backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 95 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on Jul 22 at 2:41 PM
Music you can really take anywhere

In a startling change of pace, Yahoo unofficially announced that it is currently in a trial mode to offer sales of MP3s without DRM constraints. Unlike popular online MP3 stores like iTunes, Yahoo plans to compete by offering songs which customers can copy to any playback device or even fully convert over to WAV or any other format.

Currently, Yahoo is considering selling songs at a price of $1.99 each, which is roughly double that of an iTunes song. But Yahoo is hoping that regardless of the new price, DRM-less MP3s will attract a significant amount of people. Being without restrictions, customers can afford to play music on any device they desire. Yahoo says that DRM is very expensive for companies to implement, even for its own online store, it would much rather spend the money on developing end-user experiences. According to Yahoo:

And on the consumer end there is certainly some discount built into that $0.99 download for the fact that you can burn a limited number of times, can’t play it on your Squeezebox, can’t DJ it with your DJ software, and can’t make a movie out of it with iMovie? I certainly hope so. Un-DRM’d content is implicitly more valuable to a consumer.

Yahoo says that DRM doesn't add any value for artists and the labels. The company says that CDs are sold everyday without DRM anyway. Yahoo is currently testing out its new DRM-less service in limited selection. The company says it's still working with major record labels to form an agreement. No time frame has been released on just when Yahoo's full blown DRM-free music store will open.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I would
By Merry on 7/20/2006 2:30:19 PM , Rating: 3
Still buy CDs rather than use such services.

Theres nothing quite like owning a physical CD produced by a decent (in you're opinion) band.




RE: I would
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/20/2006 2:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
CD's are overated, most CD's have 1 or 2 decent songs, rest suck. Thats why services like these took off.


RE: I would
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 2:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CD's are overated, most CD's have 1 or 2 decent songs, rest suck. Thats why services like these took off.

I'd agree, and what that means is that you've probably got a couple of songs worth a lot more than the others. With a more sophisticated pricing model, pricing would be set based on each track, with a discount if you purchase the entire "album." But that would be complicated.


RE: I would
By Merry on 7/20/2006 3:13:10 PM , Rating: 3
It is my belief that selling music track by track is killing music.

There are some albums which shouldnt be separated. It just encourages throw away music


RE: I would
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 3:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I could see your point there. But possibly the remote control and/or the FF button on the CD player already inflicted much of the damage.

But let's face it, producing music for most is a business and a way to earn a living. Although the business side requires 10-15 tracks on a CD in order for it to be commercially viable, it may not be the case that all bands are so prolific and/or inspired to be able to come up with that many quality songs in a given time period. Therefore, I think that many CDs already have "filler music" as you say.

Just so you don't think I'm only seeing one side of this, I will say that for some particularly good bands, that their CD is what I would consider a "masterpiece" that should be listened to from beginning-to-end and in the order they intended. But in my experience, this is only like 1 in 20 of the CDs I have listened to.


RE: I would
By WeaselITB on 7/20/2006 4:42:58 PM , Rating: 3
I would argue that commercialization of music has inflicted the damage w.r.t. "throw-away" music. Take music back in the vinyl days -- plenty of good singles, but not every song that Elvis (say) released was a #1 hit -- there were plenty of "blah" songs from major artists back then, too.


RE: I would
By masher2 (blog) on 7/20/2006 5:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "There are some albums which shouldnt be separated. It just encourages throw away music..."

An interesting point...but the days of "album"-oriented music died in the late 1970s, early '80s. Before even the CD, much less online music. I'd say the phenomenom is more due to shrinking attention spans than the record industry itself.


RE: I would
By segagenesis on 7/20/2006 6:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say the phenomenom is more due to shrinking attention spans than the record industry itself.


QFT. Popular music trends have changed clothes often for the past few decades so this is nothing new, but in the digital age it may literally well be a case of "here today, gone tomorrow".

I personally miss the whole album concept because albums I have from the era you describe (I have *alot* of ELO) are an example when entire albums were filled with quality music.


RE: I would
By Merry on 7/21/2006 7:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt say so. Take American Idiot, for example. It only makes sense as a (bad) album. Same is true of other albums. 'Together we're Heavy' By the Polyphonic Spree and The Holy Bible by Manic Street Preachers are other such examples.

Of course pop is always going to be singles based. I'm more worried that this sort of culture is spreading to other genres, although albums such as 'Black Holes and Revalations' by Muse would imply that this is not yet the case.


RE: I would
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 10:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wouldnt say so.

I agree. As I said before, I would put maybe 1:20 of my CDs into that category. I certainly don't have anything as old as ELO for example.


RE: I would
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 10:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "Of course pop is always going to be singles based"

My point was that, in the 70s and early 80s, pop singles derived largely from album-oriented music. I just don't see that happening today.


RE: I would
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 11:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that, in the 70s and early 80s, pop singles derived largely from album-oriented music. I just don't see that happening today.

I think that judgement is partly a function of your affinity for a particular band. If you feel a particular band is "brilliant," you're more likely to view their entire album as cohesive work. I would give some examples of what I mean, but I don't think it would translate to someone else with different musical tastes.

