Music Companies Mull Ditching DRM 318
PoliTech writes to mention an International Herald Tribue article that is reporting the unthinkable: Record companies are considering ditching DRM for their mp3 albums. For the first time, flagging sales of online music tracks are beginning to make the big recording companies consider the wisdom of selling music without 'rights management' technologies attached. The article notes that this is a step the recording industry vowed 'never to take'. From the article: "Most independent record labels already sell tracks digitally compressed in MP3 format, which can be downloaded, e-mailed or copied to computers, cellphones, portable music players and compact discs without limit. Partially, the independents see providing songs in MP3 as a way of generating publicity that could lead to future sales. Should one of the big four take that route, however, it would be a capitulation to the power of the Internet, which has destroyed their monopoly over the worldwide distribution of music in the past decade and allowed file-sharing to take its place."
Undermining Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
Makes me wonder if they're not motivated to undermine Apple, who fought tooth and nail to maintain $0.99/download against the industry's will.
The record industry views the Occident, paradoxically, with more suspicion than the Orient, though we're their biggest customers; it wouldn't surprise me, therefore, if they began to roll this out first in the East:
Can someone say, “chutzpah?”
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand apple might decide to ditch DRM at that point also - I don't think its ever been completely decided if DRM helps ipod sales and loyalty or not (I dont have a single ITMS store track on my ipod and its full) - its certainly possible that apple would use mp3 instead if they had the option - first and foremost DRM was used to appease the record companies and persuade them to let their music be downloaded legally.
About time (Score:4, Interesting)
The music companies said the cost would come down with acceptance of the tech but it never really did come down.
God bless the Internet.
Re:Achilles' Heel (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt that. It'll probably end up being them claiming it was their great idea all along and it's "best for the artists" and blah blah blah. They would never admit that DRM is a failure.
If they do it, great! (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not reasonably priced. People expect lower prices when they receive less and when it costs less to distribute.
I might very rarely buy an album at £8, but at £4 I would probably buy every album I like.
Apple would just sell DRM-free music (Score:5, Interesting)
The tinfoil headgear sporting subset of
The simple reality is that if the Music companies start allowing DRM-less downloads, then Apple will probably make even *more* money selling iPods than they are now, as more people start to buy unencrypted music via their computers to put on said iPods. In the long term their share of music sales may be hurt, but as the world's 4th largest seller of music, they already have plenty of momentum and market power; combined with their slick store and integration in iTunes, I would think they can do just fine in a less partitioned market, and retain a good deal of influence with the music industry selling unencrypted music.
This has been coming for some time (Score:5, Interesting)
Mulled Whine (Score:5, Interesting)
A roomful of people unfit to work in any industry not underwritten by a century-old monopoly. Whose added value lies in conning artists into working for a tiny fraction of the value they create, or their weight in drugs, whichever is less. Or in conning consumers to pay over and again for either some good products produced as "pop" generations ago, or some awful products produced more recently that they sell to children as soundtracks to free music videos and the lives of talentless celebrity models.
These people don't "mull". All they can do is whine and fail when their crooked old tricks don't work so good any more. Years of lying about DRM and piracy hasn't reversed the drop in their profits, as the least-dumb people have all fled their business. Their decisions are made mainly by listening to tech vendors tricking them into broken tech protection of a broken business model, instead of changing the model. If they do drop DRM before they go permanently broke, it'll be because they can't afford it themselves, or just because they screw up their stupid strategy by making irrecoverable mistakes implementing it.
Information might not want to be free, but nature abhors a vacuum. The empty space at the top of the music content pyramid is sucking control of all that content inevitably out to unimpeded access by any consumer who wants it.
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
How controversial can it really be? (Score:5, Interesting)
The record companies have made most of their revenue selling unprotected CDs (and unprotected tapes and unprotected vinyl discs). Selling non-DRM music is a known good, safe, conservative, proven business model to which the record companies owe just about every penny they have. Without this business model, they simply wouldn't exist today.
DRM was a radical, speculative tell-the-customers-fuck-you-we-don't-want-your-mon ey-go-away model that has a track record of failing. Look at the software industry of the 1980s when copy protection was widely used. It didn't make a dent in piracy (because no one ever invented copy protection that actually works), but the interoperability problems sure as hell pissed people off (e.g. "whaddya mean this won't run on my new AT?!?", "whaddya mean my defrag utility trashed the 'secret' sector that wasn't allocated to a file?!?") and increased support costs.
Nobody knows if the record companies will actually decide to continue to remain in the having-customers business, but one thing is for sure: it's the obvious no-brainer thing to do, if protecting/increasing shareholder value is anywhere on their list of priorities. There's nothing controversial about wanting to maximize profits. Telling customers, "sorry, our new product isn't compatible with your equipment, costs more, and doesn't work as well as what you're used to, because we really just don't like you, so please buy someone else's music instead" on the other hand, is pretty out-there.
