Music DRM in Critical Condition?

ianare writes "Universal Music Group, the largest music company on the planet, has announced that the company is going to sell DRM-free music. The test will see UMG offering a portion of its catalog — primarily its most popular content — sold without DRM between August 21 and January 31 of next year. The format will be MP3, and songs will sell for 99 each, with the bitrate to be determined by the stores in question. RealNetwork's Rhapsody service will offer 256kbps tracks, the company said in a separate statement. January 31 is likely more of a fire escape than an end date. If UMG doesn't like what they're seeing, they'll pull the plug. UMG says that it wants to watch how DRM-free music affects piracy rates."

Comments

Re:Another half-ass job

[digitalchinky]

256kbps is good enough for me, though I'd really only buy if the price point was closer to 10 cents. Lots of reasons for this, though the main one is simply that I live in Asia, piracy is common. Like it or not, that's what they have to compete with. 10 cents per song is about double the profit margin over pirated CD's, though if I can reliably go to an online store from the comfort of my home, then that's where I'd rather be.

Correct, it's classical intermediation

[Flying pig]

In fact, it's what "entrepreneur" means. That's a word whose original meaning is not so muchy lost as deliberately concealed. An entrepreneur is someone who tries to insert himself in a flow - of cash, a commodity or other resource - and then act as the gatekeeper, thus making money. Because it means "taker in the middle".

The recording industry themselves are entrepreneurs, and now they realise that the software companies are not just another mechanism to enforce their intermediation, but an attempt to introduce a new, and harder to evade, middleman.

All entrepreneurs seek to enforce their control, either legally or through other means (such as owning the channels of distribution, or by monopoly patents.)

Entrepreneurs have a part to play when a resource does not have a market, but they find it very hard to lie down and die when the market is established. We don't yet know who will win this battle for control over the electronic music market, but improved search engines and technology availability could disintermediate the market in a different way - e.g. by sites aggregating direct sales by many small bands, cooperatively owned.

Re:Correct, it's classical intermediation

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

In fact, it's what "entrepreneur" means. That's a word whose original meaning is not so muchy lost as deliberately concealed. An entrepreneur is someone who tries to insert himself in a flow - of cash, a commodity or other resource - and then act as the gatekeeper, thus making money. Because it means "taker in the middle".

No, that's not what entrepreneur means. It's derrived from the same french word enterprise in derrived from - entreprendre, to undertake.

See the Online etymology dictioanry.

Interesting Experiment

[CmdrGravy]

If I was the music company I'd place some kind of signature in my files and keep a watch on how many of them later appeared on common piracy sites. It would be interesting to see how many, or few, of them leaked out.

Now is the chance to give money to parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy if you want. As far as I'm concerned Universal can fuck off.

They're one of the worst. It is they who persuaded Microsoft to let them charge Zune users a Zune-tax. Let them lift that tax first.

They're still playing games. This time round, they are refusing to sell through the iTunes Store. This is an act of revenge. It's because Apple won't open their DRM to other distributors, because Apple doesn't want the hassle of maintaining this DRM (that it doesn't want in the first place and only has to use because companies like Universal insist on it) for every other distributor. IOW, Universal do want the DRM and are blaming Apple for not making it work for them across the whole industry - as if Apple, or anyone else, could.

YOU buy. YOU rush out and buy from these parasites. I shan't.

If I want to buy a download rather than a CD, I'll buy EMI at the iTunes Store or go to Magnatune or Linn records. Universal can go boil its head.

We should cheer for Steve Jobs..

[Rexdude]

6 months back, he himself spoke against the negative effects of DRM and how Apple was implementing DRM only to comply with the wishes of the recording industry. Now fear of an Apple monopoly on DRM has finally forced Universal (for starters) to think about selling unencumbered music. So we have him to thank for scaring the recording companies into removing DRM! (hoping that they eventually will)

Re:We should cheer for Steve Jobs..

[daveschroeder]

Even if you believe Jobs' DRM statement was a PR stunt, it is the single biggest shot across the bow of DRM from anyone anywhere near a person of Steve Jobs stature in the online media distribution industry. In this case, from someone who is the CEO of the company which is the third largest music retailer in the US, the largest online music retailer, the manufacturer of the most popular portable music player by far, the CEO of a major movie company, and a boardmember of one of the largest movie and media companies in Hollywood.

I'm sorry, but you can't just ignore the fact that Words Mean Things. You can't assume that just because a company makes a statement that it is pure 100% PR and nothing more, and that an individual, even a CEO, can't have his own beliefs and convictions that are exclusive of the corporation's desire to many money. Besides, if DRM-free is really the way to grow the market and make the most money, then doesn't coming out against DRM do that as well?

I have no doubt that Jobs is being pragmatic, but I also believe he understands - because it is articulated in crystal clear fashion in the statement - that DRM is crippling the online music industry, will never work, and will always be able to be defeated. I also believe he thinks that removing DRM will mean that Apple may end up with a smaller slice of a much bigger market, still meaning growth in absolute terms for iTunes.

And, my cynical friend, Apple has NEVER needed DRM to keep people on iTunes and iPod. The ease of use for normal people is what keeps people on iTunes and the iPod. I find it humorous that you're talking about computer jukeboxes and a commodity like a portable music player as something that shouldn't strive to be the best on the market, and outdo its competition. It's also laughable, if not somewhat sad, that after Apple made its statement AND became the first online music store of any consequence whatsoever to sell mainstream music from a major label - you know, music that a lot of people actually want - that you still choose to believe that Apple "really doesn't want to get rid of DRM".

