EMI — Ditching DRM is Going To Cost You

33rpm writes "EMI has told online music stores that selling its catalog without DRM is going to cost them a lot of money. 'EMI is the only major record label to seriously consider abandoning the disaster that is DRM, but earlier reports that focused on the company's reformist attitude apparently missed the mark: EMI is willing to lose the DRM, but they demand a considerable advance payment to make it happen. EMI has backed out of talks for now because no one will pay what they're asking.'"

Comments

Hello EMI.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gooooodbye.

"We'll give you what you want... for a fee"

[Anonymous Coward]

So this basically proves that DRM exists for the sole purpose of providing record companies with silly amounts of longterm income by reselling stuff we already own? Excellent news.

Re:"We'll give you what you want... for a fee"

[Pyrowolf]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for a looooooong time now. Even the iTunes addicts amaze me. You pay .99c for a song with watered down quality, and hoops you have to go through for any type of fair use (e.g. download > burn > re-rip). How can a company sell CDs for $15 with 15ish songs on them, and then want to charge any more than $1/song for even CD quality files. Not only do you loose the various packaging and long-term viability of the media, they want you to pay more!

When will they realize they'll make money hand over fist when they embrace downloadables and start charging less than $1 a song and $5-$10 for whole albums.

Re:"We'll give you what you want... for a fee"

[tsa]

I recently decided to download all music I want instead of buying them. As long as downloading music for personal use is legal in the Netherlands I have no problems doing that until the music industry 'sees the light', and I can download stuff for a fair price and play it on whatever I want. I used to buy stuff on iTunes but I find it very annoying that I can't play it on my Linux machine. After I read that the music industry vented the opinion that CD's should cost more than they already do something snapped inside me.

How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[garcia]

$9.99 albums of lossy content and no physical medium supposedly make up for the fact that I have no recourse if I lose the data I purchased. So how can they justify charging more than that (closing in on the average cost of a CD) when it costs them money to have the CDs pressed, packaged, and sent to stores?

They can't. This is simply an attempt to say, "see, we tried to go DRM-less but people wouldn't do it."

Fuck that.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

The extra charge is because they automatically assume that if you purchase it, you'll commit copyright infringement; the charge is a tax/levy.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[flaming error]

It doesn't cost more. EMI is just doing it's best to live up to it's name - Electro Magnetic Interference.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Closing in on the average cost of a CD? I rather suspect that $9.99 already exceeds the average cost of a CD. It approaches the average cost of a new, currently-on-the-charts CD. I can't tell you how many bargain bin $5 CDs there are out there. And then, there are music clubs (gross, I know, but they exist) that average out to a buck or two per CD. And then you have the used CD market. Plenty of cheaper stuff on Amazon.

No, it's clearly just a bunch of music execs who are, as you say, trying to pay lip service to DRM-free music while imposing rules that ensure that they'll never have to put their money where their mouths are. That's okay, though. EMI music has been on my blacklist since they started doing DRM-encrusted CDs anyway.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[HTH NE1]

the charge is a tax/levy /presumption of guilt.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[malevolentjelly]

I am fairly certain they're referring to the accelerated piracy. There's claims that DRM'd files get pirated just as quickly as non-DRM'd files, but this logic simply doesn't apply to the average users... maybe with experienced pirates and power-users.

With unsecured purchased files, people will be way more likely to email mp3's to their friends, etc. It's an issue of lost potential revenue. They'd rather you tell a friend to pick up a track off of (Insert Music Store you don't hate) than simply having them send the file.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[GuyverDH]

It's the same as everything else..

#1 - Bikinis - less fabric - more cost. (okay, we can almost agree for this)
#2 - Movies - no pan and scan version - more cost.
#3 - music - no drm - more cost.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[GuyverDH]

It's actually grounds for a mass slander / libel lawsuit.
If they are doing this under the "assumption" that all of us will infringe, and at least one of us doesn't - boom - instant suit.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[pyite]

It's actually grounds for a mass slander / libel lawsuit.
If they are doing this under the "assumption" that all of us will infringe, and at least one of us doesn't - boom - instant suit.

Hi, welcome to Canada's recordable media tax. Oh, and the Universal/Microsoft deal over the Zune. Why are you throwing out random ideas with no legal basis? Oh, this is slashdot; sorry, I forgot.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[pyite]

With unsecured purchased files, people will be way more likely to email mp3's to their friends, etc. It's an issue of lost potential revenue. They'd rather you tell a friend to pick up a track off of (Insert Music Store you don't hate) than simply having them send the file.

You mean like they can do with MP3s ripped from CDs? CDs that have no copy protection whatsoever and make up the lion's share of the market? Your argument doesn't hold water.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[ucblockhead]

I think it's more like:

"It'll cost a lot of money to re-encode our entire catalog in MP3 format. We want our customers to pay that."

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[M0b1u5]

"It'll cost a lot of money to re-encode our entire catalog in MP3 format. We want our customers to pay that."

Have you ever heard of "Batch Processing"? o_O

The whole job would take one guy one morning: and a whole bunch of CPU cycles.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Just look at any other 'protected media' market. All it takes is one person to break it and make it public, then EVERYBODY can just use that person's broken copy. If the Videogame or App scene is any indication, this usually happens about a week or two before the game hits retail. Don't think audio will be any special
The first time they put out an unprotected copy (say, an actual cd, the only way you could make significant money off of selling music) it will be ripped and spread. Even if you went all 'secured', all it takes is one of the 'secured' formats having a bug and you'll have lost. Then theres the analog hole (cable running from your line out to your line in on soundcard). Then theres just sniffing your computers memory or using hacked drivers to grab the PCM raw. Or any other number of ways you ca get it out, admittedly mostly beyond the common user but all it takes is the first person to break it.

Want my money? Give me something worth paying for, and incentive to pay for it. I'll gladly pay for music when I believe its's going to actually support an artist that I want to support (like local bands that are unsigned and truely need the money). I'm not going to pay for some top40 song where paying equates to giving money to the very people treating me like criminals so they can fund their next law they need passed, assinine DRM scheme to slow down my computer even further like whatever the audio equiv of Safedisc will be.

Honestly the only thing preventing me from paying more for music right now is its just inconvenient. Those artists that are actually worth supporting are probably the hardest to get money too. Ordering CDs from half the world away via creditcard just doesn't seem like the most convenient way to do things. Maybe if one of these online music stores would open up and allow indy artists to put their music on them and not ruin it with DRM then you'd see a rise in people paying for music. Until then we're stuck with p2p, which has been here since before computers and isn't going away now. Even if we had to resort back to the equiv of copying tapes for people..thats what people will do.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

if i was a zune owner, i wouldn't have ANY problems with downloading all the universal music i wanted. after all, i DID pay for it. hypothetically speaking.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[GuyverDH]

Exactly my point.

You take the basis for the law, go to a judge, ask him to read it.

Then you say, I have never stolen any music. The basis for the law is false.

ie - libel / slander (I never can keep the two straight) - they claim that *EVERYONE* steals - so they whined and begged until they got the tax.

In the United States, we have (had) the same thing with recordable compact disc media. I couldn't tell you if it was still in effect to this date, I would need to check.

All in all, the recording industries, movie industries are all making false statements to whichever law making body is appropriate, to make them even more money.

If someone walked up to you on the street, in front of your friends and co-workers, and called you a fscking thief, would you take it? Would you get mad? Would you file suit?

The industries in question have essentially done this, what are you waiting for?

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[GuyverDH]

Woo hoo - looks like I picked up a fan-boy - overrated, when there wasn't a rating?

Ha-ha-ha.... jcr (53032) - is that you, you old dog you....

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Spacel0rd]

..and that is the biggest problem they face. If you buy their music legally, they assume you are going to rip it to mp3 and give it away to the world... when in fact you can download the album long before it's in the store. So they are trying to protect something that dosen't need protection...

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Splab]

Just because they are doing it doesn't make it legal. But you need someone willing to put their lifesavings up to confront and battle them.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[mliikset]

or maybe needs protection upstream. They are poster children for the Avarice Society, don't buy their product, spend your money on a night at a local music venue. Discreetly, but not sneakily, bring in a recording device. Even if it's a shitty band you will get a recording that will be at least as entertaining as anything you'd have to pay for.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Unknown Relic]

They're not talking about making the individual songs more expensive, they're asking for a large advance payment from the online retailers in order to pass on the risk:

"EMI is willing to lose the DRM, but they demand a considerable advance payment to make it happen."

The major label's already work this way, they require you to give them sales guarantees in order to be able sell their music digitally. "You want to sell our music? Fine, just pre-pay us for your first $250k worth of sales so we know we're not wasting our time." In order to take on the risk of selling non-DRM protected music EMI is demanding much higher amounts in guarantees. This way, even if the music ends up pirated and sales tank because of it they get their money, it's the retailer - who has been pressuring them to sell DRM-free music - who takes the loss.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Relic of the Future]

Maybe if one of these online music stores would open up and allow indy artists to put their music on them and not ruin it with DRM then you'd see a rise in people paying for music.

You mean like puretracks? Or emusic?

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[malevolentjelly]

But the vast majority of users don't have the patience or know-how to do this.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[klang]

Five nice points about CD's (we only talk about DRM today, I know..)

• implicit backup
  
• any format
  
• any player
  
• simple to use
  
• resale value
  

CD's are here to stay. Media without a physical media is worth a fraction of .. not the same as a CD.

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[richlv]

The Sex Pistols - EMI

There's unlimited supply
and there is no reason why
I tell you it was all a frame
they only did it 'cos of fame -
Who? EMI

Too many people had the suss
Too many people support us
An unlimited amount
too many outlets in and out -
Who? EMI

And sir and friends are crucified
a day they wished that we had died
We are an addition
we are ruled by-none
Never ever never

And you thought that we were faking
that we were all just money making
you do not believe we're for real
or you would lose your cheap appeal?

Don't judge a book just by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
of stupid fools who stand in line like EMI

Unlimited edition
with an unlimited supply
That was the only reason
we all had to say goodbye

Unlimited supply
EMI there is no reason why
EMI I tell you if was all a frame
EMI they only did it 'cos of fame
EMI I do not need the pressure
EMI I can't stand the useless fools
EMI unlimited supply
EMI Hallo EMl goodbye A & M

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[GORby_]

You mean the puretracks that has this in their help page:

All legal (i.e. the artist gets paid) music downloads are copy protected (Digitally Rights Managed ("DRM")). File licenses are required to recover your files should your hard drive crash. Therefore, it is important to back them up. In the Windows Media Player 9 go to Tools > Manage Licenses and back them up to a CD. which you can find at http://us.puretracks.com/content/viewer_page.aspx? cid=Help_Main_v2

Re:How does it cost more money to go non-DRM?

[Relic of the Future]

It's a work in progress; they announced the plan just last week. More info from a boingboing blog.

dashes

[Skadet]

EMI &mdash Ditching DRM is Going To Cost You

As are en dashes and semicolons ;)

Until I see...

[beckerist]

Someone needs to show me a study that incorporates similar (if not identical) stores and similar (again, if not identical) pricing on a DRM version and DRM-free version of the SAME song. My money is that the DRM-free version makes a lot more money, simply because of its ease-of-use. Hell, I'd even be willing to fork up that extra $.99 (if the song they did this with didn't SUCK.)

Re:Until I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, that's a meaningless comparison. The question is whether you can sell a DRM-free version and make the same total revenue as if you weren't selling BitTorrent seeds.

Re:Until I see...

[beckerist]

...hmmm, yet one more person that didn't RTFA... NO! You're wrong. The argument is that DRM-free music is more expensive to the company marketing it. The argument would be dashed completely if there were something out there that compared pricing / costs (dependent variable) using "DRM vs. DRM-less" as the independent variable. To my knowledge, no such study exists...that was my point.

Re:Until I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be completely obtuse, could you at least not insult me?

Nobody is claiming that it's more expensive to sell a DRM-free track than a DRM'd one. You don't need a study to show that. The point is that EMI wants to charge extra to make up for the sales they're going to lose from sharing of the DRM-free files. You can't test that in a side-by-side comparison of DRM and non-DRM files, since the availability of the non-DRM files affects sales of both of them.

Re:Until I see...

[PopeRatzo]

I'm going to take this statement from EMI as a good sign. I believe it really is evidence that the whole DRM scheme is starting to crumble. No, it's actually been crumbling for a long time, but this is evidence that the media corps are finally opening their eyes to the fact.

It's going to be a painful transition and there will be many ugly efforts to really, truly lock up music and video tighter than a nun's... well, you know. But ultimately, this one's going to go to the consumer. We will be able to purchase music over the Internet without DRM sooner rather than later.

