Yahoo Dips Another Toe In DRM-Free Waters
from the step-by-step dept
Of the major internet media companies, Yahoo has been the most vocal in suggesting that selling DRM'd music wasn't wise from a business standpoint. But, since the company has to bow to the content owners, it hasn't been able to go very far with this idea. In July, it somehow convinced one label to sell a single DRM-free Jessica Simpson track at a high price. But it was at least a start. Now Yahoo is taking yet another baby step (via PaidContent), as it partners with Disney to sell one album at regular price in mp3 format. The move is seen as a trial, though it's not clear what they want to see happen. Will there be piracy? Yes. Would there have be just as much piracy if the album had been released in a different format? Definitely. While these are definitely small moves, it's good to see Yahoo pushing the industry in this direction. And it makes others in the industry look even more foolish for thinking that the way forward is to mimic Apple's closed system approach.
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
Get used to it.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get used to it.....
What in the world did your stupid self-proclamation of criminal acts have to do with the fact that Yahoo is trying to fight back against against the DRM movement by protecting consumers with non-drm content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get used to it.....
The real point is if these media companies will get a clue and stop treating EVERYONE, especially folks with money who would be willing buy their content, like criminals, then they would very likely make more moeny in the digitial download arena than they do now.
I won't hold my breathe that they will do this, but its nice to see some inkling of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But considering the type of music coming out these days, who the heck would want to listen to them anyway? I spend my time in movie piracy...and if a game that's worth downloading comes out, then i may do that too...
anyway, I stand beside Grandfather Time here when he says, "We are not going anywhere." mainly because...we ain't goin' nowhere...it's as simple as that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get used to it.....
Nobody needs to get used to anything; piracy (including media piracy) has been around longer than most of us. Stronger? They still make their money, they just want more.
Like anything else in a more-or-less free market, it'll be solved by financial equilibrium long before the moral/political arguments get sorted out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it'll be a sad day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1.) a major artist or two (probably online savvy artists like Bare Naked Ladies or Beck) sell a new full release online without DRM to huge sales numbers.
2.) Apple screws over its user base like M$ is doing with PlayForSure causing a huge backlash against DRM.
3.) Customers slowly realize that any DRM (even Apple's) eventually causes them more headaches than its worth and iTMS sales start to slow.
My guess is a mix of all three. The only question is how long it will take...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
Those that commit crimes are criminals.
Therefore I don't steal music. Sure, I'll copy my own CDs to the PC- and make backups- but those backups stay with me.
The reason I've never purchased an I-pod, Zune, or any of that crap is because of the DRMs on music- I'm not going to pay for music that I won't be able to use if I change device or subscription service.
So I vote with my pocketbook- I don't buy them.
What I don't do is steal music because I don't like DRM.
If someone wants to hack the DRM for their own use- fine... but do it and distribute is a no-no. Piracy is theft plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
You commit an act of piracy when you "distribute" the copyrighted work wihtout permission, not when you consumer it and defintely not when you download it.
I realize that is a technical differentiation only, but I'll take a civil offense over a criminal theft charge anyday. It might not be much differnce to you, but to our legal system, its the biggest difference in the world.
As for my stance, I don't do either. I don't purchase drm-laden media, and I don't steal it. I don't even consume advertisement funded media either (except this here intarweb thingy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy
When you bought a new cassette player, you had to buy cassettes for it; all the albums you had on Vinyl no longer played, there was no (easy) way to format shift them. So consumers wound up repurchasing a lot of the same music they already owned on the new format.
When you bought a new CD player, you had to buy CD's for it; all the albums you had on casette no longer played, there was no (easy) way to format shift them. So consumers wound up repurchasing a lot of the same music they already owned on the new format.
But here's where the RIAA really gets pissed off: when you bought that shiny new iPod, you simply took all the music you already owned on CD and format shifted it to the new medium. The RIAA didn't get it's big windfall from you re-purchasing all those albums yet again.
Now, pretend something comes along that replaces the iPod. Maybe the Zune really does become the next must-have gadget. For the sake of argument, let's pretend you bought all your music for the last year through iTunes. In a world without DRM, you could simply copy those tracks to the new format. In a world of DRM though, you'd have to re-purchase all those albums again for the new player.
The RIAA doesn't want to be in the business of selling you something just once. They want to sell it again, and again, and again. That became a lot harder once they moved to digital... but DRM artificially forces you into that cycle of re-purchasing music again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
If I buy a song off itunes or yahoo, then i decide to download it so i can copy it to any device i want is that stealing? I bet the music industry thinks so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
No, its not. You have not committed an act of theft (as there is no physical copy that belonged to anyone being stolen), nor have you violated copyright laws (as you would have to distribute the content for that to kick in).
