Notwithstanding Apple’s announcement today of the sale of 2 billion songs on iTunes (all with DRM), most of the recent market signs suggest that the eventual demise of DRM is inevitable. Consumers are more frustrated than ever that certain file types are playable only on certain devices. The only real questions are when, and will it be replaced with something far more sinister?
The signs:
- A year ago, Yahoo Music GM David Goldberg urged labels to abandon DRM
- CD sales continue to drop and are down at least 15% from 2000, and current digital sales are not offsetting that lost revenue
- eMusic, which sells only MP3s, is the no. 2 digital music reseller behind iTunes
- Amazon is rumored to be opening a MP3-only music store
- Sony Exec says “DRMs are going to become less important” as time goes on
- etc.
Then there’s the Apple factor. The digital music market is starting to look like a monopsony for the big labels, with Apple as the only real reseller (20x the sales of no. 2 eMusic). No one else can gain enough critical mass to get users to buy a player and the music, or otherwise make much of a dent in iTunes. The only way others can sell music playable on the iPod is if it’s DRM-free. The labels will see it as a poison pill, but Apple is on a roll and their lead is getting stronger over time.
I spoke with Yahoo Music GM David Goldberg and VP Product Development Ian Rogers last week about their views on the future of DRM, given Goldberg’s comments about DRM a year ago (see above). The forty minute podcast is up at TalkCrunch. While they don’t quite agree that DRM’s demise is inevitable, they do have valuable insights as music insiders as to what may happen in the short term. One interesting prediction that Goldberg made is that we might see DRM and DRM-free tracks being sold side by side, with DRM music sold at a discount. I think that the general availability of illegal and quasi-legal alternatives may not allow that market to develop, but we’ll see. They also predict the rise of music subscription services.
Our advice remains the same. For legal reasons we do not condone the acquisition of music via BitTorrent or AllofMP3. We think Bill Gates’ advice is a pretty good way to go – buy the CD, rip and and do what you like with the music. You can listen to it on any device you own. But whatever you do, don’t buy DRM’d music. You’ll regret it down the road.
Photo by the amazing Scott Beale at Laughing Squid.
As a digital music record label – we aren’t big fans of DRM (to say the least).
Digital music is all about creating new exciting value for the users, utilizing the digital lifestyle technologies and domains (web, mobile, anything) to open a new avenue for experiencing music – and especially – innovating cool ways to obtain music’s core element , the emotional excitement.
DRM was never about this vision, but just a tool to try and replicate the old music industry models. Though we have to remember that DRM was a necessity since the digital rights laws are still being updated, and many questions don’t have a clear answer.
Picture kinda looks like Michael Birch, CEO of Bebo.
Mike,
I love it how you keep saying “DRM is not the solution. Lets get rid of DRM – lets fk the labels over”. What I would love you to answer is this
Who is going to pay for the production, advertising, development, expansion, networking, recording and distribution of both the artist and the music ? You think by allowing MP3 to have “no DRM” and therefore reduce music sales, that all this is going to continue at the same rate? No fking way is it.
All removing DRM will promote is more P2P networking of songs, more legal cases and shitloads of money wasted in the courts. If 1,000,000 people buy 1 song at $0.99 cents it – the total cost is $990,000 – and now you have 1mil of songs free on P2P networks. Sure, you can use the argument – “they are already there” – but all this is going to promote is MORE SONGS widely available.
I dont like DRM, but I can see why the Music Labels do not want to get rid of it. If I was the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Beach Boys or Meticalla, and $100 million was wiped from my pockets – I would be pretty pissed off and looking for legal suites.
Wouldnt you?
Mike – While I share your loathing for DRM and want to see the back of it as soon as possible, I think that removing it will create a vacuum that the labels will not tolerate and so I can’t see it going away any time soon unless a clear and definite alternative arises. I believe the innovation in this space will come from a particular label redefining its business model (By that I mean changing the way they go about developing the artists in their stable – less manufacturing, more grassroots promotion of talent that is out there naturally).
Essentially this means moving independent artists into the mainstream, but NOT on the familiar “We’ll make you a big star” basis, but more on the artists own terms with enough backing to gain exposure, but not mega-marketing dollars initially. The label will then be able to ramp up exposure based on success. It’ll come down to a basic talent contest – we back you to get an album out and direct x amount of spend towards an identified market niche and if you do well, we’ll give you more next time. This means that the supergroup concept goes out the window to be replaced by literally hundreds of thousands of relatively low exposure artists as you currently have operating in independent circles only now they’ll be able to reach a bigger audience.
