EMI Experiments With DRM-free MP3's

trifster writes "Ars Technica has an article about EMI selling DRM-free MP3's through Yahoo Music's US online store. It should be noted that this trial is an attempt to increase sales and competition with online music that is not necessarilary available on iTunes." From the article: "Why the sudden interest in non-DRMed formats? It appears that the record labels are slowly beginning to realize that they can't have DRMed music and complete control over the online music market at the same time.... There are signs that consumers might be growing irritated by the Balkanization of the online music scene. Nielsen SoundScan reports that online music sales dropped during the second and third quarters of the year."

Great!

[balsy2001 (941953)]

So I can get 3 songs from artists I would pay not to hear without DRM.

Nothing new

[MatrixCubed (583402)]

I've been "experimenting" with DRM-free MP3s for years...

Good job guys

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

...for finally figuring out that controlling, say, 30% of a market with 50% piracy is better than controlling 2% of a market with 10% piracy.

Re:Good job guys

[HappySqurriel (1010623)]

I honestly don't think that everyone in the music industry is as greedy or stupid as we would assume. I am willing to bet that there are dozens of executives who (like the majority of slashdotters) believe that the recording industry would be far better off if it reduced the cost of downloaded music to make stealing music not worth the time involved; if you're spending $0.25 per song (to pick a number) most people aren't going to bother with looking for torrents of new albums. They also realize that there are people (like me) who would then pay for an album they normally wouldn't associate with if it was inexpensive enough; terrible dance music is pretty good to run to.

I suspect the problem is that people who see things the same way most of us do are the 20/early-30 something iPod owning executives who do not have that much weight with the companies; I expect that in 15 years most record companies will catch up to today's reality ...

Re:Good job guys

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

I expect that in 15 years most record companies will catch up to today's reality ...

And where will that put them? Oh, that's right. 15 years behind the times...We can only hope that their thinking will be so "progressive."

It's the price, stupid

[arniebuteft (1032530)]

Wake up RIAA and realize that the price of music drives piracy. People will always have an incentive to crack DRM if they can't get the music for a fair price legally. I imagine the music industry is scared to death of sliding music prices, even though that's where it's going to head eventually. There is some point between "overpriced" and "free" at which both consumers and most artists will be happy. Those artists who expect to become millionaires from a popular record (and who don't tour), are going to be sorely disappointed. Those artists who are happy making a decent living, and who actually produce good music, will prosper.

Re:It's the price, stupid

[shark72 (702619)]

"Wake up RIAA and realize that the price of music drives piracy."

Pricing drives shoplifting, auto theft, and lots of other crimes. Businesses can take this into account, but no matter what industry you're in, there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who will try to help themselves to your product for free and use pricing as a rationalization.

"People will always have an incentive to crack DRM if they can't get the music for a fair price legally."

Agreed, but for many people, "fair price" has been sliding downward so that it's below whatever price the industry sets. Remember six years ago when CDs were $20 and online tracks were $3 and hard to come by? People justified P2P usage back then because CDs were so expensive and legit online tracks were expensive and offered little selection. Today, new CD releases are south of $15 and selection of online music is plentiful at $0.99 and below. Yet this price is still not "fair." For many people, it never will be. Those people likely aren't high on the record companies' target audience... unless you're counting lawsuits.

"I imagine the music industry is scared to death of sliding music prices, even though that's where it's going to head eventually. There is some point between "overpriced" and "free" at which both consumers and most artists will be happy."

...and the industry has found that at $0.99. The iTMS has been an overwhelming success, despite the fact that everybody on Slashdot hates it because the pricing isn't "fair" and because the product is DRM-laden.

You are not going to believe this, but if online music pricing dropped to $0.80, $0.70, or even $0.50, I would not buy more. I buy all the music I want online, and $0.99 is not a burden to me. It's conceivable that I'm the only consumer on the planet for whom there's no elasticity between $0.99 and $0.50, but that's highly unlikely. Pricing theory is all about finding that point on the curve that makes the most profit, even if it means that you're limiting your potential customer base.

"Those artists who expect to become millionaires from a popular record (and who don't tour), are going to be sorely disappointed. Those artists who are happy making a decent living, and who actually produce good music, will prosper."

This sounds a lot like many arguments I hear for lower music prices which end with some form of "artists will just need to accept their new place in society." Why should they want to do that? Many people would trade fame for money, but many would not. If I offered to make you more well-known but your salary would have to drop by $20K a year, would you do it? Do you think everybody would take me up on my offer?

Re:It's the price, stupid

[badasscat (563442)]

...and the industry has found that at $0.99. The iTMS has been an overwhelming success, despite the fact that everybody on Slashdot hates it because the pricing isn't "fair" and because the product is DRM-laden.

How do you define "overwhelming success"?

We know from simple division that even among iTunes Music Store customers, the average number of purchased tracks is 21. We also know that the number of illegal downloads continues to outnumber legal downloads by 40 to 1. (Both of these stats come from previous - and recent - stories posted here.) People continue to fill up their iPods with music they have obtained elsewhere (legally and illegally). If such a small percentage of music sales can be deemed an "overwhelming success", then what would constitute failure?