As somebody above has already said: I would be happy to pay a few bucks extra to get the music the way I want it. I tried to purchase a few back catalogue songs from URGE not long ago to put on my Sandisk. It worked pretty good at first until I wanted to move those songs to my work computer. Of course there's a way to do it, but it's a hassle. Then, I started noticing that songs that were downloaded with the DRM stuff had a tendency to... not work. I'd have to reboot my mp3 player to refresh the database or the song just wouldn't play. I never have that problem with files that I just drag over to the mp3 player from my hard disk. I bought a new computer because my old box died and guess what? All the music I'd bought was gone. If I restored it to my new computer from a back up it wouldn't sync to my mp3 player any more. Hell with that.

I don't mind paying for content. I won't pay to be mistreated, though.

Re:Until I see...

[AJWM]

The music market and the book markets may not be directly comparable, but Baen Publishing's experience with non-DRM'd open format ebooks (including some given away as free samples) show that (a) given a fair price, most people will pay for a product (even if they could get it "free" with a bit of hassle) and (b) free ebooks boost the sales of the paper copies.

Authors who have books with both Baen and other publishers, or who have compared notes with authors published by other publishers, note that their ebook royalties (at $2.50-$5.00 retail per book) are much better, both in $ and absolute number terms, than similar ebooks (same/similar authors & genre) at publishers that charge $15+ with all kinds of format restrictions. (Big surprise, eh?) They also not e that their books stay in print and selling longer if free e-versions are available (see Baen Free Library for more details, although I think some of the above data is from one of Eric Flint's editorials in the Baen's Universe zine.)

So, your "My money is that the DRM-free version makes a lot more money, simply because of its ease-of-use." is correct at least as far as ebooks go. I'm sure it'd be true for music and video, too.

DRM costs to much already.

[crazyjeremy]

Funny, considering one of the main reasons I won't buy DRM products is it already costs more to do so. If I want my favorite Britney song from Itunes, it costs 99 cents. If I want a ringtone of the same thing, Verizon charges me up to a couple bucks for a much smaller clip of exactly the same song. Why would I pay twice for something I can rip from my (wifes') CD and create myself anyway? Don't they see it's costing THEM more money in the long run to include this garbage?

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[ThatsNotFunny]

You've got a wife, that in and of itself will cost you plenty.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Dogtanian]

If I want my favorite Britney song from Itunes, it costs 99 cents. If I want a ringtone of the same thing, Verizon charges me up to a couple bucks for a much smaller clip of exactly the same song. Why would I pay twice for something I can rip from my (wifes') CD and create myself anyway? Well, *you* wouldn't obviously. But the record/ringtone companies likely figure (probably rightly) that enough people will buy the ringtone, either because they're stupid (don't know that it's possible to rip, or don't know how) or are simply lazy.

Whether it's good value or not is irrelevant. If people are willing to pay silly money for tiny snippets of music, of course they're going to sell it.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[ThatsNotFunny]

Or they were idiots and purchased phones that, at least in the US, you're unable to upload your own ringtones and can only purchase the ones provided by the mobile carrier. I'm looking at you, Sidekick!

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[danpsmith]

Funny, considering one of the main reasons I won't buy DRM products is it already costs more to do so. If I want my favorite Britney song from Itunes, it costs 99 cents. If I want a ringtone of the same thing, Verizon charges me up to a couple bucks for a much smaller clip of exactly the same song. Why would I pay twice for something I can rip from my (wifes') CD and create myself anyway? Don't they see it's costing THEM more money in the long run to include this garbage?

Exactly. And if the prices were sane, I would definitely buy DRM-Free MP3s. Definitely. But they'd have to be DRM free. I'm not buying .wmas and putting them with the rest of my collection, it's just not happening.

I think what companies don't yet realize is that, look, we already have collections of MP3s. Everyone under 30 probably has a large collection, and I'm one of the few that has a HUGE collection. However, there are times when I want an album and you can't find it on bittorrent and it's not available other than going to the CD store. Honestly, I don't feel like ripping CDs, and there's a lot of times when I just don't even buy the track rather than having to go and buy a CD and rip it to my hard drive. And it has NOTHING to do with cost. It did, at one point when I was a college student money was an issue. Nowadays, it definitely isn't. But when you have a large collection of high quality MP3s that you know will work on your player, in your DVD player, or any number of other devices you simply aren't going to buy a track and break the DRM to have it mesh well with the rest of your collection.

Yes, I'm notorious for downloading a lot of MP3s, but I would be willing to buy legitimate, if only companies would give me the chance to do so. Stop trying to change how we store our music and just mix with what we have. It's the only way you'll survive.

Yours truly,

A kind of average downloader.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[thpr]

considering one of the main reasons I won't buy DRM products is it already costs more to do so.

The pricing is NOT related to the fact that is has DRM. I have already discussed pricing of single (DRM protected) track vs. full CDs.

Don't they see it's costing THEM more money in the long run to include this garbage?

I doubt it is. Like the parent to my other post, I suspect you are not in their target market (DRM protected, high priced ringtones are not targeted at /. readers). The underlying issue is about the target market of certain items and who will use them. The multi-dollar ringtone is addressed to people who value convenience and/or instant gratification.

Consider the social aspect of a ringtone to a teenager, and the potential need for instant replacement if a certain ringtone is frowned upon by friends. With that in perspective, it's likely that the ringtones are priced at a point the market will bear, as sad and painful as that may be to the technically inclined.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and Verizon. They've completely locked their phones down, but you can get around it with certain drivers. For example: http://www.hacktherazr.com/downloads.html

...Slightly offtopic, I'm aware, but I'm A/C so NYAH!

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[gmack]

I doubt it is. Like the parent to my other post, I suspect you are not in their target market (DRM protected, high priced ringtones are not targeted at /. readers). The underlying issue is about the target market of certain items and who will use them. The multi-dollar ringtone is addressed to people who value convenience and/or instant gratification.

If it were a simple matter of market targeting then they would not have locked so many phones from being able to transfer over USB or bluetooth. Those phone features were already coded into the phone by the handset makers but were disabled by the telcos so it's not the development cost of having the feature. With my last phone the disable consisted of flipping two bitflags in the phone's config. It is price gouging pure and simple.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[danpsmith]

Consider the social aspect of a ringtone to a teenager, and the potential need for instant replacement if a certain ringtone is frowned upon by friends. With that in perspective, it's likely that the ringtones are priced at a point the market will bear, as sad and painful as that may be to the technically inclined.

The price of ringtones is reasonable only to spoiled teenagers and people with more money than brains. Everyone sane usually uses a stock ringer, or gets one ringer every 2 years. Nobody wants to pay 1.99 for something you'll have to replace if you get a new phone. People who I wouldn't consider exactly technologically proficient have enough brains to realize these things and might get one midi ringtone and stick with it for the rest of the phone's life. Maybe there's some trendy hip-hop loving teenagers that have to have "I want to love (f**k) you" as their ringtone this week and then something else next week, but I believe this makes up the vast minority of consumers.

My phone I can just put straight MP3s as ringtones, so I win, and for other people who feel the need to get ringtones, you guys should try a service such as mbuzzy which only costs you the account (if you buy one) + download per kb charge from your service provider.

Ringtones seem fun at first, but get old fast.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[l0b0]

... my (wifes') CD ...

Here I was, thinking Mormons didn't hold with high tech. Well, you learn something new every day. Is your PC crank-driven, by any chance?

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm notorious for downloading a lot of MP3s, but I would be willing to buy legitimate...

Awesome -- the SWAT Team has triangulated your position and they're on their way. Thank you for making this an easier process for us.

Yours truly,

RIAA

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[thpr]

The price of ringtones is reasonable only to spoiled teenagers and people with more money than brains.

Their target markets.

Nobody wants to pay 1.99 for something you'll have to replace if you get a new phone. People who I wouldn't consider exactly technologically proficient have enough brains to realize these things and might get one midi ringtone and stick with it for the rest of the phone's life.

Would your behavior change if it was 0.99? What about 0.49? Most likely, people like you and I wouldn't change the ringtones that often anyway (or would do so from MP3s, as you talk about), so the market volume we are driving is relatively small, and therefore, does not weigh on their decisions.

Maybe there's some trendy hip-hop loving teenagers that have to have "I want to love (f**k) you" as their ringtone this week and then something else next week, but I believe this makes up the vast minority of consumers.

But are they the majority of purchases? Because while the market for music lovers is large, that market is also driven by the purchases of music by people in their teens (due to volume of purchases, not volume of consumers)

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[nine-times]

Well, *you* wouldn't obviously. But the record/ringtone companies likely figure (probably rightly) that enough people will buy the ringtone, either because they're stupid (don't know that it's possible to rip, or don't know how) or are simply lazy.

Yes, I, for one, am lazy-- and I believe most people are stupid. In fact, you have to figure that a high percentage of people are either stupid and spend their money on things they could do themselves if they were smarter, or else smart and have disposable income and feel it's worth spending a couple dollars to save some time. This is exactly where the RIAA should be making their money: by making it easy and convenient to purchase and listen to music.

However, they seem somehow intent on not using this business model. Instead, they're making it harder and less convenient to use their product legally. No wonder piracy is such a problem!

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[javaxjb]

That's funny, because the only reason I buy DRM is so I can pay less to get ringtones. For example, go to iTunes, download the ST:TOS theme song (not the whole album of themes and incidental music from every spin-off). Burn it to CD, import as mp3, clip the exact portion I want for the ring (this is the part I like best, because I don't have to rely on the taste of the person who selected the sample for the phone), and transfer it to my phone. And it's not like my phone is Hi-Fi.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of sounding like the geezer I am - you kids today are fucking lazy! "Honestly, I don't feel like ripping CDs, and there's a lot of times when I just don't even buy the track rather than having to go and buy a CD and rip it to my hard drive"

I, too, have a huge collection of MP3s. Most of them started life not as CDs, but were ripped from CDs that were burned from sampled LPs and cassettes! But you're too lazy to click a mouse twice. Do you have your mom open your pepsi for you because it's too much trouble? Gees!

I've been buying music for decades. But strangely, I've bought damned little this decade, and what I've bought has been mostly from local bands. I've been too busy sampling (and thereby rediscovering) some great stuff I hadn't listened to in years, from my collection and my friend's collection (yeah, I'm a thief for BUYING something and sharing a COPY and so is he... according to some of you dimwits).

If the labels want me to download tracks, theye're going to have to change a few things:

1. I want QUALITY sound. I have a pair of three way JBLs with twelve inch woofers, and Mike's speakers are even better. The difference between a high quality MP3 and a CD is pronounced; they're good enough that with certain records (ones that were originally recorded analog), the LP is far better sounding than the CD (e.g., Led Zepplin's Presence). In short, MP3 won't cut it unless I need a small file size (thousands of songs on a hard drive, or hundreds on an MP3 player). I need FLAC or some other lossless compression. Like Long John Baldry sang in Boogie Woogie, "Don't feed me no TV dinner when you know I'm used to steak". You kids are not only lazy, your ears suck, too.

2. I want QUALITY music. I do NOT want to hear anything that Simon Cowell produced! Jesus, the guy has no musical taste whatever, nor does that Randy guy, nor (from listening to the radio) do any other of today's record producers! Today's music sounds like the worst of '50s pop music. I don't want to hear Paul Anka, I want the Big Bopper or the Trashmen (Surfin' Bird). I don't want the Monkees, I want Jimi Hendrix or Blue Cheer. I don't want the Eagles, I want Led Zepplin or Ted Nugent. I don't want Milli Vanilli, I want Van Halen or Poison. I don't want Madonna, I want Alice in Chains or Nirvana. I don't want Stayned, I want Buckcherry or... uh, oh, hell, I can't think of another 21st century band that doesn't suck. Which is where the problem stems from. After fifty years of ass-kicking rock, the record companies are putting out minor key whiney pap and calling it "rock". And the bars are full of folks in their twenties listening to local bands covering Zepplin and Hendrix and Van Halen, while the record companies say sales are down because of "piracy". The established recording industry is obviously doomed, as it's obviously run by utter morons who don't have a single clue what their customers (NOT "comsumers") want.

3. I want far, far lower prices. 99 cents per song is outrageous, unless you're talking about Quicksilver Messenger Services' version of Who Do You Love, the live version of Whippin' Post, or Alice's Restaraunt, or... say, why DO they charge by the song, anyway? Shouldn't they charge by the megabyte? But I digress... I'm paying less per song for music on a physical medium, and uncompressed. You're charging me more for a TV dinner than I'm paying at a nice restaraunt! Only a fool or a twelve year old would fall for that!