This in some serves to spread the risk of major piracy across numerous investments, potentially lessening the impact.
I know it’s not perfect, but I think that the leading light of the industry will begin to develop along this path. The problem is that the margins are much tighter and who will willingly jump onto ship like that?
Lastly, independent artists have often been tarred with a broad brush on this site as being of lower quality, as a passionate indie music fan, I urge everyone to notice that the true art is made in this space, yes there’s a lot of junk out there, but there’s also enough quality to fill the world with appealling, DRM free music from now until we crash into Andromeda
Ciao, Michael – The Muso
DRM may be an issue for some people and bands, but for many others it isn’t even on the horizon. Take RPM Challenge for example. They challenge people to write and record an album in the month of February (this years sign ups just started). Last year was their first year and 1600+ tracks were recorded. No band participating cares about DRM (including myself). They care about the challenge, writing music, and pushing themselves to make themselves better. Some released albums for sale, others gave away the music freely, some did both. Granted if they could sell it on a mass market the story may change, but for every band selling on itunes there are many more not.
How do you substantiate this statement: “Consumers are more frustrated than ever that certain file types are playable only on certain devices.”? None of the evidence you present would suggest this. You are referring only to industry sources and quoting industry opinions. I don’t see how these sources are representative of consumers. Are you quoting from a study that you’ve read but are not referencing?
I would counter that, based on the information you present, consumers are in fact blissfully ignorant of DRM and are quite content with Apple’s environment, hence the runaway success of their service. It would seem, based on the information you present, that the industry is put-out with this fact and is trying to paint the picture as one of consumer interest in a lame effort to counter Apple’s market growth.
You reporting of this information demonstrates that you share their perspective.
I agree that DRM is (or will be) on a decline. At the end of the day, you can’t prevent computers from doing what they’re good at: copying bits.
That makes the whole selling-lots-of-copies-of-copyable-data business model pretty lame.
The record industry only ever succeeded because their product was inseparable from the plastic discs they used for distribution.
It’s like we’re going back to the 19th century, when music was a SERVICE, not a PRODUCT. If you wanted to be a successful musician, you had to be hired to do useful work: writing a symphony, playing a gig in a king’s court, etc. Like it or not, that’s what we’re headed back to: services.
My startup is trying to work with this concept by promoting custom love songs. We’re just getting started. Maybe you’d like to check it out: http://www.TailoredMusic.com
My format freedom rant! Users are just waking up to the fact that they can’t move their purchased content from one device to another. Maybe a few iPoders got Zunes or Samsung MP3 players for Christmas and are pulling their hair out trying to figure out what those of us in the industry know: there is no transferring of iTunes AAC files to other devices! But I think the story is even more perverse than just this form of format slavery. You mentioned SINISTER above. It really is! iTunes has sold I don’t know how many iPods and some 2 billion tracks. But what they really have done with this cute little device is given all of the pirates a good excuse to stay pirates. 40 times more music is taken from p2p sites than purchased as a legal download from iTunes. And only about 90% of iPod content is from the iTunes store. Apple is basically the guy who owns a truck and is selling stolen merchandise off the back of it! But why?
Because a lot of users know that the only way they will have format freedom is to pull mp3s from p2p sites or buy CDs and rip them. But this is the age of digital, so why should someone run down to the rapidly disappearing record stores or wait days for delivery of CDs from Amazon. We want immediate gratification. I am completely against piracy and believe in rights protection and appropriate royalty payments to artists! But without a DRM free purchase alternative, and I don’t mean just the indie music sold on eMusic, users have no choice.
A lot of music listeners may be blissfully ignorant of DRM. But someone needs to help educate them. And if not the music industry, then who?
iTunes/iPod do hold a quasi monopoly. And as much as I love Steve Jobs and Roger Ames (who apparently convinced the entire music business to support Steve’s initiatives in this area) this is a very dangersous situation. For users, for us! We are one in the same. Down with format handcuffs. Lets be part of the uprising.
