Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

New "MP3 100% Compatible" Logo For DRM-Free Music 263

Posted by kdawson
from the plays-for-sure-this-time-we-really-mean-it dept.
Sockatume writes "A coalition of seven UK digital music stores have created a logo for DRM-free, MP3 music. The 'MP3: 100% Compatible' logo allows the stores to emphasize the advantages of the format, namely that MP3 files will run on any device and won't keel over and die as DRM-laden files are wont to. The BPI — the UK equivalent of the RIAA — is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New "MP3 100% Compatible" Logo For DRM-Free Music

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Captain Splendid (673276) * <capsplendid.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:32PM (#25636329) Homepage Journal
    The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

    About frigging time.
    • Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @12:24AM (#25636647)

      The tide has turned: A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

      No kidding.

      A non-geek friend of mine bitched about this last week. He's nearing 40, doing well, and is a big metal fan. He was trolling memory lane on YouTube, and decided to go get some more albums of one of his old favorites. The store had a deal on the band's full boxed set -- sweet! -- then he noticed the DRM tag. He took it to the till and asked the clerks if he'd be able to play the tunes on his iPod. Clerk 1: "I dunno." Clerk 2: "Probably not."

      Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

      This new "100% Compatible" logo is /exactly/ what he (and the store clerks) needs. It's due. Regular customers are fed up with this shit now, not just geeks.

      • Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)

        by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @01:50AM (#25636977) Journal

        Downer: no sale. He's such a nice straight-up guy he wrote the Lable about it. Got no reply of course, which pissed him off more. I nodded through this and explained again why DRM sucks - it fucks over the legit customers like him, while not slowing down the pirates.

        Speaking of which: did you email him links to .torrents with instructions?

        • Buying the CD, then "cracking" the DRM, may land you a lawsuit, however may be un-winnable for the RIAA or copyright holders.

          Downloading off a torrent, and landing yourself a lawsuit is a sure win for the copyright holders.

          The former is "unauthorised removal of CopyProtection mechanism, in order to play your purchased item" (note this is different to "Unauthorised removal of copyright protection to copy and re-distribute")

          The latter is "Copyright Infringement".

          Both are illegal, but one has a chance of being

      • Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lysergic.acid (845423) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @02:05AM (#25637061) Homepage

        having worked in the music industry i'd tend agree with you. i think this initiative, especially the fact that it's backed by a powerful trade group, will send a strong message to record labels and artists.

        while i'm hoping my boss learned his lesson after receiving a bunch of complaints and product returns on music CDs using standards-breaking DRM (i think a rep from Megaforce, our distributor, sold him the idea originally), i suspect the notion of DRMing future releases is still in the back of his mind. and, honestly, even without the product liability issues that come with CD DRM technology, it's still a huge waste of money that alienates customers/fans.

        resources wasted combating "piracy" and on anti-consumer policies/tactics like DRM, or any other means of restricting consumer freedom, would be better used on music promotion. record labels can't dictate to consumers how they can or can't use the music they've purchased. online file sharing, like swapping cassettes or CDs, is an timeless constant. the smart labels will use this to their advantage rather than try to fight human nature.

        record labels spend millions of dollars each year on promotion, whether it's buying spins on the radio, paying for TV/radio commercials, taking out ads in magazines & one-stops, printing fliers, putting your tracks on listening booths, co-op promotions, etc. it's all about getting the music out there, getting the band's name out there. you let people listen to your music for free on the radio, and you grow your fan base. in fact, the more plays you get on the radio, the more albums you sell. the industry understands the value of this kind of _paid_ promotion, but when it comes to free promotion, they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. so they actually waste money to try to stop it.

        instead of worrying about the music "pirates" who don't pay for music, which is really a relatively small percentage of the population that you're never going to reach anyway, why not exploit the marketing value of the internet. viral marketing the most effective, and simultaneously cheapest, means of increasing your fan base, and subsequently your customer base. so it makes much more sense to distribute DRM-free MP3s that people can share with their friends and let file sharing work for you through viral marketing.

