Slashdot Mirror
Music Companies Mull Ditching DRM
PoliTech writes to mention an International Herald Tribue article that is reporting the unthinkable: Record companies are considering ditching DRM for their mp3 albums. For the first time, flagging sales of online music tracks are beginning to make the big recording companies consider the wisdom of selling music without 'rights management' technologies attached. The article notes that this is a step the recording industry vowed 'never to take'. From the article: "Most independent record labels already sell tracks digitally compressed in MP3 format, which can be downloaded, e-mailed or copied to computers, cellphones, portable music players and compact discs without limit. Partially, the independents see providing songs in MP3 as a way of generating publicity that could lead to future sales. Should one of the big four take that route, however, it would be a capitulation to the power of the Internet, which has destroyed their monopoly over the worldwide distribution of music in the past decade and allowed file-sharing to take its place."
From TFA:
Makes me wonder if they're not motivated to undermine Apple, who fought tooth and nail to maintain $0.99/download against the industry's will.
The record industry views the Occident, paradoxically, with more suspicion than the Orient, though we're their biggest customers; it wouldn't surprise me, therefore, if they began to roll this out first in the East:
Can someone say, “chutzpah?”
From the article:
Most of the push for music unencumbered by digital rights management, or DRM, systems over the past six months has come from technology, electronics and Internet companies. In part, it is because these companies have been largely unsuccessful in their efforts to produce digital locks that are simple and flexible for the consumer, foolproof to the hacker and workable on numerous makes and models of players.Which is why DRM is quite useless. Come on -- if worse came to worse, people would play the music on the stereos and record it using digital recorders then run it through their favorite piece of audio manipulating software and have just about the same quality recording. The music industry cannot hope to stop the myriad of innovative ways of copying music and they are fooling themselves if they think they can make DRM "unbreakable." If this report is true, perhaps some in the industry are finally coming to their senses.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
next thing you know, they'll be using OSS editing tools
then servers...
After that?
It'll be pandemonium, they'll be joyfully frolicking in the free and open streets... Arms flailing, chainsaws revved...
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
...right after I get back from my ski trip to hell :-)
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
From where I stand (or sit) DRM wasn't much of an issue, as it was released it was promptly circumvented. I am old enough to recall buying vinyl and when CD technology was introduced the complaint then was the cost of CD's.
The music companies said the cost would come down with acceptance of the tech but it never really did come down.
God bless the Internet.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
about time! I hope they finally change there ways.think the problem will be that they will charge more for the non DRM songs and have to levels or something in that case I'll probably keep buying CD's until they figure it out. If they ever figure it out!!
Microsoft cripples Vista with DRM and the potential users of DRM don't want it?
Oh, the irony.
Vinyl? They make siding out of that right?
At last a positive move, after all that negativity and breathtaking stupidity - but is it now to late to save their businesses? If the record companies do drop DRM, and start to behave in a more ethical way, I will be buying my first tracks in over 6 years. I just don't see any point in paying for defective DRM tracks that I can't use as I see fit. It is just a shame that there is very little good music to buy now. I would really like to see record companies signing as many artists as they can, and offering a nice online way to sample and buy the best music on its merits, and to allow music to succeed on merit, rather than rely on heavy promotion to sell crap.
PAIN, and now the Music Biz is feeling pain, so they have to adapt. What else can they do? Their monopoly is over, but they should understand that most 'ordinary folks' will prefer to download music from a legal site, and those same folks dont understand DRM, they just want it to work. .....Its amazing that Apple hasnt taken over the world with that notion of 'it just works'.
"It's a trap!"
-Admiral Akbar
(What? That quote didn't originate on Fark? Oh, frak.)
Though I think the practicality of doing the kind of recording you're talking about is minimal, the underlying truth is valid: where there's a will there's a way.
What we are talking about here is basically securing something. You are securing data against copying. Ask anybody in the security industry if there's such a thing as a security system that cannot be broken. If they say that such a beast exists, they are trying to sell you said mythological creature and you should run quickly.
All you can do with security is hope to make something secure enough that it's not worth somebody's trouble to break it. The problem is that only one person has to break the security to make the entire security regime worthless. Furthermore, efforts to increase the security generally increase the complexity and risk making it difficult for legitimate customers to make use of the product.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
It is very good that they are considering to ditching DRM.
But its not by their own will they are considering that, its because they have to.
Now, DRM-less music is fair. I will never ever buy DRM-crippled music.
I wonder what prices they will take, low, reasonable or overpriced?
Either way, just because its fair with the non-DRM music, does not mean I will just forget what they did and happily and gladly buy their music now even if its not DRM-crippled.
All their lobbying, scare tactics, intimidation, and evilness. I won't forget that. I don't forget that easily.
I surely regret commiting to Apple'S DRM and look forward to DRM-free, legal music purchases.
:-(
I really liked the itunes music management, ease of ripping my 300+ CDs, and ease of purchasing new music. But, now I realize I've built my own cage.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Current DRM is mostly useful for locking the consumers into one single vendor for their mp3 players. It might give the record companies some benefit in the long run, as customers would have to buy their music a second time if they buy a new mp3 player, but it certainly eats into their profits right now.
But it also has to be reasonably priced. The iTunes price of $10, £8 or 10 per album isn't actually much cheaper than what you can get on the high street and you can buy a full CD for similar prices on Amazon.
That is not reasonably priced. People expect lower prices when they receive less and when it costs less to distribute.
I might very rarely buy an album at £8, but at £4 I would probably buy every album I like.
Those who think that this would somehow immediately undermine Apple's dominance with the iPod are misguided as to why the iPod is successful imho.
