Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Music Sales Would Explode Without DRM
usatoday.com — Without restrictions on entire catalogs, "Sales would explode," says David Pakman, CEO of eMusic, the No. 2 online music retailer behind Apple's iTunes. "DRM has been holding the market back." His company is the only legitimate digital music service selling unrestricted songs, in the MP3...
howlongtoretire- 2160 diggs
- digg it
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -93/+16I agree with this however you've put it in the wrong topic, therefore no digg.
- DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -34/+6Close, but no cigar. The quote which gives the story its title, is provided by David Pakman, CEO of eMusic, the No. 2 online music retailer behind Apple's iTunes (RTFH?).
- revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+71iTunes is the No. 1 online music retailer.
eMusic is the No. 2 online music retailer. - JD223, on 10/12/2007, -26/+0also, I think it would only explode for so long before crashing
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -10/+43When I say it's in the wrong topic, I mean this article is not about Apple. Tech Industry News would be more appropriate. Not that anyone cares.
- PROLIFElovegod, on 10/12/2007, -74/+6I love computers and i love you so digg me up if you are happy and nice
and remember, jesus loves you - arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10If no one (or you) don't care, don't bring it up. >.>
No one really even checks what topic it is, only if it reaches frontpage or not. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2...
- PROLIFElovegod, on 10/12/2007, -56/+1WHY YOU ALL NOT DIGG ME UP
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2why pay,
when it's free elsewhere,
else hookers profits would be "set to explode"
get my drift?
what we still won't see is honest sales reports from vendors
honest soundscan of independent labels and bands from independent merchants
and no new artists at the grammys next year
just the same stupid crap... - MadEnvoy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@PROLIFElovegod
Might be because we are putting you in our block list. - Masna, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Let's not blow things out of proportion here...
1. The average person (I mean totally average) most likely isn't even aware of what DRM is. A lack of it isn't going to affect these average persons.
2. DRM provides restrictions, but the iPod already controls some 70+% of the mp3 player market, so these users (the ones that will ultimately purchase music) won't affect any statistics, essentially.
3. Those who purchase CDs will purchase CDs, and that's really the way it is.
So, in the end, a lack of DRM will pick up some new iTunes Store music buyers, but nothing is going to "explode." - BradleyBo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I buy from eMusic because I want DRM-free music. I'd like to buy everyone at eMusic a beer.
- durrty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Masna is exactly right here, if the key to the digital marketplace were just DRM why wouldn't eMusic, a DRM-Free service be #1 and not #2?
- TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"EMI wouldn't have to worry about pirates, because anyone who wants to pirate music is already doing it. The paying customer is a different breed."
James McQuivey hit is right on the head - TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@masna
"1. The average person (I mean totally average) most likely isn't even aware of what DRM is. A lack of it isn't going to affect these average persons.
2. DRM provides restrictions, but the iPod already controls some 70+% of the mp3 player market, so these users (the ones that will ultimately purchase music) won't affect any statistics, essentially."
I agree with you up to a point, while yes the iPod makes up a relatively large amount of the mp3 player market I dont agree with you that the average consumer is that dumbfounded when it comes to DRM espcially when they are buying another iPod and wonder why they cant even put their music on that new player, give the normal consumer more credit - richardhenry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@PROLIFElovegod: Get a grip man, I mean seriously.
@Masna: yes, but the average person fully understands "this will or will not play on other players than the iPod" and they have already demonstrated their knowledge of this understanding.
Back to the topic, it's time that the music industry stopped treating their customers like criminals. EMI seem to be paving the way for this. Good on EMI, if it's true of course. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""Those who purchase CDs will purchase CDs, and that's really the way it is."""
I'd disagree, CD sales have dropped massively, that's a fact - and many regular music buyers have been put right off by record company choices - of which DRM and other onerous copy protections is one, although you can take your pick.
The thing that shat on the pleasure of the CD buying experience for me (I used to buy several every month) was getting apparently ordinary CDs home and finding they wouldn't play in my car, on my media center or on my laptop, and that they didn't consider this worth a friendly refund or an apology.
For other people it might be something else, but the big CD-buying groups (teeny-boppers and affluent males of around my age) are very readily hit by issues like this and ready to notice them - there's no doubt in my mind that the publishers' CD sales have been hit by their bad choices.
I know people who live their music and used to be regular CD buyers - including myself - who now buy fewer CDs they would otherwise have done, because it's been robbed of some of the pleasure. I also know of life-long Metallica fans who would prefer to buy something else because Metallica have revealed themself to be such manifest *****-jockeys, by the way - I wonder how much those REAL losses of of sales stack up against all those imaginary losses from downloads.
