What is Digg?74 Comments
- rupertmorris, on 12/03/2007, -3/+86As a music consumer, I'll never, NEVER buy DRMed music. High-bitrate MP3s or nothing. End of story.
That said, for MP3s I am spoiled for choice: Beatport.com, resonantvibes.com, 3beatdigital.com, trackitdown.net, djdownload.com, audiojelly.com, finetunes.net, kompakt-mp3.net, and countless others.
And that's just the small niche of music I listen to... you have far more choices than that! - ZigVicious, on 12/03/2007, -0/+38did you mean to type "The Irate Bay"?
- thcobbs, on 12/03/2007, -0/+36For the people who can't be pirates...
I know I'd be pissed. - andrew522, on 12/03/2007, -0/+29it should have been a pretty big message to the media companies once Wal-mart got into drm-free stuff.
they always know where the profit is... whether good or bad, but in this case, good. - sotopheavy, on 12/03/2007, -1/+30I don't prefer Pepsi, but I will buy it to stick it to Sony and other labels. Down with DRM.
- britishrob, on 12/03/2007, -0/+24You can't force a technology onto consumers - especially one that has no benefit to the user. DRM: FAIL!
- theuniversal, on 12/03/2007, -1/+24So working separately and independently toward the same end = unwittingly teaming up? It's kind of like saying that the individuals eating at a particular McDonald's are unwittingly going out for lunch together. Anyway, DRM sucks so I hope Wal-Mart and Amazon and anyone else that unwittingly joins them in their unwitting campaign succeed in getting rid of it.
- wioota, on 12/03/2007, -4/+25How is it 'unwittingly'?
- dcharti, on 12/03/2007, -6/+23Unwittingly *team up* against DRM. They're both making large efforts next year in the name of unhindered MP3 music downloads, but they're working separately.
- Woly000, on 12/03/2007, -1/+17The problem with DRM is the fragmentation in the industry fundamentally makes it broken: "Wal-Mart has actually sold digital music for years, though it's always been wrapped in Microsoft's PlaysForSure DRM which doesn't work on an iPod or even, ironically, Microsoft's own Zune"
Stuff like this forces you to pay 3 times the amount for an iPod over a generic MP3 player with more features such as voice recording and fm radio. - sotopheavy, on 12/03/2007, -12/+23theiratebay.org
- aaabatteries, on 12/03/2007, -4/+13I...don't even care anymore.
- astrotrain, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8With you one hundred percent... When I pay for music, I own it... I don't "Rent" my music as with folks who keep shelling money into iTunes music, yahoo music, etc. The quality of DRM music is horrible... and absurd for paying money for.
I keep preaching to them that they are only renting their music, and one day when they quit, their entire music collection will be just a pile of useless '1's and 0's due to iTunes left and took each and every license file for each and every song with it.
Thanks for the list rupermorris of DRM free sites!
And for people who still say 'blah' and purchasing drm music from itunes, etc.. consider this The Ghost of Future Music yet to come...and you'll find yourselves Scrooged when it comes down the line. - nospinhere, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9ARRRRRRRR SAAAAARRRRSSGAURD!!!!!
- unrealmp3, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Amazon not on DRM ? That is a bit contradictory to their Kindle reader..
- FireAtWill, on 12/03/2007, -4/+10They're doing what they do best: making as much money as possible.
Maybe this is the rare case where they actually do so and it benefits consumers. - eviltandem, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I think the music industry (at least the big companies we know) is over. There is no going back now. They made a big bet, and they're losing it all.
Think about it. What functions did they serve? They didn't produce music, they just labeled, packaged, and sold it for artists. This is what iTunes, Amazon, and Wal-Mart are doing now. There is no place for the studios anymore. They could have opened their own sites and ensured their place in the next century of music. Instead they resisted until others have already taken their place.
Nobody trusts them with anything anymore, so no amount of money can save them. It's all over but the fireworks. In the century to come BMG, Sony, etc... will be replaced by wal-mart, amazon, itunes, etc... - slicerace, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Unwitting:
1 : not knowing : UNAWARE
2 : not intended : INADVERTENT
----
Dcharti: So you're saying neither of them knows about the other one? Unwittingly doesn't mean to "work toward the same goal but not as a team" -- unwittingly doesn't mean what you think it does. - MoClippa, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Nice selection, I'll look into those. I personally use Bleep.com for the majority of my electronic and indie types since they offer music at 320kbps and FLAC.
