Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM" 391
bogess writes "Yahoo! Music General Manager Ian Rogers recently gave a speech to some music executives about the future of the Internet music business and promised his company will not be involved in Digital Rights Management anymore." Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels and going independent.
Poor MAFIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amen! I'm over in the UK and I'm just waiting for Amazon or Yahoo or someone to start selling me quality downloads. I'll spend £40.00 on the service the first night it goes live, I have no doubt. I've bought a few albums from 7digital.com but a good portion of their stuff is still in WMA and they're also more set up as an online music service than a store for streaming your music wherever you are. (Everything you buy sits in an online basket that you can never get rid of and for Linux there's no conv
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After the file format is changed the excuse will be the music itself isn't good enough to pay for.
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're confusing "moving the goal posts" with taking things one step at a time.
If we all demanded everything we wanted right off the bat, we'd be labeled as nutjobs and nobody would pay any attention.
If you ask for one thing at a time, it comes off as more reasonable. It's the same approach you take to any big problem. You're not going to solve world hunger by tomorrow through one big air drop. It takes baby steps.
Yes, the quality of music will be the next complaint. Or pricing. That's nothing new. That's not "moving the goal posts". These are all things people have been saying for a long time, but first things first - DRM is the more important issue at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
(And company still gives artists lower royalties per unit for CDs using the same argument).
Company says "We will continue to market CDs, but we need to get the CD standard and definition changed."
I'm not saying you're wrong to characterize what some listeners are doing as moving the goalposts, but that's some listeners, while others do come back to the market and buy music if their particular complaint is addressed. Meanwhile, the RIAA has been moving the goalposts on its own in various ways, and until recently, it hasn't been some members, it's been a totally unified 100% action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? That's the legal way. As long as they don't screw stuff up, I prefer being legal.
I've dropped literally hundreds of dollars at webscription.net, which not only allows me to buy DRMless books, but to redownload them whenever I want to. It doesn't take two minutes and an internet connection to open them. It'd take two bookshelves to hold them all if I'd bought physical copies. I appreciate the saved space.
Basically, don't try to sell a product that's measurably inferior to the pirated version. I've heard everything from 20 minutes of unskippable ads(a disney DVD), condescending 'don't steal movies' ads, music with DRM so computationally expensive that playing them on a portable player sucks out half of the battery life, unable to play on average(or even top of the line) systems, installs root-kits, huge hassle when you change computers, etc...
*I'll normally download cracked executables for games even though I purchased it, that'd make for an interesting court battle when they claim I pirated software and I produce a receipt from before they say I downloaded it.
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that this has actually gone to court, it's just that the media companies merely keep quiet about it.
It went to court 'It's a license, not a physical sale'
- Court determined that it was a physical sale because the selling co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
128kbps MP3 isn't just lossless, it's also low enough that many people with decent-good systems can hear the differences.
Sure, it's fine for most portable/computer purposes, but it's more like a 50%
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The long-term question will be if Yahoo can get through the iPod
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Buy two thousand CDs @ $1/each, add in producing costs of ~$1k, total
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I hear a lot of shit on the radio that "this would never work for lesser-known artists", which is a total load of rubbish. The independent artists have been doing this more than the big bands. Of course I'm happy that we're moving away from the fat cats to a clearer artist/listener relationship, and I'm also a radiohead fan, but this whole thing is totally overegged.
OK, so lets have a vote (Score:4, Interesting)
How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?
Re:OK, so lets have a vote (Score:4, Informative)
I see 2 benefits to this approach:
1. (I like to think) artists get more from the sale than they would if I bought it from a shop.
2. The labels that make up the RIAA get less (if any) money from the sale. (I usually only go to shows of bands on independent labels - "safe" on the RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com]).
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I found out that the graphics driver that shipped with the laptop wasn't "ceritified" to run with Vista. I had to download the 30MB+ graphics driver update before I could play a DVD.
Microsoft, you're really fucking your users over with Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself! For my part, I am a customer. Potentially.
Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Bill
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people will always steal and you are not going to succeed selling to them. They will always find a way to cheat even if you force them to buy the product through legislation. The percentage depends on geographic location, society, culture, etc. Usually these are a minority.
The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well put. For those who don't get what he said, let me give examples...
You are asked by a bride to put together a slide show, here are my photos and here is the music I want played.. Now try to get permission from the school photographer to scan and project the images on the screen. Now get permission to play the show with a public performance music soundtrack. Now get permission to burn the show to DVD and give them to the bride and extended family. Now get all the permissions (photo, music, songwriter, ASCAP etc) to put the mess on YouTube or MySpace.
Most of us can't do any one of the tasks to do any of the above required steps. We don't ask. We just do the show and hope nobody cares enough to sue. Unless you are a pro-video production company, your chances as an individual of not intentionally breaking someone's copyright is pretty slim. If you took the copyright violations in my last wedding slideshow and charged me $5,000 for each violation, the total would be in the mega millions. There was copying the music (bride provided, I didn't own) copying the photos (lots of school and sports photos done by a studio), public performance of the resulting package, and duplication and distribution for putting it on DVD. The show ran 15 minutes and used 4 songs.
When will the industry learn that outdated copyright is preventing use of the product. There is no outlet of the industries providing anyplace where I can obtain the license to use the products. As a result, I no longer use photographers who won't sign my work for hire contract which gives me the copyright. They either adapt or lose the job to someone who will. Copyright reform is required. It does not recognise how the products are typically used anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they believe in the microsoft model of licensing. you must buy a seperate piece of media for every device you own.
so in your copying anylog, permission would not be given because Ms. Pariser believes that there are available copies of most titles available at competitive prices for you to purchase.
so in sony's perfect wor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same holds if you make the "legitimate product" over complex/difficult to buy. e.g. Telling people you don't want their money because they live in the wrong country does tend to build good business relations.
Re: (Score:3)
it's infringment. there's a big difference.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not.
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see no problem whatsoever with this. If the sellers are sensible, they will price the product at the price the market will bear: people will pay more for things they particularly want. Sure, a set of Beethoven's symphonies can go for USD$ 18.98 [amazon.com] if they're performed by the Dresden Philharmonic, or for USD$ 67.98 if they're conducted by Georg Solti [amazon.com] or John Eliot Gardiner [amazon.com]. That's absolutely fine: if people are willing to pay more for Solti and JEG, all well and good; if they're not, there's the Dresden Philharmonic. Same with contemporary music. If people are willing to pay $60 for an album by Celine Dion, well, it sucks to be them. Or maybe not, from their point of view: if they're willing to pay the price, clearly it's worth it to them. Personally, I'll be the one browsing through the Naxos CDs, more often than not, but that's fine.
Variation in pricing is a good thing, if the variation reflects demand for the product. You wouldn't expect to have to pay the same for an ersatz coffee maker as for a Krups; so why would you expect to have to pay the same for the Bavarian Radio Orchestra as for Karajan?
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also important when dealing with little things like the US Code.
Funny thing, though, if it WAS actually stealing, the fines would be a lot lower. It would actually be in a P2P sharer's benefit for downloading "stolen" music to be classified as theft.
Just more proof that the scare tactic is working. Stealing: effective social scare tactic, tiny fine. Copyright infringement: pathetic social scare tactic, huge fine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal [reference.com]
"2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that given the opportunity most people will take something for free if they can and there isn't much risk involved. The real point is that the people who [i]would[/i] have paid for the content originally are still likely to pay for the content regardless of what everyone else is doing. Maybe they enjoyed the content enough to want to support it's creators. Maybe for this group of people having the opportunity to access the content using a nice interface that's reliable (in terms of service level and making accessible what they're searching for) is worth the expenditure versus the effort involved in other methods. Maybe they just want to stick to the law.
