“As even digital music revenue growth falters because of rampant file-sharing by consumers, the major record labels are moving closer to releasing music on the Internet with no copying restrictions — a step they once vowed never to take,” Victoria Shannon reports for The New York Times.
“Executives of several technology companies meeting here at Midem, the annual global trade fair for the music industry, said over the weekend that at least one of the four major record companies could move toward the sale of unrestricted digital files in the MP3 format within months,” Shannon reports. “Most independent record labels already sell tracks digitally compressed in the MP3 format, which can be downloaded, e-mailed or copied to computers, cellphones, portable music players and compact discs without limit.”
Shannon reports, “For the major recording companies, however, selling in the MP3 format would be a capitulation to the power of the Internet, which has destroyed their control over the worldwide distribution of music. Until last year, the industry was counting on online purchases of music, led by Apple’s iTunes music store, to make up the difference.”
“But digital sales in 2006, while 80 percent ahead of the year before, grew slower than in 2005 and did not compensate for the decline in physical sales, according to an industry report released in London last week,” Shannon reports.
MacDailyNews Take: The ability to buy (or steal) singles – or only the good songs – cuts into the labels’ profits as they can longer rely on selling 1 or 2 good songs bundled with 8 or more filler tracks as they could with physical media like CDs.
Shannon continues, “”There is a groundswell, and I say that on the basis of private conversations,’ said Rob Glaser, chief executive of RealNetworks, which sells digital music protected against piracy through the Rhapsody subscription service. ‘It will happen between next year and five years from now, but it is more likely to be in one to two years,’ he said.”
Full article here.
Today’s easily-removed DRM only hinders legal users, not the pirates. Removing DRM will increase online music sales. Bring it on – the sooner, the better!
Related articles:
Report: Apple to license FairPlay DRM – January 17, 2007
Hollywood movie studios demand Apple strengthen DRM limitations before joining iTunes – November 29, 2006
Apple’s vs. Microsoft’s music DRM: whose solution supports more users? – August 17, 2005
Of course, this does not necessarily mean that iTunes songs would no longer have FairPlay. I do find it a bit interesting to look back and see all the people here that said that DRM is a necessity and that we will always have it.
It’s a sensible move, because DRM just punishes your paying customers and is not successful in preventing copying. I’ve read countless reports on how Apple are the bad guys in all this, but the
bottom line is that they were made to add DRM by the record companies. Another gripe I have is anti-piracy adverts at the start of every DVD, why do I have to watch that, I bought it.The guy watching the pirate doesn’t have to! Madness.
mp3 fils are not compressed. They are lossy files where part of the data is selectively thrown out during encoding.
Amazing how clueless people paid to report on this stuff are.
“Most independent record labels already sell tracks digitally compressed in the MP3 format, which can be downloaded, e-mailed or copied to computers, cellphones, portable music players and compact discs without limit.”
I absolutely hate it when these morons equate MP3 with DRM-free. OTHER FORMATS CAN DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING DESCRIBED! It isn’t about format – it is about DRM!
…I don’t want MP3 anyway – I want a updated compression format that sounds better than MP3 or a lossless format.
BTW, both Beatport.com and Bleep.com offer at least some music in lossless format already – .wav and FLAC, respectively. I’d much rather have the major labels chasing that than the current MP3 which is past its prime.
DRM free, _and_ increased quality for the files. Please, at least give us the option of something like 320 bps settings at a higher price. It’s more revenue to the companies and artists, and better for us consumers as well.
To the Music Industry:
You treat us like criminals, then we’ll be criminals…
Funny – interviewing Rob Glaser about what might be happening in the online music industry in the next 1-5 years. Glaser’s company probably won’t be around by the time all of this happens.
“…mp3 files are not compressed. They are lossy files where part of the data is selectively thrown out during encoding…”
Sorry, but this precisely describes compression — and .mp3 files ARE compressed, so check the attitude at the door. Furthermore, .mp3 files are created using first-generation audio compression technology. The newer .m4p compression (also called AAC) is an industry standard replacement for .mp3 that creates even smaller (more compressed) lossy files with an even better level of quality. The audio quality of Apple’s 128-bit .m4p AAC compression is roughly equivalent to 160-bit .mp3 compression.