I think it is fair to say that most bands (or producers or record companies) at a minimum, put some thought into the order of the songs on an album, rather than just random order. This is obviously part of the "album" thing, though not the entire story.


RE: I would
By ttowntom4 on 7/21/2006 6:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
> " think that judgement is partly a function of your affinity for a particular band"

Could be; I don't discount the possibility. So let me advance a different metric then, one which can be objectively interpreted. Song length. Many hits from the 60s and 70s ran to 5, 6, 7, even 8 or more minutes. I know one in particular (still played occasionally), that is nearly 20 minutes long.

In contemporary music, when was the last hit single you heard that ran to more than four minutes in length? More to the point-- do you feel this is in any way significant?



RE: I would
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 6:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
Odd that showed up under that name...


RE: I would
By WeaselITB on 7/20/2006 2:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely what I was getting at in my above post on this topic.


So true
By mendocinosummit on 7/20/2006 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
RIAA will sue, just like they sued XM.




RE: So true
By othercents on 7/20/2006 1:28:24 PM , Rating: 3
Sure they will sue. They have already sued people who don't have computers or internet access for downloading music.

Other


RE: So true
By kattanna on 7/20/2006 1:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
dont forget..they also sued a woman who was dead during the time they claim she was pirating all that music..

and the first attempt of i think it was her daughter to prove she was dead by showing them a copy of the death certificate, they didnt believe her..cause they had "PROOF"

LOL



RE: So true
By masher2 (blog) on 7/20/2006 5:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "..they also sued a woman who was dead during the time they claim she was pirating all that music"

I realize you're more interested in making a statement against the RIAA than the actual facts of such cases, but surely you must realize the RIAA gets much of its evidence from subpoenaing account information from ISPs.

If I die tonight, my broadband connection is still active. And if one of my children downloads a song, and the RIAA investigates, they'll eventually wind up with my name, and a date subsequent to my death. It doesn't mean the incident didn't happen. And technically, me (or rather my estate) is still liable for the infringement.


RE: So true
By Dfere on 7/21/2006 8:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
Nope.

The person who committed the act is liable. If not, this would be a great shield for thieves and hackers.

I am not saying I am sure an agency or a person (if a tort was filed) would not try, but the basis of legal proceedings, is to correctly identify the person accused and any other party of interest. If incorrect parties are named, or worse if correct parties are not named in the suit, it allows for a defense to be raised. I have even been served notices "certified" mail to my "unnamed spouse" to cover such a defense by me against a complaint.

The RIAA is not a legal authority- thus the action must be civil. Unfortunately, if RIAA did not believe her, she will need an attorney- and of course must pay fees. I don't think she will have else to worry about. She can try to recover those fees, and in her case she might win (each state treats recovery of legal fees differently- in Ohio it is hard , but here she might prevail)

What really sucks is this is nothing more than systematic blackmail, and everyone knows it. It is not the fine, it is the threat of legal action to cowe people. It is the threat of misery and legal fees, not about who is right and wrong under the law, or in this specific discussion, who even committed the tortious act.


RE: So true
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "Nope. The person who committed the act is liable. If not, this would be a great shield for thieves and hackers. "

You didn't read my statement carefully. I said, "if my children download", then I am responsible.

> "the basis of legal proceedings, is to correctly identify the person accused..."

And out of several hundred thousand RIAA lawsuits, only a handful have incorrectly identified that person...and even in those cases, we have no reason to believe the mistake was on RIAA's side.

Seems to me, they're taking all due diligence in identifying the guilty parties. If they have evidence, and that evidence is misleading or incorrect-- well, that's why we have a court system.

> "What really sucks is this is nothing more than systematic blackmail"

No, its the punishment of people who are breaking the law, and injuring record labels in the process.

Ignored totally in your post is that fact that millions of people DAILY engage in theft of the RIAA's property. I realize you'd like them to simply ignore that fact. But they have a legal and ethical right to pursue it.


RE: So true
By segagenesis on 7/21/2006 10:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
No, its the punishment of people who are breaking the law, and injuring record labels in the process.

Ignored totally in your post is that fact that millions of people DAILY engage in theft of the RIAA's property. I realize you'd like them to simply ignore that fact. But they have a legal and ethical right to pursue it.

Ok. Stop please, this really sounds hypocritical. Ignored totally are payola scams of the 50s and the fact many labels have been found guilty of price fixing in the past, they arent exactly law abiding either. By the way, piracy is copyright infringment, not theft. You can argue this till you are blue in the face or on that other crazy thread you were posting in but it still does not change that fact.

Really, if piracy stopped 100% completely tomorrow worldwide by the magical fairy waving her wand do you really think they would offer better quality, lower prices for music, and less restrictions? I swear piracy is the most retarded scapegoat I keep hearing these days when they could be selling a billion copies of an album and still they would whine that too many people are ripping music off.

I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it... and this argument was already dead horse severeal years ago I don't know why you keep dragging it on like its going to make a difference in the world. I apologize for the harsh comments but this is like the 100th post I've seem from you about this crap.


RE: So true
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 10:33:40 AM , Rating: 1
> "Ok. Stop please, this really sounds hypocritical."

