What is Digg?254 Comments
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+80i think you read the question wrong
- ybnormalman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+77@ hchaudh1 - RTFA. They're asking if you'd pay for an UNrestricted download, i.e. without any DRM. Your response sounds like someone asking me if I'd like an orange and I say "no, i'm allergic to pizza."
- willemmulder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+61Is it just me or do others also not get the point of this comment?
(not ment to be rude, but I just don't get what you mean...) - usbserial, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56While he worded it a little wrong, his example makes sense:
They introduce bad water into the supply for standard price (DRM)
and then offer good clean water for more money (standard, non-DRM)
Get it? - JosephTHogan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46I don't know quite what you're trying to say... If the demand for non-DRM is high (shown by people willing to pay more for it) then you should support Yahoo if you don't like DRM. This would be one of the better ways to do away with such copy protection. If it catches on, the companies will compete with non-DRM at lower prices right back down to 99 cents.
- JoeyDeacon, on 11/13/2007, -10/+52Why would I want to pay $0.99 for a song when I can torrent it for $0?
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -19/+53"Would you consider paying $1.09 for a single, unrestricted MP3 download that would have absolutely no limitations on its use and could be transferred to any portable audio player?"
Maybe if they were FLAC or another lossless codec, and not an MP3. - weaszel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3599 cents is still way too much for a single song file.
- MuddyPitch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37Why would I want to pay Yahoo! $1.09 when I can get non-DRM music through Songbird for $.99
- gcnaddict, on 11/13/2007, -8/+35Why would I want to pay $0.99 for a song off of Songbird when I can pay pennies for a song off of allofmp3.com?
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31I would pay:
$1 per track for flac
$.50 unencumbered 192 kbps mp3 or equivalent ogg
pirate anything else - duest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I'll offer you an even better deal... $0.50 will get you one free chance to kick an RIAA exec in the crotch. Any takers?
- DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32I haven't used allofmp3.com in a while - did we ever decide if they were legal?
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23>People just don't want to pay market price for music.
Ummm.. then it isn't market price - robelanator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Exactly. I picked up most of my CD's for under $10 on Amazon. Assuming 10 tracks, that's the same price as iTunes except I have a high quality physical back-up, better sound, no DRM, and whatever comes with the case art (lyric sheets, full production credits, etc.). There is also still some resale value in CDs, even if it is only a couple bucks per.
True, I have to rip the CDs myself, but that also means I get to choose what format I put it. - electrichead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23What's the bitrate on these commercial MP3s anyways. If you think about it, you pay about $15 for a CD with maybe 10 tracks. That's about $1.50 on average for one track that is pretty much lossless. Is it worth $1 for a lossy DRM protected MP3? Personally, I wouldn't pay that much. I would definitely pay $1 for an .ogg or something like that.
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+33@all who say I did not RTFA
Yes they are asking if we would pay for non DRM content. But my point is why 1.09, and why not 99c. 99c being the most common price for a song these days. Why should we have to pay more for a clean copy of something that we already paid for. I said, I would not pay more for a non DRM song. However, I am ready to buy a DRM song if I have to pay less for it.
Maybe I still don't get the article, but that's how I interpreted it. - buss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Also, if an album with say 12 songs were sold for $5.00 in flac, I would actually buy music again.
- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@JoeyDeacon, "Why would I want to pay $0.99 for a song when I can torrent it for $0?"
Because you like the artist and you want the artist to produce more songs.
Bottom line :: you should want companies/people to be able to make money if they are providing you a good or service ... otherwise you loose future goods/services from this company/person.
This is more true when dealing with IP because not everyone can sing/dance/program as well as the best. - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Disregarding competition and actual prices... Would you be willing to spend 10% more for DRM free music (same quality, same compression, etc...)
HELL YES I AM. And I won' t buy music any other way (CDs or DRM'ed). - IAmAI, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I didn't understand what hchaudh1 meant until usbserial pointed it out, and I agree with him, although it wasn't well put, to be honest. DRM is something that should never have had a chance rear its ugly head and despite the fact I may have to pay slightly more for DRM free music (although the article suggests we may not have to, and we shouldn't, if they want to compete with existing DRMed music market), I see it as the only way of getting rid of this DRM trend. Ever since learning about the implications of DRM, I have vowed never to by a product with DRM; in fact, I have (although not by any stern in tension) bought practically no music. However, should say Yahoo release a DRM free music service with a range of music to my taste, I may very well purchase music from there as a means of fighting DRM. I believe this fight is very important because not only does it restrict our usage of music, it is also set to threaten the use of our computers and our rights to freedom and privacy.