I think many of us would make the argument, for example, that we have a) used the Internet to discover content that we've later gone on to pay for, but also b) we've also downloaded some content "for free" that really we would have never seen enough value in to pay for anyway (although perhaps we might have, if we could have chosen to pay less for it than was asked). So for certain pieces of content we fall into category A, and category B shouldn't really have much impact on a business - if I wasn't going to pay anyway who cares? The only impact is if the number of people in category A decreases.
And that's where I think the problem lies. The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years. Many of us simply do not believe that the artists get a real share of revenues these days, diminishing some of the reason that might cause people to fall into category A. Some of us don't want manufactured pop pushed on us all the time, and this means less content in category A because that's mainly what the industry spits out (as far as what is considered "mainstream" and well known). If we're smart, none of us want to be locked into a platform via DRM that limits where we can take our music and what we can do with it (again, fewer people in category A). And most importantly, the RIAA can [i]not[/i] cause people to psychologically move content from category B into category A via lawsuits.
This all goes back to what we've all been saying for a long time:
* Compensate creators well so that as a consumer I know that when I spend my money I am really supporting the creator
* Build many platforms competing for my business. I shouldn't be locked into iTunes if I want a wide selection, and I should be able to choose a platform that serves my needs.
* Territory restrictions need to go away. If we want to get our hands on a piece of music and you refuse to sell it to us legally, guess what is going to happen?
* Don't use DRM. Why do I want to pay money for content I really only have the option to use with your permission, and that I can't load onto any kind of playback device I might own?
* Allow me to contribute to an artist at less than retail price if I want to. In the past few days we've seen certain artists trying this out. It's better than a category B (aka "I wouldn't pay retail for this anyway") decision.
Finally, remember that each of us has a finite amount of disposable income to spend on music, and a finite ability to discover new music over time. The act of adding DRM does not suddenly make these problems go away. Even if you killed 100% of all piracy tomorrow that does not mean that we'd all suddenly buy more music. Which takes us back to where I started - it's all about making sure the people who are buying now still see the value in buying tomorrow. Look after category A and you'll be fine.
I'm really tired. I hope this post made sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Further thought: The more you combat piracy (remembering that category B is not a real loss), the more you inhibit discovery, one of the two key factors that influences our spending. How many DVD box sets do you think get sold because people get addicted to watching series on YouTube, or albums because fans get to link their friends to their idols performing?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's worse than that. By this point, they may as well be wearing lead prosthetics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
No they're not -- I mean, I admire the spirit you're trying to paint them in and all, but no, they're (for the most part) just greedy people, just like the record execs, trying to get more for less, even if it's not legal. Freedom fighters implies some higher purpose -- most of the time downloaders are just out for themselves and don't want to take the time and cash to buy the CD -- I can't really blame them on either account, don't get me wrong, but it's still about personal greed rather than some larger principled stand in a strong majority of the cases.
So (Score:3, Insightful)
At the time of the American revolution, the British government made all the same arguments the RIAA members make n
Lesson for Apple: (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's hope Apple starts following this line too. iTunes/iPod domination allowed DRMd music to be accepted by far too many.
Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.
Yea, let's let's. But fitting Apple and Microsoft to prebuilt models in your head won't change reality. Apple has at least as (if not more ) interest than Microsoft in keeping the DRM on iTunes for most of the tracks.
Jobs wants more market control and more money. The rest is just the means he uses to get those two.
Finally (Score:2)
how about the unbox video service? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You crack me up. Oh wait, you're serious?
That is so far from happening its not even funny. Never mind that almost all leaks and interweb releases of films are from cinema's, pre release versions or rips from already decoded dvd's
The thing is that so few people have even the slightest inclination to rip their dvd collections that people aren't feeling the inconvenience that music users felt over the drm currently in dvds. They won't until it becomes standard to store movies etc in electronic form only
Re: (Score:2)
you... (Score:5, Informative)
i, for one, would prefer the newest single by britney spears in a totally unplayable format.
Re:you... (Score:5, Funny)
cosmocain fo prez.
