Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

EMI Considers Abandoning DRM on CDs

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:37 AM
from the wisdom-comes-with-experience dept.
jOmill writes "EMI Netherlands has announced that it is considering no longer using DRM on CDs, because it isn't worth the cost. According to Reuters the company is still reviewing the decision. From the article: 'Critics have argued that the system has not worked as consumers could be driven to illegal sites to download music to the popular iPod instead. A spokeswoman for EMI said it had not manufactured any new disks with DRM, which restricts consumers from making copies of songs and films they have purchased legally, for the last few months.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: EMI — Ditching DRM is Going To Cost You 220 comments
33rpm writes "EMI has told online music stores that selling its catalog without DRM is going to cost them a lot of money. 'EMI is the only major record label to seriously consider abandoning the disaster that is DRM, but earlier reports that focused on the company's reformist attitude apparently missed the mark: EMI is willing to lose the DRM, but they demand a considerable advance payment to make it happen. EMI has backed out of talks for now because no one will pay what they're asking.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Good... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday January 09 2007, @10:38AM (#17522850)
    ...because when any "DRM" is used on audio CDs, they're technically no longer even "audio CDs"...at least, they don't officially conform to the Red Book Audio specification [wikipedia.org], and can't even use [wikipedia.org] the familiar "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. While certainly they're intended to be purchased and used as audio CDs, and everyone would still refer to them as such, they're at most an "audio disc resembling a conventional audio CD," or "audio that is incidentally stored on CD media".

    Intrinsic to a Red Book Audio CD is the ability to extract the audio in its pristine digital form. While content owners may not appreciate that in today's digital marketplace, that's what an audio CD is. If labels want to add DRM or anything else not in the Red Book Audio specification to these discs, they are obligated to make it clear that they're not really audio CDs, and indeed, consumers have found the belated warning that they "may not play in all CD players" only too true, resulting in practical decisions like this one from EMI Netherlands. This is what you get when you screw with established international standards.

    Especially humorous is that, any amount of DRM aside, all of this music will always be widely available on file sharing networks, mostly as lossy MP3s. Who is affected most, then, by not being able to extract audio from discs within one's own physical possession, given that the music is invariably already available any number of file sharing networks many times over? The individual consumer who simply wants to enjoy his purchase on another device, such as a computer or portable music player. While DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement, it never will stop content from being copied, and DRM on "audio CDs" is just one of those wrongheaded ideas, given that it toys with a standard that has already been established for two and a half decades.

    Until someone figures out how to alter properties of nature in such a way that physical property of audio or video being able to be in an analog state via sound waves or the electromagnetic spectrum can be eliminated, there will always be mechanisms for those who wish to violate copyright to violate it. In the meantime, DRM will mostly affect and inconvenience legitimate, paying consumers of content.
    • Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @10:49AM (#17523018) Homepage
      "DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement"

      I'd like to point out -- though most people here probably know -- that casual copyright infringement very likely improves the bottom line of the music publisher. E.g. my friend casually gives me a mix CD of tunes he thinks I'd like, I'm X% more likely to buy one of those artists' discs later. That X% increase has a monetary value in the aggregate. I'd love a link to a scientific study of that value.
      • Re:Good... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Monkelectric (546685) <(slashdot) (at) (monkelectric.com)> on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:31AM (#17523562)
        Preventing casual infringement also depends on your definition of infringement. I bought the new David Gray CD. It wouldnt play in my computer for some reason, so I bought another copy. Then I found out it was copy protected. I don't *OWN* a cd player and I couldn't rip it.

        I have two copies of the album and to this day I have only heard it via an mp3 downloaded illegally. In this case they just prevented me from legal fair use and its the last sony album I'll every buy.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              In some locations, you can demand your cash back. For example, in the UK, consumer protection law states that if the product is unsuitable for the purpose for which it was sold, you can get a refund. No store credit. In this case, if you're sold something under the pretense that it's a CD, and it turns out it won't play in some CD players because it doesn't meet the CD specifications, I think it would be an open and shut case in small claims court.
    • they're technically no longer even "audio CDs"...

      I hope they start putting on the Compact Disc logo so I can find real CD's again. Hopefully they won't be over compressed to sound loud. How about some SN ratio and Dynamic range?

      Some good music should help too.
      • You know, I've found that the reason most CDs don't sound that great is because the recording itself sucks, the mixing sucks, or the CD player sucks. Unless the label is known for producing decent recordings (Telarc, Chesky, Proteus, etc.), then there's a darn good chance that producing hi-fi grade music isn't their highest priority.

