Slashdot Mirror
Warner to Sell Music on DVD
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Warner Music is planning an aggressive attempt to replace the CD by pushing consumers to buy their music on specially outfitted DVDs, the Wall Street Journal reports. It's music to the ears of some struggling retailers who seek a new physical product to re-capture some of the online (and file-sharing) market. 'As a retailer I'm going to be holding on desperately for any compelling physical product,' said Eric Levin, who owns two independent stores called Criminal Records in the Atlanta area. 'So the introduction of a new format...is cause for excitement.' More from the article: 'But there are some stumbling blocks that may discourage consumers from embracing DVD albums. The new discs would not play on normal CD players, meaning consumers could not simply pop their new discs into their car stereos or other players. And users would not be able to copy the main audio mix onto their computers. On the proposed DVD album, the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs.'"
Well now, that doesn't sound like too compelling of a physical product at all, now does it?
For those that didn't RTFA, supposedly the DVD would contain pre-ripped, lower quality versions of the song on the disc, but not actually allow you to rip the high quality versions of the song to your computer. Well, not legally, anyway.... And it doesn't say what the format of those pre-ripped songs are, either, though it could very easily be assumed that they are DRM'd as well. If they are, it probably wouldn't be iPod compatible, either, so honestly now - remind me again what the point is in them wasting money on a product that's doomed from the start?
A community-oriented lyrics site
This will either lead to people hooking up their DVD players to their stereos or to the appearance (sp?) of small DVD-audio players to hook up to the stereo. I guess those small, portable DVD players could get slimmer and replace the walkman.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
"the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs"
...
I was not aware that DVDs where protected... hum
And why would I want this?
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
What really does this offer the consumer? Does he actually include anything extra on the DVDs?
I kinda feel sorry for the guy how owned the two music stores, but he became complacent and should have got out a while ago. If there is any room for small players in the music store business, there won't be soon. How can you compete with the online retailers?
The writing is on the wall.
I remember wanting something like this 5 years ago when it was difficult to have a portable music source that had more then an hour or so of content. Now I can't see anyone adopting this technology because it's not better then what we already have.
The current DVD encryption algorithms are SO EFFECTIVE! How will ANYONE manage to get around this? All teh warez are dooomed!
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
If this were to succeed and CDs were replaced with DVDs, online purchase of music for download would skyrocket because at least those songs can be put on their MP3 player.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
And Time Warner is surprised that their stock is a flaming dog turd, and that they were unable to leverage the AOL merger in terms of media distribution?! These guys are so out of touch with reality that it would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. They refuse to see any opportunity in new ways of digital distribution, and only look for new ways to screw their consumers.
And thus these discs will not sell. Well, that was easy. Next question?
Here, boys and girls are the two reasons why this system is doomed (and why it's obvious that Warner hasn't figured out how the consumer and the pirate think/work)
1) the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs
So much for stopping piracy.
2) The new discs would not play on normal CD players, meaning consumers could not simply pop their new discs into their car stereos or other players. And users would not be able to copy the main audio mix onto their computers
And there goes consumer interest as well.
If SACD taught us anything, it's that consumers don't want to re-buy their collection, or replace their favorite stereo just for a minor difference in quality. It's just not gonna happen. There may be a small uptake, but the majority of consumers will say "Doesn't work in my stuff? Well then why bother?"
The real litigious bastards...
So basically it's a CD that you can't play in your car. Sounds like a winner.
So, they'd like to sell me a disk that won't play in my car stereo or my portable CD player, with video content I doubt I'd ever watch and pre-ripped DRM'd tracks I can't use, most likely for more money.
Wow -- where do I sign up?
And what really cracks me up is they think that, not only will I want to buy new music in this format, but that I'm going to rush out and replace my existing CDs.
Capitalistic Humility is the virtue of selling what the customers want to buy, not what you want to sell. Seems WB forgot that. It is obvious why this format will be better for WB and the music industry in general. The only drawback is that it sucks for the customers, the people whose money the music industry wants.
