The record labels are in such a strong bargaining position ... If Apple doesn't play the way they wish I suppose they will what, go back to CDs in stores or sell through their own highly successful online systems? Sooner or later they will all be history. Bands must surely be thinking 'Different' these days when it comes to distribution for the future. Why pay a middle man (who has screwed you all along anyway) to do nothing but argue with Apple? Why not cut them out of the food chain and deal directly. Contracts do expire!
Go back to selling CD's in stores? The record labels never stopped selling CD's in stores. They are still sold in stores and online. I still buy CD's from my favorite artists, either locally or from Amazon.
I also buy from iTunes when I am only interested in one song. But I think the record label wants to INCREASE prices, not decrease them. A few prior posts talk about .49 cent songs. I don't think that is what the record industry wants to do. I think they want to charge $2.99 or $3.99 for current singles. They don't like the .99 cent pricing for current top songs. They want to make more money.
Berkowitz said that initial success with DRM-free songs seems set to boost sales of digital albums, as well as songs. She confirmed that sales of the legendary Pink Floyd album, Dark Side of the Moon had increased since it shipped DRM-free - these are up 350 per cent.
So you're wrong. Lots of people *do* care about DRM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Because they probably realize they won't see sales "take off" by simply dropping FairPlay DRM. Most people have no idea what FairPlay is, that their music is encoded in FairPlay, or whether or not FairPlay is good or bad. 1) FairPlay is extremely liberal (no, not in the political sense) in terms of the rights it gives the customer and 2) it's very transparent.
The people who care about DRM make up a minority (albeit, a fairly vocal one) that 1) often doesn't buy the crummy corporate music from the Big Four anyway, favoring indie bands who usually put up their music in iTunes Plus form, 2) any worthwhile music from the Big Four is likely already in their collection via DRM-free CDs or other outlets, and 3) it's trivially easy to remove FairPlay by simply burning the protected songs to a CD (and I believe they can be burned to DVD as well) and then re-importing them into iTunes.
So in a way, I hope the Big Four just keep right on requiring DRM; it's one less advantage they have over indie labels/bands. One thing Apple could do that would make DRM almost meaningless, would be to get The Beatles' entire catalog in iTunes Plus form.
Quite correct. You could assert that defense at your trial after spending $50,000 in attorney fees. Good luck.
The idea of watermarking is so silly. Nobody buys tracks just to post them to file sharing. They are stolen in the first place or taken directly from CD's which ALREADY have NO DRM! This is just draconian BS that only hassles law abiding people.
On the iTunes UK store, albums retail for £7.99. On Amazon's store, albums vary from £3 up to about £10. The vast majority of albums over £8 are double albums. Most albums are £7 or below. The biggest selling album in the UK at the moment is only £3.
Maybe the labels have offered Amazon a special deal to break Apple's dominance. All I know is that the Amazon store is cheaper thanks in part to variable pricing.
In a sense, I agree! Just change the phrase "variable pricing" and replace it with the word "capitalism" and let the market forces determine the ultimate pricing. What skin is it off Apple's nose. It would definitely be one less bargaining chip at the next negotiations go-around, unless the record companies are like the labor unions and place further demands.
What's wrong with letting the market determine the ultimate value of a songs worth?
Why can't the market decide what a song is worth? If it's new and in demand, the record companies will try and squeeze out as much money as they think they can get. If the song is new and stinks and customers who purchased complain about it's lack of worth for the price paid and no one buys then hopefully it will be reduced in price in order to sell it. Isn't that the way things should be?
I'd love to see iTunes start promting indie bands (and EMI) at the expense of the holdouts. I think it is actually time for Apple to start playing a little hardball against the oligopoly.
That's true for me also. But I care more about the quality: 256 kbps vs. 128 kbps. You can always take the DRM off by converting to CD, but you can't increase the sound quality.
I don't see these demands going through. I used to worry about crazy stuff like this but Jobs seems to be able to navigate through these forests, keeping his bearings about him in the process?even if it means leaving one of the big companies out alone in the cold. Letting them increase prices would be a huge setback and that is sure to change music purchasing everywhere. Down the road inflation may make it appropriate, but not right now. $.99 is plenty for a single song. And like others, yes, I think it is pretty obvious that they're not asking this so they can reduce prices.
The watermarking thing?beyond what is already done?is pretty excessive and silly. Obviously Apple wouldn't want to do something that involves itself in such investigations. And given the way in which the RIAA has been attacking people this can only result in problems. I'd be completely opposed to such a thing and I'd avoid buying iTMS as a result. What really surprises me is their fear of these store-bought tunes getting out. I don't think I have ever seen an iTMS song on a filesharing network. People who buy their music don't like to toss it out to the world. I know I never do.
