Music DRM in Critical Condition? 377
ianare writes "Universal Music Group, the largest music company on the planet, has announced that the company is going to sell DRM-free music. The test will see UMG offering a portion of its catalog — primarily its most popular content — sold without DRM between August 21 and January 31 of next year. The format will be MP3, and songs will sell for 99 each, with the bitrate to be determined by the stores in question. RealNetwork's Rhapsody service will offer 256kbps tracks, the company said in a separate statement. January 31 is likely more of a fire escape than an end date. If UMG doesn't like what they're seeing, they'll pull the plug. UMG says that it wants to watch how DRM-free music affects piracy rates."
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
UMG says that it wants to watch how DRM-free music affects piracy rates.
Well they should look back over the last few decades then. They've been selling DRM-free digital music ever since CDs were invented.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To continue to produce their product, any company has to make a profit. That is why your music can't be free.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they could run the hammer program on a fab-o-matic and produce a hammer instantly, for damn near zero incremental cost, I would expect hammers to be a lot cheaper. If I have to use my own fab-o-matic machine and supply my own raw materials, I expect the
Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !! (Score:5, Insightful)
fifteen or twenty years ago (when CD's were already fairly old technology) A computer probably not even as fast as the one you're using now was called a 'supercomputer' and cost about a quarter-million dollars. The cost of computing and the cost of network bandwidth has dropped two orders of magnitude since then.
The technology behind computers isn't just similar, it IS the technology behind distributing digital music. The processing power that cost a quarter million dollars twenty years ago costs a few hundred now. The cost of distributing a dozen songs (a CD that actually did cost a few dollars to stamp and ship twenty years ago) is now a download from a server that costs them only fraction of a cent, but they still want us to pay 1988 prices?
Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I somewhat agree with a couple of things you say, I must add; Do you even know what you're talking about? I think you're just wildly spewing out numbers because you want something for nothing. Back up your figures or stop making things up.
Besides, your model of "cost" only takes the cost of distributing into consideration. The cost of creation needs to be taken into consideration too. Look into the pricing on your average studio. At your price of $0.01 a song, it would take anywhere between 50000-100000 or more purchases to make a song break even. That's not even counting money for the artist(s) to live off of, or the cut that the record labels want to get for their efforts in advertising.
I'm not saying the current price model is fair, I don't know the break down. I'm also not saying I agree with the strategies of the large record labels, I personally dislike them and the stranglehold they have on the market. But, consider the larger picture before you shoot off that songs should be available for $0.01.
Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !! (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean the average person earns $41k a year. The answer is- it's not reasonable. We got tons of music (and movies) in the 30's... 40's... and 50's... (and most of the 60's...) when everyone on the food chain made a lot less.
We got more of them because the artists had to produce more to make a living. And the idea of getting filthy rich didn't really start until the 70's.
There is no reason in today's world that we need 15 to 20 people feeding 200k+ per year incomes off of each song. This is why songs (and movies) cost so much. Because a parasitic industry has grown up around them due to their unique government protected monopoly.
Is there any reasonable way you can justify an author getting richer than the queen of england- becoming worth over a billion dollars in such a short period of time? Is there any other kind of work which pays that kind of compensation?
Clearly copyright is currently broken. It forces society to pay grossly inflated prices compared to most of the rest of history.
Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah the stadium filling acts have tour buses and roadies and groupies and all that, but the vast majority of performing musicians make enough money to stay alive and on the road, if they're lucky.
Also, don't compare music and movies. Making music involves a band, a couple of engineers, and possibly a studio musician or two for the "extras". Next time you go see a movie in theaters, sit through all the credits... Try to count the names. Music involves a couple of handfuls of people to create, a movie requires hundreds. Now, to clarify, I'm not in any way for the high prices and I'm not defending current copyright laws (I believe the system is broken personally). I'm just pointing out that movies and music are on different levels.
You fail at Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Talent, ability, training, execution, performance, and a touch of luck.
