Does DRM Enable Online Music Innovation?

chia_monkey writes "An article at the Tech Law Forum asks the question 'Does DRM Enable Online Music Innovation?'. The piece looks 'at the range of legitimate online music distributors to see just how much the presence or lack of DRM affected business models.' It's a rather interesting read as the author breaks down seven online music stores (iTunes, Napster, Yahoo! Music, Zune, eMusic, Amie Street, and Magnatune...four of which use DRM and three that don't). The article mainly focuses on the ownership and 'renting' of the music (which can be seen with the 'buy the condo downtown' and 'rent a mansion in the slums' analogies) and how it applies to innovation and perceived business models. The numbers don't lie ... price-per-download is the clean winner while DRM-based models also take the lead. Will the market shift toward subscription based models in the future? Or, will DRM go the way of the dodo bird (as Steve Jobs has already proclaimed his preference for)?"

Comments

Next on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does Rape Enable Sexual Intercourse Innovation?"

Yes

[seanadams.com]

I used to be dyed-in-the-wool against DRM, but since using Rhapsody with the Sansa player and with Squeezebox* I have to say it is pretty hard to defend the position that DRM is universally bad. It is hard to imagine how you could have a service like Rhapsody without DRM. Having "all the music" accessible whenever you want, for a flat monthly rate, really changes your listening habits and how you think about music "ownership".

* I work for Slim/Logitech

Re:Yes

[garcia]

Ack. You have fallen for the conglomerates' campaign. You are now officially brainwashed into thinking that DRM is "good".

DRM exists for the benefit of the distributors and not the artists as they so readily claim. Why do the various distribution schemes out there have to have DRM in order to be viable? For some reason allofmp3.com worked just fucking fine for everyone (streaming and/or downloading) without the DRM. For me, it worked even better because I could get them in various bitrates and/or FLAC/WAV if I saw fit (and I did at times).

We need to REJECT at every turn the conglomerates' suggestions that we should bow to their demands. They are businessmen and they will respond favorably when the populace stops giving the fuckers money. It's people like you (and nearly everyone else) that makes DRM laden music viable.

Me? I'll stick to what is best... Music that is freely distributable by bands that don't make their money by sitting in a studio for one album but instead are out there working their asses off touring. I'm planning on going to see 5 shows in the next few weeks (it's what I can afford right now) and they are all bands that I would support.

That's what everyone should be doing to "give the artists the money they deserve", not paying the RIAA thieves so that the artists can gain a few pennies after a lower quality DRMd download.

Re:Yes

[SatanicPuppy]

I like the idea of services like Rhapsody, but I hate their insistence on crappy codecs and heavy drm...If I want to pay for a monthly service, I want to be able to listen to that music anywhere, on any format...It's doable in some ways, but it's not seamless, and it is annoying.

It also bothers me that no one really has "all" the music because some goddamn content owners refuse to ever license their stuff for distribution.

In the end, I think that pay subscription services will end up dominating the market, but I think that the prices will have to equalize first, and I think when that happens, much of the market force that pushes people to piracy will fade and drm will become effectively a non-issue.

If you could pay 8-10 bucks a month and get all the music you'll ever want, anywhere you are, why would you bother to "steal" it. It'd be stupid.

Re:Yes

[danpsmith]

I used to be dyed-in-the-wool against DRM, but since using Rhapsody with the Sansa player and with Squeezebox* I have to say it is pretty hard to defend the position that DRM is universally bad. It is hard to imagine how you could have a service like Rhapsody without DRM. Having "all the music" accessible whenever you want, for a flat monthly rate, really changes your listening habits and how you think about music "ownership".

I have mod points, but I don't feel like using them. I hate the idea of music only being accessible via some service with a fee per month. Think about when you don't have the spare cash, do you want to be without music? When you don't own anything it can all be taken away from you from simple lack of capital. Honestly, I think a service like this could and should exist without DRM. If you allow a service fee per month and all music to be downloadable/keepable forever what's the difference? I mean, you might only get 2 months out of the mom and pop who only wanted some old beatles CDs, but likely they would've only bought the CDs anyway so you aren't losing anything in that case. The people who would trade MP3s are trading them for free nowadays anyway. Most people enjoy getting different types of new music and these people would probably stay subscribed for as long as they can afford. I know if they had a monthly music service, I'd probably just pay per month so I had the ability to go online and download music, even if I didn't use it a whole lot one particular month.

A legal repository like the ones bittorrent search engines have set up for free could indeed be profitable if they charged a monthly service fee and had better connections and just allowed the stuff to be still available after use. I mean sure, they might lose a few dollars from the people who would buy 50 albums at a shot at the store, but let's face it, these people make up the vast minority anyway. Find what the average family pays per year for music and divide it by 12, make it a service fee and allow everyone access to everything. I guarantee this would be a success. Anything short of it, probably not so much.

Re:Yes

[gfxguy]

This is what a lot of younger people don't understand, and it goes along with leasing cars and renting apartments - after years and years of payments, you will have nothing.

I'm wary of online music because, after years and years of buying records and then CDs, I have a whole huge collection; converted to digital formats that I can use with just about any music player. Certainly the model of buying a whole CD when you don't want a whole CD is lacking, but I think it's not nearly as bad as paying and paying for the same music every month, then when you stop paying you have nothing at all.

I do buy music online now, but I won't do one of those "unlimited" deals that leaves me with nothing when I unsubscribe. I do burn CDs to make "permanent" copies, and also makes it so that I'm able to rip into any format I want. I realize that's less than ideal, but it's the best compromise going, right now (IMO) between ease of use, selection, and cost.

Re:Yes

[NickFortune]

I have to say it is pretty hard to defend the position that DRM is universally bad.

It's generally very difficult to defend any overly broad generalisation. On the other hand, I think I'd find it quite easy to defend the notion that DRM is almost universally bad.

It reminds me, (if I may be permitted a short digression), of Robert Lory's Dracula books. In these, an obsessive paraplegic criminologist uncovers the Count's resting place and (as one does) implants a tiny remote control stake in the Vampire's heart. By doing so he hopes to force Dracula to become his instrument of revenge upon the criminal underworld that forty years earlier cost him the use of his legs. Worth reading, at least in a so-bad-they're-actually-good sort of way.

Lory's hero managed to take a great evil and force it into service in the cause of good. But that didn't make vampires stop being evil. Similarly just because someone is using DRM properly, that doesn't mean it isn't horribly open to abuse, and generally a bad idea.

Re:Yes

[shark72]

"It's generally very difficult to defend any overly broad generalisation. On the other hand, I think I'd find it quite easy to defend the notion that DRM is almost universally bad."

Another example: I use a form of DRM (password protection) on the *nix box that holds my web site. I do this because my web site is my revenue stream, and I would like to prevent people from either copying my code (yeah, I subscribe to that ancient "closed source" model) or sabotaging my web site.

I grant that I'm probably the only person on the planet for whom it's a good thing that my server has a password (well, and my site's customers as well, were somebody to take down my site). On the other hand, there are undoubtedly tens of thousands (or more) hackers, crackers, or just plain "information loves to be free" advocates who would like to be able to get into my server to copy the code or to crash it. So, I'm outnumbered by a wide margin, and thus I grant that DRM is "almost universally bad" in this case. But it's good for ME, and since it's my server, that's what counts.

Re:Yes

[Josh Coalson]

what you described is not DRM. simple password-based authentication cannot be construed as DRM without the term losing all meaning.

Re:Yes

[shark72]

"what you described is not DRM. simple password-based authentication cannot be construed as DRM without the term losing all meaning."

I manage the rights to my *nix box digitally, through the use of a password. It's DRM. So is the use of passwords on your personal PC, as well as security software that scrambles your data, as well as your PIN codes. It's your digital data, and you're protecting your rights to your data. You don't want it copied or misused any more than that guy at the record company wants his to be copied or misused.

