Slashdot Log In
Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Oct 10, 2007 01:13 AM
from the content-is-not-context dept.
from the content-is-not-context dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Radiohead Says Name Your Own Price for New Album 498 comments
TechDirt is reporting that the band Radiohead has apparently chosen the path less traveled when it comes to the release of their new album. They are offering two very unique methods of purchase for their new music, the ability to name your own price for a digital download or the ability to purchase a special "discbox" which will contain the album on CD and vinyl in addition to a horde of goodies. Will be interesting to see how this new model works out for them and what it might do to more traditional methods.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Poor MAFIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday May 31 2003, @11:19AM)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 17 2004, @02:33AM)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.jwnyc.com/)
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 (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:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday September 02 2005, @01:43AM)
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:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor MAFIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://jbhj.co.nz/)
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)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 11, @12:00PM)
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:Poor MAFIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.wdr1.com/blog/ | Last Journal: Saturday January 19 2002, @06:58PM)
-Bill
Re:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sigsegv.cx/)
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:Labels Wising Up? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://blog.darwincentral.org/)
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:Labels Wising Up? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday December 07 2005, @07:15PM)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://neolicity.blogspot.com/)
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)
(http://stage6.divx.com/)
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? (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.
Lesson for Apple: (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
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 (Score:2)
(http://members.gaponline.de/pedxing | Last Journal: Monday July 09, @10:44AM)
how about the unbox video service? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.gamerslastwill.com/)
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)
(http://www.projectnds.com/)
cosmocain fo prez.
Is it really that hard... (Score:1, Offtopic)
The 'No DRM' card (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://t3.dotgnu.info/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:32AM)
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)
(http://code.google.com/p/nmod/)
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)
(http://geekbiker.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 01 2004, @05:57PM)
Nice move, Trent. (Score:1)
(http://www.somethingawful.com/)