Chronicling the Failures of DRM 206
Barence takes us to PCPro for a look at the failures of DRM and a discussion of its impending death. Quoting:
"Luckily, DRM is dying, at least in the download sphere. Napster's Dan Nash believes that DRM-free is 'the general way things are going.' In his opinion, record companies 'have no choice but to adapt;' those that 'stick to DRM on a pay-per-download basis will not remain competitive.' In the US, Napster has joined Amazon in selling DRM-free content in MP3 format from all the major labels. ... Going DRM-free makes sense not just for consumers, but for the industry. Deutche Telekom says three out of four technical support calls its Musicload service had to deal with were the result of DRM. And when it offered a DRM-free option to artists they saw a 40% increase in sales."
Audible will never accept this (Score:5, Insightful)
They pretty much own the audiobook download market, and DRM has been an important part of their strategy from day one.
I'm pretty certain its what keeps getting them new titles to release. Book publishers aren't exactly keen on digital formats if they aren't protected from instant dissemination.
As for myself, well blow me if the drm doesn't 'fall off' within ten minutes of my purchases.
Not that I then share them, in spite of the horror stories spread by the drm producing companies.
I paid for them, and I don't see why anyone else should have them for nothing, it's just that I don't see why I should keep the drm around, restricting my ability to play them back on any device I choose when I am in all other respects abiding by the end user license.
Newsflash: (Score:5, Insightful)
But before I get modded down as a troll, it's true: DRM turns your purchases into glorified (read: overpriced) rentals since the companies that so graciously allowed you to pay them to use their product can STOP you from using it any time, for little or no real reason (see: Mass Effect and BioShock's DRMs, Steam, the Yahoo! Music store debacle, Zune not "PlayingForSure" after all, etc.) And consumers may finally be getting fed up with be treated like the criminals - especially when the DRM-free pirated versions are vastly superior to our legitimate ones.
All I can say......... (Score:5, Insightful)
....is, it's about time.
The companies that are using DRM are finding concrete, solid evidence that people will pay if they STOP using DRM. The stereotypes of users that they felt were accurate, and reinforced by entities such as the MIAA and such, are, in fact, inaccurate, and now they can start taking that realization to the bank.
Common sense begins to prevail. Imagine that.
This is a battle with long-term consequences. (Score:2, Insightful)
If companies are allowed to hold a vice-iron grip on every thin slice of entertainment that exists in our life then life in the future will be miserable and hateful. This is a triumph because it hints at a future that will allow free P2P trading, not of music, but of atomic blueprints of critical medicine and devices that will make all of our lives easier. What incredible news.
Re:One Down, Two to Go (Score:1, Insightful)
Close. I want:
1. Reasonable prices. The $1/song, $10 per 15-track album seems fair enough.
2. No DRM
3. Lossless files, with an option of downloading a lossy file for those on dialup.
4. Metadata. Not these tiny album art scans, but something of some kind of quality. And track names, etc, that make some kind of sense.
5. Quality sound. Not this poorly-engineered stuff that's merely designed to be "louder" on radio, but instead music that is designed to sound great and which faithfully reproduces the art.
6. This should apply to ALL music in a label's catalog, not a mere subset.
All of this is very easy and inexpensive to do. Unfortunately, I think that lying heroin addicts run labels, so I don't expect anything.
Just because it stinks, doesn't mean it will stop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong here? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US, Napster has joined Amazon in selling DRM-free content in MP3 format from all the major labels.
A percentage of iTunes tracks are DRM-free, but certainly not all.
The big question is: why won't the labels allow iTunes to sell all of their tracks DRM-free?
Obviously the labels would love to eliminate the iTunes policy of 99-cent only pricing, but there must be something more than that.
I think it's because the labels probably thought they were taking part in a fun little experiment when little ol' Apple told them about their new iTunes store, and the next thing they knew, they were dealing with the largest music retailer in the world. The only leverage they have left is to keep Apple's contracts DRM-restricted while opening other distribution partners' contracts up to DRM-free options.
Fear Drives It (Score:4, Insightful)
In regards to Software Protection, fear drives it.
The fear that if you're the only software without copy protection, everyone will pirate it. Then, your company's revenue tanks for the next 18-24 months until you get a new version. Without revenue, you can't fund R&D for the new version. Meaning you, Mr. CEO, is out of a job. Most likely many of your employees too.
So, in the face of this possibility, many companies are willing to put up with losing a couple sales by inconveniencing customers and paying tons more in support costs to ensure their only revenue stream continues to flow.
In regards to DRM for music/movies:
It's kinda the same thing. But I don't understand why music/movie companies are so risk adverse since they have such large revenue streams outside of online distribution. They'd be wise to try it now, while the online distrubtion industry is still small, and then switch to DRM if they run into problems. It's much riskier to switch later once the industry is huge. That applies to movies. DRM on music is just silly.