By the way, when Sony BMG sold CDs containing unauthorised copyright work from software developers like me (because if you're a record company, copyright infringement is only wrong when it's music downloads, you can just take other people's work to implement your DRM, sell it without permission and keep the profits), which they had used as part of a rootkit, the reason I wasn't taking part in the outcry was because it was no surprise by then that these people would do that. I wonder how many others felt the same.
"""DRM provides restrictions, but the iPod already controls some 70+% of the mp3 player market, so these users (the ones that will ultimately purchase music) won't affect any statistics, essentially."""
According to every survey on the issue, most of us who play tunes on an ipod are playing mostly ripped audio of some sort, not purchased downloads, so if convenient DRM-free legit downloads became popular, who knows what resemblance (if any) that situation would have to the current one.
"""The average person (I mean totally average) most likely isn't even aware of what DRM is. A lack of it isn't going to affect these average persons."""
Yeah, but the average person has heard the term "MP3" on the TV, and they use it to describe the player, and what you play on it. In the end people know what they can't play and what is lots of hassle, which is why average people delete that pre-installed napster crap from their laptop if they can manage to do that.
As for the rest of us, out of people with the slightest inkling of which way up their feet go (regular computer users, professionals, businesses), a LOT are of the opinion that DRM is a Bad Thing for everyone.
- robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+74They need to do something about audio quality as well before I, or assume, many people will buy. But no DRM is a step in the right direction.
- ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38Too true. 128 kbps? Anyone who would want to pay for that sort of quality is nuts. They may have increased the bit rate by now...(I hope)...but still, people should be able to download the song at 320kbps.
- supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12The iTunes songs are very well compressed, I mean Im pretty sure it isnt done on a Pentium 2 by a 15 year old, so the 128 kbps compressions when done from the music studio masters atually sound pretty decent. Some of my low kbps itunes downloads sound the same or better than some 320kbps Ive done with my own PC and various conversion software.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -22/+42128 is fine for most people and most music.
- randovaro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29I would seriously pay a bit more for lossless, preferably FLAC.
- TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -16/+24I listen to lots of death metal and metalcore (Yes, I'm aware that most of you think it is utter crap. Don't care. :)), guess what? I own "high quality" CD rips of those songs and iTunes to see if I can tell the difference, there isn't any. Most music doesn't really require super high encoding. Orchestra type music probably does, and even some rock, country, jazz, pop, and blues; but the majority doesn't. AC/DC, Norma Jean, Morbid Angel, and Pungent Stench all sound the same at 320 kbps and 128 kbps.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16128 is probably ok nowadays, but back when people made 112 kbps encodes using the demo version of bladenc or whatever, it definitely wasn't.
- mejor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20true, 192 is necessary in my opinion, makes the music sound much better. Though I do know a lot of people who could care less about the quality. Awesome step though!
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@truthelixirx
If you can't hear the difference between CD Quality and AAC its either because your hearing is half gone or you're using crappy equipment. Nothing personal, but I don't really see that many death metal people lugging reference Grado's (not the cheap SR60's) with at least a ChuMoy amp.
Its kind of like people who have never driven a sports car. They may not see the appeal until they get into the seat. - broomett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18supermanred...of coruse, if you took the SAME EXACT file and told you it was from the Zune store, you would say "Wow! That compression is HORRIBLE!"
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Personally, I'm fine with anything 128 to 192, and couldn't really care less where it falls within that range. I think it's silly to have anything higher than 192, unless you've paid more than $1500 for your speakers, at which point, you may in fact notice a difference. I don't, as my speakers were $30 and my headphones came free with my shuffle.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I wish more people paid attention to sound quality so they would start coming out with music DVDs and better compressed files. The truth is that most people just listen to music as background noise while they do things and don't actually just sit down and listen.
Listening to 128kbps music with earbuds is like watching Lord of the Rings on a 12'' black and white TV. - metalhead3767, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14128 kbs sounds like crap. Am I one of the few that can tell the difference?
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Depends on which earbuds you are talking about. Even 128 sounds damn good when piped through a pair of Etymotics ER-4P earphones. But yeah, in general, at least 192 is desirable.
- 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Quality is a major sell point for me. They could dump the DRM and I still wouldn't buy if the quality is poor. I run my Mac into the home stereo unit and when I play it has to be a lossless encode or it truly sounds like dung. For my iPod I use 256VBR or Apple lossless and that too is a major difference compared to 128k when my plugs are Ultimate Ears customs.