CORRECTION ON COMMENT 8: Sorry, I meant to say that only 10% (or more like 6%) of content on an iPod comes from the iTunes store. I was in such a rush to rant that I became dyslexic! But you get my point. Most music on iPods is from p2p sites or ripped from CDs. Don’t believe all of Apple’s hype. 2 billion tracks is a bundle. But just think how many more we would all buy if we could use our digital tracks when, how, where we wanted!
I’ve been running a DRM-free website for 2 years now, and my girlfriend still got a VirginMega (Windows-Media only) gift card for Christmas by her dad… although she owns an iPod (and her father knows) … so I really think that public is not really aware of DRM… apart in the IT community of course… so even if I would be pleased that all music should be sold DRM-free in the coming months, I doubt this would have a tremendous effect on sales… and I still know a lot of indie labels here in France which still believe that DRM and royalties are the best way to get paid, rather than no-DRM and direct selling… It will change but not as fast as we hope…
Not only is DRM dead… but intellectual property is short lived as well. In the global economy of three years from now, ownership will be worth much less. Regulating ownership of something as abstrat as an idea or a digital file is not possible across national boundries.
The real task will be the best timed and executed implementation of that idea. Contextual usage will drive the new ownership of innovation.
“Not only is DRM dead… but intellectual property is short lived as well. In the global economy of three years from now, ownership will be worth much less. Regulating ownership of something as abstrat as an idea or a digital file is not possible across national boundries.”
Interesting thought, considering iTunes has recently surpassed 2 billion song sales and the iPod is still sporting an impressive 70% y/y growth rate. As far as the public not being aware of DRM, its a pretty simple notion that your friends can’t access your songs on iTunes.
Also, better ask the guys over at allofmp3 if music IP ownership will be worth much less in a global economy. The issues will become more complex, but I doubt that the patent is going away any time soon.
How does the anti-DRM audience propose musicians & record labels monetize music on the Internet?
“How does the anti-DRM audience propose musicians & record labels monetize music on the Internet?”
Patents are difficult to inforce internationally – and that is exactly the point. Do you think when China reaches critical mass they will respect the US Patent office. This is a cultural issue that you can not legislate regardless of you degree of authority (power being differnet than authority of course).
To you specific question Brian – they won’t. Recordings will be the loss leader and performance and commercial licensing the monitizations. It is heading that way very quickly right now. BTW – I am not “anti-DRM”, quite the opposite. I am just being realistic about enforcement and what I see as a losing battle.
I feel like this post goes with this article: http://www.wire.../0,72412-0.html
Re: #2: “Picture kinda looks like Michael Birch, CEO of Bebo.”
It’s of Beck, from when he played at Yahoo! Hack Day.
“I would counter that, based on the information you present, consumers are in fact blissfully ignorant of DRM and are quite content with Apple’s environment, hence the runaway success of their service.”
Many consumers clearly are DRM-ignorant, but many other high-volume consumers refuse to deal with DRM, which contributes to the runaway success of BitTorrent. And BitTorrent dwarfs iTunes.
Falling CD sales is not a good indicator or metric for trying to evaluate the future. The album/CD format is contrived. It’s a set of (mostly) unrelated tracks that were packaged for the convenience of the music industry.
I do hope that DRM will die away.
It’s not at all clear to me that the death of DRM is “inevitable”. If that were true, wouldn’t CD sales be going up? Also if that were true, why is Apple’s market share growing?
DRM may be doomed, but not for the business reasons you spell out. It’s doomed for technical reasons.
This is a very complex issue because artists deserve compensation for their creative works the same way software writers deserve money for their code. Take away the incentive and you can damage the “creative” economy.
Sure, people will always create new works and not expect to be compensated, but you will see a drop in the volume. If you just “set the music free”, how do you compensate artists?
I agree the the labels need to accept the gravy days are over and they need to slim-fast their business – cut staff, expect lower earnings, etc…
One solution to mitigate the “pain” of DRM for consumers is by charging less for music – say $.25 per track.
Notsure,
“Who is going to pay for the production, advertising, development, expansion, networking, recording and distribution of both the artist and the music ?”
When IT started moving overseas, rates declined, and we had to adapt. When Walmart moved into town and closed down the local hardware store, they had to find new jobs and adapt. When computers completely replaced half of the middle men in the music industry, they will have to adapt as well.
You can not stop the digital revolution. People, in the end, want ownership.
Mike,
You omitted another huge sign. Bill Gates told you and other bloggers that DRM doesn’t work and needs to be replaced. That’s probably the most significant sign yet.
