What is Digg?30 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33DRM was never alive.
- neithernet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30DRM may be dead, but its corpse is still thrashing around in Windows and iPods.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26It's more like some disgusting zombie that wants only to suck the very life itself from your bones.
- systmcrash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I'm glad that this world is finally starting to move away from big companies dictating to us consumers what we want and how much we want to pay for it.
Funny how we all know what's coming yet big companies like Sony cant pull there heads out of there own asses long enough to see what we see.
They have all the billions of dollars they've made off our backs for years and still cant be bright enough to see where they should be investing all that capital.
No wonder Sony is going down the drain. I for one am not going to support them by buying there music or the next gen PS/3.
And i hope lots will follow suit it'll send a clear message to Sony. We didn't enjoy the root-kit/drm *****. - FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Could you explain why?
- dougbdl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I am done with Sony. All their AV crap I have bought was not worth the Sony premium.
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8i can Digg it, Jenner does have a great perspective...
- Kingster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9While I'm digging this for Jenner (the man *is* a genius)... Isn't this something that most of us already knew? Maybe not with the industry insight that Jenner has, but certainly with the technologically intelligent of us...
- kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If he wants to create a pool of money from which artists, regardless of whether or not their music is from a label, will be able to draw based on how many downloads they have, then maybe that just might be ok. Unfortunately, even that method has horrible flaws: who keeps track of downloads? In the end volume has to win. We need a service that lets us download a song in whatever format we want for about 50 cents without DRM. Sound arbitrary? So is a dollar, which, incidentally, doesn't result in more money to the artist, but actually less than if a CD was sold. Why? I'd say it's because the labels don't want artists to embrace the internet. That is too close to having the artist directly distribute, which means that all the fat cats lose their toys. In the end people will always be able to pirate a companies materials so if piracy really truly is the issue (which it isn't I don't believe), then they simply need to lower the price a bit, remove DRM, and watch the volume of sales increase. Why will they increase? Because people are lazy and if getting something worthwhile is easier than pirating it, then that's the route people will take.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't agree with this fellow. First he says that paying per track doesn't make sense because people want to "explore" music. Music has cost money per track as long as he has been alive. It isn't like DRM invented charging for music.
I have every album The Crystal Method ever did. But if a new one comes out, they don't send it to me for free, I have to pay for it, just like the last ones.
Then he says renting music (subscriptions) is the way. Well, perhaps in the short term, yes. Young people listen to a lot of music, and replace it often. Rapid replacement combined with a small income to start with means they can't really afford to buy all the music they listen to. But older people listen to a lot less music (esp. new music). A person at my age would be throwing money away paying for a subscription.
I just don't really agree with his model.
I also don't agree with streaming in general. People do want to listen to music in the car or while jogging, and you can't stream music to those places reliably, you have to have it on the unit with you.
I do like streaming, I think that radio (esp. internet radio) can provide a great service introducing people to music. Even though I can fit 60GB of music on my iPod and thus never get bored of it on shuffle, I never hear anything new either. A good radio (or similar service) could play 90% of what you already have and like and 10% new stuff that you might like. Ideally, they'd give you a way if buying that new stuff if you like it.
Finally, the interviewer talking about his vinyl is weird. Cueing up records isn't my idea of fun. Is he just saying he plays an album at a time? What's what have to do with anything? Like an iPod can't do that?
I do agree with blanket licensing for digital, including a mandatory availability of non-DRMed content (perhaps at a higher price). Otherwise the labels play crazy shenanigans with pricing, jacking up certain songs and lowering others in ways that maximize their profit, but annoy the consumer (think airline ticket pricing).
I actually had the same idea as his "labels should outsource everything" many years ago. I call it "a la carte" services. When an artist contracts with a label, the artist pays the label such a huge percentage of the take because the label is actually providing a ton of services. The label finances making the record with up-front money. The label will often retain engineers and producers to make sure the record comes out well. The label provides some basic level of artist managment (mostly to ensure their value in the artist is preserved). The label dupes the recording and arranges distribution. Then the provide some PR or even advertising. They also (often illegally) work to get the record on radio.
The problem is, all artists don't need all these things. A new Paul McCartney album doesn't need as much plugging as an album from a new band. He doesn't need a producer.
Artists should be able to pick and choose the services they want. If they think the label is too expensive for services, they should be able to bring in other parties. The label also may want to pay for certain services out of their end to maximize their return.
In essence, the artist and label should negotiate a revenue split and a few basic guaranteed things that help ensure there will be a product to sell and of a tolerable quality. Then the other services should be a la carte.
Anyway, I get off track.
I don't see his idea that DRM is dead. I don't like DRM, but DRM is considered an enabler for all these different modes of charging that don't involve mechanical replication and delivery. We're stuck with DRM for now. - arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If Bush were serious about the 'War on Terrorism,' he'd have gone after the record lables by now.
I really don't feel iTune's $.99/song or Wal-Mart's $.88/song are bad prices - Especially considering they allow me to purchase music a la carte. I'd just like to see 80% (or more) of that price go to the artist, and not to support terrorism of consumers by the RIAA.
