Slashdot Log In
Yahoo! Sells, Advocates DRM-Free Music
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jul 20, 2006 06:02 PM
from the could-have-picked-a-better-lead-artist dept.
from the could-have-picked-a-better-lead-artist dept.
prostoalex writes "Jessica Simpson's 'A Public Affair' will be sold on Yahoo! Music in MP3 format with no DRM attached. According to Yahoo! Music blog, this is a big deal for the major online music store: 'As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: DRM doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling DRM-free music every day -- the Compact Disc), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that DRM has a cost. It's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the DRM back off, anyway!'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
please explain (Score:4, Informative)
Please explain to me what this really is. I visited the page, and what it looks to be is the users' ability to download an unfettered "customized" mp3 from Simpson where (I assume) a laundry list of common names are inserted into the mp3 (dubbed, no doubt)... giving the customer the illusion of some connection with the artist. (So far, it appears a more correct headline would have been "Yahoo advocates DRM-free music, offers one DRM-free song from their catalog!)"
Obscene marketing and subterfuge aside, I find nothing in the general Yahoo Music offerings to suggest the rest of their music is offered unfettered, free of DRM. Indeed, the FAQ includes the following info:
Any information/explanation or evidence to the contrary would be greatly appreciated, because, other than the free advertising, I'm not seeing any change in direction from Yahoo on this one.
Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:5, Funny)
I second the motion.
WTF? Being a good slashdotter, I did not read the article before checking out the posts, and then I read the parent post and had to check this out for myself.
So, for $2 I can have my name embedded somehow in a music file of Jessica Simpson? Maybe having her titties embedded in my face, I might throw down $2, but after reading the two links, I still don't see what the extra $1 gives me over a standard $1 track.
I'm all for the token statement against DRM. Its dead on. Yes, DRM free stuff is sold every day. Yes, its still practically illegal or at least easier and better to get MP3s the old fashioned way that are free of DRM. But I have no clue what the point of this Yahoo! thing is besides a slashvertisement astroturfing or whatever you call marketing today.
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:please explain (Score:3, Funny)
Being a good Slashdotter, I have to ask if maybe the extra $1 will offer any tentacle interaction.
Speaking of Simpsons... (Score:5, Funny)
Jessica Simpson: "OOOh, baby, I want you so bad, Aikatmai Diekoff!
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:5, Interesting)
You could therefore set up a system where the more people share a file the better quality file can be downloaded - and still guarantee removal of all watermarks specific to any one purchaser.
It's theoretically possible at least but whether a workable system could be set up in practice I don't know.
Less sophisticated watermarking systems (like least significant bit) are trivial to defeat and I assume no competent company is using them.
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, unless there is some padding involved, the file hash will be different. So would that cause every variation to show up on a p2p network. ie, your search for "Bad Artist - Bad Song" produces 900 results. I'm assumming most P2P apps use a simple md5 sum or some such hash generated to match exact files.
Now come up with an alternate hash
Re:please explain (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no expert and this stuff is cutting edge but I'll try my best to address some of your comments.
Assumming the only variance is the watermark and the tracks are sample for sample nearly the same... it would make it rather not-difficult to remove the water mark
It's not as simple as this comment seems to imply, spread frequency watermarks use transforms (obviously DFT was one of the first to be used) so you can't simply average two files and expect to remove the watermarks.
the file hash will be different. So would that cause every variation to show up on a p2p network . . . assumming most P2P apps use a simple md5 sum or some such
Identifying copies of the same file with different watermarks would definitely be a problem - you'd probably have to rely on uploaders entering accurate metadata of some kind - not ideal.
such a setup might suffer from generational loss
I don't see how this would be relevant you're not making imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies . . . ad nauseum
Artifacts are bound to slip in at some point in the mass sharing frenzy of an ant farm.
It works the other way around - the more versions you have to compare the fewer artifacts will crop up, you get closer and closer to the original un-Watermarked version instead.
you run the risk of generating too much data. In turn it could cause issues scaling
I hadn't thought about this but you're right reversing a DFT is going to be computationally expensive.
Parent
Re:please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two reasons to oppose DRM - "personal convenience" and "a licence to pirate".
While I've been known to pirate in the past (hell, who hasn't?), my main objection to DRM is that once I buy the file I want to own it. I don't want anyone telling me I can only play it on certain makes of MP3 player, can't transcode it to Ogg Vorbis, stream it to other PCs in my house, etc.
Finally a mainstream media company has somehow persuaded the idiots at the RIAA to allow unDRMed downloads on a trial basis. This is a good thing.
Frankly, anyone who opposes DRMed music primarily because it allows them to pirate and distribute is a thief^H^H^H^H^H copyright violator, and should shut up and sit down now to avoid fucking things up for everyone else.
While I appreciate the OP's information on the watermarking technology, it's completely irrelevant - there's no excuse for sharing the MP3 of this track, now there's an affordable (expensive, sure, but it's only a test), unDRMed cross-platform, mainstream outlet to legally purchase it from.
Anyone pirating this track is frankly working against the chances of the RIAA dropping DRM - you will be ruining a brave (if overdue) experiment, and directly contributing to a future of omnipresent DRM lock-in.
Regardless of what you think of the artist or the song, the sales figures for this track likely dictate the entire future position of the RIAA/music industry. Pirating it is the worst kind of short-term-gain idiocy.
I hate Jessica Simpson and the MP3's overpriced, but I'll be buying this track - and if you're anti-DRM (as opposed to pro-piracy), so should you.
</advocacy>
(Let the accusations of shilldom fly...
Parent
Re:Watermarks useless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Wah!? (Score:4, Funny)
But when I clicked on the link, it took me to a Jessica Simpson page. MINE EYES!!! *clutches eyes and runs away*
Re:Wah!? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wah!? OH NOES MINE EYES TOO!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Who's going to buy her music let a lone pirate it!
Parent
Great news!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great news!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
props to yahoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why we're so excited about these personalized Jessica Simpson tracks. Not only is it pretty cool to have a version of the song which speaks to me (I was shocked to see they had "Ian", did they do that for me?), 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).
Am I reading this right, did they just manag
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a test, to see if unDRMed music is viable from the RIAA's point of view.
The price is irrelevant, but tells you a lot - if the RIAA was right behind unDRMed music they'd have debuted it at $0.99 and made a packet. The fact that Yahoo's had to twist their arms into doing it, and when they do it retails for $1.99 tells you this is a highly speculative toe-in-the-water attempt, and I think we'd all agree the RIAA would be entirely happy if it failed miserably. Certainly it wou
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3)
The reason people pay for digital downloads is that it is convenient and fast. If I was going to copy the song, or give my friend a copy I would just download it from the usual places as an MP3.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I avoid DRM'd music anymore because I got sick of the issues associated with it (I'm thinking of iTunes specifically, emusic is so much simpler), but whoever owns the music gets to make that DRM decision. I can be dissapointed, but I can't really blame them either. Very few people are willing to give as much as those in the GPL world do -- those who let most direct compensation go in exchange for indirect compensation.
Parent
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with DRM per se; we can always just not buy the crippled content. I have a problem when proponents of DRM make technologies illegal because they *could* be used for copyright infringement.
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:props to yahoo (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, I bought Steely Dan's "Can't buy a thrill" twice on vinyl (both warped after a while), once on cassette (thrown out the window somewhere between Toronto and Montreal after being processed into an unreadable string of spaghetti), and once on CD (stolen while my car was in police impound). Now, I think Becker and Fagen are music gods, but how many times do I ha
Re:props to yahoo (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, remind me how the web portal that's held the number one spot in traffic rankings [alexa.com] for years could ever be considered irrelevant?
Sure, they haven't been in the limelight like google has in a few years, but they've still got more eyeballs than anyone else, still employ thousands, and still churn out new stuff all the time.
Parent
Translation: Market Speak to Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: DRM doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling DRM-free music every day -- the Compact Disc), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that DRM has a cost. It's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the DRM back off, anyway!
This translates into:
OMFG, for the love of god, PLEASE LET US SELL OUR SHIT TO IPOD USERS!!1!!!!!!1!1111!
Basically, what is happening is that all the non-iTunes are getting trounced by iTunes and the iPod. The music industry won't let them sell their music unless it has DRM. Apple isn't selling them the rights to use the DRM that the iPod uses and Apple sure as shit is not going to build in WMA DRM capabilities into the iPod. With iPods being roughly 80% of the MP3 market, this is a massive audience that Yahoo, Napster, Rhapsody, exc can't touch. They desperately want to sell, but they are not allowed to sell unless the music has DRM. Apple won't let them us an iPod compatible form of DRM.
This isn't a marketing ploy to pretend to be anti-DRM when they are not, and this is not being done because they "want to work on other stuff". This is being done because DRM free music is the only way Yahoo and company can break into the monopoly iTunes has over the iPod, which itself has a near monopoly on MP3 players.
This is a play of self interested corporations. Apple wants to lock down the iPod not because they want to set music free, but because they want a monopoly over the service that fills iPods. Yahoo wants to sell DRM free music not because they give a shit about how irritating DRM is to you and me, but because they want to sell music to iPod users. The RIAA, well, they are just evil and eat babies.
Parent
Re:Translation: Market Speak to Reality (Score:3, Funny)
While eMule and BitTorrent touch, caress, stroke and fondle it.
