Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Music Chief Comes Out Against DRM
waired writes "It seem that a trend has begun in the music industry after Steve Jobs essay. Now a senior Yahoo chief has spoken out in favor of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' call for major labels to abandon digital rights technology (DRM). It points out that consumers are getting confused and that the Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time"."
Monkey see, Monkey Do
nce one major corp came out gainst DRM other would begin to speak up as well.
These people are not dumb, and slashdotter's aren't the only ones that understand the folly of DRM.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
wow... that's about 25% better than I had expected.
As soon as the labels will let him sell without DRM.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
I've never understood why tech companies listened to the music industry in the first place.
If they had stood firm against DRM in the first place, these online stores would have never happened.
Now that they've demonstrated that these stores work, and the public is transitioning to them, they can start making demands.
You have to get your foot in the door.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
What bothers me the most is that we had to wait until these corporate executives spoke out. What we needed, at least in the United States, was every Jill and Joe American speaking out against having their rights "managed".
The very idea of "managed rights" flies in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and what it truly means to be American. It's difficult to say for sure why most people didn't take a far more active stance against DRM. The first reason is no doubt because it'd take effort to do effectively, and most Americans would rather watch the NFL or American Idol instead. The second reason is perhaps because they just don't give a fuck, and that's quite dangerous a stance to be taking.
Regardless, the American people as a whole should have stood up and said NO! to any sort of "rights management" system. DRM is just plain un-American.
Noone claims Jobs invented anti-DRM, but it's a bigger deal when a major player comes out against it than when a regular guy does. I mean, someone like me has no soapbox, and someone like Cory Doctorow has only a small one. Steve Jobs can command a major audience. Additionally, he's about the only guy benefiting from DRM. If he wants it gone, that says something.
They're like telcos: you can only hurt the RIAA/music licensors in one of three very basic ways:
1) legislation/lawsuit (unlikely as they own the legislatures and have armies of lawyers)
2) have a massive clientele defection (unlikely because they're a monopoly like the telcos) or
3) have their talent pool stop making revenue (crappy quality music, and so on-- also highly unlikely).
Bottom line: he's sucking up to his clientele (us, supposedly) and Wall Street, especially Wall Street who wants to pound the crap out of them for other foollish moves. They should have demanded that Mark Cuban stay with them for a few years after they bought his Broadcast.Com.
It's all PR. Nothing to see here.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Hey! I just upgraded to Slashdot Vasta "Bedroom Premium" edition and your post came out:
(The second one was a false positive for "Let it be")
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I hated DRM before it was cool.
I read the internet for the articles.
I've never understood why tech companies listened to the music industry in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the tech companies are far bigger in monetary value and hence far more powerful than the music industry in the first place so don't understand why these companies supported, rather than fought DRM from day one.
I can explain this to you. Your problem is that you are a rational human being. You must understand first of all that the music industry is irrational. Imagine the following conversation, which illustrates the problem:
Tech company: We'd love to sell your music in non-DRMed format.
Music company: We're not interested in selling it without DRM.
Tech company: We're not going to sell it with DRM!
Music company: Fine. Don't sell it. Get nothing. We can live without online sales. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to sell it with DRM. No negotiations. No exceptions. That's how it will be done. Take it or leave it.
Yes, the music industry really is that dumb. They would rather not sell it at all then sell it without DRM. Remember, their goal is to rip you off. They have proven time and time again that they would rather sell one CD for $18 than 3 for $10 each. This is irrational behavior, but they have been very consistent in it. If they can't sell you something at their price and on their terms, then they don't want your money. They really don't. It truly is "their way or the highway". So when you realize that the only deal that could be made was to sell music with DRM or not sell it all, is it any wonder that Yahoo and Apple and everyone else agreed to DRM? There weren't going to be any sales without it. Besides, they were able to make the major labels take the heat for DRM, which is totally fair, so it wasn't a difficult business decision to sell DRM music since they could make money off it and they wouldn't have to answer to pissed off customers who don't like DRM since it wasn't their fault the music had DRM. It really is that simple. Make money off selling DRMed music or make nothing.