As for Sony, beyond purchasing the Playstation 2 that I'm still lacking, I don't plan to buy another product from them again in my lifetime, let alone music. Sony's been in a downward-spiral since the mid-90's - They treat their vendors AND consumers like garbage, and their products are over-priced for sub-par quality; often just catch-up technologies where Sony has seen a feasible market and jumped on the bandwagon to get themselves a slice of the pie. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I should specify, DRM would be unnecessary, EXCEPT in the case of Renter and Friend licensees... as long as they allow sufficient access to be enjoyed.
- XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Trust me, we won't be paying a music industry POLL TAX like this story suggests. DRM is dying fast. The premium content providers need to pay for their own distribution and product protection. All other content can then be open and free.
- jbond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11) this reminds me of the war against Spam. A Music poll tax is never going to work until it's universal and global. And there's zero chance of that.
2) I wish Orlowski had asked his opinion of AllOfMp3. Not about whether it's legal or not, but about whether he thinks there's a market for non-DRM music in your choice of encoding charged by the Mb at 5c-20c per track for typical encoding. I firmly believe that a download service can be profitable that competes with free. It's just not iTMS.
3) Jenner is clearly an insider fat cat. Just reading his description of the money flow and points for all the intermediaries was mind boggling. And he spoke as if that structure was inevitable and permanent. Reality is that most of the traditional music intermediaries are going get frozen out, not just the big labels. - kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh an all of this "renting" music BS is the equivalent. Either way we end up paying them way, way too much money.
- psilanthropist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a few weeks back, there was an article that said "the cd is dead" and now someone comes along and says "drm is dead".
make up your ***** minds! - kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Piracy isn't the issue because what the labels want is a DRM scheme that forces us to buy music over and over like we did with records, cassettes, and cds. This is what they are gaming for without a doubt. They realize that consumers are lazy and if the DRM scheme makes it "hard" to upgrade to the newest player, then we will repurchase.
- ginrummy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pink Floyd's former manager? Dugg. :D
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not just DRM and licensing that's in for a change, it's the entire structure of copyright protection. In this digital age, in order to enjoy it, content must be copied all over the place, from your hard disk, to your RAM, to your router and over the net to other computers and routers, ad infinitum. In the traditional sense of copyright, none of this copying would be allowed, but with the way digital processes work, it cannot be avoided. Inevitably, you get copies without any restrictions being stored and shared by people in an uncontrolled manner, since the demand is clearly there for unrestricted access.
What needs to happen is that we need to shift the focus from the right to copy (since mass-copying is unavoidable in a digital distribution system) to the right to *access* the content. When and artist creates a work for sale, (s)he gets the benefit of accessright protection, which guarantees them income based on who gets access to the content, and the extent of that access.
Levels of access could be in several tiers; Renters, who license access for a fixed time period; Owners, who license access indefinitely at a given sampling resolution (determines the quality of the recording in the case of audio or video content), and can designate a Friend licensee, who can access the content in a restricted form while they are listed as the Friend for that piece of content; and there are the Redistributors, who will pay a per-sale fee for any content redistributed. Optionally, they might designate a Remixer licensee, who, for a smaller per-sale fee, can incorporate the work into the Remixer's own.
The accessright-holder would have to register with a centralized open, global, NGO database (hopefully one that has safeguards in place to ensure privacy), and any content distributor would have to comply with this database, registering any licensees, and forwarding the licensing fees to the appropriate accessright holder.
At this point, DRM is unnecessary. It only makes sense to watermark the content with information identifying the licensee, and control distributors to comply with this system. It might not be the free ride some were hoping for, but it's the only system I see that could have a shot at working in this digital distribution age. - DrNoDoze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Has anyone thought about the implications of the bluray/hddvd on piracy? What if the same guys who are selling bootleg DVDs started selling the entire catalog of like 30 artists on one disc? "10 bucks man, 10 bucks. the top 30 hip hop artists of all time. Everything they ever made, one disc."
- SaxxonPike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They'd be losing money on the media. $10 for bluray... haha
- millernj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We're not stuck with it:
" Mike Smith, managing director of Columbia Records UK, predicted that the rights management regime would be gone within a year. "
- http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1940295,00.html
DRM: Going, going ... gone! - ullimike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Finally! The suits will lose in the end...they don't know their ass from their head when it comes to music anyway...the power will go back to the musician...hopefully sooner than later because Top 40 Music Sucks!
- millernj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Digg parent down.
If you RTFA, you'll discover that this isn't a compulsory tax at all. You can opt out. If you want to use broadband for surfing and using iTunes Store, you won't pay a penny.
But for the rest of us who want to share music, $3 a month legalizes P2P file swapping. Most ISPs will absorb the fee because it's good business; and greater volumes drive up subscriptions. So most people won't see any price hike at all.
Your comment shows that you don't really trust the free market to deliver. - chucker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Orlowski. 'nuff said.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Well that was an impressively inaccurate read.
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4edit: mod the ***** down please thanks.
- ElectricKid, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1read the first page + a-half & closed the window. Keep the F#'s down, you boorish pig. undigg
- Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Amen! I quit reading it when they hired that nut job Orlowski.
- WarPirate, on 10/12/2007, -28/+3The Register?? Are you kidding? Undigg
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is