I think the music industry has seen these stats, they know these stats, and they also know that even with whatever limited success iTunes and the like has had (and it is "limited" at best, not "overwhelming"), most of that success belongs to Apple, Real, etc. Not to the music industry itself. So they know they've still got big problems.

This sounds a lot like many arguments I hear for lower music prices which end with some form of "artists will just need to accept their new place in society." Why should they want to do that?

Whether they want to or not is not really relevant. The fact may be that they have to.

Look at it this way. In the late 1800's, a lot of people made a lot of money in the railroad business. By around the 1950's, that was no longer possible - the business just wasn't what it was anymore. Media is just like any other business, and in fact the exact same thing is happening to the newspaper and magazine industries right now. You can never count on a business to make you rich forever. How you feel about that as a member of that business matters not at all.

Unless you want to count classical composers who often consorted with kings and queens (but were rarely really rich themselves), the whole notion of getting rich by writing and playing music is an entirely recent phenomenon. It's not something anybody would have assumed 100 or even 50 years ago. It was something people did for the love of the music, and hopefully they did it well enough to make a living. That living was mostly made through playing live, not through sales of media.

Many people think the music industry's run as it currently exists is simply over. It does happen. Industries come and go as times change; they are not static things.

That does not mean music will go away. It just means the current major label-dominated industry itself might, along with the ability to get rich by selling records. Being a musician may become more like any other profession, where the savvy and talented can make a good living provided they continue to work year-round playing live, releasing new music and creating other related merchandise. Labels will still exist - there does need to be someone to do the real production and promotion work - but they may not be dominated by the four majors. The entire industry may look a lot more like the indie record industry of today. eMusic may be the new model. Or, the opposite may happen, and it already sort of is - musicians that want to get rich will need to become "brands", transcending their career in music and turning themselves into full-on multimedia campaigns. Or, there could be some combination of both models, which is probably the most likely scenario. But you won't be able to get rich just selling records for very much longer.

It probably sounds far-fetched to you, but then in 1930 there probably wasn't a man alive that thought there'd come a time when the New York Central wasn't steaming from New York to Chicago six times a day. Things change in business, often dramatically. And new technology is what drives that change.

It Will Not Be Long

[moore.dustin (942289)]

With the rise of iTunes and downloading music online, people are already getting upset about what they can and cant do with the music they OWN. These companies are looking to control how you can use the things you own and people do not like it. One iPod per iTunes, cant share music files, cant move music library - these are just some of the issues people are beginning to realize as they explore the world of digital music (Average User).

People want to do what they want with the things they own, period. Companies should not be deceiving consumers by giving the illusion of ownership when they purchase a song. Instead they should be prompted warned that buying said song from said service will result in the following restrictions. Well maybe they are better off telling them they are not allowed to do anything with the song besides X and X, just to save time and space :)

If the DRM was explained and the restrictions spelled out, as they should be, sales on iTunes and other services would begin to fall as soon as any alternative that allows people to do what they want with the songs comes out. Of course, seasoned digital music consumers have found an alternative already, but no money is being made off that yet... If no alternatives are allowed to hit the market then the average user, as they become more knowledgeable about the issue, will result to the same methods.

Quality / Bitrate..?

[bhunachchicken (834243)]

DRM free..? Well, okay... I'm listening (so to speak). But if the quality isn't 192kps and up then I'm not interested.

Personally I'd rather see a "more legal" version of allofmp3.com... Choice of format, bitrate, etc? Yes, please. I'd be very happy to part with my hard earned cash in that case.

Wow

[styryx (952942)]

Like, I'm so touched. Thank you EMI! No really, that's so amazing. It more than makes up for the destruction of countless peoples lives and the endless misery you have caused! Way to go!

Re:Wow

[Lord_Slepnir (585350)]

endless misery you have caused

I know you're trying to make a point, but Celine Dion isn't quite THAT bad.

Allofmp3.com

[mpapet (761907)]

This one will bite the dust as soon as the other cartel members get wind of it.

This is the same cartel convicted of fixing the price of CD's. This is the same cartel has the ability to maintain an artificially high $10-$18 per new CD. Look at the demise of allofmp3.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3.com_legality [wikipedia.org]

The money to be made by eliminating your right to first sale is too powerful.

Balkanization of media download services clearly benefits the media cartels.

Consider this story another sad footnote in the history of your rights being taken away.

Which song?

[whoami-ky (246318)]

OK. I am willing to spend $0.99 on a DRM free song by Norah Jones just to "cast my vote" that I am willing to buy DRM-free music. Could someone please tell me which song it is? I can't seem to find that information anywhere.

Re:Which song?

[dlim (928138)]

The Norah Jones song is "Thinking About You" from the new album "Not Too Late" due January 30th, 2007 and it's nearly impossible to find on Yahoo Music's site. It's a 192 Kbps mp3. Here's a direct link to the promo landing page (don't ask my why it's at "amplified.com"):

http://www.amplified.com/thinkingaboutyou [amplified.com]

Oh yeah, FF users, ignore the message about "No Windows Media Player". You don't need it. Just click OK.

