Yahoo! Music's death at age 3 warns of DRM's risk

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 83
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    Last I heard, iTunes had 6 millions songs in total, around 2 million of which are iTunes Plus from EMI and a million and a half indie artists. So 1/3 is DRM free.



    I'd be interested to know what each of your music collections are mainly comprised of: indie artists vs. or well known artists from the Big Four (minus EMI, obviously).



    I guess, I am more on the indie side, while I do have Amy Winehouse and KT Tunstall, this is about as mainstream as I get (as long as Portishead, Radiohead and Bloc Party are not counted as mainstream).



    But, I get 90% of my music from (purchased) CDs. Only when I cannot pre-listen a CD in a store, I might go to the iTMS (and for the odd single song). This by definition sways my iTMS purchase towards the harder-to-get indie groups.
  • Reply 42 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post


    I primarily on by from Amazon now. They may be .MP3 but they are DRM free and 256 kbs. Sorry Apple but you do not get much of my money budgeted for music. Amazon is a much better choice and many tracks are cheaper than iTunes.





    Despite the allure of amazon's scooped pricing and drmfree library, I would still support iTunes. The reason the record execs are mad at apple is because of their firm stand on .99 songs. And I don't believe for a second that it's because the record companies want to charge us less.



    Apple realizes that the viability of legally transferred music files depends on the consumer being happy, not the execs. Case in point:Napster hit its stride as CDs were priced at $17.



    The business model is simple. Undercut the competition until you acheive dominance, then bring the prices up where you want them. See: walmart v. Mom and pop



    Granted. Apple is no mom and pop shop. But the choice is still to support a business that seeks to keep a consumer-friendly pricing structure, or amazon, whose whole advantage (pricing and drmfree) is a gift from the record companies who are against such pricing.



    I know it sounds like I'm making a grander deal of it than it is, and people are going to unload accusations of koolaid consumption. But it seems like an accurate assesment to me.



    Patronizing amazon is supporting/enabling the record companies, which is historically suggested to hurt us as consumers in the long run.
  • Reply 43 of 83
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    I guess, I am more on the indie side, while I do have Amy Winehouse and KT Tunstall, this is about as mainstream as I get (as long as Portishead, Radiohead and Bloc Party are not counted as mainstream).



    But, I get 90% of my music from (purchased) CDs. Only when I cannot pre-listen a CD in a store, I might go to the iTMS (and for the odd single song). This by definition sways my iTMS purchase towards the harder-to-get indie groups.



    Yeah, that's what I figured. And no, I was not meaning to imply that Radiohead was "mainstream." I was siting that example of their iTunes ad right next to Madonna's ad for a reason. Radiohead, while one of the better known indie bands, is still not well recognized by most, yet they were put head-to-head against Madonna, a memorable '80s singer that's gone terribly mainstream. I want to see more of that blatant competition, instead of the indie groups always getting segregated and sidelined to make room for the big name artists of today, many of which don't deserve most of the attention they get. It makes me ill as a musician and music lover myself.



    Now we just need ascii's music tastes. If my assumptions are correct, he should be more into pop music and brand names, which isn't completely a bad thing. I love Bob Dylan, The Beatles, etc.
  • Reply 44 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    That's copyright infringement. Why don't you just download them from P2P? The net effect is pretty much the same. Library loan systems aren't meant to be or licensed for helping people build their personal music libraries.



    I certainly don't encourage copyright infringement, but the net effect isn't the same; in the case of the library CDs, who is going to find out? Meanwhile via P2P, your IP addy is on display.



    For the record: I don't even have a library card, and had no fucking clue you could borrow CDs.
  • Reply 45 of 83
    This and data reduction are the reasons I have chosen never to purchase any music or video file outside the appropriately designated material formats.



    I've spent tens of thousands of pounds (Sterling) on music and video products. These goods having better longevity than DRM or myself, my partner/relatives can utilise/sell the LP's, CD's, DVD's etc., once I've expired.



    Although I'd like to see talented boundary pushing artists cop a far bigger share of the first baked cake I don't want the audio-visual media companies subsequently screwing any more money from me to stuff into their own pockets or snort up septum compromised noses.
  • Reply 46 of 83
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Your post was lame too, what's your point?



