backtop

Internet EMI Trying Out DRM-free Music Files
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - December 9, 2006 12:49 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 23 comment(s) - last by Locutus465.. on Dec 11 at 10:05 PM
EMI is the latest record label to offer users music files without DRM

In a move aimed at pleasing users, EMI Music has announced that it is offering music tracks through the Yahoo! Music service with no restrictive digital rights management (DRM) technology. EMI is offering tracks from Norah Jones and Relient K for $0.99 through Yahoo! Music. 

Several other record companies have also tested out the market for DRM-free music files.  Sony released a Jessica Simpson song over the summer with no DRM, and Disney offered Jesse McCartney's latest album with no restrictions.  Independent record labels, however, have been much faster to adapt to offering content with no playback restrictions.

Music companies are trying to test out the waters to see if there is a high enough demand for music files that are able to be played on any digital music player on the market.  In fact, some officials have gone as far as to claim that record labels should all attempt to offer DRM-free content to users.

While any drastic notions of all songs being DRM-free is still a longshot, progress is being made.  "They're still looking at it as an experiment by the labels have come a long way in terms of wanting to see how this works for them," said Carrie Davis, a Yahoo spokesman.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Yeah, but it's not in the format I want!
By Kuroyama on 12/9/2006 9:25:59 PM , Rating: 1
Well, if it spreads then all those pirates who try to justify their theft will need a different excuse. I think the two main points of contention are "I don't want DRM" and "It's not in the format I want", but somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that even if both conditions are met that these people aren't going to steal any less.




RE: Yeah, but it's not in the format I want!
By Vertigo101 on 12/10/2006 12:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think people would be happy with most any lossless format, provided they can buy it a track at a time.

But you are right: the people who don't want to buy music won't.


By Ringold on 12/10/2006 11:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
What, DRM-free lossless, you say?

I was under the impression all these sites were cheap on the bandwidth and offered 128kbps or similarly low bitrate.

What the hells the problem then? Wrong format, no DRM, make it in to .ape or whatever else one wants!

If the experiment expands to include some more people I like, I guess I'm out of excuses. 'The Man' wins. :)


RE: Yeah, but it's not in the format I want!
By smitty3268 on 12/10/2006 1:09:59 AM , Rating: 5
Agreed - the people who steal are still going to steal, and the people who buy music are still going to buy. Which kind of makes the whole DRM thing pointless and hopefully the music companies will see it is just a waste of their money.


RE: Yeah, but it's not in the format I want!
By sbanjac on 12/10/2006 4:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
You know what comes to my mind? I don't listen to a lot of music, so i dont buy it. But i think to my self: if the music were to be cheaper a lot more people would buy it. Why does an singer deserves to be payed 100x as an PhD? That ain't right if you ask me. What makes them so much worth? If they lower the prices so that everyone earns a good salary, it can be more than the sallaries of a professor at the university or a PhD in any field, but at max 5x. They just make to much money.


By Brainonska511 on 12/10/2006 6:40:09 PM , Rating: 3
You should remember that MOST bands make jack sh!t off of record sales. Most of the money from records goes into the big label studio pockets. Artists make more money off of touring. The only time artists make any real money off of CDs is if they are REALLY big or if they are signed to an independent label (but with that, they wouldn't be selling too many CDs).


By glennpratt on 12/10/2006 6:56:42 PM , Rating: 3
Very few artists make that much.


By dgouldin on 12/11/2006 9:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
Such a completely uninformed statement. Learn a little bit about the profession you're bashing before you open your mouth.


By Oregonian2 on 12/11/2006 4:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
I read a book about how the music business works (written for people who might like to get into it). Artists usually make very little from recordings with most all of the money going to the big companies. Massively so. About the only artist who actually gets a fair shake is he or her who writes the music. Writer maintains a cut as dictated by law (not that tremendous of a percentage, but something not insignificant).

That's undoubtedly why the record companies are now trying to negotiate that writer-payment down. That way they can have it ALL to themselves.


By Gooberslot on 12/10/2006 7:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. If this takes off I'll finally be able to start buying music again. So that's one person who will stop pirating (although I currently do very little) and start buying.


By mindless1 on 12/11/2006 4:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to be leaving out one important group- those who are annoyed at the lawsuits and limitations so they aren't buying, but aren't illegally infringing either.

New or past lost customer profits are additional $ they'd make that they wouldn't have otherwise. Once they cut out the lawsuits and offer very high quality downloads instead of the lower bitrate mutilated music, they will reach a member of the aforementioned group (me).


By Locutus465 on 12/11/2006 10:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... I think cost is a major factor here... $20.00 per CD is too much, especially since the record companies then turn around and stick it to the artists by continuing to charge them between 15 and 20% for breakage (not sure on the specific number but it is on the order of)... I think between $10 and $15 (for a really hot artist) is quite a bit more in line... (and I know for a fact they would continue to make obscene amounts of money).


My experience with DRM music
By SunAngel on 12/10/2006 12:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
Sure DRM is unacceptable, but there are ways to get around it. My computer has digital optical in and out and my Sony MiniDisc Recorder has digital optical in and out. I changed my sound properties to digital out and send the audio out to the MiniDisc player. Once all the tracks are on the MiniDisc, I send them back into the computer through Nero Mix. Granted, it takes 2X the track/album time, but my music is DRM-less. I then convert to WMA and sync up with my notebook and pda smartphone. I figure while I'm listening to the song I might as just output it to the MiniDisc. I don't really see it as a loss of time to go through this whole process, but more of an inconvenience to have to do so. But hey, these are the current rules and this was the only way, I saw, to keep everything digital (besides installing a hack on my computer, which I won't do).




RE: My experience with DRM music
By Gooberslot on 12/10/2006 7:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
Don't minidiscs use lossy compression? If so, your taking a compressed file, re-compressing it when you record it to the minidisc then re-compressing it again when you record it in WMA format. Wow, I don't see how you can stand that level of quality loss.


RE: My experience with DRM music
By mindless1 on 12/11/2006 4:47:24 AM , Rating: 4
I don't think you understand. As a prospective paying customer, I don't want to find a way around using what I pay for. Leave that kind of nonsense to the kiddie crackers, I don't have time to fool around with it, just download and have it work on all devices or forget it.


Hmmm...
By Ralph The Magician on 12/9/2006 11:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they are realizing that software-based DRM costs them money and provides no benefit because it's so easy to crack.




RE: Hmmm...
By Staples on 12/10/2006 12:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
So easy to crack yet everyone still complains about it.


my dear jessica
By codeThug on 12/9/2006 11:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Jessica Simpson song over the summer with no DRM"

Wow... lemme catch my breath. WGAF




RE: my dear jessica
By sscilli on 12/10/2006 4:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that some people are going to steal music regardless, but this is still a step in the right direction. I think the main problem, besides DRM, is price. Why should I over pay for a restricted low quality song when I can get a high quality unrestrited copy?


Possibly on to something
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2006 9:33:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Music companies are trying to test out the waters to see if there is a high enough demand for music files that are able to be played on any digital music player on the market.


No because people prefer to be locked onto a single device. Or be told how many devices it can exist on.




I don't get it
By BladeVenom on 12/10/2006 6:20:14 PM , Rating: 3
What does Jessica Simpson got to do with music?




By shortylickens on 12/9/2006 8:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Disney released an album DRM-free?!?
Why does this seem like a fairy tale?




Fantastic News!
By Chocolate Pi on 12/9/2006 10:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
The bulk of consumers have long been trapped in the middle of an increasingly bitter war between pirates and companies. Pirates may have started it, but it is the companies that must stop it. This is a step in the right directions that honest consumers should support.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki