Yahoo! Sells, Advocates DRM-Free Music 244
prostoalex writes "Jessica Simpson's 'A Public Affair' will be sold on Yahoo! Music in MP3 format with no DRM attached. According to Yahoo! Music blog, this is a big deal for the major online music store: 'As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: DRM doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling DRM-free music every day -- the Compact Disc), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that DRM has a cost. It's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the DRM back off, anyway!'"
please explain (Score:4, Informative)
Please explain to me what this really is. I visited the page, and what it looks to be is the users' ability to download an unfettered "customized" mp3 from Simpson where (I assume) a laundry list of common names are inserted into the mp3 (dubbed, no doubt)... giving the customer the illusion of some connection with the artist. (So far, it appears a more correct headline would have been "Yahoo advocates DRM-free music, offers one DRM-free song from their catalog!)"
Obscene marketing and subterfuge aside, I find nothing in the general Yahoo Music offerings to suggest the rest of their music is offered unfettered, free of DRM. Indeed, the FAQ includes the following info:
Any information/explanation or evidence to the contrary would be greatly appreciated, because, other than the free advertising, I'm not seeing any change in direction from Yahoo on this one.
Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:please explain (Score:5, Funny)
I second the motion.
WTF? Being a good slashdotter, I did not read the article before checking out the posts, and then I read the parent post and had to check this out for myself.
So, for $2 I can have my name embedded somehow in a music file of Jessica Simpson? Maybe having her titties embedded in my face, I might throw down $2, but after reading the two links, I still don't see what the extra $1 gives me over a standard $1 track.
I'm all for the token statement against DRM. Its dead on. Yes, DRM free stuff is sold every day. Yes, its still practically illegal or at least easier and better to get MP3s the old fashioned way that are free of DRM. But I have no clue what the point of this Yahoo! thing is besides a slashvertisement astroturfing or whatever you call marketing today.
Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:please explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:please explain (Score:2)
Seriously, I hope this is not a one off, and I hope people actually BUY this song, even if just for the sake of helping Yahoo proove this model of DRM free music actually *works*.
Re:please explain (Score:3, Funny)
Being a good Slashdotter, I have to ask if maybe the extra $1 will offer any tentacle interaction.
Speaking of Simpsons... (Score:5, Funny)
Jessica Simpson: "OOOh, baby, I want you so bad, Aikatmai Diekoff!
Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:please explain (Score:2)
Do you have a source for that claim?
Re:please explain (Score:5, Interesting)
You could therefore set up a system where the more people share a file the better quality file can be downloaded - and still guarantee removal of all watermarks specific to any one purchaser.
It's theoretically possible at least but whether a workable system could be set up in practice I don't know.
Less sophisticated watermarking systems (like least significant bit) are trivial to defeat and I assume no competent company is using them.
Re:please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, unless there is some padding involved, the file hash will be different. So would that cause every variation to show up on a p2p network. ie, your search for "Bad Artist - Bad Song" produces 900 results. I'm assumming most P2P apps use a simple md5 sum or some such hash generated to match exact files.
Now come up with an alternate hash
Re:please explain (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no expert and this stuff is cutting edge but I'll try my best to address some of your comments.
Assumming the only variance is the watermark and the tracks are sample for sample nearly the same... it would make it rather not-difficult to remove the water mark
It's not as simple as this comment seems to imply, spread frequency watermarks use transforms (obviously DFT was one of the first to be used) so you can't simply average two files and expect to remove the watermarks.
the file hash will be different. So would that cause every variation to show up on a p2p network . . . assumming most P2P apps use a simple md5 sum or some such
Identifying copies of the same file with different watermarks would definitely be a problem - you'd probably have to rely on uploaders entering accurate metadata of some kind - not ideal.
such a setup might suffer from generational loss
I don't see how this would be relevant you're not making imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies . . . ad nauseum
Artifacts are bound to slip in at some point in the mass sharing frenzy of an ant farm.
It works the other way around - the more versions you have to compare the fewer artifacts will crop up, you get closer and closer to the original un-Watermarked version instead.
you run the risk of generating too much data. In turn it could cause issues scaling
I hadn't thought about this but you're right reversing a DFT is going to be computationally expensive.
Re:please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:please explain (Score:2)
Or, for example, knowing where to look. Watermarks have to be in some stable place (for example, in the lower bit of the 400Hz-1000Hz portion of the stream, holding a single character and a pointer to a different standard range per-frame. Not that I know. It's just the way I'd do it.)
