Slashdot Mirror
Music Execs Think DRM Slows the Marketplace
MacGod writes "From BBC News comes a story about a Jupiter Research survey conducted before Steve Jobs's anti-DRM essay, indicating that most music industry execs see DRM-free music as a way to expand sales on digital tracks. The survey covered large and small record labels, rights bodies, digital stores, and technology providers. To summarize: 54% of music execs think that current DRM is too restrictive and 62% think selling unencumbered music would be a way to boost sales. Even limiting the survey to the record labels themselves, 48% believe this. Yet, many also believe it's not going to happen without significant governmental intervention — even though most insiders think DRM is harmful, the labels are keen to stick with it. Is this yet another sign of the typical media industry 'head in the sand, refuse to change' approach, or might we be seeing the early stages or some actual change?"
Please enter your authorisation code to view this comment.
liqbase
Other than 'its chilly down here' comments, I have to say I think this is record companies trying to pose like they actually care about the consumer, while still loving the RIAA henchmen they employ. I don't buy it for a second.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222358&cid=180 11682
"I know many media execs, both music and film/video, here in Los Angeles and have had many discussions with them about DRM.
Every single one of them hates DRM, thinks it is a pain in the ass to deal with, would love to sell all of their content without DRM.
But they all live in the real world."
Sounds more like preparation for those wretched music execs to put out non-DRM'd music like it was their idea all along; as if their customers haven't been shouting for DRM-free products all this time.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
"Is this yet another sign of the typical media industry 'head in the sand, refuse to change' approach, or might we be seeing the early stages or some actual change?" I think it's a little of both. They'd LIKE to keep their head in the sand, but change cannot be stopped. It's inevitable that eventually they won't be able to ignore the problem any longer.
"if only i had known i would have been a locksmith." -albert einstein
Well, what if I like DRM you insensitive cloud!
So, can somebody please explain:
(1) What is the difference between the music industry execs and the people who run the labels, and
(2) If the music industry execs are saying they do or the don't want DRM?
Thanks.
Why did the music industry think consumers would accept DRM?
The obvious and total failure of DRM'ed e-books should have warned them: Take a medium that consumers view as a tangible product, that they can buy and sell in an aftermarket, and try to turn it into a limited, licensed, revocable, non-transferable right-to-use at a not particularly attractive price - and it should succeed?
What are they snorting? Oh. Right. Never mind.
I wrote parts of this stuff
So record company execs are saying:
1) DRM is bad
2) It hurts the market
3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it!
But then they say....
4) But we're not going to get rid of it
5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
I may not be as bright as some of you guys around here, but this doesn't make any sense.
They really seem to be saying:
1) DRM *THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT* is bad.
2) No way will we get rid of it, we'd rather have bad DRM than none. We need to be able to resell Elvis tracks every 5 years to the same consumer.
3) What we're hoping for is the government mandates a technical solution, since Apple has really screwed us up, and we don't seem to be able to work together to come up with a viable solution on our own.
Seriously, if you're the government, isn't it reasonable to say "Gee, selling music to consumers is not a core function of government. You guys figure it out. We've already given you eternal copyrights and the FBI to enforce it, what else do you need?". But I guess that won't happen.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Personally, I'm all for DRM. If we have a effective and uncrackable DRM system, more people wouldn't bother listening to the garbage hollywood and the music industry force on us (Brittany Spears, etc.) because they have to pay for it. Smaller artists who give their music away and make money by dealing directly with local radio stations concert venus would thrive.
To summarize: 54% of music execs think that current DRM is too restrictive and 62% think selling unencumbered music would be a way to boost sales. Even limiting the survey to the record labels themselves, 48% believe this. Yet, many also believe it's not going to happen without significant governmental intervention....
The bottom line is that a critical mass of the MAFIAA has figured out that their omerta is no longer viable, but nobody wants to be the first to break it.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
if DRM is removed and piracy jumps, the cause-effect logic will be very hard to refute. It probably CAN be refuted (all that has to happen is to have a file successfully ripped once and it's all over the internet) but an observed jump post-DRM removal would undoubtedly end some careers. Nobody wants to take that chance.
