Hard News: Another nail in the coffin of music DRM
691 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 28 Newer→ Last
-
Who pays? Me? Why? I don't want it, it offers no benefit to me.
cry yourself a river. Ilok for protools offers no benefit to me but all their software and plugins that use it are uncrackable. if I want to use em its the game I have to play, and pay for, its annoying but I understand the big picture of why its there. getting angry and 'annoyed\ about it isn't going to change it, but I can push for changes to make it more user friendly, like a bore robustly designed dongle, back autorizations online, etc.
I thought you'd know all about this since you're a tech wiz. -
Thats wrong too. you can't compare drm to what you get from an illegal downloads cos you're not actually entitled to the download and its not something you've paid for or are getting as a service.
I suspect in the world of 'trying to get money for selling music' then this is absolutely the comparison that you have to make, because it's your competition. It's not fair competition, but it's still what you have to work with when it comes to a fair chunk of the public.
What finn doesn't get is technology can change in the future. When you buy music in the future it could be encrpyted, only playable with a key, have the purchasers id put through it for tracking, be playable on devices that have no analogue output and no way of easily copying it other than an analogue microphone recording.
I think the point is, technology hasn't been able to prevent the copying of legal music to illegal copies for a long time. Or movies etc. The reason it wasn't the end of the world was that distribution was difficult. You needed to physically move a tape, VHS, CD, DVD etc. Sure it happened, but not a massive amount, and only between people who knew each other.
The internet has broken that, so now illegally copying is a massive problem for the music industry. So now they need to fix a problem that they've never been able to solve - preventing illegal copying.
Media formats have been a history of new developments which have subsequently been broken by illegal copying. Tapes were easy, CDs took a while but once every computer came with a writer, done. DVDs the same. The next method of delivery will similarly protect for a while, and then technology will overcome. People broke DRM, they'll break encoding keys, they'll hack devices etc. Your computer will come with a port which connects to whatever device they try and flog off next. Someone will make an exact copy of the device but without the copyright protection in it. Software will be written which hacks any software and allows free distribution again. There's no motivation in the community to comply with the music industry, indeed there's a heap of motivation not to.
have you not used a computer game where the key is the disc you install it off. the game doesn't work without it.
You didn't run that software that redirected the computer from looking for the CD to looking in a folder on your hard drive for it? I thought everyone did that.
Or get the hacked version which didn't look for the CD? That technology never worked for anyone who put a little effort into breaking it.
why does a computer have to be your media platform too.
Because the computer connects to the internet and the internet is where everyone's getting their music from. And from there, they can copy it onto anything - MP3 player, CD etc. Why would I want to make my primary means of getting music a media player which I have to pay more money for, when the computer already does everything I want and has better sound output?
-
but all of those are exceptions to the rule and the radiohead example was a disturbing reflection on either them or their fans with 65% of them paying nothing a further 28% paying fuck all and only a handful paying market rate or showing them some respect.
Actually, 45% of the people who downloaded In Rainbows , or 1.2 million people, paid an average US$6 each. Radiohead netted nearly US$7 million from the downloads alone, and then sold a truckload of CDs via conventional retail channels and an unknown number of the fancy £40 box sets.
At this point, they've done far, far better from this record than any other album they've released.
-
Actually, 45% of the people who downloaded In Rainbows , or 1.2 million people, paid an average US$6 each.
hmm, who to believe ......
In addition to confirming the physical release, the band's statement also dismissed the results of a recent report issued by comScore, a company that measures online consumer activity. The comScore report suggested that 60 percent of fans who downloaded In Rainbows — which the band offered as a "name-your-own-price" product beginning October 10 — paid nothing for the tracks.
I notice the band don't give the figure for how many did download it for nothing. not that they'd have anything to gain from mis reporting the success of their human nature experiment in relation to their music, would they?
so why would comscore get their figures wrong seeing as its their job to report these things.I read the intital report which is where I got my figures from.