        If you're looking for a good "budget" CD player, might I recommend the AH! Njoe Tjoeb [hifi-notes.com], as it's made CDs sound.. so.. much.. better. :)
    • Intrinsic to a Red Book Audio CD is the ability to extract the audio in its pristine digital form.

      (Disclaimer: I am not an audio or CD technology expert. Take the following with a pinch of salt.)

      My understanding is that audio CDs can't be copied exactly because the lowest-level information stored on the CD cannot be returned directly by existing recorders.

      Bear in mind that the files which *can* be copied exactly to and from CD-ROMs sit on top of several layers of encoding. Even though you can make
    • Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:53AM (#17523872)

      While DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement...

      I disagree with this. In my opinion DRM is intended to prevent lawful use of copyrighted material and motivate people to buy multiple copies of the same work by intentionally breaking interoperability with other devices. That is to say, content producers would like their customers to buy one copy for their home CD player another copy for the tape player in the car and another copy for their portable player. The industry is used to income from people periodically re-buying their favorite media in the new format or to replace the copy they have broken. They are terrified of the idea that a person could buy one copy and use it forever, handing it down to their children.

      Media companies claim that they are trying to stop illegal copyright infringement, but they also claim accidentally posting a song on a file sharing network costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue, and if not for file sharing networks 90% of the gross national income would be spent on music. Why anyone would believe such obvious liars is beyond my understanding.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        How do you really know what their concern is? I bet it's not the single "perfect" copy. It's being able to copy copies forever perfectly. And, DRM only affects the initial copy, after that, it's non-DRM'd, and copies can be made from copies perfectly.

        Since the core issue with audio is to provide as good an audio source as possible, DRM'd or not. With the high quality of audio recording equipment available, even an initial analog recording of a DRM'd work will be very very good, arguably so good that only th
      • Also, there concern is 'perfect' audio copies. Something that is difficult to do reliable after the disc has been decoded.
        There ARE lossless compression formats, you know.
        • He might be referring to the fact that all the sounds are downsampled to 2-channel 44.1 kHz 16-bit PCM audio rather than the audiophile favourite 5.1-channel ~2 MHz 192-bit HD audio. The fact that the audio is compressed at all after it's done being mixed (or in any step of the process) will incite an audiophile to denounce the format.
  • Great Day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @10:41AM (#17522898) Homepage
    The second-greatest day will be when they report that sales dropped off not the slightest bit b/c of this change DRM only annoys purchasers. Not "pirates"
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Ok seriously I want to look through there collection of Music and see if they have anything I would like. I would love to send a message to the RIAA that people well support non DRM material.
      • Has anybody actually bought a CD that they could not rip?

        I've never seen one that I couldn't easily rip songs from....

        • Not that I couldn't rip, but I have bought a CD that, due to DRM, my mother couldn't play on an older CD player. I didn't send it back, because it was a gift and she was happy to only play it in her main HiFi (it didn't play on the one in her dining room, but it wasn't really the kind of music you'd listen to over a meal).

          Would the DRM have inconvenienced pirates? Not the slightest; iTunes happily ripped it without complaining. Did it inconvenience real users? Definitely.

        • Re:Great Day (Score:5, Informative)

          by arivanov (12034) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:04AM (#17523216) Homepage
          Yes I did. 5 months ago. 3 CDs from Virgin records via Amazon.

          The wife wanted to listed to them on the MP3 player in her car and her Mac at work. None could play them. Even the "proper" Sony CD player had problems with 2 out of 3.

          I ended up researching the matter and buying a DVD rewriter model with a known firmware bug (or feature depends how you look at it) which can rip through most current DRM with flying colours. So the "could not rip" lasted for 3 days in total. After that it was ripped and encoded in the suitable formats for usage on the devices used for listening in the house.

          Frankly, Virgin and Macromedia can take their DRM and shovel it where sun does not shine and rotate it at 48x CD speed until they the torque pushes their heads out of their arse. What really pissed me off was the fact that I have purchased it legally, 2 out of 3 had a "CD digital audio" on them and they were unuseable on all devices in the house.

          From the point of view of the average consumer this is perceived as "shitty and unuseable product" so I am not surprised EMI is considering abandoning the practice. It is costing them lost sales and handling returns from pissed of customers who after that go to "illegal" networks or AllOfMP3.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Has anybody actually bought a CD that they could not rip?

          I've never seen one that I couldn't easily rip songs from....


