Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Reaction to 'Thoughts On Music'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree 100%. Since you don't know, let me tell you: what you find on the pirate boards in a usable fashion -- for torrents, there has to be a cloud of people who want that same music at that moment -- is very small. Maybe a thousand on any given day, I don't know. The low thousands. The quality has a huge range, too. What the stores can give you? Access to millions of cuts, as simply as typing out its name.
I think that if you offered cuts from a quarter to a couple of bucks for maybe DVD Audio quality, or 5.1 sound, with a video, you'd reach the point where the price and the usefulness cross.
Maybe, if they licensed resale on what are now pirate boards, you'd see kind of a flea market starting. Anybody got 1920's Louis Armstrong? At 320 kbps? In AAC? Flac? I'll pay 1.00. And so on. Like a flea market, it would take time. Then the pirates make money, the users will pay, and if you have a rare track or know something about encoding, you can make a few bucks supplying. The labels split the monthly profits.
But if you want a pristine copy, NOW, with videos or interviews or free tickets to a show, get it at the big e-stores. That's where you can get the preference services, or the all-you-can-eat subscriptions.
Hey, the Beatles agreement means that Apple can get into music publishing. Interesting?
Reality check
Source #1 is Mitch Bainwol from the RIAA, who in his reply to Steve Jobs' essay proves nothing but a regrettable lack of reading comprehension. He says "Oh great, Apple can make this work" in response to Steve Jobs who just said "We could do this, but it would not work and there is no way it could possibly work and even if it could work we have no interest in making it work."
Source #2 is "DVD-Jon" who is on a more and more desperate crusade to extend his 15 minutes of fame. Unfortunately, he is not very good at maths (the "three percent of music on iPods come from iTMS" estimate is actually _too high_, not tool low), and it seems he doesn't have the slightest clue how to deliver _reliable_ software.
He also doesn't understand how Apple is running its business, and that Steve Jobs' essay is purely political.
Source #1 is Mitch Bainwol from the RIAA, who in his reply to Steve Jobs' essay proves nothing but a regrettable lack of reading comprehension. He says "Oh great, Apple can make this work" in response to Steve Jobs who just said "We could do this, but it would not work and there is no way it could possibly work and even if it could work we have no interest in making it work."
Source #2 is "DVD-Jon" who is on a more and more desperate crusade to extend his 15 minutes of fame. Unfortunately, he is not very good at maths (the "three percent of music on iPods come from iTMS" estimate is actually _too high_, not tool low), and it seems he doesn't have the slightest clue how to deliver _reliable_ software.
He also doesn't understand how Apple is running its business, and that Steve Jobs' essay is purely political.
Apple _could_ license Microsoft's DRM. To do that, they would have to accept Microsoft's license agreement. These license agreements contain terms like informing Microsoft about planned future products. Do you think it would be in Apple's best interest to do that?
Microsoft is a control freak. They love DRM. Sony suffers from a severe case of schizophrenia. The parts of Sony producing music players have suffered at the hands of the parts that try to sell music. If Sony had been able to build MP3 players instead of having to listen to their brain damaged content parts in the company, they might be today where Apple is (not saying they would have been, but they had a chance and threw it away).
Creative, Sandisk, iRiver and all the others however, they get no benefit whatsoever from DRM. For them, it is just additional work that slows down development of new products, and additional cost that will be passed on to the consumer eventually. They don't _want_ Fairplay. They would much prefer if they could just play the music without having to bother about DRM.
And they probably would fear a situation like today, where a DVD player that doesn't enforce region coding is much more useful to the customer than one that does, so broken DRM is actually a competitive advantage.
To really take off digital downloads should be:
* drm free
* losless format (flac/ apple etc.)
SJ could make a start by offering DRM-free songs from indies labels. My music is being sold on iTunes, and it's also DRM protected.
* drm free
* losless format (flac/ apple etc.)
SJ could make a start by offering DRM-free songs from indies labels. My music is being sold on iTunes, and it's also DRM protected.
Everyone - Let's all email Mitch Bainwol!