Where you would be guilty of a (FELONY) crime is if you removed the drm from a legally purchased song so you could listen to it on a platform other than that which supports the drm scheme in place protecting the media. Thank you DMCA for making the ONLY lawful way to platform shift your legally purchased media an act of piracy.
However, the person who made that album/song available to you IS guilty of copyright infringement, as they did not have a license to distribute that media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
This can be kind of a grey area. It is pretty well established that you can 'go down' in quality, that you can rip an MP3 from a CD or record a Cassette from an LP. So if own a CD and you download an MP3, or you own the LP and download an MP3 of LP quality or less, you are most likely in the clear. However, if you own a cassette and download a near-CD quality MP3, you are really getting a better product than they one you bargained for in the first place. If the music industry chose to pursue it, I'm not sure it would fly.
The music industry thinks so, but is extremely unlikely to pursue it. As long as the courts haven't ruled on it, the music industry can claim that you don't have the right to do that. Putting that question in front of a court, however, is very scary to them. They might win, in which case they get the opportunity to start thousands of small lawsuits with all the bad press that entails. But they might lose too, and then consumer would have an stablished right to move their music from device to device.
They're better off with ambiguity than run the risk of losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
I think you illustrate a lot of the problems with the issue in these sentences (whether or not, and to what extent, I agree with you is irrelevant.)
You've spelled out your specific opinion on what is OK and what isn't, but according to a good chuck of US law on the matter, even the part that you think is fine is illegal - and is seems like everybody has different view on what's ethical and what should be legal.
There's more going on than simply 'is piracy good or bad?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution...
So, there becomes two real options for the creators of digital media: make it easily purchasable so that more people buy it, and/or make it harder/less convienent to pirate by cracking down on the worst offenders. Just because piracy is popular doesn't make it right.
A good step in the right direction is to expand the convienence factor while allowing individuals the freedom to do what they wish with the media...ie, burn a cd, put it on an ipod, etc.
Cheers to Yahoo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
afaik, circumventing any DRM/copyprotection is illegal. that stemd from the drmc where it stated that any copying of cr material is illegal, even if for a personal archival purpose. so don't preach a high and mighty value, when you may very well be breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, he's not breaking a law, and if he was committing an act of copyright infringement, it would be a civil offense, and he would be classified a wrongdoer not a criminal.
afaik, circumventing any DRM/copyprotection is illegal.
Correct. But he never said he was doing that, you only assumed that he was.
that stemd from the drmc where it stated that any copying of cr material is illegal
Its the DMCA, and the clause you are trying to refer to is the anti-circumvention clause which does NOT say it is illegal to copy. It says it is illegal (FELONY) to circumvent the copy-protection. You can still archive/backup your drm'd files too. Just just have to leave the drm in place.
so don't preach a high and mighty value
Sigh. Why don't you go learn something before trolling next time so as to prevent yourself from looking like a...
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the op and the reply are actually both mine. i just wanted my second post to seem "smarter" i just troll like everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now, what i don't get is how if you have songs download to your compy, which you never purchased, what are they? are they stolen? are they a violation of copyright? what? because you didn't "steal" anything. you made a bunch of electrons align a certain way, that once a process reviews the alignment soundwaves may travel toyour ears. the space is on your hard drive, the speakers are yours, the electricty used, you purchased. hell you even purchased the privlidge to access a large network, the internet.
so what is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are conisdered unauthorized copies. Being in possession of an unauthorized copy is not itself a crime. Playing said files is not a crime either.
The law covering that aspect is VERY grey. And to the best of my knowledge, has never been tested in any court, let alone the supreme court.
Neither the RIAA nor the MPAA have EVER sued someone for being in posession. It is ALWAYS for distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM filled content = me not really owning the product, so no sense in paying money for it.
Kudos Yahoo! Keep it up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whoa, an on-topic post, I almost didnt recognize it!
I agree that both DRM free and reasonable price are required to get my business. Yahoo has managed to achieve ONE HALF of that requirement.
If its still rediculously (sp?) overpriced, it will still be pirated more than it is legally purchased. And I still won't buy OR pirate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rhetorical question
Does he do it well? You bet.
Did Joe's rhetorical questions make a point in an awkward fashion? Absolutely.
Could he have asked better questions? Naturally.
Does this mean he suffers from intellectual confusion and should be silenced? Perhaps.