The mind boggles, almost as much as at this statement and the associated analysis from Daring Fireball:

So Universal is going to sell DRM-free music through Amazon, Wal-Mart, RealNetworks, and others, but not through iTunes. Why?

But the music will not be offered D.R.M.-free through Apple's iTunes, the leading music service. The use of copy protection software has become a major bone of contention in the digital music business, where iTunes accounts for the vast majority of download sales. The record labels generally have required that retailers place electronic locks to limit copying of music files.

But Apple's proprietary D.R.M. does not work with most rivals' devices or software -- meaning that music sold by competing services cannot play on Apple's popular iPod. Some record executives say they believe that the stalemate has capped the growth of digital music sales, which the industry is relying on more heavily as sales of plastic CDs slide.

Um, Universal won't sell DRM-free music through iTunes because they don't like Apple's DRM? WTF? Am I even supposed to pretend this makes sense?

Also, various EU nations targeting Apple for DRM on iTunes and iPod are barking completely up the wrong tree. It's the labels that require DRM in every sense of the situation, not Apple. No matter what you think Apple "really" wants. And "interoperable" or "open" DRM? Give me a fucking break. The only "interoperable" DRM is no DRM at all. Even if everything on iTunes was DRM free, many, many customers would have no problem at all staying with the iTunes/iPod paradigm. Because, for the most part, it just works. Other more tech-savvy customers would be free to get other players and use them with music from iTunes. Apple is under no obligation whatever, nor should it be, to make iTunes interoperate as slickly and easily as it does with the iPod an

DRM,Pricing,packaging; legal inferior to pirated

[viking2000]

$.99 is just wrong. I have mp3 music on a dvd. At 5MB/song, I can fit 9.6GB/5MB ~=2000 songs. I would be happy to pay $25 for disks like this, but no way I pay alomst $2k for a disk.

I notice also that in markets that sells pirated music they come as MP3 on CD's and contain over 100 songs for $1. The lagal CDs next to them costs $10, and contains 10 songs.

The legal product is certainly inferior. Unless the music industry can deliver a superior product, they can not win this.

Re:Now is the chance

[Jugalator]

Isn't this the company that sued Sony in the 80's, and tried to make VCRs illegal?

I don't remember, but I know they've bribed radio stations to broadcast crap music.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/tvstations/articl e_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002501367

Wikipedia also summarize it well:

In May 2006, an investigation led by New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer concluded with a determination that Universal bribed radio stations to play songs from Ashlee Simpson, Brian McKnight, Big Tymers, Lindsay Lohan and other performers working for Universal labels. The company paid $12 million to the state in settlement.

Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !!

[eiapoce]

If you go into a hardware store and buy a hammer, you won't be paying the amount it cost to produce and ship it. YES YOU DO IT. The cost includes all the profit margins, and to the competition those are reasonable. I want to continue with your hardware store example as this turn out to be really funny and you'll maybe see my point of view.

Consider that the majors have been trying to push bloody business models where one or more of those restriction apply to you:

1) Pay for each nail you hit with the hammer
2) Rent the hammer and pay monthly for ulimited strikes on nails - when the rent expires all your nails disappear
3) Be limited to use your hammer just in your room
4) Be limited to use only a specific brand of nails - In case this is overturned by a clever hacker all the nails can cease to work (see playsforsure against old MS DRM)
5) whatever else limiting to you but more profitable to them
6) Get sued if you lent/use a hammer from another person
7) Pay for a hammer that can be used to build 10 houses - Ops, sorry, after the sale terms are changes: only 7 houses (Apple FairPlay Cd burning)

From my humble point of view as noone would use such a tool . Conclusions: those corporations have been looking actively for extincion and fully deserve it.

Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !!

[Maxo-Texas]

The underlying question is why is it reasonable to pay the artists over $200 grand a year? Why is it reasonable to pay executives so much?

I mean the average person earns $41k a year. The answer is- it's not reasonable. We got tons of music (and movies) in the 30's... 40's... and 50's... (and most of the 60's...) when everyone on the food chain made a lot less.

We got more of them because the artists had to produce more to make a living. And the idea of getting filthy rich didn't really start until the 70's.

There is no reason in today's world that we need 15 to 20 people feeding 200k+ per year incomes off of each song. This is why songs (and movies) cost so much. Because a parasitic industry has grown up around them due to their unique government protected monopoly.

Is there any reasonable way you can justify an author getting richer than the queen of england- becoming worth over a billion dollars in such a short period of time? Is there any other kind of work which pays that kind of compensation?

Clearly copyright is currently broken. It forces society to pay grossly inflated prices compared to most of the rest of history.

Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !!

[MetalPhalanx]

Except for the lucky few, musicians or "artists" are rather on the poor side. I play in a local band, so many a time after a show we hang out with the headlining act. I see behind the scenes, behind the image... Signed musicians, and they sleep in their van, taking shifts driving to the next show. If they're lucky, someone in town offers them a place to crash for the night. That doesn't really sound like a bunch of people making >= $200k/year to me.

Yeah the stadium filling acts have tour buses and roadies and groupies and all that, but the vast majority of performing musicians make enough money to stay alive and on the road, if they're lucky.

Also, don't compare music and movies. Making music involves a band, a couple of engineers, and possibly a studio musician or two for the "extras". Next time you go see a movie in theaters, sit through all the credits... Try to count the names. Music involves a couple of handfuls of people to create, a movie requires hundreds. Now, to clarify, I'm not in any way for the high prices and I'm not defending current copyright laws (I believe the system is broken personally). I'm just pointing out that movies and music are on different levels.