MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Greed, plain and simple.

These record execs are really blind. Their sales of CDs are plummetting. On Line is the only market actually growing. And they want to keep their salvation trapped in a bottle. Like the old saying: "Closed until business picks up".

Whose greed?

EMI? Apple? Microsoft?

Consumers who won't pay for the DRM-free music files?

Go visit a torrent site, search for a popular artist. Multiply the number of times the album has been downloaded. Multiply that number by the selling price of an album.

That number is a infinitesimal fraction of the amount of lost revenue for these companies.

To say something silly like "Greed, plain and simple" is well... just plain silly.

It's easy to have such a silly view when its not your money that's lost!

>On Line is the only market actually growing...

Hrm... let's see. You start out at $0 sales at the very beginning. Where else is there to go?

>Hrm... let's see. You start out at $0 sales at the very beginning. Where else is there to go?

Oh, don't say that. Many, many business plans have gone far below Zero. Look at Janus/Plays4Sure/Zune. All were sold at a loss to upset Apple.

To MPC Guy,
you said "Whose greed?

EMI? Apple? Microsoft?

Consumers who won't pay for the DRM-free music files?

Go visit a torrent site, search for a popular artist. Multiply the number of times the album has been downloaded. Multiply that number by the selling price of an album.

That number is a infinitesimal fraction of the amount of lost revenue for these companies."

Not really. You are taking a very very simplistic view. I know people that down load everything free. But they never listen to it. People tend to spend money for what they want to listen to. They may down load it if its free, but never listen to it, afterall there are only so many hours in a day. !!

Me, hey I quit worrying a long time ago. I buy singles on line and usually albums from a store and upload to iTunes so I can load my mp3 or burn a CD for the car. Just what Apple thinks I am doing. Funny how it works that way. Maybe its mind control?? LOL

N.

Ok, I'll play devils advocate

Frankly when the music cd and cd players were created, computers didn't read or write to cd's.

It was by the actions of computer makers to include cd readers and adopt the cd format therefore destroying the natural hardware lock.

Imagine if computers could read record albums or cassettes directly and you'll see what I mean.

Now the world standard for playing music cd's is the cd player, no drm is involved and that was how it was started because no one could predict what the computer manufactorers were going to do.

How can the music industry expect to change the world standard for delivering their content if the computer makers follow suit and destroy their buisness model?

Now why did computer makers like Apple adopt and promote cd players in their computers? To create demand for piracy and sell computers of course!

So really who fscked who here?


OK YES, the audio channel can be copied anyway, so it really doesn't matter if computers couldn't read audio cd's anyway.

Standard PC's don't come with a stereo input jack, unlike most all Mac's do. Can't really expect to deny artists the computer tools needed to generate their work in the public interest of reducing piracy anyway.

Since DRM is always hardware or software cracked anyway, the reall question of the day is...

Why really does the RIAA sell DRM free cd's and makes online stores sell DRMed music?

TO PROTECT THE HARDWARE CD SELLERS EMPIRE!!!

EMI,

This is why people hate you.

-c

My god the RIAA have to stop this "every record downloaded illegally is a lost sale" arguement

People who steal music would never have bought it in the first place, so you cant count it as a sale lost. Think of it as free advertising, at least your overhyped band is being heard and its costing you nothing.

WiseGuy,

It's not like that type of thing hadn't happened before though. Really, the recording industry has been in that situation since the cassette tape made it's appearance. Everyone used to make copies of each other's cassette albums and trade them, make mix tapes, etc. Why is it that the RIAA didn't raise a huge stink about that?

To both you and MPC Guy, my reply is, you're missing the point. The bottom line is that the RIAA is only concerned with protecting digital online music, while the majority of the music they sell is on unprotected CDs. How will using DRM on a small fraction of their sales help fight piracy? Answer: it won't. There's no point in continuing. It's like sticking a cork in a tiny whole in your boat, not noticing that the bow is completely missing.

DRM SCREWS THE HONEST GUY AND THE PIRATE GETS THEIR MUSIC FOR FREE ANYWAY

BANISH DRM NOW!!!

As I have stated here before, I suspect that EMI only talks about dumping DRM in order to panic the likes of Warner Brothers into buying them.

"People who steal music would never have bought it in the first place, so you cant count it as a sale lost"

Ive been making a similar argument online on forums for years about the RIAA using the strategy to inflate their losses, but the truth is, you cannot say that every free download wouldnt have been purchased anyway. Thats just not true.

Who knows what the real percentage actually would be, but it certainly is a far cry from the 100% that the RIAA is trying to tell people (read lawmakers).

And to the guy who says that the only people screwed by DRM are honest people, well thats just another silly remark. I mean, if you are honest, you likely will never run into the DRM limitations that are set by iTunes.

The reality is most people don't even know its on there. Thats the truth. Ask someone who isn't very computer literate (read: most people) and ask them what the limitations of iTunes are and I bet they cant tell you.

Ah yes "Grasshopper" - When you can snatch the DRM from my music player, then you may leave...

And oh yes, I agree with LinuxGuy et. al.

The recent decline in CD sales followed a period of atypically high sales, which happened to coincide with the old, free, Napster. There is no conclusive evidence that online sharing either decreased or increased music sales but the long term trend shows that the music industry has been doing OK.

What has clearly changed is that communication has improved which includes direct communication between manufacturer and customer, that's what the music industry is trying to stop.

DRM is all smoke and mirrors, what's really at stake here is an outdated business model and the RIAA and company know it. It was always just a shell game anyways culminating in an annual "love fest" like the Grammys/Oscars. And those events were merely confirmation that the marketing/payola etc. were enough to dupe the average consumer into thinking they had purchased the latest and greatest.