They seem to be like Ford prior to the attack of the Japanese car manufacturers or Apple before the release of Windows 3.1. Complacent, expensive, and sure there is no other alternative for the customer. It might be a good idea to short their stock.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
They are going to use CSS to protect audio? Wasn't it cracked like 8 years ago? So, in other words, the format is not out yet, yet the DRM on it has already been cracked? I like this.
When I walk around town, I see people with digital music players everywhere, so I doubt I am the only person who does this. Changing disks every album, and not having a random shuffle mode is simply not a convenient way of listening to music. I didn't listen to nearly as much as I do now when I had to change discs periodically; I would listen to an album and then stop.
This is a step backwards.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
One of the Joys of CDs is that what you hear is almost precisely what the band hears - Vinyl actually has its own sound so really you're not getting a carbon reproduction of the music.
Audiophiles decried the 22khz suggested rate for CDs and what we accept as digitally recorded music played back from a computer. CD audio is instead recorded at 44khz and it's pretty much as faithful a reproduction of what you'd hear 'in the booth' as can be expected.
DVD audio would probably record at 24bit/96khz. To be frank it's faintly ludicrous and almost entirely unnecessary, even for the most vainglorious Audiophile. Consumers can't be lied to and told that there's a difference between the quality because there really isn't. Purists claim they can hear the sizzle on a crash cymbal but since the levels of other tracks are almost always too high for a human to pick that out, it's really just posturing.
99% of music pushed out of the door is Brick Wall Limited anyway so we're not even using 16-bit 44khz sound to its full potential.
The ONLY consumer attraction for Audio DVDs would be the increased storage capacity and hence the ability to include more than one album on a disc and in a world where an MP3 player or iPod holds your entire music collection, short of the Studios making it "good value for money" (don't bet the farm on it) that's unlikely to be a big selling point.
Should read:
"Warner to Offer Music on DVD"
'As a retailer I'm going to be holding on desperately for any compelling physical product,' said Eric Levin, who owns two independent stores called Criminal Records
Now that's funny. A retailer "sanctioned" by the RIAA called Criminal Records who's afraid of "criminal" file sharing. That's more interesting than these DVDs they're talking about.
Developers: We can use your help.
So this new and exciting product will
1) Not play on CD players ( given it's a dvd and all )
2) Not be copyable to a computer ( given the same dvd DRM already in place. Stop snickering in the back )
So their target audience must be...uh...hmm.
The young and the gullible? But I don't think they'd be willing to drop this kind of scratch on a whole new music infrastructure ( car, home, portable ). So make that the young, gullible with rich parents.
A remarkably small subset. It would seem these folks are taking a page out of Sony's play book when promoting new formats.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Actually they are not forcing you to do anything because, you, like everyone else, will stay away in droves (Yogi Berra).
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
that they just don't get it. This will sell exactly as well as DVD-A (which is probably what it is) and SACD. There isn't a big enough improvement to justify having to buy new players and probably have to buy the CD twice so that normal people can listen in thier cars and such. I have 4 devices that can play DVD-A, and 0 that can play SACD. Well, maybe 2 for SACD if it works in computers, I don't remember on that one. I have a dozzen or so that can play CD-A. Even those I don't use much, preffering my iPod.
.50 for 64K MP3, to $1 for 160K MP3/AAC, to maybe $1.50 for FLAC, I know I would be all over that. But the files have to be in the format I need, MP3 or FLAC so I can convert to whatever I want, and they need to be unencrypted. That's the online service I would use, and it's the online service people WANT. You could even set it up so that the user could say "I have an iPod" and it would default to AAC. A legal service like that would get slashdotted in minutes with people wanting to give you thier money.