Truth is, though, scrambling the lower bits (or, better, antialiasing them so as to make the change while lo
Re:please explain (Score:2)
If they have implemented the watermark correctly it is true that the best (statistical) way to remove it is to 'average' together lots of copies. But in most watermarking systems you will be able to retreive the ID of *all* the copies used to make the averaged version (albeit at a reduced certainty).
To defeat this sort of system would probably require >>200 different copies.
Watermarks useless? (Score:2, Insightful)
if the RIAA tracks down one of your songs you can simply explain it by "my pc got infected by a virus because MS didnt provide a patch for powerpoint. that virus had a P2P module that shared my whole hard drive on the net". alternatively you can say "i was in germany last month where copying tracks for friends is allowed. some of my friends must have given my track to some of the
Re:Watermarks useless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two reasons to oppose DRM - "personal convenience" and "a licence to pirate".
While I've been known to pirate in the past (hell, who hasn't?), my main objection to DRM is that once I buy the file I want to own it. I don't want anyone telling me I can only play it on certain makes of MP3 player, can't transcode it to Ogg Vorbis, stream it to other PCs in my house, etc.
Finally a mainstream media company has somehow persuaded the idiots at the RIAA to allow unDRMed downloads on a trial basis. This is a good thing.
Frankly, anyone who opposes DRMed music primarily because it allows them to pirate and distribute is a thief^H^H^H^H^H copyright violator, and should shut up and sit down now to avoid fucking things up for everyone else.
While I appreciate the OP's information on the watermarking technology, it's completely irrelevant - there's no excuse for sharing the MP3 of this track, now there's an affordable (expensive, sure, but it's only a test), unDRMed cross-platform, mainstream outlet to legally purchase it from.
Anyone pirating this track is frankly working against the chances of the RIAA dropping DRM - you will be ruining a brave (if overdue) experiment, and directly contributing to a future of omnipresent DRM lock-in.
Regardless of what you think of the artist or the song, the sales figures for this track likely dictate the entire future position of the RIAA/music industry. Pirating it is the worst kind of short-term-gain idiocy.
I hate Jessica Simpson and the MP3's overpriced, but I'll be buying this track - and if you're anti-DRM (as opposed to pro-piracy), so should you.
</advocacy>
(Let the accusations of shilldom fly...
Re:please explain (Score:2)
Bastardized version (Score:2)
Re:please explain (Score:2)
Look, it's a step, albeit small, in the right direction. I'll take watermarking over DRM any day.
And it seems fair. You take ownership - real ownership - of that which you download. If you let it into the wild (without proper cleaning) and get sued, that is your own damn fault.
'course, cleaning won't be that difficult; if this goes on a wide scale, you can bet that watermark removal will be the new World Hackers' Project. And done in a week.
Wah!? (Score:4, Funny)
But when I clicked on the link, it took me to a Jessica Simpson page. MINE EYES!!! *clutches eyes and runs away*
Re:Wah!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wah!? OH NOES MINE EYES TOO!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Who's going to buy her music let a lone pirate it!
Re:Wah!? OH NOES MINE EYES TOO!!!! (Score:2)
Me. $1.99 is a small price to pay to hit the MAFIAA with a cluestick. I can always delete the file later. (In fact, I probably will.)
Re: [sic] (Score:2)
Re:Wah!? OH NOES MINE EYES TOO!!!! (Score:2)
This is the first step. If they see that they can make money without DRM, maybe they'll think about releasing the songs I used to buy from them without DRM as well.
Great news!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great news!! (Score:5, Funny)
Minor corrections (Score:2)
I think you meant, "Pity they didn't choose an artist. I would actually want to listen to it."
props to yahoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why we're so excited about these personalized Jessica Simpson tracks. Not only is it pretty cool to have a version of the song which speaks to me (I was shocked to see they had "Ian", did they do that for me?), but it's in MP3 format, which I have no problem paying a little more for (though $1.99 is a premium price because of the PERSONALIZATION, not the DRM, the right price for MP3s is somewhere between $0.99 and there, IMHO).
Am I reading this right, did they just manag
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Just conjecture, but this particular song made the news (here anyway) no because of the personalization, but because of the DRM free download.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
The theory is that non-DRM means easier to pirate, so prices go up to compensate for this. So, the crippled version ends up being cheaper. I agree with you, though, that this would make more sense if the non-DRM came first at $2 and the DRM version came out cheaper. The reality is that they're charging you more for a percieved im
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a test, to see if unDRMed music is viable from the RIAA's point of view.