          I think some people are missing the point of your question, which is that CD-based DRM is trivially easy to defeat. So the only people it hurts are those who just want to play the CD and can't, because it doesn't conform to spec.

          I personally only own a couple DRM-laden CD's (I didn't know before I bought them, but I probably would have bought them anyway). Neither gave me any problem whats
        • I think it depends on which DRM system they use, but I'm pretty sure all of them can be circumvented.

          I came across a CD with the CDS200 DRM mechanism on it a few days ago. I had no idea it was even copy-protected until I tried to play it in the computer and none of the tracks showed up in /dev. I mounted it and found a bunch of typical DRM software installation files for Windows, so I rebooted and loaded it in Windows, and it prompted me to "install some necessary programs" before I could play it. Now, b
        • by norminator (784674) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:30AM (#17523532)
          Has anybody actually bought a CD that they could not rip?
          I've never seen one that I couldn't easily rip songs from....


          I had a Foo Fighters CD that I got as a gift which was labeled as an "enhanced" CD. The first time I put it in my PC at home, I forgot to hold down the shift key, and I wasn't able to rip it on that computer (although the software on the CD wanted to "give" me a set of protected files for all of the songs, which I would only be able to listen to with their proprietary player). I ripped the CD under Linux on my laptop, then again on my work PC in Windows. Also with this CD, it was supposed to have some kind of bonus content that would connect to 'somebody' over the Internet to authenticate the CD in order to unlock the bonus content. That never worked on any PC I tried it on, the authentication always failed.

          So there were two disappointments on that disc: 1) If you don't hold down the shift key, you won't be able to rip it (under Windows) and 2) the broken bonus content. I like the music on the CD, though... it's too bad that they have to muck it all up with DRM under the guise of extra features that don't work.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Indeed I have purchased a CD that I could not rip. In fact, it was an EMI published CD, and the last CD I ever purchased.

          Everyone here knows the cat and mouse game that has existed between consumers who want to exercise their fair use rights, and publishers who want to prevent "casual copying." For years, none of this affected me. I purchased CDs on occasion, a couple a year usually. I've even purchased a few "copy protected" CDs with the bullshit data track. These methods were laughable. Despite this
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        That would require them to have "good" artists.

        The primary reason that people stop buying new CDs is because there are no good CDs being produced. I'd have lots of trouble naming 1 great CD that came out in the last 6 months (even though I've bought a couple).
  • Yay! (Score:3, Funny)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday January 09 2007, @10:41AM (#17522902) Journal
    Maybe the rest of the damn CD makers will follow suit, and I can go back to using my Sharpies to scribble on the front of my CDs!

    • Quote from Boing Boing article "This means that at the moment, not a single record company releases CDs that are protected against making digital copies, says the international industry-magazine 'Billboard'."

      So apparently they all have. But this is one of the few to be talking about making it "official".
  • TFS says they are considering stopping, and then says they stopped months ago. Could we make up our minds please?
  • Critics have argued that the system has not worked as consumers could be driven to illegal sites to download music to the popular iPod instead

    Who needs to illegally download? DRM'd "CDs" have a much more serious flaw, from EMI's perspective - They don't actually stop anyone from ripping them (and as a perk, they don't play in some audio CD players, particularly car CD players), meaning users need to rip and reburn them just to use as intended.

    Good to see them giving up, though, regardless of the reason
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)


      I haven't found any CDs that wouldn't happily rip with cdparanoia on Linux. Ergo DRM CDs are pointeless as it only takes on smartarse with a free OS to flood the P2P channels with decent quality rips.

      A colleague had a couple of CDs, one being by the Beatles, which appeared to have a second data session containing compressed versions and some Windows/Mac driver type stuff on it. It wouldn't rip in his Mac, he claimed - I don't know if this was some rootkit type setup. No problem extracting the CDDA which I g
    • Very true. I haven't encountered any DRMed "CDs" that I couldn't extract on my Linux box, but they would not rip on any of my Windows boxes. However, I've encountered some that refuse to play on truck's in-dash CD player.

      BTW--I noticed in your TFA quote that it references "illegal sites". I'd just like to point out, that, AFAIK, the P2P technology itself is still not illegal in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of, it's only the use of them for distributing copyrighted material that is illegal.
  • by symbolic (11752) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @10:43AM (#17522936)
    But did hell freeze over?

