Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Offers Compensation For Unplayable Music
DrEnter writes "According to this article, Yahoo will offer some compensation after they turn off their DRM servers and Yahoo Music customers will no longer be able to access their music. The company said Wednesday it is offering coupons on request for people to buy songs again through Yahoo's new partner, RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody. Those songs will be in the MP3 format, free of copy protection. Refunds are available for users who 'have serious problems with this arrangement,' Yahoo said. Nice to see them step up and do something, especially without trading one DRM scheme for another."
Good point. And furthermore, you should get that ID with a hard copy of your music, so you can download music if you break your hard copy.
First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
I really am surprised that Yahoo stepped up like this. Really Surprised.
The offer to receive a DRM-free MP3 seems pretty darn reasonable to me. I wonder why Microsoft did not stand up and offer anything remotely as reasonable as this considering their size when they were going to shut down their DRM servers.
DRM has always been a less valuable product inherently, but Yahoo has backed up the customer and made sure they will be able to play the music they paid for.
I almost feel.... hopeful.
Good for Yahoo. They did the right thing.
"Company complies with rules to avoid chargebacks" should be the headline.
When you sell a perpetual license that needs to be reauthorized every so often, you have to either keep your license server up forever, or ofter to give customers all their money back.
We saw this happen when Google Video shut down. At first Google thought they could get away with giving out Google Checkout credits, but the credit card industry upheld chargebacks so they had to refund all credit card charges too.
But what they really should do is offer a unique ID, so that you can listen to it anywhere in the world, anytime you want.
You really should take up one of the unlimited-for-a-monthly-fee plans if you want that. Bandwidth is a constant expense, so they're not going to make money selling you unlimited downloads for one-time payments, but most of the download services allow you to multiple devices signed in on their unlimited plans.
On the other hand they didn't have much choice. Imagine the loss of confidence they would have faced if they had proceeded as planned. I don't know anyone who has ever purchased music there, but I'm hoping that most of them will claim their DRM-less copy. There isn't a valid reason why we should give up rights we had in the days of physical copies - even the lower price is just a compensation for the lack of case and media we used to buy in stores...
I don't read replies by ACs.
How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product. *buffering*
I like the idea, but there is a problem with the reasoning. Copyright is an implied right. I don't have to put copyright notices on my works nor register them with some central governing agency. If i write a book or record a song, the copyright is implied. It is understood that I own the work. At the same time, it is my responsibility to police my work, and to seek legal compensation from people who violate my copyright. As such, DRM is not an extension of the copyright, it is the mechanism these companies use to protect the copyright. A song in MP3 format isn't copyright-free, the producer just realized they're causing more problems than they're solving by using DRM.
The only question becomes one of consumer protection (and unless you live in California you're screwed). Was their agreement with you worded such that you were right to assume that the song would be available to use at your discretion (i.e. without dependance on their DRM servers), or did they leave enough loopholes in to make it known that the song will only work in the presence of their DRM servers, and that those servers were not guaranteed to work past a certain point?
If they didn't properly cover their ass, and implied that the copy they sold you would work forever, then yes, I completely agree with your statement.
Eggs
Milk
Bread
Cat Litter
Soda
How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product.
Perhaps it's off-topic because, as even the summary points out, the alternative being offered is in unprotected MP3 format: hardly a proprietary RealNetworks product, nor likely to suffer from the same problems that plagued early versions of RealPlayer. One man's joke is another man's unconstructive and irrelevant cheap shot; YMMV.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I, for one, cannot wait for the first big scale internet apps to shut down. Imagine flick shutting down with all you pictures, or gmail taking away all you mail.
This is bound to occur, and will be a joy to watch.
One thing we can know for sure is that if MS had purchased Yahoo already Yahoo would NOT now be offering money back or replacement music.
Why do I say that? Because of what ms ALREADY did when they shut down their drm music business.
This crap about Yahoo doing it because they "have to" is a bunch of bull. Yahoo could have waited until lawsuits were filed and then played games in court, BUT THEY DIDN'T. They lived up to their responsibilities like a decent corporate citizen. Saying they did this under duress is saying like saying man who doesn't beat his wife only refrains from doing so because there is a law prohibiting it.
Too bad MS can't act like Yahoo, but as we all know it's against their character to act in the public good.
I don't want to listen to a unique ID anywhere in the world, thanks.
That's probably still not enough to overcome the bad blood with users who interacted with the malware known as RealPlayer, and their pushing of the privacy envelope.
I remember a tech support call around 2000, where their representative tried to hard-sell an acquaintance of mine into buying customer data from them. It was like a street corner hustle.
Err... If your car is recalled due to a fault of the manufacturer do you expect them to pay for the time you took off of work to go get the part fixed?
I understand your idea but it is really quite unrealistic and I think if you insisted that they do so that they would likely just giggle at you.
Meh... I'd want to be compensated too. They're just not going to do it. You insisting that they would (had this happened to you) wouldn't actually get you much other than some entertaining emails.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If my car was recalled due to a fault by the manufacturer, I would expect them to collect the car, provide an equivalent vehicle while the fault is remedied and then deliver the car. My time is valuable and anyone wanting my custom should respect that.
One might offer to use vouchers to download songs and send an invoice for time and materials with penalty clauses for late payment. Most companies don't like it when people don't accept their offers to resolve claims because it means they are exposed to risk. If you have a legitimate claim, you really can apply some leverage. Accepting their first and cheapest offer isn't all that smart.
They're C*nts, F*ck 'em!
I don't therefore I'm not.
You're right. In another ten years when MS releases their flavor of linux, I'll still be flogging Vista and you'll tell me that they started doing good things and that they made Enterprise/Gov see the light about FOSS.
Still doesn't change the fact that the company left a bad taste in many people's mouths... Can I interest you in some Enron stock, they're all about renewable resources now, I promise.
Yes they DID do the right thing.
With all due respect, you are complaining about the past. I agree with you about DRM and pretty much everything in your post, but you are still missing a very important FACT.
When Yahoo did have to shut down it's DRM servers, which is as you say the "inevitable", they have made arrangements that ALL of their customers get OPTIONS.
Those options are 1) Get a refund. 2) Get a DRM-FREE MP3 from another provider.
Now you are obviously upset that DRM existed in the first place. You question it's motivations and affect on the consumer's best interests. That's all fine and dandy. Let's just give credit where credit is due okay? Yahoo stepped up and made it right for their customers.
Now if you want to argue something, then please try explaining to me how giving coupons for DRM-FREE MP3's is NOT doing the right thing. That would be a productive argument.
Yeah, because clearly everyone who buys music these days only buys it because a gun is pointed at their head. It couldn't be that people actually *enjoy* it.
In other news, those damn kids are on your lawn and playing their crappy music too loud again.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yeah they left a bad taste, but if they've cleaned up their act, why continue to kick them? Where's the incentive to do the right thing here? Real listened to what we wanted, acted on it, and took extra steps to antagonize **AA members with their download features. Cut them some damn slack.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
You forget that this is a website where 45 year old losers congregate to moan about the injustices done to DR.DOS in 1992.
it just means anybody who's bothered by it can get compensated for it. This is generally how companies offer refunds; they don't track down 100% of their customers to hand out stuff.
Please stop stalking me, bro.