It would only be hypocritical if I was stealing music myself. Is that what you're implying?

> "Ignored totally are payola scams of the 50s... "

So you believe that, because of actions undertook by some labels 50 years ago, that you're entitled to steal the music of all labels today? Strange logic indeed.

> "By the way, piracy is copyright infringment, not theft"

Piracy is theft of intellectual property.

> "if piracy stopped 100% completely tomorrow worldwide by the magical fairy waving her wand do you really think they would offer better quality, lower prices for music, and less restrictions?"

You seem to be implying that-- if they DON'T do that, then piracy is justified. It is not. You forget a simple fact. It's THEIR music. Their property-- their rules. If you don't like the quality or the price, don't buy. Plain and simple.

How would you respond if you put your car on the market, and the RIAA came round and said, "sorry, too expensive. Lower the price by half or I'll just steal it...and, by the way, I don't like the quality, so pay for an overhaul also"?

> this argument was already dead horse severeal years ago I don't know why you keep dragging it on... "

Why do you?




RE: So true
By segagenesis on 7/21/2006 11:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, its hypocritical because your arguing against piracy which is fine, but you act like the world is going to hell because of it. World War 3 is brewing in the Middle East and your so passionately worried about people copying music? Damn... Really, I should put a GPS receiver on your person and make sure that you abide by the speed limit, never jaywak, and make sure you are where you want to be at all times... you would like this then? (please, note sarcasm before biting my head off)

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has been prosecuting payola-related crimes in his jurisdiction. His office settled out of court with Sony BMG Music Entertainment in July 2005, Warner Music Group in November 2005 and Universal Music Group in May 2006. The three conglomerates agreed to pay $10, $5 and $12 million respectively for distribution by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors to New York State non-profit organizations that will fund music education and appreciation programs throughout the state. EMI remains under investigation.

No comment. I never implied that you are entitled to steal because of these actions either, I implied they are just as bad criminals as pirates. This world is full of people who dont abide by the law and if you worry about every single one of them your head will asplode StongBad Zone

You seem to be implying that-- if they DON'T do that, then piracy is justified. It is not. You forget a simple fact. It's THEIR music. Their property-- their rules. If you don't like the quality or the price, don't buy. Plain and simple.

Actually I'm not buying it. I only use eMusic as I stated yesterday for buying music and I could care less if I'm missing out on anything big label. And yet again im not implying that your justified to steal music because of whatever, thanks for putting words into my mouth a 2nd time. My point is if they had no "competition" they would charge $10 a track if they could. Steve Jobs is making them alot of money on iTunes and even he thinks that $1 per track is enough (as in he refuses to let them raise prices).

How would you respond if you put your car on the market, and the RIAA came round and said, "sorry, too expensive. Lower the price by half or I'll just steal it...and, by the way, I don't like the quality, so pay for an overhaul also"?

Comparing intellectual property to physical objects again are we not? Not even the same ballpark argument. A person who wants to steal your car will just take it without asking you anyways :P

Why do you?

Ask yourself that question. You already forgot how many times you posted in that thread on Saturday? Comparitavely, I'm just getting started. And seriously, what do you want out of all this? Read my first paragraph again, if we went nickels and dimes on everyone in this country about 90% it would be in jail. It does not justify other actions as such but you are seriously worrying too much about this.

I could put this and everything else in a single sentence to make it more clear: Pirates dont bother me, companies that treat paying customers are crooks or assume they are bother me.


RE: So true
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 1:58:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
RIAA will sue, just like they sued XM.

Yahoo must have in place valid license agreements with major labels in order to offer a service like this (just as iTunes does). If that is the case, then RIAA won't interfere.

AFAIK, RIAA went after XM because they introduced recording capability, which somewhat changed the nature of the agreement XM had with the content providers.


RE: So true
By ddarko on 7/20/2006 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 3
"The company says it's still working with major record labels to form an agreement."

Um, did you miss this part? Yahoo will only sell this these mp3's aftering reaching agreements with the record labels so the RIAA WON'T sue. RIAA goes after PIRATED and UNPAID sharers; they don't sue people who buy their music.


RE: So true
By bob661 on 7/20/2006 9:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they don't sue people who buy their music
Are you sure about this?


RE: So true
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 9:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you sure about this?

I assume that to be the case. Do you know otherwise?


RE: So true
By powderific on 7/21/2006 9:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. Also, what about Emusic.com? They already offer DRM free music and have been doing so for quite some time, at MUCH less than $1.99 a song.


Great Solution
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 1:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
This makes perfect sense. A DRM-free version of a song file is more valuable than one with DRM, and thus, it should cost more. $2 sounds steep, but prices will probably fall as more competitors enter the market. I say I like it!




RE: Great Solution
By Hare on 7/20/2006 2:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
For the same price you can just pick up a CD from the store and rip it to your computer with better quality...


RE: Great Solution
By PitViper007 on 7/20/2006 2:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree. Yahoo's pricing makes it cheaper to go buy a CD and rip it. A 10 song CD from Yahoo = $20. Most CD's now are between $10-$15. And you even have a backup if the hard drive fails....hehe

PitViper


RE: Great Solution
By bob661 on 7/20/2006 9:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 10 song CD from Yahoo
Then you're stuck with 9 shitty songs for $20! No thanks. I prefer the "if I like THIS song, I'll buy THIS song" method for $2. DRM free!!