Speaking of downloading (and a bit off-topic) I fucking HATE the internet jukeboxes they've got in bars these days! Instead of three for a dollar you only get two for a dollar, and if you pick the wrong song it costs a dollar to just PLAY ONE SONG! I mean, the idea of a jukebox itself is bad enough.

But what's worse, none of the internet jukeboxes have Led Zepplin! A jukebox without Led Zepplin is like a bar without alcohol! WTF???

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[bozendoka]

I was right there with you until you said Poison was quality music. Ah, well. Different streaks for different freaks, I guess.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Tanktalus]

Uh, that's Mennonite (or Luddite) , not Mormon .

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[jrumney]

Why would I pay twice for something I can rip from my (wifes') CD

Are your wives all sharing that one CD? Surely that is against the license terms.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company that's does ringtones. I'll let you know why it costs you 99 cents from iTunes and another $1.99 from Verizon. Its because the content providers charge differently for every use of the song. Want to sell ringtones? Oh, it'll cost you $1 every time someone downloads it to their phone. Want to use it on a website to show you even have it? That costs $X per month. Want to have it in an advertisement? That'll cost another fee. Want to show it to people at a trade show? Yep. Another fee. They see every use of the song as another way to earn money. They don't see you owning a CD. They see you playing their song for at the cost of a $19 license for a limited audience. MP3s will cost you extra. So will playing it on your PC. As is playing it on your phone.

If you come up with something new and different that hasn't been done before, but uses their content, they'll find a way to charge for it.

Fair use doesn't exist for these people.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[l0b0]

In the words of Sauron the Deceiver: Oops!

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Applekid]

At the risk of sounding like the geezer I am - you kids today are fucking lazy!

I was going to read your post, but it was too long. ;)

All kidding aside, is there really something wrong with convenience? I remember being told things when I was a kid like "I had to walk 10 miles to school. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways." and my answer was usually along the lines of "Well, if you had let me get a car I would have driven you."

After which I would usually get a pop to the mouth and not had dinner that evening.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[MyOtherUIDis3digits]

I could be mistaken, but I believe his joke was in reference to the use of the seemingly plural possessive "wifes'", although of course that would actually be "wives'".

I thought it was fairly witty, but I have been accused of having an unusual sense of humor before.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[hamfactorial]

Why would I pay twice for something I can rip from my (wifes') CD and create myself anyway?

It's worse than that, he's dealing with more than one!

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[Anonymous Coward]

A wife who buys Britney CDs, no less.

Re:DRM costs to much already.

[DeathElk]

That's funny, sometimes my wife makes more than I do. Last year she bought me a Rolex and a $4500 bicycle. I love my wife. Maybe I'll marry her some day.

Not mdash!

[Virak]

I knew EMI was a bunch of greedy bastards, and I'm not surprised about that; however, I find it very troubling that mdash, an *excellent* HTML entity, has turned to the dark side like this. Really, I never saw it coming.

Re:Not mdash!

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew EMI was a bunch of greedy bastards, and I'm not surprised about that; however, I find it very troubling that mdash, an *excellent* HTML entity, has turned to the dark side like this. Really, I never saw it coming.

Everyone has changed. They've all changed, man. It used to be about the hypertext presentation, now it's just about the &dollar

Re:Not mdash!

[Technician]

I knew EMI was a bunch of greedy bastards,

No, they are fat and lazy. If they were greedy, they could clean up the market by providing value. Think about it. If you realy wanted to make money and you had a fantastic back catalog, you could sell flash player MP3 CDs with 4 or more albums on each CD at above 128K bitrate for under $10. Man I would be first in line for the back collections of Pink Floyd, ELO, Styx, Guns & Roses, Chicago, etc. They are happy with $0 instead of 100's of dollars for the back catalog at value pricing.
Fat and lazy. They will sell an occasional back catalog item at new catalog prices just to keep the percieved value up. They have no intrest in high volume value sales. They are fat, lazy and content with the average consumers purchases of 2 LP's or CD's per year.

If they were greedy, they would look for ways to encourage a CD per week sales even with a lower price per unit. How much do they have to spend to open the back catalog at value pricing? They are too paranoid of de-valuing the curent catalog.

DRM does not solve the problem

[jackhitrov]

Read this: Emmy Noether on DRM

confusing conclusion to article

[yagu]

I'm all for drm-free music and recently, other than non copy-protected cds, added to my source of music downloadable drm-free mp3s from eMusic. I have been extremely happy with the selection, quality, and price for the eMusic tracks.

And, guess what? Not a single violation of sharing, file swapping with any of my eMusic tracks. At $.30/track I feel anyone who likes a track I play for them can supply their own three dimes. It's a great price, and for me it works.

Not so for me with DRM... aside from the onerous assumption I'm the criminal I don't like the hoops jumped through to get an itunes track into an mp3 I can play anywhere. It isn't convenient, it isn't fun, and it isn't worth my time, especially considering what I'm paying for it. Bite me, DRM.

And, from the article, I'm a little confused by the last paragraph and implied (or outright) conclusion (emphasis mine):

Some readers have indicated to us that they'd happily pay more for DRM-free downloadable music from an online retailer, yet it is unclear as to why DRM-free music should cost more. To return to a point made famous by Steve Jobs, the overwhelming majority of CDs sold today already come without DRM on the discs. Furthermore, pirated copies of music are readily available online. As a result, it's not very clear to us why online music that is sold without DRM would need to cost more, but given the razor-thin margins in that market, a "no DRM tax" is quite likely to be passed on directly to consumers.

I'm not sure where I've seen any evidence the music industry is running on razor-thin margins. This sounds like pure BS, and only hurts their credibility every time they try to state their "case"... So far, I'm not convinced.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[TheGavster]

The music industry runs considerable margins on successful acts, but the online distributors keep a small percentage of their sales. (source) 26% doesn't go very far when you're essentially bearing all of the costs. There are in theory displaced CD sales, but online music is supposed to capture sales where CDs are not preferred (on-demand availability, single tracks).

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[anagama]

The razor thin margin is for the online retailer (iTunes) not the content producer (EMI in this case).

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[Wildfire Darkstar]

I'm not sure where I've seen any evidence the music industry is running on razor-thin margins. This sounds like pure BS, and only hurts their credibility every time they try to state their "case"... So far, I'm not convinced.

If I understand the article properly, it's not the music industry that's running on razor-thin margins per se, it's the retailer. It's been said that Apple makes only a few pennies on the dollar for every song they move over the iTunes Music Store. If the industry started demanding more money for unrestricted music files, that already minimal profit would vanish. Which means that either Apple would need to start selling music at a loss, which cannot and will not happen, or they would need to raise their prices. In other words, the difference would need to be made up for by the consumer, because there's no way to absorb it.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[dgatwood]

Some readers have indicated to us that they'd happily pay more for DRM-free downloadable music from an online retailer, yet it is unclear as to why DRM-free music should cost more. To return to a point made famous by Steve Jobs, the overwhelming majority of CDs sold today already come without DRM on the discs. Furthermore, pirated copies of music are readily available online. As a result, it's not very clear to us why online music that is sold without DRM would need to cost more, but given the razor-thin margins in that market, a "no DRM tax" is quite likely to be passed on directly to consumers.

I'm not sure where I've seen any evidence the music industry is running on razor-thin margins. This sounds like pure BS, and only hurts their credibility every time they try to state their "case"... So far, I'm not convinced.

A more interesting question is why the music industry thinks that DRM matters. Their logic violates a very simple law of computers: if one copy exists in an unprotected form, all copies exist in an unprotected form. If somebody says "Hey, check out this cool song," and somebody else asks, "Can I get a copy of that," and the answer is, "No, it has DRM, but you can download it from eMule," that's not an improvement over "Sure, here's a copy." Actually, it's worse than "Sure, here's a copy" because it is encouraging the second person to pirate the music, while giving someone a copy is encouraging that person to watch for other music by that band and maybe buy the CD.

And I'll say it again: ignoring the one-hit-wonder teeny-pop crap, real musicians benefit overwhelmingly from music piracy. It increases exposure, which in the long term, increases sales. Therefore, all anti-piracy measures are, by definition, short-sighted foolishness by people who don't understand the basics of doing business in a modern economy. Is it any wonder, then, that music sales continue to be in the toilet despite substantially decreased piracy? Guess what? Music copying and sharing was going on before Napster. The only thing that Napster did was bring it out into the open where the industry could total it up and say "Oh, no, we're losing all these sales!" when in reality, by shutting down those services and annoying their customer/fan base, they really killed one of their biggest sources of advertising....

But I guess some people will never learn.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[shark72]

"I'm not sure where I've seen any evidence the music industry is running on razor-thin margins. This sounds like pure BS, and only hurts their credibility every time they try to state their "case"... So far, I'm not convinced."

Warner Music posted a 0.27% profit margin and a 6.29% operating margin last year. Their year over year earnings shrank by about 80%. Compare this to some "good" and "non-greedy" companies: Apple posted a profit margin of 11.75%, making them about 43 times more profitable than Warner Music. Red Hat -- about as cool and non-greedy a company as you can find -- had a profit margin of 18%, or 66 times more profitable than Warner. If music industry executives are lining their swimming pools with gold (as has been posited here in Slashdot), what are the Red Hat guys using? Platinum?

In case anybody thinks that perhaps Warner is under-reporting their numbers in an effort to convince Slashdotters that they are running on low margins, you should be aware that that is generally the last thing you want to do. Your posted numbers are where the rubber hits the road, and if you're going to fudge, you generally tend to fudge upward (see Enron and numerous other examples). You seldom see record companies with "buy" recommendations, or even on the Fortune 500.

As has been pointed out, the record industry is a hugely speculative one; the labels tend to make their money on the hits and lose money on everything else; that's why small artists are dropped so often and why record labels have a high failure rate. However, many Slashdotters just know deep down in their heart that running a record label is an easy way to make lots of cash, and that record label owners are, by extension, greedy. This perception isn't likely to change.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[Anonymous Coward]

"Furthermore, pirated copies of music are readily available online." There is more on these pirates here.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[CthulhuDreamer]

The music and movie industries are often required to pay out money if their product makes money. Singers, directors and writers may have contracts that gives them a share of the profits. The more losses a studio can put on the books - real or imagined - the more money they get to keep for themselves (by transferring to a subsidiary as an expense, or bury it somewhere it can't be tracked). It's more profitable for them to lose money on every product.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[gnasher719]

''Which means that either Apple would need to start selling music at a loss, which cannot and will not happen, or they would need to raise their prices. In other words, the difference would need to be made up for by the consumer, because there's no way to absorb it. ''

Now think about what would happen if Apple sold lets say Sony songs with DRM for $0.99 each and EMI songs without DRM for $1.19 each. That would tell even the most retarded consumer that music with DRM is a rip-off and worth less than the music that they can get from their own CDs and actually worth less than the music that they can get for free by ripping their friends' CDs. That would be one PR disaster.

Strangely, all music that I can aquire today online without DRM, whether illegal, dubious, or perfectly legal, is cheaper than music with DRM.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[shark72]

"The music and movie industries are often required to pay out money if their product makes money. Singers, directors and writers may have contracts that gives them a share of the profits. The more losses a studio can put on the books - real or imagined - the more money they get to keep for themselves (by transferring to a subsidiary as an expense, or bury it somewhere it can't be tracked). It's more profitable for them to lose money on every product."

You're referring to accounting methods in which companies can make individual projects, products, or business units more profitable, or less profitable, than they are. This happens pretty often (even "good" and "non-greedy" companies do it) but, as I guess I didn't carefully explain above, there's no benefit to underreporting sales or profit margins to the street.

Not calling you out in particular, but this is an example of my statement that Slashdotters' perceptions aren't going to change here. If I understood you correctly, you're implying that Warner might be under-reporting their sales or margin to shareholders in an effort to avoid contractual obligations. At first glance this theory has an intriguing sort of tinfoil hat appeal, but ask around and it won't take you too long to find somebody who has enough financial background to confirm that you never under-report numbers to the street.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[shark72]

"A more interesting question is why the music industry thinks that DRM matters. Their logic violates a very simple law of computers: if one copy exists in an unprotected form, all copies exist in an unprotected form. If somebody says "Hey, check out this cool song," and somebody else asks, "Can I get a copy of that," and the answer is, "No, it has DRM, but you can download it from eMule," that's not an improvement over "Sure, here's a copy." Actually, it's worse than "Sure, here's a copy" because it is encouraging the second person to pirate the music, while giving someone a copy is encouraging that person to watch for other music by that band and maybe buy the CD."

This is a common Slashdot fallacy: that everybody is as smart as us, has the same time to tinker with computers that we do, and has a moral compass that is similar to ours. Or, if there are people out there who don't possess all those qualities, then they simply don't matter, from a market perspective.

