Whither DRM?

[greatbear]

Finally.

It appears that Apple will be selling all music through the iTunes store without DRM. It's about freakin' time. While the FairPlay DRM scheme used by Apple was one of the more flexible out there as far as restrictions and the ability to use your music on a number of computers and iPods, it was still not without it's problems. Those who failed to make proper backups or lost their original accounts by some means would have no access to their music (except through a one-time re-download from Apple), and could not use software/hardware not provided by Apple to play the songs they bought. Now people will be able to use the music they buy however they see fit.

Of course, there's bound to be an HUGE increase in piracy, right? Riiiight.

There will be, of course, a fair amount of 'sharing' going on. But it will be no different than what's going on currently, and that is no different than the countless millions of cassette dubs and what-have-you that had been going on for years prior to the 'net.

To be able to use however they see fit with their purchases is ultimately what consumers want. It's starting to happen, albeit slowly.

Comments

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind, while there is no DRM in the itunes downloads, there *is* personal information embedded in the file, which is meant as a deterrent to file sharing.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

True. But the main thing is the freedom to use the files in any sort of player, and 'sharing' can be limited to a few trusted friends rather than the internet as a whole. That sort of sharing builds interest in music and can actually help sales. Those who want to traffic in illegal file sharing will always find a way to do that, and will use methods to strip ID info and DRM off of files when doing so. The flexibility in having non-DRM music is added value for just about everyone, even if they have one computer and a single iPod.

I am curious what will happen if someone has, for example, a thumb drive filled with music (I do this constantly, btw) and loses it. If the finder happens to upload it to s file sharing site or service and the RIAA goons track it down, what would the outcome be? It's going to be an interesting ride, that's for sure.

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally agree. I am 100% very pleased with the new ITMS offerings. I also don't mind paying 1.29 for a track, as I am getting *twice* the bitrate (256kbit vs the old 128), and it's still AAC, which means its quality is better, bit for bit than an MP3.

All 'round win.

Sucks however, for the folk who purchased a lot of DRM'd tunes, who now face upgrade charges (should they want to). The upgrade process is "all or nothing", although it's been rumoured that you could "hide" the ones you didn't want (erase them from iTunes), and that would only update the ones visible.

Also, the RIAA has said they have stopped going after the individual file sharer. Of course, this now means more pressure on the ISPs, which is a whole new can of worms. Good times.

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

Agreed. The scale at which copying/sharing occurs now is several orders of magnitude greater than the tape dubbing years. To the point that trying to make a comparison between the two can't really be made.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

I'm all for the DRM free era. Part of the large problem I've seen is the lack of decent music to WANT to pay for it, but that said, there has always been the component of the population that simply wants everything ideally for free but the whole argument from the RIAA has been going on for over 40 years and yet, piracy has still managed to happen, but the rock stars have always managed to find a way to make money, that is if they are any good but the real crux of the matter is that so many wannabe bands just suck and the music industry exploits them to make a quick buck, plain and simple to a large degree.

Look at the LP, back in the 50's and 60's, before the advent of the concept album, producers often cobbled music together that a particular band would record, and spit out an album and there'd be one, perhaps 2 decent tracks, let alone hits. the Fireball's 1963 LP, Sugar Shack sucked for much of the music that they recorded was lack luster except for Sugar Shack, the only hit they had that year, then faded from the limelight before storming up the charts with one more hit, Bottle of Wine in 1968 and yet, in between they didn't chart due to crappy songs they wre offered to record and this was quite common amongst many labels and continues to this day. Britney Spears never was talented, just some wannabe in my book that some producer made into a star. And this is largely true of most popular acts, which included pop, rock, hip hop, soul and to a lesser extent R&B, the rest of the genres, didn't get this as much and unfortunately, it's I think a common thought that rock, pop are disposable, even more now than when it first began.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