/.ers might like to see Apple's DRM solely as a lock-in scheme, and while no doubt Apple finds any lock-in a reassuring safety net in case they do someday drop the ball on iPod design, for the moment (and for the foreseeable future with the iPhone) Apple doesn't *need* lock-in. The iPod isn't selling because people have huge collections of .m4ps they need to keep compatibility with, it's selling because it's slickly good at what it does and it's a brand a lot of people are pleasantly familiar with.
The tinfoil headgear sporting subset of
The simple reality is that if the Music companies start allowing DRM-less downloads, then Apple will probably make even *more* money selling iPods than they are now, as more people start to buy unencrypted music via their computers to put on said iPods. In the long term their share of music sales may be hurt, but as the world's 4th largest seller of music, they already have plenty of momentum and market power; combined with their slick store and integration in iTunes, I would think they can do just fine in a less partitioned market, and retain a good deal of influence with the music industry selling unencrypted music.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
Perhaps, they are realizing that DRM is causing them to lose not only revenue (in terms of people buying less) but market share (people buying elsewhere). I used to buy music that I heard on the radio like everyone else. Since the Sony rootkit mess I get my music from eMusic. I've found a lot of great bands/labels. Now, no matter what the major labels do, I'll never go back to them 100%. Another less techie friend of mine just recently got fed up with iTunes DRM and ask me to help find something else... guess where I'm pointing.
the more miserable you are now, the funnier the story will be later
Stupid comment of the day, courtesy of the article: In addition, Bainwol said, the ability of consumers to use legally purchased tunes on different devices is not crippled by DRM systems per se. "We're for interoperability," he said, "and there's nothing intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability."
At some point they'd figure it out. My expectations for this are still very low, since it's been demonstrated that these record execs are a bunch of conniving bastards, and they'll probably find a way to make this crap.
Still, money talks, and a decrease in sales is just what the doctor ordered, with a healthy injection of brains, in that business.
Last week I had a chat with the former managing director of one of the big four labels in my country (and in a few others as well). His personal opinion is that DRM has to go. When asked directly, he stated that in the music industry boardrooms, about 50% of the people are by now convinced that it has to go, whereas 50% have not yet reached that point. One of the things that's holding them back, is that the movie and especially the games industries are putting pressure on the music one not to drop DRM because they fear the domino effect.
Linux user since early January 1992.
Offtopic perhaps but it *funny*, not flamebait. I haven't had my coffee, so sarcastic humor just fits my mood.....
In a previous post on a different article, I commented that the music industry was stupid not to look at the success of allofmp3.com and learn from it. While allofmp3 was bad for the RIAA in that the revenue stream broke down between the user and the RIAA (it ended at allofmp3), its success proved that users ARE willing to pay for their content if provided conveniently at a reasonable price in a usable format.
In short, they need to make themselves cost competitive with P2P. How do you make yourself cost competitive with something that is free?
The same way people compete with (and/or make money from) freely available open-source software. Don't market the product itself, market convenience associated with that product. For open-source software, that convenience is packaging and tech support/customization contracts. For music, that convenience is selection and a guarantee of quality. allofmp3 succeeded for three reasons:
Very low prices (Probably too low for the RIAA's tastes, but even twice the price of allofmp3 would have appealed to many. RIAA could make up for the low per-track revenue via significantly higher volume. e.g. back in the days of pyMusique, I bought quite a few single $1 tracks, but no complete albums. With allofmp3, I frequently would purchase an entire album for $3-$4 even though I was only looking for one track from that album initially.)
Convenience - allofmp3 had a great selection that made it far easier to find music than on any P2P network. Only the RIAA has the capability to actually beat that selection. Also, people would be more willing to give credit card info to a "trusted" source rather than a clearly shady Russian company with apparent mob ties.
Last, but clearly not least - no DRM. DRM goes way beyond nullifying the above "convenience aspect", and in fact makes P2P the more convenient option, free or not.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The music companies seem to think that by making online music without DRM, they will help their sagging sales. I don't think that what plagues the industry. Like all industries, the music industry wants growth every year. But they compare sales today to what it was in the boom days. Back then, sales were booming because the CD was replacing tape and vinyl as the preferred medium. The industry didn't seem to see that some sales were people replacing their collection as opposed to buying new music. There are other reasons too (some which were self-inflicted), and it was covered in a Frontline episode called The Way the Music Died that chronicles the music industry today.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Can you imagine what "mulling" is like at the executive level of these big music publishers?
A roomful of people unfit to work in any industry not underwritten by a century-old monopoly. Whose added value lies in conning artists into working for a tiny fraction of the value they create, or their weight in drugs, whichever is less. Or in conning consumers to pay over and again for either some good products produced as "pop" generations ago, or some awful products produced more recently that they sell to children as soundtracks to free music videos and the lives of talentless celebrity models.
These people don't "mull". All they can do is whine and fail when their crooked old tricks don't work so good any more. Years of lying about DRM and piracy hasn't reversed the drop in their profits, as the least-dumb people have all fled their business. Their decisions are made mainly by listening to tech vendors tricking them into broken tech protection of a broken business model, instead of changing the model. If they do drop DRM before they go permanently broke, it'll be because they can't afford it themselves, or just because they screw up their stupid strategy by making irrecoverable mistakes implementing it.
Information might not want to be free, but nature abhors a vacuum. The empty space at the top of the music content pyramid is sucking control of all that content inevitably out to unimpeded access by any consumer who wants it.