9 out of 10 people reading this won't believe me, but there really are people out there who might want to copy their friends music, but who don't know how to, or simply don't want to install a P2P program to get it. Yes, yes, I know -- these people are obviously not people that you would associate with, but they're out there. And they have money.

The reality is that a little protection goes a long way. Auto security systems are an effective deterrent against the casual car thief, despite the fact that there's a certain subset of the population that has the means and the motive to help themselves to your car. Likewise, there's a certain subset of the population whose moral guidance and technical aptitude facilitate their acquisition of music via P2P, yet DRM is a deterrent to casual pirates.

"And I'll say it again: ignoring the one-hit-wonder teeny-pop crap, real musicians benefit overwhelmingly from music piracy. It increases exposure, which in the long term, increases sales. Therefore, all anti-piracy measures are, by definition, short-sighted foolishness by people who don't understand the basics of doing business in a modern economy."

I think it's one of the great tragedies of the 21st century that the people who could really run the music industry are, instead, busy posting to Slashdot. It will be a great day when a record company adopts the "encourage piracy" model and totally blows the doors off of the industry. With all this brain power here, why doesn't some enterprising Slashdotter do just that? It's one thing for us to fire up our BitTorrent client and laugh at the companies that still cling to the "produce an item and sell it" model... why doesn't someone -- anyone -- take a step and change some things?

This can lead to an interesting tautology, though: "real musicians" benefit from piracy. And those musicians who don't... who would really rather have the cash than the fame? They're businesspeople, and not real musicians!

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[dgatwood]

9 out of 10 people reading this won't believe me, but there really are people out there who might want to copy their friends music, but who don't know how to, or simply don't want to install a P2P program to get it. Yes, yes, I know -- these people are obviously not people that you would associate with, but they're out there. And they have money.

There are a few. Very few. Your average teenager (the source of the bulk of music spending) not only knows about P2P, but probably knows about a dozen P2P programs that you haven't even heard of yet. That's not saying that they've figured out that you don't have to buy ringtones yet---phone hacking is a little beyond the average level still---but people who can't figure out a P2P client are few and far between, at least in the target demographic for most corporate music.

The reality is that a little protection goes a long way. Auto security systems are an effective deterrent against the casual car thief, despite the fact that there's a certain subset of the population that has the means and the motive to help themselves to your car. Likewise, there's a certain subset of the population whose moral guidance and technical aptitude facilitate their acquisition of music via P2P, yet DRM is a deterrent to casual pirates.

That's a common misconception. When is the last time you heard a car alarm going off and ran to help? Do most casual thieves instinctively know which cars have alarms and which don't? Probably not. Do they care? Usually not. Even people planning to steal a radio know how to pop the hood and disconnect the battery (or in some cases, they just yank the right fuse from the fuse box beside the driver's knees). All fixed. And unless there's somebody nearby who sees it, the alarm going off really isn't a deterrent at all. Of course, if there were someone around to see it, chances are, they couldn't have picked the lock to begin with, and thus, the alarm really does nothing.

In fact, it has generally been observed that with the exception of tracking systems like LoJack, car alarms are predominantly a nuisance and are not particularly useful. Indeed, a 1997 study by a non-profit insurance industry research group found that car alarms had absolutely zero discernible impact on theft.

It will be a great day when a record company adopts the "encourage piracy" model and totally blows the doors off of the industry. With all this brain power here, why doesn't some enterprising Slashdotter do just that?

I know you're being sarcastic, but... some of us are working on it.

Re:confusing conclusion to article

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was young (25+ years ago), I used to record off the radio and that sufficed for 75% of the music I listened to. If I liked an artist's hit a lot, I would cough up 2 dollars to buy the single. If I liked more than three songs on the album, I would buy the LP or cassette tape.

Today, MP3's I acquire through various means take up about 75% of the music I listen to. If I really like a song, I might purchase the single via iTunes or my subscription service (granted, I don't do this too often, because of DRM). If I like more than three songs on the album (usually discovered via my paid subscription service), I purchase the CD.

I can't speak for the teeny boppers out there, but my music purchases haven't changed all that much. If anything else, I buy MORE music because it's much easier for me to find what I like, than in the "good old days".

Not Surprising

[moore.dustin]

EMI is trying to connect the dots between no DRM for online sales and profit, but it is hard to see for a large corporation. It is easier to visualize how everything could (but wont) come together with a DRM scheme than without one. While EMI says they are willing, they, along with everyone else, are unlikely to embrace DRM free media until the idea of DRM free and profit being mutually exclusive is out of there heads. Once the day comes when a company can connect the dots and forecast long term profit off a DRM free scheme, it will be so. Right now the market is changing quickly and companies are sticking to their guns right now. While we all know it is the right direction to head, it is hard to convince a large corporation with huge amounts of money and jobs at stake. Would you want your employer to venture down an uncharted route when your job is at stake if it fails? Probably not.

Re:Not Surprising

[JasonKChapman]

While EMI says they are willing, they, along with everyone else, are unlikely to embrace DRM free media until the idea of DRM free and profit being mutually exclusive is out of there heads. Once the day comes when a company can connect the dots and forecast long term profit off a DRM free scheme, it will be so.

Clearly, they don't read Slashdot. Want a music example? Maybe they should read Slashdot.

Dammit, I've done it myself! I sold a thousand paper copies of a novel, not in spite of, but because of the fact that it was (and still is) available online for free. Sure, that's small change to someone like EMI, but for cryin' out loud it's not that big a mental leap. Treat your customers like adults and most of them will act like adults. Of the ones that don't, enough will act like billboards that it pays off in the end.

Re:Not Surprising

[moore.dustin]

It is not just the question of making profits though. They want and need to be able to _maximize profit_ for their company and shareholders. When they can say that DRM free media is the avenue which will yield the most profit, they will go that route. Again, it is not enough to just make money, they need to make the most they can with the product they sell. Right now, DRM'ed media appears to hold the promise of maximized profit.

royalties

[tomstdenis]

"we'll remove DRM, but it'll cost you!"

I presume that cost is the royalties being paid to the artists? [sarcasm!]

I agree with the other posters, they're just setting this up for a failure so they have a "look see!" business case for DRM.

Tom

redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this redundant? It's the 4th post! Mods should have to take a test that proves they know how to read a clock.

If you want to mod the parent down, at least go with "offtopic". Geez.

Re:redundant?

[woadlined]

It's redundant because of John Lydon. What part of his analysis of EMI didn't you understand? ;)

I have a similar situation.

[Rob T Firefly]

Hello and welcome to my malt shop chain, TurdShakes(TM), featuring shakes made from genuine excrement, in a secret family recipe that is sure to please.

Am I serious, you ask? Of course I am! I am quite passionate about my flagship product, the TurdShake(TM), and stand behind it totally even though sales have been slightly disappointing. That is to say, not quite as successful as I had hoped. Frankly, I'm shocked by the fact that nobody wants to buy milkshakes made from excrement. Im my eyes, TurdShakes(TM) were a goldmine waiting to happen.

Wait, come back! Okay, you win. I am willing to adapt my business model to suit what the people want. Therefore, I have decided to remove excrement from my TurdShakes(TM) entirely, possibly replacing it with chocolate or ice cream or some other such boring shake ingredient. You'd like one now, wouldn't you? A regular shake? No Turd(TM)?

Well, that's just what you'll get, then. A delicious normal shake... That is, of course, provided you give me a large bag of moneys first. A really big bag, with lots of moneys. Otherwise, you'll just have to go on buying the original TurdShakes(TM), with heady flavors of... wait, where are you going? Come back!!

Re:I have a similar situation.

[nuzak]

Dammit, not only is no one buying my TurdShakes(TM), they're buying ice cream from the store across the street for a nickel. That's just dishonest and unamerican. I know, I'll lobby congress to make it the law for all malteds to require excrement in them. In fact, I'll have them require that it gets built into every cups and straw!

Re:I have a similar situation.

[klang]

... a part of profits form the producer of those white cups that come with those fancy white Bendy Straw! Yes, that too!

It's the smei-colon's fault

[wiredog]

Once she left him for that fancy nbsp, it was all over.

Re:It's the smei-colon's fault

[jb.hl.com]

This gives a new meaning to the phrase "laying some pipe".

Its simple business

[Anonymous Coward]

Supply the demand, if you stop the demand they will stop supplying and disappear up their own arseholes, problem is, WE KEEP DEMANDING MORE and they will keep supplying this crap! Seriously, let them shrivell up to nothing by lost money.

Im quite sure you can do without music and TV and live a more sociable lifestyle. Its so much more healthier in so many ways.

Re:Its simple business

[JoelMartinez]

Yeah, unfortunately, the masses don't agree, or even care for that matter

Re:Its simple business

[thyrf]

That seems like a plausible argument, but then like most things in life it's not that simple. I'm not willing to dare and guess the amount of money that music and video provides to some of our nations economies. Think of all the shops that will close, the people that will lose their jobs and the public uproar that will follow. Most of us live in a society where we've been fed this for our entire lives - it wouldn't go down too well if it was taken away from us. Then there's the bands (let's be fair, most movies are made by multi-million pound companies). There are some remarkable musical talents out there and unless we buy direct from them they're sure to find other ways of making money.

I'm all for de-commercialisation and the cutting out of the 'fat cats' but stopping our spending altogether seems a little drastic. DRM is a proce that needn't be paid, it's just an excuse to sponge more money from us.

Re:Its simple business

[AeroIllini]

...let's be fair, most movies are made by multi-million pound companies...

Hey! Those companies go to the gym 3 times a week, you insensitive clod!

semi-colon's

[wiredog]

Preview is my friend...

Standard southern reply

[strredwolf]

You lost your semicolin in there, hon. Need another one?

Re:Standard southern reply

[The_Wilschon]

Right, except that us Southerners know how to spell semicolon. Also, you should add a "done":
 

You done lost your semicolon back there, hon. Need another one?

It's not going to cost me

[JeanBaptiste]

I don't purchase that crap.

(no, I don't download it either)

Re:It's not going to cost me

[SengirV]

Exaclty. It's not costing me a dime, nor will it in the future.

Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Failing to ditch DRM will cost EMI lots of money. I will keep my transactions private and free with P2P.

Paying for What?

[happyfrogcow]

So we have to pay for their failed DRM R&D costs? Bahaha.

Re:Paying for What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've very little understanding of DRM. If I buy a song, I know I probably need to play it with a special DRM-capable player. Does one exists in Linux? What if I need to convert it to MP3 for my cheapo flash MP3 player? If I need to send a 10 second clip of a song to my band, can that be done? If I backed up the purchased song and lost my harddrive, can I still play the song? Maybe those are entirely possible, but it is not something that I have the time to or want to figure out. As far as I know, online music purchase/delivery is just f**ked up by DRM, I'll stick with buying the CDs and encoding them to MP3/OGG.

DRM is Going To Cost Me???

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe you me, it ain't gonna cost me a fucking dime!

Ah.. Right...

[91degrees]

So they have a strategy of unknown risk and reward, and they're quite happy to go about it if someone else takes the risk but doesn't benefit from the reward.

Here's my counter proposal. I'll pay the upfront cost. I get to choose how much I charge. My cut is double what they pay Apple.

People will do it

[Mateo_LeFou]

We are going DRM-less in droves. EMI and friends can go with us or not.

Re:People will do it

[elrous0]

Yeah, I think that's what EMI is missing. We ARE going DRM-free. People are sick of DRM and it has reached a tipping point. The only decision they have to make at this point is whether they want us to pay them $.99 a song or $.00 a song.

-Eric

Re:People will do it

[AusIV]

We are going DRM-less in droves.

Do you have any sources on this? There are certainly some more technically minded people who have avoided DRM from the beginning, but I'm not aware of too many average consumers who have much opposition at all to DRM, generally because they aren't aware. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen the masses flocking towards DRM-free alternatives.

Re:People will do it

[Deagol]

but I'm not aware of too many average consumers who have much opposition at all to DRM, generally because they aren't aware

I think they are aware of the *problems* of DRM, but they just don't know to label it as such. Just ask any person who's had to sit through the 20 minutes of commercials on Disney DVDs that they can't skip through. That annoys the shit out of nearly everyone I know, and DRM is the cause. They just don't recognize it as such.

As for flocking towards alternatives... just look at the client list of your favorite P2P client. Not every IP in your bittorrent client is some punk kid "putting it to The Man". Sure, they're not *legal*, but they are non-DRM alternatives. When asshat companies like Maxis are still requiring the CD to be present for The Sims to run (in this age of half-TB drives), they can kiss my ass -- I'll go download the version with the No-CD crack.