    Finally, they're starting to get a clue. I do not advocate pirating music in any way. However, I think it's equally, if not more insidious, that commercial interests are making it very difficult for consumers to *want* to do the right thing. This is a step in the right direction. *AA....are you listening?
    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:11AM (#17523294) Homepage Journal
      Well they got a clue but not the one your thinking of.
      1. DRM costs money.
      2. Current DRM didn't stop the music from showing up on file shareing networks.
      3. Current DRM is a waste of money.
      4. Stop paying for DRM that doesn't work.
      5. More Profit.

      Now if they ever get effective DRM it will be back.
      • Which will come first?

        Effective DRM
        An end to Spam
        or the release of Duke Nukem Forever?
        • Which will come first?

          Effective DRM
          or the release of Duke Nukem Forever?


          The current problem with Duke Nukem Forever is the DRM they implemented on the master disc. The actual game has been finished for quite some time now. The reason you can't find it in stores is because the cd manufacturers haven't figured out how copy the master without Duke showing up and putting his boot up their ass. It truly is the world's first kickass DRM.

          DRM...the only way to win is not to play.
  • Duh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _PimpDaddy7_ (415866) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @10:43AM (#17522942)
    "EMI Netherlands has announced that it is considering no longer using DRM on CDs, because it isn't worth the cost.

    We could have told you that, but since when did you guys ever listen to your customers?

    From the article: 'Critics have argued that the system has not worked as consumers could be driven to illegal sites to download music to the popular iPod instead. A spokeswoman for EMI said it had not manufactured any new disks with DRM, which restricts consumers from making copies of songs and films they have purchased legally, for the last few months.'"

    Did you ever think we, as consumers, when buying a CD, want to make backups, import the CD to our Ipod or other MP3 player?

    It's amazing how management runs these companies. How can you deliver a product your customer wants when you don't even listen to what they WANT?
    • I'd just have loved to be a fly on the wall when Senior Exec #1 and Senior Exec #2 had a chat along the lines of 'you know that DRM thing which all our customers said was a dumb idea but we did anyway?'
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Salesmen.

      Managment listens to these stupid sales pitches for products like this, and buys into the promises.

      Salesmen (especially software salesmen) are more dangerous to a company than any competitor.
  • ...and the poor software pirates who are quickly being putting out of business. How are they going to put food on the table if they don't have anything to crack? Let's do the right thing and think of their needs, people!
  • by e4g4 (533831) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:03AM (#17523202)
    ...EMI has announced they are discontinuing the release of new albums on standard Audio CDs and will now be selling Audio HD-DVDs complete with fingerprint scanners and GPS transmitters and facial recognition software. Any AHD-DVD found to be played by a user other than it's owner (or within hearing range of a non-owner) will self-destruct, and any AHD-DVD found outside it's allocated region will explode.

    In other, other news, numerous airlines worldwide have banned the usage of all media disks during flight.
  • by blueZhift (652272) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:08AM (#17523260) Homepage Journal
    In the article, it says that the DRM'd CDs were sold primarily outside of the U.S.. I suspect this was because of the headaches and lawsuits they knew would likely plague them in the United States. But now with the globalization fueled by the internet, I can imagine that more and more U.S. consumers were importing these DRM'd CDs perhaps after discovering a foreign artist via their music downloaded from the internet. If that's even partially true, then it would be more proof in support of the notion that "sharing" music over the internet is actually growing the market. Making music easier to get legitimately will be a win for the music industry in the long run, if they can get over their CD and DRM fixations.
  • EMI Artist list (Score:4, Informative)

    by jimstapleton (999106) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:10AM (#17523292) Journal
    List by sub label. Taken from http://www.emirecords.co.uk/loader.html [emirecords.co.uk]

    *NOTE: The site is flash so I can't copy and paste, these are hand copied, sorry for misspellings* ::EMI::
    Auf Der Maur
    Badly Drawn Boy
    Beth Orton
    Captain
    Corinne Bailey Ray
    David Gilmore
    Faith Evans
    Faultline
    FischerSpooner
    Hot Chip
    Iron Maiden
    John Cale
    Kate Bush
    Keren Ann
    Kraftwerk
    Pink Floyd
    Radio 4
    Robbie Williams
    Saosin
    Shawn Emanuel
    Sigur Ros
    Starsailor
    Telepopmusik
    The Aliens
    The Concrete
    Vincent Van and the Villans ::Heavenly Records::
    Dove
    Ed Hardcourt
    The Little Ones
    The Magic Numbers
    The Vines ::DFA Records::
    Black Dice
    Delia Gonzalz & Gavin Russom
    The Juan Maclean ::Positiva:: ::Positiva::
    Deep Dish
    Ferry Corsten
    Paul Van Dyk
    Soul Avengerz
    Soul Seekers
    The Shapeshifters ::Positiva:: ::Additive::
    Remy