The music industry seems to be doing quite well (which is not to say the artists are getting all they really should, but that's another post) since they have money to spend playing around with copyright law. There is no "we need to try DRM-free music before our profits dry up!" imperative which might drive people to take risks and the company to accept risks, so DRM (which is easy to make sound good, whether it is or not) won't go anywhere until the case for it hurting sales AS A CONCEPT (not just a bad implementation) becomes obvious enough to convince anyone.
The only way I can see that happening is an "open source music" phenomena that replaces corporate music trends, star generators, and hits with something just as good (or "effective" if you don't think it's good) but community controlled. That's hard, because opinions are subjective and can apparently be influenced by ads. We need a central site, lots of sources of music people want to listen to (not what they SHOULD want to listen to, mind you, but what they DO want to listen to - no running people down for their (lack of) taste), and quality control that people can trust. When THAT emerges, DRM will become too much of a liability. I don't see anything else that can do it.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The Sales Department of any entertainment conglomerate will happily beat the "DRM is bad" drum because their job depends on it.
./ amounts to absolutely nothing because nothing will ever be done by nearly all ./er's. Most of us on ./ know better but won't do a thing to improve the situation for the uninformed. Myself included.
Meanwhile, executive management is doing everything in their power to maintain their distribution cartel. DRM serves their end game quite nicely thank you.
Consumers don't care and will accept their DRM schemes because they don't know any better. All the righteous outrage on
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
They are 100% correct that it slows down the marketplace, actually it comes to a grinding halt since I'm not buying anything which is DRM'ed.
Remember the guy who beat the CD copying by using a black magic marker or macrovision's using the same video scrambler technology they developed in the 80s that can be defeated with a $30 video enhancer unit on eBay? Why is the industry wasting time and money to be encrypting systems that seems to be defeated before they are deployed in the market. DVD Jon has busted DVD's and other alleged "secure" media. Some of these hacks are 20 to 30 lines of code! So much for the millions of dollars invested. Even Legislation has done nothing. What has come from the RIAA suing 12 year old's for downloading music. Limewire and other P2P engines are active now more than ever. The funniest part is watching these music artists bitching about how record companies steal their money and giving a press conference with their million dollar mansion in the background, or coming out of a restaurant most people could not afford to eat at. The reality is modern music sucks, so does most of the content they are trying to protect. That is the real reason why the media companies are losing money, not because of piracy. They want to blame other people instead of the trash they are peddling as entertainment.
I'm not sure if they are mistaken or not.
A few people revel in ripping things off. The music industry (MI) will lose some money on them.
A lot of people have absolutely no morals and will do what costs them the least. MI will lose some money on them.
A lot of people are as moral as they can afford to be. MI will lose some money on them if people feel swapping non-drm'd titles is okay.
The folks folks who are very moral, it won't really matter unless the basic morality of the action is redefined by the culture (which I see a strong incentive to occur).
It might turn out to be the last big blast of sales income before music sales dry up.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Surveys are one of the least reliable ways to get statistics. Why? Even with anonymity, people try to cast themselves in a good light on surveys. If music executives don't like DRM, then where is DRM coming from?
Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
I think it would be benificial for the government to prevent DRM. They wouldn't waste all that FBI money on enforcing it, they would waste all that money in the legal system fighting over it's infringement, and consumers get a product that isn't artificially limited in it's use. And depending on who you believe record sales will actually increase as consumers get a product they're more happy with/are able to let more people experience more music causing them to buy more music.
It's win-win-win... except for the companies that exist only to develop ridiculous DRM schemes... but they were already losers anyway.