The artists and the executives make so much money because they can do what they do better than most anyone else, and their audience is willing to compensate them for it. You might not appreciate their "talents", but it is something rare and very, very hard to do successfully. Pop radio spins a playlist on average of about 12 songs. There are hund
Do not underestimate that service. (Score:4, Funny)
What female groupies provide has tremendous value and should be considered a sizable portion of the income a musician receives. Just think about how much that service would cost if purchased outright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, don't compare music and movies. Making music involves a band, a couple of engineers, and possibly a studio musician or two for the "extras". Next time you go see a movie in theaters, sit through all the credits... Try to count the names. Music involves a couple of handfuls of people to create, a movie requires hundreds. Now, to clarify, I'm not in any way for the high prices and I'm not defending current copyright laws (I believe the system is broken personally). I'm just pointing out that movies and music are on different levels.
And yet, the soundtrack for a movie on CD (which is priced in line with other CDs) often costs more than the movie itself on DVD...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Popular artists regularly spend tens of thousands Per Song!
What we need to have happen is a cha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your salary needs to be more than $60,000 after taxes in order for you to break even.
Re:GODDAMIT make it $0.01 and THEN maybe !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider that the majors have been trying to push bloody business models where one or more of those restriction apply to you:
1) Pay for each nail you hit with the hammer
2) Rent the hammer and pay monthly for ulimited strikes on nails - when the rent expires all your nails disappear
3) Be limited to use your hammer just in your room
4) Be limited to use only a specific brand of nails - In case this is overturned by a clever hacker all the nails can cease to work (see playsforsure against old MS DRM)
5) whatever else limiting to you but more profitable to them
6) Get sued if you lent/use a hammer from another person
7) Pay for a hammer that can be used to build 10 houses - Ops, sorry, after the sale terms are changes: only 7 houses (Apple FairPlay Cd burning)
From my humble point of view as noone would use such a tool [eff.org]. Conclusions: those corporations have been looking actively for extincion and fully deserve it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the end of the day, profit margins on CDs are so high that it is highly unlikely piracy rates would become high enough to make them unprofitable.
Plus, musicians produce things that can't be pirated like live shows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At 50 cents a track, assuming 5 minutes/track, that's 12 tracks in an hour, or $6. I could pay that per song while at work and still make money(Minimum wage earners would have to economize, of course). I spend more on a candy bar!
Set up some sort of comparison site; such as the 'others who like the XYZ songs you've ind
If you can't beat em', join em' (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than trying to sue them out of existence, the RIAA would have been better off simply destroying them the capitalist way - Drive them out of the market with (possibly unfair) competition.
They could easily have charged twice what allofmp3.com charged and still done well for the following reasons:
1) Better selection if they did it right. (This would be hard - allofmp3 had a better selection than many of the "I only carry music from one of the major 5 labels" official online stores.)
2) Easier payment. EASY as hell compared to the nightmare that was getting credits on allofmp3 before they were totally shut down.
3) Still far less expensive than current prices. $1.30/track is a little to expensive for "impulse buy", and means that people are only going to buy tracks they've heard. With allofmp3, I would routinely buy entire albums if I liked one track because it was so inexpensive to do so. (Oddly, people buying entire albums is one of the things the RIAA wants people to do and why they resisted any form of online sales for so long...) Likewise, with allofmp3, I would routinely buy additional albums if I liked the first one as a total impulse buy.
The RIAA was stupid with how they handled allofmp3. They looked at it and simply saw, "we're not getting paid". They were too blinded by that greed to look at allofmp3's business model and the fact that allofmp3 was proof that if you gave people content at the right price and convenience, they were perfectly willing to pay for music rather than download it for free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are very few who write once, and then sit back and do nothing as multiple copies are sold.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that silly, though (Score:5, Insightful)
1. CD burners have existed for ages.
2. The possibility to just copy music to cassette or movies to VHS has existed for ages, and that existed even before CDs gained much adoption. Heck, in the 90's even half the portable stereos, and every self-respecting cassette deck, had room for _two_ cassettes at the same time and a button to copy from one to the other.
3. If you think people had to wait for the Internet to swap music or movies or programs, I dare say you don't remember high school that well.
4. Before mass Internet access, there were BBSs. Frankly, now that was a bigger pirate haven than the Internet... or than the Carribeans back in the 1600's
5. Internet access isn't _that_ new and unlike everything before. Sure, only now it may have reached the grandmas or finally gotten very high speeds, but I don't think those were ever the biggest pirates anyway. If grandma wants to listen to folk songs from the 50's or for some good ol' fashioned symphonic music, she can get those for pence legally. Plus she already has her cassette and vinyl collection.
