Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"

Posted by kdawson on from the content-is-not-context dept.

bogess writes "Yahoo! Music General Manager Ian Rogers recently gave a speech to some music executives about the future of the Internet music business and promised his company will not be involved in Digital Rights Management anymore." Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels and going independent.

5 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. you... by cosmocain · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...never can have enough DRM. really! see... you can have a mp3 for 0.99 or a value added wma with protection against EVERYTHING. even listening! how great is that?

    i, for one, would prefer the newest single by britney spears in a totally unplayable format.

  2. interesting indeed. by apodyopsis · · Score: 3, Informative

    this is truly an interesting read.

    shame I cannot get MP3 from Amazon yet as I am in the UK. :-( Boo!

    but I will be buying NIN and Radiohead albums - not only do I like the music its very important that the artist and the RIAA get the message.

    though I suspect (and hope) they will be getting two very different messages.

    the important thing to realize is that there will be no quick change here - the RIAA has the majority of artists by the short and curlies because they are mostly currently locked into draconian contracts for fixed duration and no. of albums. currently only the lucky few who are nearing the end of their terms (or should that be sentences) can escape to artistic and hopefully monetary freedom.

    truly, we live in interesting times.

  3. NIN, Radiohead, and more... by joshuaes · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems Oasis and Jamiroquai are to join the label free trend.

    Article.

    --
    "While you're watching the quiet ones, a noisy one will fucking kill you!" - George Carlin
  4. Re:Labels Wising Up? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Informative
    Thing is, if you're arrested, they don;t use a dictionary in court to define your crime. They use these things called laws.

    Under the law, it is NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. VERY different.

    Who says it's not stealing? The Supreme Court says its not stealing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207: "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.""

    --
    This space available.
  5. Re:OK, so lets have a vote by dlim · · Score: 3, Informative

    Other than my subscription to eMusic, I pretty much only buy music direct-from-the-artist. This usually includes getting a record (on vinyl) at shows, which hopefully includes mp3 downloads that labels like Merge and Sub Pop include with their LPs. I also bought the Radiohead record (at $5) online.

    I see 2 benefits to this approach:

    1. (I like to think) artists get more from the sale than they would if I bought it from a shop.
    2. The labels that make up the RIAA get less (if any) money from the sale. (I usually only go to shows of bands on independent labels - "safe" on the RIAA Radar).