Am I surprised that more people don't ask rhetorical questions? Of course.
Is this joke getting old? It's like getting bogged down in a quagmire.
Am I going to stop now? God I hope so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No. 22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no. 26
no, they suckered you. if you were forced, you would have a legal recourse. you have little or no legal recourse if you were suckered. DRM is for suckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's About Time!
"We're trying to be realistic," said Ken Bunt, senior VP of marketing at Hollywood Records. "Jesse's single is already online and we haven't put it out. Piracy happens regardless of what we do. So we're going to see how Jesse's album goes (as an MP3) and then decide on others going forward."
Looks like someone's been reading TechDirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....
i simply, in smaller, more easy to read terms, ( and please dismiss and foul use of grammar as my idiotic nature to fumble things.....thank you) im not going to stop paying for ctap that isnt worth paying for, and if corporations want to create little tricks to stop things from being pirated, or do certain things to promote the unecessary spending of what little money i have left after the government garnishes my wages, then i myself, choose to look the other way, and find, in my own time, ways around this..............
im not saying, PIRATE EVERYTHING FTW!!!!!1!!1!!1!
im simply stating, to the media giants, who are already millionaires and complaining about losing money, when there is evidence that piracy helps them as far as sales and things of that nature goes, stop wasting money on something like this,.........stop releasing garbage that we are not willing to pay for, and then we will spend again,.......
besides, why should we do something nice for them? its not like i ever got a thank you for feeding some corporate mogul's son with the 19 bucks i spent on Master of Puppets when it first came out..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secondly…I’m an insane audiophile, I will never buy a lossy compressed audio file!!!!!!!!! I will also never buy a DRM protected lossless audio file I can’t play where and when I want!!!!!!!
OK….my theory in a nutshell on the bigger problem…the failure of a Hi-rez audio format…
The music industry and the consumer electronics industry really screwed the pooch because of their desperate need for plain-and-simple greed and control. The introduction of DVD started the whole decline of the music industry because of the lack of concern over audio quality. This is where lossy compression really took off in the form of Dolby Digital / DTS compression. When every retailer pushed the DVD by showing off the format’s great video and sound (compared to VHS tapes), the general population just accepted the lossy compression of Dolby Digital and DTS as the best sound available because there was really no other competing consumer technology that could show the flaws of those compression techniques. The audio CD still sounded great compared to the majority of the DVD music releases at the time of the DVD-Video launch. (If the music industry and CE companies would have taken advantage of the 24bit / 96k PCM stereo soundtrack option of the DVD-Video spec, the audio CD may have seen a little competition in the audio quality race.)
While this push for the DVD format to take over the home video market was a huge success, the hi-rez audio market that DVD technology allowed was a disaster. These hi-rez formats never stood a chance of becoming successful because of the lack of support by the music industry due to a format war between SA-CD and DVD-Audio. This war could have been avoided if the DVD spec for Video and Audio were released at the same time (which should have happened but members of the music industry did not like the copy protection) which allowed Sony to try to market its own hi-rez format…oh…..and thanks a lot Sony for the SACD – You killed any hope of a hi-rez audio format success!! You would have thought that Sony would have learned their lesson with format wars with the whole Beta / VHS war and the minidisk / DCC war.
Because these formats failed, the CD format never died. Killing the CD and replacing it with a hi-rez, simple to play, and file-sharing resistant format would have really curbed piracy. If the only music format available took hours to rip accurately (or took at least real time recording time to get audio onto a hard drive + plus time for editing and compression) people would have been less prone to wanting to “share” the fruits of their labors because of the time invested in creating the files.
The CD is too easy to rip. DVD-Audio could have been the music industry’s savior if it was rip-able without breaking the law and didn’t require a video screen to be able to navigate (Toshiba and the other members of the DVD Forum really screwed up on that one).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At last a major site going the way of the independ
Non-DRM tracks creating more money for the labels and artists? Surely not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I walk into a bookstore and covertly transcribe to my spiral notebook the latest Harry Potter novel, am I stealing anything (according to law)?
Please think carefully before answering. Being able to answer this question as it pertains to legal status is key. If you answer with the "it's wrong and stealing" then you are incorrect. It is an act of copyright violation.
Now, the real problem with the ill-conceived DMCA is applied, simply because it defeats and undoes the long standing "fair use" right. This will need to go to the Supreme Court several times before this matter gets settled.
Oh, and since the MPAA and RIAA have more thumbs up Congressional arse's than any of you, things most likely will not improve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]