Yahoo Exec Shocks Music Execs With Obvious Idea: Ditch The DRM
from the this-isn't-rocket-science dept
Why is it that if you say something sensible to the recording industry, they're supposedly shocked by the audacity of the suggestion? A Yahoo Music exec suggested today that the recording industry would be better off if it sold music online without copy protection. It's not hard to make this argument, of course. Copy protection clearly limits what the end user can do with the song, making it less valuable. At the same time, licensing the copy protection and then maintaining the technology and dealing with user confusion and complaints can be costly. However, it doesn't even sound like Dave Goldberg brought up these fairly basic concepts. Instead, he just pointed to eMusic, which has successfully been using this model for quite some time. And yet, according to the reporter, this "raised eyebrows" among other execs. Yes, how dare an executive point out a way to make your product better, more enjoyable for customers and at a cheaper cost to you -- while pointing to empirical evidence that it works. What was he thinking? Update: Kent Newsome makes a great point on this discussion. If Yahoo believes so strongly in this, why don't they make it happen?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
i hope so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I guess they just need to look at the lost revenue due to some pirating vs. the lost revenue to maintaining DRM and everything related to it. Not everyone in the world is dishonest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I tried to purchase music online about 6 months ago. It arrived as DRM'd WMV's, which wouldn't work on my iPod. I ended up having to convert them to MP3's myself. Screw that.
Then I tried to listen to said WMV's on another machine a few months later, and Windows Media Player had to go online to download the licenses. Only I was on the road, so I wasn't online. Screw that.
Tried buying music from other sources, such as iTunes, but they aren't licensed to cater to my "geographical location." Screw that.
Since then, I've found that the only decent place to get music that works once you have it is from reputable agents such as eMule. "I got it one piece at a time, and it did't cost me a dime."
Point being, I am quite prepared to pay for my music, Music Industry! But you want to sell me something that doesn't work, that I don't want. What I get from P2P is MORE VALUABLE than the DRM'd junk that you're trying to forcefeed me.
Take a hint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I think the only people that use these services are the ones that havent ever heard of DRM and dont know the limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Just for the record, no sarcasm here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
IMO, DRM's promote piracy, cause people can't get the CD they just bought to play on there ipod or MP3 player, or make a legal backup, and the RIAA expects them to pay again to have another copy for the MP3 player, or as a backup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
till then its ebay for cheap cd's which i can rip to mp3 for my jukebox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Looks at own CEO. Yep.
These guys can't imagine that given the opportunity, anyone would ever pay for anything if they weren't bent over backwards and ramrodded. As that is their exact nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
some people just love to get ram-rodded...
looks at my homosexual friend. YEP, undeniably
looks at the mainstream market. YEP, and crying for more
As long as people are bending over, there will be a lot of ram-rodding going on and more rods to ram them with.
Conclusion - you're all gay, screw you guys, i'm going home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I think that's a grey area. If you were happy with your VHS copy of Basic Instinct back in 1995(or whenever it came out), they don't owe you a better quality copy with outtakes and extras now. However, it would be fair for them to make a VHS quality DVD(that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one) with whatever was on the VHS version ONLY and give it to you for the price of the media.
Otherwise basically what you're saying is if you bought a Ford Pinto back in 1973 and have been happy with it ever since, you should be able to take it back and demand a Ferrari Enzo for the price of a set of new tires and a car wash.
I'm not saying I'm for DRM, or against P2P, just that I see grey there and that we have to consider that or else the corporations aren't gonna listen to us any more than we listen to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
In fact the artists and composers may have to sell their own music, and take most of the profits instead of a tiny cut. Profits will obviously be smaller than they are now for the occasional lucky band, but clearly some musicians will make a living, just as a few do now.
Of course there is this downside: no corporate executive will be to pick some airheads and turn them into musical millionaires...
Please, PROMISE me the music business will collapse!
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
Low cost subscription models and a lower price purchase model would establish a workable revenue model that would not require DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The record companies are bastards anyway
I played in bands for years and had a couple of recording contracts. Funny - I never noticed the record companies looking after my interests. From rip-off clauses inserted into unreadable contracts to blatant non-payment of royalties to selling rights that WE THE BAND owned, not the record company, onto a publisher, they tried to screw us at every twist and turn.
So let them fuck themselves up further and hope that artists come out the other side able to sell directly to their audience without these corrupt middle-men creaming off the profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed
Book authors/publishers don't complain about having less revenue when libraries stock their books (or maybe I've never heard the complaints).