First off, I fundamentally disagree with the argument that “No DRM = P2P trading”. I know many people who download songs from P2P (or have in the past), either because the music they wanted wasn’t available through legal downloads or because they were tired of not being able to switch between iPod and non-iPod mp3 players. I know of no one who goes out just looking to put mp3s up on P2P sites. They aren’t looking to give music away to others, they simply want music from their favorite bands that work wherever they want to play it.
Most people aren’t born pirates, they become pirates (in music labels eyes) because there’s no other way.
I also believe that DRM dissatisfaction is going to rise. Look at how many iPods were sold this year. It was like the second wave of adoption. Several of the non-techie people in my office got ones this year – or bought ones for friends. And I’ve already been asked a few DRM-related questions, since they know I’ve owned multiple mp3 players over the years.
“How come I can’t play the music that my husband downloaded for his player (Creative model)?”
“Sorry, that music will only play on non-iPod models. Except for the Zune – it plays a totally different format. You’ll have to re-purchase all of that music.”
“That’s stupid.”
“Yep.”
I think the tech crowd is reaching the boiling point with DRM. Soon the non-tech crowd will too and then you’ll see some outcry.
The facts are not black and white.
There are several aplications that easily and (most important to me) legaly allow u to use any music service such as Yahoo or Napster with your Ipod and ITUNES with any MP3 player. e.g Hotrecorder and poweganno
Keep in mind that DRM is actually quite broadly successful. Your digital cable, satellite TV and DVDs are all DRM’d and consumers have embraced them. Games too.
Music is one part of the DRM market. For downloadable music, DRM is something of a hassle, but that’s an implementation problem. I use Yahoo’s subscription music and love it. It’s DRM of course, but I don’t see it. I just play the music as long as I pay the bill. That’s what cable does of course.
I keep hoping people will get over the idea of media as something to “own”, but rather a service to use. Under that model, most people woudn’t see the DRM at all. Been a slow transition, though.
As more people download movies and shows on demand (think Xbox and iTunes), they will be using more and more DRM. They just won’t think of it as such.
2,000,000,000 is a HUGE number that is growing at a faster rate everyday. it’s ridiculous to dismiss it with a snap of the fingers. people like DRM whether you like it or not. people vote with their wallets, and they’ve voted loud and clear that they LIKE the way apple has implemented DRM.
also, whether you like it or not, DRM is the ONLY way to guarantee that artists and the industry that supports those artists are paid what they want to be paid for their music. if you don’t like the conditions that the artists/labels give you for the privilege to listen their music, then you don’t have to buy from them. simple. non-DRM will never fly because there is nothing stopping a single person buying an album and then distributing that single album to the people in his 250 person email list.
Its great how the rise of subscription services is always just over the horizon. Consumers have spoken – when it comes to music and movies, they want ownership of media to use as they please, not a license to play media owned by someone else. i.e.: they want the digital equivalent of a DVD or singles CD’s – you buy it, its yours, end of transaction. Subscriptions may suffice for lower percieved value channels like television or satellite radio, but IMHO that market will take a long time to be cultured to accept that model for higher value items.
give me 10 million and I’d unseat iTunes… http://www.tamago.us
Given their respective companies’ recent histories, I have trouble taking the statements of Yahoo, Amazon, and Sony executives seriously as indicators of where the media industry is headed.
Besides, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can get ahold of all the pirated audio/video/software they could ever want. If suckers want to pay for theirs, who cares if it’s DRM’d or not?
Its interesting that the “No DRM” crowd has no viable answer to how the musician is going to get paid. Half baked solutions like giving away the music and charge for “services” such as live performances do not work. I have read elsewhere that doing road shows are hard work and the pay off does not necessarily make up for potential lost sales from CD sales. Selling non DRMed music just might work because most consumers just want the music for themselves but its probably too late for it because of the rise of P2P.
The fact that p2p is super successful has nothing to do with DRM. Most P2P networks distribute pirated music – there’s no other term for it. If DRM went away tomorrow, P2P nets will still exist. And as long as there’s a music “industry” they will try to put these sites out of business.
Arguments about why musicians don’t get a percentage of the CDs/mp3s sold is not valid because of contractual issues and its still not an argument against a DRM. Nobody forced these artists to sign on with the labels. I am all for a new business model which gives more control to the artist and that may well be precipitated by the digital music revolution and the Web.
