bit-tech.net

DRM Free Music: Not as soon as you think

Published on 26th February 2007 by Richard Swinburne

EMI wants "compensation" for releasing DRM free music

As compensation for releasing music DRM free, EMI wants to charge more. It has requested an up front payment as compensation for releasing its music DRM free. The label has been talking with Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks, Yahoo and Amazon, but they have reached a stalemate as neither side can reach an agreement.

The situation has been further complicated due to the fact that Warner Music is currently making an effort to buy EMI and, as a member of the RIAA, they have publicly stated that they are committed to DRM.

As CD sales continue to fall and more people are turning to online to buy their music, companies seem keen to try new things to differentiate themselves whilst keeping revenue high.

Despite the recent open letter from Steve Jobs, there's no doubt DRM free music would benefit other companies with lower of a market shares. Thus by offering DRM enabled music, it allows Apple to lock people into using the iPod player in conjunction with iTunes. Before the letter, Apple wasn't involved in the talks between content distributors and EMI about offering DRM free music.

No one seems to have told EMI that cheap and freely available music is more likely to quell piracy if it's easy to get hold of online from popular legal download sites like iTunes, and that virtually everything with DRM has been pirated anyway.

So, pay more for DRM free music or just keep things as they are and suffer the hassle that is digital ~~restrictions~~ rights management?

17 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply

Firehed 26th February 2007, 18:13

Whatever, their loss. Once they stop screwing me (and the artists), I'll buy music again.

randosome 26th February 2007, 18:57

people will get whatever is cheapest, easiest and most convenient

With DRM on proper music, pirated music is the clear choice of most people

perplekks45 26th February 2007, 19:46

www.AllOfMp3.com ... 3 $ an album? That's what I'm talking about! IF I did buy music online that would be the place. If only they'd get it that higher prices (10 for an album where I don't have a CD, cover or ****) meant more piracy...

Spaceraver 26th February 2007, 19:56

transcoding is the key...

Tyinsar 26th February 2007, 20:02

Shouldn't the drastically reduced distribution costs plus the more direct payment system give them WAY more profit per song than traditional distribution systems? :(

Firehed 26th February 2007, 20:10

Well, certainly, it *should*. Unfortunately, that logical thought process fails to account for corporate greed.

randosome 26th February 2007, 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firehed
Well, certainly, it *should*. Unfortunately, that logical thought process fails to account for corporate greed.

QFT basically

I mean, CD's are more expensive then cassettes, DVD's more expensive then video tapes, Its stupid, no wonder people pirate

Tyinsar 26th February 2007, 20:55

Think about this: Music off of the net is copied to hard drives rather than CDs. Sure some is burned to CDs but those are horrendously inefficient compared to hard drives, MP3 players, or even DVDs. This means that fewer disks need to be manufactured, burned, labeled, cased, sold to various middlemen before the end consumer, and most importantly; transported.

Maybe someone should tell them that by going to a model of digital distribution that their consumers want, even at lower prices, they would be reducing costs AND helping to save the environment. - Doesn't the RIAA care about the environment? (we already know they don't care about their customers or really, even about the individual artists)

David_Fitzy 26th February 2007, 21:05

of course why didn't they think of that sooner,
charge extra for the same pirated stuff that people are paying nothing for, that'll work GENIUS!
Record/Movie company executives really have terminal cases of STUPID

EDIT: Thing is despite the evilness of their greed, stupidity is the biggest issue
Stop DRM R&D = Less money Spent = More cash in greedy fat cat pockets
Lower Prices = More people buying = More cash in greedy fat cat pockets
Everyone wins

Tyinsar 26th February 2007, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by randosome
QFT basically

I mean, CD's are more expensive then cassettes, DVD's more expensive then video tapes, Its stupid, no wonder people pirate

And CDs & DVDs cost less to make than the tapes :(

Their pricing is based on "what the market will bear" - maybe someone should tell them that "the market" is no longer willing to bear this greed from the virtual monopoly that is/are the **AA.

Edit: ok, I'm posting way too much

Kipman725 26th February 2007, 21:33

I buy cd's... second hand, that is cheap, not illegal, as good qulaity as it's easy to get and most importantly not a penny goes to the RIAA etc.

Then to support the bands I like I go to concerts :)

DXR_13KE 26th February 2007, 21:48

W.T.F. ARE THEY THINKING???????

randosome 26th February 2007, 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipman725
I buy cd's... second hand, that is cheap, not illegal, as good qulaity as it's easy to get

thats the most sensible way of buying music these days :)

Constructacon 26th February 2007, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipman725
I buy cd's... second hand, that is cheap, not illegal, as good qulaity as it's easy to get and most importantly not a penny goes to the RIAA etc.

It is harder to find second hand, brand new music - but then I can point to at least 20-30 old albums that I'd love to have and can't think of 1 that's been in the top 40 in the last 6 months that I'd ever want to own.

mmorgue 27th February 2007, 12:03

The record companies are worried that DRM free music = unlimited piracy and £0 revenue for them.

Well, if I go onto iTunes, Amazon, Napster, <insert legit online musicshop>, and I spend £30 buying loads of DRM-free songs, albums, etc, which I can play on any of my media devices I want, unrestricted....

Do these morons at the RIAA honestly think *I* am going to freely slap up that music *I* paid for with my money onto P2P or newgroups for free?! Just so every muppet out there can steal off me?! After I paid for it? To hell with that. If other people want DRM free music - go buy it. But I'm not going to give it away after I buy it.

And I think this is what they are missing in their customer business models. Sure, there is piracy and some people you cannot change. But there are legit people out there who want to use/play their music how they want when they buy it. And they aren't going to just give it away for free.

EDIT: oops - had MPAA.. meant RIAA (different sheepskins, same wolves)

Bindibadgi 27th February 2007, 12:05

MPAA = motion picture. RIAA = recording industry

Tulatin 27th February 2007, 15:09

Intresting, they charge more for the same old ****** quality music.

I'd bite this line if they offered DRM free tracks at a buck each, ripped to uberstandard.