What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
68 Comments
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -10/+35How can people say that Jobs wasn't completely full of ***** with his "letter"?
A. the iPod's database tables are purposely obfuscated to prevent open source apps like Banshee and Amorok from syncing
B. Apple has been approached many documented times by artists who requested their music be put on iTunes *without* DRM. Apple said no.
C. Apple has been quoted several times saying that DRM is not just a requirement from the RIAA, but that it is an essential part of their strategy (aka vendor lock-in)
If Apple wanted less DRM in the music world, then why don't they have a creative commons section in iTunes? Unless you've been drinking from the apple-flavored koolaid, you owe it to yourself as a technology-freedom-loving geek (whether you like Apple products or not) to CALL APPLE OUT. - danjal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Everybody is sending 'open letters' these days, must be the latest fad.. (my open letter)
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12how about just selling it at a fair price. that's a start.
- fahrvergnuugen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12A) Did it ever occur to you that maybe the iPod database was optimized for the iPod hardware? You know, so you can do things like flip through artists, albums & songs as fast as possible with an inexpensive mobile processor?
B) I'll bet a benjamin that the contract Apple signed with the RIAA mandates that ALL music sold through iTMS have DRM. Why would the RIAA want to try and compete with non DRM'd media being sold through the same store if they don't have to?
C) Find me ONE source for this. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8FTFA: "However, before Mr. Jobs can implement his DRM-free utopia, the music industry must have a viable alternative business model by which it can continue to thrive."
That is simply not true.
The buggy-whip industry wasn't given a government-engineered way to "continue to thrive." It went out of business.
Why should members of the RIAA cartel be treated special? Their business model is over. They can go out of business, and the rest of us can live in a world free of the RIAA. - MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Pipe DREAM. Remember how companies love money ? Not likely to change.
- Itkovian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That depends on the store. I never go to the stores that only sell Top-40 music. My favourite store can give you information on even the most obscure albums, and it can get you anything you want for a reasonable price, compared to the competing stores around here. But alas, paying €9.99 on iTMS is cheaper than laying down €16.00 - €20.00. If they'd get rid of the money hungry labels, then such stores might survive. If not, I think they'll be doomed.
- klang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I would suggest a price that is so low, that most people wouldn't even bother to copy it from other sources. Sort of a CDDB, but with the music as well .. everything downloadable for a fee so low, that you don't think twice about other "services" ..
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Leave it to an attorney to take 28 PAGES (!!!) to explain his idea.
Zzzzz.... - StellarlyAstral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://torrentfreak.com/static/fixingwhatsbadlybroken.htm
What the article is trying to get you to read. - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If they want ME and millions of other consumers to buy MUSIC it will have to be DRM free!
- jdoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I get rid of DRM with QTFairuse
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not going to comment on why you bought a Zune. The hardware looked pretty slick and the interface was attractive, though just from playing with one briefly I didn't think it was intuitive as an iPod or some of the Samsung players. To each his own I guess.
As far as purchasing content, what music wasn't available from the Zune Marketplace that was on iTunes? Just buy it from them. May as well complain that you can't buy from Plays4Sure sites either. Don't bother complaining about the iPod and iTunes supposed lock-in when the same could be said about the Zune. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Gorfle: Hmmm, Apples seems to be competing with free. Heck, even the record companies are competing with free. Most people have decent tap water, but the bottled water industry makes lots of money.
- jonr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh, you mean, like, allofmp3.ru?
I love it. I don't even bother to run p2p searches anymore for stuff that isn't available in the stores... It just isn't worth the trouble. - SpyDerMann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Personally, I gave a glimpse through it and - man! 28 pages without abstract, index, and order. Anyway, the ham in the sandwich is in page 8.
"Under the digital transmission right the only act that would require a license, or
payment of a license fee, would be the digital transmission of a recording. Every
such transmission that is not subject to exemption would require authorization in
order to be lawful. This does not mean that separate payment would necessarily
be due for each transmission of each recording; only that, regardless how license
fees may be calculated, all non-exempt transmissions would require
authorization."
Nice Idea at first sight, but it seriously undermines free speech. Unless he determines that exempt tranmissions are those without economic revenue. - troelsbay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Can somebody, who actually read the white paper, sum up what his point/recommendation is?
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The article makes the basic assumption that without DRM, music cannot be sold online.
That assumption is fundamentally flawed. eMusic sells non DRM music. Some bands sell non-DRM music (like Barenaked Ladies). They do just fine, there is not really a need to change a business model which continues to work.