Its probably a matter of time till the music industry evolves to when there’s a flexible, portable and non intrusive DRM that allows consumers the ability to move music around on their various playback devices seamlessly and be able to recover a copy in case of HD crashes or flash memory failures. If this came about then I think a vast majority of consumers will be fine with it.
ginchy is probably one of the only honest people in this post. For the great majority of people, the anti-DRM position is just cover for wanting to get something for nothing. After all, only a sucker would pay for something they could get for free.
“Its interesting that the “No DRM” crowd has no viable answer to how the musician is going to get paid.”
They get paid the same way they get paid now. Why is that so hard to understand? People pay for music now not because it’s under DRM or free. They pay for music because they’re fine to paying for music. If they wanted it for free, they’d go get it for free. And some people do.
I think the bigger reason why people want non-DRM’d files is because of where they want to play music, not the price. DRM’d files are a pain in the ass. I want the music I PAY for at home, on my iPod, in my car, at the office, etc. And I want it on whatever device is the best. Sometimes I like to play music with really big speakers. Other times I want it in the headphones.
So to the DRM-ifiers: I pay for your music. I keep paying for your music. Are you ever going to let me listen to it where I want to??! What gives? I do for you, you don’t do for me?
Yeah, it’s a customer/company problem.
Stephen. That is B.S. This issue is about portability, not getting something for nothing. If I buy music and put in on my IPOD and then 3 years later want a Zune, why can’t I transfer the music over? Total B.S. Buying music of ITunes is stupid because its only yours as long as you use an IPOD.
Wow, the timing of this interview is a bummer.
It will be very interesting to hear what Goldberg has to say now, after the announcement of the “jesusphone”
It “should” be possible to stream Yahoo music to the new iphone (too bad it’s on Cingular/Edge)
The big question is whether or not it will be possible to play WMA-DRM’d tracks (anybody know if it is currently possible on a Mac? could Apple block this?) Did Goldberg already get wind of what Apple was up to? Is that what he was coyly alluding to near the end of the podcast?
I suspect that Yahoo arguing against DRM is a red herring.
The subtext of the whole interview is that itunes owns the market and any other player’s (including Yahoo) only shot of making it in the space is if the studios drop DRM.
I don’t doubt that Goldberg is sincere when he argues that dropping DRM is in the Studios’ best interest (ceteris paribus), but even better for the Studios would be if Apple launched a subscription service (perhaps Yahoo is trying to get out in front of that)
My suggestion- One of the big subscription services should just give a bunch of drm ONLY players away and/or charge 1cent per play w/a $15/month cap (not sure if this is yet possible w/current state of DRM). This is also premised on the major assumption that limiting to just one player would overcome many of the technical problems that Yahoo bemoans regarding handling DRM (seems to be working for Apple).
Disclaimer: I tried to get a PM job at Yahoo Launch 2 years ago and was rebuffed (still not over it), but I honestly think Goldberg has been the smartest guy in this space since day one (Jobs was just lucky that his competition is so slow and sucks so bad)
Mike
Your post doesn’t make any sense.
First you note that Apple’s selling jillions of DRM’d songs, and then you dismiss the most successful digital music service in the world and say everything points to the imminent demise of DRM.
Then look at your supporting points.
* A year ago, Yahoo Music GM David Goldberg urged labels to abandon DRM….but the labels said “hell, no” because they are in business to make money, and their business depends on controlling distribution.
* CD sales continue to drop and are down at least 15% from 2000….and people are buying fewer 8-track tapes tapes, too.
* eMusic, which sells only MP3s, is the no. 2 digital music reseller behind iTunes…..by a long shot. iTunes outsells eMusic by more than a 100 to 1 margin, despite the fact that eMusic is older and offers music at a much lower price.
* Amazon is rumored to be opening a MP3-only music store….and it could easily put eMusic out of business
* Sony Exec says “DRMs are going to become less important” as time goes on….this came from a Sony Electronics exec – not somebody from the music business. Electronics execs would like DRM to become less important – because Apple isn’t sharing the iTunes format, and Microsoft effectively killed the closest alternative.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for DRM to disappear. It’s going to be a while.
So it appears that DRM has been very successful for Apple. It has allowed them to sign up the music industry to distribute their products digitally and thus allowing users a legal way of getting digital music.
