Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Spokesman Says DRM Is Dead

Posted by kdawson on from the joined-the-choir-invisible dept.

TorrentFreak is reporting an on-the-record remark by the main RIAA spokesman acknowledging what has been obvious to the rest of the world for some time now. Let's see whether their actions going forward align with the words. "Jonathan Lamy, chief spokesperson for the RIAA[,] declared DRM dead, when he was asked about the RIAA's view on DRM for an upcoming SCMagazine article. "DRM is dead, isn't it?" Lamy said, referring to the DRM-less iTunes store and other online outfits that now offer music without restrictions." Update: 07/21 01:16 GMT by KD : InformationWeek is now reporting that Jonathan Lamy says he never said "dead." TorrentFreak, which originally reported Lamy's remark, has also backtracked.

34 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. DRM is dead? by ethorad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps he means it as in:

    DRM is dead!

    Long live DRM!

    1. Re:DRM is dead? by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, actually the whole thing doesn't make sense when taken out of context. What he actually said was

      "DRM is dead, isn't it? *wink* *wink*

    2. Re:DRM is dead? by sinrakin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's exactly how I interpreted it too. DRM: "the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated".

    3. Re:DRM is dead? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know you meant that as a rhetorical question, but actually, there's a sort of answer. Looking at the media industries, there's been a real pattern of people putting kinds of abstract scoring ahead of profits.

      Here's a few examples:
      1. Roger Corman - this director made a huge number of very low budget films, all of which made substantial profits. There were several periods where you could take the financials on Corman's last 10 films, compare them with the same numbers for every director in the entire studio system, and for every single Hollywood studio, it would have made a lot more sense to hire Corman and hand him 30 million dollars with very loose, few strings attached contracts, and most likely get 10 more films out of it that would probably gross 100 million plus at the box office, than to risk that 30 million on a single big budget epic with any other director, given those director's reputation for expensive flops. But that didn't happen.

      2. Gold and Platinum records - as sales have declined, the number of copies needed to score a gold or platinum has been repeatedly changed so the studios can brag (maybe to their stockholders, since these figures invariably get quoted in the stock prospectus) that they are getting more platinum sales than ever, even though the actual sales numbers are down.

      3. Planet of the Apes (the original films): Hollywood dropped the budget lower on each one of the four sequels, and all still made a huge truckload of money. That money went to fund big budget epics (Cleopatra for one), which got Oscars but didn't make their costs back. Despite the sequels making as much money as the original or more, the 'wisdom' of the industry was that sequels never make as much as the original picture, even with the Apes counterexample starting them in the face. The industry didn't revise this position until after Cameron's Aliens.

      4. The Monkees: When these four actors responded to criticism that they weren't real musicians by learning to play at least moderately well and trying to do live performances for the press to prove it, their industry handlers didn't recognize this was the four being team players. The industry inside reps made public statements that their own clients couldn't play a note, which was both untrue and practically a guarantee of lost record sales, but as those same people actually wrote, 'it kept them in line for a time'. The Monkees final period, with the film 'Head' and the open statements about LSD on an album back cover, seem pretty solidly anti profit. But, the period before that seems to about be the band focusing on the bottom line, and the studio heads losing all sight of it until the band got burned out.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    4. Re:DRM is dead? by WankersRevenge · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not that I disagree with your overall points but you should know that Cleopatra was made in 1963 whereas the first Planet of the Apes was made in 1968.

    5. Re:DRM is dead? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are all very interesting examples, but I don't think it's unique to media. The dirty little truth that a lot of people don't like to admit because it sounds ant-capitalist is, we often don't really do our work for the money. Watch your boss and your coworkers and anyone else you can, and you'll find lots of examples where people essentially make decisions that are against their own economic best-interest in order to give themselves ego-boosts. Or inversely, you'll see people refuse to do things that will obviously benefit them if it means eating crow.

      You can see it even more strongly in cases where the decision-maker doesn't directly benefit from the decisions. A salaried worker, for example, might often do things which will hurt the company's profits in order to boost his ego. What does he care, if he doesn't see the profits? On the other hand, I've seen salaried workers do a lot of work to boost company profits without economic benefit to themselves, essentially because it gave them bragging rights and pride in their work.