The biggest problems are teens who (A) are driven by peer pressure, and have to listen, watch, wear and say exactly what their peers appreciate. Even if he goes for the rebellious punk image, the average teenager won't actually be rebellious at all, he'll be a clone of whatever punk image is currently fashionable among his peers. And (B) face high prices for that image. And (C) don't have that much disposable income. So the pressure was always there to copy the latest fashionable album.
And those already had modems, virtually all universities had Interent as early as the early 90's, and most had access to a hi-fi where they could copy a cassette.
Plus, music companies have been complaining about Napster since the 90's, so at least at that point the world was already connected enough to make a difference, according to those music companies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, and they even had a feature called "high-speed dubbing", which allowed for copies to be made twice as fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another half-ass job (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, you're like the best consumer ever!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if they do, you'll demand that they give you uncompressed 24-bit recordings as a justification for your continued piracy.
-:sigma.SB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even just about piracy, it's about bringing music on par with their current CD offers.
Re: (Score:2)
Storage and bandwidth are cheap.
A decent soundcard/audio player can play quality in excess of 'CD quality'.
Record company have access to source material (often) at a quality higher than 'CD Quality'
If they're trying to come up with reasons to increase the value of a download over that of a physical CD, then why on earth not just offer it at a higher qaulity than CD?
They convinced people to rebuy their vinyl on CD with the promise of higher quality, why not try to get us to rebuy
FLAC of the masters no less (Score:5, Funny)
Re:FLAC of the masters no less (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
ABX? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
99cent isn't asking too much for a good song without limitations. I do accept the "right to exist" for the music industry, even after what they've done. And if 99cents is the only difference between legal and illegal (compared to "99cents and being allowed what they deem approprate" as it is now), I'll buy.
Re:Another half-ass job (Score:5, Funny)
Why?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is.
In the open market, music is much cheaper than that. Many talented bands are giving their music away because they can't get distribution, while record companies charge that flat 99c per track for their overmarketed hype-driven pop. Meanwhile, pirates are setting a zero price point for the pop as well.
What's needed is an open market where music producers and music consumers can reach a negotiated price, the same way any other co
Re: (Score:2)
Unlimited supply, and that's another law of free market, in turn means by the nature o
Re: (Score:2)
So lets see... you want them to offer a better product than you can steal for free
before you will consider buying their product.
(yeah I know... it's technically not theft, it's c
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What a load of crock. Even if they offered the audio file in FLAC, I'm willing to bet you'd still illegally download the music via P2P. I can't believe you're trying to justify y
Re: (Score:2)
Owning a license is not the same as "making music".
Universal does not "make music". The RIAA does not "make music". As far as I can tell, they only "make" money.
The dirty little secret is that the world no longer needs record labels. Universal has been obsolete for years. They are scared that as soon as everyone realizes that, they'll lose their nice little scam and have to work for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Clear Channel? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
finally... (Score:2, Insightful)
No Pirates (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Pirates (Score:5, Funny)
nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks. I mean look up every "piracy" "statistics", they always talk about this and that much gazillions of good old bucks being lost because of piracy, yet no living human being has ever managed to give a reasonable and acceptable explanation about how those numbers make sense. Now they say they want to see how those numbers change if they sell non-drm-encumbered music ? Well, flip a coin, that'd make more sense to decide to continue or not. A better way would be to actually listen to what those pesky customers want.
Where are the stats from? (Score:3, Insightful)
* RSITDANTMUFG = Random Stab In The Dark At Number That Make Us Feel Good
Re:Where are the stats from? (Score:5, Funny)
* RSITDANTMUFG = Random Stab In The Dark At Number That Make Us Feel Good
Suit 1: (opens box) "Hey, there used to be more cash in here! I want more!"
Suit 2: "Oh noes! Why did the box stop making cash?!"
Suit 1: "Maybe someone TOOK OUR CASH!"
Suit 2: "Took... you mean, like... pirates?"
Suit 1: (gasp) "Pirates! Yes, must be pirates! We must kill the pirates!"
