Puretracks Music Store Drops DRM 236
khendron writes "The Canadian online music store Puretracks (a store I have generally avoided because of their Microsoft-specific solutions) has announced that it will immediately start selling part of its catalog as DRM-free MP3 files. The site's unprotected catalog, which includes artists such as The Barenaked Ladies and Sarah McLachlan, will initially feature only 50,000 of its 1.3 million tracks, but their number will grow weekly. The Globe and Mail says the move will likely profit Puretracks because its DRM-free-music will be playable on iPods. It quotes one industry watcher saying 'We're seeing the death of DRM.'" Essentially Puretracks is relaxing the major-label mandated DRM rules that it had initially applied to all labels, even the indies that wanted no part of DRM.
Yes, Apple "could do this"... (Score:5, Interesting)
And while we're at it, let's fix the title of this submission:
Puretracks drops DRM from less than 4% of its tracks; even less when you consider well known commercial artists on major labels; changes format and delivery mechanism for such songs
Let's face it: like it or not, that's important.
I do agree that Apple should aggressively work toward this, and they should absolutely drop the "all-or-nothing" mentality with DRM on the iTunes store, because dropping all DRM at once won't work. They definitely need to start somewhere, even if it's with relatively unknown artists and/or labels. Consider, too, that some of Apple's existing contracts may have stipulations that all other music sold on the same store or via the same mechanisms have the same protections.
The article notes:
Essentially Puretracks is relaxing the major-label mandated DRM rules that it had initially applied to all labels, even the indies that wanted no part of DRM.
What if Apple isn't currently in a legal, technical, business, and/or support position to do that? What if it is, in fact, planning to do just that, but can't move quite as quickly as people seem to think it should be able to. This isn't a "2-3 day" operation as some people think it should be. It may be months before any fruits of this are seen on the iTunes Store.
Consider further that Apple may not want to sell, e.g., MP3 format specifically, for a variety of reasons. If a label (like EMI, which is talking to everyone BUT Apple about its possible no-DRM experiment - perhaps some ulterior motives of their own?), specifically wants "unprotected MP3", what if Apple's format of choice is "unprotected AAC"? Should Apple start selling multiple formats as well as multiple protection levels? How much of the years-proven consistency of operation and ease of use should Apple sacrifice on the iTunes Store?
There are a lot of unknowns here that don't automatically mean that Apple "doesn't really want to drop DRM."[1] Yes, actions speak louder than words, but Jobs' landmark statement on DRM, concisely shredding any arguments in favor of DRM, is, in fact, a pretty big action in itself. But Apple has a lot invested in the iTunes Store ecosystem, and they're not going to make rash decisions, screw things up, break support models, confuse customers, or do anything that would cause them to lose one or more large commercial content providers.
So while other fringe and marginally known stores may be able to make moves in this direction, it's a delicate situation for Apple. Hopefully Jobs' strong words, which have already caused a firestorm of circling wagons among some pro-DRM entities, and other stores with the luxury of being able to move more quickly into experimental areas, will push the balance toward "no-DRM". Regardless of what the bloggers and pundits think, who instantly came out with all of these "Apple doesn't really want to get rid of DRM" arguments believing this was a carefully crafted PR play, Jobs' DRM statement is the strongest stance from anyone at such a high level in music and media, and that's exactly what it will take to move the industry forward.
[1] Also, Apple doesn't use "DRM" or trusted computing/TPM on Mac OS X, in any way [osxbook.com]. The restriction is a manifestly a licensing one, and any technical difficulties of running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware are incidental (even if intended to make it non-trivial).
Setting up a strawman (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Drop DRM on a bunch of music that nobody cares about
2. Collect sales figures for 6 months
3. Issue a report saying that sales did not increase for non-DRM'd music - "See, removing DRM doesn't make people want to buy more music!"
This old dog may actually now try something new (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM-free music may actually motivate me to get excited about buying music again. It may also, however, hasten the death of CD-based commercial music sales. Ability to rip from a CD and yield DRM-free content seems to be one of the few remaining advantages of this format. Why the heck would I drop $14.99 for a CD now if I can just grab the one or two tracks that I like for a fraction of that price? Sure, I may not discover deep tracks that do not enjoy radio play, but this still does sound like a major advantage to me. How many of us have CDs that seem like a collection of marginal tracks surrounding the one or two that we actually like?
My wife tried puretracks. (Score:4, Interesting)
"I'd rather get my music illegally, and have them work on my MP3 player," she said.
Re:There's nothing to see here... Move along.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Time to put your money where your mouth is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, Apple "could do this"... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say the chances are about 80% that one of Apple's agreements with the RIAA stipulates that all music sold from the iTMS will have DRM on it regardless who it is from. It is likely Apple is contractually obligated to not provide DRM free tracks of any music, regardless of that label's wishes. I don't know why everyone seems to assume this is not the case in light of other contracts the RIAA has put such stipulations in.
Re:DRM is a stopgap against obsalesence (Score:3, Interesting)
And it is the artist's right to not produce the music you believe you have the right too. How will you feel if there isn't any new music being produced by full-time musical artists because they have to take other full time jobs to pay the bills?
I don't believe in DRM, and I think the whole idea of a "product" breaks down when you try to sell digital content. However, I don't think people should believe it's their right to have things for free.
The fact is the major music corporations are simply trying to make as much money as possible, and trying to find more ways of doing that. If they had it their way, they'd charge you everytime you sang in the shower. I think the ultimate solution to the DRM debate will be to have some kind of subscription service where you pay a flat monthly fee and get unlimited (or limited, however they want to work the price points) downloading of mp3's or other content. These would be DRM-free files. Will some people redistribute them to their friends? Probably. My friends had "burn parties" where we'd bring our collection of cd's and a pack of cd-r's to share. Before cd's we did this with cassette tapes. Music sharing has been around as long as there has been music, it's just that with today's technology its a lot easier to do.
I'm wondering when the RIAA will start to realize that their music has been being copied well before the mp3. And I'm also wondering when they will realize that the reason people don't buy as many cd's anymore is because no one wants the over-produced generic crap they call music.
Re:Time to put your money where your mouth is (Score:4, Interesting)
"The point of copyright is that the creators of intellectual property should be the ones who decide how their work is distributed."
This statement actually hurt me to read. The point of copyright is not to control the distribution of media, the point of copyright is to compensate the producer for their work - thus giving a monetary reason for them to continue producing something we as a society find beneficial. The arts aren't required for human life like food and water is, however, as a society we have created things like copyright to help promote something that we find valuable.
This debate should not be about if copying for free is right or wrong, it should be about compensating the artist for their hard work. Piracy doesn't do that, but honestly the majority of labels don't much either... it's obviously time we rethought our strategy altogether.