    • This list is missing:
      Frank Sinatra (all of his classic 50's output was for Capitol, an American label owned by EMI)
      The Beach Boys
      and the group that many think was the best of all time:
      The Beatles
  • Logical (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:14AM (#17523352) Journal
    So they're making a definity imnprovement of the product availability to their customers, making a definite cost reduction, with only a theoretical risk of noticeably increased piracy? Yeah, that sounds logical here too, and I wonder what took them so long. Pirates aren't those crying out at DRM, they use BitTorrent or other P2P nets. That's the biggest design hole of DRM, IMHO. Maybe the point was to not have a single pirate be able to rip (one is enough) that protection or gain it from other sources where it's not protected (or before it is), but all I can say about that idea is "dream on".
  • I posted about this earlier on http://www.groklaw.net/ [groklaw.net]

    Ithink that the last major UK EMI release with DRM was Coldplay's X&Y back in 2005, any other releases I noticed on EMI was on the budget/reissue EMI Gold label, which was usually sold at about £2.99 in the bargain bin's at Sainsburys (a posher version of Walmart for our American chums ;) )

    Why they kept it on the cheap stuff and not the latest releases I don't know, I suspect they were trying to see how many returns as "faulty" they would get on the budget range, maybe it was too high a percentage and they decided the cost of the returns on a big selling CD was too high.

    They used to have a pro-drm site at http://www.emimusic.info/uk/ [emimusic.info] printed on the DRM'd CD's but they seem to have pulled it.

    Funny to see how cocky the record companies were back in 2002 compared to now - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/all_cds_wi ll_be_protected/ [theregister.co.uk]

    Jonathan
  • by beezly (197427) <beezly@NOSpAm.beezly.org.uk> on Tuesday January 09 2007, @11:59AM (#17523946) Homepage
    Maybe they realised it was a waste of time because it doesn't work.

    This may just be my experience, but I haven't come across a single CD (including some which are explicitly marked as having some sort of "Copy Protection" on them) which didn't rip first time in my PC. There's nothing special about my drive (I've used an old Matsushita DVD drive and a Plextor DVD Re-writer). Maybe it's because I am running Linux, but as far as I can tell, CD-Ex on Windows would work equally well as anything I am using under Linux.
  • by apodyopsis (1048476) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @12:06PM (#17524066)
    as pointed out before the Red Book specification describes audio CD's.

    but data DVD has sectors and format information in the data on top of the red book specification.

    and the Orange Book specification give details of multisession formats.

    most of the "copy protection" systems used worked by wrapping the session information to impossible combinations that were impossible to read. or degrading the galois based CRC information that was used to recover bad data. neither of these methods were fatal to a Red Book player that only played audio disks as it ignored all other formats happily.

    but these days most CD players can play MP3's also, and hence are data players not audio players - this means they are exactly the systems that the copy protection was designed to disrupt.

    so the CD manufacturers found themselves in a situation where the new hifi's being built were being disrupted by they copy protection and hence unable to play any of the CDs. its a question of the physiscal data path built into the decoder IC on most MP3/Audio CD players.

    in short, I'm not suprised they stopped including it - I'm just suprised they waited so long.

  • by thrill12 (711899) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @01:07PM (#17525042)
    ...at least in some of the newsreports I saw, in which they stated that "it was not feasible to use a DRM system as the system was hacked every time", rather than (the truth) "the consumer and CD license holders (!) have fully rejected the protection systems we have devised, because they hamper fair use - especially in the area of simply playing out the CD (not even copying it) on normal consumer-grade playback systems and even outright violate consumer rights (sony rootkit)".

    • DO you mean legally? then it would depend on treaties.
      If they show that th cost of DRM is more then the cost of actual loss, then it could spread because of market forces.
    • Are precedents global? I mean will one country follow suit solely because another has seen the light?

      What are you talking about? EMI is a large corporation, based out of the Netherlands. Whether other multinational companies follow suit is totally up to them.

      Based on previous behavior I doubt Sony will ever publicly renounce DRM in any form, but I think most of the major players will just stop trying to put it on CDs, because it creates more problems for them than it solves.

      Naturally, the music companies ar
    • How about ditching all these lame attempts to stop 'casual copying' like CSS, DVD regions and macrovision, and then pass the savings on to the customer?

      But then how will the poor Macrovision execs buy more Ferraris?