    Fleshman03 posted the "FAIL" pic in response to Foo2 post of

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foo2


    "Yahoo! is losing weight fast. Does Yahoo! have cancer".



    Sounds like a tasteless joke at Steve Jobs expense.
  • Reply 47 of 83
    caliminiuscaliminius Posts: 944member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post


    Despite the allure of amazon's scooped pricing and drmfree library, I would still support iTunes. The reason the record execs are mad at apple is because of their firm stand on .99 songs. And I don't believe for a second that it's because the record companies want to charge us less.



    Apple realizes that the viability of legally transferred music files depends on the consumer being happy, not the execs. Case in point:Napster hit its stride as CDs were priced at $17.



    The business model is simple. Undercut the competition until you acheive dominance, then bring the prices up where you want them. See: walmart v. Mom and pop



    So, you have no fear that won't follow that "simple" business model if/when they gain dominance in the music industry? You're going to put your faith in a corporation that they're not going to screw you over if they have the power to? Alrighty...good luck with that one.



    Quote:

    Granted. Apple is no mom and pop shop. But the choice is still to support a business that seeks to keep a consumer-friendly pricing structure, or amazon, whose whole advantage (pricing and drmfree) is a gift from the record companies who are against such pricing.



    Again, if Amazon fails and retail stores stop selling CD's because it has begun to cut into profit, you're going to trust that Apple won't raise prices? Apple doesn't give one wit about consumer-friendly pricing beyond keeping the iTunes infrastructure alive which in the end leads to continued iPod sales. Putting your trust in big business, any big business, is a pretty foolish thing to do.



    Quote:

    Patronizing amazon is supporting/enabling the record companies, which is historically suggested to hurt us as consumers in the long run.



    Sorry, but patronizing iTunes exclusively is a recipe for disaster. There needs to be retail competition, otherwise you'll be locked into paying high prices for the things you want. Imagine the high prices you'd be paying if only one company made OS X compatible computers...
  • Reply 48 of 83
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dattyx26 View Post


    Whoah, you just went on a tangent. I never said iTunes was broken or worthless. And I don't think iTunes can do dvd-audio, only data. First, the guy was saying iTunes is better because one can burn the songs to disc to remove drm. How can this be better when both uses the same method to remove drm? And i think the problem isn't removing drm, it's more of ripping the songs BACK again and losing quality in the process, which occurs when one rely on burning and re-ripping. Also, the poster never mentioned other jukebox programs, he only focused on iTunes.



    um...you do know the difference between .wav (burned as audio disks, remove drm) and .aac/.m4p/etc (burned as data disks, retains drm) right?



    iTunes has been able to do DVD-Audio for quite a while are far as I know and yes, I realize that if you burn is as data it will keep it's DRM but that's why I said DVD-Audio. So maybe it'll take more than a few DVD'S but considering they are now VERY cheap (can get a 50 spool for under $25) I think that's fine (or if you were pressed for money you could buy just 1 DVD-RW or - just realized this, you might be able to trick iTunes into a DVD-Audio image file and then you never even have to buy a disk at all! ). If iTunes died tomorrow and I was forced to take all my DRM'd stuff and burn it to audio so I could get it all I really wouldn't complain about it. That's life and that's also what you agreed to (even if you didn't realize it) when you bought the music.



    Maybe I'm a cynic but I don't ever really expect things to go smoothly or that the consumer isn't going to get crapped on in the end. I will say the interface for burning is iTunes is rather user-friendly so maybe that's why it's better! :-D
  • Reply 49 of 83
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Ah but Apple does care about keeping consumer friendly prices in iTunes. It's their bread and butter. They get away with charging more for their iPod BECAUSE of the consumer friendly prices in iTunes. It is those prices that spur the growth in iPods whereas Amazon doesn't have an 'mp3' player and thus their goal is to make money from the music - Apple doesn't care about making money from the music (as has been shown time and again) they are solely after iPod sales and the best way to do that is to make iTunes prices as low as possible. So yes, I'd say given Apple's record on music prices, how much they've fought the record labels, even tho they have a HUGE market share they maintain the exact same pricing structure (despite inflation) I would put my trust in Apple to maintain consumer friendly prices much more than I would Amazon...
  • Reply 50 of 83
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,244member
    Can anyone explain the pricing disparity between the Australian iTunes store and the US one? $1.69 versus 99c per seems unusual considering the current exchange rate.