      Now someone might very well argue that these examples don't show what I'm saying. You might argue that having prestige in the industry can give you more clout within the industry, allowing you to sign bigger actors, directors, musicians, etc. Making a prestige picture can be justified as an investment, allowing you to make more money down the line by attracting better people.

      Still, in my professional experienced, the generally assumed idea that "companies always do what's most profitable" hasn't seemed to be reliable at all. An executive on an ego trip can make all sorts of unprofitable policies just to throw his own weight around.

    6. Re:DRM is dead? by skeeto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They might be trying to abandon the name "DRM" because it has become so stained, and replace it with a new name. Stardock was trying to do this, saying they don't use DRM, but something called "Goo" (just DRM by another name). Valve too, claiming "DRM is obsolete", then using something called CEG, which is just more DRM.

    7. Re:DRM is dead? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually that's not a great example. There are rated R movies that out-earn PG movies all the time. What's more, even if that weren't the case, you could explain it via market segmentation. If everyone only released PG movies, then there would be a huge market for more adult entertainment that would be going untapped.

      Now you may be right that media companies aren't exploiting children's entertainment in the most profitable way-- I don't know. I'm not really a businessman or a parent, but kids stuff seems way over-exposed to me. There doesn't seem to be a lack of children's entertainment, but rather it just seems like a lot of it is bad.

      But I'm not sure it matters anyway. Even if you want to sit your kids in front of a TV all day, my experience is that most children will happily watch the same things over and over again. They'll go through periods where a single 2 hour movie can provide 20 hours of entertainment in a given week. (not much of an exaggeration)

    8. Re:DRM is dead? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      believing the snake-oil programmers who HAVE to know that there's no way DRM can work

      It's not so easy to avoid useless work. Lot of places want their workers to work, not think. Which is peculiar, as engineering is all about thinking. It's only after you're hired on to work on a product that you learn that among all the other things they want, they really wanted you to add DRM to it. They often call it something else, and think that makes it different. One place I was at referred to this feature as "branding". They gloss over details about exactly what their hires will be doing. To them, it's all work on the product. Such distinctions as adding DRM or adding another feature are too fine to be worth mentioning. I've had little to no luck persuading management that DRM isn't worth the effort. They have their ideas and beliefs, and won't easily change them. Too often it's the loudest who get to be managers, not the most correct. They want you to stop competing with them on the noise level and get to work thinking how to make it, and then making it, and they don't want you thinking about other things such as that if it doesn't work, they'll try to blame it all on you.

      It doesn't help that there are some programmers who aren't sure DRM doesn't work. And some who are sure but stay out of management's business out of principle, as well as those who keep quiet out of not wanting to go to the trouble of hunting for another job any sooner than necessary. There are many ways to end up doing such work without being a snake oil peddler.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  2. DRM is more than just music by noidentity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    DRM is dead, huh? Apparently Amazon didn't get the memo.

  3. Nice Politician Answer by seeker_1us · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RIAA has been pushing for DRM up the ass. Asked for their view on DRM, they answer the question with another question that really had nothing to do with the original.

  4. waiting for this moment a long time by santax · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one, am downloading the complete works of James Brown as we speak.

    1. Re:waiting for this moment a long time by Megane · · Score: 5, Funny

      I for one, am downloading the complete works of James Brown as we speak.

      Do you feel good?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  5. Admiral Ackbar says... by yanyan · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a trap!

    1. Re:Admiral Ackbar says... by al3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trouble is they spent all this money lobbying politicians to make DRM stick, and tampering with it a federal offense, so they'll keep going down that road while abandoning it in their business models

    2. Re:Admiral Ackbar says... by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Funny

      Admiral Ackbar says... It's a trap!

      I'm not sure I believe he said that. Send me a copy of the clip, will you? ;)

  6. Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When his paymasters hear about that remark.

    Unless they are all suddenly going to start shipping DVDs with no region codes and encryption removed, and tell M$ and others to remove the DRM crap that cripples most PC OSs and head-end audio/video gear...
    Dream on little Johnny, wherever you are, (or will shortly be)...