Collector's Edition
Xxxx Xxxxxx, We are in receipt of your email dated 02/XX/07. Please contact me by telephone at (913) 234-81XX to discuss possible resolution of the matter to which you refer in your email. Alternatively, please provide a telephone number at which you may be reached, and let us know when would be a convenient time for us to reach you. We look forward to discussing this matter with you. Sincerely, Xxxx X. Xxxxx Settlement Representative 913.234.81XX (p) 913.234.81XX (f)
With all the anti-DRM stuff coming out of these guys who speak out of both sides of their mouth of late, it is easy to be cynical, and I have been cynical on this topic. Every one of the people who have come out against DRM (yes, Jobs too) has been a beneficiary.
They all hate it? Fine, do away with it by mutual consent! Shut up and do it!
Otherwise it is just like one of those ads that say the banks are your friends.
Only DRM Vendors want DRM and their strategy is to create fear that if you release any music without DRM it will be pirated.
Common sense should tell them thats what a CD is, music without DRM, they are not changing the dynamic at all by giving up on that DRM crap.
So FUD is all they have, because their DRM doesn't work and doesn't sell.
No, no. It's:
4) But we're not going to get rid of it
5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it.
6) And replace it with some kind of blanket recording media/network traffic tax that will be given back to us.
7) Profit!
Is this yet another sign of the typical media industry 'head in the sand, refuse to change' approach, or might we be seeing the early stages or some actual change? I don't know what you're looking at, but what I'm smelling is the industry grasping towards a compromise: tougher laws for laxer DRM. IE, "we're stupid, so give us your shit before we take it away."
You know, I have been avoiding buying music over the 'net simply because I don't want to be stuck with some proprietary DRM format that isn't transferrable to my various players. For example, I once bought an album from Lush on Real Tunes or whatever. I then tried to transfer it to my Palm Zire and - bzz! - no luck. Because the Real Player on my Palm doesn't handle DRM files, I cannot play it. Oh, and it didn't play in Amarok either.
I know the industry is afraid of downloads - just look at what you can get on Usenet - but they should just provide what we want in an easy interface (like iTunes) and we'll buy.
Of course, come to think of it, I can't play my U2 or Duran Duran 12" EPs on Amarok either, so I wonder if my argument is moot...
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
They fought MP3's for years, they finally "gave in" and implemented restrictive DRM, now they finally may remove it because they think it will "help" sell their product.
Good job fucksticks, if you would have embraced the technology 8 years ago you would possibly have much much better sales right now. You'd think the record industry would learn from past mistakes but no, the same morons keep making the same decisions.
This just occurred to me (call me slow), who came up with the abbreviation DRM? Somehow I doubt it was some random blogger. To state the obvious: the goal of the whole bloody concept has become to blur it. Read the words spelled out "Digital Rights Management". Whose rights? Who is managing? The only thing that is clear about it is the word "digital" but I count on the creativity of /.:ers to blur that part as well. As far as the regular Joe is concerned this could be something positive for him -- before doing any research, but why would he think he should?
Point is, in the case of the regular Joe half the battle is already lost, they have no bloody clue what DRM is, it's just another abbreviation along with DVD, HDDVD or whatever else that is `in' right now. For some twenty years DRM was referred to as "Copy Protection" because that is exactly what it is, by renaming it to some nonsensical abbreviation they have created a highway for easier acceptance.
But ah, it's not like it's the first time some industry does something like this...
And now we get to the point where I am considered troll: I do believe there are places where "DRM" is called for, anyone who posts it is all-through evil gets a page-down tap from me (it's usually long rants). Lately it has however been going out of line. Repeatedly.
On an ending note, all according to Google: 46,200,000 hits for DRM. 2,900,000 hits for "copy protection" (quotes included). God, I feel old.
I just don't see that piracy would take a big jump if DRM is removed from the content that is sold at iTunes et al. DRM is already broken and song files appear on filesharing networks. This will likely continue, however, I would prefer to receive a sanctioned, DRM-free, high-quality download for a reasonable price. I will only pay for DRM-free tracks so I could use them with any device I own or may own in the future. The real reason that these files are so readily available on filesharing networks is that once people download the file, the file is left in the share folder and others are able to download it from there. If people can be convinced to use sanctioned download services it may actually serve to help reduce piracy by keeping these files out of individuals' share folders on the various networks. The fact is I (and I believe many others) can afford to pay $1 per track, but I will not pay for something that has been intentionally crippled. Right now, aside from a few independent artists, the only way to get a DRM-free track is by either buying the CD and ripping it (and hoping that there is no rootkit or other nefarious code lurking on the CD) or through the filesharing services.