Not to mention, that most bands seem incapable of putting out a GOOD CD, so I end up only listening to 30% or less of the music I paid for in the first place. So now I can't just rip the songs I like onto my computer for burning to MP3-CD mixes and my iPod. That interests me how? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
I mean really, who wants this? The 1% of music listeners that we call "audiophiles"? MP3 is good enough for most people, so better sound isn't going to sell more shiney plastic things. Think about it, what do people clammor to pay for? Easy, convience. Make it EASY TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IT TO. This is so amazingly simple. Apple is the closest of the legal providers to "getting it". iTMS is fast, easy, and the restrictions aren't bad enough that it bothers most people. I still don't use them for the same reason I don't use DVD-A and SACD, I have a dozzen devices that can play MP3, I have 4 that can play AAC, encrypted or not. The point is, I recognize I may be a minority in that case and see the value for users.
Personally, the best I have seen is AllOfMP3. Yes, they may not be legal, however, thier system that allows you to choose the encoding format and bitrate is "the way it ought to be" (tm). Those who are happy with MP3 can have it, those who want FLAC have to pay a little more, but they have have it. You OGG lovers can have yours as well. I think the music industry should buy AOMP3, charge a little more, and call it a day. If I could have a legal download in any format I want starting at, say,
Yes, some people would share some music. Reality check, people do that now and they aren't going to stop. If you make it fast, easy, and reasonably cheap, it's eaiser for me to just get on the site and download from you directly. Perhaps the files could be wattermarked? I don't know. I do know that if I were using AOMP3 a lot, I wouldn't bother to ask friends and family if they had a song, I would just go get it myself.
As for physical retailers, have a setup where people can come in and download songs to thier devices. People don't want to have to go to the store all the time to get things like music. Deal with it. But if you have something like this, people can drop in and grab a song they just heard on the radio or something. Or perhaps retail music is dead, will anyone really miss it?
The only way to make DVD's viable as a music platform IMHO would be to increase the amount of real content (i.e. music) which was on the thing.
As someone mentioned, you can cram up to 40 albums on a DVD without even getting to the higher capacity setups.
Of course studios would never do this because then you could buy , for instance, every Beatles album on one dvd. PERIOD. Either they would have to charge both arms and a leg for it (how much is the Beatles CD collection complete again?) which people wouldn't normally pay in one drop. Or they'd have to admit that larger collections of media aren't proportionally worth more than single new albums.
Not to mention several artists would struggle to put together a DVD worth of real solid content without videos.
Now, on the other hand a DVDA car stereo which could play DVD's I cram full of music? I'm on that. But easier to just get a 30g ipod with a car hookup. So no reason to push that technology either.
End result, music companies are struggling because they don't want to accept that the consumer is deciding the path of the industry and they aren't.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Ah, right. So it's absolutely nothing to do with the fact that (here in the UK) HMV and Virgin can charge anything up to £17.99 (approximately $30) for some of their single CDs then? Likewise, the fact that record companies/stores price-fix CDs of 30+ year old recordings (say those by The Beatles) at the same (or higher) prices than new releases is irrelevant, is it?
The CD is getting old and tired
No, what you really mean is that the likes of Sony keep making a total "pigs ear" of trying to apply DRM to the open CD format so now you want we consumers to buy all of our music again on a new format that also takes away our "fair use" of the music we buy.
As a retailer I'm going to be holding on desperately for any compelling physical product.
As a consumer, a "compelling physical product" is one which offers good value for money. Perhaps you should consider some price reductions as part of your business strategy?
offer content through a breadth of products to meet consumer needs.
Ah, so consumers *NEED* more restrictive products, do they? Correct me if I'm worng but I don't see too many consumers hammering at the doors of Sony demanding more DRM...
But the capacity of both the CD and DVD sides of DualDiscs is limited compared to normal CDs and DVDs.
Fantastic! So on the *new* format, I can have twice as many Jessica Simpson videos, twice as many out-takes from a bunch of self-indulgent musicians or albums which are twice as long filled with double the amount of boring filler tracks! Brilliant!
Warner is not proposing any generic name for the new format, beyond simply "DVD album".
Can I suggest "Get Our New Audio Disc, Suckers!"? Or GONADS for short?