The 'No DRM' card (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as the No DRM makes sense from a political & ethical point of view, the fact that people are recognizing DRM as a bad thing is starting to dawn on people. When Apple iTunes wanted DRM out of the way (for audio, though not for video), I thought of it as a win-win-win [dotgnu.info] situation for everyone including the artists, APPL and the users (screw the RIAA).
Now Y! is doing the same thing and very intelligent of them too. Yahoo! music engine is not something I would use (or *could* use) despite getting a promotional offer (*disclaimer* as an employee) and tying down people to such idiotic client lockins (*cough* jukebox) is not working out well for it at all. If it would work well with Amarok or even the less popular Songbird [songbirdnest.com], I'd happily use it over Last.fm (which streams directly into amarok happily).
Finally, it is a good thing that Y! is realizing that Convenience is a Feature++ - one way or the other.
Won the battle... (Score:5, Insightful)
guess I have some records to buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Radiohead in their interview are very supportive of large labels.
When their first album came out ( and before Creep blew-up ), they made no money but the label paid for a full tour of Europe even though the labels would lose a lot of money for doing the tour.
Basically, the label paid for a young band to play music and tour, sort of paid for their education.
They say that if they weren't on a rich label, the tour wouldn't have been possible, the exposure to get the song Creep heard wouldn't ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.
Sure, but do we really want mega-bands in the first place?
Why? (Score:2)
Geez, you've really been depriving yourself unnecessarily. One word: emusic [emusic.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that when I went to the site, too. But a quick Google for "emusic " takes you straight to the list of what they have for that band, and from there you can continue to browse.
e.g. www.emusic.com/artist/11592/11592805.html - their page of Underworld stuff.
I'm not entirely convinced emusic wanted their site to work that way, but seeing they had the stuff I was after is persuad
Question (Score:2)
I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels
Which makes me wonder. If you don't participate in the market, how do you cast your economic vote?
Choosing not to vote doesn't even come close to being as powerful as supporting the entities that you agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Active non-participation? WTF is that? Self-disenfranchisement.
You have to participate to get a say.
See my other comment about emusic. There are things about them that some don't like, but they have non-DRM tracks for a reasonable price (two of my big problems with iTunes), so they get my vote.
I used to buy tons of CDs (5-10 per week). Then the shit really started with the labels and I stopped, took a look around and supported someone else. Just abstaining doesn't do the job, the drop in sales is j
Re:RIAA Radar (Score:2)
You didn't have to stop. Just let the buyer beware.
http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]
My most recent purchase was from here.
http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?searchtype=ArtistSearch&keyword=Christopher+Peacock [riaaradar.com]
interesting indeed. (Score:4, Informative)
shame I cannot get MP3 from Amazon yet as I am in the UK.
but I will be buying NIN and Radiohead albums - not only do I like the music its very important that the artist and the RIAA get the message.
though I suspect (and hope) they will be getting two very different messages.
the important thing to realize is that there will be no quick change here - the RIAA has the majority of artists by the short and curlies because they are mostly currently locked into draconian contracts for fixed duration and no. of albums. currently only the lucky few who are nearing the end of their terms (or should that be sentences) can escape to artistic and hopefully monetary freedom.
truly, we live in interesting times.
It's finally happening (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A pain in the arse, in fact.
Good for NIN and Radiohead (Score:4, Insightful)
But has any music artist achieved anything like their success without the marketing power of a major label behind them?
I do understand that making enough money by playing music to have a decent standard of living and support a family should be enough for a real artist.
But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?
If this has happened already, please enlighten me because I've missed it (I know who NIN and Radiohead are, but haven't heard of any, so you have some serious convincing to do.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?
Yes, the Artic Monkeys have certainly done well and they have never been involved with the majors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_monkeys [wikipedia.org]
Signed to a fairly big indie label now.
