EMI Experiments With DRM-free MP3's

trifster writes "Ars Technica has an article about EMI selling DRM-free MP3's through Yahoo Music's US online store. It should be noted that this trial is an attempt to increase sales and competition with online music that is not necessarilary available on iTunes." From the article: "Why the sudden interest in non-DRMed formats? It appears that the record labels are slowly beginning to realize that they can't have DRMed music and complete control over the online music market at the same time.... There are signs that consumers might be growing irritated by the Balkanization of the online music scene. Nielsen SoundScan reports that online music sales dropped during the second and third quarters of the year."

Comments

Great!

[balsy2001]

So I can get 3 songs from artists I would pay not to hear without DRM.

Nothing new

[MatrixCubed]

I've been "experimenting" with DRM-free MP3s for years...

Good job guys

[Mr. Underbridge]

...for finally figuring out that controlling, say, 30% of a market with 50% piracy is better than controlling 2% of a market with 10% piracy.

Re:Good job guys

[HappySqurriel]

I honestly don't think that everyone in the music industry is as greedy or stupid as we would assume. I am willing to bet that there are dozens of executives who (like the majority of slashdotters) believe that the recording industry would be far better off if it reduced the cost of downloaded music to make stealing music not worth the time involved; if you're spending $0.25 per song (to pick a number) most people aren't going to bother with looking for torrents of new albums. They also realize that there are people (like me) who would then pay for an album they normally wouldn't associate with if it was inexpensive enough; terrible dance music is pretty good to run to.

I suspect the problem is that people who see things the same way most of us do are the 20/early-30 something iPod owning executives who do not have that much weight with the companies; I expect that in 15 years most record companies will catch up to today's reality ...

Re:W00t - not.

[shark72]

"Selling a couple xian tunes w/o drm isn't going to exactly cause a wave of common sense to break out. Does anyone actually listen to this crap?"

Norah Jones has had a couple of multi-platinum albums in the past five years. She's a bona fide star. Relient K are one of those "crossover" Christian bands that have managed to release three consecutive gold albums. By the way, I found this data with about two minutes of Googling.

Per Ars Technica, these artists were picked because their audience skews older. P2P usage skews younger. The Slashdot demographic is also younger, so most people reading this see the world as one where everybody uses P2P to get their music and nobody listens to lame artists like Norah Jones, but EMI is apparently looking at the big picture.

It's the price, stupid

[arniebuteft]

Wake up RIAA and realize that the price of music drives piracy. People will always have an incentive to crack DRM if they can't get the music for a fair price legally. I imagine the music industry is scared to death of sliding music prices, even though that's where it's going to head eventually. There is some point between "overpriced" and "free" at which both consumers and most artists will be happy. Those artists who expect to become millionaires from a popular record (and who don't tour), are going to be sorely disappointed. Those artists who are happy making a decent living, and who actually produce good music, will prosper.

Re:It's the price, stupid

[shark72]

"Wake up RIAA and realize that the price of music drives piracy."

Pricing drives shoplifting, auto theft, and lots of other crimes. Businesses can take this into account, but no matter what industry you're in, there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who will try to help themselves to your product for free and use pricing as a rationalization.

"People will always have an incentive to crack DRM if they can't get the music for a fair price legally."

Agreed, but for many people, "fair price" has been sliding downward so that it's below whatever price the industry sets. Remember six years ago when CDs were $20 and online tracks were $3 and hard to come by? People justified P2P usage back then because CDs were so expensive and legit online tracks were expensive and offered little selection. Today, new CD releases are south of $15 and selection of online music is plentiful at $0.99 and below. Yet this price is still not "fair." For many people, it never will be. Those people likely aren't high on the record companies' target audience... unless you're counting lawsuits.

"I imagine the music industry is scared to death of sliding music prices, even though that's where it's going to head eventually. There is some point between "overpriced" and "free" at which both consumers and most artists will be happy."

...and the industry has found that at $0.99. The iTMS has been an overwhelming success, despite the fact that everybody on Slashdot hates it because the pricing isn't "fair" and because the product is DRM-laden.

You are not going to believe this, but if online music pricing dropped to $0.80, $0.70, or even $0.50, I would not buy more. I buy all the music I want online, and $0.99 is not a burden to me. It's conceivable that I'm the only consumer on the planet for whom there's no elasticity between $0.99 and $0.50, but that's highly unlikely. Pricing theory is all about finding that point on the curve that makes the most profit, even if it means that you're limiting your potential customer base.

"Those artists who expect to become millionaires from a popular record (and who don't tour), are going to be sorely disappointed. Those artists who are happy making a decent living, and who actually produce good music, will prosper."

This sounds a lot like many arguments I hear for lower music prices which end with some form of "artists will just need to accept their new place in society." Why should they want to do that? Many people would trade fame for money, but many would not. If I offered to make you more well-known but your salary would have to drop by $20K a year, would you do it? Do you think everybody would take me up on my offer?

Re:W00t - not.

[Total_Wimp]

Selling a couple xian tunes w/o drm isn't going to exactly cause a wave of common sense to break out. Does anyone actually listen to this crap?

