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.

Comments

Labels Wising Up?

[wdr1]

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

-Bill

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[arivanov]

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.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[DigitAl56K]

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.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[timmarhy]

No, it's NOT stealing.

it's infringment. there's a big difference.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Kierthos]

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.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[tzjanii]

--The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years.

It's worse than that. By this point, they may as well be wearing lead prosthetics.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Volante3192]

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.

It's also important when dealing with little things like the US Code.

Funny thing, though, if it WAS actually stealing, the fines would be a lot lower. It would actually be in a P2P sharer's benefit for downloading "stolen" music to be classified as theft.

Just more proof that the scare tactic is working. Stealing: effective social scare tactic, tiny fine. Copyright infringement: pathetic social scare tactic, huge fine.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Technician]

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.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[kripkenstein]

It is stealing.

While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not. No, it isn't. Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc. There are also several new business models these days (ad-driven, etc.), but it is too soon to tell about them.

Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example). No, quite the opposite. One of the reasons we have a few acts making the vast majority of money in music is the RIAA, who through extremely costly and aggressive marketing make a few acts control the charts. If the RIAA vanish tomorrow, music will 'democratize' - more artists making money, fewing really big money-makers; prices will stay reasonable. This is a very good thing, and it is already starting to occur.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Petrushka]

This will make the market for pop music very similar to the one for classical. Classical music is quite different from the pop. While the all of the pop is priced at roughly the same level as a consumer good, classics prices are all over the place. A single CD with Beethoven sonatas can cost anything from 5£ to 60£. A collection of Beethoven symphonies can set you back by a 3 digit number.

I see no problem whatsoever with this. If the sellers are sensible, they will price the product at the price the market will bear: people will pay more for things they particularly want. Sure, a set of Beethoven's symphonies can go for USD$ 18.98 if they're performed by the Dresden Philharmonic, or for USD$ 67.98 if they're conducted by Georg Solti or John Eliot Gardiner. That's absolutely fine: if people are willing to pay more for Solti and JEG, all well and good; if they're not, there's the Dresden Philharmonic. Same with contemporary music. If people are willing to pay $60 for an album by Celine Dion, well, it sucks to be them. Or maybe not, from their point of view: if they're willing to pay the price, clearly it's worth it to them. Personally, I'll be the one browsing through the Naxos CDs, more often than not, but that's fine.

Variation in pricing is a good thing, if the variation reflects demand for the product. You wouldn't expect to have to pay the same for an ersatz coffee maker as for a Krups; so why would you expect to have to pay the same for the Bavarian Radio Orchestra as for Karajan?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[mpe]

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.

The same holds if you make the "legitimate product" over complex/difficult to buy. e.g. Telling people you don't want their money because they live in the wrong country does tend to build good business relations.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Nigel_Powers]

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!

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[m2bord]

actually...according to Sony's lead counsel in the Thomas trial, making one single copy of any recorded music/video is stealing and that includes copying a cd you own for your personal use.

they believe in the microsoft model of licensing. you must buy a seperate piece of media for every device you own.

so in your copying anylog, permission would not be given because Ms. Pariser believes that there are available copies of most titles available at competitive prices for you to purchase.

so in sony's perfect world, that leaves you with having to go out and purchase an electronic copy which would then be locked to your pc due to drm and then you would have to purchase another version that would be used on the presentation device ALONG with paying any ASCAP royalties.

essentially what we're dealing with is a group that is becoming more greedy and seething at the thought of users doing what they want with the media they purchase.

which leads me to this question...when did we get to the point in our world when we don't own the things that we buy?

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Jafafa Hots]

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.""

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Incongruity]

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.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[general_re]

I agree 120%.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[rizzo420]

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.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

[Jherek Carnelian]

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... What you say would apply to the downloaders, but not the uploaders/sharers. Some 'closed' communities have ratios and what-not, but the general world of filesharing is filled with millions of people who receive no direct benefit from their actions. At 'worst' you could say they benefit by building a robust community of sharing, but community benefit is pretty much what anyone taking a principled stand on any issue hopes to gain,.

Lesson for Apple:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

how about the unbox video service?

[DragonTHC]

How about removing the DRM on video content?

you...

[cosmocain]

...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.

Re:you...

[Chouonsoku]

You, sir, are a visionary. What better way to protect our children against the auditory abomination that is today's pop artists? I feel that DRM is a wonderful thing, we simply haven't been using it correctly and to it's full potential.

cosmocain fo prez.