And I don't think we'll be seeing any major changes in how the iTMS is run... but I suppose we could be surprised. If they pitch anything to Apple it will have to be something they see as a worthwhile change, and it would be implemented for everyone.
As to the comment earlier that DRM free tracks don't matter in terms of sales: you've forgotten the earlier results shared by those efforts which have already taken off. And don't forget that people who do care about music advise their parents. I know my parents used to buy hundreds of dollars of albums from the iTMS until I explained DRM and audio quality to them. Now they use Amazon and they'll continue to do so until iTMS is DRM-free.
A lot of my purchases are spontaneous and one song at a time. Variable rate prices will keep me from impulse buying.
Totally agree
I've bought more music in the last 3 years than at any time in my life
No I don't file share my tracks
Apple are the ones with the keys to the kingdom. The record companies just have to realise this and agree that the current model works and everyone is making something (except maybe MSFT and Amazon...)
I don't care if DRM is not removed removed and I don't want it replaced with some other kind of stealth-ware.... Remember Sony's previous attempt?
In a sense, I agree! Just change the phrase "variable pricing" and replace it with the word "capitalism" and let the market forces determine the ultimate pricing. What skin is it off Apple's nose. It would definitely be one less bargaining chip at the next negotiations go-around, unless the record companies are like the labor unions and place further demands.
What's wrong with letting the market determine the ultimate value of a songs worth?
Why can't the market decide what a song is worth? If it's new and in demand, the record companies will try and squeeze out as much money as they think they can get. If the song is new and stinks and customers who purchased complain about it's lack of worth for the price paid and no one buys then hopefully it will be reduced in price in order to sell it. Isn't that the way things should be?
I think you forgot to attach your Sony business card
I've bought more music in the last 3 years than at any time in my life
No I don't file share my tracks
Apple are the ones with the keys to the kingdom. The record companies just have to realise this and agree that the current model works and everyone is making something (except maybe MSFT and Amazon...)
I don't care if DRM is not removed removed and I don't want it replaced with some other kind of stealth-ware.... Remember Sony's previous attempt?
I agree that Steve's model created the impulse buy and I've spent more on it than I would have on a Sony model .... but ...
I would like to see iTunes try two parallel tracks:
iTunes = just as is for everyone
iTunes DRM-Free = where everything is DRM free, obviously, and the labels get to decide on their own pricing.
Yes, this isn't the nice neat monolithic Apple way, but it does several things. It allows people to chose which musical world within which they want to exist, and it gives the labels a place to experiment, while keeping at least 90% of the downloads in Apple's current, closed space.
The labels could test the markets and do innovative stuff with the platform remaining with Apple and they would lose most of their arguments against Apple's apparent monopoly. Some of the labels will do well, some will probably learn that Steve's way still makes the most sense.
As an aside, I would also create, iTunes Radio, where you can have intelligently selected (Genius) playlists streamed to your wifi enabled iPod/iPhone device. It would be "subscriptions for the rest of us," but would have a minimal footprint on the devices because music is only cached temporarily, and you don't really lose anything if you stop paying 'a la Rhapsody.
Just adding some diversity to the iTunes ecosystem would be nice.
The iTunes Store is currently the biggest music seller in America. Obviously DRM or not, 128 or 256, people are responding to the service and buying in droves. It seems to me that the music industry would do everything in it's power to work with Apple.
Somehow they still do not see that iTunes purchased songs are not showing up on file sharing sites.
Somehow they are not interested in catering to customer wishes.
Somehow they are not realizing that CD sales continue to slip while digital sales continue to grow.
More music is bought from iTunes than from any other source in America. Yet still the record companies fight and run in fear. Imagine if they actually made it more attractive to buy music online. They'd make more money, as would Apple and customers would be happier.
Their blocking progress. One way or another progress will continue. With or without the record companies. Somehow they don't see that either.
Isn't this already the case with iTunes Plus tracks anyway? They have your name in them but it can be easily removed.
Exactly, and if it is DRM-free then what is to stop it's removal? When I look at any of the songs I've purchased that are iTunes+ it lists my user account in the song info.
Comments
Where else would the file come from. Did the tooth fairy steal it and put on the file sharing site?
Perhaps.
So you suggest it is okay to file charges based solely on your name/account being in a song file? No other investigation would/should be required?
What if someone gained access to a user's iTunes account and made purchases? This happens quite a bit.
That is a SONY BMG but it's in a "plus" format.
And many other tracks are in conerting phase right now.
There is also some iTunes plus without + symbol. Like this.