    Was it set to the exchange rate at the time the store was introduced or due to a smaller market or taxes perhaps?
  • Reply 51 of 83
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wraithofwonder View Post


    I certainly don't encourage copyright infringement, but the net effect isn't the same; in the case of the library CDs, who is going to find out? Meanwhile via P2P, your IP addy is on display.



    What I mean is that the economic effect is the same, a person would get media they aren't entitled to keep.
  • Reply 52 of 83
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Fleshman03 posted the "FAIL" pic in response to Foo2 post of



    I saw the source of response.



    Quote:

    Sounds like a tasteless joke at Steve Jobs expense.



    But the expense seemed to be more at Yahoo to me.
  • Reply 53 of 83
    eduardoeduardo Posts: 181member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Farkuss View Post


    I haven't bought a cd in years. I look forward to the day when the labels are defunct, and their suits are scratching their collective heads.



    I get a lot of my cuts from cd's loaned from public libraries.



    Lame-what is so cool about boasting that you steal music? Cheapskate.
  • Reply 54 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I saw the source of response.







    But the expense seemed to be more at Yahoo to me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Fleshman03 posted the "FAIL" pic in response to Foo2 post of



    Sounds like a tasteless joke at Steve Jobs expense.





    It was in defense of that "arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law." Read the second to last paragraph and you'll understand.
  • Reply 55 of 83
    Anyone interested in bigger picture of media corporations should watch documentary called: Orwell Rolls in his Grave, it explains how their control of internet is rising and DRM is one of the means of achieving it. Put it shortly: DRM = bad, reeeally bad...
  • Reply 56 of 83
    seafoxseafox Posts: 86member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Yahoo would have to get permission from every label involved in order to strip the DRM in a way not previously agreed upon. I don't see that happening.

    • How many labels are there really for Yahoo to deal with? I seem to recall the RIAA only being five companies.

    • Yahoo had to work out the distribution agreements with the labels to start, so it's not like it's some huge undertaking to contact them all, they've done it before.

    And actually, the operative word in my post was force. Who needs the labels' permission when you get a ruling from a class-action lawsuit by Yahoo Music customers.
  • Reply 57 of 83
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SeaFox View Post
    • How many labels are there really for Yahoo to deal with? I seem to recall the RIAA only being five companies.

    • Yahoo had to work out the distribution agreements with the labels to start, so it's not like it's some huge undertaking to contact them all, they've done it before.

    And actually, the operative word in my post was force. Who needs the labels' permission when you get a ruling from a class-action lawsuit by Yahoo Music customers.



    I really don't think your argument would fly at all. Yahoo made its deal with the devil, and they need to abide by it, even if other entities got better deals. I don't think the court would find itself breaking the label's right of contract over this.



    At any rate, I think the chances of a class-action lawsuit are low, the chances of winning it are low, and the chances of getting anything more than a $5 coupon are very low.
  • Reply 58 of 83
    trobertstroberts Posts: 701member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pascal007 View Post


    The problem here is that the only one getting burned and shafted are the honest people who actually bought music tracks instead of downloading these tracks from P2P networks. Does the RIAA really believe that these people will buy these files all over again ?



    I am a little confused. Do the songs that were purchased still have DRM in them?
  • Reply 59 of 83
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    No way....Yahoo had a music service???
  • Reply 60 of 83
    Let's face it folks.



    What killed both MSN Music and Yahoo! Music stores? The Amazon MP3 store.



    Not only does the Amazon MP3 store frequently undercut the pricing of the stores I mentioned (and frequently undercuts even the iTunes Music Store), but the fact Amazon mostly encodes their MP3's with LAME 3.97 with 256 kbps variable bit rate encoding without any DRM restriction means the sound quality from the Amazon MP3 sounds almost as good as the original and you can copy it to any portable music player that can play back MP3 files.



    Also, you can configure Amazon's free downloader program to automatically put a playlist of the downloaded music into either iTunes or Windows Media Player 11.0 (if you are running Windows XP or Vista), which means easy syncing of the downloaded music with your iPod or other brand portable music player.
Sign In or Register to comment.