I should have quantified my statement. It is the same, but far easier and cheaper. But the same is true in the acquisition of music. iTunes and other services make buying tunes an instant gratification bliss right from the comforts of home. But there are also a lot of other factors at play in the decline of music sales. The big one is the economy. A lot of people are cutting back on spending, and things such as music are at the top of the list to cut. The decline of the CD has come about not just from piracy and legal downloads, but a big factor is the unwitting return of the 'single'. People have the option of legally (and illegally) obtaining the one track they like from the CD, leaving the rest. The emergence of the net has raised awareness of the actual value of music and how that is set by the industry. People wonder why the same money is essentially charged on a per-track basis for an album download and the physical product. That sort of thing leads to the dissolution of the perceived value of music. It also has allowed artists to connect directly with fans, and music is legitimately given away every day. Movies are often sold for less than the price of a CD, and a movie is almost always a far bigger initial investment than a music recording. Give the public an ever-present view of the disparate value of music and the overall perceived value will drop. The antics of the RIAA and some artists (Metallica a prime example) going ballistic on the fans create a backlash as well and a sense of anarchy. It's also tough to set a price (much less an actual value) to something ethereal as a 'file' and not a physical product. By finally giving people what they want, which is music sold at a fair price without some corporation dictating what they can do after the sale will help to increase sales of digital music. People are finding out that having lots of music without having a big rack of CDs is rather liberating. I'm old school, and like having the actual physical media and all it comes with. That is true interactivity. People craving that sort of interactivity are driving vinyl sales, which are increasing quite a bit lately too.

Music is priceless. Assigning it an actual value in the face of new technology has always been an issue. Even when Edison started spinning wax under the lights in his lab.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

See the reply I gave to Bruce. The comparison can be made, but it has to allow for the difference in technology. How people use that technology is the root of the conundrum.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of artists who initially refused (and some continue to refuse) to sell their music in anything but a full album format. In the case of concept albums, picking out a track or two often defeats the purpose behind the whole work. In the case of a lot of pop music, people are fed up with paying anywhere from 10-20 bucks for a CD just to get one or two songs, then finding out the rest of the CD pretty much sucks. Pop 'aficionados' of today find it much easier to simply buy the track they like. This nets the label less than a buck, of course, in most cases. What has basically happened with the advent of the 'net is that the music scene is more like the 50s, with the single being king.

The industry itself is to be credited for making music mere commodity status these days. Look at the way music is used now in advertising and how pop radio beats the death out of a short list of current tunes. People who are willing to explore music will find lots of gems, and exploring often involves sharing of CDs, tapes and , yes, files. I am one of those who buys lots of obscure and independent label music because I find it to be of more value. The big labels lose here, and report losses which hit the news that everyone sees.

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

Well, frankly - I haven't heard any new artists I liked since the early '90s. The only music I've been buying is either new work by established artists, or back catalogue material. Add the ridiculous attitudes of the major music companies and the RIAA that makes me even less willing to spend money on their product and encourage them to continue acting like petulant brats.

It all results in me not being terribly surprised that their sales are falling - I can't imagine being the only one who thinks that an incredible proportion of what comes out of the record companies isn't worth the polycarbonate it's pressed on.

I have to wonder if companies like CD Baby - where they're upfront about how much they take out of each CD for production costs and let the artists set their own prices - are doing better relatively speaking because people don't feel that they're being taken advantage of in the way the "majors" do.

[nyrimmer.livejournal.com]

Corporate Amerika fucks us daily so I have no problem with people fucking them ! When they start acting responsible and stop sending our jobs to fucking China and every other slave labor country they might have a valid argument but until that day arrives we should all do our best to screw them any way we can . Sharing music files is a good way to start fighting back!

[cpj.livejournal.com]

I'm glad all of the record labels finally relented. It'll increase their revenue stream, and it'll improve the dominance of the AAC/MP4 format.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Indeed and that's part of what I was trying to get at, at least amongst the mainstream players.

If you look at my collection, it's a motley assortment of vintage stuff, jazz, rock, classic rock, southern rock, what I call the underground (Frank Zappa, Velvet Underground, Capt Beefheart et-al) and in more recent years, techno etc although I've not bought any thing major in the way of music in most forms in what, 2-3 years, outside of replacing some poor copies of stuff via the 'net for mix CD's.

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

Oh, I've avoid the iTMS.

Amazon's huge music store has been selling MP3s with no DRM for awhile now.