I am aware that the term DRM is most commonly applied to the other guy's data; it certainly makes the "DRM is evil and has no useful purpose" credo more appropriate. But we all use DRM every day with our own data as well. It's grayer than many of us would like to think.

Re:Yes

[seanadams.com]

Why do the various distribution schemes out there have to have DRM in order to be viable? For some reason allofmp3.com worked just fucking fine for everyone (streaming and/or downloading) without the DRM.

You haven't addressed the point at all. Of course DRM sucks for _purchased_ music. We all understand that, because we've been purchasing music without DRM (i.e. CDs) for years. We know it works, and we know that in this case, the DRM only penalizes the people who are PAYING for the music. We know that for THAT model, it's a bad idea.

But allofmp3 didn't give you unlimited, flat rate access. If you're not interested in such a service, that's fine, but many people are. So the question is, would such a service would be viable without DRM?

Re:Yes

[Josh Coalson]

I don't know if you know it, but Sean founded Slim Devices, one of the early proponents of FLAC, and whose server is open-source and has stayed that way in spite of the fact that competitors use it with their own products. If you know Sean or Slim's track record you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as a brainwashed shill. If I understand right, he's talking about DRM in a very narrow sense, in a product similar to say encrypted cable/satellite transmission.

Re:Yes

[Josh Coalson]

no, password authentication is not DRM. the basis of DRM is the encryption of data to be distributed with a key, plus a way to distribute the key in a way that is hidded from the user so the distributor can control the decryption. this in no way resembles password authentication no matter how hard you try to twist it. calling password authentication DRM just confuses the issue.

your example of personal encryption software could be massaged into DRM if you somehow wanted to distribute your encrypted data then control how/when it was decrypted.

Re:Yes

[Jherek Carnelian]

It is hard to imagine how you could have a service like Rhapsody without DRM. Having "all the music" accessible whenever you want, for a flat monthly rate, really changes your listening habits and how you think about music "ownership".

If that monthly subscription fee was paid to musicians working on commission to create new music, then you could have an even better service without DRM. The artists get paid and the public gets their entire catalog without restriction. Of course the middlemen who currently 'distribute' music would lose out. But they don't add value, so they don't deserve to be paid anyway.

Re:Yes

[garcia]

But allofmp3 didn't give you unlimited, flat rate access. If you're not interested in such a service, that's fine, but many people are. So the question is, would such a service would be viable without DRM?

You are correct, they didn't have an "unlimited" flat rate access but they offered streaming music for free. I would happily listen to the streaming feed of an album prior to purchasing it and we're not talking 30 second clips of each song that I have to manually click to get it to play.

I just don't understand why you feel that DRM is necessary to make this type of service work. Is there something inherently different about paying more money to download based on a monthly fee rather than a traffic based or per song model? Not to me there's not.

Re:Yes

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

For some reason allofmp3.com worked just fucking fine for everyone (streaming and/or downloading) without the DRM. You must have a weird definition of "everyone". allofmp3 works fine for the consumers; it works fine for the owners. It does not work fine for... oh, I don't know, the artists. You see, they don't get any of the money. At all. (And let's not start with "well, allofmp3 pays licensing" -- because they pay licensing to an organization that doesn't hold any licenses to most of the music they're distributing.)

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a weird definition of "everyone". allofmp3 works fine for the consumers; it works fine for the owners. It does not work fine for... oh, I don't know, the artists. You see, they don't get any of the money. At all. (And let's not start with "well, allofmp3 pays licensing" -- because they pay licensing to an organization that doesn't hold any licenses to most of the music they're distributing.)

That's only when you look at distributed music in the way that the RIAA wants you to look at it: as a tangible good instead of what it really should be: an advertisement for their live music performances.

Re:Yes

[whoever57]

I manage the rights to my *nix box digitally, through the use of a password. It's DRM.

Let's apply your criteria to downloading Red Hat ISOs and binary updates, shall we:

Access to Red Hat's ISO and binary downloads is controlled through a password. Thus Red Hat Linux must be a DRM-laden OS.

No, the point of DRM is that it allows control of access to the work after the end user already has it in his/her possession -- after (s)he has already downloaded it.

Re:Yes

[NickFortune]

Another example: I use a form of DRM (password protection) on the *nix box that holds my web site.

A bit of a non-sequiteur that, don't you think? Never mind, let's pretend it wasn't.

The difference in your case is that you own the hardware, and you also control the encryption process. In general, the use if encryption is not in itself sufficient to qualify as DRM; it is also required that the encryption keys are controlled by another party.

This is a problem because the DRM controller can impose more or less arbitrary controls over how someone else's equipment is used. This isn't the case for your password protection since you control the keys and are unlikely to prevent yourself from using your computer in any way you see fit.

Re:Yes

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That's only when you look at distributed music in the way that the RIAA wants you to look at it: as a tangible good instead of what it really should be: an advertisement for their live music performances. Right. I was reminded of that at the Beatles concert I went to the other day.

Re:Yes

[FLEB]

Well, I was going to say that it's up to the artists and their agents to decide what's best for themselves, but I suppose that since we have an unimpeachable expert here on what ultimately "should be", then everybody can go home, and we can all just get right on that, right?

Re:Yes

[FLEB]

I think that's similar to eMusic's model, although it looks like you're looking for something unlimited. Unfortunately, the frugality of customers and the prices of purchased music will never meet at the price point where this is possible. This has even been tried (eMusic Unlimited*) and proven unfeasable (it hemhorraged money, even backed by Vivendi Universal, until they sold it to someone economically saner).

* I keep citing them because I know a lot of the background. I imagine there're others.

Re:Yes

[wall0159]

Bullshit. DRM sucks, but many/most people _don't_ go and see many live bands, so this crap about supporting bands that "work.. their asses off touring" is just that - crap.

Also, by saying that, you're saying that the only music that has the right to survive is that of touring bands. Again, I call bullshit. Some of the most innovative and interesting music has been made by bands that _haven't_ been actively touring. Remember - the whole point of recordable music is that you don't _have_ to see the band live.

Now, I'm pretty anti-DRM (I shop only at eMusic) but I still think artists should be able to make a buck by selling recordings of their music. Your comment is equivalent to saying that no coder should get paid for the code they write - only for the support they provide. I think most readers could understand that while this might be a workable system*, it's not necessarily gonna produce the best code.

*even on GPL code, there are many coders who are paid to code - that enables them to devote more time to it, and hence drives the system.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that you consider a music site which doesn't actually compensate content creators in any way as a "legitimate" basis of comparison with sites that actually do the right thing.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Please wake me up when the hard facts are printed about how much each artist makes per download from the various "legitimate" services from the RIAA.

Missing a critical element of the business model

[jfengel]

There is a huge difference between the various services that the article does not take into account: mass marketing of the underlying music.

The companies that want DRM on their music are the ones that they spend a lot of money making popular. Their business model is to get a lot of people aware of certain songs, and then sell the song to each of them individually. That's the RIAA's model.

The independent labels don't have a huge marketing budget, and so they care a lot less about whether they get paid for each individual download. For them, passing songs between people really is free advertising.

So the success of any individual music store has more to do with how effective they are at getting you to find the music you want than with the DRM. iTMS sells a lot of the RIAA's music, which the labels spend megabucks marketing (an investment they want to protect). eMusic sells songs that aren't heavily marketed.

There are a few performers who straddle the line, who got famous on the RIAA's dime and then managed to extricate themselves. They get the best of both worlds: a huge audience without the need to make each individual download pay. But these are the exceptions, not the rule; don't forget how they got famous in the first place.

That's the key here: promotion. It's way more important to most people's music choices than nearly anything else.

No

[speardane]

Unfortunately the conclusion is more a summary, and the analysis not that detailed.