- wushu18t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5when i found out beatport has non DRM music i signed up right away. never thought i would buy music online. i think non DRM music would sell is true.
- thebrokenlight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@DaffyDuck
Actually, its been my experience that with 128kbps, it actually sounds better with worse sounding headphones. Clearer sounding buds just make the ***** more apparent. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well, I must admit that I have very few 128 mp3s. Probably less than 1% of my collection. You might be right. I do believe that most will find it difficult to differentiate 192 and 320.
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2160 definitely sounds better than 128 to me, but only on songs that have intricate drum solos. I find that MP3 compression loves to cut out the intricacies in drums.
- George187Bush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0cbr? pffffffff, VBR ftw
- conman16x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1eMusic encodes at 192 kbps VBR. I think that level of audio quality is indistinguishable from uncompressed CD audio to the vast majority of people who listen to music.
- SaxxonPike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It isn't so much the bitrate of the MP3 as it is the encoder. You will be able to tell the difference between the Xing codec and the commercial Fraunhofer codec at 128. Granted, higher bitrates allow for larger discrepancies by the less advanced codec without notice. But some 128s simply sound better than others.
Audio engineers as well as some of you at home (especially when wearing headphones) will be able to tell the difference between 128 and 192 either way. Probably even higher yet.
Also, VBR kthx. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"They need to do something about audio quality as well before I, or assume, many people will buy. But no DRM is a step in the right direction."
For me personally, higher quality is even MORE important that DRM-free. The 128 bitrate in iTunes is what's kept me from purchasing more music. Not DRM.
Why not let the consumer choose the bitrate he or she wants? Let me set my preference for ALL my purchases: lossless, 320 kbps, 192 kbps, 128 kbps, etc. That bitrate is then downloaded automatically each time I make a purchase. If Apple used this approach (with 128 kbps as the default choice), the uncaring masses would likely stick with the status quo (128), while those who are more discriminating could select higher bitrates. That way, Apple wouldn't have to plan for an across-the-board increase in bandwidth use.
I'd start buying a lot more music through iTunes if I had the option of lossless encoding.
- allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12emusic.com is only #2 because they have an insanely obtrusive bundling scheme. Every time I get a new computer I have to spend 10 minutes trying to delete emusic data on my computer.
- JeffreyAtW, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'd think it's #2 because it's not APPLE. Remember, this is digg. If anyone so much as mentions Apple, it gets attention.
- randovaro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"His (David Pakman, CEO of eMusic) company is the only legitimate digital music service selling unrestricted songs, in the MP3 format. Its songs work with any music player, including the iPod."
Ummm.... Magnatune anyone? http://www.magnatune.com/- burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Apparently Magnatune isn't legitimate or something... He should be careful about his use of such strong words as 'only'.
- aeiou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7and what about http://www.audiolunchbox.com ?
- gravis86, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10http://www.allofmp3.com Cheap, you can choose your quality, unrestricted, and you can fund communism at the same time!!
/sarcasm
Although it is cheap, unrestricted, and there are lots of formats to choose from :) - pashdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not only is the DRM-free Bleep (http://bleep.com) legitimate, its the only service with good music!
- Nat5an, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And http://www.beatport.com/ (assuming you can navigate the flash-tastic interface). It's all electronic music, all in high-bitrate mp3 format.
- DiGiTaLFX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought exactly the same! There's lots of examples of sites that legally sell unprotected MP3s. DJ sites being the obvious example as as far as I know, there isn't much DJ hardware that can play DRMed files.
- lockfist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I have been using emusic for two months now and I no longer even think about itunes. The reason has a lot less to do with DRM and everything to do with the PRICE. At .33 a pop, you can take a lot of risks in what you download.
- Chingmiester, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2Or get Ares, and have no risk whatsoever.
- stalefries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Yes, chingmiester, we all know about piracy.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I subscribe to eMusic - honestly, some months I forget to even download any music. But I don't really care because I really like supporting the idea of music sold in open formats.
If everyone subscribed to eMusic, the studios might start to take the hint. Or artists would all move to eMusic; I really don't care which happens first.
- JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2No DRM isn't enough to get me to buy. No DRM + lossless compressed audio + $1-2 price tag per song and I'm in. No DRM is a step in the right direction, though. It's insulting to honest consumers.
- avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Lossless = 1 Hour Battery Life on music player.