- spengy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14That's because it's overpriced.
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13NO IT DIDN'T. The DMCA made it illegal to copy DVDs as they are encrypted. Breaking any DRM/Encryption method is illegal under DMCA. You are still legally allowed to make a backup copy of your CD as you can just copy the bits without breaking any protection methods. (keep away from Sony root-kits though ;)
- spengy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15$1.09 is ridiculous.
If we are going to be paying prices nearly on par with the price for CDs (15 songs @ $1 = ~1 CD) then those songs had better be in FLAC or another lossless format and have no DRM restrictions.
I applaud them for offering songs without DRM, but paying $1.09 for a single song in a lossy format is still unacceptable. - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I would use Yahoo's DRM free MP3's only if it was as easy to use and update songs as iTunes has done.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14the description says 99 dollars cents.
- djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14How about you try going to work for a week and not get paid for it?
- HobbesDoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Dudes, they selling NON DRDed MP3s. It appears nobody noticed this important fact from the comments above.
- vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yeah, but the problem for the music industry is that their DRM is used against them. The music player with the biggest market penetration is the iPod. This means that any music download service better has to support the iPod if it wants to be popular. The iPod only supports the Fairplay DRM scheme, and only iTunes music store sells Fairplay DRMed songs. Hence, only iTMS could be popular in selling DRMed songs.
RIAA thought they had their customers by their balls thanks to this DRM, but in reality Apple has RIAA by their balls. When Steve says '1 fixed price for all songs', they can only say 'Yes Steve'. Isn't life ironic? :)
The only chance RIAA has for breaking this power of Apple is allowing music download stores that sell non-DRM MP3s (or plain AACs). It has to be compatible with the iPod, or it won't succeed.
I wonder what the RIAA will do.. Keep the DRM and give Apple all the power, or give up the DRM and break Apples power. - Vorcht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13To me, it's not $1.50 a track.... Most CD's only have a couple of songs I like, 3 at best. That makes each 'usable' track $5 a shot at $15/cd, just over $3 if I get the CD for $10. For my money, downloaded tracks are the only way to go. Would I pay $1.09 for an unprotected track which I can keep forever and do anything with? Absolutely. Me->.02
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'd pay for songs off of allofmp3.com because I can;t find most songs in FLAC anymore.
- dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Stop digging hchaudh1's comments down. He's made the best point of this the whole discussion.
Read usbserial's comment for clarification on the original post. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Or $99, like the summary says...
- cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@MuddyPitch: "Why would I want to pay Yahoo! $1.09 when I can get non-DRM music through Songbird for $.99"
Q: Is Songbird done yet? Do they have a good selection?
@gcnaddict: "Why would I want to pay $0.99 for a song off of Songbird when I can pay pennies for a song off of allofmp3.com?"
Q: Why would you pay for someone to steal music for you via AllOfMp3, when you can steal it for free via torrent?
@JoeyDeacon: "Why would I want to pay $0.99 for a song when I can torrent it for $0?"
A: Not everyone wants to be a thief. - frogpelt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Why would I pay any of these services when I can simply wait 'til the dude down the street buys the CD I want and then steal from him?
- celcho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15cd's are lossless. there is no compression at all. it's just a straight-up pcm digital stream pressed onto a piece of foil.
- rockintom99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9gcnaddict: Yes. It is homosexual to steal a cd. That totally makes sense!
...Jackass. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'm not real certain how they would get away with this since it is the RIAA who enforces the DRM on music downloads. They will either have crappy selection or will only last as long as the RIAA lawyers are busy elsewhere.
And yes, $.99 and $1.09 are too expensive for a single song, but, once again, look to the RIAA for a reason why. - obijohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Cerebral:
No, the DMCA did NOT make it illegal to rip CDs. It only makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, which (most) CDs don't have. The CDs that do have some form of copy protection usually don't conform to the Redbook standard anyway and therefore technically shouldn't even be displaying the CD logo. - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Don't forget that you get instant gratification when using a download service. Buying the CD means waiting for it to be delivered, or going to a store, spend half an hour searching your cd, spend fifteen minutes in line to actually buy it, and drive back.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Non-DRM is good.