But there are some stumbling blocks that may discourage consumers from embracing DVD albums.
No shit, Sherlock! And those stumbling blocks are the price, the price and the price.
The DVD album would include "preripped" digital tracks of the entire album
Ah, now I see. So instead of my dowloading free software to rip my CDs myself at an encoding level to what I deem appropriate for my playing device and my listening pleasure, you're going to do it for me, are you? And presumably you'll reflect the fact that you've done this for me in the price of the product also. Wow, life gets better...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The music industry doesn't seem to have realized that the Compact Disc is just too good a (physical) format. Consumers are happy with the quality of the sound reproduction (even though the dynamic range being used is fractional thanks to today's editing style), and there's a MASSIVE infrastructre built around the medium.
There is no future in physical media. The movie business might be realizing this with the whole Blu Ray/HD-DVD debacle, and the music industry should be watching those download vs. physical purchase statistics, because they're tilting further and further towards digital distrubution.
I expect my next car stereo to have a Type A USB socket on it, so I can plug in a flash drive, or an iPod, or whatever else the TECH industry (not the music industry) comes up with.
I see great commercial success of this new product, because from the quadraphonic LP we learned that consumers are happy to buy new equipment and brand new media for their collection to get additional channels of audio...
So basically the audio quality will be somewhere between CD and DVD-Audio quality (so it's less good than a product which has, for the most part, been a complete failure among the general music purchasing population), but we're promised the possibility of extra features, like pre-ripped, iTunes compatible tracks (which wouldn't work with non-iPod players) and ringtones (WOW! we should be so lucky to get annoying ringtones with our music!) and videos which are probably available elsewhere on the internet anyhow.
No Thanks.
The article keeps referring to pre-ripped tracks that are separate from the "dvd-audio" tracks. However I would expect that there are no DVD-Audio format (higher than cd quality) on the disc, only regular cd audio on that has been stored on a DVD. Consumers didn't want the higher quality DVD audio even though it had tracks that could be played on a a regular DVD player. Why would they want a DVD with lower quality tracks that won't play in the cd player. This makes no sense on so many levels. It's so complicated that even knowledgable audio people will have to stare at the stupid package and read the fine print just figure out what they are supposed to be buying. If I can't rip the disc to lossess flac for playing on the home system, then I don't want it... although I'm sure I could rip it if I really wanted to...
I'll not buy them. Simple.
This will push up online sales, not lower them.
I still remember buying LPs rather than cassettes because of the quality of the album cover ( early genesis fans will know what I mean ). I'm sad those days are gone
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
OK, so no one's buying SACDs or DVD-As. Bearing in mind that DVD-As can store sound in an uncompressed or losslessly compressed format, and DVD videos store it in a lossy format, why would someone who hasn't bought a DVD-A buy music on a DVD video, without as much video footage as a DVD video showing a concert recording?
Warner Brothers should just face it: two formats are already trying to outdo CDs, and both are failing. This one will also fail. Most people don't want a better sounding format - CDs are adequate. If anything, MP3 sharing as proven that what people want is convenience, the kind you can't get from a physical disc.
Personally, I'll stick to true CDs. They have no "digital restriction management" as RMS fondly calls it, and you can still sell them second hand.
You can make unprotected AACs right now. And if they make protected AACs (Apple's exclusive), they're going to have to use a single set of keys, which will be pointless anyhow, because they'll have to give the keys out to anyone who buys the DVD. And if you have the key to one, you'll probably have the key to all of them. So why bother? Just use MP3s, which most consumers understand, now.
(Paraphrasing slightly): The new discs would not play on normal CD players, and thus these discs will not sell.
That's not the reason they won't sell. You can't play CDs in a tape player or record player, but they eventually took off enough to replace both those formats. The reason these won't sell is that CDs are good enough. There's no reason to replace your entire record collection again with something that may sound slightly better (then again, if it's a lossy format, it may actually sound worse in some ways).