The internet basically removes this entire industry out of the equation (including the bought off radio programmers who playlist for hundreds and hundreds of stations across the country). Internet radio is how I discover new music and there is almost always a link to either iTunes for digital download or a site that sells a hard copy i.e. a CD. Don't need huge dollars in marketing, distribution, payola, stamps, etc. which are always billed bake to the artist anyway. It's win-win for artist and consumer but not the so called industry.

I suspect that most people reading this don't need an "evening at the Oscars" or a Grammy love fest to tell them what to watch or listen to.

EMI man: ...in return for a lump sum payment.
M$ man [distracted]: Pay? Uh...yes, we'd pay. We're paying almost everyone.... [Smiles]

EMI: So, how much would you be willing to offer us, uh...for the rights?
M$ [eyes narrowing]: We're prepared to offer you $50 million for the right to put our own DRM on your music.

EMI: Uh...this is for the no-DRM rights. For selling...
M$ [interrupting]: I know, you sell it unencumbered, we protect it. It's what we do; what we're good at.

EMI: But you're already doing that! What do you think we're asking for here?

The M$ negotiator leans back on his chair, twiddles a pen, and glances at the ceiling.
M$: You sure drive a hard bargain! We're prepared to go to a hundred....

EMI: A hundred mill' a year for the right to sell our music without DRM...have I got that right?
M$: Oh no! No-no-no-NO! We'll use our own DRM, of course!

EMI [bewildered]: We're already doing that! What's the 100-million for?
M$: Exclusive digital download rights. We'd distribute to all our partners, of course, including Apple.

EMI [flabbergasted, now]: That's not on the table. You're talking about something else!

The M$ man reaches into his coat pocket, withdraws a prototype Phune, and slides it across the table until it clatters to a stop in front of the EMI man. A loose button pops off.

It rings.

EMI: He-hello?
Phune: How are ya, Barney? It's Bronfman here.<.i>

EMI: <i>Is that you, Edgar?
Phune: Yeah, we're in a conference call with Gates, Glaser and Gorog.

M$ man [sotto voce]: No DRM, eh? The three Stooges will fix'im....

>norm e. wrote: You are taking a very very simplistic view. I know people that down load everything free. But they never listen to it.

Hrm... I gave an example of how to calculate and quantify what sort of losses content companies face. To you that is overly simplistic?

All you did was give a silly opinion and not add anything.

" You are taking a very very simplistic view."
(NO REASONING FOLLOWS)

That's somewhat elementary school.

>"People who steal music would never have bought it in the first place, so you cant count it as a sale lost"


To those who think this make sense... imagine a car thief. Would it not count as a lost sale if he always chose to steal cars?

Your argument would read: "Well he never would've bought a car, so him stealing it shouldn't count as a lost sale."

Your argument, as it relates to DRM, would further read: "So leave it unlocked with the key in the ignition."

You can apply this poor logic to all sorts of things:

Software - Steal it
eBooks - Steal it
Cellphones - Steal it

Hrm... how about GUN - Steal it, wouldn't count as lost sales because the consumer would never have bought it himself.

Purely RIDICULOUS logic!

Answer this: At what point of the stealing process does it count as a lost sale?

MPC Guy'

Yah, guns and cars are just like electrons in a MP3 file.

If you had ever downloaded music from a P2P site then you would have known that only 1 in 5 music files is good enough to even keep. 1 in 5 isn't even a music file, it's a piece of malware. 80% of the downloads go straight into that big trash can in the sky, and yet, the IRAA counts them as lost sales.

Once you have succeeded in downloading something, thinking you might like it, 1 in 5 passes the do I like this shit test.

For every download that the IRAA counts as a lost sale, in my experience, only 4 or 5% actually turns out to be kept and listened to regularly.

I would say that if the IRAA says they lost 10 Billion Dollars, in reality it was far less than 1 Billion Dollars.

DRM free, 180 kbps files at $1.00 apiece would end my P2P days.

"Answer this: At what point of the stealing process does it count as a lost sale?"

>Big Al wrote: only 1 in 5 music files is good enough to even keep.


Okay got it.

Only 1 in 5 stolen files should count, in your honest opinion.

Let's face it, if a file is corrupted or if it is malware disguised as an MP3 file then it is not really intellectual property covered by copyright laws now is it.

I have the perfect solution to this problem...

Simply stop buying music from ANY AND ALL sources altogether... no iTunes, no CDs, no Napster, No Yahoo. No anything, AND...

THIS NEXT PART IS VERY IMPORTANT:

Write to the record labels that you will never buy music again as long as DRM is a part of the picture.

I think that many people are missing the point about DRM, it isn't about preventing piracy, as Steve pointed out DRM is meaningless unless all music is protected by it.

For me the truth about DRM was alluded to by the Macrovision CEO, content providers want to have a world in which one license for a piece of content means one device, if you want to play your content on all your devices, living room, bedrooms, portable car etc. you will need to purchase additional licenses. They may even reduce the price of the individual license to appear to sweeten the deal. This is why the record companies will not let go of DRM.

The one obstacle to this vision in the music area is the Apple fair play DRM terms of use, considered to be far too generous and given before they became a powerful force in music sales. Hence you do not see the record companies making any effort to support Apple's position in it's struggle with the European competition authorities. This is perfect for them, make DRM inter-operable, take away the market power for the music sellers and watch the DRM restrictions grow with every contract re-negotiation.

Therefore the arguments being conducted around DRM are a complete smokescreen. EMI are just trying to appear reasonable, whilst making sure their financial demands remain unacceptable to the music stores. The word "fools" is frequently used to describe record companies on this site, on the contrary they know exactly what they are doing and their motives are more sinister than people realise.