Janitor: "Hey, don't you guys actually make money from helping new artists distribute their music to a wider audience?"
Suit 1: "Huh? Who are you? Someone throw him out... Now, let's vote, who wants to kill pirates and so the box makes more cash?"
Suits 2,3: "Yay! More cash!"
Pirates... arrrrr.... (Score:4, Funny)
Suit 1: (opens box) "Hey, there used to be more cash in here! I want more!"
Suit 2: "Oh noes! Why did the box stop making cash?!"
Suit 1: "Maybe someone TOOK OUR CASH!"
Suit 2: "Took... you mean, like... pirates?"
Suit 1: (gasp) "Pirates! Yes, must be pirates! We must kill the pirates!"
Janitor: "Hey, don't you guys actually make money from helping new artists distribute their music to a wider audience?"
Suit 1: "Huh? Who are you? Someone throw him out... Now, let's vote, who wants to kill pirates and so the box makes more cash?"
Suits 2,3: "Yay! More cash!"
Did something like this happen next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iakR7sB0skw [youtube.com]
Re:Where are the stats from? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What these guys are doing is the only sensible way to test the claims on both sides about DRM.
Meh. Actually I think it was less time, but that really doesn't matter. Before the internet there were mixed tapes of CD or vinyl. Sneaker net is slower, but a million first generation cassette tapes of a CD still sounded just fine, and were just as legal/illegal as a million mp3s. Probably more damaging, really, as the music market was much smaller, and everyone thought making tapes for your friends was "awesome" (or perhaps "radical"). Anyone know how many 60 and 90 minute cassette tapes have been sold i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder...
Re: (Score:2)
We'd have gotten none of those (except maybe a couple years of Floyd making LSD music -- but they'd have had to go get jobs sometime before they really got their act together 7 years later with Dark Side of the Moon).
Music companies have woken up to... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has finally dawned on them that DRM - far from protecting them - will take control away from them and hand it to companies like Apple and Microsoft, who become the new gatekeepers since they own the DRM technologies that are popular. It's now dawned on the music companies that it won't be long before the likes of Apple and Microsoft get big enough in the music business to simply cut out the record companies and sign bands directly.
_That's_ why they are starting to drop DRM - they have finally come to the realisation that DRM is the trojan horse that will destroy them. Not piracy.
Correct, it's classical intermediation (Score:5, Interesting)
The recording industry themselves are entrepreneurs, and now they realise that the software companies are not just another mechanism to enforce their intermediation, but an attempt to introduce a new, and harder to evade, middleman.
All entrepreneurs seek to enforce their control, either legally or through other means (such as owning the channels of distribution, or by monopoly patents.)
Entrepreneurs have a part to play when a resource does not have a market, but they find it very hard to lie down and die when the market is established. We don't yet know who will win this battle for control over the electronic music market, but improved search engines and technology availability could disintermediate the market in a different way - e.g. by sites aggregating direct sales by many small bands, cooperatively owned.
Re:Correct, it's classical intermediation (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that's not what entrepreneur means. It's derrived from the same french word enterprise in derrived from - entreprendre, to undertake.
See the Online etymology dictioanry [etymonline.com].
And that is derived from --- (Score:5, Informative)
The concept of the manufacturing enterprise is largely an artefact of the Industrial Revolution (OK, everybody cites the Arsenal, but it's an exception.)The concept of the enterprise as trade (i.e. middleman) is pretty consistent. (The British Empire in India started from a trading monopoly that accidentally had to go to war to protect its interests.) From the 1300s on, any French person using the term "entreprise" would know exactly what the two root words meant, and clearly had no quarrel with that meaning. j'entre, et alors je prise, je suis entrepreneur.
inter + prehendere (Score:2)
what a joke (Score:2)
i really hope no one actually uses real rhapsody anymore..
No Love for iTunes (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the irony! The music giant that doesn't believe it should have to sign a contract just to get distributed.
No iTunes, no deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
"One reason would be that Universal doesn't like Apple. UMG is the largest music company on the planet, which helps explain why they are trying to ruffle Steve Jobs' feathers. At issue are contract lengths and just who gets to determine pricing. Universal would clearly like to have more control over pricing than Apple is comfortable with. The company has also said that it would like a cut of every iPod sold, similar to a deal they have with Microsoft for the Zune."