Let's all email Mitch Bainwol and tell him to cut the crap and wake up and realize DRM is BAD and should be abolished altogether! I am going to email him right now! His email address is: mitch.bainwol@riaa.com
Let's ENLIGHTEN this dude!
Let's all email Mitch Bainwol and tell him to cut the crap and wake up and realize DRM is BAD and should be abolished altogether! I am going to email him right now! His email address is: mitch.bainwol@riaa.com
Let's ENLIGHTEN this dude!
RIAA: eh, eh, ah ok, no DRM then, but can we change the price scheme, no
more .99/song, ok?
Mitch Brainwol's statement confirms that the BIG 4, wanted all its digital music/songs thru iTunes with DRM. But l think, let's not forget how iTunes started (a small mac community), it was more or less an experiment and nobody seem to have imagine that it will be very successful.
Now, with success, it clearly shows there are really big numbers of honest to goodness consumers who are willing to buy/download the legal way, and I hope the big 4 consider this and will go for DRMless.
more .99/song, ok?
Mitch Brainwol's statement confirms that the BIG 4, wanted all its digital music/songs thru iTunes with DRM. But l think, let's not forget how iTunes started (a small mac community), it was more or less an experiment and nobody seem to have imagine that it will be very successful.
Now, with success, it clearly shows there are really big numbers of honest to goodness consumers who are willing to buy/download the legal way, and I hope the big 4 consider this and will go for DRMless.
"Eliminating online DRM appears to us to be an overly risky move that eliminates the potential for a future digital-only distribution model free of piracy,"
I love that Gem. An overly utopian ideal spewed from the foul mouth of an industry analyst. Bottom line is, there is NO POTENTIAL whatsoever for a digital distribution model free of piracy. Piracy will always exist, but we cannot make the alternative to piracy more difficult to live with than the guilt of stealing.
I love that Gem. An overly utopian ideal spewed from the foul mouth of an industry analyst. Bottom line is, there is NO POTENTIAL whatsoever for a digital distribution model free of piracy. Piracy will always exist, but we cannot make the alternative to piracy more difficult to live with than the guilt of stealing.
Steve loves the Beatles and is probably emotionally motivated toward making their label work. I agree completely with therandthem, that the two Apple's could work together to create a far more attractive business model for musicians than the Big 4 currently offer. Perhaps a direct link to Garage Band and Logic Pro? I'd love to see something like this work. It would be far better for the musicians, and end users alike. Apple Corps and Apple Inc. need to work together on this and create an entirely new way to produce content that embraces Indie groups rather than shunning them.
Of course not. We all know Microsoft uses unreasonable terms to BORG the world, hence the Microsoft slashdot avatar.
IF Microsoft were to limit the license agreement to DRM issues alone, which we all know they refuse to do, then Apple could adopt it as yet another standard in their long list of standards. But then they could also have Windows Media 6,7,8,9,10, Microsoft word file format I/O and a variety of other Microsoft specific formats they keep secret precisely so others cannot interact with them easily. I would love to have coverflow/piles to show all my macpaint, macdraw, MS word 4.0 files, etc from the past. Time Machine IS supposed to go to the past, right?
So this issue is clearly at an impasse because of Microsoft, not Apple. And in this particular example not even because of the record labels.
I concur with the folks who simply ask, why are not SOME iTunes content already NOT DRM'ed? Any artist willing to offer the content that way certainly should be allowed to, since Steve humself claims he believes in it.
Rocketman
A bit confused
You're assuming market share equals greater profitability. Companies like Walmart and Target use CD and DVD's as a loss leader to get customers into the door to buy higher margin products. They make little or no money on the sale of those products unless you also end up buying batteries, accessories, etc. When I owned a computer store we used to joke about the big box mover philosophy of sales. "Sell it below cost, make it up in volume." A sure recipe for bankruptcy.
You're assuming market share equals greater profitability. Companies like Walmart and Target use CD and DVD's as a loss leader to get customers into the door to buy higher margin products. They make little or no money on the sale of those products unless you also end up buying batteries, accessories, etc. When I owned a computer store we used to joke about the big box mover philosophy of sales. "Sell it below cost, make it up in volume." A sure recipe for bankruptcy.