-
At this point, they've done far, far better from this record than any other album they've released.
true, they've personally done better cutting out all middle men etc, but the project as a whole has grossed far less,
its also imporant to note that radiohead are in a far better position than most bands in that they have the money to record their own music to a high level, and set up the infra structure to do what they did. it may be a small cost to them but to most low level bands its out of their reach, -
You didn't run that software that redirected the computer from looking for the CD to looking in a folder on your hard drive for it? I thought everyone did that.
nope, it was an example of key disc technology, they've got better and worse at this shit now. at the time I didn't bother with redirects etc, it was above my knowledge level back in 95, and that's what it takes to make a big cut in piracy. make it a little bit difficult and you hit 75 % of people. Sure 25% will get round it (figures made up, but you get the idea) but most are not that savvy, and that will be enough of a step up from no obstacle what ever which is where we are if people push this no drm thing. most computer literate people like we all should be will find ways to do our stealing, the rest will comply with the system.
-
I think the point is, technology hasn't been able to prevent the copying of legal music to illegal copies for a long time. Or movies etc.
not true, it just hasn't been prepared to take the steps to implement it.
They could do a lot of things that would stem piracy, but they seem to be exhausting all other non abrasive methods first and really they've
been to busy chasing their tails over their PR problems to make many move to stem piracy, but they seem to be getting over that of late (see oscar screener disc steps, extreme law cases, french Internet providers etc) -
why does a computer have to be your media platform too.
Because the computer connects to the internet and the internet is where everyone's getting their music from.
Which is why if I was a smart media player designer charged with the task of making non piracy players I'd move as far away from computer interactivity as possible and to a stand alone player. (luckily for piracy inc I'm not a media player designer)
-
original story on radiohead about the comscore article
radiohead have disputed this but I haven't seem them put forward their freeloader figures.
-
most computer literate people like we all should be will find ways to do our stealing, the rest will comply with the system.
It only takes one person to put a copy on the net, tho. You don't seems to get that it's a double problem: stopping people getting it off a disc or other medium and stopping people then sharing the non-drm files via the net.
With regard to the Oscar movies: it has surprised me to see review copies of new movies turn up on the net. this is obviously intended to get around that- or at least slow it down. But that's a problem- and a solution- that works ok (for a while?) to protect copies you're giving away to people you're prepared to give the technology to. I don't see how it could translate to consumer sales.
OTOH... you're right about how the ipod (software?) has been re-jigged. And vista was supposed to be a big move towards protecting drm. I saw a notice somewhere that MS are now offering people a special disc so they can "downgrade" their new vista machine to xp. Heh! -
true, they've personally done better cutting out all middle men etc, but the project as a whole has grossed far less,
So the fact that they've been able to use the network to connect directly with their audience is a bad thing? And do they really owe EMI anything after their former label climbed into the hype with a competing box set?
In Rainbows went to #1 in the US, UK and France, and #2 in New Zealand and various other countries --- without the downloads being eligible for the count. It has done very well indeed.
its also imporant to note that radiohead are in a far better position than most bands in that they have the money to record their own music to a high level, and set up the infra structure to do what they did. it may be a small cost to them but to most low level bands its out of their reach,
I think their advantage was more their fervent fan base than being able to cover the upfront cost. The download set-up would have cost less than a conventional marketing campaign.
Rob, I get the impression you'd rather sell five copies and have no one get your thing for free than sell 500 and wear a few freeloaders.
-
Which is why if I was a smart media player designer charged with the task of making non piracy players I'd move as far away from computer interactivity as possible and to a stand alone player. (luckily for piracy inc I'm not a media player designer)
I don't think so. Everything about music and its delivery has been moving towards the computer. I think if you put out a music player, and I couldn't take CDs I currently own, and put them on it, you'd struggle to sell many units. The way I put my CDs on my current player is through my computer.
Your Oscar screeners story isn't going to work in the general population. The Oscars themselves have presumably paid the money for thousands of players, because they're aware that having movies that they've released to members hit the internet, is a bad look. They're not going to send me one for free.
