the shore. This video cassette recorder and the blank tape threaten profoundly the life-sustaining protection, I guess you would call it, on which copyright owners depend, on which film people depend, on which television people depend and it is called copyright. And that was 1982!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The only way I'll pay for downloaded music is if its lossless (wav,flac) and if it costs significantly less than the CD. If the artist only has 1 good song they aren't worth giving any money to. If they can produce an album where I like at least half the songs, and don't hate the rest, then I will buy the music. If the download doesn't cost less than half of what the CD costs, then I don't see where I am getting a better deal.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html
It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
Sadly, the Slashdot eds decided not to run my story about the Gowers Review calling for evidence as of yesterday, so since it's directly relevant I'll mention it here.
For those who don't know, this is a government-ordered review into the current state of intellectual property, and whether it needs amending in light of new technologies, easy distribution over the Internet, etc.
The review is concerned with several quite general questions, quite a few specific issues, and any other comments interested parties care to make. Among the specific issues explicitly mentioned in the call for evidence (available on the web site linked above) are:
So, if you're from the UK and you've ever bitched on Slashdot about the unfairness of DRM, the media cartels gaining ever longer "temporary" protections, the daftness that format-shifting is illegal even when the industry is happy to sell you equipment that all but requires it to be useful, the use of patents to create a barrier to entry for OSS, or any number of other IP-related issues, stop complaining on here and write to the Gowers Review to make your case. You can bet the big businesses all will be.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is surprising, given that the media companies do seem to be taking the Goldberg approach to DRM.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Yahoo, however, prohibits the download of songs with the string "allah" in them.
Remember kids, with great power comes great opportunity to abuse that power
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
I pity the poor people who don't understand enough Chinese to use Yahoo! China MP3 search and download because Yahoo has got it right in China. Free, and it's got to be legal, right? It's Yahoo that's doing this, the RIAA would have attracted attention to this a long time ago if this was illegal. Try it with the help of babelfish or something, and see if you like it. It covers a whole lot, and will most definitely have what you're looking for. Bonus- no threat of being sued! This is the direction that Yahoo may be taking with the discussion, but maybe not...
OSx86 FTW
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)
What I decided to do was to offer MP3's at around 260-270 kbps. If you can tell the difference between that and lossless, .. you should be an audio compression engineer.
david
BTW, have you bought my compilation yet? It'll cost ya 1 lousy buck.
http://www.bitworksmusic.com/
odd tunes for odd times
BitWorksMusic.com -- odd tunes for odd times
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.
http://ymusicblog.com/blog/2006/02/25/dave-goldber g-to-record-labels-no-drm-please/
ian