I'd recommend Emusic, since I use it often, but the bitrate is too low to recommend to anyone serious about their music... on the other hand, its also drm free, and great for getting lots of music at a lower price.
On the other hand, I have purchased from Amazon and liked what I got. I would like to see the bitrate go up to 320kbps eventually... but its nice for now to see a major retailer bucking the itunes trend and shaking up Apples model a bit. As for Walmart, I never knew they had an mp3 service (because their online presence has been terrible) and I refuse to buy from them until they significantly change their non-mp3 retail practices and employee rights models, which ain't happening. - MacParrot, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3No matter who forces them to drop DRM (iTunes, Amazon, Walmart) it's good news for us. Use standard audio and video codecs that is available to everyone and is cross-platform and watch the money pour in. Drop DRM as it is a barrier for anyone wanting to jump on board.
As much as the content copyright holders complain about the so-called iPod and iTunes monopoly, they continuously fail to see the best way to really compete. Offer cross-platform/cross player solutions that every player and computer can use. Force Apple to actually compete on price and performance. Everyone wins.
Not every single buyer of DRM-free content is itching to put it up on TPB and those that do or download from it won't be buying it anyway. Stop penalizing your customers for the actions of a few. - blackmage439, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Up until today, I was entirely willing to sell my soul to iTunes. Besides, where else can you get a refurbished, 30GB MP3 player for $159.99? Nowhere that I know. Yet, after reading this article, I am entirely turned off to DRM, and an iPod (no radio tuner also makes me something something). I'm going to look at those DRM-free sites that were listed, especially Amazon. The one thing I'm confused about is with iTunes' "DRM-free" music. Is that content subject to iTunes' survival, just like the protected music? Or is that content truly "free?"
- maineman99, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4While the music industry appears intent on destroying itself, others who value what they produce (because it makes them money) may yet save their ass. It's ironic that Wal-Mart, a company that I loathe, would be the ones who get the music industry big-wigs to finally listen to their customers and give them want they want, and are willing to pay for.
- phronko, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Rare case?
Maybe I'm too young to have become completely cynical, but I would think that customers would spend the most money on things that benefit them. So treating customers right is the best way to make as much money as possible in more cases than not. - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3You know iPods play DRM free music too, right?
And the iTunes DRM free is completely free (not subject to iTunes' survival), you own the file. - solid12345, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5I have a product free of DRM. It is called a CD, and I can rip it to whatever bitrate I like and have a backup to boot!
- InfamousAtheist, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Wal-Mart also has a long history of beating the hell out their (retail) vendors for cheaper products that meet Wal-Mart's own standards. I used to sell Wal-Mart software and one of their people once told me that all the big retail vendors (Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson, etc.) were required to maintain an office in NW Arkansas near Wal-Mart HQ with a mocked-up store aisle display. They also push their vendors hard to reduce production costs, or take on more value-add costs themselves which has led to more and more overseas manufacturing (lead-free toys, anyone?), smaller profit margins higher costs for the vendors, and greatly reduced costs for Wal-Mart. WM has become so pervasive that most of their vendors *have* to cater to their demands just to stay in business. How much volume would a few of the major vendors lose if WM suddenly dropped their product lines?
Wal-Mart single-handedly revolutionized the retailer/supplier relationship, ultimately helping both sides become more efficient and profitable. The music labels should indeed pay attention.
Some info about Wal-Mart and vendors:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n23 ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walm ...
I am no fan of Wal-Mart and still refuse to shop there, but if turning their (IMO bully-like) business practices against RIAA and MPAA members helps us get rid of DRM, more power to them. - RajAtWork, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2my friend told me that Amazon employees were given "Dont Restrict Me" tshirts at the last company meeting. "Unwittingly" indeed.
- diggdat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Nice analogy, well said.
- fakeollie, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Seriously now, ignore the silly "3 times the amount" part of those previous comments. Still, think about it... DRM technologies don't just spontaneously appear on devices, software and files. They have to be designed, developed, tested and implemented (embedded). Furthermore, they have to be continuously maintained and checked to patch the eventual cracks. There is a considerable cost attached to that.
And don't ever forget too that when it's in action (that is: disrupting or blocking your access to some media functionality), you've got hardware resources (also cost), such as memory, cpu cycles, battery charge on your device/computer, being spent to achieve DRM goals.
Now, who do you think pays for all that? - insllvn, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3The team up is inadvertent, in that they both, separately, came to the conclusion that they could make more money selling DRM free. Out of curiosity, did you read your copied and pasted definition?