Re:People will do it

[Crizp]

When asshat companies like Maxis are still requiring the CD to be present for The Sims to run (in this age of half-TB drives), they can kiss my ass -- I'll go download the version with the No-CD crack.

...after you've bought the game? Why not just download the crack and apply it to your legal, installed version, saving some bandwith and waiting? ;)

Re:People will do it

[Beardo the Bearded]

Applying the patch to a game or program you own is legal. After all, they've been telling us for years that we don't own the media - we own one (1) licence to run the software.

One of my professors at school had a legitimate, licenced copy of MATLAB. The damn thing wouldn't work on his MacBook 1/2 the time. The pirated version he downloaded worked great, every time. It loaded faster, too.

I think the same sort of thing happened in GTA3 for the PC. If you applied the no CD crack, then your performance went WAY up. In that case, Rockstar applied some parts of the patch to the next official release.

Re:People will do it

[stokessd]

"Do you have any sources on this?"

Well CD sales are still the most popular method to get music, and that is DRM free (and mostly rootkit free).

So the statement is more that we have been DRM free, and we put a toe in the DRM waters and said "no thanks" in many cases. This really isn't a case where we are throwing off the long-standing chains of oppression. DRM is a new thing, and a fairly limited thing (in audio), that we as a geeky segment of society are railing against.

Now movies have a lot more heritage with the DRM thing...

Sheldon

Re:People will do it

[kimvette]

I know many Joe-sixpack types who used Napster. then switched to Kazaa then limewire. They are fully aware, if subconsciously about Free vs. DRM in terms of control.

Of course, I invariably have to clean spyware up for these customers, but it goes to show that they are learning about the ramifications of vendor lock in and are not feeling obligated to pay obscene prices to major labels when free/free options are available.

I've asked a few why they don't use iTunes instead and a few have remarked that computer upgrades resulted in their losing access to the music (read: they don't know how to back up the licenses), they don't have an iPod, but some other brand MP3 player (read: don't know to burn it to CD and re-rip it to MP3), or don't have a Mac (read: haven't noticed the availablility of iTunes for Windows). A couple have been savvy enough to tell me that they won't pay money for music from major labels every time the format changes, but that's generally the older generation which has bought the White Album on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, and now want a copy in "digital" format.

Re:People will do it

[jc42]

"Do you have any sources on this?"

Well CD sales are still the most popular method to get music, and that is DRM free (and mostly rootkit free).

Indeed. And buying the CD has a lot of advantages. The first is that you have a good backup of the music that's on your computer. When you get a new computer (or have to reinstall your OS), you don't have to go through the complex, failure-prone scheme, different for every online music provider, to transfer the license to the new machine; you just rip the CD again.

And with a CD, you can explain how great it is by sending a track to a friend, who will then buy the CD. With DRM, there's no way I can show a friend how great a recording is, because it won't play on their machine. This is the real problem with DRM: It kills the traditional "Hey, listen to this!" way of increasing sales through sharing by fans. Any artist who wants his/her music spread around will understand this.

In our house, we just had a 3-year-old (just out of warantee ;-) Mac that needed a new disk. It seems that this made it a "new" computer, and nothing was registered. So everything we had that was licensed needed to be relicensed. What a pain in the ass! Three months later, it's still not actually done, due to the complexity of the task (which really is different for every provider). We'll probably just forget about the remaining things, most of which we don't use much. This is a strong argument, in our minds, for saying the hell with Apple, and getting a linux-compatible laptop for our next machine. The linux crowd is getting pretty good at dealing with DRM ...

Re:People will do it

[tkw954]

I think the same sort of thing happened in GTA3 for the PC. If you applied the no CD crack, then your performance went WAY up. In that case, Rockstar applied some parts of the patch to the next official release.

I wonder if Rockstar cleared the copyrights on the patch?

Re:People will do it

[Chandon Seldon]

It's easy enough to see what something like a NoCD crack is doing and duplicate the effect. Copyrights cover specific implementations, not concepts like "don't read shit off the CD before rendering every frame".

Re:People will do it

[Anonymous Coward]

you seem to be saying, drop DRM, or I'll pirate your music.
Well, if you're pirating already, what will make you stop pirating if DRM is dropped? You say the issue is $0.99 per song (sans DRM) or $0 per song (DRMed). If DRM is dropped, you are going to go from paying 0 to 99 cents per song? Bullshit.

Re:People will do it

[ArtDent]

It's early days yet, but here's a very interesting indication.

Last week, as reported here, Puretracks began offering DRM-free MP3s. They have 50,000 tracks, just 3.8% of their total catalog, available in this format. None of it is from the major labels.

Currently, a DRM-free album, Barenaked Ladies are Men, is at number 2 on Puretracks' top 100 chart (sorry, those last two links work in Canada only). It has been moving up steadily since Puretracks announced its MP3 offerings last week. By comparison, the album is at number 45 on the traditional Canadian albums charts. No other song in Puretracks' top 10 sits below number 15 on the SoundScan chart.

Re:People will do it

[rtb61]

Linux is software written by users for users and URM (user rights management) is the sole and only focus. You want a DRM enabled device, then get a stand alone player that does nothing else, once it hits the PC remembering of course the P in PC stands for 'personal' then asshats and (FU)DRM like that (P)OS vista, well, let's just say Kubuntu looks really good and oddly enough the latest Nvidia drivers look better on it than they do on XP, let alone vista.

Re:People will do it

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know many Joe-sixpack types who used Napster. then switched to Kazaa then limewire. They are fully aware, if subconsciously about Free vs. DRM in terms of control."

Really? I would've thought that this showed they are aware of Free vs. Have to Pay for It.

Question / Answer

[ACAx1985]

For $10 I can buy a physical CD, and get: 1) Liner notes. 2) Artwork. 3) Plastic casing. 4) Plastic compact disc. 5) Files on said disc which are lossless. I can then convert the lossless files into any format I want depending on my needs, put them on my iPod, put them on my hdd. If I lose the CD, I still have the files. If I lose my iPod, or my hdd, I have the CD. Why would I spend $10 on low-quality files that are DRM-infected that I can't do shit with, and that I can lose much easier? Oh yea, I won't. -ACA

Re:Question / Answer

[poot_rootbeer]

Files on said disc which are lossless.

Tautologically so, even!

When we say an audio format is "lossless", we typically mean when compared to standard 44.1kHz, 16-bit stereo Red Book Audio.

Re:Question / Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't spend $10, but if you only liked 2-3 songs on the CD? Would you be willing to pay $2-3 for those and those alone instead of buying the whole CD?

Re:Question / Answer

[jrumney]

A lossless format is one which does not deteriorate in quality with subsequent generations of reencoding. 44.1kHz 16 bit stereo need not be the baseline.

Re:Question / Answer

[slimjim8094]

Exactly. Take a 128kbps MP3 and encode it as a FLAC or convert it to wav. It's still the same exact audio data.

Re:Question / Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be Modded up for the sole reason of spelling 'lose' correctly here on Slashdot!

Re:Question / Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, but just a small nitpick--CDs aren't lossless. All digital audio is lossy, CDs are just so good that we've decided to use them as the standard.

Re:Question / Answer

[Keiseth]

Never paid all that much attention to DRM at first. I used to use Napster. Er. Lately, when it has been "legitimate". I got under twenty songs at $0.99 a song. I didn't like that they were WMAs, but at first I didn't mind. Tried to make a data CD once for a CD player I bought, that can play MP3s and WMAs off discs. "Protected data." I stared at the little LCD message for a moment and thought to myself. Bull-crap. I just bought myself hand-cuffs. I never used another service like Napster or any other after that.

Re:Question / Answer

[Just Some Guy]

You are right, but just a small nitpick--CDs aren't lossless. All digital audio is lossy, CDs are just so good that we've decided to use them as the standard.

Wrong. CDs are no more lossy (and usually far less so) than any other "normal" recording medium. They're made from a stream of discreet level readings instead of a perfectly smooth analog curve, but that's not the same as saying that they're lossy.

New CDs are too cheap to put up with this

[bogie]

You can buy many Billboard top 20 albums for $9.99 at amazon and get free shipping if you buy a few at a time. If you buy used then your looking at ~5 a CD.

We already have DRM-Free music for cheap. We've had DRM-Free music for 25 years you, why would we pay more now? WTF is wrong with these people?

Re:New CDs are too cheap to put up with this

[Adambomb]

25 years? Crap, I never realized my collection of classics is ridden with victorian and rennaissance era DRM!

Capitalism at work

[Dracos]

EMI has backed out of talks for now because no one will pay what they're asking.

That should tell EMI that their extortion price is not "what the market will bear".

Pricing model

[99bottles]

Sounds like EMI went to the SCO school of pricing.

Well, at least they seriously considered it.

[LazyBoy]

EMI is the only major record label to seriously consider abandoning the disaster that is DRM

EMI has backed out of talks for now because no one will pay what they're asking.

Wow that's serious consideration.

good news for allofmp3.com

[fyoder]

allofmp3.com would like to thank you for your business. It knows you have no choice in DRMless online retailers who offer high quality files without DRM at a good price (well, with the exception of magnatune, but they have a limited catalog), and appreciate your choosing them for your online music needs.

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[glenstar]

How about mentioning some of the other non-DRMed digital music stores? You mention Magnatune and they are awesome, but there are LOTS more out there. How about Audio Lunchbox with over 4500 different labels (including some quasi-major label stuff like Nettwerk, etc.? Or eMusic (who actually does have some EMI content non-DRMd already)?

AllofMP3 does nothing but illicitly make available tracks to make a profit. Sure, they claim to pay the Russian equivelant of BMI/ASCAP but that is not enough! To sell digital music you technically need to have the performance rights (a la BMI/ASCAP, etc...) but ALSO have a master agreement with the label. Oh... and you are also usually required to have a separate license for each region you are selling to. Do you think AllofMP3 has all of that in place?

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[Overzeetop]

In Soviet Russia...aw hell.

Magnatune et. al. are great, but it's not apples to apples. AllofMP3 sells the same music without DRM that you can only get with DRM in other outlets. Its all fine to bash the top 100 here on /., but there really is a lot of market there. If you ignore the legal loopholes AllofMP3 is exploiting (they're practically Americans!) you get to see a pay-for-quality model on mainstream music. It has much more applicability than trying to compare the major lables to smaller labels, or trying to glean some data from P2P networks, because the product and the market are the same.

There must be some sort of Godwin's Law for AllofMP3 references.

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[fyoder]

Thanks for mentioning alternatives, the more the better.

Sure, they claim to pay the Russian equivelant of BMI/ASCAP but that is not enough!

It is in Russia. And there's nothing illegal for me as a Canadian to buy from them (can't say what the law is where you are). From where I stand it's totally legit and has a huge selection I can order as high quality oggs for a decent price. While I will check in on magnatune now and again to see what's new and maybe pick something up, I've yet to find anything that has the scope and value of allofmp3.com . As far as I'm concerned it's a model the US Music business should seek to emulate, not kill. My only quibble with them is that they should offer to zip the contents of one's cart so that it can be downloaded as a single file.

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[Kalriath]

I'm gonna split hairs here and point out that under Russian law, allofmp3 is quite legal (for now) because Russia does NOT require an agreement be executed in advance to be licensed to sell works. Russian law also says that all they do need to do is pay a royalty to a rights management group (for lack of a better name), such as ROMS, who they DO pay, to be held in escrow until the rights holder requests payment. No rights holder has requested this money from ROMS. So you aren't quite correct there, what they have done IS enough.

Also, bear in mind that the site isn't actually targeted at the US (I know, technicality, and of course the INTENT is to get US and other countries to buy there) and so far as I know, US citizens buying your products over the internet does NOT bring you under the jurisdiction of US law. Russian law is the only one that applies to the sale. US law only applies when you receive the file.

Why do you think AllOfMp3 laughs at the US court's judgement in favour of the RIAA to the tune of "Russia" (or, $1,600,000,000,000 US)? Or why it persists in doing exactly what the US court decided is illegal? The RIAA (interchangeably used with "Major Labels" in this case) is only bitching because the songs there are so cheap, so the royalties they are entitled to collect from ROMS is not enough to line their wallets. Which of course is why they wont collect from ROMS - doing so would validate AllOfMP3's position, and destroy their argument.

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[RebelSponge]

To sell digital music you technically need to have the performance rights (a la BMI/ASCAP, etc...) but ALSO have a master agreement with the label. Oh... and you are also usually required to have a separate license for each region you are selling to. Do you think AllofMP3 has all of that in place?