It needs to compare the artists marketed in each model and ask what it means.

I think that 10% for eMusic is remarkable, considering these are primarily either artists have not yet achieved major commercial success; or achieved it some time ago.

For my money and they get it. eMusic is doing a fine job of widening the range of available artists, and in the new business model, the costs of doing so are marginal and the potential profits high.

My only complaint and the reason I will one day move away from them is there continued overcharging of non-US based customers. Electrons and bits don't cost more on the other side of the pond!

Re:No

[Binestar]

My only complaint and the reason I will one day move away from them is there continued overcharging of non-US based customers. Electrons and bits don't cost more on the other side of the pond!

No, but converting from your currency to our currency isn't free (it's a service provided by banks generally, and at a price). Passing costs on to the customer is normal business practice.

Re:No

[TheRaven64]

My bank charges me 2% to convert between pounds and dollars in small quantities (a few thousand dollars), and this price drops a lot when it you are talking larger quantities. The price difference between the UK and US stores is closer to 20%.

Re:No

[Zonk (troll)]

For my money and they get it. eMusic is doing a fine job of widening the range of available artists, and in the new business model, the costs of doing so are marginal and the potential profits high. eMusic is very good. I have an account with them and get all kinds of good music every month. However, I do have one issue with their pricing model: It's based around songs. I don't buy songs, I buy albums. Often I end up having to wait until the next month to download the rest of an album. It would rock if they would offer something like "5 albums a month" as an option instead of "50 songs a month".

Re:No

[Binestar]

Well, certainly you're not going to get the service at cost, and presumably you could go to your bank and convert that money to dollars, then buy at the US dollar price?

That said, it's not just 2% charge, it's the infrastructure to support the multiple currencies (now, I don't know, nor do I understand everything that would be required for that, is it as simple as getting payments into your account in Euros/Pounds/Lira/Peso's and having your bank run a batch conversion? Or is the bank taking a transaction fee each time?)

Also, is there special accounting they need to do to handle taxes/etc in those countries they accept payments from?

It's certainly not going to be a simple 2% difference. Once you take into account all the costs, all the added risks, the extra employees (if required) and consider the volume, 20% may be a real deal.

That's a lot of assumptions though, and knowing business: I'd fall back to: "You're getting boned, man."

Re:No

[RalphSleigh]

I am 99% sure that when using a visa card (or any other bank card) the conversion is transparent to the merchant. Payments in $ appear on my bank statement as "payment to xxx 19.99 USD ..... £10.45" so I doubt the merchant gets charged any extra. (On that date the exchange rate made $19.99 = £10.19, so I suspect my bank is charging for the conversion). There may however be tax issues.

Re:No

[CastrTroy]

Well, you could always buy a booster pack to get the rest of the album. Sure they are a little more expensive per song that way, but the credits don't expire for a full year, so it's very likely that you would use them up, especially considering it happens so often that you have to wait until the next month to finish downloading your albums. The Albums thing breaks down when you see EPs with only 4 songs on them. Should those be counted as 4 songs, or as albums? It would be nice if they did something like 50 songs a month, but if you download an entire album it will only count the first 10 songs. Also, on the currency conversion issue mentioned by others, the only costs that I see are them charging $9.99 US fee. I live in Canada, so that came out on my last bill to 12.11. As per the historical rates on xe.com, the exchange rate was 1.171 USD/CAD, meaning I should have paid 11.70CAD. I don't mind paying the extra $0.41. It's not that much. If you don't get a good exchange rate from your bank, then consider switching banks.

Re:No

[Wildclaw]

Looks like you are forgetting to account for the UK VAT. 17.5% is a pretty big chunk of money, and nicely hidden from the consumer that thinks that the company gets all the money.

Re:No

[Dan541]

To my knowledge its the payer not the reciver who pays for the conversion.

Re:No

[julesh]

That said, it's not just 2% charge, it's the infrastructure to support the multiple currencies (now, I don't know, nor do I understand everything that would be required for that, is it as simple as getting payments into your account in Euros/Pounds/Lira/Peso's and having your bank run a batch conversion? Or is the bank taking a transaction fee each time?)

When I set up an e-commerce site that traded in multiple currencies, the way it worked was we sent the currency we wanted payment in along with the request to process a payment to the merchant account handler, and if it wasn't GBP (the primary currency of our account) we were charged a small extra fee. We implemented and tested the feature in less than a day. We didn't charge extra for it, the fee wasn't large enough to warrant it.

Re:No

[julesh]

Looks like you are forgetting to account for the UK VAT. 17.5% is a pretty big chunk of money, and nicely hidden from the consumer that thinks that the company gets all the money.

Well, yes, but they get to reclaim the VAT on the costs of the transaction. So you're probably only effectively paying VAT on 20% or so of the total cost of your tracks.

hrm

[spleen_blender]

I always thought it was hardware that spawned innovation...

Steve Jobs is a liar

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop repeating that canard that Steve Jobs has a "preference for getting rid of DRM." That is absolutely false. Almost all independent music labels (the labels not owned nor controlled by the four majors) have been licensing their content for resale in the mp3 format for several years. If Jobs wanted to sell such mp3s, he could do so today.

Apple has absolutely no reason to get of DRM -- the iTunes DRM locks consumers into iPods.

I am an IP lawyer working on music licensing. The industry consensus is that Steve Jobs is a publicity hog and pro-mp3 his editorial was an attempt to take credit for upcoming rumored announcement from the major labels regarding selling in non-DRM format. Rumor has it that such shift will occur within a few months.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[TheRaven64]

Wow, thanks anonymous coward. You're a great source for insider info.

If the major labels do decide to ditch DRM in the next few months, then we will all be able to see if Steve Jobs is lying by how quickly iTMS switches to DRM-free.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[nine-times]

Please stop repeating that canard that Steve Jobs has a "preference for getting rid of DRM." That is absolutely false....

I am an IP lawyer working on music licensing. The industry consensus is that Steve Jobs is a publicity hog and pro-mp3 his editorial was an attempt to take credit for upcoming rumored announcement from the major labels regarding selling in non-DRM format. Rumor has it that such shift will occur within a few months.

Holy crap. I guess I've just been entirely gullible to believe Steve Jobs. Not anymore, though! From now on, I'll only listen to the record industry's lawyers!

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[Phanatic1a]

the iTunes DRM locks consumers into iPods.

Jesus, that's putting the cart so far before the horse that the horse won't catch up before the heat death of the universe.

Nobody, but nobody, buys an iPod just so they can buy songs off of iTunes. That's laughable. The figure repeatedly comes up that the average iPod user only has less than a dozen songs from iTunes on the thing.

The iTunes DRM was there so that Jobs could dupe the music labels into jumping on board with the iPod, while all the time he realized that the place to make a shitload of money was in selling the hardware. The iTunes store, and the iTunes DRM, legitimized the device in the eyes of the labels. That's why it was there.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[Mateo_LeFou]

"I am an IP lawyer working on music licensing"

How's that working out for you?

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[Steve525]

The industry consensus is that Steve Jobs is a publicity hog and pro-mp3 his editorial was an attempt to take credit for upcoming rumored announcement from the major labels regarding selling in non-DRM format. Rumor has it that such shift will occur within a few months.

Yes, Steve Jobs may be a publicity hog. Why shouldn't he be? Good for him as long as it's good for Apple. It's impossible for us to say how sincere Steve Jobs' editorial was, but I'm sure it has more to do with the European antitrust issues than anything else. (Hey, it's not my fault, go bug the record companies).