The price is irrelevant, but tells you a lot - if the RIAA was right behind unDRMed music they'd have debuted it at $0.99 and made a packet. The fact that Yahoo's had to twist their arms into doing it, and when they do it retails for $1.99 tells you this is a highly speculative toe-in-the-water attempt, and I think we'd all agree the RIAA would be entirely happy if it failed miserably. Certainly it wou
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3)
The reason people pay for digital downloads is that it is convenient and fast. If I was going to copy the song, or give my friend a copy I would just download it from the usual places as an MP3.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I avoid DRM'd music anymore because I got sick of the issues associated with it (I'm thinking of iTunes specifically, emusic is so much simpler), but whoever owns the music gets to make that DRM decision. I can be dissapointed, but I can't really blame them either. Very few people are willing to give as much as those in the GPL world do -- those who let most direct compensation go in exchange for indirect compensation.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with DRM per se; we can always just not buy the crippled content. I have a problem when proponents of DRM make technologies illegal because they *could* be used for copyright infringement.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Then I suggest you try reading a couple of articles, like this one [jimdero.com] or this one, [weblogsinc.com] both of which describe how artists get very little from legal downloads. I believe that record companies actually have the gall to charge a deduction for "breakages" on downloads.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
I submit to you that copyrights should be deemed illegal, or at the very least repaired back to the nominal seven years. I'd make a host of arguments for the point, but they're rarely listened to, so I'll just submit the concept and you may take the discussion as you've likely heard before.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
The first copyright law was 14 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 ), and I'm sorry, but I think even that's too long. And corporations shouldn't be allowed to hold any of 'em.
Copyright is a granted monopoly. All a corporation would need is one hit media item (book, song, etc) to get enough money to lobby for extension. It's happened consistently across the world, to the detriment of the consumers and the public
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
False assumption. You assume without justification they own every copy and therefore they get to control it. The point is, why do they get to decide what I do with my copy? I have it, I decide. They can decide what they do with their copy. Copyright is a government granted privilege, not a right, despite the name and that law is currently disadvantaging millions.
---
DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should n
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, I bought Steely Dan's "Can't buy a thrill" twice on vinyl (both warped after a while), once on cassette (thrown out the window somewhere between Toronto and Montreal after being processed into an unreadable string of spaghetti), and once on CD (stolen while my car was in police impound). Now, I think Becker and Fagen are music gods, but how many times do I ha
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
Put it this way: I have a computer, a PDA, a PSP and an MP3 CD player in my car.
Please ask yourself what the common format playable on those devices is. No, it's not WMA. And don't even start about iTunes.
I'm not asking to be allowed to flop my collection on BitTorrent. I have no interest in it. I buy CDs for my own consumption. Though, if a personal friend asks for a copy, I'm happy to oblige.
In the meanwhile, I've had the ability to play music on whatever device I can
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2)
I agree with your sentiments completely. For my most recent purchase, I had the option of iTunes for $10, or us
Re:props to yahoo (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, remind me how the web portal that's held the number one spot in traffic rankings [alexa.com] for years could ever be considered irrelevant?
Sure, they haven't been in the limelight like google has in a few years, but they've still got more eyeballs than anyone else, still employ thousands, and still churn out new stuff all the time.
Translation: Market Speak to Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: DRM doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling DRM-free music every day -- the Compact Disc), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that DRM has a cost. It's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the DRM back off, anyway!
This translates into:
OMFG, for the love of god, PLEASE LET US SELL OUR SHIT TO IPOD USERS!!1!!!!!!1!1111!
Basically, what is happening is that all the non-iTunes are getting trounced by iTunes and the iPod. The music industry won't let them sell their music unless it has DRM. Apple isn't selling them the rights to use the DRM that the iPod uses and Apple sure as shit is not going to build in WMA DRM capabilities into the iPod. With iPods being roughly 80% of the MP3 market, this is a massive audience that Yahoo, Napster, Rhapsody, exc can't touch. They desperately want to sell, but they are not allowed to sell unless the music has DRM. Apple won't let them us an iPod compatible form of DRM.
This isn't a marketing ploy to pretend to be anti-DRM when they are not, and this is not being done because they "want to work on other stuff". This is being done because DRM free music is the only way Yahoo and company can break into the monopoly iTunes has over the iPod, which itself has a near monopoly on MP3 players.
This is a play of self interested corporations. Apple wants to lock down the iPod not because they want to set music free, but because they want a monopoly over the service that fills iPods. Yahoo wants to sell DRM free music not because they give a shit about how irritating DRM is to you and me, but because they want to sell music to iPod users. The RIAA, well, they are just evil and eat babies.