Here's an article in Italian that explain the situation.
Cheers from Italy.
The record labels are in such a strong bargaining position ... If Apple doesn't play the way they wish I suppose they will what, go back to CDs in stores or sell through their own highly successful online systems? Sooner or later they will all be history. Bands must surely be thinking 'Different' these days when it comes to distribution for the future. Why pay a middle man (who has screwed you all along anyway) to do nothing but argue with Apple? Why not cut them out of the food chain and deal directly. Contracts do expire!
Go back to selling CD's in stores? The record labels never stopped selling CD's in stores. They are still sold in stores and online. I still buy CD's from my favorite artists, either locally or from Amazon.
I also buy from iTunes when I am only interested in one song. But I think the record label wants to INCREASE prices, not decrease them. A few prior posts talk about .49 cent songs. I don't think that is what the record industry wants to do. I think they want to charge $2.99 or $3.99 for current singles. They don't like the .99 cent pricing for current top songs. They want to make more money.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=18342
Berkowitz said that initial success with DRM-free songs seems set to boost sales of digital albums, as well as songs. She confirmed that sales of the legendary Pink Floyd album, Dark Side of the Moon had increased since it shipped DRM-free - these are up 350 per cent.
So you're wrong. Lots of people *do* care about DRM.
Because they probably realize they won't see sales "take off" by simply dropping FairPlay DRM. Most people have no idea what FairPlay is, that their music is encoded in FairPlay, or whether or not FairPlay is good or bad. 1) FairPlay is extremely liberal (no, not in the political sense) in terms of the rights it gives the customer and 2) it's very transparent.
The people who care about DRM make up a minority (albeit, a fairly vocal one) that 1) often doesn't buy the crummy corporate music from the Big Four anyway, favoring indie bands who usually put up their music in iTunes Plus form, 2) any worthwhile music from the Big Four is likely already in their collection via DRM-free CDs or other outlets, and 3) it's trivially easy to remove FairPlay by simply burning the protected songs to a CD (and I believe they can be burned to DVD as well) and then re-importing them into iTunes.
So in a way, I hope the Big Four just keep right on requiring DRM; it's one less advantage they have over indie labels/bands. One thing Apple could do that would make DRM almost meaningless, would be to get The Beatles' entire catalog in iTunes Plus form.
I got an idea, since I'm the consumer, this will be the rules.
1) You will sell tracks for no more than $0.99 on iTunes or anywhere else.
2) You will sell them DRM-free
if not, then I simply won't be buying anything from you... 'nuff said.
I never bought stuff from ITMS until they started offering DRM-free tracks. Needless to say, I don't buy much, due to the selections available.
So music labels... Get a clue.
Where else would the file come from. Did the tooth fairy steal it and put on the file sharing site?
Laptops and iPods get stolen.
Quite correct. You could assert that defense at your trial after spending $50,000 in attorney fees. Good luck.
The idea of watermarking is so silly. Nobody buys tracks just to post them to file sharing. They are stolen in the first place or taken directly from CD's which ALREADY have NO DRM! This is just draconian BS that only hassles law abiding people.
I can only use Amazon's UK site as an example.
On the iTunes UK store, albums retail for £7.99. On Amazon's store, albums vary from £3 up to about £10. The vast majority of albums over £8 are double albums. Most albums are £7 or below. The biggest selling album in the UK at the moment is only £3.
Maybe the labels have offered Amazon a special deal to break Apple's dominance. All I know is that the Amazon store is cheaper thanks in part to variable pricing.
In a sense, I agree! Just change the phrase "variable pricing" and replace it with the word "capitalism" and let the market forces determine the ultimate pricing. What skin is it off Apple's nose. It would definitely be one less bargaining chip at the next negotiations go-around, unless the record companies are like the labor unions and place further demands.
What's wrong with letting the market determine the ultimate value of a songs worth?
Why can't the market decide what a song is worth? If it's new and in demand, the record companies will try and squeeze out as much money as they think they can get. If the song is new and stinks and customers who purchased complain about it's lack of worth for the price paid and no one buys then hopefully it will be reduced in price in order to sell it. Isn't that the way things should be?
DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks: 100%
Standard iTunes tracks: 0%
Percentage of tracks I have purchased since EMI and the Indies went DRM-free:
DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks: 100%
Standard iTunes tracks: 0%
Same here
___________
Standard iTunes tracks: 0%
That's true for me also. But I care more about the quality: 256 kbps vs. 128 kbps. You can always take the DRM off by converting to CD, but you can't increase the sound quality.