Do you think I care if they have all of that in place? No, I care that they provide music I want, in a format I want (OGG), for a damn good price (ok, ~$0.05/song is a little cheap). I'd be willing to pay a little more for the same music if it was in a format I wanted and I was sure it was legal. I don't buy DRM music, never have, never will. I'll do what I want with my music when I want. If I do something illegal with the music, then you can sue me. But don't try and sue me when I'm buying the music.

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[AK Marc]

To sell digital music you technically need to have the performance rights (a la BMI/ASCAP, etc...) but ALSO have a master agreement with the label.

Only in the USA. There are compulsory licenses. In the US, you can perform covers without any performance rights (a la BMI/ASCAP) and don't have to have any master agreement with the label. Why not? Because the law (which trumps corporate wishes) spells out a compulsory licensing scheme in which some trivial payment sent somewhere (not to the label) gives you the right to perform the cover song. The compulsory licensing laws are similar in Russia for AllofMP3. They are breaking no laws. They are operating within the law. Your annoyance at their methods does not make it illegal.

Re:good news for allofmp3.com

[Buelldozer]

This would be great...if I could get money into my allofmp3.com account. Since the RIAA twisted arms at VISA I haven't found a way to recharge my account. Are an US citizens still able to do this?

Re:Oh well

[ACAx1985]

Music should not be "free".

"considerable advance payment"

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess. $19.99 per album?

what EMI didn't take into account..

[JustNiz]

is how much its going to cost them in lost sales through pissing off customers by keeping DRM.

Re: The Ace up a sleeve

[Technician]

I agree with the other posters, they're just setting this up for a failure so they have a "look see!" business case for DRM.

The ace on our side which will eat that arrogance for lunch is emusic. They provide higher quailty at lower prices without DRM and pay the artists more. Artists are starting to notice and migrate. Consumers follow. This is going to be very difficult for the DRM die hards to explain.

Value sells. High prices, low quality, and high restrictions are a killer combination. Getting all 3 wrong is obsolence as the door is wide open to the competition to take your market. Bye-bye DRM.
Apple has 3 of the 3 half right which is the only reason they are doing OK. They refused to raise prices and limited the damage from DRM and at a modest bitrate. Someone with a good catalog with great prices, less (no) DRM, and quality bitrates are going to clean up the market. emusic is building catalog and customer base.

I haven't seen the numbers, but I think emusic is growing at a faster rate percentage wise than i-Tunes.

Par for the course

[glenstar]

As someone who has intimate knowledge of how the entire licensing thing goes between the majors and a digital music provider let me just say that this is in no way shocking. The labels will take as large an advance as they possibly can and it is really a matter of whose legal counsel is better. A couple of years ago there was no way you could license all of the (available) major label content for under 500k... unless you paid one of the better known music industry lawyers a couple hundred K. There are only a half-dozen big shot lawyers in the music biz and they tend to play both sides of the field... and charge whatever the hell they feel like.

The contracts for the labels are all wildly different but all of them consist of at least technical due diligence (what are YOU going to do to make sure OUR content does not fall into the wrong hands), financial due diligence, and a marketing plan. This is heavy stuff and can takes months and months to push through. In short, this is a very time-consuming and spendy process to go through.

EMI, under the digital music strategy of Ted Cohen, has far and away been the most open of the majors when it comes to licensing. They are simply making an attempt to protect their assets... since it takes so much effort on both sides to conclude a licensing agreement, it makes sense that they (the majors) want to recoup as much of that investment up-front as they possibly can.

People on Slashdot get this wrong all of the time. You see, the majors and the digital music services are in a death-match, with the DMS being hounded by the customer and the majors being hounded by the shareholders. The ONE thing that binds all of those people together (with the possible exception of the customer) is DRM. The major feels a little more secure "knowing" that their music can't be mass-reproduced, the DMS is happy because they can sell the content, the customer is happy because they can get the content, and the shareholder is happy because, well, there is an additional revenue stream.

And FYI...I have never met a music executive who DOES NOT understand that DRM is nearly useless as far as protection of content goes. BUT... as I said above, it is the glue that keeps everything together.

Go spend some time on Digital Music News to fully understand what is going on in the industry. It's not so simple and you cannot say definitively that DRM is harming the consumer because RIGHT NOW the only way to get that content is with DRM. Better than nothing, isn't it? Things will eventually change and this announcement from EMI is a very positive step forward. Don't trash the music industry as a whole until you understand it. I am certainly not saying it is full of kind-hearted souls (very far from it!) but there is more to it than just "let's fuck the consumer and the artist to make a buck!".

Re:Par for the course

[kindbud]

Go spend some time on Digital Music News to fully understand what is going on in the industry. It's not so simple and you cannot say definitively that DRM is harming the consumer because RIGHT NOW the only way to get that content is with DRM.

No, we can still buy regular old CDs and rip them to our iPods or whatever in one step. No DRM at all.

Better than nothing, isn't it?

Come again? We can already buy the entire catalog free of DRM, and furthermore those who care, can tweak the bitrate or codec to get the exact audio results they wish. Can't do that with online services. Downloads are lesser than CDs from the start, and become even less after encumbering them with DRM. Price is the only thing downloads can compete on, and right-this-second gratification of course. For anything else, CDs still are the superior DRM-free choice for over two decades, and they didn't kill the music industry.

Re:Par for the course

[glenstar]

DIGITALLY. It is the only way a consumer can buy the product DIGITALLY. And DMSs are not for those of us who want to/have the know-how to rip it ourselves. The DMS exists as a mass-consumer phenomenon.

Re:Par for the course

[kindbud]

And DMSs are not for those of us who want to/have the know-how to rip it ourselves. The DMS exists as a mass-consumer phenomenon.

And CDs are a niche product? I really don't get what you're saying.

Re:Par for the course

[hedora]

I have never met a music executive who DOES NOT understand that DRM is nearly useless as far as protection of content goes. So, they know there's no good reason for DRM(*), yet year-by-year they're killing their own businesses by sending customers to p2p networks and allofmp3.com?!? Didn't they sign contracts with artists to SELL MUSIC? Also, how can this possibly be in the shareholders best interest? It sounds criminal to me...

(*) I've heard people say that DRM is a way to attempt to trick customers and force them to "buy" the same content multiple times, but that would be dishonest at the best, and fraud in my book.

I am certainly not saying it is full of kind-hearted souls (very far from it!) but there is more to it than just "let's fuck the consumer and the artist to make a buck!". I'd like to believe this, but I've never heard evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

As far as I can tell, they only exist because they're a cartel (artists must sign a contract to get concert promotion and payola money for radio play), and because before ~1993 their business model made sense and they haven't gone out of business yet.

Re:Par for the course

[ejp1082]

It's the only way the consumer can BUY the product digitally. It's not the only way the consumer can GET the product digitally. The Pirate Bay offers a hell of a better user experience than the iTMS.

The number of illegal music downloads still dwarf legal ones by leaps and bounds. And that's not going to change until the legal ones stop offering an inferior product.

Re:Par for the course

[luiss]

CDs are ditigal.

Re:Par for the course

[Ash-Fox]

No, we can still buy regular old CDs and rip them to our iPods or whatever in one step. No DRM at all.

I can't buy the music I like on CDs. Just ordering a single CD from the States has cost me the equivalent of 60 USD in snail-mail taxes.

can tweak the bitrate or codec to get the exact audio results they wish. Can't do that with online services.

Allofmp3 actually did this.

Re:Par for the course

[glenstar]

That was my point. CDs are ditigal but music downloaded from a DMS is DIGITAL. See the difference?

Re:Par for the course

[cdrguru]

Why would it ever change?

The paid-for service might eventually offer the same product at 100x (or 1,000,000x) the price. You see, a million times zero is still zero. You can't compete with free. And that is exactly what the music business wants to do.

Until very recently copyright for the consumer was principally a matter of practicality. It was impractical to copy a cassette and give one to 100 friends or to photocopy a book. Today, copyright is a matter of respect - and we have spent the last 15 years or so teaching folks that there is no such thing as respect for any corporation or anyone with any money. Therefore, it is OK to take anything and "share" it.

I don't see a way to stuff the genii back in the bottle. The essential battle is lost - there is no respect. So we might as well wrap this up. Eliminating DRM will probably just be one of the last nails in the coffin of the music business.

My guess is all forms of commercialized mass entertainment like movies, television, books and so forth are doomed as a profitable business.

Re:Par for the course

[topical_surfactant]

It's not so simple and you cannot say definitively that DRM is harming the consumer because RIGHT NOW the only way to get that content is with DRM. Better than nothing, isn't it?

Interesting view. Even though you claim that they recognize the uselessness of DRM, I believe that they still have not fully grasped this concept. If they did, they would see that their "better than nothing" offering is indeed worse than nothing and people are freely taking advantage of the superior product provided by "nothing."

Final message: Until they understand, I buy used CDs or altogether avoid major label releases and actively speak out against them to everyone I know. And I am not alone in this pledge...at all.

Re:Par for the course

[z4ce]

Oh, I see. DMS uses the capslock key? ;)

Re:Par for the course

[teh_chrizzle]

I am certainly not saying it is full of kind-hearted souls (very far from it!) but there is more to it than just "let's fuck the consumer and the artist to make a buck!".

there is a lot more to it... like the lying, the cheating, the backstabbing, and the drugs.

Re:Par for the course

[Anonymous Coward]

"...because RIGHT NOW the only way to get that content is with DRM."

Errrr...what? Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, available on iTunes, Urge, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music, etc. is already available for free (and DRM-free) from LimeWire, eDonkey, TorrentSpy, The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc. There's also allofmp3.com, magnatune.com, and emusic.com. All of it is DRM free.

Re:Par for the course

[gnasher719]

'' And CDs are a niche product? I really don't get what you're saying. ''

If you read news reports from say Reuters, you will find that there are plenty of idiots out there whose single brain cell has been convinced that "digital" equals "downloadable" or "residing on a computer". You'll read things like "digital music sales have doubled, while CD sales have dropped" and you can tell them hundred times that they are idiots, they won't learn.

Re:Par for the course

[ejp1082]

You can't compete with free.

The people at Poland Springs and Avian would be pretty shocked to hear that. Fact is, there's plenty of business models that not only compete with free but are built around giving stuff away for free, so that argument just doesn't fly.

They'll never eliminate piracy entirely, but they can successfully compete with it. Price is just one way to compete - you can also compete on quality, convenience, marketing, and legitimacy, among others. There's a lot of ways you can make a consumer be willing to spend $0.99 on something he could otherwise have for free; to assert otherwise is just a failure of imagination and those people deserve to go out of business and get replaced by people who can figure it out.

Re:Par for the course

[Tenareth]

Actually, there are a lot of people willing to pay for doing something legally, if they see the proper value.

I would love to watch Heroes online, but the NBC site sucks, and for the first 2 days after it airs, it is near impossible to get it to stream. It is EASIER for me to use BitLord to download the full HD version of the show, and the quality is a lot better.

Re:Par for the course

[PhxBlue]

And FYI...I have never met a music executive who DOES NOT understand that DRM is nearly useless as far as protection of content goes. BUT... as I said above, it is the glue that keeps everything together.

I'm sorry, but admiring the emperor's new clothes is better than grasping reality in what way, exactly?

Re:Par for the course

[Jherek Carnelian]

The people at Poland Springs and Avian would be pretty shocked to hear that. Fact is, there's plenty of business models that not only compete with free but are built around giving stuff away for free, so that argument just doesn't fly.

You hinted at this in the rest of your post, but I feel the need to say it explicitly. The bottled water companies are NOT competing with free. They aren't selling water, depending on the brand they are selling other, less tangible things - the perception of quality, convenience, fashion. The medium is water, but just as no one would say that newspapers are in the business of selling paper neither are the bottled water companies in the business of selling water.

The entertainment companies have this figured out in many ways - they sell the pop-star image of someone like Brittany Spears (not so much HER anymore, but close enough) and music is just one medium. They just haven't been able to take the final step of giving it away - probably because some music is still about the music and not about being the promotional tool of a larger campaign.

Re:Par for the course

[Anonymous Coward]

The major feels a little more secure "knowing" that their music can't be mass-reproduced, the DMS is happy because they can sell the content, the customer is happy because they can get the content, and the shareholder is happy because, well, there is an additional revenue stream.

Why are the labels worried that someone might mass reproduce their content? It has already happened. That cow is already out of the barn.

Because the music industry wants to have this warm fuzzy about their content, they are risking turning their content into a commodity. While it is true that many older consumers don't know about peer-to-peer networks, most younger people do. I recall reading a survey recently that stated that most adolescents don't think there is anything wrong with downloading music from peer-to-peer networks. This is a problem of the music industry's own creation when they did not take advantage of the Napster phenomenon (or at least roll out a similar service).