They should be better quality though. - Cleanlyness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you should be given a choice to choose FLAC lossless or MP3 lossy.
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I don't give a flying crap about lossless. I'm listening to music on the subway, at parties, or quietly at night. Why would i need 80mb lossless files for that? Ask the majority of people if they want lossless and they'll probably say "what?". You're the minority.. they don't cater to you.
Also, DRM is certainly losing me as a customer. I was going to buy some music last night from iTMS but my account is tied to an email address I can no longer access (I figured if I changed it, I'd lose all my (few) currently DRM'd songs) and I have no idea what credit card was in the system. It was just easier to bittorrent the album I wanted. - Zaetha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0gharding:
"Ask the majority of people if they want lossless and they'll probably say "what?". You're the minority.. they don't cater to you."
I don't hear normal people complaining about lack of lossless support, but I hear a lot about how "Internet music" or "mp3's" (even if those are wma or wav with other compressions) sucks because it "sounds bad" (mostly because they download bad compressed or low bitrate mp3's on P2P) and "Cd's are better anyway", followed by "I'll never buy music online".
They want quality, even if they not know the word to describe it. BUT, if they end up downloading it "free" on P2P, they usually don't complain. - frikk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Lossless is important for a couple of reasons.
1. You can encode lossless to any file format you want, any amount of times, without quality loss (aside from encoding). That means you can encode to OGG, AAC, 320 MP3, 96 MP3, whatever you want. That lossless file will be just as valid in 15 years when mp3 players may or may not work the same as they do today.
2. People who use digital music (I am a DJ - I would never spin out with anything less than 320 or lossless) professionally care. You'll never get as good as vinyl, but it helps to get close.
3. If I am paying a premium for a song, I want to feel like I am getting great quality. A CD gives me that ability, a lossy MP3 does not.
Some sites (http://traxsource.com) offer both 192 and 320 MP3, but at different prices. http://beatport.com does lossless as well for the same price as a 320 MP3.
- avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Lossless = 1 Hour Battery Life on music player.
- eric06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It would be good, but only for a little while, then the hype would calm down and no body would really care anymore.
- MikeFez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I disagree, I would continue to buy online and never buy a CD again if the music I bought in iTunes would work with a Zune.
- GAMER135, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3David Pakman is right, everyone has complained about DRM restrictions (including myself) because its a waste of time and complete greedy of the music industry for doing this. If apple were to drop DRM completely from itunes, then i would likely buy the music, but as JavertHolmes said, it it aint at Lossless compressed audio at the price of $1 then i wont buy it.
But this is a good sign that DRM is failing, to all diggers who support of getting ride of DRM should pat themselves on the back. Goodbye everyone! - ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2no, it wouldn't.
piracy is already too deep into society, to say people would all of the sudden switch to buying music is the stupidest thing i've heard all day- Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I used to pay for stuff from allofmp3, because it was cheap enough and downloaded quickly
people don't mind paying as long as their not being asked to pay an unreasonable amount
- Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I used to pay for stuff from allofmp3, because it was cheap enough and downloaded quickly
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Yeah..and the CEO of eMusic is a real expert on that.
- razmech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hate to disagree, since I would personally love seeing non-DRM'd purchasable music, but I really do not believe that the industry would explode without it.
I've always stripped the DRM from any music I download from iTunes (I know, tsk tsk, but at least I'm buying it first). So personally, I don't think I would purchase any *more* music just because it came without DRM. - ellisgl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Music sales would probably go up with we didn't have to pay the RIAA and also the extra fee for CD's (Damned you phillips)
- imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27most consumers have no knowledge of DRM at all
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15True, but I'm sure many have found out the hard way when they get a new mp3 player and all of a sudden their iTunes music doesn't work on it. This may not happen often, though, as iPod users may usually stay as iPod users. (no idea on any statistics)
- RichGC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, a friend had no idea until he tried to put his paid for iTunes music onto a new creative jukebox, so sadly people will only find out after paying for DRM.
- ohnocommies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Thus it is shown, that when people are allowed to OWN the things they pay for, they will buy them.
- GamingTrend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'd go back to buying music if they take DRM off. Sony would still try to squeak it in there without us knowing, but can't have it all, right?
- Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1That's why you're #2, Pac-Man.
- Mikey9oo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I personally would buy a lot more music if it did not have DRM. I can afford to, and would like to, support bands I like. Unfortunately, I hate DRM, so I usually just download torrents illegally. Still, one click to download from itunes is far easier and more convenient. A lot of the time, I go to the itunes store to browse music and then just download the torrent.
