Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"

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

Everyone is jumping ship on DRM. Boo-hoo. The consumer wins!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

I will gladly pay the protection money to Yahoo to keep DRM away. Give me high bitrate and lossless choices and watch my downloads soar!

Re:Poor MAFIAA

I don't see the inconsistency.

1. I'm grateful for whatever I get if it is free.
   
2. I won't pay for crap.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

There is no inconsistency. However by moving the goal posts each time they're reached simply reveals the true motives.

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:Poor MAFIAA

Company says "CDs will cost $5 more than LPs or Cassettes, but that's just until they stop being experimental - then the price will come down". CDs become the default medium, price doesn't drop.

(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:Poor MAFIAA

I must be an oddball then. Despite my being technically sophisticated enough to download pretty much anything, I still mostly buy my stuff - software and movies included.

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

There was no sarcasm in my post, I really was thanking you for the link. I can see how you might have read it as if I were being sarcastic, but I in fact copied and pasted the link myself and then even bookmarked it ;) Honest: No sarcasm intended.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

Not so fast, but RIAA and its beloved DRM will fail, within the next few years. RIAA still has control over majority of the music market. Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. What RIAA fails to realize is that a successful business is all about what the customers want, not what the company wants. There are countless examples of failures because the company lost touch with the people. And here we are just witnessing another failure in making.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. Most of them are bound by contract to the labels for a certain time or number of releases. It's not that they don't know to switch, but that they can't.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

Nine Inch Nails were never on the "other ship". Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) publicly hates his label, and has leaked every NiN release so far. This isn't some sudden turn about. Check out quoteunquoterecords.com for another example (donations based).

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

Let's have a vote. You can even AC it if you want.

How many people have ever bought music direct-from-the-artist over the web or in person?

Re:OK, so lets have a vote

Other than my subscription to eMusic [emusic.com], I pretty much only buy music direct-from-the-artist. This usually includes getting a record (on vinyl) at shows, which hopefully includes mp3 downloads that labels like Merge [mergerecords.com] and Sub Pop [subpop.com] include with their LPs. I also bought the Radiohead record (at $5) online.

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

...and poor Microsoft who has totally fucked up Vista (and delayed it several times) just to implement a "unbreakable" DRM system... instead of fixing some of Windows' real problems.

Re:Poor MAFIAA

I just configured a new Lenovo Thinkpad T60 with Vista and the first thing my client asked me to do was to play a movie. I popped a DVD into the drive, media player started automatically, then Windows threw up an error message that it couldn't validate the video path with DRM.

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.

Labels Wising Up?

What record labels are finally learning is that just because they can steal, doesn't mean the majority of people will.

-Bill

Re:Labels Wising Up?

Actually, it even more pronounced than this:

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?

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.

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:Labels Wising Up?

I agree 120%.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.

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:Labels Wising Up?

Thing is, if you're arrested, they don;t use a dictionary in court to define your crime. They use these things called laws.

Under the law, it is NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. VERY different.

Who says it's not stealing? The Supreme Court says its not stealing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207: "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.""

Re:Labels Wising Up?

It is stealing.

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.

No, it isn't. Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc. There are also several new business models these days (ad-driven, etc.), but it is too soon to tell about them.

Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example).

No, quite the opposite. One of the reasons we have a few acts making the vast majority of money in music is the RIAA, who through extremely costly and aggressive marketing make a few acts control the charts. If the RIAA vanish tomorrow, music will 'democratize' - more artists making money, fewing really big money-makers; prices will stay reasonable. This is a very good thing, and it is already starting to occur.

Re:Labels Wising Up?

This will make the market for pop music very similar to the one for classical. Classical music is quite different from the pop. While the all of the pop is priced at roughly the same level as a consumer good, classics prices are all over the place. A single CD with Beethoven sonatas can cost anything from 5£ to 60£. A collection of Beethoven symphonies can set you back by a 3 digit number.

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?

I don't agree with that completely, Bill, but I think you're heading in the right direction.

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:Labels Wising Up?

Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.

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.

Lesson for Apple:

If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience.

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.

Finally

Some big names are willing to comment on the emperor's sartorial choices...

how about the unbox video service?

How about removing the DRM on video content?

you...

...never can have enough DRM. really! see... you can have a mp3 for 0.99 or a value added wma with protection against EVERYTHING. even listening! how great is that?

i, for one, would prefer the newest single by britney spears in a totally unplayable format.

Re:you...

You, sir, are a visionary. What better way to protect our children against the auditory abomination that is today's pop artists? I feel that DRM is a wonderful thing, we simply haven't been using it correctly and to it's full potential.

cosmocain fo prez.

Is it really that hard...

to link to a news site instead to a car-less skater guy's blog who had an issue with pigs and ponies.. ooohhh wait...

The 'No DRM' card

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...

It seems that in recent days, the draconian overlords of music (RIAA) have won a local battle, suing and winning from a poor woman over $240,000 for about a dozen songs, and lost the entire war. Consumers kicked them to the curb 5 years ago. Now artists are starting to do it. Artists know how much companies take and how much they get. Its very likely that artists getting paid directly by fans for music on the web may have a better payday than if they stayed with the company. In general, it seems they won the battle and lost the war.

guess I have some records to buy

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels, and nope, I haven't been downloading illegally either. If some of the big groups are going to divest themselves of their overlords, I'll be starting up with the purchasing again.

interesting indeed.

this is truly an interesting read.

shame I cannot get MP3 from Amazon yet as I am in the UK. :-( Boo!

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

Everyone, the retailers, the talent, the consumers, are starting to realize that when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

Nice move, Trent.

I can't wait to start buying NiN's CDs now. Hopefully more companies will realize that their current way of doing things isn't working.

Good for NIN and Radiohead

It is great news that established artists are able to leave the big labels behind.

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.)

New bands

Guys like NIN and Radiohead can go independent now because they already have made money. Prince can give away his music because he is already rich. What we need is new good acts that can stand outside of the horror that is the RIAA and still succeed. That will have some real impact. That will make way for changes. It shouldn't be about greed, it should be about music and fairness.

If you all would switch....

If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ [thinner.cc] you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-) Except that you probably don't enjoy free, and fascinating electronic music.... no you want David Hasselhof's new band "singing about love" - you know the neat band they play when your inside McDonalds, or ordering a coffee at Starbucks, or passing by a sexy shot of a model on MTV - oh wait that was a tampon ad.... yeah the lyrics are so unique that it just catches your ear so you download it to your Ipod because its so easy to give them your credit card number. God I bet the band really appreciates your help. To put it more bluntly, it is my experience that it is the type of music you listen to that will get you locked into money schemes like DRM. /love the minimal

Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"...

...but not enough broad and trivial software and business method patents:

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=&d=PTXT [uspto.gov]

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/D/yahoo_144_70kb.pdf [hm-treasury.gov.uk]

NIN

Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now ...

and the enemy of my enemy is my ... friend? damn you, NIN!

Actually

Radiohead's album will be out in the shops in 2008. I know I could get it now for free*, but I think I'd rather wait for the CD and rip it in the format that I want (it's available as 10 x 160kbps MP3s, probably encoded in the wrong version of LAME that leaves gaps between the songs).

*You can opt to pay nothing, but you still have to pay a 45p bank charge.

Second thought about what Radiohead and NIN do...

...can't really conclude if this is good or bad, but one thing for sure is that the next up and coming 'big' act will need to sign away their life if they want to be on major label.

Broken Records?

Hasn't NIN been under Trent's label Broken Records for some time now? Or was there still some kind of contractual agreement with the recording industry that wasn't renewed?

NIN, Radiohead, and more...

It seems Oasis and Jamiroquai are to join the label free trend.

Article. [telegraph.co.uk]

Get a CD, pay what you want...

I heard that on the 20 euros that most CD cost, artists only see 2 or 3 euros...
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

I keep hearing the phrase "bands make most of their money from touring etc not from CD sales".

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 will morph into music marketing companies who are hired by bands as necessary. Either that, or they'll have to start paying the bands a decent royalty on CD sales.

Vista

Pretty soon, MS Vista will be the only thing left that is ruined by DRM...

Radiohead album available!

Just in time for this story, Radiohead's new album [inrainbows.com] is now available for download for the price you name.

Only downside is they are 160 kbps mp3:s, which may not make everybody happy.

The Radiohead thing

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, worse still is the amateurish mastering of the album itself.

I've come to the conclusion that to some degree the lo-fi approach is by design but I've also concluded that it appears in so many places, rampant master-level clipping on overlayed sections, that it's really not something I find pleasurable. Then there's also the brutally inept stereo imaging too. I applaud Radiohead for the approach, don't get me wrong, but in some sense it does strike me as a bit self indulgent. They really COULD have benefitted from a real studio and a professional audio engineer. The shame is that record companies will hold this up as an example why that approach is better, when in fact this is just an error on behalf of Radiohead's where they came to believe they could do that stuff themselves too. They can clearly afford to hire out the appropriate resources.

Anyway, I've written a bit more about the whole thing here: http://www.electricdeath.com/blog/1200 [electricdeath.com]

I have a question

As the guy in the article points out, it is trivially easy to move bits from one person to another.

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

> Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels
> 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

...seems to be largely because the record labels keep it all. If a band sells a CD, the record company gets most of the money. If they sell a t-shirt, they've bought the shirt wholesale and keep the rest.
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

I'm sick of the RIAA!!! I just paid $11.08 total to download the new Radiohead...CD, no, it's not CD anymore.:P But yes, the whole album. Well, whatever it's called these days. I'm a bit old school...I listened to LP's and even had an 8-track back in the day...Queen, News of the World...on 8 track...yuck, but oh the memories. Now NIN?!! Yes. I hadn't even heard any music off of the new Radiohead, but I love 'em. I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA, and perhaps even the MPAA or anyone else interested in DRM or IP. I will pay, but I don't want to pay for something that's restricted because you're afraid I will steal, and what DRM entails, or EULA's may or may not entail. Restrict all you want xxAA or whoever, if I don't want it, I won't buy. And no, I'm not going to steal it either. Simple economics. Radiohead and their current musical or financial allies, not the RIAA anymore, will get my money, because I don't want to buy what the RIAA has to offer. I still do though, but I don't like it. I bought Radioheads new release though, with passion...freedom! And it's their music to do with what they want now, how they want to sell it. And, since I like their music, and it's DRM free, and doesn't have the usual EULA stuff that goes with other sites like Amazon, I'm more than happy to even to pains with currency conversion stuff. What a breath of fresh air this is!!! I love this! And, I'm listening to the new release...it's good, BTW.:) Namyohorengekyo.

I am Indie musician

It's coming. Winds of change are about to blow. No more suppression. Technology is too far advanced and this is the way it will be. Resources are too easy to get to create and produce your own QUALITY music now. You don't need a major label if you have the will and the motivation to do it yourself.

What's the point anyway?

Even with iTunes, everyone knows that all you have to do is burn a cd and then rip it. I'm surprised someone hasn't automated the process with a virtual CDR driver. The best DRM is just sell the music for a fair price. .99 cents works for me.

The Tide is Turning

In the last few weeks we have seen a number of advances in the world of DRM. This article is an excellent and eloquent statement of what a nonsense DRM really is. Critically, it is written by a guy in a very influential position. Coupled with the launch of Amazon's MP3 service (sadly only in the US, at least nominally) and the continuing deluge of bad publicity for DRM, the labels will eventually have to see sense. Oh, they won't just crumble overnight. There will continue to be a spate of ugly trials and the RIAA will even win some (especially when the defendants are stupid enough to lie in court), but actually all that achieves is more bad publicity for them. They'll cling on to their outmoded business model for as long as they can, but it can't and wont last. It's about time!

w00t for indie bands

It's amazing how little bands or artists themselves actually get of the $12.99 - $18.99 typical selling price of an album. In grad school, I took a negotiations class and one of the mock negotiations was for a typical record label and band. . . breaking down the actual cost of the deal, the record label often makes more money per album than the band itself makes from the album, factoring in a variety of legal/inflated expenses.

