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."

Comments

Real player

[SoupGuru]

How much would they have to pay you to interact with the company that makes Real Player?

Re:Real player

[socsoc]

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*

Re:Real player

[hax0r_this]

As shitty as Real Player is, Real Networks isn't such a bad company. Their Helix media framework is mostly open source, and they gave $500,000 to the OSU Open Source Lab a few years back for their work in using it on the OLPC project.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Real player

[Lisandro]

Ahhh, those lovely '90s memories...

Re:Real player

[Aadomm]

Its not offtopic and you are wrong. The issue is not with 'early versions of RealPlayer' the issue is with the horrific and unnecessary baggage which traditionally comes with any RealPlayer install to date. If you don't understand then go and educate yourself.

Re:Real player

[daemonburrito]

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.

Re:Real player

[_KiTA_]

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*

Perhaps because it's 5 year old FUD that doesn't apply anymore, ever since Real actually started doing good things -- like ignoring codecs that are probably violating their IP and supporting Open Source Media Initiatives.

Seriously. We get it. Real circa 1990 sucked. Real circa 2008 is actually a pretty good company. Hell, they even added a "download this stream" button to RealPlayer, in open defiance to the MPAA/RIAA. We should be CELEBRATING stuff like this, not attacking them for mistakes of their pas... *BUFFERING*

Re:Real player

[AmberBlackCat]

You know, I think the main reason for that "buffering" problem was broadband wasn't as common then. It got a lot better for me after I got access to high speed connections. Maybe the RealPlayer was just before its time.

Re:Real player

[shark72]

That's funny and all, but in case anybody takes you seriously... Rhapsody sells MP3 files now. Real, honest-to-goodness MP3 files; no killer bees required.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that this is a website where 45 year old losers congregate to moan about the injustices done to DR.DOS in 1992.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Real circa 2008 is actually a pretty good company.

wikipedia quote:
"In 2006, Power Metal band Rhapsody had to change its name to Rhapsody of Fire after running into a trademark dispute with Rhapsody parent RealNetworks, which owned the Rhapsody trademark in the United States. The band Rhapsody had been around four years before the launch of the Rhapsody service."

Re:Real player

[tehcyder]

their UI looks like the entrance to a Tijuana strip club circa 2069

You say that like it's a bad thing.

About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Unexpected

[Itninja]

With so much 'stick it to the customer' activity from corporations in the past several years regarding digital music, it is indeed nice to see one of the big players actually offer this without being forced to by a lawsuit. It almost makes up for forcing me to get a Yahoo account to continue using Flickr. Almost.

Re:Unexpected

[nbert]

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...

Well...

[harryHenderson]

at least they are doing the stand up thing. However it would be better if it weren't opt-in.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Oxen]

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.

Surprising

[EdIII]

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.

Re:Surprising

[Optic7]

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.

Probably because that would have been akin to an admission by Microsoft that their product (WMA with DRM) sucks and should be avoided.

Yahoo has nothing riding on WMA or on music file DRM so they could care less about the impression that this makes for WMA or for DRM in general. After all, they were (one of?) the first major music store trying to convince the major labels to offer non-DRM music files, and the first to offer a song from a major label artist on unprotected MP3 for sale, as an experiment a couple of years ago.

Re:Surprising

[EdIII]

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.

Probably because that would have been akin to an admission by Microsoft that their product (WMA with DRM) sucks and should be avoided.

"akin to admission"??

Microsoft taking down the DRM servers and TOTALLY screwing their customers does not require an admission of guilt. It's a smoking gun. Bloody hands. Their spooge all over the crime scene, etc., etc., etc.

If Microsoft had stepped up and supported their customers rights to enjoy music they paid for, then it would of have been more like pleading guilty in an airtight homicide case where they had EVERYTHING on you.

I was mostly being facetious when writing that. I personally feel that Microsoft did not do the right thing simply because they could afford to not do the right thing. It was already abundantly clear at that time that DRM was going to fail. I think everybody knew it. DRM has now been a total failure with Music, and it will only be a matter of time before it fails with other media as well.

Microsoft probably came to pragmatic conclusion that everybody that is going to hate them, already hates them. Everybody that could go somewhere else, already is somewhere else. They would just wait for the lawsuit and settle it and that would still be pennies on the dollar for everybody they hurt.

That is WHY I am so surprised by Yahoo's actions here. Other than ethics, there really is nothing forcing them to do the right thing here. I gave up on good ethical companies existing a long time ago. At this point I am so cynical that I will just settle for a quality product without malware being installed on it in while being manufactured in China.