I really think libraries should stock music CDs too, afterall, the "artists" all think that their lyrics are some sort of art or has some literary value, and we should be able to appreciate it just like a good book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Newsflash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
Talk to some financial analysts about modeling sales both with and conversely without copyright protection.
I agree that no copyright protection would definitely increase the spread of music and the overall volume, but think of it this theoretical way...
COPYRIGHT INTACT
700,000 copies downloaded at $1
revenue = $700,000
illegal distribution = say 300,000 which is then $300,000 in lost revenue at $1 per download
total coverage = 1,000,000
COPYRIGHT NOT INTACT
400,000 copies downloaded at $1
revenue = $400,000
illegal distribution = say 600,000 which is then $600,000 in lost revenue at $1 per download
total coverage = 1,000,000
total coverage is 1,000,000 in both cases except in no copyright, the lost revenue likely translates to lost profit, and lost profit over time translates to slower progress of upgrading services and systems and features/ideas/etc.
Clearly this is just one possible situation, but it seems like things would go logically something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Record Industry Collapse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel da MuziK
i dunno wat this mean DRM but like my doOd said SCREW DAT I AINT WIT IT NA MEAN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I feel da MuziK (wot?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I feel da MuziK (wot?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I feel da MuziK (wot?)
Screw WMV.
I buy my music online, but as i feed from a niche market (music tailored specifically for the dance-floor) i haven't come accross any DRM or what-not issues. If I were to, well then, screw that too!
Although there is a real issue of independent/small labels getting dicked by P2P, indies do survive albeit precariously. Take the example of a distributor I know, they have filed bankruptcy for the 2nd time in just about 2 years. P2P in large part is to blame, as well as CDJ technology. The upside is that the market is moving much faster and competition is much tougher. You guessed it, quality is much better too, and the market is much more diverse. Can't say the same for the huge dinosaur labels.
I hail the changes us independents have had to adapt to. We are nearing a democratization of music, stimulus is sharper, competition tougher, quality better, satisfaction deeper. Less money, yeah, but on the bright side, more fame.
Some facts : 10-15 years ago I would have been payed 2000-3000 monetary units a track, now it's more like 300-500 monetary units. I guess I can put a hold on my desired excessive life-style. In the end it's not so bad, cause i'm in it for passion, not money. P2P has helped for the first, but for the latter, not so much. So what? Money surely doesn't make me happier than knowing someone is dancing to my track in australia.
Even if i'm personally affected by P2P, I wouldn't put a halt to it. The only thing to do is simply get your values straightened out. I tell all my P2P using friends that they are crooks and they agree. Will it change their habits? No it won't, but they do feel guilty because they see how it affects me. Also they'll never get the kickass tracks that I have because it remains really underground, meaning not even on the P2P networks. That's satisfaction enough.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, buy the music. Try not to P2P it, but if you have to, then do it. Thanks to that, people know my name on other continents, kudos. I'll have a better chance of selling my material, thanks, now buy it please or else their won't be anymore coming out of my "studio" for lack of funds. Notice the quotes on studio, i don't have money for a proper studio, i work/live in a tiny room, in spartan conditions, but i have never been happier in all my life.
Now to the big guys: would you stop making such a fuss about it?! You know damn well it has brought more bucks to you by 1) free publicity/awareness on your products, 2) wiping out the small competitors. Greed is your only motivation, it's crystal clear.
So in the end, screw DRM ! Anyways I know how to work around DRM, it's quite simple, it just takes a little time and easy to get technology.
Share the love and buy good music. Turn towards a niche market, it's much better anyways. Seriously, 1 to 3 bling units a track isn't excessive for owning a track, but it sure is too much to pay for "renting" it. Dumb-ass walnut-brained dinosaurs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I feel da MuziK (wot?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I feel da MuziK (wot?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I actually like it. But I just looked and there are actually very few sarcastic posts. So i guess the answer is no, they don't have to write every post sarcastically and actually looking at the site proves that's the case.
Was it too difficult for you to check? Oh, sorry, that was sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM does work....if you're Apple
1 billion+ songs downloaded....all bought....course you're LOCKED at iPod using iTMS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying music online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buying music online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Ilke everyone else im all for paying for muusic provided it is of good quility and without copy protection. I also like it to be significantly less money then a CD otherwise i may as well couch up another £2 and get the artwork and none of the associated crap that comes with DRMs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's all history anwyay...
i have a little countdown going on in my head to when new record lables start springing up that give their music for free and make money from royalties and add space... the old business model is f*cked. it's gonna happen - you heard it from me first ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's all history anwyay...