I have no reason to believe an AC on your predictions, but for arguement's sake, let's say you're right. If major labels begin selling non-DRM mp3s we only have Steve Jobs (and the iPod) to thank. Not because of his announcement, but because the iPod/iTunes combination has become a juggernaut that the record companies fear. The record companies want someone else to sell their music besides Apple. However, because of the iPod's success, no on-line music store can succeed unless the music will play on the iPod. The only DRM (beside's Apples) that'll play on the iPod is no DRM. So, that's where they might be headed, and the only reason I believe there's some truth to your prediction.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[shark72]

"Yes, Steve Jobs may be a publicity hog. Why shouldn't he be? Good for him as long as it's good for Apple. It's impossible for us to say how sincere Steve Jobs' editorial was, but I'm sure it has more to do with the European antitrust issues than anything else. (Hey, it's not my fault, go bug the record companies)."

A good test of his sincerity will be whether iTunes starts selling the Disney/Pixar films in a DRM-free format which one can easily burn to CD or move to a non-iPod player. Steve Jobs certainly has the pull to make this happen.

There are also "iTunes exclusive" music tracks which are not produced by the record companies. I'm thinking of the "Live at KCRW" stuff; I'm sure there are other examples. I don't think that KCRW, a public radio station in the LA area, is insisting that their iTunes tracks be distributed with DRM. But they are, so there ya go. If we see this changing in a few weeks, it will be more evidence of Steve Jobs' sincerity.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. Jobs argument essentially boiled down to: There are crap loads of music out there sold without DRM that anyone could legally rip in a single click, so it's really dumb to limit sales of music download to stupidly DRMed and restricted-use music. Besides, it does nothing to deter piracy at all.

The argument is moot re: movies. Movies come on DVDs with its CSS; thus, in the US anyway, it's already illegal to rip DVDs because it defeats the encryption and that breaks DMCA law. The comparison is between a crap load of non-DRMed music:DRMed music download to a crap load DRMed DVDs:DRMed movie download. That's a wrong analogy.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[jlowe]

I know you are trying to be funny, and the AC post above is dubious at best. However, let's keep things in reality. Outside of Steve Jobs' letter, what steps have Apple taken to become more open with regards to DRM?

Considering his editorial was posted in a timeframe that reflected pressure from the EU about licensing FairPlay, a bit of cynicism creeps into my view of what he has said. I am not sure of the numbers, but it is known that a portion of the music sold on iTMS is not a part of the RIAA and is sold by others (eMusic, for example) without DRM restrictions. If Steve Jobs is interested in pursuing a non-DRM music world, why does he not put his money where his mouth is and have iTMS sell independent songs without wrapping them with FairPlay?

Some apologists say that Apple must have an agreement in place with the RIAA that prevents them from doing such a thing. Ok, then, Apple, tell us that. If Steve Jobs is calling out the big labels for requiring DRM, really hit the point home and tell us how they will not allow Apple to sell their music without DRM being on all tracks. There is no motivation for Apple not to report that if it is true.

So, I have to agree with the AC above, at least in principle. It is one thing for Steve Jobs to talk about a longing for no DRM while the EU pressures him to open up FairPlay, it is an entirely different thing to show that commitment.

Don't mistake this post as being from someone who does not like Apple or iTunes. I am a customer and I love my iPod. But I don't believe in giving someone who preaches a good message a free ride to continue to do what most of us on /. are against.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, I'll come up with another reason: Consistency.

In theory, one of the great things about iTunes Store is that it is consistent. If I buy a song from iTunes Store, I know what I can do with it. Most other stores have a dizzying array of what can and can't be done with a song purchase--you can/can't burn it to CD, transfer to music player, rent it, squirt it, etc.

Adding in the "Digital Rights Managed" field would be a step against this. Suddenly, when you download a song, you don't know what you can do with it. Or so the theory goes.

Personally, I think that's the reason Apple is holding out for the "all or nothing" approach. I also think Apple shouldn't wait for the major labels to come around and should, instead, try to get the ball rolling by letting those who don't want DRM on their music sell their music through iTunes without DRM.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[ArtDent]

"Lock in" doesn't mean what you think it does.

It doesn't mean that it forces people to buy an iPod in the first place. It means it imposes barriers to ever switching away from it.

It doesn't really matter whether the iPod or iTunes Music Store is more popular. Even if someone buys an iPod first and loads it up with MP3s before starting to use ITMS, once he is using both, he is forever locked into them. If, one day, he finds a superior portable music player made by someone else, he won't be able to switch to it without losing all the music he purchased (barring the tedious and quality-reducing escape mechanism of burning and re-ripping, of course).

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[Workaphobia]

I don't see how. If the major labels went DRM free, that would essentially blow the market towards unencumbered music. Apple would lose a lot of marketshare if it didn't jump on the bandwagon. So long as the labels keep DRM, iTunes will, and if the labels decided against it, iTunes will follow, regardless of Jobs' preferences.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[Knetzar]

I dont know about that. My roommate bought a few dozen off of iTunes and he doesn't have an iPod. When his current MP3 player dies the ability to play those songs will probably push him to get a iPod.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[aaarrrgggh]

If on average it is only 12 songs that are purchased, the prospective "switcher" will either burn a single CD, live without the songs, or re-purchase for a whopping $12. It's an invisible barrier... there is no real impact, just a small hassle factor afterwards.

The reality for many people is more that they are locked into iTunes Store rather than being locked into the iPod. Content from other providers isn't available on the iPod. This is a problem for the record labels more than the consumers. For the consumers (at least for myself), the biggest issue is that I can't buy higher quality songs that will play on my iPod from another vendor. This gets right back to the root of the issue-- who does DRM benefit.

The labels intended for it to benefit themselves. What it has really done is given the power to another party (Apple iTS), because it is the only store selling DRM major label content that will work with 78% of the music players sold today. Apple doesn't benefit from this situation given the fact that iTS does not make a significant profit, especially when compared to customer satisfaction concerns.

Re:Steve Jobs is a liar

[julesh]

Please stop repeating that canard that Steve Jobs has a "preference for getting rid of DRM." That is absolutely false. Almost all independent music labels (the labels not owned nor controlled by the four majors) have been licensing their content for resale in the mp3 format for several years.

The independent labels are largely irrelevant. Most of what Apple sells is from a major label. The major labels require DRM.

If Jobs wanted to sell such mp3s, he could do so today.

Yes, but there's little point in setting up the infrastructure to do so, when you can only do it for a small minority of the products you sell, and the advantage is relatively small (you can't sell the MP3 for a higher price, for instance, because nobody would pay it; you may find a small minority of customers refuse to shop at a site that uses a DRM format... but these will probably be put off using iTunes by the fact that most of its tracks are DRM'd anyway).

Re:Problem

[Butisol]

Hit alt + F4 to activate the keyboard self-cleaning mechanism.

No allofmp3.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

...price-per-download is the clean winner while DRM-based models also take the lead [in profit].

The fact that they decided not to include allofmp3.com in the "study" should give you a hint regarding how objective this "study" is.

Personally, I think allofmp3.com is the best of them all.

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[TheGratefulNet]

(I second that emotion) ;)

in fact, I just tried a*mp3.com and while visa was still 'disabled' mastercard still works. works fine.

3 cheers for the russians.

(can't believe I am saying this. 20 yrs ago, who would have thunk...)

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

They also didn't include emule, kazaa and bittorrent.

Or was it limited to legal means ?

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[joshier]

All of mp3 is bad in that it doesn't give the artists money.
I'd respect them if they gave them their fair share of money.

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because we live in the United World of America.

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[pembo13]

I hear the "artists" don't want to take the money from them

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[yoha]

That's because you are still stealing music with allmymp3, but paying someone a trivial amount (which doesn't go to artists) to assuage your conscience. The reason why allofmp3 wasn't included is that it is illegal and only exists through a loop-hole in Russian copyright laws.

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[joshier]

Artists not accepting money??... come on now...

Re:No allofmp3.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it is of dubious leaglity in most countries aside from Russia.

How Enlightening!

