Slashdot | Music Execs Think DRM Slows the Marketplace - Music - DVD Video genres

Popular news

Streaking Silver Stars top Mystics 84-79
Penny Ditch
Sophia Young matched her season-high with 24 points and Erin Buescher added 19 points as the San Antonio Silver Stars defeated the Washington Mystics 84-79 on Tuesday night...
'Burn Notice': And you thought being an active spy was hard?
Amber Swift
, USA’s latest summer offering, is a clever, well-acted, generally awesome summer drama. You’ve got action, you’ve got comedy, you’ve got sarcastic narration, and you’ve got Bruce Freaking Campbell...
Party of three for 'Made of Honor'
Andy Jones
May 7, 2007 Sydney Pollack, Kadeem Hardison and Beau Garrett are joining the cast of the Patrick Dempsey-Michelle Monaghan romantic comedy "Made of Honor" for Columbia Pictures...
Shilpa Shetty - The most lsquo;searched lsquo; girl - bollywood news : glamsham.com
Wayne Rooney
Close on the heels of 'Big Brother' and Richard Gere, Shilpa Shetty has emerged the most 'searched' person in the universe...
Hit Parade
Miriam Liddle
He tickles your funny bone. Only that he does it through his music. And his compositions have now become the punch lines for many hit Malayalam comedy serials....
MontereyHerald.com : - Boot camps take fitness outdoors
Lewis O'neal
NEW YORK mdash; It was a balmy spring evening in Manhattan. Rockefeller Park teemed with joggers, dog walkers, picnickers, Frisbee throwers mdash; and six women sweating through jumping jacks and park bench push-ups...
Large laptop HDDs not for Australia? | APC Magazine
Justin Henine-Hardenne
Laptop hard drives are finally getting to a stage where they re almost comparable with their desktop counterparts, thanks to enhancements in hard drive technology -- such as perpendicular recording -- and a storage-hungry market...

Slashdot | Music Execs Think DRM Slows the Marketplace

3.04 | 12:11

by chris_eineke (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @01:37PM beneath your current threshold.

by FrankNputer (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @02:26PM

by ProfessionalCookie (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @07:22PM

by SEMW (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @01:37PM

by Fifty Points (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @01:44PM

by lysse (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @06:40PM

by encoderer (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:43AM

by encoderer (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @11:57AM
by encoderer (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @02:51PM
- by encoderer (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @03:52PM
  I dunno what their problem is. People WILL always copy songs, and try to get them for free.
  They did it with vinyl and recording it to 8-track and cassette. Hell, my friends and I did as kids..
  .we'd figure out that each one of us would buy 1-2 albums, each different, and then swap them to record them. That's they way it happens.
  However, now that I'm older...
  I got money to spend...
  plenty of discrecionary money. However, I have never bought a single song online. Have I downloaded any mp3's?
  Years ago when I first discovered them on USENET, sure I did a few...
  mostly bootless Zeppelin/Stones stuff I couldn't find anywhere else...
  but, for the most part I pretty much own all the CD's of music I like. I have a high end stereo, and I like to play the best version of a song that I can.
  If they would offer for sale online.
  ..lossless songs without DRM so that I could burn hardcopy backups, and my own lossy versions for my car or portable (no big deal with such a poor listening environment).
  ..I'd be all over that.
  While I like a good deal and free stuff as much as the next person, I don't mind spending money for things I want. I think there are plenty of people out there just like me that they'd make plenty of money off of if they opened things up.
  I just don't want to buy music/video that is of lesser quality and hinders me from doing what I've done with it in the past when a copy I bought was mine to use, play and store as I wished.
  - by um...
    Lucas (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @01:48PM
    - by AusIV (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @04:33PM
      - by yotto (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @08:17PM
    - by LKM (Score:2) Friday February 16, @02:03AM
  - by bzipitidoo (Score:2) Friday February 16, @02:16AM
    - by LKM (Score:3) Friday February 16, @03:12AM That is a fallacy. It is something the music companies would like you to think, but it is not really true. DRM is about "maximizing revenue," principally by allowing the record companies to sell the same piece of music over and over, in different formats.
      Basically, is purpose is to eliminate format-shifting altogether, because that way they can charge independently for a song on CD, as a digital file for an iPod, as a digital file for a cellphone, as a ringtone, etc. etc. The music companies have realized that digitization basically means the end of formats that wear out over time, and it will also mean that it's pretty trivial to move your music from one type of playback device (e.
      g. iPod) to $NEXT_YEARS_DEVICE without them seeing a dime. Since their business model historically has derived a lot of revenue from the repurchasing of music in new formats (45s, 8-tracks, LPs, cassette tape, CD), they want to stop this, even though it's allowed by Fair Use as a simple format shift.
      DRM is only nominally about piracy; in truth, it's about squeezing more money from honest consumers.