RE: Great Solution
By WeaselITB on 7/20/2006 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
I could see myself using this service for those one-off songs, where I want just one song from the CD and not the whole album.

I'd certainly be willing to spend $2 for DRM-free MP3's ... here's hoping they're better quality than 128k, though.


RE: Great Solution
By PrinceGaz on 7/21/2006 7:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd want something like 192kbps MP3 and they'd have to be encoded with LAME too for that bitrate to be adequate.


RE: Great Solution
By michael2k on 7/20/06, Rating: 0
RE: Great Solution
By Ksyder on 7/20/2006 2:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's obviously based on the assumption that a CD is usually 10-15 songs so an entire disc at Yahoo's pricing would be $20 to $30, more than the $12-18 for the entire album at a retail store.


RE: Great Solution
By bob661 on 7/20/2006 9:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do you find a $2 CD at a store?
8 years ago I used to buy CD singles for $2. Haven't bought one since. I moved to CA and EVERYTHING quadrupled in price.


RE: Great Solution
By dilz on 7/20/2006 4:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Are you a driver in the same country I am? The one where gas has only recently crested $3/gallon? Considering that the inherent value of music is zero, any resources spent to acquire a "cheap" CD forces the price well above $2 per track - assuming that the CD isn't filled with "intro" and "interlude" tracks that blow.

It would appear that the ability to carry music anywhere has been somehow translated to the NEED for it to be everywhere. I guess I should be investing in hearing-loss technologies. People used to complain about not having a way to purchase music legally. Now you have any number of legal ways to listen to music, or pay for it if you so desire.

If $2 per song is too steep, go sit in traffic so you can make yourself rich "saving" all that money paying retail prices.


RE: Great Solution
By Wolfpup on 7/20/2006 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
I like it too. I would *NEVER* consider renting (err "buying") a song from iTunes with DRM on it. But $2 for a song I actually own? Yeah, I'll consider that! Mostly depends on how compressed the music is (I agree it should be 192Kb/s or better) and how well designed the mechanism for buying the music is.

And yeah, this is more expensive than buying a CD if you want the whole thing-but then if you want the whole thing, why wouldn't you just buy the CD so you have fairly high sound quality and a physical back-up, etc.?
This is really good for buying a couple of great songs you've heard on the radio, without buying a whole album that probably stinks.

I would love it if 20 years from now DRM is just gone. It dosen't benefit anyone, not customers, and not the megacorps instituting it. Well...actually the one thing I'm fine with DRM for is rentals-obviously their needs to be some mechanism for deleting the content after the rental period is up-but it's outrageous for anything you buy-whether through download, or on DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. We should have the right to transfer it to any device we want as long as it's for our own personal use.


RE: Great Solution
By michael2k on 7/20/2006 7:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
The success of DVD, and by extension DRM, obviously has convinced the content owners that DRM is not a showstopper. There is no evidence to point out that DRM is disappearing. The success of the iTMS again shows that DRM is not a showstopper.

So if you would never consider buying a song from the iTMS because of DRM, does that mean you would never consider buying a DVD because of DRM, or a PS2 game, or any other data otherwise locked to prevent unauthorized use?

Very few people can claim not to have supported DRM by not buying into it...


RE: Great Solution
By nehalem on 7/21/2006 10:29:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually anyone can backup a DVD, there are loads of apps all over the web that do just that, and the user doesn't need to know anything about copy protections. As for console games, you can play them in ANY console you want, you aren't really restricted to just playing them on 5 pcs or your ipod.

Personally, I'd buy some singles if they were 192kb/s and $1.09


RE: Great Solution
By michael2k on 7/21/2006 5:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, technically what you say is true for music from the iTMS too:
You can backup as many times as you want
You can transcode as many times as you want
You can play them in as many iPods as you want

My original point still stands: Customers don't shirk from mild DRM. The iTMS, consoles, and DVDs are all proof positive of that.


At what price freedom?
By Houdani on 7/20/2006 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
If Yahoo! wants a slice then they are going about it the right way by taking out the DRM ...

... but then they shoot themselves in the foot by slapping an extra $1 premium on top of the $0.99 which consumers have embraced.

C'mon Yahoo! Charge no more than $1.25/song and you'll fetch my attention. But leave it at $1.99/song and I'll most definitely pass. Hrmph.




RE: At what price freedom?
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 2:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is there probably has to be a large price premium in order to get the content providers to agree.


RE: At what price freedom?
By blckgrffn on 7/20/2006 2:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, already they are trying to pressure iTunes to raise their prices, and if this is new agreement, it will probably cost Yahoo! a pretty penny.

Nat


RE: At what price freedom?
By segagenesis on 7/20/2006 2:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
I would refine that as assuming the large premium is for major content providers, but yeah that is probably the reason... but that does not mean I agree with it. eMusic may not offer the stuff you see from Top 10 artists but my opinion of the matter is I could care less about the garbage from that end of the music spectrum.