Re:Which song?

[whoami-ky (246318)]

Thanks. I found it. If you want to start at the Yahoo site, the link is http://music.yahoo.com/promos/norahjonesmp3/ [yahoo.com]. By the way, I did purchase the song. It's not too bad. I just wanted to let them (RIAA, EMI, etc.) that I'm willing to pay for non-DRM'd music.

Not Easy to Find, Not Easy To Buy, but I did it.

[weston (16146)]

So, yeah, I searched Yahoo's site, and pretty much think the article is wrong. Yahoo Music is not selling this track as an MP3 (alternatively, their peanut butter may be spread so thin they're simply unable to actually execute the policy of selling it, even though they've decided they're selling it).

But this "amplified.com" site is in fact selling it. However, I've never heard of them before, and like a lot of other online retailers who I've never purchased from, I'm reluctant to hand over my credit card number. So I decided to use a feature my credit card offers called "ShopSafe", which lets you generate temporary numbers with a given limit and expiration date.

I decided to use a temporary number I created two weeks ago that had one dollar left on the account. The purchase came back "declined due to insufficient funds". Odd, given that the track was supposed to be $.99, and there's a dollar left on the limit.

OK, I decided to create a new number, just in case the old one was the problem. Limit $1, expires 2/07.

Declined due to insufficient funds.

Well, maybe like many companies, they actually ding you for just a bit more for some reason. OK. I bumped the limit on the temp number up to $5.

Declined due to insufficient funds.

Suffice it to say that if this was just about purchasing the song, I would have given up by this point for certain. But I don't want some brain-damanged analyst who is unable to fathom the very idea of *ease of experience* to attribute the failure of this promo to piracy (or worse "people like DRM"), so in principle I want to support it.

$10 limit: declined due to insufficient funds.

I'm sorry? $10 in an account is not enough to purchase a $1 song? This must be the kind of Math that the analytically challenged record labels use to determine their loss figures.

I was finally able to buy when giving the card a limit of $25. For a $1 song. Not to mention 20 minutes of work.

It is an MP3, and it's not bad. For the song itself, it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Re:W00t - not.

[shark72 (702619)]

"Selling a couple xian tunes w/o drm isn't going to exactly cause a wave of common sense to break out. Does anyone actually listen to this crap?"

Norah Jones has had a couple of multi-platinum albums in the past five years. She's a bona fide star. Relient K are one of those "crossover" Christian bands that have managed to release three consecutive gold albums. By the way, I found this data with about two minutes of Googling.

Per Ars Technica, these artists were picked because their audience skews older. P2P usage skews younger. The Slashdot demographic is also younger, so most people reading this see the world as one where everybody uses P2P to get their music and nobody listens to lame artists like Norah Jones, but EMI is apparently looking at the big picture.

Re:W00t - not.

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

Selling a couple xian tunes w/o drm isn't going to exactly cause a wave of common sense to break out. Does anyone actually listen to this crap?

They're doing exactly the same thing they did with DRM on CDs; they're releasing them in very limited quantities so they can guage the public reaction.

This is a big deal. It's not big because the numbers are big, but because they're actually looking at the format at all. At one point (yesterday?) we were forced to use quasi-legal tools and we were treated like criminals if we wanted to have cross-platform music. Now at least there's hope.

My suggestion is run, don't walk, to your computer and buy these tracks, even if you hate the artists involved. The music industry is quite predictible in that they always seem to go in the direction that they think will make them more money. We want to encourage this behavior.

TW

Re:W00t - not.

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

It's a good idea to encourage civil behavior in your enemies. Getting a truce and a peace treaty is almost always much cheaper, eisier and almost always gives you a better outcome than spending every last ounce of strength trying to destroy them

TW

Re:W00t - not.

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

BTW...whatever happened to Stryper? :)

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! [runs quickly out, slamming door behind]
[unlocks door, comes back in jabbing pointy stick] [sits shakingly back down at computer]
ahem, sorry. I believe God smote them.

Re:Does anyone have numbers on this?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Christians are supposed to be honest and pay for stuff anyway, right?

On the other hand if you do steal a Christian artist's music, aren't they supposed to forgive you for it?

Re:Sheep

[garcia (6573)]

Strangely enough, allofmp3 was selling DRM free music in multiple formats for years and look what happened to them.

Hmmm, guess it has little to do w/the sheep and more to do with the power of the conglomerates and their lawyers.

Re:Sheep

[rucs_hack (784150)]

I thought the main problem with allofmp3 was that they didn't have permission to sell what they were selling, not that it was drm free.

Re:Sheep

[notanatheist (581086)]

Stop buying CDs? And what? Buy only downloaded compressed formats? Whatever. Obviously you don't own a Squeezebox or nice hifi system. Maybe you listen to all your music through some crappy headphones that came with a portable music player. Maybe if they find a way to do DAE off Vinyl I'll switch to that. (no, not the scanner hoax posted on Slashdot before). I want the freedom to choose the format my music is compressed in if it is compressed at all.