- eviltandem, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Uh... isn't that what music labels do? Why is Sony Music more capable of this than, say, amazon? Why would an artist want extra people in the middle? Just in case they make too much money, they have someone else siphoning cash?
There's also no barrier to entry anymore. If you're an artist and want to try to sell your music, you can basically record your own, and there is no high cost to entry (no more expensive promotional material to physically produce, no cd's, no warehouses, no shipping to stores nation wide, etc...).
In other words I don't think the future of music will look like it does under the studios. Amazon won't have to go shopping for new talent, new talent will contact them wanting to sell their music on the Amazon site. Adding a new album would cost them little to nothing, and if nobody buys any, then no real resources get wasted (that 50mb-100mb of space on the servers can be freed right back up). We won't have music execs deciding for us what we might and might not like. Music sites will sell everything that comes their way, and popular stuff will be what we like the best. Not what we like the best from the small subset of albums that were selected to be produced that year.
There just isn't a barrier to entry in the market anymore, which was how the studio's "helped" the artists. Now you "help" artists by providing a virtual store front for people to browse music catalogs. It's what the studios should have done to remain relevant. - davidrools, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2unwittingly implies that they're ignorant of the situation, or that it's not a good idea. it may be correct according to the definition, but native english speakers are aware of the connotation that "unwittingly" carries in the way it's often used. I think "unknowingly" would be more fitting.
- badassninja, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2DRM and the state of things only drives people to pirate music. No one wants to get charged full price and get F'ed over at the same time. I for one refuse to rent music for 99 cents a track.
- superkendall, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I buy TV shows from iTunes, because the degree to which I care if I lose access is very low and it can be cheaper than cable subscriptions if the number of shows you follow does not exceed a certain amount (remember a weekly show is just $8/month, a bargain compared to $90-$120 cable bills).
But I agree with you that anything I really cared to keep, I wouldn't buy DRM... so some movies, I wouldn't buy on iTunes even if they were HD. But if the price is low enough to consider it as a rental, that I might do... I think Live has a prety good pricing scheme in that regard. - Hydraulix, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4So, this means that the Amazon Kindle is going to be DRM free? Or, did they just jump on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it?
- IllBeBack, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1No, he means $.00.
- insllvn, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Ah but it also means things that you don't know that it does, or something...
- grafenberg, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Hell, wouldn't doing away with all music sources put the RIAA out of business?
It almost sounds worth it.... - Matt2k, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1What are you talking about production and distribution costs for? I'm talking about each retailer negotiating licensing contracts with ten thousand artists. ARE WE DISCUSSING THE SAME THING?
- RyeBrye, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1your professor was an ass-hat for requiring a book and then not waiting for it to get in stock. He should have just photocopied relevant sections while the bookstore waited to get them in - rather than force you all to spend $40 on an electronic download.
- RyeBrye, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2CD's are only losless when you compare them to CD's - which are the reference standard. Most artists record their music at at least 96 Khz and sometimes 32 bit stereo - so when they master it to a CD and cut it down to 44Khz and 16-bit stereo there is indeed a loss...
CD's are probably the last good DRM-free format, I will agree - zweben, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Also, keep in mind that DRMed iTunes songs would not necessarily stop working as soon as iTunes was gone, or phased out, or whatever. Apple has several options at that point. They could, as you said, just disable the songs. I find this quite unlikely though, simply due to the backlash they would face from the millions of people who had purchased iTunes songs. Also, I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to keep their authorization server running.
What I find more likely is that they would either leave the iTunes DRM server running as long as Apple is in business, or they could release an update to either remove the DRM from the songs or apply less limiting DRM that would not require Apple to maintain a central authorization server. - LukaszH, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1http://shoppromotions.us
- insllvn, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Didn't we already decide George Bush killed JFK? I am just saying...
- RyeBrye, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1If you can find a file 10 years later, regardless of the format, you have a much better filing system than me.
But yes, DRM sucks. - zweben, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1"Is that content subject to iTunes' survival, just like the protected music? Or is that content truly free?'"
They're 'truly free' as you say. They're just regular AAC files, which you can use with any device that can play AAC as long as you want, and which you can convert (with quality loss) to any other format. - Scheissen, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Amazon's selling of $0.99 forced Apple to lower their DRM-free prices to the same level instead of attaching 30 more cents.
- nickymouse, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1As in good price you mean $.01
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Every cd that walmart sells is edited, will they edit the mp3z as well? Thats why i never bought music from walmart ever
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is