AND while I am having so much fun with this.. The act of Microsoft taking down it's DRM servers makes them so guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it would be like Michael Jackson getting caught for molesting little boys again. Except this time there is video footage.... with proper lighting... good angles.... and a MONEY SHOT :)

Duh... they had to.

[LostCluster]

"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.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[rtechie]

Mod the parent up please.

As he said, Yahoo HAD to do this. Killing the license server violates their contract with the credit card company for "non-delivered goods". As far as Visa is concerned, breaking the tracks is the same as shipping an empty box. Most people don't grasp that chargebacks are a major money-maker for the credit card companies, and they'll typically bend over backwards to accommodate the customer because each one can net then between $50 and $500 for Visa/Mastercard/etc. Yes, some merchants really are billed $500 for each chargeback.

They would also face an inevitable class-action as pissed-off customers attempt to recover their losses.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[compro01]

Just because a contract says something doesn't mean it is legally valid.

Re:One day

[LostCluster]

Did you even read the summary? They're offering refunds to those who have problems with accepting the MP3 downloads.

Now if only...

[Samantha Wright]

...we could get some compensation for all of the unlistenable music that has come out in recent years, then perhaps we could move on.

Re:Now if only...

[Reality Master 101]

...we could get some compensation for all of the unlistenable music that has come out in recent years, then perhaps we could move on.

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.

Re:One day

[drcagn]

I didn't even RTFA and I still understood this:

Refunds are available for users who "have serious problems with this arrangement," Yahoo said.

Want DRM? Support it!

[corsec67]

A good change to the DMCA would be that if someone wants to sell something with DRM that they have to support it until the copyright expires, and then have an unencrypted version placed in escrow for when {the copyright expires, the company goes bankrupt, the company turns off the drm servers}.

Now the infinity+ copyright times seem excessive when it comes back on the music sellers.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[hellwig]

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.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[mr_matticus]

I don't have to put copyright notices on my works nor register them with some central governing agency.

But if you want to sell DRM'd copies, you should supply a non-DRM'd copy to ensure that once the copyright expires, there is another version available. This has the benefit of ensuring a richer public domain (because many works simply disappear before the end of copyright).

However, the parent's suggestion is not without problems. First and foremost, where does the DRM-free copy go? The government isn't (and shouldn't) pay for a database of the files. You can't mandate that a business stay in operation. What would be the incentive for private industry to store files without sharing them for decades? Is most of the stuff we buy even worth anything when copyright expires?

On the last point, most of what is produced vanishes because it doesn't matter. It has no real significance, no staying power, and a century from now, nobody will even care about it. Thus, the inability to access DRM'd files is a non-issue for most of the consumer product. Products with the enduring popularity or cultural significance to survive copyright will almost certainly be maintained from the original in a useful manner (whereas a WMA from 2008 might be useless, low quality trash in 2100). Very little is available solely in DRM-wrapped formats; it's a consumer option for low price disposables. Contrary to the Slashdot conspiracy, no media industry is hoping for a pay-for-play setup being the only option. It might be the wet dream of a few greedy people, but as someone who works daily with content creators seeking to protect their interests and sell their work, that's the exception, not the rule.

Once the copyright expires, it doesn't matter whether you acquired it as a DRM'd file, a DRM-free file, or on CD. You can just delete the DRM'd file and acquire a then-modern-format, high quality copy wherever you like.

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?

This is a little backwards. Unless they made an explicit guarantee about future availability and compatibility, future prospects are just that: prospective. Supposition. A gamble. If technology, society, or any other element changes, rendering an investment worthless, you just lost. It's not any different anywhere else.

Hooray.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

And there was much rejoicing from all 12 people who signed up for the service.

Re:Hooray.

[Tmack]

When asked about how soon after the servers are turned off users could expect their coupons, a Yahoo spokesperson said "the information is streaming in from Real, and we expec...Buffering...."

Compensation for unplayable music?

[lena_10326]

Does that mean Ashley Simpson fans on Yahoo get a full refund?

Do they offer a complete library to choose from?

[gd2shoe]

Now wait.

Who said that they were being offered vouchers for the same songs? They implied it, but I don't see anyone saying that every song previously available with DRM be available from Real. The only thing they said is that the songs that are available from Real will be without DRM. There is a huge potential difference there.

Any affected customers want to tell us if they think they can have their entire library transfered over? Does anybody have a clue more than my cynical speculation?

Good for Yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Surprising anyone would think this is okay.

[EdIII]

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.

Ease Back

[Mix Master Nixon]

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.