--
make install -not war
It is about time, maybe DRM will die off. Then maybe I won't feel so guilty for stripping it from my downloads from itunes and napster ;-)
I don't know about the average person, but before I got a computer, I would borrow a friends cd, press play, pipe it into the casette deck and press record, and probably collected 100's of cassette tapes for my walkman like this. They can't claim the Internet is what started all this, it just made it more public to them (they can crawl the file sharing sites, but they weren't spying on the friend at my house bringing his cd collection over).
Sam
"Record companies are considering ditching DRM for their mp3 albums."
Once again slashdot misses the glaringly obvious. MP3 is a lossy file format. Call me when DRM is ditched from high-quality source material.
is that everything would interoperate just fine if everyone used the same DRM scheme. But they don't.
Apple has the most popular store and the most popular devices. And it isn't about to let other stores or device-makers benefit from that. Basically, Mr. Bainwol is just crying about that big old meany Steve Jobs.
All this is very fortunate, because if they had been able to reach an industry-wide standard for DRM, it would have taken them even longer to realize what a stupid idea DRM is in the first place.
Pigs warmed up and ready to fly, Temperature in Hell drops to 75F, and "W" announces we are pulling out of Iraq.
Sounds like the RIAA's IQ has risen by a few notches. Now I wish they'd also offer the choice of ogg in addition to MP3. You know, they could still 'finger print' the music files with tags to identify who the original customer was that paid for the download. That way, they could still sue anybody who shared their purchased music. The finger printing would NOT prevent inter-operation of the files.
For the first time, flagging sales of online music tracks are beginning to make the big recording companies consider the wisdom of selling music without 'rights management' technologies attached.
But I thought we needed harder DRM because the flagging sales were caused by those Evil Content Pirates(tm)!!!!!
I'm so confused, I don't know what to believe anymore!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You must be thinking of Media Player--all those discs you ripped are in the non-DRMed version of AAC. Furthermore, why would switching to an MP3-based store preclude use of iTunes? You can just import (even through automation) your MP3 purchases into iTunes.
;)
It's not like it can't play non-DRMed files or something. Which I hear will be a feature of WMP12.
Just kidding. I think.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Games are a very different animal. DRM isn't what stops me playing PS3 games on my laptop, or loading Wii games onto my iPod so it's a much more mute point. There's really no business case for dropping it.
For the most part, there's nothing for movies to interoperate with and CSS is so lame that it can hardly be considered DRM. Even with years of easily copied digital product, the Movie industry is doing just fine. It wouldn't make one iota of difference if they dropped CSS now.
FTA:
"As digital copying became easier, the number of songs shared freely on the Internet grew and sales of CDs shrank. Until last year, the industry was counting on online purchases of music, led by Apple's market-leading iTunes music store, to make up the difference."
Well, I do believe that CD sales have shrunk; however, I think it is partially related to a $15.00 - 20.00 USD price tag; especially if you want only one or two songs (not on singles). Yes, I know it depends on where you shop as well as the artist; however, IMHO CD's prices have gotten a little out of hand. For the record; I don't P2P music; my shopping habbits have been curtailed over the last several years; based on price (nothing else), YMMV.
I'd still rather head over to my favorite private torrent tracker - reproduction and distribution rights be damned, never cared, never will -, download to my heart's content, then buy the albums I really enjoy in physical, tangible media. I have absolutely no interest in paid music downloads, DRM or not (props to eMusic, though). I still want the actual CD with a nice booklet and the possibility of making backups whenever I feel like it, whether for archival or space-shifting purposes. That's what I've been doing ever since Napster, and that's what I'm going to keep doing until file sharing disappears.
Power to the people, right on...
What?
And I used to buy a lot of CD's. I buy fewer now, because I'm older and pickier, and I've looked at iTunes and other stores, but I just didn't want to have to go through the buy, burn, rip cycle to remove the DRM. If the label actually allow drm'less mp3's, and make it as easy to buy as an iTune purchase, I'll buy a lot more music a song at a time on impulse.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
I have a mix in my house and everything works, but getting the Macs to 'see' and access the windoz machines was easier than the other way around.
The record companies have made most of their revenue selling unprotected CDs (and unprotected tapes and unprotected vinyl discs). Selling non-DRM music is a known good, safe, conservative, proven business model to which the record companies owe just about every penny they have. Without this business model, they simply wouldn't exist today.
DRM was a radical, speculative tell-the-customers-fuck-you-we-don't-want-your-mon ey-go-away model that has a track record of failing. Look at the software industry of the 1980s when copy protection was widely used. It didn't make a dent in piracy (because no one ever invented copy protection that actually works), but the interoperability problems sure as hell pissed people off (e.g. "whaddya mean this won't run on my new AT?!?", "whaddya mean my defrag utility trashed the 'secret' sector that wasn't allocated to a file?!?") and increased support costs.
Nobody knows if the record companies will actually decide to continue to remain in the having-customers business, but one thing is for sure: it's the obvious no-brainer thing to do, if protecting/increasing shareholder value is anywhere on their list of priorities. There's nothing controversial about wanting to maximize profits. Telling customers, "sorry, our new product isn't compatible with your equipment, costs more, and doesn't work as well as what you're used to, because we really just don't like you, so please buy someone else's music instead" on the other hand, is pretty out-there.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The Economics of a matter drive behaviour. DRM is not economically viable. The RIAA is greedy, but they aren't stupid. Follow me:
*It costs money to produce new DRM schemes.
*DRM is easily and routinely cracked or bypassed by pirates.
*The people who want to pirate will pirate, the people who willingly buy music will continue to do so.