So basically, they still want money. They'll try and fail to sell a substantial amount of DRM free music on rhapsody, call it a failure, publish the results and push congress more. just an 0.05 dollar prediction.
B.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple still has the best user experience in terms of storing, sorting and listening to your music. Sure it's more conveienient to buy songs in the iTunes program from the iTMS, but once extra step isn't going to kill iPods. I'm sure Apple would rather peo
Re: (Score:2)
"look Steve: here's what you said you were interested in, let's see you put actions to words and pay up for this "right"."
B.
Watch out for tracking software (Score:4, Funny)
99 each? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Universal DRM-free on iTunes (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting Experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
Won't affect iPod use (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not going to hurt Apple, it is gonig to hurt consumers. I doubt the user experience of the other stores will compare, though I don't have a problem with every store doing it's best and at least if they are mp3s it solves the 'wont load on my ipod' problem.
I think they will still do quite well, IF people ever hear of them and have a good experience when they DO try to buy something.
Time to vote with your Wallets Folks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So UMG doesn't really want it to work, they're doing it so that it can fail, they're not doing it at a high enough quality for our sensitive ears, they're only doing it to annoy Apple.
So it's OK to continue p2p downloading.
We should cheer for Steve Jobs.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We should cheer for Steve Jobs.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but you can't just ignore the fact that Words Mean Things. You can't assume that just because a company makes a statement that it is pure 100% PR and nothing more, and that an individual, even a CEO, can't have his own beliefs and convictions that are exclusive of the corporation's desire to many money. Besides, if DRM-free is really the way to grow the market and make the most money, then doesn't coming out against DRM do that as well?
I have no doubt that Jobs is being pragmatic, but I also believe he understands - because it is articulated in crystal clear fashion in the statement - that DRM is crippling the online music industry, will never work, and will always be able to be defeated. I also believe he thinks that removing DRM will mean that Apple may end up with a smaller slice of a much bigger market, still meaning growth in absolute terms for iTunes.
And, my cynical friend, Apple has NEVER needed DRM to keep people on iTunes and iPod. The ease of use for normal people is what keeps people on iTunes and the iPod. I find it humorous that you're talking about computer jukeboxes and a commodity like a portable music player as something that shouldn't strive to be the best on the market, and outdo its competition. It's also laughable, if not somewhat sad, that after Apple made its statement AND became the first online music store of any consequence whatsoever to sell mainstream music from a major label - you know, music that a lot of people actually want - that you still choose to believe that Apple "really doesn't want to get rid of DRM".
The mind boggles, almost as much as at this statement and the associated analysis from Daring Fireball:
Also, various EU nations targeting Apple for DRM on iTunes and iPod are barking completely up the wrong tree. It's the labels that require DRM in every sense of the situation, not Apple. No matter what you think Apple "really" wants. And "interoperable" or "open" DRM? Give me a fucking break. The only "interoperable" DRM is no DRM at all. Even if everything on iTunes was DRM free, many, many customers would have no problem at all staying with the iTunes/iPod paradigm. Because, for the most part, it just works. Other more tech-savvy customers would be free to get other players and use them with music from iTunes. Apple is under no obligation whatever, nor should it be, to make iTunes interoperate as slickly and easily as it does with the iPod an
First step, done (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict there will be little if any change. We will certainly not see more piracy. Simple reason: DRM has not and will not stop someone from copying, so whoever wanted to copy already did and probably will continue to do so. An increase, because there is no DRM, makes no sense.
We might see more songs sold, though, since some people (like me) will turn to buying music online when there is no restriction on it anymore that limits my use in various devices of my choice. Goods I cannot use in the way I deem necessary have no value to me. If I cannot use it in my car CD player or on my MP3 player, the item is not what I want, and what I do not want I do not buy. This, though, the music without restriction, is what I want. So I will buy now when (and here's the catch) I find music that I would like to listen to. Sorry, but I don't buy the latest American Idol hypecrap just because I can media shift it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To buy a CD, you have to go to the store (or even drive there), push through the hundreds of other people, search for that CD, wait in line at the checkout. That and more is gone when you buy online.
