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?

[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?

[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%.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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

[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.

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".

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: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

[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

[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

[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.