The 'No DRM' card

[Gopal.V]

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.

Won the battle...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

guess I have some records to buy

[rucs_hack]

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels, and nope, I haven't been downloading illegally either. If some of the big groups are going to divest themselves of their overlords, I'll be starting up with the purchasing again.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[mochan_s]

Actually, Radiohead in their interview are very supportive of large labels.

When their first album came out ( and before Creep blew-up ), they made no money but the label paid for a full tour of Europe even though the labels would lose a lot of money for doing the tour.

Basically, the label paid for a young band to play music and tour, sort of paid for their education.

They say that if they weren't on a rich label, the tour wouldn't have been possible, the exposure to get the song Creep heard wouldn't have been possible.

And, without big labels it's impossible for the bands to really invest in paying a decent studio to record, mix and master their CD and hire engineers by themselves. I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Re:guess I have some records to buy

[Corporate Troll]

I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Sure, but do we really want mega-bands in the first place?

interesting indeed.

[apodyopsis]

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.

It's finally happening

[rossz]

Everyone, the retailers, the talent, the consumers, are starting to realize that when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

Re:It's finally happening

[jimicus]

when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

A pain in the arse, in fact.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Romancer]

I will gladly pay the protection money to Yahoo to keep DRM away. Give me high bitrate and lossless choices and watch my downloads soar!

Good for NIN and Radiohead

[foo fighter]

It is great news that established artists are able to leave the big labels behind.

But has any music artist achieved anything like their success without the marketing power of a major label behind them?

I do understand that making enough money by playing music to have a decent standard of living and support a family should be enough for a real artist.

But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?

If this has happened already, please enlighten me because I've missed it (I know who NIN and Radiohead are, but haven't heard of any, so you have some serious convincing to do.)

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[zygotic mitosis]

Try Fugazi. I know most people have at least heard of them. Kick ass tunes.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[cliveholloway]

I think the Bastard Fairies are doing rather well. It's been interesting watching them grow over the last year. Though they're not exactly after the stereotypical stardom level, so i don't know if they qualify for your criteria...

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead

[WarwickRyan]

> But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist
> to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?

Yes, the Artic Monkeys have certainly done well and they have never been involved with the majors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_monkeys

Signed to a fairly big indie label now.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Korveck]

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.

If you all would switch....

[djfuq]

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

Re:If you all would switch....

[dave1791]

Popular music that sucks gets DRM'ed. Music that sucks that nobody listens to... why even bother?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Stormx2]

Nine Inch Nails were never on the "other ship". Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) publicly hates his label, and has leaked every NiN release so far. This isn't some sudden turn about. Check out quoteunquoterecords.com for another example (donations based).

I hear a lot of shit on the radio that "this would never work for lesser-known artists", which is a total load of rubbish. The independent artists have been doing this more than the big bands. Of course I'm happy that we're moving away from the fat cats to a clearer artist/listener relationship, and I'm also a radiohead fan, but this whole thing is totally overegged.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[h4rm0ny]

Amen! I'm over in the UK and I'm just waiting for Amazon or Yahoo or someone to start selling me quality downloads. I'll spend £40.00 on the service the first night it goes live, I have no doubt. I've bought a few albums from 7digital.com but a good portion of their stuff is still in WMA and they're also more set up as an online music service than a store for streaming your music wherever you are. (Everything you buy sits in an online basket that you can never get rid of and for Linux there's no convenient way of downloading your music except clicking on slow file downloads - takes fifteen minutes of clicking to get your files).

I can't wait until services are actually selling me this stuff properly.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Hymer]

...and poor Microsoft who has totally fucked up Vista (and delayed it several times) just to implement a "unbreakable" DRM system... instead of fixing some of Windows' real problems.

NIN, Radiohead, and more...

[joshuaes]

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

Article.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC

[pedestrian crossing]

Emusic has been brought up so many times, is there anyone who visits /. who hasn't heard of it? I would be very surprised to learn that every single post is from a genuine fan and a not from some paid shill. Signing up for emusic is selling yourself short as a consumer. You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information. They use the anti-consumer "AOL method" of signing people up, by forcing people to cancel a free trial. Sorry, but I have no idea how difficult they'll make it for me to cancel, even if I were stupid enough to give them my credit card information without having any idea what they're selling. And since I can't browse their catalog, I'm betting most people won't be interested in most of their catalog. To make matters worse, their subscription method makes absolutely no sense from the consumer point of view. What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now? What if I don't want to buy anything for a couple of months? Their subscription method only makes sense from their point of view. They can manage their books a bit easier and get free money for consumers who don't use all their downloads.