I think it WOULD explode. I guess I could strip the DRM, although I do not know how to, but why not make it easier on the consumer? I mean, seriously, if people want to share music they will. Get rid of the DRM.- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Buy online music, create audio CD, re-rip without DRM. It ain't rocket science. Avoid songs that don't allow audio cd burning.
- noerrorsfound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Topher06:
And get an even worse-sounding file? No thanks. - LethalGeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You wouldn't lose any quality doing what Topher06 said. Burning the mp3 (or whatever Apple's propritary BS format) to CD converts it into a RAW/WAV format that is about as high as quality gets. The rest of the back converting won't matter as the original source was already lossy compressed anyway.
- KazuyaDarklight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Using lossy compression on a lossy, or formerly lossy, file DOES decrease quality. The encoder doesn't magically recognize that it was compressed before. All it sees is data and it runs it through the system decreasing the quality. The size is dropped because data is stripped out, thats the whole idea, so you strip out data once, burn it to a disc where at best some essentially pointless filler data gets added as part of the conversion the the lossless format and then you save it to lossy again and more data, some filler and some NOT, gets stripped out, its the same thing as happens with jpgs. Every time you open a jpg for editing and then resave it, it gets recompressed and the quality goes down, thats why you keep pics in a lossless format until you finished working with them, THEN save them to jpg/gif/what have you.
- chromaphobic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm right there with you on that one. I have an E-Music membership and also buy from some of the smaller DRM-free shops (Bleep, Beatport, et al) and would buy much more if it was made available to me. I make every attempt to legally purchase any music I want first, if it's not available in a DRM-free format for purchase anywhere I then download it via less legitimate means. (The Sony rootkit fiasco was the last straw for me, I will never purchase physical media from an RIAA affiliated label again. They've burned that bridge.)
- cozmicone37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I don't buy music online becuase of DRM.
- stusb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2you are in the absolute minority. 99% of people would have no idea what drm is. the music industry wouldn't explode, it may experience a slight bump, but no more. tech people need to understand that they are a minority group. music lovers are a minority as well and tech/music lovers are a minority within a minority.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't buy DRM-infested music online because of DRM.
I do make a point of buying Non-DRM music from legitimate music stores like http://www.magnatune.com , too.
Even if I have to hunt for something I like because all the bands are new to me, it feels good putting my money where my mouth is. :-) - GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, count me in that minority as well. I know that I *could* buy music from apple (pay too much and have them try to control everything I do with it), strip the DRM and have the music - I WON'T.
I was unaware of E-Music (thought they were just another apple-wannabe), but now that I know they offer DRM free MP3s that I can choose to put on my (NOT Ipod) portable player, take to work on a CD/DVD, play in my MP3 deck in my car, etc., etc. they will be getting a lot of business from me.
I have not/will not ever support Microsoft or Apple in their attempts to control what I do with what I purchase....I may be in the minority, but we are a rapidly growing minority and we are 'the squeaky wheel' as this artilce points out.
@BlackadderIII - thanks, I'll be checking them out as well.
- sjhdez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3From the article..."His company is the only legitimate digital music service selling unrestricted songs"
Bleep is pretty darn legitimate and DRM Free not to mention FLAC/LAME...
http://www.bleep.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleep.com
I buy alot of music from Bleep because I'm into the style (Boards of Canada, Squarepusher, Venetian Snares, Aphex Twin) and I personally love the fact that it is DRM Free. Bleep has had wonderful success with their business model at least in the UK! Furthermore you can preview the entire song before purchasing it.- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are various legitimate DRM-free music download services if you go looking - in that respect the article is inaccurate.
- Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4if they priced all music over 5 years old near the sort of prices done by allofmp3 they'd be laughing
it costs next to nothing to store on a server and costs them nothing in marketing and promotion costs, and when music is cheap enough that you can afford not to like it, it becomes an awful lot more tempting to pay to download to a much greater variety of things
There are old and not very famous bands I love to pieces purely because I found their stuff on the internet, I'd be delighted if I could buy their whole back catalogues for a reasonable- betobeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the very reason I still consider Apple's price of 99 cents a track utterly expensive for what you get. Forget about the "3 good songs and 9 turkeys" pop album formula for a minute - I still like the concept of whole albums, and that pricing rate puts MP3 downloads almost on par with the costs of a CD, which is ridiculous considering the lack of overhead and warehouse costs of selling MP3 downloads. Not to mention the lack of cover art and other goodies you can get with a CD. Apple could be selling MP3s at a quarter a pop and still make a ***** of money. I blame it on the ubergreedy record companies - they'd actually want to INCREASE the price of MP3 downloads. Puh-leaze.
- theboozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I still pirate music from time to time, but this is only when I can't find stuff I'm looking for on iTunes. If the music companies would collectively pull their heads out of their asses, they'd have a lot more people like me buying from them, instead of picking up a crap copy of whatever it is I'm looking for off of Limewire.
- wingo123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I find it interesting that little turn of phrase you used there, 'I still pirate music'. This is not a personal attack in any way, but it's a little scary that the RIAA propaganda machine is actually seeping in to the collective consciousness to such a point that they have effectively changed the meaning of the word. What you meant was, 'I still download music from others without paying the record company for an original copy'. Which, ethical or not, is not 'piracy' in any traditional sense of the word. You are 'pirating' if you are profiting off the illegal sale of copyrighted material. The RIAA has actually starting brainwashing everyone into thinking that they are committing a crime that they actually are not, just by morphing meanings of words and laws and hammering at it for (now) years. This is the first time it really sunk in that their efforts are actually finally paying off to some extent... kind of a trip.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@wingo123
He got the music without paying for it. Therefore he saved money. Therefore he profited off of it. - theboozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well... that was just my bad for not understanding the meaning as it was perhaps meant to be taken. Anyway... you may have a point. You understand what I was originally trying to say, and I concede that I do not think taking the music off of Limewire (or any other P2P) is really the way to go; but I'll do it to get the music. I actually consider myself very fair, and as such will pay for what I can. Regardless of the meaning of "piracy" as you, or the RIAA understands it... the bigger question here is 'what should these people be expected to get for this material?' And in light of the way the entire game is changing, it's easy to see how the meanings of words are changing as well.
A bigger concern is how to continue getting people to understand that if they take things for free when they could be paying for them, then those things will disappear, right? How many people do we all know who copy music and DVD's all of the time without any thought or regard as to the overall effect this will have? Not to sound like a Saint, but I do think I understand this... and as such, I many times over support those industries and businesses that I feel are turning out a good product. It makes sense, and it's the only way to keep that good stuff out there on the market.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why does it take big business to figure out what has been bleeding obvious to the rest of us for ages?
BTW, count me in as a new online customer if DRM goes away. I own an iPod but I haven't bought any of the music on it from iTunes or any other online store that uses DRM. If DRM were removed, I'd buy everything online. CDs are dead, and I'd rather do all of my music buying online but if I can't use the music files however I want, I'm not interested. I know many others who feel the same. This is a no-brainer (but then again, the RIAA has shown itself to be braindead so I guess it's no surprise we're still waiting on them to figure it out.) - quiksliver, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4this article is lame... 95% of the people stupid/clueless enough to buy digital music don't even know or give a ***** what DRM or what their track of "sexyback" is encoded in
go ahead digg me down lamers, you know I'm right - Zap2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I doubt it..it would go up, but I can't see it "exploding" althought it depends on what you want to define "Exploding" as
- mvander115, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have not bought music from the store in years, all of my music I have bought has been from online services. It would be nice not to have to crack the DRM on all the files I download, I have to crack them seeing as I beta test a lot and reinstall my PC 3 or 4 times a month. If the DRM was not there I would not have to take this extra step. Unfortunately not everyone does not know how to do this and are confused when they cannot put the song they just purchased on there MP3 player. So they then move on to a DRM free source so they can use it on there MP3 player.....Yeah we all know what that means to move to a "DRM Free" source. I could easily see a 15 -20% increase in sales, like the article says, you are not going to stop the people who want to pirate, what you will do is get the people who want to buy the music and not have to deal with licensing issues trying to move the music from there PC to there MP3 player / Laptop / portable gaming device.
- inst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0give me lossless music without DRM, now. right now the only legal way to good music is to get CDs and rip them to flak or high quality mp3.
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What would happen is instead of Apple being the only real music store online (I have tried others, they suck royally like puretracks.com, one of THE worst experiences for online music sales ever and never heard of eMusic, so much for being #2!) a lot of other ones would pop up allownig more exposure for music sales. I don't think its DRM holding music sales back, its the fact that there are few decent online music sites not selling sh*t.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""I don't think its DRM holding music sales back, its the fact that there are few decent online music sites not selling sh*t."""
The big music stores that have lesser selections of big name music, like emusic, wippit etc. have those lesser selections because they aren't kowtowing to the record companies on DRM, and therefore don't get to license and sell it.
