Slashdot Mirror
Sony BMG Dropping DRM
Lally Singh writes "BusinessWeek is reporting that Sony BMG is planning on dropping DRM from their music. Salon's Machinest had an interesting take on this; 'Actually, what's happened is quite ironic. It was the industry's own DRM mandates that tied many music-lovers in to Apple's music storefront (we all had iPods, and the only way to buy digital music for the iPod was from Apple). Now Apple's become too powerful for the labels. They need an alternative distribution channel — they want to get music to our iPods, but they don't want to go through Apple to do it. The only way to do that is to offer retailers like Amazon the chance to sell songs as plain, unrestricted MP3s, which are iPoddable.'"
This should be a nice switch, I've already been purchasing from amazon's mp3 store and find the ergonomics, the quality, and price all to my liking. And, if I find something I really like I purchase the real deal, the CD. I for one welcome our former DRM overlords into the fold.
This only widens and expands the music industry's audience, it is the logical conclusion to a stupid experiment. I suspect there are other efforts in the works to try and keep a grip on their "property", but this is yet another death knell to the music industry as they (the execs, etc) know/knew it. Wait until some breakthrough artist figures out they no longer need to be beholden to the record labels for their livelihoods.
Now, if only we could see some of this sanity become contagious and spread into some of the other media. DRM is a pain and it's ineffective. Just 2 days ago I watched on DVD a movie still only in theater-release -- I won't say where (it wasn't at my house), and I won't say who (it wasn't someone I knew). I would never do this, but it's obvious DRM only makes life more difficult for the honest consumers. (Wasn't there an article recently here about someone's collection of media getting wrapped around the DRM axle because he bought a nice new monitor on which to watch his movies?)
Back when Sony was putting root-kits in it's music CDs I felt justified in pirating their music.
Now I just feel OK about it.
What does it mean, Apple's become too powerful, so Sony needs another distribution channel? Is Apple driving the prices up? Is Apple restricting Sony to only sell DRM'd music? Is Apple incapable of supporting non-DRM formats? Does Apple not reach sufficiently worldwide.
Like a guy who's murdered his parents pleading mercy as an orphan - Sony pleading innocence over where they're at with ecommerce of their music.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
they could have built their own portals in 1999. they didn't. they filed lawsuits against soccer moms and college kids instead
apple came, gave college kids what they wanted many years later, and so the big publishers, by denying reality of the changing business they were in, effectively handed apple all of the power they previously had, and could have retained
they screwed themselves
no sympathy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
AllofMP.com has been pioneering the model all along.
They want to protect their intellectual property, which is understandable (although I'm sure some slashdotters will argue this point). But I think fundamentally we're going to have to accept one of two mechanisms by which they can do that. The first is DRM, and the problem is that it undermines lots of legitimate (fair, free) uses of the content. The second is lawsuits for civil or criminal copyright infringement, which have significant statuatory damages.
So I'm happy that people are waking up to the problems with DRM, and that companies are realizing it too. But realistically this means that more enforcement burden will be on legal action, which tends to be economically burdensome on individuals, although it is more likely to produce a socially acceptable result (allowing certain cases of fair use).
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
What I don't understand is why the labels have such influence in the sales of music. Contrast it with retail sales and you will understand what I mean. In typical retail sales, the retailer purchases X items from a distributor or direct from the manufacturer and sells the for whatever they choose, allowing the retailer to compete and allowing the manufacturer sell the items for their desired profit margin, the only people who's profit margins are influenced by competition (of the same product) are the retailers.
In the online music world, the Label places all kinds of stipulations and requirements on the seller. Wouldn't they simply be better off selling X licenses for Y cents per license to as many online sellers as possible and let them duke it out over selling as many as possible. You would see Apple's, and many other sellers', profit margins drop as competition raged. Consumers would be buying at lower prices, which would increase overall sales, and advertising would increase as different sellers tried to attract new buyers.