Where exactly is it written that these clowns have to make more and more money every year? People aren’t paying for music as much because music is shit these days. When we are getting force fed the likes of Cold Play and Pussy Cat Dolls, you can only get crammed with so much garbage before you throw up.
Cpt. Obvious,
If it sucks, why are people stealing it? It’s not like they are being forced to steal music.
iTunes will be the next and only record label. You heard it here first……
And when the iPod still dominates its competitors after the demise of DRM, what kaka will the losers invent to blame Apple?
As usual, the clowns at the record companies are a day late and a dollar short when it comes to brains and seeing where the “industry” is going.
These people have always been short-sighted, making the music business a joke in the eyes of consumers.
From the days of payola and manufacturing groups to ride the wave of last year’s “breakthrough” new sound, these morons have been operating the same way for 60 years or more.
The record execs still seem to be clueless that the phenomenon of CD’s that saved their asses in the 80’s and early 90’s was not a permanent gravy train. They all keep hoping (like the movie folks do) that the next wave format (Blu-Ray, HDCD, whatever) will trigger another huge buying binge so they can sell all their back catalogs again.
Instead, they should be putting some thought into how they will generate future “oldies” – by releasing and supporting music from creative and talented artists today. But they can’t see that, so they’ll keep trying to milk the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s catalogs for as long as they can. Sure beats earning a living the old-fashioned way.
Phooey. I gots no use for these mimbos.
“The newer .m4p compression (also called AAC) is an industry standard replacement for .mp3”
Actually, m4a is the AAC standard format. m4p is AAC with Apple’s FairPlay encryption applied to it, making it somewhat non-industry-standard
Unless the music industry has a terrific incentive for people to buy unprotected music online (something good–not a legal threat), we will see the rebirth of the old Napster about 2 minutes after they start offering their catalogs DRM-free.
You can’t expect them to embrace change if it means lower revenues. To increase revenues, they have to up the ante on products: sell video which is more bothersome to pirate by way of size; release more versions – the studio tapes, live performances, interviews, the making of a song… etc., etc., etc.
And yes, remove DRM but sell the compressed [mp3] versions cheaper. Much cheaper. Cheap enough so that the ones who pirate are the ones who would never buy anyway. And properly tag the files with album art, lyrics, etc.
And while they’re at it, they might consider a different format with separate vocal tracks and optional display of karaoke-style lyrics. Or have an optional video track which can be turned on and off separately and does not necessarily include the artists performing, if you catch my drift. And if you’re selling cds, include extensive album art, lyrics, reviews or comments or anything that adds value…. Geeze, I could go on and on!
There’s lots to do if they got off their asses and tried innovating. Unfortunately, most of them can’t even figure out how to use a washlet toilet.
1) Kill DRM – it’s useless;
2) Cheaper online mp3s – much cheaper;
3) Product innovation;
4) Did I mention cheaper?
Excuse my grammar – I was in a rush.
“…”The newer .m4p compression (also called AAC) is an industry standard replacement for .mp3…Actually, m4a is the AAC standard format. m4p is AAC with Apple’s FairPlay encryption applied to it, making it somewhat non-industry-stand…”
Well, yes AND no. I am correct that AAC is the basic industry standard audio format designed to improve and eventually replace .mp3, and (Ryan is right in that .m4a files can be found in the iTunes folder (if the music is imported, using iTunes, from a CD). However, protected AAC files (.m4p, sometimes called AAC Plus) also can be found in the iTunes folder (if you purchase DRM-protected songs from the iTunes store). Protected AAC (AAC Plus) is just a basic AAC file with Apple’s Fairplay DRM wrapper added.
The point is, their actually is a difference between AAC and protected AAC (AAC Plus) files, but only one (AAC) s an actual audio file type.
Make that read…only one (AAC) is an industry standard, audio file type.