Actually, this is a great idea. Could someone write up a form letter and post it in this forum? That way you can copy it, add your own comments if you want and send it. Kinda like a "Moveon.org" approach. In fact, it is past time for the RIAA, music and movie industries to just "move on" when it comes to DRM!
Yea - it's time for them to "move on" into history's trash can! We don't need those mafias anymore! Let the iTunes, eMusic, etc deal directly with the artists! NO MORE DRM!
Yes, if someone better at composing letters would right up a form letter for us each to send to the RIAA Mitch meister that would be gR8!
yep
Actually, since the agreement with Apple Corps, Apple, Inc. now owns the rights to the Apple Label. So if they want to do this, Apple Corps now has no basis to sue, since the agreement did not restrict Apple, Inc. from the music business.
They now have the ability to begin signing artists directly on the ITS.
So I think you are right, and this will eventually force the other labels to follow suit.
A downside is that it will only strengthen Apple's stranglehold on the music market.
Actually, since the agreement with Apple Corps, Apple, Inc. now owns the rights to the Apple Label. So if they want to do this, Apple Corps now has no basis to sue, since the agreement did not restrict Apple, Inc. from the music business.
They now have the ability to begin signing artists directly on the ITS.
So I think you are right, and this will eventually force the other labels to follow suit.
A downside is that it will only strengthen Apple's stranglehold on the music market.
I was reading that DISNEY is allowing downloads of their films.
While their DVD sales are steady, if not rising.
Oposite the key fear of content providers here, is that they are NOT DROPPING.
-----
The Major labels are shooting themselves in the foot.
They are too dumb to see that:
1. Demographics are changing-there are fewer Gen Z buying music because they are now making babies and paying
for homes.
2. Music has gotten so bland and homogenized-even in the alt-indie group, that people have just lost interest.
3. Entertainment spending is dropping, as more and more folks take $15/hour jobs.
The economy is not quite as rosy as they would have you beleive.
4. Even though the big 4 (soon likely to be the big 2) lost a lawsuit over their monopoly pricing stucture, most new
CDs remain in the $15-18 range
They still want to blame the internet for poor sales.
Like their cousins in the music industry, when VCRs came out-the movie companies screamed that they would be bankrupt in no time.
But movie attentance continued to rise (back then) and now they have a vast Home Video market to feed-and they still want more.
While their DVD sales are steady, if not rising.
Oposite the key fear of content providers here, is that they are NOT DROPPING.
-----
The Major labels are shooting themselves in the foot.
They are too dumb to see that:
1. Demographics are changing-there are fewer Gen Z buying music because they are now making babies and paying
for homes.
2. Music has gotten so bland and homogenized-even in the alt-indie group, that people have just lost interest.
3. Entertainment spending is dropping, as more and more folks take $15/hour jobs.
The economy is not quite as rosy as they would have you beleive.
4. Even though the big 4 (soon likely to be the big 2) lost a lawsuit over their monopoly pricing stucture, most new
CDs remain in the $15-18 range
They still want to blame the internet for poor sales.
Like their cousins in the music industry, when VCRs came out-the movie companies screamed that they would be bankrupt in no time.
But movie attentance continued to rise (back then) and now they have a vast Home Video market to feed-and they still want more.
Hi MacVault. I think you don't get it. If you could be trusted not to duplicate the music in mass quantities and pass it along to anyone who asked, then there would be no need for DRM. It is not arrogance or stupidity that is driving the the record industry to support DRM. It is the behaviour of the consumer.
Do you think, for one instant, that if it were as easy for you to copy and distribute a printed book as it is for you to copy and distribute music that the book industry would not be looking for a solution?
When video tapes first came out they had no copy protection. People were renting the movies from the corner video store and then made copies for themselves and their friends. Some of those people, enough to get industry and media attention, even packaged and tried to sell or rent the copies. There has to be protection for this property. You say that the industry will get more money from you without DRM. How? Why?
Yes, I know: "DRM doesn't stop piracy". Wake up. At the MacWorld keynote Steve told us that Apple sells five million tracks a day, that's 58 tracks per second. Do you think that if people had an equally easy way to get DRM-free music that they would stop by the iTunes store just because they like Apple? Maybe a few, but most of them would be over at the other place, or calling up their friends for copies.