They're doing exactly the same thing they did with DRM on CDs; they're releasing them in very limited quantities so they can guage the public reaction.

This is a big deal. It's not big because the numbers are big, but because they're actually looking at the format at all. At one point (yesterday?) we were forced to use quasi-legal tools and we were treated like criminals if we wanted to have cross-platform music. Now at least there's hope.

My suggestion is run, don't walk, to your computer and buy these tracks, even if you hate the artists involved. The music industry is quite predictible in that they always seem to go in the direction that they think will make them more money. We want to encourage this behavior.

TW

Re:Does anyone have numbers on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians are supposed to be honest and pay for stuff anyway, right?

On the other hand if you do steal a Christian artist's music, aren't they supposed to forgive you for it?

Re:Sheep

[garcia]

Strangely enough, allofmp3 was selling DRM free music in multiple formats for years and look what happened to them.

Hmmm, guess it has little to do w/the sheep and more to do with the power of the conglomerates and their lawyers.

Quality / Bitrate..?

[bhunachchicken]

DRM free..? Well, okay... I'm listening (so to speak). But if the quality isn't 192kps and up then I'm not interested.

Personally I'd rather see a "more legal" version of allofmp3.com... Choice of format, bitrate, etc? Yes, please. I'd be very happy to part with my hard earned cash in that case.

Re:Sheep

[notanatheist]

Stop buying CDs? And what? Buy only downloaded compressed formats? Whatever. Obviously you don't own a Squeezebox or nice hifi system. Maybe you listen to all your music through some crappy headphones that came with a portable music player. Maybe if they find a way to do DAE off Vinyl I'll switch to that. (no, not the scanner hoax posted on Slashdot before). I want the freedom to choose the format my music is compressed in if it is compressed at all.

Which song?

[whoami-ky]

OK. I am willing to spend $0.99 on a DRM free song by Norah Jones just to "cast my vote" that I am willing to buy DRM-free music. Could someone please tell me which song it is? I can't seem to find that information anywhere.

Re:Which song?

[dlim]

The Norah Jones song is "Thinking About You" from the new album "Not Too Late" due January 30th, 2007 and it's nearly impossible to find on Yahoo Music's site. It's a 192 Kbps mp3. Here's a direct link to the promo landing page (don't ask my why it's at "amplified.com"):

http://www.amplified.com/thinkingaboutyou

Oh yeah, FF users, ignore the message about "No Windows Media Player". You don't need it. Just click OK.

Re:Which song?

[whoami-ky]

Thanks. I found it. If you want to start at the Yahoo site, the link is http://music.yahoo.com/promos/norahjonesmp3/. By the way, I did purchase the song. It's not too bad. I just wanted to let them (RIAA, EMI, etc.) that I'm willing to pay for non-DRM'd music.

Re:Wow

[Lord_Slepnir]

endless misery you have caused

I know you're trying to make a point, but Celine Dion isn't quite THAT bad.

Re:W00t - not.

[Foobar of Borg]

BTW...whatever happened to Stryper? :)

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! [runs quickly out, slamming door behind]
[unlocks door, comes back in jabbing pointy stick] [sits shakingly back down at computer]
ahem, sorry. I believe God smote them.

Re:Sheep

[rucs_hack]

I thought the main problem with allofmp3 was that they didn't have permission to sell what they were selling, not that it was drm free.

Not Easy to Find, Not Easy To Buy, but I did it.

[weston]

So, yeah, I searched Yahoo's site, and pretty much think the article is wrong. Yahoo Music is not selling this track as an MP3 (alternatively, their peanut butter may be spread so thin they're simply unable to actually execute the policy of selling it, even though they've decided they're selling it).

But this "amplified.com" site is in fact selling it. However, I've never heard of them before, and like a lot of other online retailers who I've never purchased from, I'm reluctant to hand over my credit card number. So I decided to use a feature my credit card offers called "ShopSafe", which lets you generate temporary numbers with a given limit and expiration date.

I decided to use a temporary number I created two weeks ago that had one dollar left on the account. The purchase came back "declined due to insufficient funds". Odd, given that the track was supposed to be $.99, and there's a dollar left on the limit.

OK, I decided to create a new number, just in case the old one was the problem. Limit $1, expires 2/07.

Declined due to insufficient funds.

Well, maybe like many companies, they actually ding you for just a bit more for some reason. OK. I bumped the limit on the temp number up to $5.

Declined due to insufficient funds.

Suffice it to say that if this was just about purchasing the song, I would have given up by this point for certain. But I don't want some brain-damanged analyst who is unable to fathom the very idea of *ease of experience* to attribute the failure of this promo to piracy (or worse "people like DRM"), so in principle I want to support it.

$10 limit: declined due to insufficient funds.

I'm sorry? $10 in an account is not enough to purchase a $1 song? This must be the kind of Math that the analytically challenged record labels use to determine their loss figures.

I was finally able to buy when giving the card a limit of $25. For a $1 song. Not to mention 20 minutes of work.

It is an MP3, and it's not bad. For the song itself, it wouldn't be worth the hassle.