Look at the popularity of the peer to peer networks. Customers want cheap digital music that they can use on the devices they choose. Contrary to your statement earlier, customers are not happy looking judging from the peer-to-peer networks. Customers feel like they are getting gouged, so they turn away from the traditional music industry.

The labels ignore their customers' wishes at their own peril.

"Take care of your customers, or someone else will do it for you."

Re:Par for the course

[grimJester]

The difference between 'Digital' and 'DIGITAL'? Half the bitrate.

How Much?

[ewhac]

I suppose, if one takes the rubric of, "Defective by Design," at face value (as it happens, I do), then the defective product would naturally be worth less than the one without defects (even though the capital cost of the defective product is higher).

Okay, we'll let that point stand for the moment. How much more money are we talking about? $1.25 a track? $1.50?

Schwab

Re:How Much?

[Maximum Prophet]

Well, since I'm not willing to pay more than $.05 per track for DRM music, I'll pay about a dime ($0.10) per track for non-DRM music. Before anyone complains that that's not a realistic price, that *is* the price I've legally paid for lots of music. I buy most of mine in the form of used CDs at yard sales. Mine is lossless and comes with the liner notes most of the time.

Mod parent up

[Kadin2048]

+1 Priceless.

Slow dimes.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If you realy wanted to make money and you had a fantastic back catalog, you could sell flash player MP3 CDs with 4 or more albums on each CD at above 128K bitrate for under $10. Man I would be first in line for the back collections of Pink Floyd, ELO, Styx, Guns & Roses, Chicago, etc. They are happy with $0 instead of 100's of dollars for the back catalog at value pricing.

They either haven't heard, or don't believe in, an old saying:

"Fast nickels are better than slow dimes."

For two reasons:
  - You get far more money once you add it up.
  - You start getting it earlier.

They're so afraid of losing the slow dimes that they're missing the fast nickels.

$10? USD? Go direct.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't buy any big label for $10. More like $16, $17 or $22.

Personally, I like acoustic stuff. I google/yahoo/msn my favorite singer, go to their first.lastname.com and click "Buy CD". I often find them by getting an email from someone w/ an mp3 of their work. Word of mouth. It turns out these guys allow downloads of their MP3s. You build a friendship, or at least I have, because they respond to eamils.

I then can either d/l mp3s and/or get a CD.

Wow. They control their own work.

People don't need to be rich and famous to feed their families. The labels want them to be.

Pre-paying for content

[maillemaker]

This is what the anti-copyright folks have been proclaiming for some time here on Slashdot - that all future work will be live concerts or commissioned works. It looks like this is just the route that EMI is trying to take. They'll sell you the song for distribution, but you are going to have to pay more for it up front, so that when it is copied freely on the back end, they will still have gotten their cut.

Maybe we really are reaching the point where before a label will cut loose a song they will demand a paid-in-advance comission first.

What a colossal waste of time and money.

[woadlined]

EMI, and the others obsessed with maintaining their current profit model, simply cannot win in the long term. All they are doing is wasting their money to protect an asset that cannot be protected.

What they must inevitably do is innovate. In a 5 second thought process, I came up with this idea:

Instead of seeking to make profits on shrink-wrapped products, they should actually invest in artists - help them tour more comfortably, give them resources to play their music, in short...stop screwing them at every turn.

While artists with integrity might be said to thrive off of adversity, is it really necessary to try to maintain Dickensian conditions for the vast majority of artists? I wonder if the thought has ever occurred to them...invest in their product, sell more units because their offerings improve.

Still and all, if execs had a creative bone in their bodies, I guess they'd be strumming guitars, instead of shuffling Benjis.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it should. So should sex, housing, cars, gas, etc. I shouldn't have to work either.

Re:Oh well

[Kalriath]

Are you a complete idiot? So the artists with talent should basically bankrupt themselves and their families putting out music because you think music should be free? Hell no. Music should cost, but it should be reasonably priced. It should not have unreasonable "you can only install this song on 5 players, and you may not reinstall Windows after doing so" restrictions. And most importantly, the majority of the money should go to the artist that created it. I understand record labels taking a cut to pay for production, but that cut should not be 90%, and it should reasonably reflect the cost of producing the music (though I grant that they do need to make some profit off it).

Perhaps what needs to happen here is artists need to get together and found their OWN record label, paid for by artists, run by them, and run FOR them. Then join the RIAA and wreak havoc at stakeholder meetings!

I saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw it coming. Once Hanson released, MMMBop, it was only a matter of time before MMMDash would be seduced to the dark side.

Thankfully, plane old ASCII dash is still DRM-free.

Re:its like this

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy a car form General motors right. OK
Do they tell you who can ride in it?
Do they tell you how many people can be in it?
Dog cats babies nope dont tell either way.
Do they tell you what can be in it.
Do they tell you what gas to buy(yes they say you should get premium but YOU DONT HAVE TOO)

Do they tell you what you can add to it. Do they tell you where you can drive and how fast. ( while it is against the law to speed funny how the max speed on any car is well above the speed limit)
Do they tell you you can't fix up and put addons into car like your now illegal MP3 player.
Do they tell you what shop to get it fixed at?

NOW think music DRM and DRM in general, YAH THINK ORDINARY PEOPLE PUT UP WITH THAT PHILOSPAPHY FROM CAR MANUFACTURERS?
I highly doubt it.
P.S. GROKLAW MYSQL DBASE IS DOWN
I hope its not regarding that subpeona of PJ

Somebody explain...

[cdrguru]

Today, it is technically "wrong" to redistribute music. Very few people don't do it. DRM is a little added push away from it, because for some it just makes it too difficult.

So how is removing probably the last barrier to a complete free-for-all going to help the bottom line?

Of course, it might speed the exit from the market of commercial music that that would probably be a good thing. I mean, since it really will be free for everyone all the time how could anyone get revenue from selling music anymore? Sure, it could be an advertisement for porn or some kind of concert, but the music itself becomes valueless.

Not that it isn't pretty much valueless today anyway.

I figure there are some over-40 types that just don't know how to download stuff that are still paying. Some more that bought an iPod and just know they have to buy all their music from Apple or it might not work. Still a few more folks that are sure they money they are paying to some site in Russia will send some money to Donny & Marie because they deserve it. But aside from the above, is anyone really paying now?

So would removing DRM just make things easier for everyone and we can all drop the pretense of paying? Or does someone really think that paid-for commercial music has any kind of future at all?

Re:Somebody explain...

[Stevecrox]

Your working on the assumption that everyone is a theif. Your not actually thinking about how people think.I don't pirate music, I even used the Itune Music store when it came out, but after a week I realised that none of the song I had purchased were playable on anything but my PC. I switched to the great WMP's MSN store and playsforsure and started getting flaky playing (believe it or not it would only play sometimes on WMP9 but everytime on my sync'd device.) After two bad expearences I gave up on online music, it wasn't cheaper (we're talking £7.99 an album when I could buy it for £9.97) it gave me less choice and generally put me off. So I went back to my old habits of simply waiting until a album fell from popular interest or looking out for lesser known artists before they were big and getting the albums on the cheap.

The first music store which can offer me music without DRM and actually be cheaper than retail stores (ITMS has been more expensive in some cases) will have my business I like owning legitmate copies of disks most people do, but most people don't like to feel like their being ripped off. When a DVD first comes out it can be as much as £17.99 5 months later that samew dvd is £4.99. Music is much the same, so people pirate.

If filesharering and piracy is so prolific perhaps this suggests that the price of music/films doesn't match the price the demand (consumer) expects to pay. The fact that no music/film company adjusts their pricing to take advantage of this simply screams of price fixing. There will always be some priacy as there is always a blackmarket for any good for any other service, but give consumers the product/service they want at a price they are happy paying (competitiveness always helps here) you'll never stop all piracy its an impossible goal. My idea is based on the principle of "This is how the world works" the nice music companies seem to be working on the principle of "this is how the world should be"

I should care about poor multi-million dollar boss

[kaiwai]

Which I don't believe - all it tells me is that Warner is a very inefficient company when it comes to how it manages its human resources and assets (aka, the so-called artists).

In New Zealand they do no advertising at all any more - I remember years and years ago they use to advertise the new so-and-so album on television with an 'out now!' jingle to it, but now, the only information you get as to whether a new song has been put out is either by watching C4 or via posters put up in music stores.

Having taken all the 'old things' they used to do, out of the equation, it isn't as though their marketing costs (which are normally quite large) have anything to do with it, their manufacturing costs would be lucky to be 30cents per cd.

When you taken into account in New Zealand that new release cds cost $34.95, they're still making a massive profit margin; if there is anything to blame for poor profits and margins is bad management from the top - when in doubt, bash the fictional mass piraters rather than taking on the responsibility for failure.

oh, and multi-million dollar salaries for producing subpar profits is hardly what I call responsible management. How about hiring someone who will be a CEO for $200,000-$300,000 and is passsionate about the music being made, and motivated by providing a good product - if you concerntrate on the product, provide a good quality one, the profits will roll in on their own; many bands have proven that already by only releasing their music online and yet making a profit and raising their profile overnight.

Doth big wigs at media companies complain too much.

Blindness

[alienzed]

This is all so stupid, if you buy DRM'd music, burn it to CD, then reencode it to MP3. BAMMM! no DRM anymore. Why don't these dinosaur sized companies have someone to tell them that there is no way to truly protect their music, and I use 'their' as loosely as possible. The greed behind it all is blinding them to reality. DRM is NOT a good idea on ANY front. It does't stop anyone from doing anything, and it sure as heck doesn't have any advantages.

Re:Blindness

[freedom_india]

Actually the quality drops a lot if you keep on encoding /decoding it. 128 kbps is the iTunes music quality. Burning it to an Audio CD and reimporting it as MP3 even at 256 Kbps results in loss of quality.
I have burnt 5 CDs this way and reimported them. I stopped doing and shifted to allofmp3.com

Circular things

[anwaya]

EMI (and other *AA members) have done very well selling us circular media over the years, and we object to paying the same price for entertainment without the round objects. We've been paying for manufactured circles since the piano roll, and it's time to stop.

DRM costs them money!

[GiMP]

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but... what I don't understand, is why EMI hasn't yet figured out how that DRM costs them money?

I went into a CD store recently, saw a number of alums for sale by EMI, considered buying them, but saw the largely-printed "DRM" warning. Perhaps I'm unusual, but this prevented me from buying a single one of those albums. If not for the DRM, I would've bought one of the albums, and I would have likely purchased the others over time. Over the last few years, I've probably spent few hundred at AllOfMp3. Why? Because I could buy the music I wanted, not only at the price I wanted, but in the format I wanted.

Does the music industry really think if people didn't want CDs, that they would've switched from cassettes and vinyl? Of course people switched, because they WANTED compact-discs, there was an advantage. Does EMI think that if the masses wanted CDs and they only sold cassettes, that anyone would continue to buy EMI's music? Likely, the masses would just put their money elsewhere. Customers buy what they want, remember: "The customer is always right." As long as the layman wants MP3 files, and the audiophiles want FLAC files, DRM will not sell. If music is only available underneath DRM, then music will not sell.

I only assume that EMI believes that stopping DRM will stop illegal downloads, and the revenue gained by recouping the "losses" of illegal downloads will outweigh the losses that they now incur due to DRM. However, I believe that of those illegally downloading, there are the following groups:
  1. People that would purchase the product if there was no DRM, but download illegally instead.
  2. People that won't pay regardless.
  3. People that use illegal downloads as time-shifted radio, driving sales.

Based on this list, I can only see DRM hurting EMI. Group #2 won't pay regardless, and they're driving away users from groups #1 and #3. Thus, their DRM is only removing a significant number of potential customers. There is NO advantage to EMI to continue pushing DRM.

Re:DRM costs them money!

[Anonymous Coward]

I walked in to a music store in .au that now burns titles. I ask if any DRM? - no replied the counter girl. I then asked how long will the burnt disks last? - same as the other (pressed disks) she replied. Obviously misleading, as the BEST DRM is flakey/budget cd/dvd blanks.

Record companies should know, that many still have their old pressed CD's because wiser folk know burnt ones are unreliable over time, or wait to buy 2nd hand copies. Amazingly, Music DVD's seem to be cheaper than CD's, so many buy them nowadays. Generally DVD music ripping is 'too hard', but every year or so, an upgrade arrives allowing last years badly mastered disks to be re-mastered.

If EMI had stones, they would scrap DRM, and sell special branded BLANKS, crippled in capacity or expected shelf life, perhaps packed with bonus promo material, then offer discounted downloads to burn to their media with a known shelf life.