The irony is, people who use emusic would probably pretty much all take their custom elsewhere if emusic implemented DRM, because if they wanted crap that didn't work properly, they would be using iTMS - which has a much more extensive selection available of crap that doesn't work properly.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""I don't think its DRM holding music sales back, its the fact that there are few decent online music sites not selling sh*t."""
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't tell the city of Boston... They'll shut it down...
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I won't buy music online with DRM!!!...wait a minute, this has been said about two dozen times already. Am I just preaching to the choir?
- thelimabeanking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Buying music online is inferior to buying CD's because for a similar or the same price as the iTunes store, one can get an actual CD, liner notes, no DRM, and higher quality audio. The drawback is convenience: you have to go out to a store, worry about availability, and rip the disk to your computer to put it on an mp3 device.
An illustration: I have a 3rd gen iPod and the battery is not dead so I use it. It still serves my needs. But, because of DRM, I can't put music i bought from the iTunes store onto my mp3 player. My iPod is too old to install the necessary software to get through the DRM. So, I had to burn my songs to disk, rip them, and then name them again. It's little problems like this that make me feel like I don't "own" the music I paid for the same way I own my CD's.
For now, I steal things because I tried to buy them through the iTunes store and the store failed me. I've also had a subscription to emusic. I had a Wolf Parade song stuck in my head, and tried to find it on emusic, they didn't have it. That's their only big weakness: selection. Good music on there, and tons of it, but you can't say I want a "so and so" song, and find it there. It's a lottery.
If iTunes undid the DRM and provided lossless music, there would be no contest.- gabe69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I thought the 3rd gen iPod played iTunes Store tracks. Have you tried installing the latest firmware?
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This is nothing but wishful thinking and is completely unrealistic. The reason otherwise upstanding people pirate music and software is because they do not believe "bits" have the same kind of value as physical goods. What keeps some honest is the effort studios put in to protecting their product and laws like the DMCA. If the studios and retailers were to stop utilizing protection schemes, this would make the "bits" appear to have even less value. The public would have even less reason to pay.
The notion that piracy is motivated primarily by the inconvenience of DRM is naive. Piracy is motivated by the fact that people want to get free stuff and also by the fact that actual material is not involved to lend both actual and metaphorical solidity. Abandoning DRM might have a short-term, publicity driven positive effect on sales but in the mid to long terms, sales would drop significantly. Consumers would simply not be motivated to buy what is freely available. - nephilimx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So without DRM, the average person who could give a crap less about buying music or even knowing what DRM is, would instantly want to buy mp3's and scene would explode? More like life would go on and itunes would continue its monopoly on mainstream music, and independent labels with online stores without DRM would continue with crap sales...
- thelimabeanking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why doesn't someone make an application that emulates the process of taking DRM tracks, burning them to disks, and then ripping them DRM free (and renaming them to the names of the originals) without using disks or taking up the time of the user?
FWIW, I know nothing about computers and programming. But it seems someone would have come up with this by now.- robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/23278
- Wasson101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google: qtfairuse6 ... this does essentially what you're talking about but does not decrease the quality as the The "Burn and Rip" method does
- frikk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because that is illegal.
Its weird. Making a device or software with intent to strip DRM is illegal.
Stripping DRM is not illegal...
So hence - a CD burner exists for a legal purpose with the side effect of stripping DRM. An application which strips DRM is unlawful by definition. Funny, eh?
- SystmBetatester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i dont think they woudl explode... no drm just means you dont have to rebuy the music... and anyone who cares about drm probably pirates it anyway... so i dont know why anyone cares...
- matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is the key quote: "EMI wouldn't have to worry about pirates, because anyone who wants to pirate music is already doing it. The paying customer is a different breed."
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is exactly right, and I don't understand why this is such a hard point to get. With everyone stealing music already anyway what do they have to loose in getting ANY money from sales instead of ZERO? It doesn't seem hard to make more than zero. If you open up the music you sell it's not like it gets "more stolen".
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You are missing a vital aspect of the equation: psychology. The fact that studios and retailers take measures to protect the music lends a moral value to the music which encourages *some* people (a significant percentage of those who are now buying DRM'd music) to "do the right thing" and buy the music legally. If the owners of the music do not take this step to protect their music, there is less moral weight to the act of "stealing" and many people who now buy DRM'd music will just shrug and start picking it up illegally.
That which no one protects will not be respected.