However, this is still too expensive for songs. If they want to compete with free, they need to offer MORE to the downloading consumer for LESS money. They need to ENCOURAGE portability among formats. Maybe downloading an album nets you a free music video as well. Detailed PDFs of album art and lyrics.
Unfortunately, this mentality is far off in the future. They're not trying to compete with free, they're just trying to eliminate free. As the teetotalers found out in the 20's, try to limit something people really want and they'll continue finding ways around it. - usbserial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I always thought $1 for a song is total bull.
You pay about $1.25 per song for a $15, 12+ song CD-- which is something they must actually produce and distrubute.
or
You pay $1 per song for data which they send at virtually no cost to themselves.
How much of this money goes to the actual artists? If it only costs 25 cents more to physically distribute a song over sending the data through a network, I'd expect the artist to be getting at least 75 cents a song. I really doubt they do. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If DRM can be broken, and it usually can, rather easily, then why bother using it in the first place?"
The RIAA forces groups to use it because they think it works. In their logic, if we are all law-abiding citizens that we'd never try to break the DRM. - halik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+81.09 is more or less acceptable if the song comes with a decent bit rate. I wish RIAA would wake up and notice the allofmp3.com model - 3 bucks for an album is cheap enough that I'm not gonna waste my time looking for a pirated copy online.
- dsample, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think the point people are trying to make is that the DRMed AND Non-DRMed files shouldn't be that expensive. Personally, I just don't buy DRMed files, so having an option for Non-DRMed files is always good, but that doesn't change the fact that the price is too high.
I see them as two different products... Just because the DRMed files are 99p (in the UK iTunes, which is about $1.75), that doesn't make it right to be able to charge more for a different product.
If it was a choice between £5 an album DRMed and £5.50 Non-DRMed that could possibly work, but I still think they should be the same price, or even less, since the companies don't have to pay the license fees to license/make the DRM algorithm in the first place. - barnett25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, there's a good chance that those music files will not still be accessable in 5 years. Since we are getting only a digital copy (no physical media) it is subject to viruses, hardware failures, etc.
Of course regular backups would help lower this risk, but for the average person that is alot to ask.
Because there is no physical media, the price should be lower (the value is lower after all). - auhsor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If I am investing money on music that I want to enjoy in the future, I would not buy it with DRM. It's as simple as that.
- sparrowkc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The ONLY reason I have ever hesitated to download a song off of itunes is DRM.
I realize that I can pirate a song, or destroy the DRM on a legally downloaded one.
It would be easier to just buy it DRM free, I would sleep better at night, and I would have no chance of getting sued. - Bevilacq12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't understand why people are so uppety about paying reasonable money for things they get satisfaction from. For some the songs/albums in my collection, I'd pay large amounts of money if I had to - there are songs that have enriched my life far past $0.99, far past really putting a monetary value on them. I know people who listen to music constantly, can't shut up about it, and carry their CD binder with them everywhere - but the CD binder is filled with burned discs. If it's that important to you and has made your life so much better, why is it so difficult to give back to the artists who created it? I'm not saying buy 100 CDs a year, but I have an extremely hard time respecting someone who loves music but can count the number of albums they legitimately own on one hand. Things all have a value - market value may not line up with what you value them at personally, but you need to give in order to get. It's not a capitalist thing, it's a basic fact of life.
It's really a disgusting societal trend. Software, games, movies, music - it's all the same. I have a friend that loves PC games - he doesn't talk about it constantly, but he plays all the big games that come out each year and has a good time doing so. Yet he hasn't paid for a single one. He doesn't consider gaming "legitimate." In his opinion, it's not a high art form such as sculpture or paint or music, and as such it isn't worthy of any of his hard-earned money. Yet he has no problem spending 20 hours over the course of a weekend and beating Half-Life 2. Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify your own actions I guess... - djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Is there a unit of measurement to illustrate how far and wide you've missed the point of the article? I'm thinking 'light year' might be close.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 254 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is