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. What makes you say that? I haven't seen any behavior out of Apple that indicates that it would be willing to sell DRM-free music or movies of any kind.
Apple is not in the content business for profit. They are in it out of necessity as a way to motivate sales of iPods. They'd give all the music away if they could without losing money. DRM provides lock-in to iPods for users who already purchased ITMS music (small number compared to iPod sales) and who don't want to backup to CD and re-rip for one reason or another. That benefits Apple a little. Now look at the drawbacks. They come under criticism for non-compatability and it brings to light anti-trust issues now that their share of portable players is so large.
Apple doesn't particularly need to lock-in those few users. They do need to counter MS's attempt to monopolize music DRM with a format they own and which is anti-competatively bundled with Windows. They also need buy in from the music publishers, and that means compromise. They have fought hard to keep prices low and DRM as unobtrusive and un-restricting as possible. If the courts mandated only open formats and/or open formats with open DRM Apple would happily comply because it would partially de-fang MS while losing them little. If the record companies agreed to DRM'less files, I think Apple would jump at that too. It fits with their strategy for music and everything they've done to date.
Re:I might even be able to buy music again... (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like you're not aware of www.cdbaby.com
They sell CDs of independent musicians with $6-$12 from each CD sold going to the musician. You can listen to songs via a stream so you can hear before you buy. I dunno how large thier selection is, I just know they carried the two groups I was wanting.
I'm like you, except that I just boycotted the RIAA labels. There's no need to needlessly deprive myself, especially when there's starting to be good alternatives out there.
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:0, Interesting)
You mean, like the PowerPC chip line? or MacOS?
In all seriousness, what do they have invested in AAC? Development costs? This is a company with, what, $8BN in net earnings? I really doubt the few million they've probably spent developing FairPlay would prevent them from adjusting to market dynamics.
Apple has a huge interest in shaping the digital music market. It makes no sense to me that a famously nimble company who is not afraid of making tough choices would stand alone behind a DRM scheme that is already broken (for audio at least) when their major competitors are moving to a less restrictive format.
I think the decisions to abandon the MacOS and PowerPC platforms--in which they had surely invested billions of dollars--paint a clear picture of a company that big enough to lead but still small enough to react.
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
It will be the last act of the recording industry. (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people I know are already obtaining the majority of their music files via some means other than outright, legitimate purchases--even when they understand that I am a recording musician and that at least part of my livelihood depends upon the ability to sell my recordings. Even some recording musicians I know do the same thing. DRM is the only method by which profit can be extracted from digital media sales, barring other barrier technologies (it's currently time-consuming and/or difficult to transfer CDs and DVDs, and storage requirements and processing power required are still relatively expensive, and bandwidth isn't what it needs to be quite yet for high-quality delivery of large files--however, all of these problems are well on their way to being solved).
Now, you may argue whether or not this is a good thing or not, but for my own part, I believe the end result will be a net detriment to society. Granted, it will break the power of the large studios, but it will also break the profit model entirely for everyone. Technology does not discriminate between a greedy studio exec and an individual musician. You may spare us your ideas on how to make a decent living as a musician sans the sale of recordings unless you yourself are prepared to hit the road and perform night after night. Those of us who have done it already know it doesn't work very well.
Unfortunately, I also believe that in the end, no DRM scheme is workable in the long term, both for technical and ethical reasons, but human nature is what it is, and secrets aren't secrets if two people know them.
You think the state of our musical culture is bad now thanks to the RIAA? Wait until DRM is gone. I guarantee you'll regret it.
Re:This has been coming for some time (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an interesting point, especially when you consider that record labels, game companies, and movie studios are often owned by the same parent companies.
I have such a hard time thinking about the different impact of DRM across these industries. The use of these media are very different. I think that most people, really, are more interested in Netflix-type distribution for movies. Really, for movies, I want a cheap and extensive on-demand library. I want to see any movie whenever I want whenever I want to see it, but once I see it, I probably won't want to watch it again, or at least not soon. The movies I watch repeatedly are few and far between. I think that the best business model for movies might be to offer DRM-encumbered "rentals" for cheap, and DRM-free "purchases" that cost more. It would probably make both the movie industry and consumers very happy.
Plus, one of the complaint of the movie industry has been the rental market. AFAIK, studios only make money from the purchased movies, and not at all from the rentals themselves. If they went direct with a DRMed on-demand internet service, they would gain back the rental revenue for themselves.