    1. Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless they are all suddenly going to start shipping DVDs with no region codes and encryption removed

      Why would the RIAA have anything at all to do with DVD production? Oh, I see. You're one of those people that can't distinguish between different organizations. I can be like that too. See! "I heard that people make open source software available for free on the internet. So why does Microsoft want me to pay? I thought you guys said software was free!" Your argument is really no different than that.

  7. Give them 60 days to mourn. by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The RIAA is known for their shameless actions, there's really no way to escape a lawsuit. Take the Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury case for example. The defendant in this case passed away before the court made a ruling.
    However, according to the RIAA this was not enough to "close the case".
    Instead, the RIAA gives the family of the deceased defendant 60 days to grieve, before they start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children.
    In the "motion to stay case and extend all deadlines" we read:
    Plaintiffs do not believe it appropriate to discuss a resolution of the case with the family so close to Mr. Scantlebury's passing. Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of 60 days to allow the family additional time to grieve.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  8. Re:Speaking of politicians - how's that hope & by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the phrase "pork in the stimulus" was a figure of speech.

  9. When the RIAA closes a door... by castironpigeon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...I'm sure they'll open a couple of windows. I guess this news means their buyout of Congress and the ISP monopolies is going quite well?

    --
    mmmm...forbidden donut
  10. DRM is dead? by johannesg · · Score: 3, Funny

    I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it!

  11. Can't trust them by wrmrxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aren't these the people who told us that the law suits were over? Call me paranoid, but I can't trust them.

    I suspect the only reason the RIAA are presenting a softer image on things like the lawsuit threats and DRM is because they believe (or know) that they're going to get their way with the ACTA treaty and we'll all end up being subject to outrageous three-strikes laws.

  12. Re:blu-ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yes if the RIAA had anything to do with region free movies.

  13. Damned if you do... by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They need DRM because a lot of their potential customers **won't** pay for the music, but then, if they do put it in there, a lot of their other customers will be pissed off at being restricted when they are willing to pay up for a fair claim to the music. If anything, this proves the basic libertarian point about most morality and the state: society relies on voluntary compliance by the vast majority of people. Any law, even murder, would not be able to work without draconian penalties if a large percentage won't obey it.

    1. Re:Damned if you do... by holmstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that they really don't need DRM. Sure in their perfect world, no one can listen to copyrighted music without paying something. But that is a fantasy land. They have to work in the real world, where their loyal customers want to pay for music, but not have to deal with any crap when they do. The other people who are getting it for free most likely wouldn't have bought the music anyway.

      I agree with you on voluntary compliance. Look at speed limits. They are mostly ignored and people drive at a speed that seems reasonable instead.

    2. Re:Damned if you do... by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somebody who won't pay for the music is not a potential customer. That's really the giant disconnect in this whole issue. College kids who've downloaded 40,000 songs off of the internet wouldn't have paid for those 40,000 songs if the music wasn't available online. But the naive belief/dishonest claim that every downloaded song is lost sale is what the RIAA has used to justify all this DRM nonsense to themselves, consumers, government, their investors, etc.

      It doesn't come down to anything as broad as libertarian views on society. All of the music industry turmoil can be summed up with just a few basic points:

      The record labels as a business model provided three things that most musicians couldn't feasibly do on their own. A proper recording studio, distribution, and decent advertising. Modern hardware and software has drastically lowered the costs to build a recording studio. The internet allows for almost free digital distribution, and physical distribution is become less important every day. The internet has also made advertising much more accessible. What this all means is that record labels are becoming irrelevant, technology is allowing us to cut out the middle man position that they fill. DRM is just a symptom of the huge hissy fit that the music execs are throwing as they've slowly started to understand that they're going to have to find new jobs.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  14. The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would the RIAA have anything at all to do with DVD production?

    The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked:

    • Concert DVDs.
    • Music video DVDs.
    • RIAA music is used in films' soundtracks.
    • Sony is in both the MPAA and the big four labels of the RIAA.
    • Disney is in the MPAA, and Disney's Hollywood Records (e.g. Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Queen) is in the RIAA.
    • Vivendi, parent company of UMG, still holds a 20 percent stake in NBC Universal, an MPAA member.
    1. Re:The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

      This diagram (a few years old but still fairly accurate) really tells you what the media business looks like:
      http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf

      So yes, nearly all of the big media companies are both RIAA and MPAA members.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. Control Freaks by Nature by ring-eldest · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure this is just a prelude to some new agenda to push DRM under a different name. "DRM is dead! But now we have Intellectual Property Protection... Or how about Online Property Protection?"

