Slashdot Mirror
Making Money Selling Music Without DRM
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson has an excellent writeup on the rise of eMusic and how they're suceeding despite their unwillingness to hop on the DRM bandwagon. From the article: 'The Holy Grail of online music sales is the ability to offer iPod-compatible tracks. Like the quest for the mythical cup itself, the search for iPod compatibility has been largely fruitless for Apple's competitors, whose DRM schemes are incompatible with the iconic music player. For a music store that wants to succeed, reaching the iPod audience is all but a necessity in the the US market, where Apple products account for 78 percent of the total players sold. Perhaps that's why eMusic CEO David Pakman sounds downright gleeful when he points out that there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic.'"
Not cheaper... but they have a good selection of indie artists you will not find on AllofMp3.com. As the other poster noted, they are legal... not quasi-legal like AllOfMp3.com. Also, it appears that AllofMp3 may be on its way out of business... or at least on hiatus while they work things out with the Russian Mob... I mean government.
..of companies that make money selling digital music without DRM, look at just about every company that has sold CDs for the last 20 years. It's not like the model hasn't already proven itself. Even the big media companies know they can profitably sell unDRMed stuff, because that's how they became big media companies. DRM is a "solution" looking for a problem.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
*SHOCK* *AWE* You can make money selling music that people can freely copy? ZOMG!!1!
Businesses who think that selling unrestricted music that people can freely copy need only look to the bottled water industry to see that it's possible. In the west we have (effectively) free, clean drinking water, yet people spend billions each year buying it from stores. Sure, anyone can "turn on the tap" of the internet and get their fill of mp3s, but that doesn't mean stores can't make a huge profit selling those exact same mp3s.
Bottled water sells because of psychological tricks and convenience. MP3s can sell the same way.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
"there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic."
.
.doofey.
It's rather a startling point . .
. . . given how many people are doing it; and have been doing it for so long. Even more startling that Ars Technica seems to be uncritically accepting the marketing claim in the article and run with the ball. It's, well . .
It's even more doofey that Slashdot, which has run any number of stories about outfits selling/distributing unencumbered mp3s, should perpetuate the claim, but, well, it's Slashdot.
KFG
$0.045 is 4.5 cents, not "less than half a cent", it even uses that figure directly later in the article you linked to. Other than that, I agree with you ;).
Oh no... it's the future.
reaching the iPod audience is all but a necessity in the the US market
Funny, I thought it WAS actually a necessity. Silly me.
This article makes it seems that Apple compatibility is holding back companies from selling music online. An iPod will play MP3s. The problem is that the studios will not allow anyone to sell music online without DRM. FairPlay was Apple's solution to this problem. Apple doesn't want to license it, and that's their choice and right. So these companies don't have many choices, but Apple wasn't the one that created the problem. They found a solution that works for them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Honestly, why is Google & Apple always owning or claiming to own the rights to the word "innovate"? For what reason? Anyone?"
Because they are the most brilliant thieves.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso
"But this one goes to 11!"
You may be able to justify it to yourself that allofmp3 is legal but I'd like to see how you could justify it as being morally or ethically correct. You are basically paying a fence for stolen goods or paying a counterfeiter for counterfeit merchandise.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
"Many people", including the Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor.
Allofmp3.com let off the hook
allofmp3.com violates the spirit of the law, if not the exact wording. It is like saying that identity theft was legal because when it first started happening, there was no specific law against it3/7/2005
Why don't you just say it's "like pedophilia" or "supports terrorism" if you're going to use absurd analogies. As for the "letter" and "spirit" of the law; the mechanism AllofMP3 is using is basically the same as applies to radio stations; they don't have to negotiate with every label for every song, they just pay a lump sum to a collection agency. If AllofMP3 isn't making these payments, they would presumably have been prosecuted.
I've never paid for a tune from iTunes -- and since discovering emusic.com, I probably never will.
:)
Everyone else in the thread has already said it, but I just wanted to add to the chorus of people urging emusic virgins to check the service out.
In addition to picking up new music from old favorites like Sufjan Stevens, The Decemberists, and The New Pornographers, their insightful reviews and helpful, music-lover-friendly emails have led me to find a bunch of new music I love. Calexico, Tarkio, Gomez.. A bunch of random electronic tracks... Oh, and a bunch of B-3 jazz / blues, like Tony Monaco, Jimmy Smith, Joey DeFrancesco, et al.
Seriously, it's great. It's like Christmas every month when the downloads renew and I can go grab a couple more albums. I dig it
The problems Russia is facing with piracy are mass production piracy outfits that bootleg dvds by the hundred thousand, not a website that actually is legal under Russian law and can no long be considered a loophole (it would have been "fixed" by now otherwise)
RIAA and MPAA want crackdowns on the real pirates that are selling bootlegs produced in quantity. Legal manuvering can take care of allofmp3.com by making them cough up more and through a bit of treaty work that makes the copyright cartel in Russia pay up.
allofmp3.com is like a fly compared to what is going on in Russia to the RIAA. a non entity when there are bigger problems to deal with. They probably have another 3-5 years before any real changes occur that will matter.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Jeebus H Chris....why in the world does someone post up AllofMP3 when the discussion of DRM and music comes on? I'm not going to get into the pseudo-legality of it in the US....you can argue with it all you want, but everyone knows it's a shady gray area.
Why would you pay for quasi-legal music?? Just fucking download it for free already. Don't try to justify it being "right" because you're paying "less".
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Is there something wrong with buying CD's??? I'm not trying to be any kind of smart ass or the like, but am I old fashoned for continueing to buy "entire" albums?
I was under the impression that CD's were still lossless, and were still somewhat portable, and perfectly legal. You can even rip them and load them into your Ipod or fav player without worry...
Have they started DRM'ing Cd's so you can't rip them yet? that's what I figured was the next step but haven't run across one yet.
-Duff
My big regret is that Fraunhofer gave up the fight and MP3 became the de facto standard, rather than the technically superior MP4.
>Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor's office has apparently decided that a loophole in Russian copyright law ... allows Allofmp3.com to continue operations
...
>they just pay a lump sum to a collection agency
I think you misspelled "regional prosecutor".
I see the legality as pretty much a moot point. How much of that ".9-.25/song" is the artist seeing? The answer is most likely none. In that case, why is it better than paying nothing? No thanks, I'll stick to seeing bands live and buying CDs at the show. P2P provides the rest.
You forgot to say "IANAL" because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Allofmp3 is legal due to Russian law, and the only way to make it illegal would be to change the law, and as far as I know, that seems kinda hard to do in Russia, especially something as anti-consumer as copyright.
If identity theft were legal when it was done, it was legal. The US Constitution explicitly states that anything that isn't already illegal due to a law is legal. Trying to punish someone for an act that wasn't illegal at the time of the event is called ex post facto, and that also is explicitly banned by the US Constitution.
Finally, copyright infringement is not, I repeat, not theft. Copyright law is fully described in US Code Title 17, and copyright infringement is defined there as well. The concept of theft, burglary, robbery, larceny, and the rest of the theft family of criminal laws deal with physical items, not abstract concepts like ideas. Criminal law can be found in the next title (oddly enough), USC Title 18.
Now for my disclaimer: I am not a licensed attorney, but I study political science and law in fairly well detail.
Also, you refer to the Russian government as a "terrorist organisation"; with that logic, one can easily apply the same accusations towards the RIAA for their own regime.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'