Basically, is purpose is to eliminate format-shifting altogether If that's so, then why is it that most DRM systems allow format-shifting to DRM-free formats? Since their business model historically has derived a lot of revenue from the repurchasing of music in new formats (45s, 8-tracks, LPs, cassette tape, CD), they want to stop this Such shifts are too rare to be protected at great expense.

The music industry does not live and die based on whether people purchase the same music every few decades -- it lives on lots of people buying different music every year. Consider that the largest group of music consumers today have probably never owned anything but CDs.

by Bert64 (Score:3) Friday February 16, @02:30AM

by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @12:47PM

by Maxo-Texas (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @05:20PM

by Trumpet of Doom (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @11:13PM
- by Maxo-Texas (Score:2) Friday February 16, @12:18AM
  - by Trumpet of Doom (Score:1) Friday February 16, @08:24AM
  - by Maxo-Texas (Score:2) Friday February 16, @01:19PM
  - by Trumpet of Doom (Score:1) Friday February 16, @05:48PM
    - by jimstapleton (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @10:37AM
      - by nomadic (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @10:59AM
        by jimstapleton (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:05AM
        by nomadic (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @11:09AM
        by jimstapleton (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:10AM
        by shimage (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @01:48PM
        by nomadic (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @06:04PM
        by rizzo320 (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @05:12PM beneath your current threshold.
        by Rob T Firefly (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @10:41AM
        by BecomingLumberg (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @10:53AM
        I disagree. I think that they've seen what happened to their MPAA buddies when they spent countless millions developing DRM for HD-DVD and BluRay, only to see them broken before the sales got off the ground. I always had a sense that while the RIAA execs had the information about the uselessness of DRM all along, their greed and anger was too great for them to admit it to anyone, especially themselves.
        But this recent fiasco, along with a very high profile essay by Jobs might have just been enough to jolt them into realizing that the reason that they're losing money, is because they're failing at their primary business model - music distribution. They got so caught in copyright protection that for awhile it seemed like this was their primary focus. It was almost clear that the RIAA lawsuits were becoming a profitable side-business in the form of outright racketeering and extortion.
        But perhaps the decreasing sales of CDs in the context of a flourishing DVD business, and very healthy iTMS sales, they've finally come to their senses. The goal of RIAA is to distribute music at a price to the consumer. So that's what they should be doing.
        If the labels got together, and opened an online music shop with non-DRM custom-format/bitrate downloads from 96kbps to uncompressed, a-la-AllOfMP3, they'd make a killing! So perhaps long-term greed reinforced by reality and logic has finally triumphed over old-school throat-ripping greed..
        .
        I think this analysis is correct.
        Back in the 80's, we went these particular rounds with the software industry.
        Software vendors had resorted to putting creative errors on their media, changing the track pitch, sometimes even using lasers to burn holes into floppy discs (the DRM system would attempt to write the sector that was supposed to have a hole in it, and then read it back, and exit if it succeeded in doing so) in an attempt to prevent illegal redistribution of their software.
        Ultimately, most software vendors gave up on this whole idea because the finally realised that they were doing more harm than good. In at least one instance, a game title that ran fine on my next-door neighbour's computer, would not run on mine.
        Both machines were essentially identical (Commodore 128, 512K expansion RAM, 1751 floppy drive). It turns out that the DRM kicked on this software simply because my floppy driver was ever so slightly out of alignment.
        At any rate, the software vendors largely gave up, though they are starting to get back into it again.
        On the part of the MAFIAA, this is a case of them failing to learn from another industry's mistakes. Now, it looks like they are starting to get it. Hallefuckinlujia!
        
        Incidentally, I am still pissed off over HD-DVD and BluRay players downrezzing when connected to an analogue HDTV. I was an EARLY ADOPTER and helped FUND the RESEARCH that made HDTV possible, motherfuckers!

by Bearhouse (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @05:55PM
- by Phreakiture (Score:2) Friday February 16, @07:10AM beneath your current threshold.
by drinkypoo (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:37AM
by qigong (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @11:45AM
The goal of RIAA is to distribute music at a price to the consumer. No, that's the goal of the RIAA-member record companies. The RIAA's original goal was to establish and enforce technical interoperability standards that would ensure that an album released by any label would play back accurately on any make of record player.
Ironically, the RIAA's current efforts are very much the opposite of that original charter. That revocation model has a fundamental weakness, one that hasn't improved since they deployed the exact same model for CSS (which they barely touched, because the underlying crypto turned out have many weaknesses, so that got broken instead). Only one person has to do it.
Once. Tamper-resistant isn't good enough, it really has to be tamper-proof. When one of these keys gets leaked, the key has to be revoked, every time (and each time it happens, every disc pressed up to that point can be ripped with only a few bytes worth of leak that someone only has to do once).
And it isn't always going to be a software player where they can just release a new version and the old one stops working, and blame the evil pirates. They're just the first, obvious, easy target you don't even need a multimeter for. There are still a finite number of keys.
Keys that are pressed onto discs. Keys that are flashed or burned into this supposedly-secure firmware which is generally as hard to update as it is to read. So you target a single model that's popular, vital to the success of the format and homogenous, something they will be reluctant to revoke repeatedly as it would require frequent field service or a vast stream of near-constant, flaky upgrades for millions of sold players.
In other words, target the PLAYSTATION 3. DRM is fundamentally a trusted-client problem: Give an authenticated party a ciphertext and the key to unlock it, on the condition that they promise to follow a set of rules with them. But like all trusted-client problems, once one attacker becomes or usurps an authenticated party or intercepts the ciphertext and key or plaintext, all bets are off.
It is impossible to sell a trustworthy client (something capable of securely acting as a trusted client) as a consumer platform; the security model just does not work in that scenario! Real trustworthy clients are in secure premises with armed guards on 24/7 response and patrols, not millions of people's homes. They get audited on-site in person, not automatically over the net.
The failsafes against physical intrusion are thermite and C4, not epoxy and funny screws. And, crucially, the reason for this is because once an attacker has unrestricted physical access to a trusted client, it's as good as 0wned. I hope the content industries at large do realise that accepting, not fighting, the status quo and dropping copy-control and other digital restriction mechanisms (because they are consumer-hostile and uneconomical) is a difficult, but necessary step to modernise their approach to the increasingly digital content marketplace.
So, too, is calming down their continued hysterical, out-of-proportion approach to copyright infringement, although their corporate culture is going to find that an even tougher transition.
"I know many media execs, both music and film/video, here in Los Angeles and have had many discussions with them about DRM. Every single one of them hates DRM, thinks it is a pain in the ass to deal with, would love to sell all of their content without DRM.
But they all live in the real world." I spent 8 years in the video game industry and eventually wound up as one of two guys in the studio responsible for Copy Protection. I got the dubious honor of dealing with the tools to make sure all our CDs had our chosen form of copy protection "working".
At no point did I think the copy protection was worth the time and money we spent on it. The members of management I talked to about it weren't convinced that it was worth it either. But there was just enough anecdotal "evidence" of pirates completely eviscerating sales of games that shipped without copy protection that management was terrified to try and ship without it.
Next time you hear the **AA's going on about how piracy is killing them, realize that they may be targetting those who make decisions about including DRM just as much, or possibly more, than they're targetting the lawmakers or joe public.

by danpsmith (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @10:42AM
- by mr_mischief (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @10:57AM
  - by Dog-Cow (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @11:56AM
    - by kimvette (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @07:22PM
      - by saskboy (Score:2) Friday February 16, @06:03PM
    - by shimage (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @03:45PM beneath your current threshold.
- by t0rkm3 (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @11:02AM
by AndersOSU (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:23AM
by Kadin2048 (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @01:21PM

by Tim C (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @12:16PM

by saskboy (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @12:55PM

by djasbestos (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @10:31AM
by lewscroo (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @10:36AM
by nine-times (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:04AM
- by reub2000 (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @11:29AM
  - by nine-times (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @01:43PM
- by delinear (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @12:10PM
  - by gidds (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @02:38PM
  - by Mercedes308 (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @03:13PM
    I was confused by the summary at first, and now that I've R'ed TFA, I am no more enlightened.
    The article says that music industry execs think they can boost sales with unencumbered music, but that music labels won't allow this to happen, and that in the future music execs want DRM to allow them to manage their rights rather than encumber music. So, can somebody please explain:
    (1) What is the difference between the music industry execs and the people who run the labels, and
    (2) If the music industry execs are saying they do or the don't want DRM? Thanks.
    - by assassinator42 (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @12:07PM
    - by delinear (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @12:13PM
    - by Sax Maniac (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @02:31PM
    - by GWBasic (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @08:36PM
      Why did the music industry think consumers would accept DRM? The obvious and total failure of DRM'ed e-books should have warned them: Take a medium that consumers view as a tangible product, that they can buy and sell in an aftermarket, and try to turn it into a limited, licensed, revocable, non-transferable right-to-use at a not particularly attractive price - and it should succeed? What are they snorting?
      Oh. Right. Never mind.
      - by kat_skan (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @11:26AM
        by cowscows (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @02:07PM
        by proxima (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @07:18PM
      - by Karlt1 (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @02:49PM 3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it! But then they say..
        .. 5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
        I may not be as bright as some of you guys around here, but this doesn't make any sense. 2) No way will we get rid of it, we'd rather have bad DRM than none. We need to be able to resell Elvis tracks every 5 years to the same consumer.
        3) What we're hoping for is the government mandates a technical solution, since Apple has really screwed us up, and we don't seem to be able to work together to come up with a viable solution on our own. Seriously, if you're the government, isn't it reasonable to say "Gee, selling music to consumers is not a core function of government. You guys figure it out.
        We've already given you eternal copyrights and the FBI to enforce it, what else do you need?". But I guess that won't happen.

if DRM is removed and piracy jumps, the cause-effect logic will be very hard to refute. It probably CAN be refuted (all that has to happen is to have a file successfully ripped once and it's all over the internet) but an observed jump post-DRM removal would undoubtedly end some careers.

Nobody wants to take that chance. The music industry seems to be doing quite well (which is not to say the artists are getting all they really should, but that's another post) since they have money to spend playing around with copyright law. There is no "we need to try DRM-free music before our profits dry up!

" imperative which might drive people to take risks and the company to accept risks, so DRM (which is easy to make sound good, whether it is or not) won't go anywhere until the case for it hurting sales AS A CONCEPT (not just a bad implementation) becomes obvious enough to convince anyone. The only way I can see that happening is an "open source music" phenomena that replaces corporate music trends, star generators, and hits with something just as good (or "effective" if you don't think it's good) but community controlled. That's hard, because opinions are subjective and can apparently be influenced by ads.

We need a central site, lots of sources of music people want to listen to (not what they SHOULD want to listen to, mind you, but what they DO want to listen to - no running people down for their (lack of) taste), and quality control that people can trust. When THAT emerges, DRM will become too much of a liability. I don't see anything else that can do it.