Of course users would prefer to copy their tracks without hinderance but that would undermine the profits of the music industry and they would simply stop selling digital products.
The reason why Bill Gates and Sony are against DRM is very simple. They are late to the party! Apple has a near monopoly on digital music and has very successful agreements with the music industry.
If DRM ceased to exist it would undermine Apple and allow microsoft and others to get back into the game.
Why would the music industry support a non-DRM store like Amazon – everyone would just download the tunes and share it amoungst their friends. Very good for new and upcoming bands – terrible for established artists. They would lose the profits from iTunes as well as CDs – sounds like a terrible idea to me.
In order for DRM to work you have to have both a proprietary distribution network (i.e. itunes) and a compatible player that is widespread in the market (i.e. iPod). None of the companies predicting the death of DRM have this so they have nothing to lose by trying to bury DRM technology.
Chris
#34 igly..
if you were to have bought a vinyl record, (as some of us actually still own!) then you aslo had to buy the cd when it came around…
that’s the reason you have to potentially rebuy the song. just because you own a digital copy of a song, may not necessarily give you the ability to play it on any digitial device you own, whether it’s now or in the future…
peace..
Igly Jr.
But you know full well before purchasing music from iTunes that you wont be able to transfer it over to a none Apple authorized device. That is part of the deal. If that’s not acceptable then you are free not to purchase from them. Portability is a convenience, not a right.
It’s interesting that this entire conversation is centered around music…a medium that, by virtue of DRM’s application to it for several years, has a few workarounds. Sure they are not at all elegant, but that doesn’t mean they have to stay that way.
I’m presently more concerned with video (Movies, TV, clips, etc.) heading down the same god forsaken path. At least I can burn/rip my .m4ps, I don’t have the capability to do that for any video that I purchase from iTunes.
For the folks that say DRM is here to stay…you think studios can do the same thing as the labels, now that consumers have been punked by the latter?
I’d say that one cannot stop the demise of DRM *in its current incarnation*. You can line up thousands of lawyers and technologists, but the synergistic wisdom of millions of consumers (many of whom happen to be lawyers and technologists) will find a way to trump that.
That does not, however, prevent anyone from redefining/reshaping DRM….because “DRM in its current state” most definitely does NOT mean “artists not getting paid”. If the “content owners” focused more on giving the *reasonable* consumer what they want, instead of devising plans to thwart those desires, then we might get somewhere…instead, they are content to keep bleeding the current system for all its worth.
Indeed, adaptation and evolution, not restriction, are the means to meaningful growth.
@Sam
I bought my CD and played it in any CD player I wanted to. I did the same with tapes and records. And when technology allowed, I taped my records so that I could play it on a tape player. And I made lots of fun mix tapes from my CDs.
But now, suddenly, I’m going to be charged me for that? Have you forgotten that?
“But you know full well before purchasing music from iTunes that you wont be able to transfer it over to a none Apple authorized device.”
@Stephen
Actually, it’s really not that clear. I’d argue that most people discover this only after the attempt to transfer.
The probable reason for its failure is because it tried to copy old world models with new world technology. The answer should be with new technology or new business models.
fortunately or unfortunately the law will intrude. i remember showing my non techie, lawyer wife napster when was in full bloom back in the web 1.0 days – her immediate comment was, “great, what about the copywright?” i protested, but honey look at the network effect! – how can the powers that be, the man – stop people from sharing. her response: “the law will eventually intrude.” and it did. just because we can’t or don’t want to figure out drm on our own – it will eventually be figured out for us. we better drop the hypocrisy and admit that it is just so damn easy to steal someone else’s property. its easy because no one sees the crime. its not like your doing a b&e at the nieghbors.
#41 – chris..
i fully understand your pain. and i actually think you understand the interesting delima the artists/producers find themselves in.
if you create ip/material, you want to be able to get paid for it. you don’t want someone ripping you off.
the issue is how to accomplish this.
i’ve argued for quite sometime that the way to do this is to allow a person to purchase a digital copy of the item (song/video/whatever) but to incorporate watermarking information within the content. i argue that some of the watermarking should be upfront/visible (audio/video) to all, with some also embedded within the content..
i argue that the watermarking information should be uniquely tied to the user, consisting of personal information (ssn, credit card, drivers license, etc…) this kind of approach will prevent the user from giving the content to 10,000 of his closest friends… this approach also allows for the user to be able to ‘move’ the content to various devices…
however, some people will scream, as there are people who pretty much believe that it’s their right to download/steal whatever they damn well please. to these people, i’m right there with them, as long as they don’t complain when i have friends come by to take their cars/tvs/atm cards/etc…
peace
it’s a fair chance I’ve bought more music from the iTunes Store than anyone here. I’ve moved that music between multiple computers, a couple of iPods, a PSP, an HP iPAQ phone (Windows Mobile 5), and a CD player.