[FranTaylor]

Companies that charge for music make more money than companies that give it away.

In other news, gravity is still in effect, and time is still going forward.

In the mean time, the music distributors, with even less musical talent than Karl Rove, are still making millions, and all of my musician friends are still broke.

Re:How Enlightening!

[Anonymous Coward]

> and all of my musician friends are still broke.

Guitar Hero does not a musician make.

Re:How Enlightening!

[FranTaylor]

Ha ha.

This is not Guitar Hero.

Oxymoron

[SatanicPuppy]

DRM doesn't enable anything...All it does is restrict. So how can it possibly enable innovation? What would happen if there was no drm? Would music stagnate? Doesn't seem to have in the past.

I believe in limited copyrights to protect an artists ability to profit from his works. I don't believe those copyright should be transferable to corporations. I don't believe those copyrights should have anywhere near the duration that they currently enjoy, and I don't believe I'll pay a damn dime for drm encumbered crap that does nothing more than deprive me of rights that I should have by virtue of paying for the damn content...At least if I stole it, someone would have taken off the damn drm!

Innovate that.

Re:Oxymoron

[jfengel]

Music used to be heavily restricted. You bought an LP/cassette/8-track and you couldn't back it up, make extracts from it, mash it up with anything, or do much except play it on the device for which you bought it. You could try to make a copy, but you were going to suffer extreme quality loss and after only a couple of generations it would be unlistenable. The Rights Management wasn't Digital but it sure was Restrictive.

It's only since the creation of the CD that you could do any of those things. The old model has to go out the window; people like the stuff that they can do with the new format. But it's not clear where to go from there, since free copying tends to encourage exactly one pricing model: give it away. It may be the only model, given how ineffective DRM is compared to the old "press it into vinyl" model.

Re:Oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

>Would music stagnate?

Ask yourself why game developers are fleeing the PC market for the somewhat harder to pirate market of consoles, e.g. http://www.qj.net/Epic-Games-Unreal-Tournament-3-c ould-require-authentication/pg/49/aid/87198

For better or for worse, there's no doubt you are going to get what you asked for. (Be happy!)The question is whether you will like it once the full ramifications become clear.

Re:Oxymoron

[Have Blue]

"Hi, I have an innovative new method for selling music in an online store, and I want to license your content." "Get lost."

"Hi, I have an innovative new method for selling DRMed music in an online store, and I want to license your content." "OK."

Whether you believe Jobs or not, the ITMS only took off because it has RIAA content and it only has RIAA content because it has DRM.

Re:Oxymoron

[Hans Lehmann]

Music used to be heavily restricted. You bought an LP/cassette/8-track and you couldn't back it up, make extracts from it, mash it up with anything, or do much except play it on the device for which you bought it.

You could only play it on the *type* of device for which you bought it, but there was nothing that prevented you from playing it on your friends turntable, and if your turntable died you could just buy another one and all your music would still be playable. Furthermore, once you were tired of an album there was nothing preventing you from either selling it or giving it away. Try doing that with your iTunes files.

Re:Oxymoron

[jafac]

What happened was not just the creation of the CD.

It was the transition from Analog to Digital.

In this transition, the music industry has reaped enormous benefits and efficiencies - from the recording, to the production, to the manufacturing, and even in the transition of consumer audio equipment (going from analog turntables to digital CD players was a HUGE boon to the electronics industry, with regard to the level of audio quality per dollar spent).

The music industry wanted to get all the benefits of going digital - without suffering one of the trade-offs: what was easier (cheaper) for them to mass-duplicate, was also cheaper for pirates, and consumers, to mass-duplicate. (this actually didn't start happening for consumers for about 10 years, because there were no consumer-level CD burners until about 1990-ish).

Like any other business, they wanted to have their cake, and eat it too.

Sure..

[pickyouupatnine]

It helps build smarter code crackers, but thats probably not what TF meant by 'innovation'.

tangible

[bigwavejas]

im definitely not an expert here, but i personally feel if i spend money i want something i can keep, not something i can use for a few times. i think what a lot of people are doing is streaming the music via napster or whomever,then ripping the stream into mp3s and posting the torrent.

Well

[RobertM1968]

I would say DRM based models would take the lead at least for now, since there havent been many non-DRM based models, much less ones with the marketing power of some of the DRM based models such as MS's Zune, and iTunes. This point in the "research" is currently irrelevant until choices (DRM and non) are available with similar market penetration, and enough of a time period passes to recompare the two.

sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon Lech Johansen seems pretty innovative to me.

Mindless Self Indulgence

[Anonymous Coward]

Rocks! Give credit, though:

Song: I Hate Jimmy Page
Artist: Mindless Self Indulgence
Album: Frankenstein Girls Will Seem Strangely Sexy

Yes for rent, no for purchase

[dupont54]

I agree with you : I haven't problems with DRM being part of a "renting" or "access to a catalogue" business model, where you pay a monthly fee. Because in this case, if you are not happy with the DRM, you can stop paying and that's the end of the story. So the provider must do its best to keep you happy.

But like the vast majority of people, I am not interested in these business models. I still like to buy things, build a collection, ... I prefer the classic "buy once for all" business model. And in this model, DRM are completly inacceptable.

There is not such thing as "BUYING" a DRMed media, those things are just too volatile : change your hard-drive/OS/players too much time and your file self-destroy ; providers can go bankrupt with their activation servers ; buy new hardware which happened to be incompatible with non-standard DRM techniques, have your player key revoked because some hackers found it, etc... And of course, if the DRM is efficient, you cannot make backup or "interoperable" copy. So sooner or later, your media is broken for no reason and you can't do anything about it...

You cannot buy a DRMed media, you are renting it ; the provider just forgot to tell you for how long... And if you are not happy with the DRM, too late, you have already paid. I suppose that's qualify as a business "innovation".

Re:Yes for rent, no for purchase

[Mateo_LeFou]

'member all those stories from Middle School history about Native Americans being unable to comprehend the concept of "owning" land?

Same thing here with art. Except it's us primitive native pre-DRM guys who are having difficulty comprehending.

Re:Yes for rent, no for purchase

[rtb61]

The big catch of course is the rental model is a joke, the biggest target audience, teenagers, and the majority can't afford it, the only thing the majority will pay a subscription for is their mobile phones. It's a crackup all these greedy corporations waffle on how they are going to get hundreds of dollars a month out of children who don't work to pay for all those subscriptions, MMOG, music, mobile phones etc. 21st century kids will never go out, never buy clothes, never dream of owning a car and only pay rent.

The group lives for it's new found independence and will only buy and the majority really don't have all that much to spend. The 20th century music publishing model required the ability to control the message reaching teenagers, the B$ marketing as news about which band/musicians/singer were good (whether they were or not) which were popular (whether they were or not) etc. the music scene is going to break up, local bands etc. will take over, the marketing B$ of so called music 'stars' is coming too a end.

Live music will come to the fore, dead music is dying. Besides by far the majority, greater than 90% make little or nothing from CDs and their only real hope of income is to use them as marketing to get people to their live performances, they reality for them is, if the money isn't being spent on dead music, there is a chance it will be spent on live performances instead.

Define 'Innovation'

[ThosLives]

For some definitions of 'innovation' I would agree that DRM might be an enabler. I consider the the definition of 'innovation' as "1) something that allows you to do the same thing as before with less effort; 2) maintain what you were doing before with no increase in effort even though environmental conditions have changed; 3) do more than you're currently doing with no increase in effort."

Hrm, looking at that, DRM could be considered an innovation for the distribution industry because it enables them to keep some lock on their product/service in light of a changing market landscape.

So I guess I don't have a problem with the concept of DRM being innovation. I think the more important question is "innovation for the benefit of whom?"

Re:Define 'Innovation'

[Keeper]

DRM enables a music rental model, allowing me unlimited access to content for the price of a single album per month. Falls under category 3.