You seem very sincere in your opinion, but every criminal who ever stole anything from anyone felt in some way entitled to what it was they were stealing. You can download music from iTunes and play it on up to five computers and on any number of iPods. That is very generous. If you want to use the music in other ways, buy the CD, or better yet - contact the label and get a license.
Ha! You Do Not Get It!
Hey, non-prophet, why do you assume you know what I will do with the music I buy? How errogant of you to suggest I cannot be trusted. See if you can drive this into your head: I, MACVAULT, JUST WANT TO OWN THE FRICKIN MUSIC I PAY FOR - WITHOUT DRM! I WANT IT FOR MY OWN, PERSONAL USE! I WILL NOT MASS PRODUCE IT, UPLOAD IT TO SHARING SITES, BITTORENT, ETC. I JUST WANT MY MUSIC LIBRARY TO BE FREE AND NOT LOCKED DOWN BY ANY FRICKIN SELF-SERVING CORPORATION OR GROUP! You DO NOT GET IT, non-prophet!
I'm not into books much. And if I was, NO, I would not be mass-copying them and selling/sharing them illegally.
Because, here's why... I refuse to buy ANY more media with DRM. So, at this point the industry is getting $0 from me. Take away the DRM and I will start buying from them... and they will be getting hundreds of $$ from me every year. Isn't that simple enough??? AND, AGAIN, I AM NOT THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN ILEGALLY SHARING/SELLING MY MUSIC!
Yea, you have a point. But I sure know I would be buying the music legally because I don't want viruses on my machine and don't want the RIAA gastopos at my door. Someone needs to hit the RIAA in the head with a 2x4. They think they are GOD or something.
HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE THAT I AM INTERESTED IN STEALING!!! I NEVER MADE ANY INDICATION OF THAT IN ANY OF MY POSTS! I JUST WANT MY MEDIA FILES TO BE FREED - AS IN NOT UNDER CONTROL OF ANY CORPORATION OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, NOT EVEN APPLE/ITUNES!
Are you one of those people who say, "Why should I worry about the Patriot Act? I'm not doing anything wrong."?????
Hey, non-prophet, why do you assume you know what I will do with the music I buy? How errogant of you to suggest I cannot be trusted. See if you can drive this into your head: I, MACVAULT, JUST WANT TO OWN THE FRICKIN MUSIC I PAY FOR - WITHOUT DRM! I WANT IT FOR MY OWN, PERSONAL USE! I WILL NOT MASS PRODUCE IT, UPLOAD IT TO SHARING SITES, BITTORENT, ETC. I JUST WANT MY MUSIC LIBRARY TO BE FREE AND NOT LOCKED DOWN BY ANY FRICKIN SELF-SERVING CORPORATION OR GROUP! You DO NOT GET IT, non-prophet!
I'm not into books much. And if I was, NO, I would not be mass-copying them and selling/sharing them illegally.
Because, here's why... I refuse to buy ANY more media with DRM. So, at this point the industry is getting $0 from me. Take away the DRM and I will start buying from them... and they will be getting hundreds of $$ from me every year. Isn't that simple enough??? AND, AGAIN, I AM NOT THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN ILEGALLY SHARING/SELLING MY MUSIC!
Yea, you have a point. But I sure know I would be buying the music legally because I don't want viruses on my machine and don't want the RIAA gastopos at my door. Someone needs to hit the RIAA in the head with a 2x4. They think they are GOD or something.
HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE THAT I AM INTERESTED IN STEALING!!! I NEVER MADE ANY INDICATION OF THAT IN ANY OF MY POSTS! I JUST WANT MY MEDIA FILES TO BE FREED - AS IN NOT UNDER CONTROL OF ANY CORPORATION OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, NOT EVEN APPLE/ITUNES!
Are you one of those people who say, "Why should I worry about the Patriot Act? I'm not doing anything wrong."?????
Hi MacVault. I think you don't get it. If you could be trusted not to duplicate the music in mass quantities and pass it along to anyone who asked, then there would be no need for DRM. It is not arrogance or stupidity that is driving the the record industry to support DRM. It is the behaviour of the consumer.