You should be thinking more about the game console vs PC debate. PC games are much easier to get free off the internet, game consoles are more difficult, though still possible to pick up especially if you travel. People are willing to pay for console games because they offer something more than a PC game for many people. That's not the case for music. A song is a song, it's no better through my TV than it is though my PC.
-
I suspect in the world of 'trying to get money for selling music' then this is absolutely the comparison that you have to make, because it's your competition.
you're not factoring the illegality part of it enough. its illegal and currently they're nt pushing policing it much, but they've shown they can.
you can easily shop lift a bar of chocolate, a bit harder now with security cameras and with store owners being wise to it with the general decline in honesty in youth etc (not like it was when milk was 4 cents a pint blah blah blah).
you're not saying that shoplifting is competition for marketing chocolate are you? I get your point but when designing music media delivery its not really a competitive factor cos its illegal,
I get your point but I think you allow it too much strength in the argument. but noted. -
I think if you put out a music player, and I couldn't take CDs I currently own, and put them on it, you'd struggle to sell many units.
sorry, maybe I didn't make the idea clear. I don't think the media player is the selling point. I think you release media only playable on the media player. if you're into my chemical romance and you want the next album, its only available via the new system,
maybe the player is free, has free wireless internet connection inbuilt for downloading tracks, has your user id code all inbuilt. I'm only hypothesizing for those (I'm looking at you finn) who can't envisage a world different from the one we are in right now.
I'm not saying it will work, but it could, if the pressure on the music makers was so bad they had no choice -
So the fact that they've been able to use the network to connect directly with their audience is a bad thing?
who said that?
I'm saying its not quite the success story they'd like to paint it as.
a lot of people didn't get to pay their rent because of the short fall in gross. From CD manufactures in korea, to freight deliver people to shop owners (thieving bastards all of them) to newspapers carrying CD store ads to etc etc.
Radiohead made their slice of the pie and good on them, but less money was spent on the luxury of music, in this 'success' story.I don't know how much you know bout creating a wealthy community but basically wealth is created by people buying shit, paying money for it and those people turn round and pay that money for something else and so on till it comes back to you and you spend it again. if less money is being spent then the community as a whole becomes poorer.
This applies to all industries that get downsized, and thats a good and bad thing depending on where you stand I guess.
I'm just saying the results of the radiohead experiment in my eyes were not glowing praise for the music consuming public.
I'd be embarrassed on behalf of them if I hadn't bought my copy from a thai market for $2. (just kidding, I got it in korea) -
It only takes one person to put a copy on the net, tho. You don't seems to get that it's a double problem:
that's a good point and of course I do get it robbie, I'm just arguing the negative (or positive depending on how you look at it) cos most people are stuck on the hype and cliche.
-
Rob, I get the impression you'd rather sell five copies and have no one get your thing for free than sell 500 and wear a few freeloaders.
but this isn't about me and I don't think I've made a comment from my personal perspective. We're talking about "it". The big picture, and the big picture is made up of a lot of small pictures.
Would I rather sell 5 than none and have 500 out there.
depends
If I was a 40 something media commentator with no known musical talent I'd suggest giving them away to anyone who'd take em. sweeten the pot by paying people to take them. Fuck, i'll take a couple of hundred so I can re use the cd cases,
If I was a young musician with no track record no one had heard before who wanted people to hear my earnest songs about that nasty girl that dumped me, again, the give away model would be a good course of action,
If I was an established artists creating works that took a lot of time and expense to create. maybe the first record I'd accept a loss, but at some point I'd have to say how am I going to keep this ship going.
Do you want a music creating force that is just happy to be heard or do you want them to have respect for their own abilities and believe they're efforts are worth something?
If the musician doesn't believe in the value of their art how can you expect someone else to. So yeah, at some point I would rather only the people that value it enough to respect it with payment got it. if thats 5 people thats the way it is. -
And do they really owe EMI anything after their former label climbed into the hype with a competing box set?
Tell me you're not perpetuating the evil record company myth again please Russell. How can we respect your comments on music when you play into these stereotypes and Hollywood created fantasies.