It is an oddly liberating experience (well, if you're into the whole doing things the "legal way" thing). No more hunting to find the best song on an album so you don't waste money. No more worrying that the new artist you want to try out is worth listening to. And if you happen to find an artist you like it isn't a problem to get EVERYTHING they have with just a few clicks. And hey, if I don't like it I can delete it without feeling like I just wasted money.

I used to maybe buy one cd every few months. Now I download probably a dozen albums per month.

Lots of people argue that you lose access to that content if you discontinue your subscription -- and you do. However, the only reason to cancel said subscription is if it is no longer a reasonable value (ie: you download less than 1 album per month). The thing is, new music is always coming out, and I don't see myself "exhausting" the value of my subscription anytime in foreseable future.

DRM not neccisarly just RIAA big label.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

DRM Is a delicate balance. I have friends in the industry from struggling artists, to record managers. The biggest complain I hear from my friends touring to death is the amount of piracy that goes on. Fans will come up to them bragging about how they copied their cd from a friends. When you have limited appeal every merchandise sale counts.

Thats why many of them put their music on itunes and tell them to download the songs from it. No easy piracy, increased hassle free distribution.

I have yet to buy a RIAA/ big label record from Itunes ... or anywhere else for that matter.

What would turn this on its head

[cdrguru]

Set up a server in a country where it is nearly impossible to get shut down. I guess that is anywhere but the US today.

For a couple of months before launch collect every freely distributed bit of music it is possible to collect. This would take some searching and downloading, but it would result in a significant collection.

Make it all available with an ad-supported service and use the ad revenue to buy up anything else available from folks like the Russian mob (allofmp3.com) and various other quasi-legal services. Grab their collection before they are shut down.

Extend this into P2P, collecting more and more and mixing it in so it would be impossible to tell for any given music clip where it came from. Allow anonymous user contributions and hide behind the DMCA like YouTube. Take something down and it would immediately pop up again from anonymous contributors.

Have a rating and keyword system for finding stuff. All free and just ad supported. Of course, since the original material was freely distributed or "contributed" the ads just support the service - no need for any revenue sharing except you could mail out prepaid Visa cards every so often to people that put in an address. Nothing large, say $20 or so just to keep the interest up. Still utterly anonymous.

And the RIAA would be powerless to stop it.

Re:What would turn this on its head

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think will really drive John and Jane Public to spurn DRM is when they find out that they'd technically be 'criminals' for using their FairPlay iTunes purchased songs on little Johnny's non-Apple player that they got to replace his lost/broken iPod..

Right now, the average person isn't making the correlation between one product from another (which is only made worse because they don't understand the scary, almost magical technology). To them it makes sense to buy songs from Apple to play on their Apple product. On the other hand, if they could only purhase gas for their Ford vehicle at a Ford only gas station I bet they'd get the point.

Re:What would turn this on its head

[davester666]

What I think will really drive John and Jane Public to spurn DRM is when they find out that they'd technically be 'criminals' for using their FairPlay iTunes purchased songs on little Johnny's non-Apple player that they got to replace his lost/broken iPod..

Right now, the average person isn't making the correlation between one product from another (which is only made worse because they don't understand the scary, almost magical technology). To them it makes sense to buy songs from Apple to play on their Apple product. On the other hand, if they could only purhase gas for their Ford vehicle at a Ford only gas station I bet they'd get the point.

Except, they won't be 'criminals'. There's nothing in the license or within iTunes that prevent you from: a) buying music b) burning the purchased music to CD c) ripping the purchased music into a format usable by this non-Apple music player d) copying music to non-Apple music player. The only part of this process that Apple doesn't actually have a option within iTunes for doing would be c) if the music player doesn't support AAC or MP3 and d).

Possibly the only real complaint they MIGHT have would be that this process takes some time and there is some [certainly small relative to a tape-to-tape dub] loss in audio quality due to the format conversions.

Exactly.

[pavon]

As far as I am concerned it is all about the difference between purchase and a service. If I buy something, then I should have every right to use it however I want, as long as I do not distribute or publically perform the work. In my opinion, not only is DRM unacceptable, but I think the law should be changed so that a purchace comes with an implied license to copy for any reason. That would cover almost all of the consumer rights issues that are currently up in the air with regard to fair use. (Producer rights, like parody, criticism, education would still have to be dealt with seperately.)

On the otherhand, broadcast and rental are very nice business models for some types of media. As far as music goes, I prefer buying, but I almost never buy movies or anime - the replay value just isn't high enough for me to justify paying 5x the rental price and have more junk cluttering up my apartment. Without some sort of DRM, rental is impossible in the digital relm, and I really don't care if my devices make it difficult to copy something that I rented because I never had the right to do so to begin with. As long as the implementation is convienient I don't have any fundamental problems with DRM on rentals, and other services.

DRM is a complete failure when it comes to preventing piracy, and always will be for basic fundamental reasons. However, when it comes to rental/broadcast the purpose of DRM isn't to prevent piracy but theft of service. For that purposes DRM actually works fairly well. Because you control the stream, it is easy to change keys whenever one is cracked, as opposed to static media and players which cannot be changed after they are sold. This is why AACS was effectively broken within weeks, while the DRM for digital satallite is still secure after years. This is a situation where "Open" DRM (licened under RAND terms) can be valid and useful, much along the lines of the CableCard standard.

That said I would hate to see the situation where media is locked up and only provided as a service, and never made available for purchase. But as long as we don't get to that extreme have think both non-DRM sales and DRM'd services can coexist peacefully.

TFA is absolute correct. DRM does cause enable...

[mmell]

innovation.

Napster. Gnutella. Gnutella-2. e-Donkey. BitTorrent. All innovative technologies.

DRM and the dodo

[natpoor]

DRM is going to be killed off by monkeys and stray dogs?

Re:TFA is absolute correct. DRM does cause enable.

[laffer1]

Using this logic, it may even push people away from Vista.

Ignores ORIGINAL Napster

[jafac]

To ignore the utility and innovation in the original Napster (which was more than just a P2P download service; it was P2P downloading, bundled with social networking, and a grassroots ratings service).

Everything else has been downhill since.

Dodo? Really?

[bricklayer]

Or, will DRM go the way of the dodo bird (as Steve Jobs has already proclaimed his preference for)? This would explain the colossal failure of the iDodo.

Re:DRM not neccisarly just RIAA big label.

[UncleTogie]

First, it's "necessarily..."

The biggest complain I hear from my friends touring to death is the amount of piracy that goes on. Fans will come up to them bragging about how they copied their cd from a friends.
So the fans you mentioned copied it from a friend. Loss to the artist of about $3, max. Your friends can't see the forest for all those darn trees, though; would that fan be at the show if he didn't hear the music? It's a given that the money's in touring, NOT record sales.

In short, your pals are griping about new fans coming to their shows, making them MORE money than what a CD purchase would make. I've worked road crew locally in the past and never heard any gripes from any artist *I've* worked with in the past 10 years. Must be just the nationals.

The Business Models - Translated for UK readers

[giafly]

Buy the Condo Downtown (iTunes) = marry
Buy the Small Condo (Napster) = marry slapper
Buy the Small Condo Downtown (Yahoo!) = marry chav
Buy the Even Smaller Condo Downtown (Yahoo!) = marry troll
Buy the Ranch On the Edge of Town (eMusic) = marry cutie
Buy the Ranch in the Country (Amie street) = marry heiress
Rent the Mansion in the Slums (Napster) = hooker
Rent the Mansion in A Different Slum (Zune) = rent boy

Re:TFA is absolute correct. DRM does cause enable.

[chreekat]

bittorrent was not developed in response to drm. This may be slightly off topic, but please don't lump bittorrent, a file transfer protocol, with products that help index and search and share content.