Additionally, I could see another benefit. You could tie a music portal into the whole deal, where customers could listen to your new releases and buy immediately. Impulse buying can be quite powerful in a business that primarily targets the emotions of
The end of TPM chips? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the current trend towards less DRM means the end of motherboards with built-in TPM chips in the future?
DRM,Pricing,packaging; legal inferior to pirated (Score:5, Interesting)
I notice also that in markets that sells pirated music they come as MP3 on CD's and contain over 100 songs for $1. The lagal CDs next to them costs $10, and contains 10 songs.
The legal product is certainly inferior. Unless the music industry can deliver a superior product, they can not win this.
Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
They're still holding tightly to their fantasy about P2P downloaders costing them millions and billions - but they have noticed that their introduction of DRM technologies has received an almost totally negative response from their former customers. So they'll back off on this a little and "see if the piracy rate goes up". That's not what they'll be looking at at all, that's just some spin for the media. What they're looking for is some kind of upward bump to their profits; when they added DRM their income went down - so let's remove the DRM and see if our income goes back up.
What they still can't see through their pride is that DRM doesn't reduce piracy in any meaningful way; all it does is cause inconvenience to their paying customers. It's driven more than a few customers away; buy one CD that won't play in your player and it's quite natural to avoid any CDs from that company in the future. What they also can't see is that those lost customers won't be coming back just because of some mealy-mouthed PR statement about removing DRM from some music for a short period - they've been fooled once already.
"Piracy" (copyright infringement) is an interesting thing - it only happens with items that can be duplicated and sold at a price substantially below the price of the original product. If the record companies sold CDs for 69 cents each then the "pirates" wouldn't bother with music CDs. The record companies would never willingly reveal their cost of production - but you can safely assume that it's much less than a dollar. When they over-price the finished product at 20 dollars they create their own piracy problem.
Will they ever see this simple truth? "Pirates" are a fact of life; eliminate one or a dozen and a hundred more will take their place. As long as there's easy money to be made then people will be lined up to get their share. There is nothing that the music companies, their lobbying lapdogs, the government, the courts, or anyone else can do to prevent it. As long as the product is priced far in excess of its production cost, there's going to be a "piracy" problem.
Even the folks who just "want to get it for free" would become paying customers if the price was RIGHT. But the music industry keeps turning out formula junk with one or two good tunes per CD and then asking 20 bucks for it - and then they wonder why people aren't buying it. This is the root cause of their decline - expecting top dollar for bargain basement material.
But they weren't satisfied with shooting themselves in that foot - they decided to start up their "legal" extortion racket and run people over the coals for thousands of dollars - for downloading a song that has a market value of less than a dollar. They even decided to sue some dead people, children, disabled seniors, etc. just to make sure that they offended everyone. This bone-headed plan is pure public relations poison - but they just can't stop. This turns a bunch more customers into former customers and the sales drop off even faster.
Having shot themselves in both feet, they turned to their kneecaps with DRM and rootkits. While it's tempting, I won't belabor the point about what a bad idea this was. Now they suggest that they'll remove the DRM from a subset of their catalog - provisionally, for a short period of time. It almost sounds as if they believe they're dealing from a position of strength.
What a bunch of closed-minded fools. Their doom is upon them and they act as if they're in control of the situation...
I've said it before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats piracy rates to them? They should look at their sales, nothing else. If they sell three times as much, but the piracy rate (whatever is that, anyway) multiply by ten, why should they care? Should they suppose that they are losing that sales, even if the sales data tells them that they would never have done a but a third of them in the DRM-way? That would be really short-sight... oops, music-industry executives you said?. Then forget it all, short-sightedness is a part of the required CV there, to all external appearances.
I like Bleep (Score:2)
(I am nothing to do with bleep I just like their spin on selling music so I recommend them where I can.).
It will make no difference in piracy rates (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, there will be a few crusaders who want to "support the artists".
Sure, there will be a few people who can't figure out how to make bittorrent work who prefer the convenience of a one-stop download site for a fee.
But the majority of the users who have already drunk from the fountain of free music will continue to do so.
Perhaps you didn't read my post? (Score:3, Interesting)
You must have missed the part in my post where I said:
>>Sure, there will be a few crusaders who want to "support the artists".