Abandoning, or at least containing DRM is just a matter of time and is really just an acceptance of reality. It's pointless and costly. Even if they don't totally abandon DRM, I can see them giving up on building the perfect scheme and just sticking with the easily bypassed and/or cracked schemes they have now. If someone claims that it somehow cost-effective to try and stay a step ahead of the pirates' ability to crack DRM, I'd say that person is deluding himself. And once it becomes too costly to keep up the arms race, they will stop. I'd say we're close to that point.
blah blah blah
This could work out for the music industry, partly because it cuts out the take that Apple and Microsoft get now. If music files are plain MP3 files, anyone can make an player, and players will cost $29.95. No more iTunes store. No more lock-in. No more 50% profit margin for Apple.
This is the RIAA's revenge against Apple. In a year, the iPod could be irrelevant.
It will be interesting to see. Personally, DRM IS the #1 reason I don't buy more music. I can't be bothered fooling around with p2p networks. Busy, bad quality, lawsuits, spyware, etc. Unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to buy from places like iTunes - though I occasionally do - because I'm already irked about CDs I can't locate or that suffered damage when moving that I can't rip. I'm not interested in a bunch of music I won't be able to play when Apple goes bankrupt or only produces mp3 players I hate. (long live the iPod)
But am I normal? I don't think so. Some of my other technical co-workers have argued that iTunes and the iPod have won massive acceptance via ease of use, and that's all most people think about. I'm not completely in concurrence: I think people know that "mp3" means fully cross-platform compatible. No matter what you're using for software or hardware, the mp3s will play. People confused about what will work - iTunes, iPod, Zune, playsforsure, Rhapsody, ogg, m4p, m4a, aac - could easily get dizzy from the myriad technologies in play, and simply not want to buy. They get iPods, rip their CDs, and that's that.
I don't think that DRM-free music will kill filesharing. But I am quite certain it will not ENABLE more filesharing. It's already trivial, and frankly, p2p networks are now overrated. People have built such monstrous mp3 collections and storage is now cheap that the duplication is happening en masse. People who connect in real life can easily swap gigs of data. Broadband is more widely deployed, and a simple memory stick with 2GB worth of music is a fast way to distribute massive amounts of music. Or burn a data DVD.
But even if DRM inhibits online music sales to would-be legitimate customers like myself, is that sufficient? Would music priced at $.99/song and $9.99/album be sufficient to attract? Certainly I'd buy a fair bit. I'm not at all against flexible pricing, because I buy music for the long haul, and my interest in collecting the latest hits is nil. I'd prefer access to a backcatalog for less, over $.99 fresh hits. (Although they could price the backcatalog cheaper AND still cap at $.99)
Either way, DRM is bad for consumers, bad for music, and AT BEST non-impactful for record companies. Removing it may not save them, but it won't hurt them. There's only upside here.
I don't personally feel a lossy 4 MB mp3 is worth a dollar now, DRM or not, let alone god knows what price they'll be charging for them without it. Not when I can get a CD for $10-$15 and rip it to whatever quality or format I'm after (192kbps OGGS most of the time, for OSS interoperability). A 128k mp3 (which you can't officially play with most OSS players) isn't the way to go if you ask me.
It should be priced to be fair with CD value. So if a CD with 10 tracks costs you $15, a lossless download should never cost you more than $1.50 per track since its cheaper to distribute. Scale it down from there based on encoding (distribution gets even cheaper when you take the download size down by an order of magnitude).
But, I'm just a customer, money in hand. What are you going to do record labels/music stores? Am I going to keep this money, or give it to you and get what I want?
AAC or OGG please, but not MP3 - you need twice the bitrate for comparable quality :(
Also:
In addition, Bainwol said, the ability of consumers to use legally purchased tunes on different devices is not crippled by DRM systems per se. "We're for interoperability," he said, "and there's nothing intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability."
There's nothing intrinsic about handcuffs that stops you from riding a bike, but you'd be stupid to think that it helped or was not some kind of hinderance.
This might come as quite a shock, but I don't care about DRM. I have been buying media off iTunes for over a year now. I have spent over $1000 at iTunes. (Mostly TV shows)
HOWEVER, that being said I do want the freedom to play the media on ANY device or OS that I own. Yes, that means my cell phone regardless of provider or model, my Linux server, my Playstation 3, AppleTV, my Macs, etc.
Thats a perfect world though, which will never happen. I don't mind DRM to protect the content makers, but I don't want to be crippeled because someone out there chooses to not pay for content.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
The MS general marketing manager with an expression of "Now what am I going to do with this locked down piece of shit?" I think we should thank MS for creating a system so draconian and restrictive to show that it would only cripple the buyer and nothing more.
I got a Sony Walkman NW-E005F for christmas from my tech-impaired dad... I actually makes me want an ipod...
The software (Sonicstage) is dismal, I cannot add or change songs unless I do it through that software, it just doesnt work with USB 1.x and, unless you let it, it will try to convert all the mp3's in your hard drive to ATRAC files...
No sig for the moment.
I doubt Apple would ever switch to MP3s. They've got too much invested in their format to abandon it now.
Not at all true, they have equal support for MP3 and AAC in all products.
However they would simply stick with AAC - and remove the DRM wrappers. AAC is an open format and a number of players support it already, when it does not have a DRM wrapper - even the 360 will play unprotected AAC files!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For the first time, flagging sales of online music tracks are beginning to make the big recording companies consider the wisdom of selling music without 'rights management' technologies attached. The article notes that this is a step the recording industry vowed 'never to take'.
Wow, a cluestick is finaly showing up. The reports of only 22 purchased tracks per iPod sold is showing that consumers are voting down DRM with their pocketbooks in a big way. Wow, we finaly got enough votes in to be noticed.