Remember the guy who beat the CD copying by using a black magic marker or macrovision's using the same video scrambler technology they developed in the 80s that can be defeated with a $30 video enhancer unit on eBay? Why is the industry wasting time and money to be encrypting systems that seems to be defeated before they are deployed in the market. DVD Jon has busted DVD's and other alleged "secure" media.

Some of these hacks are 20 to 30 lines of code! So much for the millions of dollars invested. Even Legislation has done nothing.

What has come from the RIAA suing 12 year old's for downloading music. Limewire and other P2P engines are active now more than ever. The funniest part is watching these music artists bitching about how record companies steal their money and giving a press conference with their million dollar mansion in the background, or coming out of a restaurant most people could not afford to eat at.

The reality is modern music sucks, so does most of the content they are trying to protect. That is the real reason why the media companies are losing money, not because of piracy. They want to blame other people instead of the trash they are peddling as entertainment.

With all the anti-DRM stuff coming out of these guys who speak out of both sides of their mouth of late, it is easy to be cynical, and I have been cynical on this topic. Every one of the people who have come out against DRM (yes, Jobs too) has been a beneficiary.

They all hate it? Fine, do away with it by mutual consent! Shut up and do it!

Otherwise it is just like one of those ads that say the banks are your friends.

This just occurred to me (call me slow), who came up with the abbreviation DRM? Somehow I doubt it was some random blogger.

To state the obvious: the goal of the whole bloody concept has become to blur it. Read the words spelled out "Digital Rights Management". Whose rights?

Who is managing? The only thing that is clear about it is the word "digital" but I count on the creativity of /.:ers to blur that part as well.

As far as the regular Joe is concerned this could be something positive for him -- before doing any research, but why would he think he should? Point is, in the case of the regular Joe half the battle is already lost, they have no bloody clue what DRM is, it's just another abbreviation along with DVD, HDDVD or whatever else that is `in' right now. For some twenty years DRM was referred to as "Copy Protection" because that is exactly what it is, by renaming it to some nonsensical abbreviation they have created a highway for easier acceptance.

But ah, it's not like it's the first time some industry does something like this...

And now we get to the point where I am considered troll: I do believe there are places where "DRM" is called for, anyone who posts it is all-through evil gets a page-down tap from me (it's usually long rants). Lately it has however been going out of line. Repeatedly.

On an ending note, all according to Google: 46,200,000 hits for DRM. 2,900,000 hits for "copy protection" (quotes included). God, I feel old.

