Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"
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.
Everyone is jumping ship on DRM. Boo-hoo. The consumer wins!
If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience.
Let's hope Apple starts following this line too. iTunes/iPod domination allowed DRMd music to be accepted by far too many.
Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
How about removing the DRM on video content?
They're using their grammar skills there.
As much as the No DRM makes sense from a political & ethical point of view, the fact that people are recognizing DRM as a bad thing is starting to dawn on people. When Apple iTunes wanted DRM out of the way (for audio, though not for video), I thought of it as a win-win-win situation for everyone including the artists, APPL and the users (screw the RIAA).
Now Y! is doing the same thing and very intelligent of them too. Yahoo! music engine is not something I would use (or *could* use) despite getting a promotional offer (*disclaimer* as an employee) and tying down people to such idiotic client lockins (*cough* jukebox) is not working out well for it at all. If it would work well with Amarok or even the less popular Songbird, I'd happily use it over Last.fm (which streams directly into amarok happily).
Finally, it is a good thing that Y! is realizing that Convenience is a Feature++ - one way or the other.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Try Fugazi. I know most people have at least heard of them. Kick ass tunes.
If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-)
Except that you probably don't enjoy free, and fascinating electronic music.... no you want David Hasselhof's new band "singing about love" - you know the neat band they play when your inside McDonalds, or ordering a coffee at Starbucks, or passing by a sexy shot of a model on MTV - oh wait that was a tampon ad.... yeah the lyrics are so unique that it just catches your ear so you download it to your Ipod because its so easy to give them your credit card number. God I bet the band really appreciates your help.
To put it more bluntly, it is my experience that it is the type of music you listen to that will get you locked into money schemes like DRM. /love the minimal
Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
Check me if I'm wrong, but with your example of Radiohead, aren't they going to a "pay whatever you want" price format for their latest album as a download? Why yes, they are. Yeah, they're also offering a high(er)-priced "with all the extras" version if you want a physical copy. But they're hardly asking for extortionate prices.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
> Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels
> and going independent.
Since 2001, Einstürzende Neubauten has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription. As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!
They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is
a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free".
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.
Well put. For those who don't get what he said, let me give examples...
You are asked by a bride to put together a slide show, here are my photos and here is the music I want played.. Now try to get permission from the school photographer to scan and project the images on the screen. Now get permission to play the show with a public performance music soundtrack. Now get permission to burn the show to DVD and give them to the bride and extended family. Now get all the permissions (photo, music, songwriter, ASCAP etc) to put the mess on YouTube or MySpace.
Most of us can't do any one of the tasks to do any of the above required steps. We don't ask. We just do the show and hope nobody cares enough to sue. Unless you are a pro-video production company, your chances as an individual of not intentionally breaking someone's copyright is pretty slim. If you took the copyright violations in my last wedding slideshow and charged me $5,000 for each violation, the total would be in the mega millions. There was copying the music (bride provided, I didn't own) copying the photos (lots of school and sports photos done by a studio), public performance of the resulting package, and duplication and distribution for putting it on DVD. The show ran 15 minutes and used 4 songs.
When will the industry learn that outdated copyright is preventing use of the product. There is no outlet of the industries providing anyplace where I can obtain the license to use the products. As a result, I no longer use photographers who won't sign my work for hire contract which gives me the copyright. They either adapt or lose the job to someone who will. Copyright reform is required. It does not recognise how the products are typically used anymore.
The truth shall set you free!
I'm sick of the RIAA!!! I just paid $11.08 total to download the new Radiohead...CD, no, it's not CD anymore.:P But yes, the whole album. Well, whatever it's called these days. I'm a bit old school...I listened to LP's and even had an 8-track back in the day...Queen, News of the World...on 8 track...yuck, but oh the memories. Now NIN?!! Yes. I hadn't even heard any music off of the new Radiohead, but I love 'em. I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA, and perhaps even the MPAA or anyone else interested in DRM or IP. I will pay, but I don't want to pay for something that's restricted because you're afraid I will steal, and what DRM entails, or EULA's may or may not entail. Restrict all you want xxAA or whoever, if I don't want it, I won't buy. And no, I'm not going to steal it either. Simple economics. Radiohead and their current musical or financial allies, not the RIAA anymore, will get my money, because I don't want to buy what the RIAA has to offer. I still do though, but I don't like it. I bought Radioheads new release though, with passion...freedom! And it's their music to do with what they want now, how they want to sell it. And, since I like their music, and it's DRM free, and doesn't have the usual EULA stuff that goes with other sites like Amazon, I'm more than happy to even to pains with currency conversion stuff. What a breath of fresh air this is!!! I love this! And, I'm listening to the new release...it's good, BTW.:) Namyohorengekyo.
Consider Feist, an indie artist who's tune "1 2 3 4" shot to the top following the iPod nano ad. Previous iPod ads always had big name artists (Paul McCartney, U2, Wynton Marsalis, Bob Dylan, etc.) and so it would seem a gamble that a relative unknown (no disrespect to Feist's following) would get a spot in an iPod ad. I can't help but think that Apple proved a point: the big labels aren't really necessary anymore.
I once read a comment that went something like this:
80% of people are mostly honest and won't usually steal;
20% of people won't steal under any circumstances;
the remaining 20% will steal anything that isn't nailed down.
Don't know if it's accurate, but it feels right!
Let's have a vote. You can even AC it if you want.
How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
the difference is that the file sharers are not getting caught for downloading (which is stealing in most cases). they are getting caught for distribution, which has a harsher punishment under the law. let's say i go and rip off a candy store for a $2 candy bar. that's stealing. now let's say someone else goes and rips off a candy truck on its way to deliver candy to the candy store. steals the truckload of candy and then sells it on the black market for below cost. the guy who is selling it makes bank because his costs were $0, while the candy store got ripped off because they end up having to pay for higher wholesale costs to cover the new cost of added security for the truck driver and the consumer buying from this candy store now has to pay higher retail prices because the candy store owner can't afford to sell at the same price, yet buy at an increased wholesale price.
if you go into a store and steal a CD, that's the equivalent of downloading an album of mp3's from the internet and not paying for it. it is not the same as going and stealing all the CD's from the distributor and selling them, keeping all the money to yourself (meaning no money gets to the record label (doesn't matter if it's RIAA or indie), which means no money gets to the artists themselves).
no copyright infringement is not stealing, it's much worse if you ask me and people who do it deserve what they get.
please me, have no regrets.
It's amazing how little bands or artists themselves actually get of the $12.99 - $18.99 typical selling price of an album. In grad school, I took a negotiations class and one of the mock negotiations was for a typical record label and band. . . breaking down the actual cost of the deal, the record label often makes more money per album than the band itself makes from the album, factoring in a variety of legal/inflated expenses.