Now it might make sense to add other kinds of licensing such as the "right to digtially distribute", but that does not mean the industry must have one to move forward DRM free. They just need to learn that lots of people are plenty happy buying music when you make it easy to do so. Remember that every song sold today is competing against DRM-free versions of those same songs, so the fact that you get sales now means you would get sales even without DRM - it's not like people would steal it twice. It's already "stolen". - jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4the zune all well and good but the fact that they give universal money for every one i buy kinda makes me sick
- acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because if you've been paying attention, you'd notice that Steve Jobs "gets it". Hes been quoted many times when the apple store was introduced that DRM didn't work.
When he introduced the itunes store, he noted his main competetion was file sharing sites. He was competing with free, so he knew he couldn't win on price, but on everything else he made the store better than file sharing.
He also sees that this DRM is slowing the adoption of digital music, and might hurt his sales eventually. His letter on DRM is a response to 2 things, presure in europe to open up fairplay, and competetion.
Right now his competetion in DRM is MS, whose DRM only works on windows. At least fairplay works on PC/Mac - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9A. Really unrelated issue. Almost every application has closed or proprietary APIs. What they do with their software on their iPod make no difference. Besides, there are a ton of apps that interact with it anyway. EphPod, AnaPod, plugins for winamp, WMP, the list goes on. You don't have to use iTunes.
B. I have a theory on this, though it could be way off. I think there are two main reasons that Apple doesn't offer. (obviously it is technically possible, you can download podcasts through iTunes... though they are not on Apple's server).
I think first is consistency and ease of understanding. All songs are 99¢ and have the exact same usage rights. There is no confusion or questions. Dunno if you remember BuyMusic.com (I think that is what it was, the one with Tommy Lee). Every freaking song had different rights. Some you could burn once, or burn 5 times. Put on one or ten computers... etc. It had this little key that was showed what you could do. Even the Zune got people annoyed with they found out that they "squirt" some songs because of different licenses.
And second, I think that if they did have non-DRM'd songs, that would be actually calling attention to the fact that others do. How do you word or present that in a way that is positive? You still are not allowed to "share" those non-DRMed songs. How do you effectively convey that you have the same rights for both, but the are just going to try to enforce on a little harder? It seems like easiest and least confusing to explain, is just to DRM everything. I think they want to keep the experience similar across the board.
Just my take on why they might do it. That would also be in line for calling for end to DRM. It would then be consistent.
C. Do you have a reference for that? Other people have claimed that is Apple's strategy (and it may very well be), but to my knowledge Apple has never said that publicly. (though I could be wrong) - daylightfades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Internet poses a series of threats to the industry's model. I think a huge threat that is largely ignored and overshadowed by piracy is the threat to their control. Record companies control the entire music distribution channel, from the top to the bottom. They can decide which artists are heavily promoted and which are not. They get certain songs played on the radio and pushed in record stores. And they control the music: most recording contracts categorize the music as work for hire, meaning it belongs to the record labels before it is even written.
They cannot, however, control the Internet, and that's the scary part for them. Any artist can make music (home studios are very affordable these days) and put it up on the Internet for anyone anywhere in the world to listen to. Sites like Soundclick and Artistlaunch are giving the independents the ability to promote their music to an audience they otherwise would not have had. And the true music fan can find what they want, not what the record companies want them to hear and buy. Ever notice how sometimes a new artist pops up and you see them literally everywhere--on the radio ten times a day, on billboards, and on big displays in record stores--and don't know why? It may be for a number of reasons, but it's certainly not because they're the greatest.
The record companies are not going to be displaced by independent Internet distribution just yet. But it is slowly changing, and many artists are getting a lot of recognition. My dad is a classical guitarist, and thousands of people listen to his music each month online. (And yes, they buy his CDs and pay for downloads). The fact that record labels generally screw artists on their contracts is encouraging a lot of new artists to pursue independent channels without even trying to go for major labels. Perhaps the record labels of the future will be mere promoters of music, rather than owners and distributors. Artists still need to get paid, and that's indisputable. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to do this online. - QuidnuncQuixot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Mr. Lincoff can be reached at BennettLincoff@AOL.COM" Sorry, he may have some great points somewhere in there, but my mind has been trained to turn off after an e-mail address like that.
- spafbnerf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6> how about just selling it at a fair price.
uh-oh... i dunno... sounds a bit like communism to me. :( - minimalistics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It all comes down to supply and demand. Evian is successful because people want clean water when they aren't home. If the RIAA wants us to stop using file sharing networks they need a supply chain that trumps it. Why would some kid wait to purchase the new Jay-Z album, when he can download it 3 weeks before it drops? How do we know what new music is being released this week? It isn't MTV or Billboard or Rolling Stone which are all pumped up with record company guided publicity. It's the top ten hottest downloads listing on oink. It's the indie music blogs. Even pitchfork is outdated. They need to be thinking ahead of the consumer. Complaining about DRM and royalties, all they are doing is crying about how the consumer is ruining their 40 year old business model. They don't want to admit that consumers are in full control of the situation. Consumers drive technology, and now we drive even more than that. We have taken control of the information they spend billions a year trying to manipulate. They need to appease US. What would attract me? iTunes on steroids. On my mobile. Over wifi to my iPod. Content overload. Bundled content like interviews/music vids/bonus tracks/etc.. Instant gratification. Not to mention the largest collaborated music catalogue in the world. And make it community driven for discussion/rating/critique. Because we decide what is good. Think past your marketing machine. It's being rendered more useless every day. How to pay for it? You think the Superbowl pays for itself? Advertising. Have a database that tracks everything. Use this digital transmission right. It's all data. So give me what I want, when I want it. Maybe then I'll think about spending more of my hard earned cash.
- farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2>The problem is NOT DRM - it's overpriced tracks.
How do you compete with free? - sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@Quix
Yeah, because taking the time to make a complete, articulate, considered argument with proper spelling and no exclamation points is totally boring. - NiceComeback, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Folks, it's pretty inevitable. DRM is on it's way out. Just sit back and watch it happen.
http://www.pocketsynch.com/digital-media/emi-takes-first-step-towards-unprotected-mp3-sales/ - lisuebie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I found the letter fascinating- (and yeah, I read the whole thing without falling asleep). At the level of Internet, charge service providers and up loaders some variable fee for a digital transmission license. Collect rights owners into collectives that have the right to non-exclusively license music worldwide. Develop technology or programming that tracks transmissions to calculate the appropriate division of the fees among rights holders - with performers and music writers receiving an percentage of license fees equal in amount to that received by music publishers and distributors.
I imagine the music industry will reject the ideas out of hand, because they are so different from the current situation they can't imagine it.
What may be quite ironic is that such a deal would have allowed them to continue to exist and make money. Whereas if they don't do something similar in effect- that allows consumers to have music and share and use it as they wish, and allows service providers and hardware producers to create the services and tools to meet consumer demand, williamdyer's prediction may quite well come true. Music makers and consumers will simply cut the publishers and distributors completely out of the music business. They won't be needed, and so will dry up and wither away like willows on the bank of what used to be the river downstream of the power dam.
- pirilampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This guy is well meaning, but he speaks as if he's saying something outworldly new, when there have been many similar proposals. Off the top of my head I can mention William Fisher's, Neil Weinstock Netanel's, Raymond Ku's, and Fred von Lohman's.Will they work? I don't think so. Too complicated. And why talk about music only? We have to talk about movies, about TV, about books, etc. This is not 1999 any more, we've come a long way.
An ideal system would have to be very simple from the user's point of view: opt-in, single payment, and not a very high price. How people split the money afterwards is another issue entirely, but let them kill themselves over it.
Quite frankly, the age of royalties and selling packaged content in a marketplace for information goods is nearing its end. Highly concentrated production and distribution centers are about to get fragmented into smithereens, and there's soon not going to be any room for monolithic entertainment cartels selling goods. We'll have many smaller players offering services, more than anything.
When the content industry complains about file sharing and tries to get us guilty because content is not going to be produced any more (hahaha), set makeup artists and painters are going to lose their jobs (hahaha), the economy is going to crumble (hahaha), etc., I kind of wish it was all true. I'm sick and tired of the content that's being produced by these people, it would be a good thing if they were entirely gone. But things are changing, and changing fast, that is all, with consumers becoming users and holding the means of production and distribution of content in their hands. The big players are only going become smaller, new business models will surface, and we'll look back at the years from 1910-2000 and laugh, laugh, laugh.
Not a bad era to live in. - loupanic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.whatisindiemovie.com/ - It's a great documentary about the rise of independent music that you just described.
- gaervern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The point is that you need to obtain a license to make digital transmission of music to others. It would be legal to play and copy the music as much as you like, as long as you don't give it to others. A right to digital transmission would be valuable because you can lawfully sell services to others (streaming, downloading etc.). Such rights can be bought and sold in the open market.
This is not so different from the situation today, the difference would be that the record companies give up demanding DRM, trusting that there would be a sound income to be made from selling digital transmission rights.
However, the value of the right would decline as the content sooner or later would become distributed and the market saturated. How fast the value declines, depends on how effectively unlicensed mass-distribution can be prevented.
And one more thing: his would mean a lot of work for intellectual property law attorneys. Surprise! - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Having read through this paper I can see several flaws in the man's thinking. Firstly, he makes several flippant assumptions on points of law which are at best debatable.
Secondly, he tries to address some infrastructure problems of how music publishing is set up, whilst tossing others to the wind. The problem is that this approach leads to a half-way house which is more or less inconvenient to everyone.
It's a nice try, but I believe there is a better solution. - troelsbay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Then the question arises. How the hell are they going to enforce this? The computer will not know whether or not the media it is currently transferring is licensed or not, it wouldn't even know if it's media. At least it could very easily be bypassed. If I have understood the phrases quoted here, he has definately not understood anything about how a computers work.
- MrMighty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I suggest this: The rights of songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and
record labels in their respective musical works and sound recordings should be
aggregated so as to create a single right for digital transmissions of recorded
music. I call this right the “digital transmission right.” It could just as well be called
the “X” right.
The digital transmission right would be a new right, not an additional right. It
would replace the parties’ now-existing reproduction, public performance and
distribution rights (and, in those territories where it applies, the communication
right). These would no longer have separate or independent existence for
purposes of digital transmissions of sound recordings or of the musical works
embodied in them.
Under the digital transmission right the only act that would require a license, or
payment of a license fee, would be the digital transmission of a recording. Every
such transmission that is not subject to exemption would require authorization in
order to be lawful. This does not mean that separate payment would necessarily
be due for each transmission of each recording; only that, regardless how license
fees may be calculated, all non-exempt transmissions would require
authorization." - klang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> uh-oh... i dunno... sounds a bit like communism to me.
and "sharing" does not sound like communism?
Fair price, realistic price .. any price? Anything more than zero is a good thing, for the seller. Selling at a price where people can't be bothered to look for "zero" might be good business. - QuidnuncQuixot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kapowaz - I was trying to be flippant, it was a good letter, but there is a bit of seriousness to my first remark. If it's a professional correspondence, it's usually more professional to use an e-mail address which signifies the institute or company that one represents (ie, xxx@standford.edu). He has his own domain name (www.bennettlincoff.com), why doesn't he use that for correspondence?
It's the same as contacting a prospective employer, when they do call backs, which of these two phone messages are they more likely to veiw positively?
"Hey man, it's Benny, if you leave a message, I guess I call ya back."
"This is Bennett Lincoff, please leave a message after the tone." - farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Define a "fair price".
Here's a fact: People are not interested in paying "fair" prices. They are interested in paying the least price for the highest quality.
It is a given that music available for "free" is going to be at least as good in quality as what is available to be purchased. So quality is not an issue.
Given that, people will migrate to the lowest possible price - zero.
There is no "fair" price. When the product can be had for free, only the altruistic will pay. - spafbnerf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I dunno...... looks like a lot of words .... :(
- eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gorfle
So the billions of songs sold from iTunes proves your theory how? All that music is available for free *somewhere*
Then explain why people pay allofmp3.com for stuff that is available elsewhere?
People have good bs detectors. The problem isn't that we're all pirating thieves. It's that the system as it is is fundamentally corrupt. - DrStephanHeimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ jrbrewin
open letters are meant to be read be a wide audience (not just a single person), and will generally address an issue or topic which is of interest to many people (much like DRM), and just because you don't agree with someones opinion doesn't make it uninteresting.
I think that an intellectual property attorney is well qualified to offer an opinion on DRM and intellectual property issues, and certainly not outside of his "station".
and IMHO your use of the word station smacks of segregation and elitism - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because it is the right thing to do.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I didn't like paying $0.50 per minute for long distance neither.
*****, I must be a Communist. I better cancel that IBD subscription. - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Burn it to CD and re-rip it. It removes DRM and creates a backup.
- cablemodemguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure some people will still get music for free, but with a good price, many more will pay to have it legally.
- ryansmith18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RTFA
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They're cooler than blogs since they are more formal and have an identifiable recipient but can still be read by anybody. I bet we'll start seeing corporate open letters pretty soon.
- GregR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1can you supply examples of the 'issues' you refer to or provide a page reference from the PDF?
OK, so what's the "better solution"? - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1like dilbert creator Scott Adams. (scottadams@aol.com)?
Makes me wonder what other criteria do you use to "judge" people? -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is