I am not a shill, I am a satisfied customer.

Here's my take:

For a long time, people here complained about iTunes, and essentially said, "Just give me the damn MP3s at a reasonable price". I agreed with them. Along came emusic, and that's what they did. I chose to support that decision with my wallet, which is the only real vote we have in the marketplace.

So I took a chance with the "free" trial. Yes I had to give up my CC, but I figured that if these guys are ripoffs, they aren't going to last long.

What I saw when I got into their site was a breath of fresh air. I have very eclectic musical tastes, and the breadth of their selection was simply astounding. I realized right away that I was not going to have any problem choosing 90 tracks every month for the forseeable future.

Sure, if you are looking for "mainstream" mega-label stuff, it's mostly not there. But if you're fucking tired of the crap you hear on radio, and like to hear other genres than just 70's rock, wow.

You are entitled to your petty objections about emusic, but I will not stop "shilling" for them. For me and many here, emusic kicks ass. It's time to stop whining on slashdot, get out on the market, and vote with your wallet.

Doing anything less is "selling yourself short as a consumer."

Power to the bands

[Archie Gremlin]

I keep hearing the phrase "bands make most of their money from touring etc not from CD sales".

If this is true, then Radiohead aren't losing any money by giving away their music. They're just building a fan base by giving away music instead of building a fan base by getting a label to sell CDs. It also means that DRM protects the label and actively damages the band.

Has the internet finally created a world in which the bands don't need labels any more? Perhaps in 5 or ten years time, we'll see that the labels will morph into music marketing companies who are hired by bands as necessary. Either that, or they'll have to start paying the bands a decent royalty on CD sales.

I have a question

[nysus]

As the guy in the article points out, it is trivially easy to move bits from one person to another.

If I amass a 1,000 song collection with mp3s, won't it be trivially easy for me to "share" my music with all my friends? Wouldn't that really help build my reputation with them? And wouldn't those who received the free music be inclined to give away their music to others as well to help build their reputation?

It's good that the record companies now understand the scourge of DRM, but I don't see how the artists win in this scenario.

More innovation from independent bands

[thbb]

> 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".

Not making money on CDs

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

...seems to be largely because the record labels keep it all. If a band sells a CD, the record company gets most of the money. If they sell a t-shirt, they've bought the shirt wholesale and keep the rest.
Some friends of mine were touring as the support act with a largeish (reformed '80s) band recently. The main band wasn't selling albums at the gigs, as the wholesale price the record company wanted for the CDs was too high. My friends were making quite good money, as they were unsigned so just had to pay the CD making factory.

Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[jefreyisnotzen]

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.

Re:Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion

[Braino420]

Sir, put down the coffee.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[dotgain]

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. Most of them are bound by contract to the labels for a certain time or number of releases. It's not that they don't know to switch, but that they can't.

OK, so lets have a vote

[maillemaker]

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?

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

[dlim]

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).

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[griffjon]

We'll see what happens. Yahoo has enough clout and a big enough war chest to stay afloat where others (AudioGalaxy) have failed, even though they focused on independent labels and contracts with RIAA companies (but still ended up getting sued to pieces). Yahoo of course will have full control over the content they post, so while they have to foot the bandwidth bill, they'll be in the clean (unlike AG, despite its fingerprinting technology).

The long-term question will be if Yahoo can get through the iPod barrier to start attracting business of online music consumers who don't know/care about DRM, and show them the light.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[MightyYar]

I don't see the inconsistency.

1. I'm grateful for whatever I get if it is free.
   
2. I won't pay for crap.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[eric2hill]

I just configured a new Lenovo Thinkpad T60 with Vista and the first thing my client asked me to do was to play a movie. I popped a DVD into the drive, media player started automatically, then Windows threw up an error message that it couldn't validate the video path with DRM.

I found out that the graphics driver that shipped with the laptop wasn't "ceritified" to run with Vista. I had to download the 30MB+ graphics driver update before I could play a DVD.

Microsoft, you're really fucking your users over with Vista.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I must be an oddball then. Despite my being technically sophisticated enough to download pretty much anything, I still mostly buy my stuff - software and movies included.