    You down with OPP? Yeah, you know me.


    I know you.

  16. Oh come on now by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DRM can't be dead! Everyone knows that the BEST way to counter shoplifting is to harass, insult and severely beat up your paying consumers before they ever think of commiting the crime!

  17. Not dead, 'e's resting! by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reminds me of that skit, you know? I think it went something like this...

    Netcraft: Bring out yer dead.
    [a man puts a body on the cart]
    Jonathan Lamy: Here's one.
    Netcraft: That'll be ninepence.
    DRM: I'm not dead.
    Netcraft: What?
    Jonathan Lamy: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
    DRM: I'm not dead.
    Netcraft: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
    Jonathan Lamy: Yes he is.
    DRM: I'm not.
    Netcraft: He isn't.
    Jonathan Lamy: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
    DRM: I'm getting better.
    Jonathan Lamy: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
    Netcraft: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
    DRM: I don't want to go on the cart.
    Jonathan Lamy: Oh, don't be such a baby.
    Netcraft: I can't take him. I have to go over to the *BSDs, they've lost nine today.

    Something like that :)

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  18. Re:I already said resistance was futile... by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's funny about this is somebody (Microsoft) just launched another music store in Europe, not only with DRM, but also with varying terms for individual songs.

    And now there's a push by font makers to get browsers to include DRM for web-downloadable fonts.

    And the news industry just came out with specs for what amounts to a wacky DRM system that they want Google and everybody else that displays content to implement.

    And the video industry is still wishing the clue-train away.

    There are still a lot of groups that believe the bigger the wall they build between you and what you want means you'll pay more for it because it's more exclusive.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  19. Not if MS has a say so by HermMunster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft put into Vista (and even added more in Vista 7) an incredible amount of DRM. Gates spoke to the press a few years ago stating that computers were no longer used primarily to produce content. He stated they are used primarily to consume it.

    Like .doc and .xls formats DRM is used to lock you into a certain company's product. For example, if the courts tell a lawyer that he must submit his pleadings in .doc format then the lawyer has to go back to the office and buy Word for every person providing legal assistance on the case. If he wants to create .doc files he must use word and word runs on Windows. That means the lawyer, his help, and most likely the lawfirm is locked in. This is a very important element to note here.

    DRM had Microsoft foaming at the mouth due primarily to the fact that they controlled the mechanism and they had the influence to push even the hardware manufacturers to implement special on-card circuitry to support their DRM. In return it is clear that they would then benefit from some amount from each piece of content sold, not just in the fact that the DRM was not going to be licensed and used on competing platforms, but in the actual sale of the content.

    Microsoft saw what Apple had done with iTunes and the iPod with DRM and they were all set to push into that market with a DRM strategy of their own with the Zune until Apple decided to pull the rug out from under them by removing DRM from their store. This in part left people with a platform that had no need for the performance hogging DRM which Microsoft could have claimed was a necessary evil and consumers would have had to accept it, as Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft was planning on grabbing monopoly share in DRM content creation by using their monopoly in the OS market.

    DRM'd content isn't made to allow you to benefit from it. It is made to ensure that you play that content on only the devices and platforms upon which it is made (DRM on Windows by Microsoft is only usable on Windows). Content creators are not going to license and recreate their content for multiple platforms as it currently is too expensive. Even if the costs did come down they would simply bail on the idea of multiplatforms with the excuse that Windows should be enough because it is the defacto standard. Who cares how Microsoft got there.

    Microsoft invested heavily in DRM for the PC and made manufacturers of hardware and content creators all comply. In Vista 7 they put in even more DRM control. It is not likely that Microsoft will give up this position since it knows that formats are lock in technologies which force consumers onto and to stay with their platform.

    Sad as that is, it is true. The RIAA guy is either a fool or his superiors haven't clued him in on the future.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.