The watermarking thing?beyond what is already done?is pretty excessive and silly. Obviously Apple wouldn't want to do something that involves itself in such investigations. And given the way in which the RIAA has been attacking people this can only result in problems. I'd be completely opposed to such a thing and I'd avoid buying iTMS as a result. What really surprises me is their fear of these store-bought tunes getting out. I don't think I have ever seen an iTMS song on a filesharing network. People who buy their music don't like to toss it out to the world. I know I never do.
And I don't think we'll be seeing any major changes in how the iTMS is run... but I suppose we could be surprised. If they pitch anything to Apple it will have to be something they see as a worthwhile change, and it would be implemented for everyone.
As to the comment earlier that DRM free tracks don't matter in terms of sales: you've forgotten the earlier results shared by those efforts which have already taken off. And don't forget that people who do care about music advise their parents. I know my parents used to buy hundreds of dollars of albums from the iTMS until I explained DRM and audio quality to them. Now they use Amazon and they'll continue to do so until iTMS is DRM-free.
A lot of my purchases are spontaneous and one song at a time. Variable rate prices will keep me from impulse buying.
Totally agree
I've bought more music in the last 3 years than at any time in my life
No I don't file share my tracks
Apple are the ones with the keys to the kingdom. The record companies just have to realise this and agree that the current model works and everyone is making something (except maybe MSFT and Amazon...)
I don't care if DRM is not removed removed and I don't want it replaced with some other kind of stealth-ware.... Remember Sony's previous attempt?
In a sense, I agree! Just change the phrase "variable pricing" and replace it with the word "capitalism" and let the market forces determine the ultimate pricing. What skin is it off Apple's nose. It would definitely be one less bargaining chip at the next negotiations go-around, unless the record companies are like the labor unions and place further demands.
What's wrong with letting the market determine the ultimate value of a songs worth?
Why can't the market decide what a song is worth? If it's new and in demand, the record companies will try and squeeze out as much money as they think they can get. If the song is new and stinks and customers who purchased complain about it's lack of worth for the price paid and no one buys then hopefully it will be reduced in price in order to sell it. Isn't that the way things should be?
I think you forgot to attach your Sony business card
Totally agree
I've bought more music in the last 3 years than at any time in my life
No I don't file share my tracks
Apple are the ones with the keys to the kingdom. The record companies just have to realise this and agree that the current model works and everyone is making something (except maybe MSFT and Amazon...)
I don't care if DRM is not removed removed and I don't want it replaced with some other kind of stealth-ware.... Remember Sony's previous attempt?
I agree that Steve's model created the impulse buy and I've spent more on it than I would have on a Sony model .... but ...
I would like to see iTunes try two parallel tracks:
iTunes = just as is for everyone
iTunes DRM-Free = where everything is DRM free, obviously, and the labels get to decide on their own pricing.
Yes, this isn't the nice neat monolithic Apple way, but it does several things. It allows people to chose which musical world within which they want to exist, and it gives the labels a place to experiment, while keeping at least 90% of the downloads in Apple's current, closed space.
The labels could test the markets and do innovative stuff with the platform remaining with Apple and they would lose most of their arguments against Apple's apparent monopoly. Some of the labels will do well, some will probably learn that Steve's way still makes the most sense.
As an aside, I would also create, iTunes Radio, where you can have intelligently selected (Genius) playlists streamed to your wifi enabled iPod/iPhone device. It would be "subscriptions for the rest of us," but would have a minimal footprint on the devices because music is only cached temporarily, and you don't really lose anything if you stop paying 'a la Rhapsody.
Just adding some diversity to the iTunes ecosystem would be nice.
EMI saw their sales go up by 350 percent for some albums when they dropped DRM:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=18342
So you're wrong. Lots of people *do* care about DRM.
Hmm, I stand corrected.
(FYI, that link is broken but I got the gist of it from another site's synopsis.)
Somehow they still do not see that iTunes purchased songs are not showing up on file sharing sites.
Somehow they are not interested in catering to customer wishes.
Somehow they are not realizing that CD sales continue to slip while digital sales continue to grow.
More music is bought from iTunes than from any other source in America. Yet still the record companies fight and run in fear. Imagine if they actually made it more attractive to buy music online. They'd make more money, as would Apple and customers would be happier.
Their blocking progress. One way or another progress will continue. With or without the record companies. Somehow they don't see that either.
And watermarking of audio files? Creepy. I don't need the RIAA playing Big Brother, not that I share my music anyway...
Isn't this already the case with iTunes Plus tracks anyway? They have your name in them but it can be easily removed.
Exactly, and if it is DRM-free then what is to stop it's removal? When I look at any of the songs I've purchased that are iTunes+ it lists my user account in the song info.