Games, on the them, vary greatly. Some of them, I don't really want to play them again once I've won. Some games are quick and simple, with a lot of replay value (i.e. Tetris and Solitaire). Some games are really long with a lot of replay value. Like movies, I could see the possibility of publishers selling directly to consumers with a choice to rent or purchase. Actually, Steam almost seems like an alright model to me. I hate the idea of Steam, but I find it works pretty well in practice (with only a few real problems). It may also be worth noting that, for PC games, I'm used to the idea that there will be technical issues, since each game is technically different. Movies and music are basically always giving you the same sort of media in the same format, whereas games have completely different engines. Therefore, for PC games, I think I might, in fact, be more open to DRM. It's perhaps also worth mentioning consoles, which have always been proprietary, and therefore the "DRM" is pretty unobtrusive. You're used to the idea that you have to buy devices and media for a particular console, so when they're locked to that console, it doesn't seem so irrational.
Finally, there's music. I'd be least likely to want to "rent" music, and least inclined to deal with technological difficulties. Music is simple, and plays on a wide variety of devices, and I want to be able to buy a song once and play it anywhere. Also, it obviously has the most replay value. I'm most likely with music to buy a lot of it with the idea of building a "library" that I can keep for the rest of my life. People's use of music is probably more commonplace and versatile than any other medium.
So when you look at these distinctions, it seems to me that DRM might be able to play different roles within an industry, and also play different roles in different industries. Personally, I don't have a big problem with watermarking that identifies the customer who purchased the media. I think it makes sense to have some kind of "DRM" that would discourage casual piracy. For example, MP3 music stored on your iPod is hidden. It's simply hidden, with no additional DRM. For someone who knows what they're doing, it's quite easy to retrieve MP3s from an iPod, but for most people, hiding it is enough to make it "too hard". Even when there were simple ways to strip Fairplay from iTMS purchases (it's gotten a little harder since v.5), most people i know didn't bother to do it.
Really, I don't disagree with the use of DRM and watermarking to discourage casual piracy by lazy people. However, there do need to be loopholes and hacks to disable the DRM without a loss in quality, and it should be legal to use those loopholes and hacks so long as the DRM is being disabled for fair-use purposes.
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much all of their best stuff."
Well....sort of.
The reason they stopped touring back then was because things were a bit different then. The "Beatlemania" thing had been going on so long, and it really wore heavily on them...and they were getting fed up with no one in the audiences really being there to listen to them, just girls shrieking the whole time and no one could hear them. Also, realize that there were no really big PA systems capable of putting out the sound required for large venues. If you look at all the old films of them in the early days...those amps you see on the stage were pretty much it...I believe they were Vox amps...and they had some built up to be more powerful special for them, but, those were only like about 100 or 150W. And, they were getting into some sounds that were only reproducible via tape and studio tricks....not possible live.
However at the end...they really were wanting to get back to perform live again...the rooftop concert they did if you see it..I think shows they might have stayed together if they'd gone out and gotten live again....the Let It Be sessions was supposed to be a documentary of them creating new songs, and was supposed to be finished showing them on tour performing live. But, things broke down in the group, and they really got into some dark fights...but, it funny, they all lightened up and had fun performing on the roof.
But, do remember the technical limitations of those times. If they'd held on a bit...tech was catching up with them. The Rolling Stones 1969 tour (resulting in Get Yer Ya Ya's Out, IMHO the greatest nasty live album ever), were really the first band to go on tour with a crew and setup that could play to large stadiums and theaters. That was really the first single band tour really travel with a BIG soundsystem of their own.
Anyway, I'd dare say if the Beatles hadn't imploded...with the tech coming around, they'd have toured. Heck, if Lennon hadn't been killed so early, I really do believe they'd have come back together at least for one concert....probably for one of the good causes out there like Floyd did for Live8.
But, anyway, that was so early....tech held them back from the road really, but, since them...that isn't really the case any more.
To get a feel for what I'm saying, i'd HIGHLY recommend you rent and watch the whole Beatles Anthology dvd set...I did awhile back, and finally got a decent idea what it was like for them when Beatlemania hit.
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point in history, composers were funded by wealthy patrons and governments. For example, Handel's Water Music was funded by some king. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Perhaps we'll see some future musicians funded by wealthy patrons?
Something to consider: Today, for an investment of about $10,000, one could probably buy enough recording equipment to record an album like Sgt. Pepper's. If Sgt. Pepper's were recorded today, and The Beatles put a "Donate" button on their web site, do you think they'd be able to make a living?
Re:Undermining Apple? (Score:1, Interesting)
Are you intoxicated or just lumping me in with the group you think I fit into?
I don't dislike Apple, I don't dislike Microsoft, I don't dislike Linux companies. I don't use OSX because I refuse to buy Apple hardware. I am planning on trying it out now that I don't have to buy that hardware to test it out. I do use Vista, XP, and Ubuntu.
Like I said in the other comment, the companies are filling a need that will exist even if the companies fail. It is stupid to treat a tech company like a football team that you must rally for on every occasion.
But I do get sick of the double standards, flag waving, and FUD that is thrown out at every available occasion--especially here and Digg. Especially when the argument is basically a company that locks users into its hardware vs a company that locks users into its software. If you think things would be any different if Microsoft was #2, and Apple was #1 you are badly mistaken.