Overall, a simple Manufacturer -> Distributor -> Seller -> Buyer structure where the manufacturer is hands-off on the sales end would probably make the most money for them. Even with piracy raging in the background, I guarantee that if I could pick up a bunch of music for $.25 per song (with $.24 going to the label), I'd be all over it. If the label want's more money for a newer track, simply sell it to the distributor/seller for a higher price and let them figure out how they want to move it.
I would imagine you would see 2 for 1 deals, free downloads, and all kinds of other schemes where sellers would take a loss on the low cost music to see higher profit margins on the higher cost tracks.
All I can say is... stop letting the labels set the retail prices, let competition and demand dictate the price. It's worked for almost every industry since the dawn of trade and there is a good reason, it makes everyone happy because they feel like they are getting a fair deal.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
The change of heart only happening after Christmas may have been because the holiday sales of CDs this year sucked, down 20%.
If you go to Nine Inch Nails website you'll find the results of an experiment they just ran through. They offered an album for free with the option to pay if you felt like it. To cut to the chase, 18% paid for it (at $5 a pop). That may sound like a poor result and it would have been if it was fifteen years ago. Today however, the game has changed, the music industry used to be based around the concept of scarcity. They had a physical product and the only method of distribution involved moving that product around. Today, information can be replicated for almost zero cost instantly world-wide. Scarcity as a assumption in the business model no longer applies. So if traditional media companies are to save themselves they need to radically change their mode of operation or go extinct. Without scarcity, the only other tangible benefit they have to offer is the experience itself. This means shifting where they expect to get the majority of their revenue away from what is no longer scarce - the music itself - to what is still in short supply: live concerts, t-shirts, mugs, unique (signed?) physical items and such. The music itself can almost be written completely off as a promotional expense to attract business to the items that for are still scarce. Information networks have completely changed the rules of the game in many areas and media companies are just the people to experience it first. If they lack the vision to capitalize on products and services that are still scarce then they will remain as relevant as the steam engine. And there's nothing they can do to stop it - no matter how much "protection" they place on their wares there is a whole new generation of artists growing up right now that don't really see a pressing need to sign with a big label in the first place so if the labels don't adapt and continue to offer something of value then, well, economics is a bitch.
Shh.
In Soviet Russia, where the real hacking studs live, hackers soon will massively distribute DRM-ed versions of Sony's DRM-free music, just to show the world how much they hate the established music industry, irrespective of what it does.
In the US, some wannabe high-school hackers will briefly attempt the same, but will be sued into the ground by RIAA laywers intent on showing who still owns the copyrights to and patents on the DRM concept.
Linux user since early January 1992.
In context, I presume you mean pirating their work. Without getting into a moral argument, I do think you should consider the practical effects of your behavior.
We all know that labels screw artists and DRM is bad and blah blah blah, but what happens if your favorite action films cost $50 million to make, but suddenly all of the customers have "digital content wants to be free" philosophies?
Frankly, if nobody pays to see movies, no movies will get made - or at least, only cheap movies where the person making them can afford to eat the cost. No more magical Hollywood special effects. You're not going to see Lord of the Rings get produced under a Creative Commons license.
Even if the whole business isn't "respectable" by your standards, you obviously respect their work enough to watch it. To never pay is to vote for a world where that work is never produced.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Everybody talks as if Apple dies or thrives on Itunes sales.
WRONG!
Most analysts agree and Apple has all but confirmed they make almost NO money on the itunes store. Rather it's just a vehicle to sell more hardware (ipods, iphones, isomethings). Geeks like devices that have lots of options, and we like to crap on the ipod due lack of this or that feature. Normal non-geeks have been buying the ipod and associated devices due to other reasons other than for the the online itunes store. The idea if itunes goes away the ipod will vanish into oblivion is crazy. If Amazon gets bigger than itunes and Apple can still make a player that sells better than the others it's a win-win situation for them.