This format isn't significantly better than CDs, is in some way worse, isn't as convenient as CDs (which you can copy for fair use), and isn't anywhere near as convenient as downloaded music. It's completely redundant.
Someone else said it very well: CDs are just too good.
There has always been a trade-off between convenience, reliability, and quality. For many decades, records (in one form or another) were the consumer cusp of this triad, although not as convenient as some (cassette and 8-track) nor as good as others (reel-to-reel). CDs came along, and provided truly superior quality, a high degree of reliability, and were very convenient. The CD was and still is a very nearly perfect physical format for consumers.[1] Really, there's no need to replace it with anything, and that's what really worries the recording industry. The only format that will successfully supplant CDs is a non-physical format, and they still haven't figured out how to sustain an entire industry on that. Thus, they keep coming out with new physical formats to delay the inevitable.
The sad thing is that they're looking for sales hooks, and know that they're not getting them. The sound quality is already flawless, the convenience is as good as it practically gets, and so they're adding 'features.' Two-channel classic recordings remastered to 5.1, video clips, and now bloody RING TONES? I don't think they're really that stupid, just desperate.
Ah well. Good riddance to yet another crappy format.
[1] Yes, I know, the CD format has a ton of little flaws: Flawless sound is difficult to achieve in 44kHz/16bit, the plastic scratches too easily, some CDs rot, the cover art isn't big enough, the CDs aren't small enough, etc. etc. But it's close.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Even if a new format came out that was somehow better than the classic CD format, my investment is such that a new format is probably not worth converting to. The conversion to CDs from LPs and tapes made sense -- no more crackling from dust, and no more linear-access media. But CDs are already digital, random-access, small, and reliable. All a DVD offers is more space, something a classic album doesn't need (and something which I can already provide with several of my CD players using data CDs with MP3 files).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
20 years of raping profits from CDs. Now any person on the planet can get a CDplayer for 10bucks, a CD/MP3 player for 20.
They want to change the format. WTF, Ahem
Memo to Warner Music Division.
We want the physical media.
We will pay a REASONABLE price for it.
We do not want to be forced to upgrade all of our equipment.
We have no desire to re buy all of our music all over again.
We do not want Restriction on the use of OUR media other than copy resale.
We want access to our music and choice of purchase Web/CD/Satelite
To acommplish all of these, you can either:
Release your DRM-less music on the web itunes/napster/WBStore whatever, Reduce the price of CDs to less than $10 and Be the alternative to the Sony Empire. Reaping profits and customers lowering R&D/liscensing costs across the board.
or
Follow through with this profit killing, customer betraying, Stock tanking, disastrous, nefarious, expensive plan, Risking Being made irrelevant in the music industry.
Never let it be said that I didn't try to help out the big guys.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Kind of randomly picked from among the several dozen posts saying this same thing to reply to. As I thought about this, I realized it's very likely the record labels are planning to stop producing CDs, period. They will only offer DRM-ed music, so that they have the option of sueing anybody who exercizes their fair use rights which are denied them by the DMCA. This is something that could convince me to become a pirate.
They should put the tracks on the disc as high-bitrate MP3s. Then everybody would be able to use them easily, no matter what music player they own. Oh, wait. . . But that would mean giving buyers more value for their money, rather than trying to strangle them. What was I thinking?
Record companies -- and this applies to movie studios too -- need to think less about restraining their customers and more about competing. They need to wake up and realize they're competing against books. . . beer and pizza. . . golf and bowling. . . a trip to the art gallery. . . a trip to the beach. . . a ticket to a sporting event. . . and every other form of entertainment that people pay money for. It's a competition they are capable of losing if they try hard enough.
One side is a completely DRM free "normal" cd that plays in all my cd players and can be ripped to any quality I want for my iPod.
The flipside is the sweet DVD in high quality 5.1. I play it in my home theatre system all the time. I love how the surround is mixed. You pick up a lot more with this than listening to stereo.
This is the perfect format, already implemented, so why would I care about WB's new format?