A few bands jumping ship to go to a non-DRM music site is probably the biggest clue stick they got. If they don't have a monopoly on the artists, they have no control. These are desprate times for the labels. Bare Naked Ladies has gone to e-music. Some of the newer TSB stuff is not on RIAA cartel labels. (Too bad the Wizards of Winter track is in a RIAA cartel album. It's the reason I haven't bought it yet.)
The RIAA cartel labels have to make a big move fast before this leak grows and takes down the ship. They are busy trying to patch the P-P hole with a product that doesn't sell well because it is mostly useless to most people.
Maybe soon I can buy tracks in MP3 that I can play besides some obscure indi stuff on e-music.
Remember, I have rejected DRM music tracks and stuck with the most universal standard in the world. MP3's play on my flash player, all my computers, my DVD player (as MP3 CD) and in my car.
No other format is that compatible in my mixed environment. The incompatible DRM formats has kept me out of online music stores. Now if they will do something about the price fixing at a high price. Even better would be to fix the "for private home use only" restrictions so I can also legaly do one of the Christmas Light Shows, or play a ripped CD with a wedding slide show at a wedding reception, and post the video without breaking a bunch of license clauses in the process.
They have no simple way to use CD's in any public performance such as a public light show, a public wedding slide show, or DJ'ing the reception dance as an amature DJ. All these public performances are prohibited by the Private Home use clause.
I would have bought lots of music if I could have actualy used it. It was too restricted to be of much use in todays world. DRM was just icing on the cake making the expensive product even less useful.
The truth shall set you free!
The Barenaked Ladies sell music online for all albums and just about every concert, all in MP3 and most recent stuff all in FLAC as well for just a few dollars more per album.
If we all get behind efforts like this other bands will follow.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It seems they're coming to the realization that you can only make money on personal endorsements and image. To THAT end, expect that music will be free, but the record companies will own your personal likeness for YEARS to come.
Perhaps outrageous behavior like Britney Spears' will become the norm as artists and pop stars seek release from overly binding contracts?
It should be interesting to watch: Real artists will distribute music freely and prosper on their own talent; Pop stars will sell their souls to be placed on cereal boxes just to survive.
QTFairuse6.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
I wish /. would let you edit postings. I should have used preview.
It's been a long day with to little coffee. (i jest)
The cage is only illusory; and even then only for music you have bought through ITMS.
For that music either:
1) Burn out a CD and re-rip.
2) Get QTFairUse6 2.5 or myFairTunes6 and remove the DRM from your AAC files (Windows only, no Mac alternatives working yet).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because practically the second they start offering DRM-free music in a format that is of relatively high quality (say 128Kbps MP3 or better--the current standard) and is delivered online (meaning you don't have to rip your CD's, which already are mostly DRM-free), the recording industry will have signed their own death warrant.
Most people I know are already obtaining the majority of their music files via some means other than outright, legitimate purchases--even when they understand that I am a recording musician and that at least part of my livelihood depends upon the ability to sell my recordings. Even some recording musicians I know do the same thing. DRM is the only method by which profit can be extracted from digital media sales, barring other barrier technologies (it's currently time-consuming and/or difficult to transfer CDs and DVDs, and storage requirements and processing power required are still relatively expensive, and bandwidth isn't what it needs to be quite yet for high-quality delivery of large files--however, all of these problems are well on their way to being solved).
Now, you may argue whether or not this is a good thing or not, but for my own part, I believe the end result will be a net detriment to society. Granted, it will break the power of the large studios, but it will also break the profit model entirely for everyone. Technology does not discriminate between a greedy studio exec and an individual musician. You may spare us your ideas on how to make a decent living as a musician sans the sale of recordings unless you yourself are prepared to hit the road and perform night after night. Those of us who have done it already know it doesn't work very well.
Unfortunately, I also believe that in the end, no DRM scheme is workable in the long term, both for technical and ethical reasons, but human nature is what it is, and secrets aren't secrets if two people know them.
You think the state of our musical culture is bad now thanks to the RIAA? Wait until DRM is gone. I guarantee you'll regret it.
It's quite simple from where I sit. If the RIAA set up a site that allowed legal (in there view) downloads with DRM, I'd still prefer the P2P networks without the DRM.
As things stand they basically got a guy standing outside there shop handing out Canadian beer for free while they try to get you to come in and buy overpriced American beer.
Way back, all value was received by the performer &/or shared with his support crew/director, clear back into the times of Shakespear.
That was what copyright was for was to allow the original content creator to receive compensation from the print copy of his work.
No many users may have 1000-10,000 songs on their hard drive (I have 1000 from my CD's, thats it).
How many of those songs have I listented to? How many will I never listen to? If I had 10,000 songs would I ever be able to listen to them all? Should I pay for something I will never listen to, regardless of the "copy"? No comment on the legal side as IANAL.
The basics still apply for the vast majority of musicians in that they earn their livings from performances and from local sales at those performances and as such, DRM doesn't mean much to the average muscian.
DRM only means something to the "mass media conglomerates". They have held a monopoly that has gradually eroded over the evolution to digital, and now they face the inevitable march of technology and will have to give up the idea that listening to a recording = royalty. Radio has given users "songs" for nearly a century now, but no one stopped buying better copies or albums. I suspect the new "performance packages" will be updated frequently and "sold" as DRM free, and with creativity, the conglomerates will still earn fair incomes off the mega-acts. Thus the "songs" will come with posters, tickets to concerts, video clips, etc., as the world moves on.