Hard to hear with money in ear. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you offered the choices of "lose less money" and "make more money" to an executive in any industry, it would take them quite a while to decide which was more appealing on any particular day of the week. Picture a teeter-totter or balance scales.
DRM lets them lose less money while impeding consumers.
DRM-free lets them make more money with happy consumers, with the unquantified fear of how much they're losing.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they simply take it as: "Sales are down? Teh evil pirates are stealing from us! Otherwise, the sheeple would be buying a hundred zillion copies of that new single by some vapid ProTools-engineered boyband that we assembled last month. They shouldn't be allowed to use the Interwebs without restrictions. Hurry, let's buy some legislation to protect out dying business model!"
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason itunes' DRM works is that it is completely inefective. If you can burn a cd from the songs, then you can extract the songs losslessly to flac or some similar format. I can take a song from itunes and have a flac to share with all my friends in 5 minutes - hardly a case of apple 'getting it right.'
I think the point you're missing is that the failure of DRM is not that there's anything morally wrong with it - it just plain doesn't work. Either DRM works like itunes where it doesn't do anything, or, worse, in the case of some less clever DRM schemes, DRM significantly inconveniences the casual user while still failing to prevent copying and redistribution by the technically savvy.
I suppose Apple did 'get it right' in one respect: they found a model that satisfies everyone. The record companies are happy, because they're stupid enough to think Apple is defending their interests, and consumers like you are happy because the DRM may as well not be there. This doesn't strike me as a stable equilibrium though.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:5, Insightful)
If iTunes lets you burn to a standard audio CD, its effectively letting you strip all the DRM away anyway (at the cost of a CD-R for each ~70 minus of music you want to strip, and your time waiting for it to do so)
Apple's motiviation, of course, is to make it as easy as possible on *their* platform to part the drooling masses from their money. At .99 per track, you are pay $15-$20 for an 'albums worth' of music anyway, almost as much as a CD. And Apple doesnt have to physically produce anything, or store or transport physical product. In exchange for NOT getting a physical medium, it should cost *less*. In exchange for having to go through hassle to get it in a DRM-free format, it should cost *less*. And Apple should reimburse you for each blank CDR you have to buy. They've got both ends of the long stick, thats for sure - they get people to *pay* for the privilege of being Apple's distribution network.
"Having to run iTunes" (and having to run one of the two proprietary platforms it supports to do so) is "too much fuss" for me. If I have to pay, I expect to use *my own* software to download it, and I expect to not have to waste a CD-R to get something I can copy to anything I want.
I don't want 'code (proprietary software)'. I just want 'data (music)'.
Re:DRM was just a means to an end (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you failed reading comprehension.
He said what they want not what they currently have. DVDs only give them what they want if they stop working after 48 hours. I see their perfect world being where they sell, as middlemen, a music box for a 200% markup then every month thereafter get another chunk of cash. They don't have to pay anyone to carry the music, it comes out of the box and can't be heard by anyone except the named listener. They don't have to make any new music, the stuff from five years ago is just fine.
The "top ten" used to be a good way of getting near this, they had to recycle the old muzak into music to hide the 'covers' but it was good. Today it's not working so well, the internet has memory, it's easy to find the ten year old crap and compare it to one year old crap and see the file marks. Also internet and schoolyard file sharing is instant with no transaction cost, and your mother said it's good to share.
Re:MP3 is hardly open (Score:3, Insightful)
1. This is only relevant in software patent countries, so for Europe it is an open format (for now).
2. FOSS developers don't have to license anything due to explicit statements from patent holders.
While legally MP3 is not open, it's "free enough" that few people actually care.
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they learn from copy protection? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Why do we need to go through all this again? As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
The media companies thought their market was different because they were dealing with ordinary users instead of computer geeks. They figured average joe users wouldn't figure out DRM workarounds and wouldn't blame the media companies for taking away their fair use rights, or if the product they paid for became unusable when license servers were shut down or they switched computers. But the market isn't stupid, because people are highly motivated to figure out who is responsible for ripping them off, and, on average, they won't get fooled a second time after getting burned once.
All of the backlash against DRM has resulted because the media companies didn't think through the implications of what they were actually doing to their customers. People have slowly learned that DRM == bad deal, and they are slowly but surely saying "no sale". The bottom line is, learning takes time, and it has taken both consumers and suppliers a few years since the mass deployment of DRM systems to realize the same thing as computer software manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s. Besides, it could be argued that plenty of computer software companies haven't learned that lesson either, and are making the same old mistakes.
(PS: I hate you, Adobe and MS WGA)
Re:Sorry, Slashdotters (Score:2, Insightful)