Legal innovations

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, why is copyright infringement prosecuted while fair use violations are OK? Why isn't there a thing such as "fair-use infringement?" If I can infringe on someone's ability to copy a work why can't they infringe upon my right to fairly use it? Basically DRM is like making your own set of copyright laws and change them whenever it strikes your fancy. In fact I would go to say that DRM imposes anti-competitive, even criminal restrictions on market transactions. Big media companies make a standard and impose it on all their members and then anybody that wants to participate in the market has to pay huge fees to these conglomerations. So indeed these are wonderful innovations. I just wish some people would read the innovation called the Constitution once in a while...you know..the people that keep trying to modify it.

I can't remember where I read that some RIAA exec said that downloading music is not a form of free speech or civil disobedience. Oh yeah? Yes it is. It just became both since what I just said was ILLEGAL.

Oh and just a reminder, 1984 is copyrighted until 2044.

Apple has a bird conservatory!

[Anonymous Coward]

the dodo bird (as Steve Jobs has already proclaimed his preference for)

Where does Steve Jobs keep these rare and previously-extinct birds he likes so much???

Re:No allofmp3.com? (THANKS!)

[Wicked Zen]

Damn, some nerd I am. I'd heard of allofmp3.com but had no idea how great it is. Between that and last.fm I think I've got all the online music I need. (Sorry if this comes off as advertising; it's not meant to be.)

Perhaps not DEVELOPED in response to DRM.

[mmell]

But certainly USED to circumvent it.

Innovative, yesno?

Re:DRM not neccisarly just RIAA big label.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No. Loss to the artist closer to $10, if they were to but the disc at the show. They reap higher profits off of the cds bought at the concert, then the stores. Maybe I'm talking too small scale for your experience. These bands often get paid a flat rate per performance rather than per ticket sale usually, unless its a big show, in which case there take per ticket might be $5, and they came to see the larger headline act. Sometimes they tell them that they are going to copy the cd from a friend. Future tense, as in they came to the show for some reason, but have deemed their music good enough to steal now.

Maybe my friends can't see the forests from the trees. But Itunes, provides a way to bypass a lot of the crap that goes into production and distribution of discs, for a similar rate of return. Having DRM on itunes might actually be irrelevant in that respect, but it makes them feel better about it.

The summary is incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is about whether DRM provides a range of business models or not. It winds up saying that DRM does NOT provide a range of creative business models:

Perhaps in the context of online music sales, "innovation" is really providing customers with more choice in the form of compatibility across operating systems and devices, broad file format options, and customer-driven pricing mechanisms. If that is the case, DRM-based stores aren't the ones doing the innovating.

Watermark Me!

[bill_mcgonigle]

But it's not clear where to go from there, since free copying tends to encourage exactly one pricing model: give it away. It may be the only model, given how ineffective DRM is compared to the old "press it into vinyl" model.

Copyright law still protects the artists' work. I'd hate to see that go away given how well the GPL has worked.

So the problem in digital duplication is figuring out who violated Copyright law. There's an easy solution to that - watermarking. I wrote about this a few weeks ago - watermarking technology is such that it's robust and does not impair quality for lossily-compressed music. I'm not about to violate copyright law with the music I buy online, but the current DRM schemes aren't about copying, they're about control. I lost a disk with my iTunes Library on it just after purchasing a song, and I had to re-purchase it again, I couldn't just download it again, and that's where the real money is - repurchasing. Ironically, it's the only time I've used iTunes since JHymn stopped working. Yeah, I'm only out $1 extra, but the principle sucks. Lala has a much better model.

Executive summary: Watermarking combined with Copyright Law is an effect copy control measure, but DRM is about repurchasing, not preventing copying.

Re:Watermark Me!

[julesh]

Executive summary: Watermarking combined with Copyright Law is an effect copy control measure

How does watermarking allow effective copyright control? It's completely ineffective against people who are prepared to lie in court (e.g., "Oh, I'm sorry, I lost a CD with those files on it a while back, I thought it was in my house somewhere, but maybe I dropped it outside..." or "My local computer expert tells me I have something called a trojan horse on my computer, and that people could have been copying my files through it.").

Re:Watermark Me!

[bill_mcgonigle]

How does watermarking allow effective copyright control? It's completely ineffective against people who are prepared to lie in court

It does no better than current Copyright Law, which is subject to the same attacks. "Oh, my, is that a licensed stock photo? A photographer gave it to me and said it was his original work, I didn't know." etc. Fortunately, the courts do not depend on the veracity of defendants to make their judgments.

Aime Street

[Jason Levine]

I've never really been interested in online music as I didn't want my legally purchased music to be locked down on me. What little music I bought was mostly obtained via used CDs. My first online music purchases were four Barenaked Ladies songs when I found that they were selling their music online without DRM. Then I found AmieStreet.com. For those who don't know, their model is that the songs start out free and rise in price (up to 98 cents) as people buy them. A song I bought at 23 cents (Hoku's Perfect Day) is now up at 47 cents (when last I checked). The advantage to this model is that you can experiment on new songs for little cost (or even for free), or you can buy the 98 cent stuff assured that it must be pretty good.

Add in the extended previews and the excellent recommendation system that can earn you money back when songs that you like rise in price and you have a system that encourages people to find and buy new music. So far in the about 2 weeks that I've been using their service, I've bought 10 songs, spent 89 cents, and been exposed to tons of bands that I otherwise wouldn't have even known existed.

Shameless plug: I happened to do a decent sized review about Amie Street on my blog just the other day. It includes a promotional code for $2 and 4 free RECs in your account as well as a link to the 10 songs I've bought. (Preview versions, of course.) Here's the URL: http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/?p=94

What happened to WeedShare?

[crosbie]

There is probably only one DRM based online music service that can come close to claiming that DRM enabled its innovation:

http://www.weedshare.com/

Re:No allofmp3.com? (THANKS!)

[Wicked Zen]

Please ignore the previous message. Now I realize why I'd heard of allofmp3.com and never tried it. You can't from the U.S. At least, not easily/legally. Feeling quite silly now...

The hidden cost

[JustNiz]

The big point this report is totally missing is that the record companies whole cake is shrinking faster than the extra part of the slice they're gaining from DRM. More and more musicians are realising they can now idependently sell their own music directly over the internet instead of going to a record comapny.

Record companies contracts are so agressive that signed musicians earn very little from even millions of sales via the conventional channels. The record companies have traditionally been able to get away with this because of their monopoly on the marketplace, however the internet has thankfully broken their monpopoly in that a few sales on the internet now earn musicans more money than a million sales through a record contract. Furthermore musicians also get to keep their rights to their own music which are usually also demanded by the record company.

Ironically as a short-sighted response to this the record companies are making cotracts even more restrictive and making their products less desireable by adding DRM. For some reason they think us consumers are too stupid to spot or be concerned about the DRM. Just like every other accounting-driven business, record companies have a large blind-spot with respect to lost sales thorugh bad treatment of customers as there's no way to calculate the exact figure so they ignore it. This also explains why most companies feel its ok to keep you waiting in phone queues for 20 minutes over the cost of one more minumum wage phone clerk.

Ultimately record companies will just have to accept that they've lost their monopoly on the marketplace and will be obliged to either start making products that people actually want, and treat musicians like equal partners, or fade away into obscurity. However until then, they are kicking and screaming like the fat cat spoilt brats they are. But rest assured the change is being forced on them wheter they like it or not, so they can't keep it up forever.

Re:The hidden cost

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Ironically as a short-sighted response to this the record companies are making cotracts even more restrictive and making their products less desireable by adding DRM. For some reason they think us consumers are too stupid to spot or be concerned about the DRM. Newsflash: once you get out of slashdot-land, most consumers DON'T care about DRM. It's not that they're stupid, it's that it doesn't affect them, so they don't care. My wife gets her music from itunes. She can listen to it in her car, on her 'pod, and on her computer. While I've certainly made her aware of how evil DRM is, she doesn't actually care. And why should she? As far as she is concerned, there is no DRM that affects her: she is not prevented in any way from doing the things she wants to do. And millions upon millions of itunes sales says that this is not an uncommon belief.