Do you think, for one instant, that if it were as easy for you to copy and distribute a printed book as it is for you to copy and distribute music that the book industry would not be looking for a solution?
When video tapes first came out they had no copy protection. People were renting the movies from the corner video store and then made copies for themselves and their friends. Some of those people, enough to get industry and media attention, even packaged and tried to sell or rent the copies. There has to be protection for this property. You say that the industry will get more money from you without DRM. How? Why?
Yes, I know: "DRM doesn't stop piracy". Wake up. At the MacWorld keynote Steve told us that Apple sells five million tracks a day, that's 58 tracks per second. Do you think that if people had an equally easy way to get DRM-free music that they would stop by the iTunes store just because they like Apple? Maybe a few, but most of them would be over at the other place, or calling up their friends for copies.
You seem very sincere in your opinion, but every criminal who ever stole anything from anyone felt in some way entitled to what it was they were stealing. You can download music from iTunes and play it on up to five computers and on any number of iPods. That is very generous. If you want to use the music in other ways, buy the CD, or better yet - contact the label and get a license.
I really wouldn't roll my eyes.
www.baen.com
They put whole books online without DRM. Sales for their authors have gone UP since they've done that.
It may not translate entirely over, but there is SOME empirical evidence, conducted by an intellectual rights owner, that dropping DRM (in certain cases) will cause sales to go up. You've been asserting that the consumer's behavior determines what a copyright holder does...well does increased sales tell you anything?
Why is that not a relevant case for this discussion?
Well, let's start at the bottom of your post and work up.
No, I am pretty worried about the Patriot Act. So I do think we agree on that point.
I was not meaning to suggest that you personally were a criminal, and am sorry it sounded that way. But many, many people did and do illegally copy and distribute music tracks. And they are criminals. Not the same caliber criminal as a murderer or bank robber, granted. More like a purse snatcher, I would think.
Let's say you invited me into your home (not likely after this exchange, but let's imagine it). And as I walked around your living room I noticed your iPod and decided I wanted it. Do I have the right to take it just because I want it? Of course not. It's yours. You own it. You labored to some degree to earn enough to buy it. You paid for the gas to get you to the Apple store or for the ISP that allowed you order online.
If you look at the license you get when you buy or download music, the music is not yours. You do not own it. The label or the artist or, more likely, a publisher, owns the music. It belongs to them in much the same way that iPod is yours. They paid for the engineering, for marketing, for distribution, perhaps an advance to the artist. Those companies labored to some degree to earn enough to buy that music from the artist. And all of those people, including the artist, get hurt when consumers copy the work without paying for it, just as much as you would get hurt if I took your iPod.
Now current implementation of DRM sucks. We all know that. But WHY does DRM suck? Because it makes it inconvenient for consumers to use the music outside the scope of the license they were granted when they bought the music? Okay. Wait a minute. I go to McDonalds and get pissed at them when they won't serve me pizza? Of course not! If I want pizza, I go to the Pizza Palace. So why be pissed at folks encoding DRM when you know, up front, and in advance of the purchase, that there are restrictions to the use of the music?
Well, it sound like many of us (notice I stayed away from saying "you") are pissed because we want to use the music on some MP3 player other than the iPod or we want to be able to copy the music in some way that we weren't issued a license to do. So your solution is reasonable. Don't buy DRM encoded music if you don't want to be restricted in terms of use. Don't go to McDonalds for a pizza.
Another option would be to remove the DRM code and raise the price enough to cover potential duplication and other uses. But the high price would probably keep you from buying the music, too.
So what's right? I honestly don't know, and I honestly don't presume that what is right for me would be right for you. But the record industry, the book industry, the food industry, the computer industry, you and even me ... we all have the right to protect our property (just try getting the spice recipe for the taco filling at Taco Bell).
I suppose I probably sound as arrogant in my position on DRM as you do in yours. I recognize that I may not get it but, as an artist whose music sells on iTunes, I am much happier getting my few cents for each track. And with Apple selling five million tracks a day, I would have to imagine they are not too concerned that some folks might not buy DRM encoded tracks. There seem to be plenty out there who will. Thank goodness.