It's because the music executives are realizing that if they insist on DRM, they may well end up at the mercy of a company who's DRM scheme gains monopolistic market share or that other company who wants its DRM scheme to gain monopolistic market share.
The cake is a pie
... allow, or deny?
Allow.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
No matter how you dress it up the DRM doesn't protect their content. On the other hand it does take away their legitimate sales.
You're reduced to trying to scare them with this FUD.
I've heard in multiple articles and reports, one being an NPR interview with the Vice President of Marketing at Apple stating that DRM is in Apple's favor and they don't want to change it (it was a foot in mouth moment you've gotta hear it). DRM is beneficifal for keeping their market share. With all your music locked into an ipod you can't jump to any other hardware product. Practically the day after that interview Apple did an about face and Steve Jobs posted his "thoughts on DRM" article. And I'm not putting all the blame on Apple, DRM is or was in the music industry's benefit too, but right now, Apple is set up to 'possibly' loose if they pull the DRM out now.
I think that the model of digital distribution, that consists in having the consummer pay about as much for a data file as they would for a packaged physical support with the same content, is flawed at the core. You get at most the same experience as you would by paying for the physical object, and often much less : compare for example a TV show episode on iTunes : $35 for a whole season when a boxset can usually be had second hand for $25 on a C2C website. And then you have no widescreen, no subtitles, no chaptering, no extras, and much worse-than-DVD video quality. And you're very restricted in how you can play it : if in fifteen years you want to watch your show again, assuming the file is not lost to some harddrive crash or computer upgrade or bad backup discipline, you'll have to do it on some Apple hardware, and no other. By that time maybe another company will make much better products, you'll be restricted to using Apple hardware all of your life or you have to give up on your $35 show (and the rest of your collection). Imagine paying for the right to watch The A Team in the 80s and now if you want to watch it again, having to do so on an RCA TV set.
"significant governmental intervention" ... like, say, the DMCA?
I don't think it's a much of stretch to say that selling music without DRM will probably destroy Microsoft.
I think *this* -- essentially the end of Microsoft -- is what's at the core of all of this. And the end of Microsoft will be the *result* of DRM-less tracks. Jobs knows this. Everybody knows this. This is the elephant in the room that no one is talking much about.
Vista is all about DRM -- everything about Vista is DRM wrapped in eye-candy. Vista is the DRM operating system.
The end of DRM means the end of Microsoft as the major OS player. It also means a return to the "hobbyist" computers of the 1980s -- the TRS-80s and the Commodore 64s and the Apple IIs. This "hobbyist" market continues to erode as DRM gains a foothold. Drop DRM, and we're back to where we were 25 years ago -- personal computers that were meant to serve users not the corporations.
Just my two cents.
The more I look at it, the more the music labels seem to resemble strung out junkies.
They know that DRM hurts more than it helps.
They know that infringing copying is rampant, and DRM schemes do nothing to stop it. I think they even know that the losses due to copying don't really make that much difference to their situation. Some difference, but not much. In fact, the most swapped music tends to enrich the bands at live gigs and sell more merchandise.
They want to stop, but they just can't. They can't make that first step. One of them (EMI, maybe?) will go cold turkey for a bit. Their tracks will then be all over P2P as they already are and always were, but this will be enough for the pushers (DRM manufacturers) to say "See? Do you want that sort of pain for your back catalogue?", and enough of them will start hurting. Enough to continue the sad cycle.
Eventually, they will phase out CD sales, and replace them with (DRM'ed) downloads only. Fine. I don't care. I won't buy them, and I won't even hack round them. And the bands I do buy from will be those who market themselves well enough, and play good gigs.