What might be a discussion for another time is how they come to the conclusion that under the MP3 format its worth more than buying the CD outright in a store, which costs money to actually manufacture and ship and market. At least, I see online distribution as a negligible overhead compared to brick and mortar distribution and as such sould be priced comparitavely.

Off base?



RE: At what price freedom?
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What might be a discussion for another time is how they come to the conclusion that under the MP3 format its worth more than buying the CD outright in a store, which costs money to actually manufacture and ship and market. At least, I see online distribution as a negligible overhead compared to brick and mortar distribution and as such sould be priced comparitavely.

Pricing in the music industry is clearly based on the perceived value of the music rather than the production costs. I think that for many people, a good-quality MP3 file could be considered more valuable than a CD since it can be acquired immediately online, and since it saves you the time for the ripping and encoding process if you want to play it with a digital player. On the other hand, if your only desire is to play a CD in your CD player, then the MP3 is a disadvantage, since you now have to burn a CD before you can use your purchase.

Therefore, I would think that the value of music provided on a CD should be pretty close to music provided as MP3 files. A large price premium in either direction is not justified, IMO.


RE: At what price freedom?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/20/2006 5:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "Pricing in the music industry is clearly based on the perceived value of the music rather than the production costs.."

I'd just like to add that, for a music label, the vast majority of production costs are in promoting the music, not in distributing the disc. So online music or CD...the total costs are pretty much the same.


RE: At what price freedom?
By fishbits on 7/20/2006 4:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, DRM-less would be great, but for twice the price? Each time I accumulate around 10 DRM songs for $1 each, I'll burn to CD and rip those to mp3. PITA? Yep. But for $10 savings for 10 songs, I'll do it.

Of course what I've found that truly sucks is how long it takes WMP 10 to load up a wma song, so one more tick in DRM-less' favor.


RE: At what price freedom?
By Suomynona on 7/20/2006 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...but it’s in MP3 format, which I have no problem paying a little more for (though $1.99 is a premium price because of the PERSONALIZATION, not the DRM, the right price for MP3s is somewhere between $0.99 and there, IMHO).

This is what Ian from Yahoo! Music is writing on the blog. I don't understand how that becomes; "Currently, Yahoo is considering selling songs at a price of $1.99 each, which is roughly double that of an iTunes song."

Did any of you even read the blog entry?


RE: At what price freedom?
By Houdani on 7/20/2006 6:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ian agrees that $1.99 is too much, but the fact of the matter is that Yahoo! is nonetheless selling the song(s) for $1.99.

I suppose we'll have to wait to see what Yahoo! will charge for a non-DRM, non-Personalized song. But until then, $1.99 is the benchmark they have established.


RE: At what price freedom?
By Suomynona on 7/20/2006 8:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
As of this date the only song they are selling as DRM-free MP3 is the custom Jessica Simpson song. Blowing it out of proportions saying that they have established a price at 1.99 is plain wrong.


hrm...
By Scabies on 7/20/2006 1:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
I dont like having to come up with a subject line. That aside:
Now, would all of y'all pay two bucks for a song if it was DRMless AND lossless (or at least 192kbps?) I'd pick up a service for that (or take suggestions as to where to find such a place, and dont say Best Buy)


It bugs me that "i" has set the benchmark for the rest of the world. Congrats to them, but annoying all the same.
"What's that?"
"My MP3 player: a Zen Nano"
"....................
Is that like an iPod?"
"(burn in hell) kind of"




RE: hrm...
By brystmar on 7/20/2006 2:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
I know I'd at least give it a shot if I could buy lossless, DRM-free music for $2/song. I have very high quality playback equipment, and over 90% of the music I have was ripped by me personally using lossless compression. Because of this, I will *never* pay money for music that is compressed with a lossy codec.


RE: hrm...
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 2:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably in a very small minority with that level of discernment. For everyone else, high-bitrate lossy compression produces music that is just as good as uncompressed files or files compressed with lossless converters.

Maybe a third, higher $3/song price category should exist for folks like you who want all the "raw" data.


RE: hrm...
By killerroach on 7/20/2006 7:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
But where is the high-bitrate lossy compression? 128Kbit isn't all that good, unless your hearing's started to go already... I usually stick to 192Kbit CBR or 320 Kbit VBR as a bare minimum for MP3s.


RE: hrm...
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 10:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
I also do 320kb/s VBR - that's "high" (maybe extreme) IMO.


RE: hrm...
By Halogen121 on 7/21/2006 5:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
192CBR is kind of low. 320 VBR is extremely (max possible) high. 192VBR or 320CBR makes sense :) I use myself LAME 320 CBR (to make sure that no compactibility issues occur) or flac.

PS. Sorry for my eng. It's not my native lng :)

Pawel


RE: hrm...
By joex444 on 7/20/2006 2:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, then figuring the average CD is 15 tracks, you just invented the $45 downloadable CD. Congrats, but I'll go to the store and pick it up for $8.99.


RE: hrm...
By Griffinhart on 7/20/2006 2:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
Drop the price to $1.25 to $1.50 a song with a set price if you buy the whole CD and I'd strongly consider it.