This would be great for online music. Unfortunately, I’ve heard that Apple has stated they will not remove DRM from iTunes even if the RIAA no longer requires it. If this turns out to be true, then it will prove that Apple is using DRM to lock you in to their products. If in the future, I can purchase songs online in a DRM free format, preferably FLAC, then I’ll be a very happy camper and Apple can kiss my ASS.
I love all my Apple computers, but I value open standards more.
Lets hope that if this does happen, then Apple follows along. It will be nice to have real competition for once with online music.
So I take it all these beleagured record companies will allow iTunes user to download previusly unprotected purchased music again in a higher quality format. When they do that I will believe they are sincere.
mw: efforts as in they are making numerous efforts to try to end Apple’s successful efforts at providing a legal alternative to piracy. Poor record companies. Apple must have made them use DRM.
Apple will not remove DRM you pop-tarts.
They have as much at stake as the labels do – unprotected = theft.
You babies have proven them right and have only your thieving selves to blame.
MDN: your take is as stupid as the reasons are for stealing music.
Thieves are thieves.
In fact, I’m going to start a website and “borrow” all of your material.
We’ll see how YOU like it.
I, for one, will believe a DRM free universe when I see one.
The guys who run The Labels are greedy bastards who are convinced that the MP3 player manufacturers, artists, technicians, backup singers, backup musicians, music composers, lyrics writers and consumers are all out to screw them out of ‘their’ money.
There is no way they will open up ‘their’ music to make it any easier to steal ‘their’ money.
There is only one word to describe people who cannot comprehend why others sample music by downloading it from P2P networks: ignorant. I guess if you have no friends and live under a rock somewhere without broadband, you can vomit up your malformed ideas as a troll on MDN.
realist
I would bet that a majority of the illegal downloads are for older songs. Cap’t ob is right most of the new music is crap.
At the moment I have no interest in buying aac files, the quality is pretty poor compared to a CD or LP, I would rather buy the CD’s and Limewire the music I have a vague interest in, sorry. itunes downloads need to be in offered in a CD comparible format or better and much cheaper.
stormy,
And how is that a justification for stealing? In any case, I would like to see some data that backs us your assertion.
We’ll never see DRM free pop music.
Why? NAPSTER
NAPSTER will always be THE prime example of the dishonesty of millions of music lovers.
I have a suggestion to the record industry: Start making really good albums that have longer tail a.k.a. sell better in a long run. Filler tracks are total shit. The pop album that I can remember from 90’s that didn’t have Filler tracks was New Radicals’ Maybe You’ve Been Brainwashed Too. OK, it isn’t really that pop, it’s just closest I’ll ever get to pop music.
Point is: Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Rolling Stones, etc. are still selling a lot albums every year. I don’t see any one asking about Britney Spears’ first album in the record stores.
If the record labels started to aim at making most albums really good in terms of music, they might see their cash flow go up. At least I’m not gonna buy some shit like My Chemical Romance or what ever it was.
It’s often claimed that Apple wouldn’t remove the DRM on music tracks because that would lead to unacceptable amounts of piracy, but I don’t buy that argument. When Apple sells a copy of OS X or many other apps, it’s sold in an unprotected form. There are undoubtedly people who make multiple installs from what was supposed to be just one single licence, but Apple doesn’t get too uptight about it.
If they can accept not having DRM on software that sells for a hundred dollars, I don’t see them worrying about not having it on a music track that sells for 99¢, particularly when Apple only retains a few cents from that sale.
Steve Jobs has often argued that nobody photocopies a newspaper because buying your own is so cheap and much more convenient. If buying legal music downloads is done at a fair price and it’s a very convenient process, then piracy becomes a much less attractive option.
The record labels try to make piracy impossible, or illegal, but those approaches have failed. Offering a really convenient and affordable alternative to piracy has made a massive difference and will continue to make a greater difference – if allowed to continue.