Most of the iTunes music no longer has DRM…
It’s not rocket science if you know what you are doing.
Perhaps the message on these largely exaggerated stories should change from “DRM is evil” to “here’s how to route around it.”
Just like we did with DVD.
While I can understand the position of concern for innocent little consumers who don’t know better, I take the attitude that if it affects you enough to need the DRM removed, it’s possible. If it doesn’t, you don’t. For me, the continual beat-up is little more than a way to sell advertising space on blogs or news sites.
Surely there are other, more serious problems affecting quality of life than whether paying 99c for something you can’t immediately email to a friend is the end of liberty in the free world?
@ #27 (bobby)
“if you don’t like the conditions that the artists/labels give you for the privilege to listen their music, then you don’t have to buy from them. simple.”
We, the listeners are the ones that privilege them, not the other way around. Do you really think that they’d get all that money to buy multiple houses and cars if none of us listened to them?
Your thinking is similar to the music industries, backwards.
I have never downloaded music for free using p2p networks. And I haven’t bought music online from any service either, until AllOfMp3 came around. Once I found them I quickly spent well over $500 with them, but not because it was cheaper than anywhere else, but because it didn’t have DRM. More people would buy music if it didn’t come with restrictions. It is quite simple. Yes, you may have some people share it, but the amount of people that pay for music will increase and outweigh the ones ho give it away for free.
There are two things that I read in above posts that I really agree with. The first thing that I saw that I agree with was the creation of a tiered service. First tier with DRM, the second without (priced higher). I would be on the second tier in a heartbeat.
The second thing that I read was the introduction of of a marker embedded into the file. If they created a file format, or found a way to modify the mp3 format to include markers, it would be ideal. You can transfer the file anywhere you want, but if it ever gets out in the wild, they’d be able to track you down. That thought alone would prevent most people from sharing it.
Also, just for clarification, all the music that I purchased from AllOfMp3, where did it go? On my IPod, CDs (for in the car) and my computer. I have never shared it with anyone. Why would I want to contribute to stealing?
-Joel
All of this will lead to no labels, no companies profiting off of other peoples art.
It may bring us better music, where the artists do their work for the art and not the money.
How many of todays artists are not created by these companies as inferior products?
A good artist will be able to make a great livable income with live shows.
Trading songs will be free advertisement via the internet, and quality music will reign supreme again.
Rather than record labels deciding what is good, the people will choose.
I disagree. The railing against DRM is coming almost entirely from the tech-savvy / web 2.0 crowd. Most (90%+?) iTunes / iPod users do not belong to this group and are pleased at the ease with which songs and albums can be bought from Apple and sync’ed to their iPods. And, really, how hard is it to burn a CD once you’ve bought it from iTMS? At that point, you’re free to move the music anywhere. The complaining is myopic.
I hope DRM dies, but I’m not as concerned about buying DRM music – perhaps because I am a very casual music buyer. I’ve bought perhaps five songs off of iTunes. What I do buy more of (not as much anymore) is video. That is more of a concern for me.
Hi:
I have no problem ponying up .99 for songs on iTunes. What I do have an issue with is being a hostage to their software DRM constraints. So, I simply rerecord the m4p file by playing it thru my soundcard, using an Encoder to convert it to wmv, then using another conversion program to convert wmv to mp3. Problem solved, takes about 2 minutes.
……
DRM technology is not the enemy here. DRM allows publishers to rightfully protect their intellectual property and nol longer complain about digital duplication ruining their bottom line.
The enemy is how DRM is implemented by retailers. Stupid moves by online retailers like Apple to use DRM as a way to try to force people to use their ipod is the real problem. As usual the corporate meglomaniacs like Jobs and Gates are the ones who are screwing it up for the consumers just like they always have. Putting intentional incompatibilities in place to prevent us from using a competitive product has been these two guys game since the advent of the personal computer.
Just execute the two of them, and the problems will probably slowly disappear…