Its EMIs job to sell the radiohead catalogue that they control. That's what radiohead signed up to them for in the first place. why are we supposed to hate them for making a box set of their stuff to work in with the new album? Its business. its the same as all businesses, its there to make product in exchange for money.
-
And do they really owe EMI anything after their former label climbed into the hype with a competing box set?
EMI stab Radiohead in the back catalogue
Spurned label releases box set and USB stick of old albums to compete with newly independent band's In Rainbows 'discbox'
After watching their former charges Radiohead give content away for (nigh-on) free and sign with a rival, EMI are hitting back by re-releasing the band's entire back catalogue. The collection will go on sale the same week as the "discbox" of the group's revolutionary album In Rainbows is shipped.
can you spell H..Y..P..E?
in competition with?? how does that work?. ones a new album and ones a collection of back catalogue. they both profit radiohead.
I thought that one was a little obvious.
You really shouldn't fall for this manufacture controversy any more mate. -
If the musician doesn't believe in the value of their art how can you expect someone else to. So yeah, at some point I would rather only the people that value it enough to respect it with payment got it. if thats 5 people thats the way it is.
You missed my point.
Would you rather sell 50 copies and have no one pirate your release, or have 10,000 people pirate it and sell 500 copies?
-
you're not factoring the illegality part of it enough. its illegal and currently they're nt pushing policing it much, but they've shown they can.
And I'm saying, that world isn't changing, music will continue to be distributed illegally. So that's the competition.
I think you release media only playable on the media player. if you're into my chemical romance and you want the next album, its only available via the new system,
And then people will hack it out and MP3 it and distribute it. Probably within the hour of it being released. It'll be like watching billions of dollars of free players that you've given away do absolutely nothing to actually sell the music. In fact, I suspect the backlash will be such that people will go out of the way to avoid buying your music, and will download it from elsewhere just because they think you're an arsehole for trying to force them to listen to it through your crappy player.
-
ts EMIs job to sell the radiohead catalogue that they control. That's what radiohead signed up to them for in the first place. why are we supposed to hate them for making a box set of their stuff to work in with the new album? Its business. its the same as all businesses, its there to make product in exchange for money.
Er, yeah, but you seemed to be employing that Radiohead were letting the side down by doing it differently. Should I feel guilty because no printers were troubled in the production of this blog?
-
You missed my point.
Would you rather sell 50 copies and have no one pirate your release, or have 10,000 people pirate it and sell 500 copies?
no, I got your point but I had to contemplate whether you were basing your question on the results of the Russell Brown 'greylynn nights' triple live box set sales or if you were just making things up.
it was 5 copies and no pirating, then it was wear a few downloaders, ( a few sounds very friendly and non threatening) now its 10,000 downloaders (the correct ratio if we are to believe what we read).
the thing is there is no proof that there are increased sales as a result of downloads. sure some people buy discs based on hearing pirate music, I know I've done this a great many times, although less and less as the mass population's attitude is pushed toward one of "fuck it, just take it" stance.
your numbers are meaningless and assume that giving it away for free leads to people actually buying it.
I've got a lot of friends who now buy no music. giving it away for free to these people doesn't create 500 sales, it creates no sales. it creates a bill for the artist.
you're saying giving away the results of peoples creative endeavours is good for them yet you present no consistent facts to support this.
-
And I'm saying, that world isn't changing, music will continue to be distributed illegally. So that's the competition.
but it is changing. I gave you examples of it with the french situation as reported in the herald article.
-
Er, yeah, but you seemed to be employing that Radiohead were letting the side down by doing it differently. Should I feel guilty because no printers were troubled in the production of this blog?
in a way yes, but more importantly for the radiohead example its a bad reflection on human nature. give people the chance to do the right thing and a large proportion of them will do the wrong thing.
and thinking about it now I'm slightly skeptical of the 'were just doing it for the fans' rebelion of radiohead. I met thom york once at a sound check. he was really straight up and normal. then the gig started and he was all tortured and broken. interesting.....
Post your response…
This topic is closed.