RE: hrm...
By bob661 on 7/20/2006 9:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Indeed, then figuring the average CD is 15 tracks, you just invented the $45 downloadable CD. Congrats, but I'll go to the store and pick it up for $8.99.
Some of you guys are true rocks. Don't buy a whole damn album from Yahoo. If you're going to do that head to the store or some etailer that sells the whole CD. This service is for people that aren't going to buy whole CD's. Like me and a couple million other people.


By VooDooAddict on 7/20/2006 3:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting idea. I'll keep Yahoo in mind if I come across the odd song that isn't available on Napster. Subscription is the best bang for the $$. Around the cost of one album a month ... access to the whole library.

I'm still amazed that more people haven't jumped onto the all you can eat subscription services. Napster, Rhapsody, Urge... the marketing people for those services are really not doing their jobs. They have a superior product compared to iTunes, more value for the consumer, yet anyone I talk about with it has never heard of these services ... and they all know about iTunes.

If you really want to experience a wide range of music, a flat monthly rate is the way to go. I probably sample 20-30 new songs every WEEK from artists I'd never heard of and find because of the "Recommend" feature or from word of mouth.

I would never pay $1 or $2 a song for all these bands I've never heard of. You also don't need to keep a backup of your downloaded music with such services... no need to build that RAID 5 array (... Well music isn't the reason to build it ;) )

I haven't found the "play for sure" DRM terribly limiting either. My machine at home and at work has many, many gigs of downloaded music on them. I take the music on runs with the Samsung "nano-like" player.

Other then the marketers not doing their jobs ... there's another big hurdle. Most people who have a digital music player own some form of iPod. IPods can't (or maybe won't Thx to Apple) use these services... and many of the people with iPods are still getting songs for free from friends or P2P because they too can't bring themselves to spend $1 a song.




By TomZ on 7/20/2006 4:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
With these services, can you continue to play the music you downloaded, when/if you cancel the service?


By drxploder on 7/20/2006 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
In a subscription you don't buy you rent and must return once its done. That's probably why they haven't taken off like they should. It's a new concept to people whereas renting movies is common.
However, I do find subscriptions to be helpful when you're trying to hear new things and looking for a song that you only want to hear for a week. After the weeding is done, I buy the cream of the crop permanently. This process has saved me from many bad purchases already


By TomZ on 7/20/2006 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting. This isn't something that would interest me because in the end, I would end up paying for both the subscription service "to rent" and CDs/downloads "to own." I guess the "rent" part would make the "own" part more efficient, but I would fear that the total cost would just be more overall.


By VooDooAddict on 7/21/2006 11:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
It's not like you rent only a certain number of tracks at time. And there's no hassle with "returning" it like with blockbuster or even netflix. For me there's the added benefit of getting to my music from any Internet connection. I know I'm going to get burned for this ... but it gives me more freedom. Freedom like renting an apartment month to month instead of owning a house. Not something you need to worry about, just something you enjoy. I used to spend far too much time backing up and organizing my big ripped MP3 collection. This way I can let someone else manage organizing into genres, artists, albums, decades, ect. There's a value in that for me.

Don't get me wrong. It's not even very flexible for people who want to burn CDs of their music for use in the car. (I use a portable player and XM in the car). It's not for the person that might buy one CD every 3-4 of months.

If 95% of the time you listen to music is near your PC, or with a portable player. If you regularly buy at least a CD (or $10-$15 worth of iTunes) a month; you owe it to yourself to try a subscription out. With the subscription I see no reason to permanently buy music. If I'm ever in such bad shape financially that I'd have to stop my subscription for a while ... Then, I'll flip on the ol' FM for new tunes, or listen to my already existing large unorganized collection of MP3s.

I'm still hoping someone finds a way to do this with movies. Another large collection I'd enjoy being un-tethered too.


By TomZ on 7/21/2006 11:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting post. What subscription lacks for me, in addition to what I posted above, is the aspect of ownership where you pay once and own it forever. In that way, I have my "collection" of CDs of bands that I like, and it is tangible and available even 20 years from now.

But I can certainly appreciate what you're saying about the freedom/flexibility. You can basically listen to almost anything you want at any time. My CD collection + Internet radio doesn't give me anything near that level of flexibility.


By drxploder on 7/21/2006 2:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think Voodoo Addict described me pretty well, I mostly listen to music on my PC on my MP3 player (which I hook up in my car). The main reason subscription works for me is because I'm very picky. There are only 2 or 3 Cd's I have in full and I usually only like 2-4 songs on all but my favorite cd's. I do like the feeling of the early days of piracy where a friend could tell you about a song and you could try it for yourself that day. I understand people's desire to own all their music and avoid DRM, but for my exact situation (short on cash, picky about music...etc) subscription works for me.

Now subscription isn't perfect, (you can't put it on as many computers as a purchased DRM song, not all songs {about 10%}on Napster can be gotten for free with subscription {due to record companies policies}, no burning cd's) but I think the ups (more choices for mp3players, said mp3 players sync with multiple programs, nearly limitless downloads, ability to test before buying, lower overall cost) outweigh the downs for someone like me.