The paying customer is not *one* different breed, there are several breeds. A lack of DRM will tip some of those paying customers over the edge into piracy *because* the music is not being protected. This may not be intuitive but it is a predictable psychological effect. Some of those customers respect that which is protected in a way they would not respect something that is "open".
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is exactly right, and I don't understand why this is such a hard point to get. With everyone stealing music already anyway what do they have to loose in getting ANY money from sales instead of ZERO? It doesn't seem hard to make more than zero. If you open up the music you sell it's not like it gets "more stolen".
- infoshowzen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But wait - would Google catch hell for having AdSense on these DRM-less sites? Oh the humanity.
- poutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What i don't get about Apple is they're selling their own games with DRM, but they want the other company to drop it. They could at least give the example.
- warragul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I must have missed the memo... what games?
Perhaps you meant tunes? Apple has DRM on their tunes because without the DRM the record companies would not let them sell the music. - poutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Warragul: Apple also sell their games for the iPod and they come with the same DRM that Steve Jobs want major labels to drop. I can't see why it's OK for them to sell their own games with DRM, but it's not for other companies to sell music with it. They should at least drop them first.
- gabe69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What would you do with non-DRM games? Play them with your Zune? AAC tracks can be used in many devices if they are DRM-free, like cellphones, Zunes, computers without iTunes etc. iPod games can be used only on iPods, so unlocking them is only useful if you want to pirate them.
- warragul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I must have missed the memo... what games?
- zmigliozzi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1duh?
- origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No it wont. Music purchasing was down long before DRM . This is a myth!
- phytonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4128 kps and so what? A cheap speaker playing 320 kps is worse than a good speaker with 128 kps.
- hkrabye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I subscribed to eMusic (trial) but discovered that they don't offer enough music. I can find a lot of music there, but what about the main artists? Take a look at Jimi Hendrix, as just one example... - No, eMusic's is a proof that the RIAA and major labels are not going to license their music without DRM. And even with copy protection, take a look at Led Zeppelin. They still don't license their music to any online store. And Beatles? And...
- bluemonki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you don't support it how do you expect it to get any better?
- Muuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0all these are junk when you have oink.
I can find any album I want at 320 kps or greater. - udahlen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My guess is that music sales would increase (but not explode) if iTunes Store went DRM free. It certainly wouldn't decrease, a fact the music executives do not understand.
- foxhaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So would pirating, but whatever.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry, is there some effective anti-piracy aspect to DRM I haven't heard about? Is there a lack of "piracy" right now?
Lay off that guano you're smoking. :-D
I don't know if this is news to you, but DRM hasn't removed the ability to copy anything. People who don't pay for their content just live in a DRM-free world.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry, is there some effective anti-piracy aspect to DRM I haven't heard about? Is there a lack of "piracy" right now?
- Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Right, and Linux usage would explode if it had a native flash player.
Why? The average user is neither knowledgable nor cares much about DRM. - almightystoph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If anything is going to explode, it would be piracy.
- Hercules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If there's no DRM, and thus no overhead for that DRM.... the price of each song should be able to go down, right?
I'm thinking $.50 a song or something would be reasonable, or even a plan like eMusic has -- $15 a month and get 75 downloads. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks David, we knew that.
- goodnewsevery1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Average People don't know/care about DRM??
Guess you don't encounter average people with MP3 players very often. This song won't play!??! Why?? This song plays fine on my player but it won't work on my wifes/son/daughters player. What the heck??
DRM is of no consequence to the tech savy and people that want to pirate music are already doing it. Eliminating DRM will capture a large number of people who tried this music model and were dumbfounded with options and errors. Wouldn't it be grand to be able to buy any player from any manufacturer and the music just WORKS! - monkeeir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with goodnews. To add to the topic, manufacturers are also implementing DRM right onto the Cds, usually it is .wma format. This only affects the minority of CD buyers still around. I buy 1 or 2 CDs a week on average, and I would say 1 out every 10 is protected and I end up downloading the song "illegally", as most would refer to it as, anyway. That needs to be stopped. For the honest buyer of a CD to get home and not be able to do with it as he/she pleases, for said self, is asinine.
In addition to tha you have .wma DRM's, .mp4 DRM's, .mp3 DRM's... SO MANY DIFFERENT ONES. If it is to remain, which it probably always will, there needs to be a standard set that works on everything. Make it so that whenever the song, no matter what format, hits your computer it is registered to that computer and may be transferred to anything DIRECTLY and ONLY from said computer. By saying directly I mean something physically connected via USB, home network, etc. Is this possible to do? I have no idea, but something needs to change. -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by