Re:Translation: Market Speak to Reality (Score:3, Funny)
While eMule and BitTorrent touch, caress, stroke and fondle it.
And, if you've downloaded Tenacious D, Double Team it.
I can only imagine the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
although, there aren't many musicians opinions i would respect. but good to see at least some "major" artist is pulling against it.
It's a scam, a straw-man (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what I am getting at here. 8-)
Re:It's a scam, a straw-man (Score:2)
Re:It's a scam, a straw-man (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no interest in Barbi Simpson stuff, but I knew it was just one song so far and I was still all revved up that they were FINALLY getting a clue and finally letting people buy the MP3s they want to buy. So I didn't much care when I saw it was Barbi Simpson, and I was thinking of buying a download just to buy MP3 downloads.
Oh, did I say Barbi Simpson? Sorry, I mean Jessica Simpson.
And then I see the ASSHATS want to rape us for DOUBLE THE PRICE f
Re:It's a scam, a straw-man (Score:2)
I mean, hell. Encode it as a random-walk-shifted BARCODE across the screen just above the 1/8 lum visibility boundary. Most people will just dismiss it as almost invisible random noise, removing it would be nigh impossible, and we could do without the whole CSS/Encryption mess.
No DRM not worth the cost of downloading that song (Score:4, Funny)
"According to Yahoo! Music blog, this is a big deal for the major online music store: 'As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: Jessica Simpson doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling Jessica Simpson-free music every day), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that Jessica Simpson has a cost. She's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the Jessica Simpson back off, anyway!'"
never thought it would happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to be a
Then we might see some decent music being released unrestricted!
Ah great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah great! (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess DRM has some uses (Score:4, Funny)
iTunes take note.. (Score:5, Interesting)
www.beastproject.org
Re:iTunes take note.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:iTunes take note.. (Score:2)
However, re-compressing that already uncompressed 128K AAC will cause degradation (so your second point is correct).
Re:iTunes take note.. (Score:2)
No it's not. That's not how lossy formats work.
Re:iTunes take note.. (Score:2)
Ok. Look up DCT transforms.
Good. Now look up the meaning of 'Lossy'.
Good! ok, now consider this:
In encoding audio to a DCT-based format (AAC, Ogg, MP3, etc), you are doing a few things. First, you're removing the stuff people can't hear. For example, if one frequency sound is loud enough to drown the other completely out, the other is not encoded. Next, you're applying a psychoacoustic model in an effort to further reduce the encoded data. This is a model that tells what we hear better than
Depends on how you translate that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PSSSSSTTTTT!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
In a related development... (Score:2, Funny)
and that's precisely a problem ... (Score:2)
Re:and that's precisely a problem ... (Score:2)
Back when they first started trying to copy-protect CDs, I would almost always crack open the present-day P2P software, locate the CD in question and download it, just to prove a point.
And, since they were mostly shite, I'd delete it after first listen.
The last thing I would have guessed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I never thought I would live to see the day when a major (really major) company not only publicly supports but actually takes the plunge to sell non-DRM infested music. What's next? Sony will release a $199 PS3? (Har har...)
This kinda reminds me of Gmail. Back when it came out it was just unthinkable that a company would give you more than a few MBs of storage for free let alone a whole GB! Nowadays, everybody gives you at the minimum of 200MB. I think that Yahoo, like Gmail, just might profoundly shift the paradigm of online music distribution like Gmail changed the way we think of free email.
Is this the beginning of the end of DRM? Not quite yet IMO because the RIAA and MPAA are still run by idiots, but I think the day may come sooner than we think if more major players like Yahoo come on board.
Re:The last thing I would have guessed.... (Score:2)
Still, it's a good first step. Now they just have to get a good artist's stuff non-DRM'ed to get a reading of the most ravenous target market for such a move (i.e.: Geeks.)
Is DRM-free worth $1? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen reports that record companies aren't "happy" with the royalties they're getting from iTunes. Could higher-priced, DRM-free releases be part of their solution? Skeptical though I am, I hope so. Even though I have a Mac, an iPod, and many tracks I've bought from the iTunes store, I'd rather Apple not be the "only game in town" for music on my iPod. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, even through a reality distortion field I expect.
Re:Is DRM-free worth $1? (Score:2)
Are you serious? Those greedy fucks only want MORE MORE MORE. Getting higher prices would make them less mad, but they'd STILL want more.
