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.'"
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
I would never do this
I would. I have no problem whatever making life miserable for thieves and miscreants like those bastards who run the entertainment industries.
"The VCR is to Hollywood what Jack The Ripper was to women" -Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA when he made that stupid comment.
Fuck 'em all. When they start running respectable businesses I'l respect their businesses.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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%.
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.