Remember too that I am talking about the major music industry companies and smaller labels or individual artists have a more rational outlook. How rational is it to decide "We'd rather sell one at $18 than 3 for $10 each", but that is exactly how they operate.
Jobs finally decloaked, and stood up against the RIAA. Now Yahoo. And all I see is... people... calling them names.
Apparently nothing can satisfy you? Are you all just terminally apolitical? The enemy of the enemy is our friend. Back them the hell up.
[TFA] points out that consumers are getting confused and that the Microsoft DRM "doesn't work half the time".
...
So Microsoft's standard approach of writing software that confuses users and doesn't work very well is telling the public that this is what all DRM is like. We see this all the time, for example with viruses which are invariably reported as infecting "computers", not just "Microsoft computers". Similarly, the difficulty of learning to use the little beasts is a property of "computers", not of any particular brand.
It reminds me of the old saying: "Nobody is all bad. They can always serve as a bad example."
In this case, though, MS could well be doing us a service. By convincing the gullible public that "DRM is confusing and doesn't work very well", they are inadvertently helping in the fight against DRM everywhere. Even if someone will come up with DRM that works (for some value of "works"), it won't be used, because it won't run on Windows (and on non-MS systems, the crypto geeks will break it within hours of release). Most users will just accept that MS's DRM is what DRM is like, and will oppose its use anywhere as a result.
Of course, one could argue that a correct implementation of DRM is probably intractable. This is mostly because determining which "fair use" rules apply wherever the use might live is a seriously difficult AI problem. It can't actually be determined by a human-level intelligence, as demonstrated by the need to ask the courts rather than just reading the law books. So we need an AI that's much more intelligent than any team of human lawyers, and has deep understanding of all the "IP" laws of every jurisdiction in the world. Of multiple jurisdictions, actually, when Net transactions are considered. We won't likely see this level of AI in our lifetimes.
Discuss amongst yourselves
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
In the article it is stated the DRM free MP3 tracks sell faster.
In a well duh moment, they figured out the installed base of equipment that can play MP3's is just about everyting. A MS or Apple format locks out all other format players. People don't buy incompatible formats. DRM in any format is incompatible with the majority of media players out there. Before you jump on the iTunes bandwagon... Do you have a DVD player? Do you use Linux? Do you have a MP3 player? Do you have a CD player that can play MP3 CD's in your car or as a portable CD player? iPods are everywhere, but not nearly as everywhere as MP3 players.
Selling MP3's is a much bigger market than selling something that will play on a Windows PC and Plays for Sure devices or just iTunes on Apple and PC platforms and iPods, or worse yet Zunes.
The truth shall set you free!
Most of the indie labels (approx. 30% of sales) already do want their music sold without DRM.
The very idea of "managed rights" flies in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and what it truly means to be American
I don't think those things mean what you think they mean. "Digital rights management" != inaliable rights as laid down by the U.S. Constitution and liberal political theory. Lets be clear here, the two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. Digital rights management is essentially a technology mechanism to enforce (or hinder the breaking of) contract law. The only thing it flies in the face of is consumer convenience. DRM certainly annoys me as a consumer, but I think things like no-knock warrants, the drug war, idefinite detention without trial, and asset forfeiture laws fly in the face of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founding Fathers just a tad more.
I said it before, I'll say it again, the minute that Apple backs down on its "every music file is exactly the same and gets the same treatment" is the minute that along with some songs without DRM, we also see some songs that you can't burn, some that you can't play more than once a day, some that cost $500, some that cost $0.02, some you can't download, some you can't put on your iPod and some that you can't ever backup. Apple's plan is very honest and very forward, it's either all or nothing with DRM, and that's exactly where their barganing power lies.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The surest way to be sure DRM never goes away is for there to be no pressure to make it go away. Before, very few people knew what it was, or were mad about it, and of them, many (most?) blamed it on Apple and Microsoft, not the recording companies. Putting public pressure on them and making people aware of the issues and the origins of the problems is the only thing that will ever give them the impetus to strike these backroom deals you're talking about.