An old industry dies. A new one lives. It's a fair trade.
--Ng
at first I was confused by the slashdot blurb... if execs surveyed really feel this way, then how can the next breath say that labels are keen to stick with DRM? Aren't execs of labels, and labels, kind of the same thing? I figured, something must be up with the polling.
Then I saw the first sentence in the article:
"The Jupiter Research study looked at attitudes to Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems in Europe music firms."
They only polled European firms. I guess that explains the difference between what people think and what is actually done. So we're only reading about what European execs think, and then comparing it to what the industry as a whole is doing.
It might be a good idea for music vendors to market their copies of digital content as spyware/adware/virus free in order to promote buying legal copies of music instead of trying to rely on drm etc. It seems to me that this would probably be the single best reason to pay for music, that is unless you feel some crazy desire to support the artist. you think?
Just as some slaveholders were beginning to come out against slavery before the (U.S.) Civil War, mainly on economic grounds. There were not enough of them, however, and they were not in sufficient numbers to prevent said war.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I used to listen to music during my daily commute and while exercising (cycling). I'd convert my CD's to MP3 and burn mix CD's for the car and load-up my (non-IPod) MP3 player for exercise. After encountering a CD I couldn't rip for MP3's due to DRM (and that the store wouldn't allow me to return) - I stopped buying CD's. I've tried ITunes - but it's too much hassle to get it to work with non-IPods.
Anyway I've switched to listening to podcasts (Thank you Leo Leporte!!). I use 'Juice' to download (via the RSS feed) and just drop it onto my MP3 player. Got a wireless transmitter for the car, which is not great for music, but good enough for voice.
[Insert pithy quote here]
What really strikes me as amusing about this whole conversation is that the members of the RIAA and the industry at large are no longer even pretending like there is any actual competition going on at the music distribution level.
And even better, everyone here in this discussion basically assumes that the industry is acting as one singular beast. They say things like "Well, when DRM is removed, blah blah blah..." as if all of the companies will, you know, COLLUDE to just end DRM one day and that'll be that.
The sad part is that, of course, all of these posts are right. The industry no longer acts as a bunch of competing units. They are essentially acting as a philosophical (if not legally binding) conglomerate on all of the ideas about music distribution. That's just sickening.
Why can't one company take that risk now? Why not, you know, offer a *COMPETING* business model of DRM-free music at the upper levels? Of course there are a number of independent companies who do just that, but why can't EMI, for example, just dump DRM? It's because they're all in bed together.
I think we should resist at all times the premise that the RIAA is just some mythical octopus, a single unit with many arms. These types of industry-wide assurances and reclamations are damaging to the whole premise of business as it is. The fact that none of them are even attempting to compete on these terms is just proof that we have already let them cement their status as a de facto monopoly. To not even fight them on that front is disheartening.
To music executives: Your industry is in crisis. Take a fucking risk!
I guess this study just demonstrates that the music industry is not a direct democracy.
Also lots of people are taking the until the goverment does something to mean, until the government forces us not to be stupid. Given the legislation the music and movie industries tend to want it seems more likely that the government intervention they are talking about is the government so empowering them so that they don't need DRM to force us to re-buy music, and can bill us for playing music for our friends, and for being at the recieving end of their ads.
I really think that we (int eh US) need a hybrid between the bbc and nea. A non-profit comapny that would produce and distribute artistically created media that has mass market appeal. They should have a promotional outlet similar to radio and television, that lets the public get a taste of what they have to offer with out making it all available on demand all the time. So people can get a taster for what's out there, but alsol so that they can get a taste for what people are into. And they should charge money for personal copies of the media. The morepopular something is the less it should cost. They should pay the artists a living wage with the succesful artists getting a comfortable living wage, and most of the profits being held to cover future productions from succesful artists, initial productions from unknown artists, and to buffer the successful and somewhat but not quite independently viable artists.
At least, it's what I think they would think.