Why? That's the legal way. As long as they don't screw stuff up, I prefer being legal.

I've dropped literally hundreds of dollars at webscription.net, which not only allows me to buy DRMless books, but to redownload them whenever I want to. It doesn't take two minutes and an internet connection to open them. It'd take two bookshelves to hold them all if I'd bought physical copies. I appreciate the saved space.

Basically, don't try to sell a product that's measurably inferior to the pirated version. I've heard everything from 20 minutes of unskippable ads(a disney DVD), condescending 'don't steal movies' ads, music with DRM so computationally expensive that playing them on a portable player sucks out half of the battery life, unable to play on average(or even top of the line) systems, installs root-kits, huge hassle when you change computers, etc...

*I'll normally download cracked executables for games even though I purchased it, that'd make for an interesting court battle when they claim I pirated software and I produce a receipt from before they say I downloaded it.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

There is no inconsistency. However by moving the goal posts each time they're reached simply reveals the true motives.

After the file format is changed the excuse will be the music itself isn't good enough to pay for.

The Tide is Turning

[allcar]

In the last few weeks we have seen a number of advances in the world of DRM. This article is an excellent and eloquent statement of what a nonsense DRM really is. Critically, it is written by a guy in a very influential position. Coupled with the launch of Amazon's MP3 service (sadly only in the US, at least nominally) and the continuing deluge of bad publicity for DRM, the labels will eventually have to see sense. Oh, they won't just crumble overnight. There will continue to be a spate of ugly trials and the RIAA will even win some (especially when the defendants are stupid enough to lie in court), but actually all that achieves is more bad publicity for them. They'll cling on to their outmoded business model for as long as they can, but it can't and wont last. It's about time!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I once worked with an aspiring artist and figured out that you could get a couple thousand professionally pressed CDs, complete with four color art in jewel cases with insert for about a dollar each. While financing would be a concern, even mastering costs are limited today - any home PC can do most of it today, and for ~ thousand you can get quite a bit of pro, or at least semipro equipment. This doesn't include instruments, of course.

Buy two thousand CDs @ $1/each, add in producing costs of ~$1k, total cost $3k. Sell the CDs for $10/each at gigs, after the first 300 it's pure profit*. $17K worth, as a matter of fact. See if you can get the CDs into some of the local indie stores(be sure to get a UPC barcode). Sell ten a show, three shows a week, 50 weeks a year, that'd be 3.5k CDs sold a year. Add in a neat t-shirt design(be careful about copyright infringement, original art only, please).

Of course, I told him that I wasn't a music critic or fan, so it was up to him to be good enough to sell them. ;)

*excepting taxes, of course, but at that point you're running a business, and something like a band is will probably have lots of deductions.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[badasscat]

There is no inconsistency. However by moving the goal posts each time they're reached simply reveals the true motives.

I think you're confusing "moving the goal posts" with taking things one step at a time.

If we all demanded everything we wanted right off the bat, we'd be labeled as nutjobs and nobody would pay any attention.

If you ask for one thing at a time, it comes off as more reasonable. It's the same approach you take to any big problem. You're not going to solve world hunger by tomorrow through one big air drop. It takes baby steps.

Yes, the quality of music will be the next complaint. Or pricing. That's nothing new. That's not "moving the goal posts". These are all things people have been saying for a long time, but first things first - DRM is the more important issue at the moment.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I've never heard anyone complain about .jpg images at 90 quality, demanding lossless versions of the same image, except for people who use the image as source material in other productions, yet for some reason it's cool to pretend to hear things that aren't there.

128kbps MP3 isn't just lossless, it's also low enough that many people with decent-good systems can hear the differences.

Sure, it's fine for most portable/computer purposes, but it's more like a 50% .jpg image rather than a 90% one. It's just fine until you go to print it out, but then it's all fuzzy. A 192 kbps MP3 would be like a 75% quality one - good for most hifi stereo systems, and 256kbps would be getting into 'golden ears' territory, especially if they go back to the masters to do the encoding.

And I am by no means a golden eared person, but I could easily hear the difference between a CD and the 128mbps mp3 when I hooked my computer into my receiver. Sure, somebody might come along and say it was my encoder, but at that bitrate there was simply a lot missing.