Re: (Score:2)
New bands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However in general they must struggle to make a mainstream impact when the big labels are spending a boatload of cash on saturation marketing for their artists (and then clawing the money back off the artists).
Perhaps the best thing about major artists leaving their stables will be a reduction of funds wasted on marketing so that new artists stand a chance of being seen
If you all would switch.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ [thinner.cc] [thinner.cc] you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-)
Which is all well and good if you're willing to merely exchange cliches. Some of us judge music on artistic merits rather than how well it assumes a genre-centric posture and don't have the option. Though that's probably better: less bad pseudo-political punk choruses and less samples of bad third rate soul vocals to give otherwise
Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"... (Score:2)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXThttp://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2= [uspto.gov]
NIN (Score:2)
Actually (Score:2)
*You can opt to pay nothing, but you still have to pay a 45p bank charge.
Second thought about what Radiohead and NIN do... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Get a CD, pay what you want... (Score:2)
I suppose that when they sell on their website, more than 80% of the selling price goes into their pocket, so it is not an idealist fight anymore, it is just a matter of making profit. 5 euros for a CD is cheap by today standard and would earn the artists more money, it will be a hard year for middle-men
Power to the bands (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is true, then Radiohead aren't losing any money by giving away their music. They're just building a fan base by giving away music instead of building a fan base by getting a label to sell CDs. It also means that DRM protects the label and actively damages the band.
Has the internet finally created a world in which the bands don't need labels any more? Perhaps in 5 or ten years time, we'll see that the labels
Vista (Score:2)
Radiohead album available! (Score:2)
Only downside is they are 160 kbps mp3:s, which may not make everybody happy.
The Radiohead thing (Score:2)
Dropping DRM and basically opening up the album to the masses is something we all want to see. That said my initial enthusiasm stemmed from being surprised by another Radiohead album rather than being told about it many months before it shows up as normal.
More relevantly for this discussion, the really cool digital distribution mechanism has been marred somewhat by the patchy way the whole thing has been delivered. 160kbps CBR MP3 rip (well below par quality wise) is causing expected waves but, in my view
I have a question (Score:4, Insightful)
If I amass a 1,000 song collection with mp3s, won't it be trivially easy for me to "share" my music with all my friends? Wouldn't that really help build my reputation with them? And wouldn't those who received the free music be inclined to give away their music to others as well to help build their reputation?
It's good that the record companies now understand the scourge of DRM, but I don't see how the artists win in this scenario.
More innovation from independent bands (Score:5, Interesting)
> and going independent.
Since 2001, Einstürzende Neubauten [neubauten.org] has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription. As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!
They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is
a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free" [neubauten.org].
Not making money on CDs (Score:3, Informative)
Some friends of mine [loverselectric.com] were touring as the support act with a largeish (reformed '80s) band recently. The main band wasn't selling albums at the gigs, as the wholesale price the record company wanted for the CDs was too high. My friends were making quite good money, as they were unsigned so just had to pay the CD making factory.
Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This means more advertising, less music. (Score:3, Insightful)
When they say no more DRM, I doubt their plan is to 'sell' songs without DRM. I think this means that songs will be distributed as a service and that the service will be supported by advertising.
And I, for one, am sorry that everything we do has to be supported by advertising. I don't like advertising. I prefer to pay a reasonable fee.
I don't blame Yahoo. They came out with a great music subscription service that went absolutely nowhere in the market. And, regarding DRM, they have been consistent in their rhetoric against it, but have not had the power to do anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad pun, but back then I thought the idea of putting a lot of NIN audio tracks on a game CD at a time when CD burners were expensive was the least intrusive copy protection I have seen. I was probably more impressed because the thing was in the discount bin for $10.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, such fond memories.
Re: (Score:2)
Its defunct now by the way, NIN's last two albums were directly on Interscope (which in turn is part of Universal Music Group, paired up with Geffen and A&M). There are a million vanity labels, boutique labels, divisions and other things going on yet th
Re: (Score:2)
Not *necessarily* to project the impression of a more personal experience