1. Its very difficult to get airplay so this is the only way to be heard.
2. We don't think mp3s are very good quality (@128kps)
3. We hope that poor people will download and rich will buy
Though we average between 3000 and 5000 downloads a month and we occassionally get a review ( and they are ok: '5/5 if there is one album we can whole heartedly recommend this issue, it's this one.', ' ghostly, ominous, beautiful and kind of other-worldly...moments of legend'.) we don't sell many - in fact our best year was 2005 when we sold 12 cds.
It doesn't cost us anything really so we're not that bothered but it is a puzzle why we don't sell more - is the music bad or the website layout bad or just that most people think mp3s are good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's all history anwyay...
it wrecks my head - i have nothing against compressed formats... the have their place, but mp3 is a very old and not very good codec. why not use aac or better yet ogg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's all history anwyay...
I can't say for sure, and there are probably a million reasons that only a seasoned economist could pin-point, but I will say that most people DO think that 128-bit mp3's are good enough. Not audiophiles, or even most tech-inclined, but normal everyday consumers... it's gold to them. They only start to cringe when they hear streamed radio at the lowest quality setting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's all history anwyay...
- mp3s at 128kbps are good enough for the lay-person. I buy/mix with 330kbps mp3, can't complain on quality, i have an option to purchase 16bit wav but it costs 1 extra EUR probably to cover bandwidth costs. I do it on the rare, extremely rare occasion i want to sample a kick drum.
- your website is fine, who cares what it looks like as long as it works. Remember, you can't rely on websites alone to get your business going, backtrack to 2000-2002, the debunking of the internet and the stock plunges.
- "We hope that poor people will download and rich will buy" This, I'm afraid, would qualify as wishfull thinking.
- With 3000-5000 downloads a month, I see a steady market for live performances.
- Is the music bad ? NO, but... On a technical perspective, first impression is that it could benefit from better engineering. Granted it is 128kbps, but one can still make a safe assumption. Airy/ambient music will not stick, and will be sent straight to the background and be forgotten. Something needs to hook the listenner to generate ongoing interest and build demand. I browsed quickly, but nothing really did that for me, except of course for the vocal tracks which have more potential. Tighter parts too would help. Many tunes lack solidity and sound like a really well mic-ed jam session rather than a bona fide studio endeavor. Once again, better engineering, and much more discrimination for recorded parts.
Remember too that critique is easy, the art is difficult. So take what you want from the previous comments and ditch the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM vs. Software Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM vs. Software Protection
So how do you explain the Logic xkey dongle and the price of Logic and it's upgrade (roughly 1300EUR) ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM vs. Software Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM = Dead Retail Market
Companies spend thousands, perhaps even millions, developing DRM systems, only to have a 16 year old crack it with a hex editor and write a simple program for it.
It's for this reason that automobiles are able to go faster than the speed limit! Car companies could put 65mph governors on, but people would find a way to remove them and the automobile industry would only be shooting themselves in the foot at the added cost and loss of sales! It would really devalue that (performance car of your choice) that you've been saving up to buy!
-@
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM = Dead Retail Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM = Dead Retail Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM = Dead Retail Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
its funny, that DRM does absolutley nothing to curb filesharing, as people who fileshare dont buy DRM'd music in the first place. All it does is put restrictions on people who do actually pay for there music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
How true that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Industry?
I just get my music from my good friend Steve.
Oh, and Steve is not a pirate.
(reference? see movie: "Dodgeball")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying for Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prohibition - History Repeats Itself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I have given up with downloading music because of the DRM problems, I just pony up for the CD, its predictable and becomes the “master copy” I can rip it to hell into any format I need and use it anywhere I want - with no restrictions.
I think it’s a shame they went overboard with DRM, they are killing a huge market for themselves. More and more people are pissed off with these unreasonable restrictions downloading music, (which really makes no sense because they sell the Music on CD with no restrictions at all.!). Clearly DRM is designed to “punish” people for the convenience of obtaining the music online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
Also I can find many rare songs for free.
What benefit does one get for paying?
1. feeds RIAA
2. can't copy
3. has restrictions on what player to play.
4. song is tracked
5. costs $1 per song
What benefit does one get for not paying?
1. its free
2. does not feed criminal RIAA
3. can copy
4. no restrictions on players
5. can give away
6. no hasstle with DRM
7. is not tracked
8. no loss if song sux
9. usually can get very rare songs instantly
Its a clear choice what people want.
Why can't musicians just sell concert tickets and T-shirts directly..
Songs are going to get cracked and copied no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
man...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]