"for all the bitching about DRM rarely does anybody have a credible alternative that generalises (so "make money on concerts" doesn't count)."
This is a fascinating statement. "Generalises" how, if I may be so bold as to ask? Do you mean that the credible alternative must guarantee that everyone who's currently getting rich off of pop culture continues to do so? If this is what you mean, then yes: making money on the non-digitizable portion of entertainment goods won't cut it. Many of the established power centers require the status quo to stay in business.
But most people don't think that this is a requirement for "credibility".
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Actually, the industry wanted both higher AND lower prices. Higher than $0.99 for new music, lower than $0.99 for the back catalog (which has already recouped its development costs many times over). Sounds reasonable to me (and I don't often agree with the music industry).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
As a working, independent musician and songwriter I have to agree. I don't like DRM for a multitude of reasons, but I think there is a vast misunderstanding about how artists make money compensating them for their time and energy. We may do it anyway because we love the music, but recording, touring, networking, promoting and the myriad other things we have to do (and they aren't easy, or else everyone would be doing them successfully) to get our music out to an audience takes up a lot of time...and time is worth money. Time we could be spending at some other job, not making music. We need to eat and put roofs over our head too, you know.
I know a lot of people claim to get their music by any means necessary and then only pay for those they enjoy listening to, but I think the number that actually remove the "unenjoyed" tracks from their computers are rare, and many listen on shuffle so those tunes are bound to come up. Unless you are always rushing back to your machine to skip those tracks (in which case, delete them), how is the artist being compensated for all the effort they made to get that song out there so that you can hear it and not enjoy it over and over again?
Big labels bad, no doubt. They've kept the little guy down (by keeping him out), and they extort their artists. However, we need some kind of model to protect the artist after the big labels fall. It's a hell of a lot of work (and costs a lot of money) if you don't have someone picking up the slack for you when it comes to publishing, promoting, touring, etc...and it's not all that lucrative for the independent musician or songwriter.
--
Go away...I'm busy searching for truth...
Do You Experiment?
i guess it depends on what your idea of 'making a decent living' is... i think the days of the super star musicians are far from over -- we will always have the uber-pop superstar favorite of the week who's albums go platinum the week they are released...
but, being a musician is being an artist, and unfortunatly most artists don't get paid well in the u.s. The internet and non-DRM'ed music isn't to blame for why the recording artists are having trouble making money, its the broken profit model. recording and distribution used to be mega expensive. Now i can buy a computer for 3,000 bucks that will allow me to create studio quality recorded music. i can buy add a video camera for another 2 or 3 thousand, and now can create studio quality video. I'm not really sure why the record companies still spend hundred's of thousands to produce a record, but you just don't have to, and the smaller and newer artists are just starting to figure that out. People aren't spending less money on music, they are just spending it differently.
sorry to be harsh, but maybe we would be better off with musicians who didn't care so much about making a living, and were really just into music
Maybe the record companies are finally figuring out that this rap/hip-hop crap they're trying to cram down our throats isn't selling. Besides, the only people that listen to this are not going to pay money for it.
The revenue model will change, but I don't think you'll starve just quite yet.
I don't mind paying to download a song as long as I can use it where I like. In other words, I treat the song as a book - I read it anywhere I want. Further, with sites like AllOfMP3 offering this at a sensible price there's no incentive for someone to copy the song instead of buying it (IMHO, of course). What I DON'T like, however, is music I can only play 3 times, that may or may not work on anything new I buy or when I've moved it to a new PC or it costing a lot without there being costs of packaging and distribution. And that is what needs DRM.
The problem is, of course, that the music industry can't really strike a deal with AllOfMP3 because it would amount to a serious loss of face..
Frankly, I'm not in the least worried.
Not because "it's all crap nowadays and I don't listen to it", I do, and I still buy CDs.
Not because DRM doesn't work anyway, so it cannot possibly get worse if/when labels start using them.
Not because I despise those gullible greedy cowardly control freaks who got us there.
Simply because, technology helping, in 10 years we'll have software good enough to allow anyone with free time to create music as good as real, and yes, that include the voice (that's the most difficult instrument to simulate).
Most of it will be crap - just like blogs.
The rest will keep our hears filled.
Get over it, the days when you could play the guitar a few days a year and make a living out of it will soon be over. You may still make money if you can compose - but you'll get more competition there, or if you look good, but if your skill is playing, it'll be on the road, or a different carrer.
Wow, a cluestick is finaly showing up. The reports of only 22 purchased tracks per iPod sold is showing that consumers are voting down DRM with their pocketbooks in a big way. Wow, we finaly got enough votes in to be noticed.
Songs from ITMS are just 128 Kbps. That's poor enough quality that I seriously hesitate to buy. For my $1.00, I should be able to get it in any bitrate I desire. I consider tossing mp3 files at anything less than 192, and prefer 320.
I mean, I spent about $1,000 on a decent sound system, why would I do that just to listen to sound quality matched by a $50 ghetto blaster?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Sez who? Perhaps, if they had done some tours they would have stayed together. Or, perhaps, they would have had more inspiration from contact with the public to create even better stuff. No one can tell.
> Today, there is no reason - utterly none at all - to pay for music.
Uh? If I like the work, I want to compensate the artist for it. I'm certainly willing to pay for what I can get for free, and I do that today (I have no unauthorized copies of music, movies or software). I just feel like an idiot every time I pay for an inferior product than what I can get for free. It does not help that I know that some of those money go to add campaigns especially designed to insult me. And other money go to harassment suits against kids and elderly people, some of whom haven't even made any unauthorized copies. And some to lobbying for a continued erosion of the rights of the public.