And, if you've downloaded Tenacious D, Double Team it.
I can only imagine the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
although, there aren't many musicians opinions i would respect. but good to see at least some "major" artist is pulling against it.
It's a scam, a straw-man (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what I am getting at here. 8-)
Re:It's a scam, a straw-man (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no interest in Barbi Simpson stuff, but I knew it was just one song so far and I was still all revved up that they were FINALLY getting a clue and finally letting people buy the MP3s they want to buy. So I didn't much care when I saw it was Barbi Simpson, and I was thinking of buying a download just to buy MP3 downloads.
Oh, did I say Barbi Simpson? Sorry, I mean Jessica Simpson.
And then I see the ASSHATS want to rape us for DOUBLE THE PRICE f
No DRM not worth the cost of downloading that song (Score:4, Funny)
"According to Yahoo! Music blog, this is a big deal for the major online music store: 'As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: Jessica Simpson doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling Jessica Simpson-free music every day), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that Jessica Simpson has a cost. She's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the Jessica Simpson back off, anyway!'"
never thought it would happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to be a
Then we might see some decent music being released unrestricted!
Ah great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
I guess DRM has some uses (Score:4, Funny)
iTunes take note.. (Score:5, Interesting)
www.beastproject.org
Re:iTunes take note.. (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on how you translate that? (Score:2, Insightful)
The last thing I would have guessed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I never thought I would live to see the day when a major (really major) company not only publicly supports but actually takes the plunge to sell non-DRM infested music. What's next? Sony will release a $199 PS3? (Har har...)
This kinda reminds me of Gmail. Back when it came out it was just unthinkable that a company would give you more than a few MBs of storage for free let alone a whole GB! Nowadays, everybody gives you at the minimum of 200MB. I think that Yahoo, like Gmail, just might profoundly shift the paradigm of online music distribution like Gmail changed the way we think of free email.
Is this the beginning of the end of DRM? Not quite yet IMO because the RIAA and MPAA are still run by idiots, but I think the day may come sooner than we think if more major players like Yahoo come on board.
Is DRM-free worth $1? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen reports that record companies aren't "happy" with the royalties they're getting from iTunes. Could higher-priced, DRM-free releases be part of their solution? Skeptical though I am, I hope so. Even though I have a Mac, an iPod, and many tracks I've bought from the iTunes store, I'd rather Apple not be the "only game in town" for music on my iPod. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, even through a reality distortion field I expect.
About Jessica (Score:3, Insightful)
This much should be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
1) This is a trial balloon. If it sells well, it may convince some retailers to experiment with further DRM free tracks. If it sells poorly, it will serve as "proof" that DRM is needed.
2) There's at least somebody on the command chain who wants this to fail. Hence the $1.99 price.
3) The record company couldn't stomach the idea of a totally naked mp3 so they came up with this lame idea of embedding the purchaser's name in the file. If course this is easily worked around, but so's regular DRM. This is to deter the teeming masses. If John Q. Moron decides to fileshare, he'll soon be indicted by a thousand copies of "Jessica Loves John Q. Moron" floating around. You might add that they were being slightly clever by selling this crude copy protection measure as a value added feature.
I'd also speculate that might be meant to caution Microsoft ever so lightly. MS is openly scheming against its current music partners by introducing Urge and Zune. But it wants to keep them hooked on Plays For Sure while making sure their services are inferior to its own offerings. This is Yahoo's way of saying, "Look Microsoft, we might not need your crap DRM after all, so watch yourself."
Stating the obvious: This is about the iPod (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has what...80%... of the portable music player market?
Until apple decides to share their DRM, everyone else (including Yahoo) is locked out of the iPod market.
MP3s are their only way in. If they can manage to line up some labels, they will suddenly have access to a totally new and much larger customer base.
No DRM = Perfect, but $2/Tune = Faulty (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Funny)
2. Jessica Simpson's "A Public Affair"? Hmm, I was considering downloading just to show I'm supportive of a non-DRM model, even if it would need future tweaks, but just to try get the industry on the right track. BUT... Jessica Simpson? I really don't know if I can do this.
Cool, but eMusic has more for less (Score:3, Interesting)
It is nice to hear an Internet superpower talk about selling "plain old MP3s," but eMusic [emusic.com] has been doing this for years (well before the iPod even existed). They don't have acts like Jessica Simpson, or even Radiohead, but they do have a huge collection of quality, interesting music. Loads of Indie Rock, Underground Hiphop, old and new jazz, lots of classic stuff and new albums come in everyday. It's cheap and no watermarks, either.
I'm a serious music collector and plain MP3s simplify my collection--DRM is a major headache when you just want to HAVE music and store it anyway you like.
Re:PSSSSSTTTTT!!!! (Score:3, Funny)