This means more advertising, less music.

Is this really good?

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.

Yahoo's Reality Distortion Field

Lame article on the current state of online music:

• Mentions Apple 0 times.
• Mentions iTunes 1 time.
• Mentions iPod 1 time.
• Mentions Amazon 3 times.

Typical of Yahoo: confront the competition by ignoring it. Just like company management not mentioning Google (except to say ridiculous things like, "This (Panama) will have Google shaking in their boots!"), Ian ignores the 800 lb. gorilla in the room (Apple/iPod) and focuses on Amazon. Who offered DRM-free downloads first, Apple or Amazon (let's leave eMusic out of this for now)? Go right ahead, Ian, and concentrate on competing against Amazon. Then you can enjoy dancing to your DRM-free music on the deck of the good ship Yahoo while it sinks.

That he even worked on Yahoo Music Unlimited strongly suggests he doesn't know which end is up.

I don't care, I'm still free...

...You can't take the sky from me....

I believe the tide that is turning is finally starting to make a nice public appearance; it'll be interesting to see which bands / artists follow up, as well those who cling to the old ways out of pathetic nostalgia. Let's just hope it doesn't have to get ugly; the vacuum of space is a bit chilly.

Go Independents!

How do we change this?

Record companies take so much from the artist that the old $10 - $25 concert tickets are $45* - $75 and up (those prices are for the cheap seats). Secondly a simple t-shirt that says you went to the concert is $40* and a hoodie outrageously $100* (*Prices from a Smashing Pumpkins Concert 7 Oct 07). Promotion is expensive, but they still take too much from the artist.

If you buy the artist CD they'll probably make a dollar. If you buy this over priced ticket or clothing they'll get a lot more from you, to make a guess, 60% or more of the gross profit. This is how things are right now.

I still haven't found a way to get it to change. I've done everything suggested, which is, go to concerts and don't buy DRM. In fact I haven't bought a CD, unless bought at a concert, for the last 4 years. I still haven't seen a change. I've only seen it get worse. I've spread the word, posted things like this on slashdot, etc. Has there been change that I just haven't noticed?

Responsibility

Why it is the responsibility of software, hardware, etc to enforce the DRM?
Are the car manufactures required to implement speed controls so you do not break the speed limit?
I really hate that Microsoft is trying to enforce the DRM - why is it there responsibility to do it?
If Microsoft is required to implement the DRM so Microsoft can provide a DVD decoder for the movie then Microsoft should say fine we will not include your decoder - if the user wants to play your company's DVD on our software OS you should provide your own DVD player/decoder (BTW: Microsoft is not responsible if through some patch or update your software no longer works). From Microsoft point of view I would be pissed at the DVD company rather than Microsoft.

I just do not see why it DRM is trying to force hardware and software developers to be the police. Do they get extra pay every time some tries to break the DRM?

Re:Hey, dumbasses....

Welcome to 2007. Sure, in the past record labels were required to get the word out there. But in the day and age where some extremely disturbed idiot can put up a video on youtube and become an instant celebrity worldwide (yes, chris crocker, i'm talking about you) - they're no longer required.

Tell me, what can they do for a band's publicity now that the band can not do in their own time?

Personally I think that bands are going to end up with some sort of subscription model - eg, pay $5/month or $2/month or whatever and get exclusive access to content on their site - video, audio, news, chat with the band, etc. Tie it in with some sort of fan-forum login (which will stop people sharing their account) and there you go.

No need to put DRM on the content, as that's not exactly what you're selling in this instance - you're selling membership of an online community...

Re:Hey, dumbasses....

No nine inch nails or radiohead? Huh, yay!!!1. Where do I sign to live in a world without the music labels?