* Add value to what you sell versus what people can download. Anything on a CD can be duped.
* Subscriptions. The online fanclubs of the really big acts now (Madonna, U2) seem to have an eye on the future of the crumbling industry. They see it in front of them. They're making exclusives available to subscribers, and enticing people to participate via yearly subscriptions. U2 out and out makes fan-club-only live CDs. And yes, these can be duped, but...
* Lots of folks don't really want to give out for free something they paid $35-$40 to get. Are we talking EVERYBODY? No. But are we talking enough people to put a speed bump in the process? Absolutely.
* The RIAA is currently relying on the deep well of warmth people feel towards music artists to push their agenda. Rely on this fervor and territorial attitude to discourage folks from redistributing. When Prince ran his streaming "NPG Music Club" a half dozen years ago, the vast majority of folks who paid good money for a streaming account music weren't too keen on subsidizing folks who poor-mouthed with free music which they saw themselves as financing. (See above). And the hardcore Prince worshippers? Forget about it. They would get nasty when the subject ("Can anyone burn me off a show?") was broached, as they saw this as a "food out of his mouth" issue - a sentiment the RIAA keeps trying to milk to no avail.
So, to recap:
* Clubs and subscriptions. It's regular revenue.
* exclusives which begin to cross the "too much trouble" line for casual fans.
* Old-fashioned selfishness of consumers.
* Artist loyalty among fans.
My band sells mp3s without DRM via: http://www.emusic.com/artist/11669/11669917.html There are other competitors in this space, they just don't have the market locked down quite as well as iTunes. Hopefully with time, that will change? rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
is there ANY question as to the opposite could have happened ?
Internet IS 'the people'. Internet is "us". "WE" are internet.
Tell me JUST one thing that have fought against the power of "the people" and succeeded ?
Read radical news here
...
So close, and yet not quite there.
While your statement is basically true, your application of it to MP3 vs. AAC is... bad. AAC is not "home-grown." The Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) is specified as part of the MPEG 4 standard and it is superior to mp3s in a variety of ways.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
...the music companies would pay someone to develop a good, open-standard, drm solution that would be interoperable, easy to use and allow people to authorize a reasonable number of devices for access. It wouldn't really be *that* hard to do... but if they give up entirely, it won't really hurt my feelings...
If this happens I'll buy music. I have over 10 devices that I like to transfer music too. People may say that's a little ridiculous but I had been downloading music since before the RIAA made it officially Illegal. I don't have a problem purchasing music if it's not DRM'd. Good move by the music industry.
I will repeat both:
God, it never ceases to amaze me the extremes that people are willing to explain away to justify the companies that they like. And then they never miss an opportunity to read evil into the actions of a company that they dislike.
Please provide any instance of my supposed vilification of companies I don't like. I was railing against the double standards that are so prevalent on Digg & Slashdot (and everywhere). It doesn't matter to me whether Apple or Microsoft (or Joe Linux Inc.) succeeds or fails. Both fulfill needs that will still exist without either corporation. IBM was on top, it fell, and time still marches on. Microsoft used to be the underdog, and everyone loved them, but now they are just so evil.
If you think Microsoft is evil, and Apple is good then you have missed out on the cycle of big business since the dawn of capitalism. The underdog has to be different and appear friendly to be chosen over the pack leader. Then the leader falls, the underdog takes over market share, and has to change to stay on top. Google, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, etc have all proven that when given the opportunity they will do anything to get ahead. It's business. Put your money where you like, but don't act like any major business is any better than any other major business.
Being an Apple (or Microsoft) fanboy is no better than wearing white face makeup and eyeliner to be different. Yeah, Apple is different, just like everybody else.
let me tell you one thing,
...
if they sold the songs in mp3, high quality format, and guaranteed that they will be available forever, i would not even bother saving zillions of mp3 in my hard disks and trying to transport them to new pcs, friends', relatives', acquintances' computers, worry about the loss of mp3s in the event of a hd format is needed (windows reinstall etc), and so on, and instead just DELETE them whenever im in distress and just get what i want from the OFFICIAL site for 1 cents per song again.
same goes for movies. WHY the hell try to maintain them in cds, dvds or etc when you can just download them in high quality format from its ORIGINAL seller ? JUST sell it for something reasonable, NEGLIGIBLE - for maybe, say, $5 ? It is not even the price of a regular hamburger dammit ? WHENEVER i want to watch a movie, i would just download it, watch, and delete without any worries. No disk space use, no corruption, hell and even no worries that children might find and watch some no-no movies for their age
Games. god. If games were sold for $5 or so a piece, why not buy MANY games ? huh ? Just for the sake of trying, there is no barrier to buying them $5 per piece. Even the thought that, 'i might want to play something like this maybe sometime' would without any worries of expensiveness or anything would let anyone buy the games they would NOT normally buy then. Heck, even for collections maybe.
Actually, the execs, policy makers and old coots in the helm of media companies, you are witless idiots.
Have you gone such a road, internet would be busy with zillions of terabytes downloaded everyday from your products and you would be busy trying to get more accountants to do the accounting instead of lawyers for trying to fight against 'the people'.
Read radical news here
Another great mp3 download site, http://gomusic.ru/ offers mp3s at a quite reasonable price, nearly $0.99 for a CD or 10 cents a song on average. This model actually sounds more reasonable for people who want to buy a lot of music and at an acceptable price. (I doubt it costs more than 10 cents in bandwidth to host a song for download)... efficiency through technology eventually makes things virtually 'priceless'.