Most "big hits" these days are CDs filled with garbage. If you look at the number one selling CDs, it's the "Wow! Now that's what I Call Music - Volume 845". Music executives know that people are only going to buy the CDs that are filled with stuff that audiences like, and enjoy.
That said, look at the music that's released on those 'compilation' CDs. The music is all old and past its 'hit single' prime. It's not terribly old, but it's not the stuff that plays commonly on the radio either.
Most artists have 'filler' CDs. That is to say, they have maybe two tracks that are any good, and the rest is total crap. But the music companies can charge you for the full price of the CD, filler and all. You pay for all 12 or 15 songs or whatever, when all you wanted was the two. And now with iTunes, you can pay $2 and get those two tracks alone. The odds of you buying entire albums now goes down significantly because you know that most artists pretty much suck donkey balls, and you just like that one "lalalala cookie monster" song. They are going to get smaller slices of the pie.
With DRM gone, there's no tie to iTunes and as well, people aren't as leery of buying music online because they know no matter what, their music will play in their car, on any mp3 player, and won't expire or screw up. It will spur rapid adoption of online music because it's easy to use, easy to share, easy to listen to, and gets you exactly what you want, without paying for filler.
And further, with rapid adoption of online music, the 'indie' bands now have a greater chance at making it big, because there is no reliance on music industry to play their music on the radio. Digital music will hit a critical mass quickly I think, and services like Pandora and Last.fm will become the standard for listening to music, instead of turning on your radio. You'll tell Last.fm that you like bands X, Y, and Z, all of which are mainstream bands. Then Last.fm will say "hey, you like them, you might like bands A, B and C" -- which are indie bands.
And in the end, the only people who are going to gain are the fans -- artists won't be able to produce filler CDs because they won't be able to make a living off of them (ala Britney Spears and the others), record companies won't control what we listen to because we have services like Last.fm, Pandora and the wonderful "word of mouth" (which is lightspeed on the internet). Music industry loses control, artists realize that if they are good, they can self-publish, and they all lose out.
As Cartman said to Token in South Park (playing the role of the Music Industry here) -- "From now on, we are an entertainment team, Token. You just do all the singing, all the performing, and all the entertaining... and leave the rest to us." That really won't work any more. And it's a good thing for us as fans, bad for the recording industry. And it's inevitable anyway.... just give it time.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
> 5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
Because if the government forces them, then the shareholders can't sue. If they do it themselves, and a group of shareholders decides that their stock has gone down because of the "dumb decision" to remove the DRM, it hurts the execs.
Could cost them their cushy jobs. They're pop starlet girlfriends might leave them.
Think of all those possible reality shows. It's really too horrible to contemplate.
We already know small labels are fine with selling their music without DRM. Merge Records and Sub Pop are now giving their customers DRM-free, digital copies of their music with vinyl copies of it. There are many independent labels on eMusic.com. And there are a number of small stores out there selling DRM-free mp3s.
The point is: these numbers tell us nothing. They are totally useless, because we have no context for the information. They do not suggest that the Big 4 labels dislike DRM at all.
I'd buy more than the handful of tracks I have online if there weren't DRM. It would save me the hassle of buying CDs from Amazon or used record shops.
Also, why exactly does a store about an opinion survey on DRM belong under Apple? If I remember correctly, Apple is not the only company that uses DRM, nor is Steve Jobs the only person to ever have an opinion on it. Did we used to put this under YRO?
Not only that, these schemes force people to look for more ingenius ways to circumvent them. That's eventually going to lead more and more people down the path of encrypted p2p, and if the government think they're already having a hard time tracking terrorist plots online, wait until a massive part of the online world is regularly producing heavily encrypted traffic. So, yes, I think I just made a reasonable argument for DRM assisting terrorism
We need a central site, lots of sources of music people want to listen to (not what they SHOULD want to listen to, mind you, but what they DO want to listen to - no running people down for their (lack of) taste), and quality control that people can trust. When THAT emerges, DRM will become too much of a liability.