AlanAudio,
Dont forget we’re talking about artists earning a career here. Each sale on iTunes will give them a few cents in the pocket. If DRM is removed then artists are not going to be very happy, and I would see artists losing faith in iTunes
Newspaper is not a good comparison to music as newspapers make their real money through advertising, and Apple makes their money through hardware sales, not software. A music track, however, is an artists only source of income (live performance notwithstanding)
To: Trollin’
Depends on a band. Dinsaur Jr. earns their money from tours and they said that illegal music downloads are like flyers. 😀
I guess they’re little different from the rest.
The music industry is using some made-up statistics from an industry trade group (the International Phonographics Association or some other) to cite that growth of digital song sales is slowing. For example, the group above claimed that only 800 million digital songs were purchased in all of 2006. We know from MacWorld that Apple alone sold more than 1 billion songs in just 10 months in 2006. So whatever their methodology, it’s clearly off by at least 25%, which conveniently produces a “slowing growth” conclusion.
On the other hand, their methodology to calculate album sales is completely different, which makes it rather difficult to compare the two. You can’t compare the weight taken from a broken scale with the weight taken from a working scale and say that one item weighs more than the other.
I for one don’t care that music I buy online contains DRM. Apple’s solution seems fair to me.
However I still buy mostly CDs because I want a higher bit rate.
I can’t see how DRM-free songs will work because songs bought online will be pirated in an instant just like the CD version is now.
My solution would be to halve the price of online music to 50 cents per song and so have it compete better with CDs and encourage online purchases. Then an album would cost around 5 bucks and may be worth it despite the low bit rate. If the bit rate was also raised then I would buy most songs that way.
@ Trollin
Of course I realise that the artists are involved, the fact that I mentioned that only a small part of the fee goes to Apple implies as much, although it’s the labels who take the biggest share.
But the point I’m trying to make is that a system that allows convenient and cheap music downloads is going to work for the benefit of everybody, including the artists.
At the moment more tracks appear to be pirated than sold legally. If there were no DRM, I think that the added convenience and versatility would boost sales to such an extent that the risks associated with not having DRM would be outweighed.
Some lesser-known artists have already had successes by distributing music without DRM. We’re starting to see musicians who are a little better known coming along and testing the water. It must be only a matter of time before a seriously mainstream artist at the height of their career does it.
Alternate title for this article:
“Media Producers Consider Pulling their Heads out of their Greedy, Ignorant Asses”
But, I’m not getting my hopes up. RIAA got their wish lists answered with the Zune’s Digital Restriction Management, but that system’s not selling, even with Microsuck subsidizing the effort.
But they may just be intelligent to realize that the genie’s already out of the bottle: even if they shut down and sue every company, web site and individual who steals and shares music via peer to peer, people just aren’t going to go back to spending fifteen or twenty dollars on a CD with one or two songs that’s worth listening to.
Zune Tang, and his tinfoil hatted comrades notwithstanding, who would want to buy a system as locked down as the Zune? Or windows Vista?
if i take your TV you dont have a TV i Stole it
if i take a copy of your mp3 u still have your mp3
who gets hurt?
why is this stealing?
i would never buy it so they havent even lost revenue?
if i dl some mp3 i really like i buy the CD
it’s stealing ‘cuz you didn’t pay for it, criminal
Heck yeah, bring it on MP3, AAC or OGG style
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Has anyone done a study of cd sales in the original napster era? My guess is that it spiked!
man this would suck for MS. It seems their whole direction (I mean Windows PCs–you know the thing people actually buy–though Zune would be included) is to put DRM at the core of everything, with unprecedented requirements for hardware to deliberately degrade things. The kind of move ONLY a monopolist (including the government) could do as it puts the interest of their customers last over the interests of the people they want to suck up to.
Music prices will have to drop significantly in order to disincentivize illegal copying in a DRM-less environment. The whole music industry will have to adapt. In the long run, this may offer more variety and freedom for individual artists/independents who will market their own wares on the internet and are not forced to compete with large corporations pushing a small subset of bands with massive promotions.
This chaos is what happens when the recorded reproduction of music is made the primary source of income for so many people unrelated to the performance of that music. Recorded music should be considered advertisements or enticements to see and hear a band perform in person or a substitute for those who cannot enjoy a live performance and any profit from such recordings considered incidental.