Did Yahoo Not Pay Attention To What Happened When Microsoft Pulled The Plug On Its DRM Server?

from the apparently-not dept

Thu, Jul 24th 2008 12:31pm — Mike Masnick

I recognize that Yahoo was a bit busy fending off the repeated acquisition offers from Microsoft a few months back, but could they seriously not have noticed the massive backlash that Microsoft received for telling people that it was turning off its DRM servers, effectively locking all the songs people had "bought" to their current computers. The loud complaints resulted in Microsoft backing down and agreeing to keep the servers running for a few more years.

So, what does Yahoo! do? It mimics Microsoft's original move. It's sent out an email to users noting that its DRM server will be shut down, preventing the "buyers" from moving the songs to new computers. This seems doubly ironic, given that Yahoo's last two music bosses, David Goldberg and Ian Rogers had spoken out against DRM. While neither is still with the company, it's rather amusing that Yahoo is now helping to prove the point -- though probably not in the way that was intended when either Goldberg or Rogers spoke up.

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

Filed Under: drm, music
Companies: yahoo

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dan, 24 Jul 2008 @ 12:38pm

The practice of bittorrent couldn't have a better supporter.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse Anderson Jjesse285 (profile), 24 Jul 2008 @ 12:42pm

Micosoft anf Yahoo
Well it was a good idea in the begin, but just like the world we went down the wrong fork in the road, if a person dd not want to marry me and live happy ever after, then think about the million's eggs you two just make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- None, 24 Jul 2008 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: Micosoft anf Yahoo
  Do you ever make sense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ross, 24 Jul 2008 @ 1:18pm

Or is it just another revenue scheme so people will now be forced to purchase music again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek, 24 Jul 2008 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Purchase music?
  this type of nonsense is the exact reason I don't buy music from online stores.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg, 24 Jul 2008 @ 1:45pm

buying music
It's a good thing I don't. No worries about DRM here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dementia, 24 Jul 2008 @ 1:51pm

Jukebox
This is why I never moved my musicmatch jukebox over to yahoo jukebox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2008 @ 1:53pm

You know what's great about this is that these weren't small companies. These were the giants of the software, internet, and music industries. So next time a record executive talks about how DRM provides "choice" for consumers, we can just ask them, "What happens in three years when I buy a new computer and you've shut down the service?" After all, if it happened to Microsoft, Sony, and Yahoo, who can't it happen to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buzz, 24 Jul 2008 @ 2:23pm

iTunes is tolerable
Whenever my wife purchases music from iTunes, I make it a point to rip that music into DRM-free formats as soon as possible. We've already had several songs lost as a result of DRM issues from Apple, but I respect its decision to carry DRM-free music now. iTunes is the best store for us, but keeping the music in its DRM cage is like leaving your music CD face up on the road; it's only a matter of time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2008 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re: iTunes is tolerable
  Whenever my wife purchases music from iTunes, I make it a point to rip that music into DRM-free formats as soon as possible.
  Which is also a criminal act. I don't suppose you'd like to identify yourself, would you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John DOE, 24 Jul 2008 @ 5:33pm
  
  Re: iTunes is tolerable
  Just buy from Amazon (www.amazon.com/mp3), same selection as iTunes, cheaper price and no DRM.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Koksman, 24 Jul 2008 @ 3:38pm

I just buy mp3s from Amazon. Same price, DRM free. Why do people buy mp3s with these DRM restrictions? It baffles me. Also baffling me is how the Patriots lost the superbowl. Still painful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nick nack, 24 Jul 2008 @ 4:54pm

The music industry is such a mess. Lots of people like music, understandably. If we buy protected mnusic online, this may happen. If we dont buy the music, we'll get 'in trouble.'
Maybe CDs aren't so bad after all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T, 24 Jul 2008 @ 5:39pm

hmmm...
Does anyone else find it ironic that the person suggesting that the "criminal" (I have issues with the description of it as a crime, no matter what a few hundred pages in a book with the government's seal on it say) reveal their identity when they won't do so themselves?

Or perhaps I missed a funny.....
... In which case, please excuse me while I go wipe the egg off my face....

-T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- George W. Bush, 24 Jul 2008 @ 6:52pm
  
  Re: hmmm...
  Does anyone else find it ironic that the person suggesting that the "criminal" (I have issues with the description of it as a crime, no matter what a few hundred pages in a book with the government's seal on it say) reveal their identity when they won't do so themselves?
  Even more ironic is that the person criticizing such doesn't reveal their identity either.
  GWB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 24 Jul 2008 @ 8:31pm

This is exactly the reason I will NEVER pay for anything (music, movies or software) that has to rely on remote authorization to function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon E Mouse, 24 Jul 2008 @ 11:11pm

A change is needed
The music industry just needs to make a change. I see both sides of the argument...on the one hand, the Industry needs the money to give to the artist so that the artist can create the album and go on the tour...on the other hand, the consumers have gotten used to being able to download anything and everything at their fingertips for free; the only thing hindering the consumer is how fast they can think of songs to download. DRM is not helping matters either. It is in my opinion that if the consumer does not want their music in the AAC or WMA formats, the consumer has the right and should be able to convert it to any format of their choice. What happens when someone who has downloaded HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of dollars from the iTunes store wants to switch from the iPod to its competitor the Zune? They can't convert their music to a file type the Zune will accept and the Zune won't accept the files the way they are. Yeah one can burn all their music to an audio CD, but that's more trouble than what it's worth because you'll have to retag everything and use several CDs just to do that. Plus its very time consuming. At this point, I'm glad to say that I have never purchased any digital music because it is just a mess. CD's are the way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yeah Right, 24 Jul 2008 @ 11:24pm
  
  Re: A change is needed
  "on the one hand, the Industry needs the money to give to the artist so that the artist can create the album and go on the tour"
  
  Hah! You must have been living under a rock or something all this time... "the Industry needs the money to give to the artist"... Hilarious!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anon E Mouse, 25 Jul 2008 @ 12:24am
    
    Re: Re: A change is needed
    "Yeah Right" how do you think artists get the money to put up to make an album? Do you think they use their own? How about new artists? I'm talking about ones that only perform at night clubs, pubs, bars, and small family get-togethers. Do you think that after a producer or A&R Rep discovers talent, 2 million dollars (yes this is the approximate cost to make an album with all expenses) appears in the artists' bank account without help from the label? Because if you do, you're sadly mistaken and might want to check your sources. Here's a brief overview.
    
    After an A&R rep discovers talent, he then signs the band or singer to the label, at which point a check is made out to cover the expenses to make and record an album. This is called an advance. These expenses include, but are not limited to, cost of studio time, cost of studio musicians, cost of recording engineer, cost of producer, cost of mastering engineer, production, manufacturing, and a little extra for the artists' work. It is at this point that the sales of albums/songs is used to pay back, or recoup, the the money the label loaned the artist. If the artist does not recoup the money advanced to them with their first album, one of two things could happen. 1) The artist is dropped from the label, or 2) The artists' next album's sales is used to recoup the money. This is called cross-collateralization. The artist doesn't see a dime from record sales until his money has been recouped. Also, if you think that artists don't make any money off album or download sales, think again. They might make less then a dollar off each album, but with the amount of albums that most mainstream artists sell, be it digital or CDs, still adds up to a pretty penny...more than the average American makes in a year, especially if the album goes gold (500,000 copies sold) or platinum (1 million copies sold).
    
    If you think that by getting signed to a record deal automatically makes you rich just because you see rappers and rock stars of whom you haven't even heard of yet wearing 3,000 dollar fur coats and a 5,000 platinum chain around their neck driving the latest and greatest cars, then I would suggest turning off MTV.
    
    Next time, don't make a snide remark to someone who has a B.A. in Music Business. Also, before you make remarks, you might want to have your facts straight because, you never know when you're going to run into someone who has just a tad bit more knowledge in the area then you do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Buzz, 25 Jul 2008 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A change is needed
      Your 2 million dollars figure is horribly incorrect in today's society. There is this thing called the Internet, which reduces the cost to essentially zero. Many musicians are generating thousands of fan through MySpace alone; they are able to then go on tour to various locations and make money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MusicMan, 25 Jul 2008 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A change is needed
      Do you think that after a producer or A&R Rep discovers talent, 2 million dollars (yes this is the approximate cost to make an album with all expenses) appears in the artists' bank account without help from the label?
      Bull. Where did you get that number, sitting in "How to Screw the Artist 101"? "2 million dollars" is more like an example of the inflated fees record companies charges artists to ensure that they remain indebted to the company, otherwise known as a "truck system". I've worked in a small independent recording studio and it doesn't actually require anywhere near that amount to record an album in a studio. And with today's technology many artists are discovering that they don't need a studio at all.
      
      Next time, don't make a snide remark to someone who has a B.A. in Music Business. Also, before you make remarks, you might want to have your facts straight because, you never know when you're going to run into someone who has just a tad bit more knowledge in the area then [sic] you do.
      Don't think that a B.A. in "Music Business" (I didn't even know there was such a thing) makes you the know-all of the music business because you never know when you're going to run into someone who has just a tad bit more knowledge in the area than you do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wasnt me, 25 Jul 2008 @ 9:35am

if they are shutting down there servers wouldn't in be time for them to produce some sort of patch to disable the DRM from the Music in question? or perhaps sign a deal with a 3rd party that would authenticate the songs in question?

I am assuming there was some sort of agreement saying: user would pay X amount and Yahoo would provide X service, doesn't yahoo shutting down its DRM servers stop yahoo from fulfilling its part of the deal?

I find it hard to believe that users have no recourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2008 @ 3:17pm
  
  Re:
  I am assuming there was some sort of agreement saying: user would pay X amount and Yahoo would provide X service,
  You are probably assuming wrong. Such agreements are usually non-negotiable and heavily biased in the favor of the service provider. It probably boiled down to something like: user would pay X amount and Yahoo would provide whatever it wanted to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 27 Jul 2008 @ 10:29pm

I am assuming there was some sort of agreement saying: user would pay X amount and Yahoo would provide X service, doesn't yahoo shutting down its DRM servers stop yahoo from fulfilling its part of the deal?

There was most likely a clause in the agreement which stated that Yahoo was free to alter the terms of the agreement at any time. I'd also bet that there was a clause about how users are permitted, but not entitled to access the authorization servers and how such access is not guaranteed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
دردشه, 5 Jul 2009 @ 2:56pm

Hah! You must have been living under a rock or something all this time... "the Industry needs the money to give to the artist"... Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
شات صوتى, 8 Nov 2009 @ 12:00pm

hi
I am assuming there was some sort of agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]