The day after Jobs' Blog Post, the Wall Street Journal had two front page stories above the crease about it. That introduced this issue to probably a hundred thousand people who weren't previously aware of it, and they're overwhelmingly the important, moneyed, influential movers and shakers who it's most important to make aware of it. I was visiting my mother the next weekend, and that WSJ was lying around, and she asked me what it was all about. It was the first she'd heard of any of it. She only had a rudimentary idea of what a Media Player is. I'd tried to tell her about DRM before, but she never listened. Now she knows.
Jobs' Blog Post may be the event that precipitates an interest in this issue that will eventually lead to change. The backroom deals are the conclusion of the change process, not the origin. You're right that won't happen in "the tech press," but for the first time I've seen, this story was just blown a mile outside the tech press.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Everyday Americans have been speaking out. I'm such an American and I haven't been waiting for executives to speak on the issue. I've been speaking out to anyone who would listen/read on my local community radio station (I had a show for a few years until the station became remarkably undemocratic), on my blog (which I maintain to this day), to Jack Valenti's face in front of an audience (when he came to my town on his anti-"piracy" tour) and related letters to the editor, and with my friends while we discuss media matters (virtually weekly at a local bar).
Americans use a lot of non-free operating systems and software (which digital restrictions require), but if you take the time to teach them to value their freedom they'll listen and learn. On my radio program, I found it interesting to take a wide angle—people found it interesting to discuss how copyright and patent issues intersect with their everyday lives.
It's critical to not give up the freedom talk and not give into the people who would have you compromise your values in order to placate proprietors. There is a deep thirst for substantive talk and action about issues that matter.
Digital Citizen
Jobs has said that doing a mixed store with some DRM and some non-DRM isn't something he's interested in doing.
It would be similar to the Zune where you can squirt some songs, but not others. Confusing.
...the Slashdot crowd?
Over the last five years, not a week has gone by that there hasn't been an anti-DRM screed posted to this forum. Yet, when finally some industry leaders come out publicly against DRM, the mostly highly modded posts are those claiming it's nothing but a cynical ploy.
You know, I'm just as cynical as the next guy when it comes to proclamations from the CEOs of giant multinational corporations. But, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a statement isn't some carefully crafted strategic move based on hidden motives. DRM is a big pain in the butt to online music distributers and equipment manufacturers. The leaders of these industries are now making public statements on this matter. That's a good thing. If you are reading more into it than that, you've got too much time on your hands.
I don't really see this. Put a big 'UNENCUMBERED' notice next to all the DRM-free songs. Start giving priority to DRM-free music on the front page of the store. Only recommend DRM-free music. Pretty soon, all of the other labels are going to want to re-negotiate their contracts to allow DRM-free distribution.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh yeah I forgot, Jobs wants to make sure that he can sell overpriced hardware!
This is just not true--at least not anymore. The price of any Apple Computer is completely in line with an equivalently equipped Dell, Gateway, etc. Sometimes, the price of the "PC" is even higher. True, Apple does not have a computer that competes with a $300-something dollar Dell price-wise; however, Dell's computers that do compete with Apple's computers feature wise are often more expensive than the Mac offering. Sometime ago, Apple sold hardware that could reasonably be called overpriced. Now it's just a troll to say so.
The rest of your argument is fallacious as well. Apple does not force consumers to buy a new Mac to run a new version of OS X. The most recent version of OS X runs just fine on Macs that are 5+ years old. Conversely, the RIAA want you to re-buy all of your music every 5-10 years when it becomes available in a different format. What Apple does is not even comparable.
my pet machine