Still HD space is cheap, and the higher quality can always be downcoded for usage in a player. It can also be billed as a selling point - better quality than the pirates.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

You say "If you do X I'll stop pirating your music." They do X, you don't stop like you said you would you instead come up with a new X. Seems like moving the goal posts to me.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[speaker of the truth]

There was no sarcasm in my post, I really was thanking you for the link. I can see how you might have read it as if I were being sarcastic, but I in fact copied and pasted the link myself and then even bookmarked it ;) Honest: No sarcasm intended.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Artifakt]

Company says "CDs will cost $5 more than LPs or Cassettes, but that's just until they stop being experimental - then the price will come down". CDs become the default medium, price doesn't drop.

(And company still gives artists lower royalties per unit for CDs using the same argument).

Company says "We will continue to market CDs, but we need to get the CD standard and definition changed."

I'm not saying you're wrong to characterize what some listeners are doing as moving the goalposts, but that's some listeners, while others do come back to the market and buy music if their particular complaint is addressed. Meanwhile, the RIAA has been moving the goalposts on its own in various ways, and until recently, it hasn't been some members, it's been a totally unified 100% action.

w00t for indie bands

[indiejade]

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.

So

[ghjm]

You are correct, of course, that filesharers are acting out of personal greed, as are the RIAA member labels. But so what? The American revolutionaries were acting out of personal greed; they didn't want to pay taxes to the British government. But we still call them freedom fighters. The question isn't whether people are acting out of noble motives; it is whether or not their greed is justified.

At the time of the American revolution, the British government made all the same arguments the RIAA members make now. The British government / RIAA can say that they paid to create the desirable item, that they paid to promote it and make its desirability evident, that they have the courts and legal system backing their ownership of it, and that people who take it without paying are thieves - or if not thieves, then some other kind of criminals (copyright infringers / tax avoiders). Freedom fighers are always criminals, because if the law respected the freedoms they (greedily) desire, they would not have to fight for them.

So yes, filesharers are acting out of personal greed. But that doesn't mean their cause is wrong. The principled argument in favor of filesharing is that copyright exists not to convey absolute property rights to the creator of a work, but to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences; that this implies the public has an ownership in copyrighted works just as essential and protected as that of the creator; and that current copyright law excessively rewards the creators of works without giving due consideration to the public interest. If you buy this argument, then filesharers are freedom fighters, regardless of their motives.

-Graham

This means more advertising, less music.

[Qwavel]

Is this really good?

When they say no more DRM, I doubt their plan is to 'sell' songs without DRM. I think this means that songs will be distributed as a service and that the service will be supported by advertising.

And I, for one, am sorry that everything we do has to be supported by advertising. I don't like advertising. I prefer to pay a reasonable fee.

I don't blame Yahoo. They came out with a great music subscription service that went absolutely nowhere in the market. And, regarding DRM, they have been consistent in their rhetoric against it, but have not had the power to do anything about it.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[flitty]

I'm sure a lot of you know about this already, but if you want an MP3 search... skreemr.com

Responsibility

[sxmjmae]

Why it is the responsibility of software, hardware, etc to enforce the DRM?
Are the car manufactures required to implement speed controls so you do not break the speed limit?
I really hate that Microsoft is trying to enforce the DRM - why is it there responsibility to do it?
If Microsoft is required to implement the DRM so Microsoft can provide a DVD decoder for the movie then Microsoft should say fine we will not include your decoder - if the user wants to play your company's DVD on our software OS you should provide your own DVD player/decoder (BTW: Microsoft is not responsible if through some patch or update your software no longer works). From Microsoft point of view I would be pissed at the DVD company rather than Microsoft.

I just do not see why it DRM is trying to force hardware and software developers to be the police. Do they get extra pay every time some tries to break the DRM?

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's just incrementalism - the same strategy used to get people accustomed to DRM in the first place.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

[Firethorn]

I also can rip and use my own copies of movies while keeping my originals safe because funny enough even though I'm supposedly buying a license for the movie, and not the physical disc itself, when I buy a movie they still won't provide a reasonable price for a replacement disc.

I believe that this has actually gone to court, it's just that the media companies merely keep quiet about it.

It went to court 'It's a license, not a physical sale'
- Court determined that it was a physical sale because the selling company wouldn't provide replacement disks
It went to court 'It's a license, not a physical sale'
- Court determined it was a physical sale because the selling company charged as much/more than the selling price of the software for replacement disks, so it was effectivly another sale.

If they want to keep the 'license' arguement media companies have to sell you replacement disks for not much more than what it costs them to keep a system in place to send you replacement disks if you prove you own the media in question.