It has emerged. It's called allofmp3.com. Rather than trying to shut it down, they should be looking at it closely and emulating it. And if Russians can get stupid US patents, then they should grab 'how to do a good job of selling music online' if they haven't already.
Loose lips lose spit.
News just in: bears defecate in woods. Rumours that Pope may be Catholic confirmed.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
To think, these people making big $$$ are realizing what we peons have known for quite some time.
So what?
That doesn't change the fact that music distributors have the right to use it.
It's their product, to produce and distribute as they like.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Being a foolish business strategy is no reason for government to intervene to stop it.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Your problem is that you're assuming that DRM has something to do with preventing piracy.
That is a fallacy. It is something the music companies would like you to think, but it is not really true. DRM is about "maximizing revenue," principally by allowing the record companies to sell the same piece of music over and over, in different formats. Basically, is purpose is to eliminate format-shifting altogether, because that way they can charge independently for a song on CD, as a digital file for an iPod, as a digital file for a cellphone, as a ringtone, etc. etc.
The music companies have realized that digitization basically means the end of formats that wear out over time, and it will also mean that it's pretty trivial to move your music from one type of playback device (e.g. iPod) to $NEXT_YEARS_DEVICE without them seeing a dime. Since their business model historically has derived a lot of revenue from the repurchasing of music in new formats (45s, 8-tracks, LPs, cassette tape, CD), they want to stop this, even though it's allowed by Fair Use as a simple format shift.
DRM is only nominally about piracy; in truth, it's about squeezing more money from honest consumers.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Smaller artists who give their music away and make money by dealing directly with local radio stations concert venus would thrive.
Conventional airtime is all tied up in payola and Clear Chanel mandated playlists. A New York station plays the exact playlist as an LA station.
The smaller bands have to do an end run past the entrenched media cartel. The Internet is the new media. Find new bands on MySpace and YouTube, not the local radio station.
The truth shall set you free!
...if they sell unencumbered music, how much will the quality of P2P nets improve? Even with "scene" standards of EAC/lame, there are plenty crappy rips, different versions of lame, different settings that means there's no one definitive mp3 version. Now imagine there's an "official" mp3, and everyone flocked to that? That the message was "don't rip yourself, use the official one" then you'd only be left with the fake files left by the RIAA.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1) DRM is bad
2) It hurts the market
3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it!
4) But we're not going to get rid of it
5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
The way I see it is this: It's change or die, and the music companies know it. However, that doesn't mean that all the companies that change will succeed. Some will screw it up and end up with a business model that's even worse than the current one. They're hoping that the government will mandate some better business model so that they can make the switch without the risk that their competitors will out-maneuver them. This also allows them to dodge the blame if the whole industry subsequently implodes.
You are right! Why were you so stupid? File sharing is very similar to broadcasting. Do you want radio play for your crap? Hell yes, because it spurs sales. Why not do away with DRM and consider digital media like broadcasting? In fact, why charge the end user at all! Do like a radio station, and charge the broadcaster royalties. Then you have a legitimate reason in most countries to go and extract your tithe.
People still buy the CDs. I don't put burned disks in my stereo. If I hear something I like on the radio, I want that f**king Jewel Case, the lyrics, and any other fancy swag that comes in the box.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
... the consumers who have been communicating it to the music industry.
Give credit where it is genuinely due.
If MS did it they wouldn't be credited any where near as much as they credit themselves with.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,
Love the quotes:
- "the lowest form of hypocrite"
- "the Mac, the iPod and the upcoming iPhone all are DRMed to the gills"
- "FairPlay is an illegal technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability"
The oh-so-thin veneer is showing!I may not be as bright as some of you guys around here, but this doesn't make any sense.
gotta love Flasheart's way of saying this:
Flasheart: Now, I may be packing the kind of tackle that you'd normally expect to find swinging about between the hind legs of a grand national winner, but I'm not totally stupid.
Does the whole DRM issue remind anyone else of the "New Coke" thing?
