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.

6 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Labels Wising Up? by wdr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What record labels are finally learning is that just because they can steal, doesn't mean the majority of people will.

    -Bill

    --
    SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    1. Re:Labels Wising Up? by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it even more pronounced than this:

      Some people will always steal and you are not going to succeed selling to them. They will always find a way to cheat even if you force them to buy the product through legislation. The percentage depends on geographic location, society, culture, etc. Usually these are a minority.

      The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Labels Wising Up? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't agree with that completely, Bill, but I think you're heading in the right direction.

      I think that given the opportunity most people will take something for free if they can and there isn't much risk involved. The real point is that the people who [i]would[/i] have paid for the content originally are still likely to pay for the content regardless of what everyone else is doing. Maybe they enjoyed the content enough to want to support it's creators. Maybe for this group of people having the opportunity to access the content using a nice interface that's reliable (in terms of service level and making accessible what they're searching for) is worth the expenditure versus the effort involved in other methods. Maybe they just want to stick to the law.

      I think many of us would make the argument, for example, that we have a) used the Internet to discover content that we've later gone on to pay for, but also b) we've also downloaded some content "for free" that really we would have never seen enough value in to pay for anyway (although perhaps we might have, if we could have chosen to pay less for it than was asked). So for certain pieces of content we fall into category A, and category B shouldn't really have much impact on a business - if I wasn't going to pay anyway who cares? The only impact is if the number of people in category A decreases.

      And that's where I think the problem lies. The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years. Many of us simply do not believe that the artists get a real share of revenues these days, diminishing some of the reason that might cause people to fall into category A. Some of us don't want manufactured pop pushed on us all the time, and this means less content in category A because that's mainly what the industry spits out (as far as what is considered "mainstream" and well known). If we're smart, none of us want to be locked into a platform via DRM that limits where we can take our music and what we can do with it (again, fewer people in category A). And most importantly, the RIAA can [i]not[/i] cause people to psychologically move content from category B into category A via lawsuits.

      This all goes back to what we've all been saying for a long time:
      * Compensate creators well so that as a consumer I know that when I spend my money I am really supporting the creator
      * Build many platforms competing for my business. I shouldn't be locked into iTunes if I want a wide selection, and I should be able to choose a platform that serves my needs.
      * Territory restrictions need to go away. If we want to get our hands on a piece of music and you refuse to sell it to us legally, guess what is going to happen?
      * Don't use DRM. Why do I want to pay money for content I really only have the option to use with your permission, and that I can't load onto any kind of playback device I might own?
      * Allow me to contribute to an artist at less than retail price if I want to. In the past few days we've seen certain artists trying this out. It's better than a category B (aka "I wouldn't pay retail for this anyway") decision.

      Finally, remember that each of us has a finite amount of disposable income to spend on music, and a finite ability to discover new music over time. The act of adding DRM does not suddenly make these problems go away. Even if you killed 100% of all piracy tomorrow that does not mean that we'd all suddenly buy more music. Which takes us back to where I started - it's all about making sure the people who are buying now still see the value in buying tomorrow. Look after category A and you'll be fine.

      I'm really tired. I hope this post made sense.

    3. Re:Labels Wising Up? by Incongruity · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.


      No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal. Freedom fighters implies some higher purpose -- most of the time downloaders are just out for themselves and don't want to take the time and cash to buy the CD -- I can't really blame them on either account, don't get me wrong, but it's still about personal greed rather than some larger principled stand in a strong majority of the cases.

  2. Won the battle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems that in recent days, the draconian overlords of music (RIAA) have won a local battle, suing and winning from a poor woman over $240,000 for about a dozen songs, and lost the entire war. Consumers kicked them to the curb 5 years ago. Now artists are starting to do it. Artists know how much companies take and how much they get. Its very likely that artists getting paid directly by fans for music on the web may have a better payday than if they stayed with the company. In general, it seems they won the battle and lost the war.

  3. Re:Poor MAFIAA by Korveck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not so fast, but RIAA and its beloved DRM will fail, within the next few years. RIAA still has control over majority of the music market. Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. What RIAA fails to realize is that a successful business is all about what the customers want, not what the company wants. There are countless examples of failures because the company lost touch with the people. And here we are just witnessing another failure in making.