"maybe we would be better off with musicians who didn't care so much about making a living, and were really just into music"
The RIAA agrees with you, more or less. But at least they keep their artists from starving so long as those artists behave.
I'm for indie artists, but many indies are indies because they want to make a living.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts........
People need to think they have a choice for it to work.
I'd welcome such a move from the music industry, but I don't think I can go back to buying RIAA tunes until they pledge to stop suing their customers.
-Rich
Hmmm... the scuttlebutt back when the iTMS came out was that nobody inside Apple even mildly liked the idea of DRM but they had to do it to get the contracts. That much isn't surprising. The further scuttlebutt was they left it deliberately weak because of those feelings - that's no longer true.
However, they've also refused to license FairPlay. And the iTMS isn't making a huge amount of money on its own - it's all gravy and rounding errors with the iPod sales numbers.
So... I wonder if the reason they refuse to license it is to prevent a DRM market from being established (licensing FairPlay would have had just that effect). Could they be using their market dominance to drive the rest of the market to the 'DRM is bad' position, which really translates into a 'we can't compete with FairPlay' position?
Probably overly optimistic and overly clever but it would explain a few things.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm a ditch digger. I'm damn good at it. Unlike you I am not lucky enough to have legislation which forces people to pay me for ditches whether I dug them or not. I can't make a living either. :(
THIS after I just renewed my eMusic subscription for another year.
Instead of making every end user pay, sell bulk, prepaid free downloads to SPONSORS -- who might buy, say, 50 prepaid downloads of a $1 song, video, or whatever, and pay $50 (or maybe $35 with quantity discount). Give the sponsor a "smart URL" that's charged up with those 50 or whatever copies; sponsors can email or otherwise distribute that URL as they want, and the first 50 people to click it can download free. Also, anyone who gets the URL can recharge it if they wish, with as many copies as they want to buy -- meaning that multiple copies of the URL can circulate indefinitely as long as there is interest in the art, generating more income for the artist. Sponsors can also provide a message to anyone who downloads a URL they paid for -- reaching a highly targeted audience through social networks of the sponsor's choice, one of many incentives for sponsors to pay for downloads that others will use.
This way almost all end users will download free -- instantly paying the artist by the act of free downloading itself. The end users just click; they never need to sign up, register, log in, have any account, or have any money. Sponsors will pay by credit card, etc. as with any other ecommerce. Sponsors and end users can be anywhere in the world, and can speak many different languages.
This business model and more comes from the realization that online financial accounts could REPRODUCE "children" accounts -- which could reproduce in turn, for any number of generations. These accounts can INHERIT any number of services and options. Since owners' changes will be inherited like mutations, accounts will EVOLVE in grassroots community use. This seems too good to be true, but I've looked for some time and haven't found a problem; if you find one, let me know. I've worked out the details and published this design rights-free at
http://www.smart-accounts.org/
-- John S. James www.RepliCounts.org
And anyone who supports apple with their restrictive DRM nonsense, only allowing playback on Apple hardware, and only at medium-low bit rates, needs to have their head examined. Compare this music with anything you rip from a CD at high bit rates, say VBR between 192-320kbps. If you tell me you don't hear a difference, you're stone deaf.
Say apple goes up in flames tomorrow, your iPod stops working after a year due to age. What are you going to do with your $2000 (now worthless) music you "purchased" from apple? Good luck with your DRM infested crap.
Don't assume for a moment I'm an apple basher. I'm a microsoft basher with 200% more vehemence. The same applies to their 'plays for sure' which 'sure doesn't play' on their very own baby, the rat-turd zune. Way to go, media industry. And thanks microsoft for the incredible amount of thought you put in to DRM. You're so dense, I hear there's huge surges of gravity around Redmond, and signs of black hole formation.
Surely bandwidth will reach a point where it is no longer required to store the 'licensed' audio or video on the customers device, in all cases it should be streamed from the publisher. Instead of the customers pirating material, it should be encouraged - 1st and 2nd generation copies only, each degrading and expiring after a limited amount of time: viral marketing - P2P filesharing is 'radio'.
Unless you were trying to be ironic, that is one of the most moronic replies in the history of /.
And that is really something.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All the people playing to be musicians will leave the field when it is no longer as profitable as it is now.
That is a good thing, since people more commited and more talented will be left on the field.
Sorry, but if DRM is the only bussiness model in town for musicians then they should go, buy a dictionary, and look up the words "talent", "creativity" and add the hard work required.
All of us have to work daily to earn our bread and butter, many musicians are work shy and think they are entilted to work hard for a short time, record something and then sit and reap the benefits. I know, I befriend many of them.
If you are a musician your job is playing live music (or composing, etc). Recorded music is your advertisement medium, good for you if you manage to make money from your own advertisement, but the bussiness model based on recordings of any kind was an historical anomaly that technology is correcting now.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please show the sentence in which the poster vilified any company.
Jeeez.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Argh, you are right, I take that back unreservedly. My previous opinion was probably based on an old encoder and replaygain being turned on, which can be a pain in the ass as all the volume settings go wonky.
As a sibling post mentions though, MP3 goes south at low bitrates. I spent too much time listening to internet "radio". AAC+ is really good for low bitrates.
I'd still prefer OGG though because of patent issues and my iAudio plays it happily
People don't want DRM. But, people do want certificates that verify the digital music they are buying is from a legitimate source, in comparison to being duped, tricked, into paying for warez, ie. like some of the illegitimate DVDs being sold on Ebay or on the streets of NY or in India or in China- "25 movies on 15 dvds for $50" kind of scams. DRM is Wrong. Knowning that you aren't being scammed is good.