FWIW... I had a Rockford Fosgate in-dash dvd player in my last car that played movies in surround sound thru the car speakers (and obviously Dual Discs with the tracks mastered in 5.1). It DID make a nice difference to listen in 5.1 compared to stereo, unless you were a passenger in the back seat. Then the sound was kinda off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_disc
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
OK, so let me see if I'm understanding this correctly...
Warner wants to promote a new format which will cost more and do less.
Brilliant! Sign me up!
I bet they sell dozens of albums.
If the "main-audio" tracks are high-quality DVD-Audio tracks (5.1 surround sound, PCM), playable on any player capable of playing the current format DVD-Audio discs (my Acura has a DVD-Audio player in it). If the "pre-ripped" tracks are DRM-free, MP3, "Lower quality" would basically mean that is it a 2-channel version of the music, the bit rate should still be of higher quality (I'd accept 128K, but higher is better, and a lossless format would be better). The sound difference between CD and DVD-audio is incredible, so you'd be getting a better version of the album, and with the ripped tracks it would be easy to burn a normal audio CD to play in the plain vanilla CD players we all have.
It's a shame that there isn't more use of DualDisc. I thought it was a very cool idea. Unlike this proposed new format, the "music" side of a DualDisc works in any CD player. I saw it as an added bonus that you'd get a few videos and other junk if you popped it into your DVD or computer.
The notion, however, that there isn't enough storage capacity is lame. I've never seen more than a handful of low-resolution videos (at 3-5 minutes each) on a DualDisc. Today they're probably only using 25% of the capacity offered. If they have 4x as much room on the new format, how will that change anything?
-David
Yes, because Nine Inch Nails, Beck, Ben Folds, Pink Floyd, Metallica, Neil Young, and David Bowie have all had such short-lived, cheesy careers...
Every last one of those artists have released material in a surround format (either SACD, DVD-A, or a DualDisc), many of them were specifically thinking in three dimensions when originally writing the music in the first place (NIN, Beck, Ben Folds, and David Bowie can all be found in interviews talking about writing for 5.1).
You know what would be a "compelling physical product?" CD's for $5.00.
Indeed! "Compelling" is the word they seem to gloss over.
What surprises me about this shift is that the music industry is so narrowly focused on one use of the DVD, a use which very tightly follows how CD's already operate. High quality master, medium quality ripped files, possibly some visual extras. Ta da. CD's already do this, but they're considered less "secure" by the music biz bean counters.
What excited me about DVD as a format when it was first released is that it was meant to be a pretty broad delivery platform. When it was first announced I was still working in the music industry and I mentioned to several people at one very major label that it would be awesome to see this format, with its much larger capacity, used to sell entire artist collections on one disc (merely one example.) You could fit the entire catalog of Jimi Hendrix on one DVD with better audio specs than a CD, and include all kinds of extras like behind the scenes photos (viewable while the music played, also printable for those who wanted a hard copy), interview footage or audio, full size album graphics, etc. They could also feature a "greatest hits" mode that plays only the top singles from that entire artist's repertoire.
Nobody is thinking outside the box when it comes to the DVD as a consumer format. You could also sell that DVD compilation for approx. $20 or so (USD) and still make a hefty profit, even given the current climate in the music industry. It's much cheaper to produce than a box set and the benefits would be massive, and the labels could for once be seen as some sort of innovator.
Of course: major labels are so money-hungry that they would never see that suggestion as a beneficial move, even though it's the kind of thing that would sell like hotcakes to people who even already own CD's by the same artist. If they want to make the move to using DVD as the standard, I'm definitely for it if they start coming up with ideas like that. But they aren't. And they won't.
Anyone who thinks of DRM as a "feature" is out of their mind. DRM of any sort is a huge pain in the ass. Just give us our content, and give it to us in ways where we feel like we're getting some value for our money. The product they're currently describing sounds like another price upgrade from CD's (which many people already feel are not worth the money.) It's doomed from the start if that's how they're going to approach it.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]