by drinkypoo (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:43AM
by denis-The-menace (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @11:48AM
by LainTouko (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @12:55PM
by jZnat (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @03:01PM
- by Bullfish (Score:3) Thursday February 15, @11:30AM
  - by Rogue Pat (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @04:25PM
- by Steve525 (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @11:50AM
  - by thespace101 (Score:1) Thursday February 15, @12:00PM
    I think that the model of digital distribution, that consists in having the consummer pay about as much for a data file as they would for a packaged physical support with the same content, is flawed at the core. Actually, while this may be unpopular on ./, it's indicative of value pricing of the digital product.
    You may not feel that is 'fair', but pricing isn't about fairness. It's about extracting the maximum amount of value from the consumer of the product while leaving the consumer with enough value that they return as a customer. In this case, the fact that the content is copyrighted generally trumps pricing fairness under anti-trust law (because the effect of copyright is to grant a temporary monopoly).
    Digital downloads and CDs are well differentiated products, and they both have an effective place in the market. I suspect the value for the digital content is appropriate. Marketing = Product, Promotion, Price, and Position (or some other form of 4 Ps equating to the same message), so if you are purchasing a season-at-a-time and are price sensitive, you are not their target market.
    That doesn't mean the market does not exist (e.g. I think ringtones are the biggest rip-off known to man-kind, but I can't ignore that it's a billion dollar market).
    Digital distribution is targeted at those who are either cherry-picking or are time sensitive. Conversion from a CD to digital form takes time and effort (worse for DVDs). To some people, this time is worth more than the price difference between the products (and to others, they are so price-insensitive, that they will probably buy the digital version to watch the show during their commute and then purchase the season DVDs once they are available).
    One could also digital distribution is carrying a premium price at the moment, because it's 'hip'. One pays MORE on a relative basis for an individual ditigal product of lower quality than they can receive on a CD or DVD. It's 100% consistent with hundreds of thousands of physical products you can buy in a store.
    Effectively, CDs/DVDs are bundles, where you also receive the benefits of the doctrine of first sale (because you bought a product, not a license). Therefore, by buying the bundle, you get a discount (or you can view it as getting the higher quality for free). Buying the individual songs, you pay the market rate.
    In the case of TV shows, you may also get a time advantage (this is part of 'Position': it will be out in digital form before the season DVD is available). Another useful analogy is to look at cost per bit of digital transmission. Try it someday on an SMS (cellular text) message (128 characters) vs.
    what the cable company pipes to you every month. The cost differential is something like 100,000X on a per-bit basis. That doesn't mean either cable or SMS is fundamentally flawed.
    SMS is certainly value-priced, but the number of users indicates it still possesses value even at that price. Note that this judgement is on a relative basis to the cost of a CD, I am making NO judgement here about whether the CD costs are over-inflated due to industry behavior. That is an entirely different discussion which is not required to properly evaluate the relative value of individual digital tracks to a physical CD.
    Given the current price of a CD, the prices are pretty close to what the market will bear (they are value priced). CDs can be effectively purchased for about $7-$8 at your favorite music club or other method of bulk purchases. So effectively, if you're buying more than 3 tracks on a CD, it's much more cost effective to buy the CD.
    For a one-hit wonder or a band where you appreciate a single song, but generally cringe at the music, use a $1/track digital source.
    I think *this* -- essentially the end of Microsoft -- is what's at the core of all of this. And the end of Microsoft will be the *result* of DRM-less tracks.
    Jobs knows this. Everybody knows this. This is the elephant in the room that no one is talking much about.
    Vista is all about DRM -- everything about Vista is DRM wrapped in eye-candy. Vista is the DRM operating system. The end of DRM means the end of Microsoft as the major OS player.
    It also means a return to the "hobbyist" computers of the 1980s -- the TRS-80s and the Commodore 64s and the Apple IIs. This "hobbyist" market continues to erode as DRM gains a foothold. Drop DRM, and we're back to where we were 25 years ago -- personal computers that were meant to serve users not the corporations.
    - by Mister Whirly (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @12:01PM
    - by nmos (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @12:28PM
    - by cowscows (Score:2) Thursday February 15, @02:17PM
      at first I was confused by the slashdot blurb...
      if execs surveyed really feel this way, then how can the next breath say that labels are keen to stick with DRM? Aren't execs of labels, and labels, kind of the same thing? I figured, something must be up with the polling.
      "The Jupiter Research study looked at attitudes to Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems in Europe music firms." They only polled European firms. I guess that explains the difference between what people think and what is actually done.
      So we're only reading about what European execs think, and then comparing it to what the industry as a whole is doing.
      And even better, everyone here in this discussion basically assumes that the industry is acting as one singular beast. They say things like "Well, when DRM is removed, blah blah blah.
      .." as if all of the companies will, you know, COLLUDE to just end DRM one day and that'll be that.
      The sad part is that, of course, all of these posts are right. The industry no longer acts as a bunch of competing units. They are essentially acting as a philosophical (if not legally binding) conglomerate on all of the ideas about music distribution.
      That's just sickening. Why can't one company take that risk now? Why not, you know, offer a *COMPETING* business model of DRM-free music at the upper levels?
      Of course there are a number of independent companies who do just that, but why can't EMI, for example, just dump DRM? It's because they're all in bed together. I think we should resist at all times the premise that the RIAA is just some mythical octopus, a single unit with many arms.
      These types of industry-wide assurances and reclamations are damaging to the whole premise of business as it is. The fact that none of them are even attempting to compete on these terms is just proof that we have already let them cement their status as a de facto monopoly. To not even fight them on that front is disheartening.
      To music executives: Your industry is in crisis. Take a fucking risk!

At least, it's what I think they would think.

Most "big hits" these days are CDs filled with garbage. If you look at the number one selling CDs, it's the "Wow! Now that's what I Call Music - Volume 845".

Music executives know that people are only going to buy the CDs that are filled with stuff that audiences like, and enjoy. That said, look at the music that's released on those 'compilation' CDs. The music is all old and past its 'hit single' prime.

It's not terribly old, but it's not the stuff that plays commonly on the radio either. Most artists have 'filler' CDs. That is to say, they have maybe two tracks that are any good, and the rest is total crap.

But the music companies can charge you for the full price of the CD, filler and all. You pay for all 12 or 15 songs or whatever, when all you wanted was the two. And now with iTunes, you can pay $2 and get those two tracks alone.

The odds of you buying entire albums now goes down significantly because you know that most artists pretty much suck donkey balls, and you just like that one "lalalala cookie monster" song. They are going to get smaller slices of the pie. With DRM gone, there's no tie to iTunes and as well, people aren't as leery of buying music online because they know no matter what, their music will play in their car, on any mp3 player, and won't expire or screw up.

It will spur rapid adoption of online music because it's easy to use, easy to share, easy to listen to, and gets you exactly what you want, without paying for filler. And further, with rapid adoption of online music, the 'indie' bands now have a greater chance at making it big, because there is no reliance on music industry to play their music on the radio. Digital music will hit a critical mass quickly I think, and services like Pandora and Last.

fm will become the standard for listening to music, instead of turning on your radio. You'll tell Last.fm that you like bands X, Y, and Z, all of which are mainstream bands.

Then Last.fm will say "hey, you like them, you might like bands A, B and C" -- which are indie bands. And in the end, the only people who are going to gain are the fans -- artists won't be able to produce filler CDs because they won't be able to make a living off of them (ala Britney Spears and the others), record companies won't control what we listen to because we have services like Last.

fm, Pandora and the wonderful "word of mouth" (which is lightspeed on the internet). Music industry loses control, artists realize that if they are good, they can self-publish, and they all lose out. As Cartman said to Token in South Park (playing the role of the Music Industry here) -- "From now on, we are an entertainment team, Token.

You just do all the singing, all the performing, and all the entertaining...

and leave the rest to us." That really won't work any more. And it's a good thing for us as fans, bad for the recording industry.

And it's inevitable anyway...

. just give it time.

Does the whole DRM issue remind anyone else of the "New Coke" thing? 2. Consumers upset at new product 3.

Company delivers original product, looking like heroes and generating positive buzz It doesn't even need an: X. ??

Despite these feelings, said Mr Mulligan, record labels are committed to using DRM because their digital music strategies revolve around these technologies.

Music execs are old enough to remember vynil, 8-track, to cassette migrations. There were no loud, and obnoxious cries about cassettes ruining music sales. I could indefinately copy an LP to cassettes forever.

..and share them with all my friends.

OK, so I couldn't share with millions...

but honestly, if millions want it, they're going to find nearby friends with it..and conversely, some of those millions may never have wanted it to begin with (but downloaded it just for giggles).

Fast forward to today: Who really "pays" for music? In my demographic (late 20s- mid 30s), we can afford high end audio gear. You really think I enjoy a track recorded under 192k in sampling?

Nope. I, however, WILL download it check it out, and THEN pay for it. I hook my iPod up to my $900 deck, which is then connected to my high end speakers, and think, "Ack, that sounds like ran over dog-poo".

Jam over to iTunes, pay for it, and dock to my receiver's iPod cradle. I didn't care for about 30%, but when I want to really zone out to The Crystal Method..

.I want it to sound really good, and I'll pay to do it. Of course, I know I'm only a slice of the market, but the lesson can still be applied.

(E.g.

Post comments

Name
Place
5 + 3 =
Comments

Search