By kelmon on 7/21/2006 7:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
Personal opinion, of course, but I have no idea why anyone would want to use a subscription service. I'm much more in favour of a service that allows me to spend when I want to (rather than force me to spend each month) and not face the potential that my music collection will disappear in the future. It's not as though there is that much music that I could justify the continual expense vs. a pay-to-own service so subscription is a big no-no. The fact that I can't even access these services is purely coincidental.


.
By hoppa on 7/20/2006 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
$2, jesus! This is a great step in the right direction, but is also a huge leap backwards. Any music lover can already tell you how the $1/1 song phenomenom has been so bad for music... this will just make it even worse.




RE: .
By Alkaline5 on 7/20/2006 3:49:07 PM , Rating: 3
The pricing is in line with the CD singles that used to be sold in North America (and are still sold everywhere else) and those were obviously non-DRM. The "one good song per album" phenomenon wasn't caused by online music sales, that's just what happens when a good producer works with a no-talent band. (And sadly there is precious little talent to go around these days.)

CD Singles were discontinued to try to shore up slumping album sales, but all that did was push people to use the illegal download services since no legal alternatives were available at the time.

The music industry execs really don't seem to grasp what consumers want from their product at all. They're only interested in moving as many albums as possible with the smalles possible investment.


RE: .
By hoppa on 7/21/2006 2:55:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And sadly there is precious little talent to go around these days.


You cleary have no idea what you are talking about. If you took a moment to look at the thriving (and I do mean thriving) indie music scene, you would see there is an endless field of talent, and a tiny little conglomorent of mega-labels that stays far away from them. They focuse their sites on artists that have the looks and style (and attitude) to make a single mega-record, with a single mega-track on it.


RE: .
By TomZ on 7/22/2006 2:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more. Lots of indie bands on lots of indie labels with lots of talent.


RE: .
By TomZ on 7/22/2006 2:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Adding to the above, listen to www.woxy.com for a week, and you'll understand what I mean.


RE: .
By Patsoe on 7/20/2006 7:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you read the original blogpost from the link in the article above, you'll see that the Yahoo guys also find that $2 is too pricy. They claim that the stuff they're offering for this trial is some special, premium, Jessica Simpson content - which thus commands a higher price, lol.

They also mention Emusic and discuss that site, and I'm sure they're aware that tracks are priced 25c each there - if they had wanted to avoid discussing prices, they wouldn't have mentioned Emusic.

Their plead for dropping DRM is very well formulated. The part where they want to convince us to buy the Jessica Simpson stuff (in order to make the trial successful I guess) is a bit laughable...


why would riaa sue? and why $1.99?
By joex444 on 7/20/2006 2:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
if DRM costs money to implement, shouldnt MP3s without DRM cost less, like 75c?

and why would RIAA sue? if yahoo has licenses to sell the music in MP3 format, and does so, compensating RIAA and sending some (small amount of) money the artists way, then everyone is compensated. What the end user decides to do nobody can control. It is very similar to when the RIAA releases new CDs, on CD. All it takes is ONE end user to rip the music (not illegal) to their computer, and offer it for free download on P2P (that is illegal). In fact, they should sue themselves for selling unprotected CDs.




RE: why would riaa sue? and why $1.99?
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 2:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if DRM costs money to implement, shouldnt MP3s without DRM cost less, like 75c?

Pricing for lots of products and services is more related to the value they offer, rather than the cost of production. In any case, I doubt the cost to deliver a DRM file to a customer is much different than a non-DRM file.


Enter the Russians
By Inkjammer on 7/20/2006 5:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yahoo! Music doing non-DRM MP3s? Isn't that what the RIIA and the British are going insane over in regards to AllofMP3.com, which (from all I know) legally offers the same service in Russia in accordance with Russian laws.

This would be massive hypocrisy to me on the RIAA's behalf if they don't boycott Yahoo! but still go after AllofMP3. If it's legal in Russia and Americans "import it", thus becoming illegal... what happens if other people buy an overpriced Yahoo! MP3 for $2?

Seems like selective choice of what is or is not legal here. Aka, "We like it! It's legal. We don't like it. It's ILLEGAL !"




RE: Enter the Russians
By segagenesis on 7/20/2006 6:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
While AllOfMP3 is currently legal in Russia, albiet hanging by a thread if you may say so... it certainly cannot be treated as a viable outlet because laws may change later on this year and as a result displace the website.

Despite its legal shortcomings (I seriously doubt they give royalties to anyone, even in Russia) the website is actually a good model of putting consumer choice ahead of anything else with the various formats offered. Rather as such, I should say a legal version of AllOfMP3 if so were attempted in the US it would make a killing because of this.


missing the point
By ilkhan on 7/21/2006 12:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think many of you are arguing over the wrong thing. Much like contract agreements with cell phone companies, the point of DRM is to lock you into a specific player and service.

Who has decided not to get a Zen or other player because you have built up up an iTMS collection and an ipod and dont want to pay again for each song?

Want to use a non iPod? Your iTMS music is gone. Switch to a Zen? Same. Get that new MS player? apple/RIAA says go screw yourself.

With this you are free to do that. At $1.50 Id spring for the unlimited version over the iTMS. Would you?




RE: missing the point
By Xavian on 7/21/2006 6:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
i certainly would, DRM is the bane of virtually every content market out there. This is the reason why people buy from AllofMP3.com simply because even though it may be pseudo legal, it contains no DRM at all plus you can even select the quality of the songs and in the format you want.

This is a step in the right direction and personally i think AllofMP3.com is what future models should be (albiet more legal then the site) but the RIAA wont stand for it im sure and they'll sue for 'loss of potiental profits' as per usual.


How about...
By MonkeyPaw on 7/21/2006 11:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
Buy 18 songs from ITMS for $17.82
Save the playlist and burn them to a $.25 CDR
Rip the songs into MP3 or WMA format.
Total cost: $18.07

Granted, this isn't a 100% approved method, but you are still paying for the music. The same approach from Yahoo would cost $35.82, and you still wouldn't have a backup!




RE: How about...
By Wonga on 7/21/2006 1:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is, moving from one lossy format to another always results in reduced quality.

Whether you would notice or not, that's up for debate...


By segagenesis on 7/20/2006 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unlike popular online MP3 stores like iTunes


Not to sound overly sarcastic but iTunes sells MP3's now? Ok... and I've got a bridge here to sell you really cheap.

quote:
Currently, Yahoo is considering selling songs at a price of $1.99 each, which is roughly double that of an iTunes song. But Yahoo is hoping that regardless of the new price, DRM-less MP3s will attract a significant amount of people.


They must have never visited or heard of eMusic.com, which is currently the only outlet I even remotely consider using for buying music online. So what was it I pay, $20 a month for 100 downloads? While I appreciate they are trying, I can get 5 albums worth of music for the same price I can get one off this new Yahoo service. So the higher price per track is because your more likely to pirate them right? (rolls eyes)

quote:
Yahoo says that DRM doesn't add any value for artists and the labels. The company says that CDs are sold everyday without DRM anyway.


Sherlock Holmes rolls in his grave, Watson too.




IMHO
By Nocturnal on 7/20/2006 1:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
If they can get the mainstream artists and the selection like iTunes, they can make an insane killing off this if.............. the RIAA doesn't shut them down. That's for damn sure.




i hope Yahoo do well in this venture
By R3MF on 7/20/2006 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
it would be nice for a DRM'less content model to prove successful




Sounds good
By GoatMonkey on 7/20/2006 7:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds good. If there are one or two songs on an albumn that I want I would rather buy this mp3 than go through the trouble of DRM. But if I want a full albumn I'm still just going to buy the CD.




Cool
By SubKamran on 7/20/2006 9:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
I might look at this... I hate all this DRM crap. I can use Ruckus for free but it's no use when I can't copy the damn things to my MP3 player.




Mac Client
By kelmon on 7/21/2006 7:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
If Yahoo makes this service accessible on a Mac then I'd seriously consider using it. As much as I really like the iTunes Music Store, being limited to only using the music on Apple-approved devices does represent a problem for me. I'd happily pay for a good quality MP3 without DRM rather than from the iTMS or a Peer-2-Peer network. A $2 price per track is a bit steep, particularly when (or if) this service makes it across the pond and it converted into Sterling, at which point I won't be surprised to see a £2 per track cost.

If they make the price comparible (not necessarily the same as or cheaper than) the iTMS then I'm there.




Conspiracy theory?
By killerroach on 7/21/2006 8:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering whether or not the labels are wanting to set this experiment up with the inflated price, watch it fail, and say "nope, the customers want DRM rather than DRM-free music." Watch this argument, as it seems to be the logical conclusion from the RIAA eventually.




A little too personalized?
By Graviton on 7/21/2006 3:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
What I would be very curious about is whether any information is encoded within the file that would allow them to trace that file back to the purchaser. It would be very easy to encode information within the audio frames themselves. It would be interesting to compare two copies of the same version of the song purchased by two different people and to check for differences. Just a thought...




DRM SUCKS
By nerdboy on 7/21/2006 10:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
I would be more then happy to purchase music and actually own the music. I am sick of buying cd's with copyright protection and 300 word eula's that install crappy software to inforce there crap. DRM is the worst thing ever I love going to store a buying a cd and then bring it home and putting it on my computer as a back up or i put it on my ipod. When I go into a store a pay 15 or so dollars for a CD I want to do what i want with the music because I bought the Music. I didn't buy a 15 dollar coaster. So F*** DRM




So when has a good album been made?
By Dfere on 7/21/2006 8:19:49 AM , Rating: 1
Why the discussion on a "full album" being bought at Yahoo? When was the last time anyone here bought an album and liked ALL the songs on it. The Gorillaz was the one closest to that, and there were at least three songs I thought were terrible.

The whole point of a music store is to pick and choose the songs you like, not buy an album at a time. I just wish I could review more than 15 secs of song before I decided to buy it online.

Finally! another reason to YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!




Buy
By goku on 7/22/2006 2:27:47 AM , Rating: 1
Heh, just might buy some to spite the DRM providers :P It would be nice if I can download the MP3s in a format that is lossless. I don't normally like buying music unless I can get the CD and all since it's lossless so this would have to be lossless as well.




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki