Did Yahoo Not Pay Attention To What Happened When Microsoft Pulled The Plug On Its DRM Server?
from the apparently-not dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Micosoft anf Yahoo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Purchase music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
buying music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Micosoft anf Yahoo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jukebox
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iTunes is tolerable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: iTunes is tolerable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe CDs aren't so bad after all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: iTunes is tolerable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmmm...
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 thread ]
Re: hmmm...
GWB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A change is needed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A change is needed
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 thread ]
Re: Re: A change is needed
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A change is needed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A change is needed
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hi
[ link to this | view in thread ]