Re:Is DRM-free worth $1? (Score:2)
Major Online Music Store (Score:2)
Let me be Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I could imagine that this is yet another move to prove that non-DRMed music can't be sold. I mean, who's gonna buy that song? If it was from some artist that has global relevance, ok. I could see a truely comparable result. So, the result will be that DRM is a key requirement for selling music online, because we'll clearly see that the latest Robby Williams (with DRM) will outsell this Jessica Simpson song by magnitudes.
Re:Let me be Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I believe she is the fourth, undocumented Simpson child. Observe:
Homer. Saxamaphone. Viomolin. Macamadamia.
Jessica. Platymapus.
About Jessica (Score:3, Insightful)
This much should be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
1) This is a trial balloon. If it sells well, it may convince some retailers to experiment with further DRM free tracks. If it sells poorly, it will serve as "proof" that DRM is needed.
2) There's at least somebody on the command chain who wants this to fail. Hence the $1.99 price.
3) The record company couldn't stomach the idea of a totally naked mp3 so they came up with this lame idea of embedding the purchaser's name in the file. If course this is easily worked around, but so's regular DRM. This is to deter the teeming masses. If John Q. Moron decides to fileshare, he'll soon be indicted by a thousand copies of "Jessica Loves John Q. Moron" floating around. You might add that they were being slightly clever by selling this crude copy protection measure as a value added feature.
I'd also speculate that might be meant to caution Microsoft ever so lightly. MS is openly scheming against its current music partners by introducing Urge and Zune. But it wants to keep them hooked on Plays For Sure while making sure their services are inferior to its own offerings. This is Yahoo's way of saying, "Look Microsoft, we might not need your crap DRM after all, so watch yourself."
Re:This much should be obvious (Score:2)
One comment on the Yahoo blog page says:
...which seems as a good a way as any for them to ensure it won't sell well!
I tried to purchase this song (to support non drm'd music on your recommendation) and it brought me to a URL which didn't actually do anything when I clicked "download". Customer support appears to be non existant. I am really annoyed, because there doesn't appear to be any way for me to get the song I paid for.
Stating the obvious: This is about the iPod (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has what...80%... of the portable music player market?
Until apple decides to share their DRM, everyone else (including Yahoo) is locked out of the iPod market.
MP3s are their only way in. If they can manage to line up some labels, they will suddenly have access to a totally new and much larger customer base.
No DRM = Perfect, but $2/Tune = Faulty (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Funny)
2. Jessica Simpson's "A Public Affair"? Hmm, I was considering downloading just to show I'm supportive of a non-DRM model, even if it would need future tweaks, but just to try get the industry on the right track. BUT... Jessica Simpson? I really don't know if I can do this.
DRM or Not... (Score:2, Troll)
Cool, but eMusic has more for less (Score:3, Interesting)
It is nice to hear an Internet superpower talk about selling "plain old MP3s," but eMusic [emusic.com] has been doing this for years (well before the iPod even existed). They don't have acts like Jessica Simpson, or even Radiohead, but they do have a huge collection of quality, interesting music. Loads of Indie Rock, Underground Hiphop, old and new jazz, lots of classic stuff and new albums come in everyday. It's cheap and no watermarks, either.
I'm a serious music collector and plain MP3s simplify my collection--DRM is a major headache when you just want to HAVE music and store it anyway you like.
Brilliant Yahoo! (Score:2)
I want to give Yahoo! a big sloppy kiss now. That's exactly the kind of thinking that might make them some money in the music business.
RIAA can't lose (Score:2, Interesting)
1) The track doesn't sell well: See? The pirates really ARE hurting the industry because Jessica Simpson is a mainstream artist and why wouldn't she sell well under normal conditions? We've released a track in good faith and the pirates HAVE to be supressing sales.
2) The track sells really well: Ahh, the price-point for online music is really $2 per track, not $1 (as per itunes). Apple, raise your iTunes prices and give us the lion's sh
Re:RIAA can't lose (Score:2, Troll)
Pfff. They don't have "Zaphod"... (n/t) (Score:2)
I was curious and bought it... here's my review: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They spelled my name wrong (Score:2)
Re:They spelled my name wrong (Score:2)
Omg, another Bryan! It must be destiny.
Re:too little... (Score:2)
Still, be positive. If this does well, wouldn't you take watermarked over DRM'ed?
Not sure about the $2 price point, but if I don't have to listen to Ms. Simpson sing my name on every non-DRM'ed track they release, hopefully it won't come to that.