      • by initialE (758110)

        http://xkcd.com/488/ [xkcd.com]
        Never a more appropriate illustration.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Yvanhoe (564877)
        I once bought a CD that refused to play on my computer. That was 4 years ago and that was the last CD I bought. Recently I discovered deezer and finally get to listen to other things than webradio
    • by sqldr (838964)
      A once geek-only outrage will now be slowly taken up by the AOL like masses.

      eeeeh! The "september that never ended" is about to transcend into music! aaargh! my ears!!! [youtube.com]
  • by dasuser (1173323) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:32PM (#25636335)
    Well, I suppose this is gonna get the suddenbreakoutofcommonsense tag.
  • yes but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sfing_ter (99478) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:33PM (#25636339) Homepage Journal

    Will it run on linux? :?

  • by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:34PM (#25636341) Homepage

    New logo on top of the Pirate Bays search logo in 5, 4, 3, ... ? :D

  • by syousef (465911) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:43PM (#25636399) Journal

    How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

    • by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao&hotmail,com> on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @12:02AM (#25636547) Homepage
      Of course they won't. Unauthorized use of that logo would be copyright infringement... oh, f-
      • by Sockatume (732728)
        Traditionally the way logo-approval schemes have gone is that you apply to the group that owns the logo for permission to use it, and possibly pay out a lot of licencing fees. That's my biggest concern. I'd like to see this logo pop up on emusic.com, or ocremix, for example, but politically that may not happen.
    • How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.

      And your point is? They could tell me they have the cure for cancer and I, aware that I am on a freaking torrent site, will take that pronouncement with the required grains of salt.

      Whole point's moot anyway. With Sony's rootkit et. al, do as Mulder did: Trust No One.
    • by Firehed (942385) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @02:34AM (#25637247) Homepage

      Well, if you use the logo and don't provide MP3 files to your customer, I'm pretty sure you've just gone and opened yourself up to a false advertising lawsuit.

      Doesn't address piracy issues, but then again I don't tend to associate piracy issues with retail stores or well-known online sellers like Amazon.

  • by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:44PM (#25636415) Homepage
    Swastika on all the DRM'ed files.
  • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @12:12AM (#25636595) Homepage Journal

    Wow, what a mouthful. 12 syllables. "MP3 100% Compatible" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. They should have gone with something shorter, catchier, but with the same meaning... like "plays for sure!" or something.

    • by Chrisq (894406)

      like "plays for sure!" or something.

      Why do I think of Irish folk music when I read that one?

    • by Jesus_666 (702802)
      If someone decides to start an anti-DRM alliance I think something like "Customers First" would be a good name for a logo/certificate/etc. Essentially something that implies that a) the music is not considered to be consumed by the end user and b) the members consider the customer more important than the distributor.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @12:13AM (#25636605)

    The BPI â" the UK equivalent of the RIAA â" is backing the scheme, emphasizing that it will also allow users to identify legitimate stores.

    I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones. Makes me think that as soon as they have people aware that MP3 is different than whatever it is they're offering, they'll start spending billions vilifying MP3 files. These guys are sneaky and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @03:02AM (#25637351) Journal

      I'd say their willingness to allow a distinction to be drawn between an open format and their restricted garbage is a temporary phenomenon. Odd in a way, since they (and their ilk elsewhere) have spent a lot of money convincing buyers that DRM-infected files are just as good as unencumbered ones.

      I disagree. It is not odd at all.
      They are trying to break the back of iTunes and preventing anything like it from ever arising again.

      It drives them insane that a 3rd party has the kind of market power that lets it set pricing on their product.

  • If they'd only thought it through a bit more, they could've come up with a catchy, easily-remembered name.

    Like, for example, PlaysForSure.

  • I remember another catch phrase by some strange little company, that promised something similar.
  • Like MP3 or DRM matters anymore.... let's stop deluding ourselves. Beyond us no one even realizes what format music is in...

    -S

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Working...