1. Company alters product
2. Consumers upset at new product
3. Company delivers original product, looking like heroes and generating positive buzz
4. Profit
It doesn't even need an: X. ???
It's not called the bleeding edge of technolgy for nothing but hey, if you started on a Pet, you're used to crap resolution, right? (Full disclosure - I started on a Research Machines RM 280Z...)
If the recording industry execs show signs of wanting to dump DRM if it would boost sales...what is stopping them from doing so? Are these not the same executive officers that run the labels?
FTA:
Well hell, that's easy...CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY. If you think a strategy will get you more business, then you try it out. Can the Marketing Dept. not come up with a good campaign that would get listeners to buy downloaded tracks without spreading them hither and yon?
Sounds like lazy marketing to me..."We can't think of a way of compelling listeners to pay for unencumbered downloads they can get somewhere else for free, so we'll keep them encumbered so we don't need to do better marketing."
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Fast forward to today: Who really "pays" for music? In my demographic (late 20s- mid 30s), we can afford high end audio gear. You really think I enjoy a track recorded under 192k in sampling? Nope. I, however, WILL download it check it out, and THEN pay for it. I hook my iPod up to my $900 deck, which is then connected to my high end speakers, and think, "Ack, that sounds like ran over dog-poo". Jam over to iTunes, pay for it, and dock to my receiver's iPod cradle. I didn't care for about 30%, but when I want to really zone out to The Crystal Method...I want it to sound really good, and I'll pay to do it.
Of course, I know I'm only a slice of the market, but the lesson can still be applied. (E.g. don't make paying and sharing music between my "appliances" a pain the the @$$
Digital Distributer Association of America
To replace the MPAA and the RIAA, as they have outlived their usefulness as the governing body of those who distribute recoded entertainment. They were formed in a time of physical media. It's time for a 21st century governing body to control the middlemen between the artist and the consumer, and to think back and remember why they were formed in the first place.
Here is the chain as it exists today IN THEORY, with an oversimplification of their original purpose regarding the manufacture and distribution of recorded entertainment.
A. Artists.
1. Studios (so artists can share resources and create art on a larger scale - Think "recording studio")
2. LDE: Labels / Distributers (software manufacture) & Electronics companies (hardware manufacture)
3. MPAA and RIAA (so all the LDE play by the same rules, play fair with one another, and play fair with retail partners and play fair with studios)
4. Retail (to get the product to consumers)
5. U.S., state, and local laws governing retail sales. (so retail will play fair with the consumer)
B. Consumers.
Three middle men, two governing bodies, and three sets of laws determine how Person A will entertain Person B.
Nowhere in this chain is copy protection or "rights management" considered, because you were manufacturing a physical good, no different than a chair or a shirt.
Digital media has caught the middlemen off guard and they've been doing nothing but trying to pass laws to protect their aging business model.
I call for all indie artists and indie studios to form the DDAA - Digital Distributer Association of America. Embrace openly licensable formats, eschew copy protection, and bring digital entertainment into the 21st century. Protect the artists and the customers, minimize the middlemen.
i am not going to buy any music.
Just as copyrights slow the progress and development of new and cheap technology.
Whoever modded you redundant will thank you when they share your politics!
Has anyone else considered that maybe this whole piracy battle is intentional on the part of the RIAA and MPAA? How else do they keep a counter-culture "underground" rebellion from strengthening competitors and independant labels, than giving the consumers a way of rebelling that keeps them consuming from the RIAA?
What do you Microsoft, Google, MPAA, and RIAA all have in common?:
A complete monopoly on the consumers.
YOU are for sale to the artists, YOU are for sale to the Marketers, YOU are for sale to the theatres, YOU are for sale to the software developers.
They don't care that you are pirating the music, so long as it's THEIR music. So long as they have a monopoly on audience, the artists have to go through them.
Journalism by idiots, for idiots. Steve Jobs wants DRM dead, and he wants it dead because a) it would destroy MicroSoft's ambitions of eating Apple's digital music lunch b) it would help sell more iPods and c) it might even make the iTMS properly profitable.