>Just because it's easy to (illegally) get things free doesn't mean you should.
My point is that most people will do it anyway.
>You might be happy to live with robbing people. I'm not, so I pay for my music.
Again, my point is that you are probabl
Re:Now is the chance (Score:5, Insightful)
TAKE THE RED PILL. (Score:5, Insightful)
THERE. IS. NO. RIAA.
Not as such. It is a like shell company so that the major music labels don't get their hands (or label names) dirty whilst suing dead people, stalking 8 year olds, and extorting grandmothers that have never even seen a computer.
Universal IS the RIAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_
Judge greenlights RIAA to dig into man's past, employers
Should actually read:
Judge greenlights Major Music Label CEOs to dig into man's past, employers
Those CEOs are people. They make the decisions. They are responsible. Normal people can get their heads around that and hold those people responsible for their actions, if they so choose. The RIAA is some faceless acronym, just another brick wall. As it is surely intended to be.
Re:TAKE THE RED PILL. (Score:4, Funny)
Spoiler!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the RIAA exists just as much as your lawyer and/or union.
OK. Yes it exists. But if I fund a legal team to continually harass people, and generally harm society, who should citizens complain to when they are fed up? A tape recorder at the law firm? Or me? Which would be more effective? Who is the source of the problem?
Not the legal team. If one member is disbarred, I'll just hire another. If I'm the RIAA, legal fees are a pittance to me. The probably aren't even a line item on my budget.
I take exception with the union example. I do not believe that the RIAA is a
Re:Now is the chance (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't remember, but I know they've bribed radio stations to broadcast crap music.
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/tvstations/artic
Wikipedia also summarize it well:
Now is the chance to give money to parasites (Score:5, Interesting)
You buy if you want. As far as I'm concerned Universal can fuck off.
They're one of the worst. It is they who persuaded Microsoft to let them charge Zune users a Zune-tax. Let them lift that tax first.
They're still playing games. This time round, they are refusing to sell through the iTunes Store. This is an act of revenge. It's because Apple won't open their DRM to other distributors, because Apple doesn't want the hassle of maintaining this DRM (that it doesn't want in the first place and only has to use because companies like Universal insist on it) for every other distributor. IOW, Universal do want the DRM and are blaming Apple for not making it work for them across the whole industry - as if Apple, or anyone else, could.
YOU buy. YOU rush out and buy from these parasites. I shan't.
If I want to buy a download rather than a CD, I'll buy EMI at the iTunes Store or go to Magnatune or Linn records [linnrecords.com]. Universal can go boil its head.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tip: here's how not to pay the Zune tax (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a secret tip: you can decline to pay the Zune-tax. I did it, and surprisingly, it works like a charm!
Follow these steps carefully:
1. Do not buy a fucking Zune
2. ???
3. Profit!
Plus, with this method, you don't have yet another piece of plastic junk littering your living quarters.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I the only one who sees this as an opportunity for them to inject peoples names, IP addresses and other identifying information into the headers of the music? What they'll do with this information is troll Kazaa/Limewire looking for the songs from 'Joe Average' and then sue him because he gave a copy to a friend who gave it to a friend who gave it to a friend who put it on Kazaa/Limewire with the persons Name/IP junk on it only this time the RIAA will actually have ha
Steganography (Score:2)
Is something like injecting additional information or tying a song to a name/IP address-combination even possible when the format in which they are selling the songs is MP3?
Players find valid MPEG audio frames by looking for sync words [wikipedia.org]. Copyright management information can be hidden between audio frames this way. Or it can be placed in the least significant bits of MDCT coefficient data in "less complex" frames (which in VBR would just be shortened). Google mp3 steganography [google.com] to see how else this could work.
Re: (Score:2)
just watch, they'll stop selling drm-free tracks after finding one single copy on soulseek
Even if they have dishonorable intentions, they might be surprised by how well high quality, non-drm encumbered, songs sell. All these corporations care about is money, and if enough rolls in they won't do anything to impair the flow. And if it works well for them, all the other piggies will want to get their snouts in. It could spell the end of DRMed music files if it does indeed turn out to be the more profitable option.
Re: (Score:2)