Re:The hidden cost

[jp10558]

All I can say is I worked at best buy for a while, and lots of those people "not affected by DRM" weren't so happy when their hard drive died, or their PC needed to be reformated to fix the spyware issues (only cause they didn't do backups and didn't want to shop around for cheaper backup, or pay our exorbident fees). I've heard mixed results about getting second downloads from iTunes.

Re:The hidden cost

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In fairness, I think there's a difference between invasive DRM such as installed by Sony; and DRM on downloadable music. As you point out, consumers are much more likely to notice and be affected by the former.

Dont post such fud on slashdot please

[unity100]

It has been discussed and concluded numerous times that drm actually HARMS music industry as a whole.

and it is well known that the fud spreaders of riaa use "innovation" excuse to push for shit they need to control the market.

so please dont post no shit, dont post no fud, dont post no shitty fud.

That must be a real kick in the ass...

[Otis2222222]

Me? I'll stick to what is best... Music that is freely distributable by bands that don't make their money by sitting in a studio for one album but instead are out there working their asses off touring.

...to hear some new music that you really like from a friend, only to find out that it's a band that's signed to a major label. What does your sense of morals tell you to do in that situation? On the one hand you really liked that song you just heard. Loved it, in fact. But on the other hand, they are "the enemy" and you must resist, since giving even once cent of your money to a record label furthers their cause.

Look, I hate DRM too. And I've supported independent music that I like. But I'm also man enough to admit I have bought albums by major acts at the music store and didn't feel the least bit bad about it. Frankly, until the CD is outlawed (not even DRM can stop you from ripping a CD) there is really no cause for alarm vis-a-vis DRM. Damn shame that DRM-free downloads aren't more popular, but right now there are still alternatives.

And look on the bright side. The tide appears to be turning against record labels. The public is starting to really get the message and it's only a matter of time before the labels either die or figure something out that's fair for everyone.

Not rape, marriage..

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone points out, it's more like marriage.

So you start off with the offer of good sex, then it's occasional sex, then it's hardly any sex. But all the time you're paying more and more and more, and you've paid too much already just to throw it away and start out new, but on the other hand she's a money sucking soleless bitch whose bleeding you dry and nagging and nagging and nagging...... ... erm....well... erm... I mean all the time the programs nag you to upgrade, and each upgrade offers you less and pretty soon you find the only MP3 player you can buy is an iPod because it's the only thing that can play your music collection.

So it enables kidnapping, hijacking, market lock-in and that in a way is a sort of innovation, I guess. If you're a hijacker, kidnapper, wife, it's an innovative new way to achieve your goals.

Re:Not rape, marriage..

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

seriously, marriage is the dumbest thing a man can do. The legal binding one sided nature of marriage that favors women above men in the court of law... should be enough for every man to just say no to the fucking thing.

A first for /.?

[Dachannien]

Could this possibly be the first article ever on Slashdot that asks a rhetorical question but doesn't get tagged with "no", "yes", and "maybe"?

Wrong model, period

[allthingscode]

The article presupposes that all innovation is just translating the concept of physically owning CDs to owning the music on the internet. The article itself isn't even very innovative.

Here about some real innovations that the internet would allow? These are off the top of my head:
1. Online radio stations. (Yes I know they are using other laws to shut these down, too.)
2. Music attracting fans to a bands website to show concert dates, where you could buy show tickets, airplane tickets, etc. (Some independent bands do this.)
3. Advertising on a site where you listen to the music you have searched for.
4. Once I buy a song, I own the right to listen to it however, whenever. Use the internet to stream it into my phone, my computer at home or work, and into my home entertainment system.

The music industries have a problem with the internet. Sony Music is a distribution system. They don't make the music, they put it on CDs, ship it and sell it. What are they needed for if a website can do that. Yes, I know they take money from one artist to pay for another, but do we really need 18 crappy bands before they find a band, like Green Day, which is worth listening to. Oh, that's right, Green Day was good before they became popular.

Re:DRM not neccisarly just RIAA big label.

[2short]

The problem with your argument is, DRM does not prevent piracy.

"Fans will come up to them bragging about how they copied their cd from a friends."

And their friend can burn them a copy of their iTunes downloaded song just as easy. Pirated stuff goes up on P2P networks within minutes of its iTunes release.

Putting their stuff on iTunes because their fans can find and buy it there with no hassle: smart idea. Putting it there to in any way inhibit piracy: delusional.

Digitally recorded music is made of bits. Bits are easy to copy, and will not become harder to copy in the future. Your friends should seek a business model and/or mindset in which people copying their stuff is not a bad thing.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, stupid or something?

Read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

so please dont post no shit, dont post no fud, dont post no shitty fud.

Ironic that you say this, when you obviously didn't read the article. It's not a pro-RIAA piece by any stretch of the imagination.

So don't make half-assed comments when you've never even read the article in question.

Re:Read the article

[unity100]

well, after all that stints riaa put out, im irksome about the matter. anything seeming positive just shoots off the red lights.

Re:DRM not neccisarly just RIAA big label.

[scuba0]

If a person who has copied the music and then goes to a show and thinks it is great, don't you think the person who just had paid $x to listen also would also consider "sponsoring" the artist by buying material that they sell at the show?

The whole thing about paying to see a show shows that the person coming there are already spending money on the artist. But yet I haven't seen any artists that promotes their album sells as "donations" to them. Their are a lot of different models that would help the artists sell more just because the fans wants to give money for good music even though they like to download infringing content.

Jobs and DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember it correctly, Jobs made three possible "solutions" to music distribution, of which only one was abandoning DRM.

Jobs was smart and basically made a statement that everyone agrees with. Those against DRM noticed the "stop DRM" alternative, and thinks Jobs is a hero. The record companies noticed the "strengthen DRM" alternative...

Jobs never said he was against DRM. He said that if the record companies wanted DRM-free music, he would have to do what they said. He actually prefers the current situation, since he has a monopoly on distributing music through iTunes, and playing it (iPod).

There are alternatives to iTunes and iPod, but only iPod works with iTunes, and iPod only supports iTunes DRM...

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, for all those who are a friend of a friend, please i ask you to help me with my final 3rd year research project. The survey is about Online/Digital Music purchasing habbits.

The link below will send you to an online survey which should only take but a few minutes to fill out, and is anonymous
Click here to take survey

Please help out a friend in need.

Many Thanks

Simon B

Re: Analog - Digital Context

[TaoPhoenix]

Thank you for finally bringing this aspect in.

Not counting world class hobbyists, I don't know of *anyone* who could copy their own vinyl music onto other blank vinyl.

There was the first version of this outcry when standard tapes became the 10-year standard. If you were indeed willing to suffer some quality loss, you *could* form small sneaker-nets of 1st generation copies of tapes. Youth of the 1980's got to experiment with Mixing. After a little serious thought, the world realized that in this case the professional package was still seriously better, and the "Free Advertising" of amateur mixes was wholly beneficial.

You are correct that the *entire* rule-set changed with the advent of the CD, and the msuic industry wasted their 8-year warning of things to come. Meanwhile, they convinced us that Tapes were worth $9.99 and CD's were worth $16.99. No wonder I stayed with tapes until just 4 years ago.

It's too bad Shawn Fanning got crushed in the aftermath, but Napster '99 was a glorious product of 1999's mood. He woke everyone up, and "left the future as a homework exercise for the class."

Clearly, the music world will splinter soon. The music industries are thrashing about, and they have a lot of inertia to thrash with.