The new 'long life' generation DVD/CD is a much bigger threat, as are cheap hardrives, and USB hard drives - they take less room than DVDs. Food for thought.

A tax?

[dorianh49]

"... the charge is a tax/levy." Anyone else think it's about time to dress up as Indians or one of the other Village People and start throwing 1's and 0's into the Boston Harbor?

Guess what, EMI....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep your DRM, and we'll still listen before we buy, and download that 1 hit off an album that isn't worth buying.

And the money you waste on DRM will only take away from your ability to survive.

Thanks, EMI. Nice doing business with you.

Haha, they miss the issue miserably

[someone1234]

If they don't ditch their DRM it will cost them their business, in 5 years.
There will be more and more 'free' music available, with competitive quality, availability and amount.
So they'll run out of business even without piracy.
DRM just lets some pirates get rich during this transition.

Who cares?

Re: The Ace up a sleeve

[Splab]

I work as a volunteer in a student bar and we got a lot of upcoming (local) bands playing and we do a few release parties. One of the fun things that has started to happen is indie record labels selling loads of music because they set the price tag lower. A good example is the chain "Tiger", a typical CD sells for 20 DKR ($3,4), I can't remember the cut for the artist but it's high - usually a totally unknown artist will sell between 3.000 and 4.000 CDs compared to big bands perhaps selling 10-20.000 CDs through the big companies.

Declining sales isn't just about the quality, but also the price, while most stuff has gotten cheaper - you can actually buy a DVD _player_ for less than the cost of a mainstream CD here in Denmark - the price of a mainstream CD is still fixed at 150DKR ($20).

I got news for you

[Anonymous Coward]

because RIGHT NOW the only way to get that content is with DRM. Better than nothing, isn't it?

I got news for you, chap. They aren't competing with "nothing".

My, rather-large-upwards-of-400GB, MP3 collection* would beg to differ.

(* which represents opportunity costs to the music industry because I haven't paid a dime for it. I just won't buy DRM music. So what is my alternative? Remember, it's STILL not about what they want. Its about what I want. And I can do it with or without their help.)

Re:Oh well

[Basilius]

Perhaps what needs to happen here is artists need to get together and found their OWN record label, paid for by artists, run by them, and run FOR them. Then join the RIAA and wreak havoc at stakeholder meetings!

Short of the "join the RIAA" part, isn't that in effect what Discipline Global Mobile is? IIRC, copyrights to the songs remain with the artist on DGM as opposed to nearly every other label.

Normal advance royalty payments...

[Renesis]

... for setting up an online music store are typically around $1-2m per major label, which isn't too hard to find. (this is from real inside experience)

So the advances on this must be insane for the negotiations to fail. I can only think it's not just a money thing, there must be other crazy clauses in there too.

Re:Oh well

[Kalriath]

From what I just read on their site, pretty much. Although I don't think I would jump on the bandwagon of a company that literally calls itself an unprofitable failure. That's a pretty bad way of marketing themselves to artists.

Re:Par for the course ...More Money(R)*

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite informative!

I would guess, however that it is also the case that "Sure! We can do that... but it is gonna cost you More Money(R)*" is just part of the "boilerplate" of the negotiating process when contemplating ANY change, to Any business relationship for ANY reason.

Asking for More Money(R)* costs nothing. Even when there is little reasonable chance of actually GETTING , More Money(R)*, every once in a while , you catch a sucker!

*More Money(R) is a registered trademark of AnonymousCoward Industries LLP
This phrase is avaiable for licencing - contact our liars to enquire for terms
"It's gonna Cost ya!"

The Entertainment Mafia Strikes Back!

[core_dump_0]

When is the entertainment mafia going to wake up and realize that collusion and extortion is not a way to do business? They may make money in the short term, but they are only killing their own business. The entertainment industry causes their own "piracy" by alienating their customers through collusion, extortion, crap music/movies, and high prices.

whats worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

users pirating music,users avoiding the RIAA infested music, or no drm in music at all? hmm emi, and all the other shitwad record companies can't seem to make up their mind

To all DRM users.

[Quzak]

Making claims that "dropping DRM will cost you" is the wrong thing to say to a growing population that is rejecting it. Here is the statement to the various companies EMI included, "Not dropping DRM will COST YOU!".

DRM is on par with terrorism.
DRM is extortion.
DRM takes away the rights of consumers.
DRM is not wanted by the majority of the population of consumers. Fail to remove it, and they will go else where. Its not a matter of IF but rather WHEN.

What if you WANT to pay?

[elrous0]

Because, believe it or not, many people actually WANT to be honest and not cheat artists out of their royalties. If there were a simple way to get DRM-free, high quality music at $.99 a song with a decent selection, you might be surprised at how many people would use it. Take allofmp3.com as an example. People weren't just going there because they were cheap. A lot of people just liked their huge selection and the fact that you could get your songs there as high-quality mp3's that could be played on any player or transfered across networks/between computers, etc.

A lot of people don't have an alternative that even LETS them be honest. For example, I listen to a lot of my music on my networked Tivo. Tivo will only play mp3's over the network. It won't play wma's or protected aac files. So, what are my options even if I *WANT* to pay? I can either buy a full CD for one song (and have to go through the hassle of waiting for it to ship and ripping it to boot), go to a site with a VERY limited selection like emusic, or pirate.

If someone is just a cheap-ass who is determined to pirate, nothing is ever going to stop them. But it seems like the studios are stupid to pass up on those honest people who actually WANT to pay, but who just don't want to deal with the hassle and risk of DRM.

-Eric

Re:What if you WANT to pay?

[aim2future]

Exactly, I would never ever consider buying anything with DRM (locked music, locked phones etc) and look very carefully and also ask the seller that a certain CD is not copy protected when I buy it. OK, DVD movies is an exception, but thanks to DeCSS that is not a problem. It was after DeCSS I started buying DVD movies, I have about 400 in my collection now.

I have never file shared illegally on the web and I don't mind paying for stuff, but I would never buy anything DRM-protected, I only pay for stuff that is clean.

Re:What if you WANT to pay?

[SenseiLeNoir]

Well said,

I would not even blink to pay for a non-drm song (preferably Flac, or any other non-lossy, but I will be happy with a well encoded MP3)

I don't have time to deal with CDs these days, as I use a large MP3 player, and converting my CDs takes time.

I do not want to download illegally, nor can i be bothered to go and buy an album for most of the songs I listen to, so simply I just listen on radio. However, given the chance, I would easily buy 10 to 20 tracks a month.

Think of the profits these idiots could make out of me, which they are currently loosing...

fuck them

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck them and their shitty music.

Sorry, but IMHO their "fear of piracy"

[Growlor]

is a smokescreen for forcing us to buy different copies of the same song/movie/program for our different devices. They got a taste of it back when the people my age (late 30's) repurchased all the content we had on vinyl and casette tape to move to CD's and must be drooling over the prospect of selling another copy for my desktop computer and another for my laptop and another for my PDA and another for my MP3 player and ... We really need a "digital bill of rights" to be passed (and supercede the DMCA) to make it 100% legal to copy media licensed for personal use on any of the machines you own regardless of any "effective protection scheme" on it. This will eliminate alot of the incentive for the DRM nonsense they are pushing.

Game companies...

[SanityInAnarchy]

There are at least a few game companies waking up to this, and releasing patches (as free downloads) which remove the DRM and allow the game to play without a CD.

These are the smart companies -- the ones that look at what's available on a P2P network and say "Why are we paying someone for a 'feature' which not only doesn't work, it also pisses off our customers?" Some might even make the logical link to "How many of those 'pirates' are just people who are sick of having to stick an old, horribly-scratched CD in just to play the game?"

On the other hand, the gaming industry is an area where they don't need to use DRM to lock us to one platform. Because that's really what it's about -- if I have more than one system, I have to buy the same game several times to get it to play on the different systems, and there are technological reasons for this. Emulators only really work on games old enough that a modern PC can emulate another arch (say, RISC) several times faster than the original system operated. Contrast that to most media, which even if it's not feasible to play the original anywhere (h.264 on a slow machine, high def on an iPod), you can easily transcode it anywhere, thus preventing them from charging you once for a DVD, once for a Blu-Ray disc, once for an HD-DVD disc, once for a UMD, and once for the CD soundtrack -- just buy the DVD and transcode it to your PSP, iPod, laptop, whatever, rip the music off of the music-only track...

Look, sell me ONE cheap media system -- I prefer Blu-Ray, but HD-DVD is fine -- with open codecs and formats, no DRM, and include the music for that movie in similar files on the disc -- a bunch of Flac or Vorbis files would be nice. Allow me to download it in a standard, open format -- I'll even play for much lossier copies, I don't need HD, I just want open. Otherwise, I'll continue to pirate or rent DVDs from the video store.

Re:Oh well

[SanityInAnarchy]

Perhaps what needs to happen here is artists need to get together and found their OWN record label, paid for by artists, run by them, and run FOR them.

Magnatune? Mindawn?

drm

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is DRM a disaster? One commenter believes that DRM "exists for the sole purpose of making money off of people paying for things they already own." How about people who don't already own them and would download them for free if they weren't forced to pay? What about the artists who are doing this FOR A LIVING? What about all the firms involved in producing and distributing the music who employ people who also are doing this FOR A LIVING?

Re:drm

[Anonymous Coward]

With all these printing presses about, what about all the poor scribes who are doing this FOR A LIVING?

Grow the fuck up. Copyrightists are like toddlers who haven't learnt to share.

DRM and DRM-free music in a secure way. It's easy!

[julie-h]

About the mixure of DRM and DRM-free music, it could be done without exploiting FairPlay or making any changes to iTunes.

All songs should continue to be DRM, if a song is sold to be DRM-free, it is downloaded and DRM'ed like any DRM song, but the user key for this song should be stored seperatly in iTunes.

The song could continue to be DRM'ed as long as the user wants it to be, and if the user wants the song to be DRM-free just click on the "export as DRM-free" or "Remove DRM" button in iTunes.

No changes are needed to be med to iTMS to sell DRM-free music.

Bzzzt! Wrong.

[jotaeleemeese]

He is saying he will not buy DRMed music.

There are several ways to get the smae music in a legit manner.

Where is the stone you have been hiding under?

[jotaeleemeese]

Google for Steve Jobs DRM and enjoy.

The meaty bit: people have a neglegible percentage of DRMed music on their iPods.

People are either ripping from CDs, pirating or downloading from the mushroming indie labels that don't bother with the DRM nonsense.

Re:Where is the stone you have been hiding under?

[AusIV]

Where is the stone you have been hiding under?

Most of my friends are the technically inclined who have avoided DRM from the beginning. The few friends I have who ever used iTunes for music use it now as much as ever. Their iPods are generally a fairly low percent iTunes music, because they had lots of CDs before they got their iPods, and some of them like indie music - and indication of musical taste, not necessarily of opposition to DRM. The low percentage of DRMed music on iPods doesn't necessarily mean people are actively avoiding DRM or moving away from it, it simply means they have additional ways of getting their music that don't entail DRM.

These friends of mine may not be representative of the general population, but I think they are a better example of the average user than those who frequent slashdot.

Re:Oh well

[Kalriath]

You know, I hadn't heard of those before. But yes, those look similar to what I'm talking about. Neither of those two companies are run by artists. They're merely benevolent record labels. A noble goal, to be sure, but not what I was suggesting. If artists banded together to create a label, leveraging their own collective revenue stream to produce records, their royalties would jump to ... well, 100%. Think of it as either artists loaning money to each other for production, or loaning money to a collective for the purpose of funding production for it's members. I think it's a viable model if it were possible to get some of the popular artists involved.

Not good reasons

[bill_mcgonigle]

I can either buy a full CD for one song (and have to go through the hassle of waiting for it to ship and ripping it to boot), go to a site with a VERY limited selection like emusic, or pirate.

Being lazy, cheap, and impatient don't sound like good excuses to break the law. CD's are available without DRM. Contrast with DVD's, which aren't.

Re:Oh well

[SanityInAnarchy]

Could be... I like Magnatune's 50%, though. Someone has to pay for bandwidth, at least, even if they were using BitTorrent, and they're not -- so royalties will never be 100%. That 50% looks low compared to that, but when you look at how much artists are actually making -- can be close to 0% for most of them -- 50% starts to look a lot better, and it's predictable.

But remember, no matter how you dress it up, it'll never be 100% -- in fact, if I'm not mistaken, you've just described a bit of a Ponzi scheme. It may get to 99%, but never 100%, because that implies that it's free to produce and distribute music. Sure, it's cheap, a LOT cheaper than the MAFIAA charges, but it's not free.