</revolution>?

[DackAttac]

(Just realized this applies currently to the US alone. Sorry for the xenophobia. It'll probably happen again.)

[source]

Warner's ditched DRM. If this sentence doesn't intrigue or make sense to you, the next paragraph is for your eyes only, shrunken so my post will look less intimidating.

When the iTunes store and all its ilk launched, they offered the sale of individual songs without having to buy the entire album. However, it came with the price of DRM; basically the extension of the major labels' skepticism of online sales. How DRM worked was that your MP3 store of choice was compliant with one media player and set of products (iTunes Store to iTunes & iPod; Urge to Windows Media Player & Zune, etc.) If you were a digital music customer, your choice of MP3 player was affected by the efficiency of the on-computer player and store as well. In early 2007, Steve Jobs expressed his discontent with DRM and worked together with EMI, one of the Big Four record labels, to drop the DRM from all of their acts, but no other major label followed, (although some indies went along). Some were distrustful of music without DRM, but Universal was simply distrustful of how large and powerful iTunes had become. Amazon launched their MP3 store consisting only of DRM-free music, (as in, if your music has DRM, it will not be sold, period), a ballsy move that paid off. Universal signed on to them and not iTunes, giving the "new" kid on the block an upper hand. And, if you recall previous promotions where you could win free iTunes downloads from a Pepsi cap, it's back this year, but it's for Amazon's store instead. This pressured Warner into folding, and now, Sony-BMG. All the major labels will be available on Amazon without DRM by the end of the month.

God, that was boring. Anyway.

Back when Napster launched, it made piracy as mainstream as "crime" ever was. There were a million different justifications that superseded even the most nagging consciences. Mainly because most of those consciences had, at one point, been fucked by the music industry. If it was music by a mainstream artist, "Most of that money is going right into an exec's pocket." If it was a successful artist, "Like the Red Hot Chili Peppers need any more money." If it was an undiscovered act, "They should just be grateful for the exposure."

Shaky moral ground. But the true winner was that it really was a victimless crime that served primarily as a form of sampling an album to ensure its quality before making the hearty purchase of the album. (A study confirmed that illegal downloading didn't deter the CD spending habits of the downloader.) But best of all, it also cut the message clear to the music industry that their customers were fed up with their bullshit. It was a form of research, and also way to rebel against the Evil Corporation. A revolution! A revolution against The Man!

So hell yeah, I pirated music. I downloaded songs and either grew tired of them and eventually deleted them or downloaded more until it felt like I'd enjoy the album, which I'd buy. And expressed my discontent with $18-list-price-CD's being the only place to get a song I liked. Everyone did. It was a cultural phenomenon done as protest. Right?

When iTunes came out, though, I felt somebody was listening. I started telling people about it. Some were intrigued, some shrugged, some slapped me across the face and informed me about what a pain in the ass DRM was. And, truthfully, DRM didn't bother me, but I could see how people could dislike it and stopped being preachy about my position on it. And then iTunes 7 or something came out. It was bloated, it was sluggish on my computer, and in some cases, just wouldn't play my music. I was trapped. In a flammable house with uninsurable furniture. If iTunes ever stopped being any good to me, I'd have to kiss off an awful lot of content I purchased.

So I started boycotting DRM files, with only a few occasional slip-ups. (Sorry, BRMC's "Berlin" was just too badass to wait on.) And now, finally, the wait's over. It won't be long until I can stop hearing songs on the radio, racing home to find out who sings them, and then finding out that I can't buy it.

In a nutshell, it took a little longer than it should have, but, you know, you need to allow the mouse in the maze a little longer to find the cheese if it's mentally retarded. That's it. A good system has arisen. It's the end of the line. Right?

What's the fate of piracy? Especially now that it's been shunned to the dankest corners of BitTorrent, you have to download an entire album in order to get to a track? (I'd like to see a study done of album purchases under those consequences.) Now the major labels (and an assload of indies) have finally fulfilled their part of the deal, will their customers do the same? Or all these supposed vigilantes are really just cheapskate shitbags?

[The Ghost Of Ember]

The fact of the matter is we live in a capitalistic society, and people go with what's the easiest. The reason piracy was so widespread was because the record labels were slow on the take in using the internet as a distribution tool and the pirates weren't. Path of least resistance. Now it's quicker an easier to spend a dollar on a song and not have to worry about viruses or lawsuits. Really, the whole damn thing could've been avoided if the monolithic corporations had spent less money on their legal department and more on taking the internet by storm. DRM would've been unnecessary in the first place.

Of course, that's not to say piracy still wouldn't have happened or it will disappear. Stealing is just another tax, and there will always be people who will steal no matter what highly advanced anti-theft software you create. Heck, most of them will do it just to spite your anti-theft software. But they're not important, they wouldn't have bought the product anyways.

I don't really see this as a triumph of grassroots movements or consumer over distributor as it was a triumph of market inevitability. People go with what’s easy and don't like their stuff fucked with after it's 'theirs.' If you don't do it right a competitor will, and if no one does it right the black market/pirates will.

[Segaholic2]

DRM sucks.

[The Ghost Of Ember]

DRM sucks.

Succinct.

[Arcade]

DRM sucks.

Succinct.

Damn right!

[Isuka]

I'm not listening much music lately, most of the songs that I really like are too damn old, are greatly accessible through P2P sharing and technically escape all this moral problem by having their original composers/ performers either disbanded or dead.

But, I understand Dack's feeling of listening something cool on the radio and not having a way to own it other than paying for the full album, which overall may or may not suck. The only thing I don't like from Amazon's offer is the differently priced songs thing, other than that it looks to be at least as good as iTunes. Which maybe isn't saying much 'cause Apple's soft sucks, it's just too bloated, even for a Microsoft OS user (the same goes for Adobe; 150 megs? for a fucking PDF reader?!).

I can only see a definitive standard service rising in two years from now, maybe three, but the core problem (of course, the record labels themselves) will most probably stay there too.

[Frieza2000]

BitTorrent, you have to download an entire album in order to get to a track?

Brother, I bring you Utorrent, the client that allows you to pick which files you want to download. In your heart you've always known it was waiting for you, but your laziness has kept you in darkness.

These days my downloading is limited to TV shows. The way I see it I'm paying for cable so anything on the air is fair game. I could just be setting my VCR, but I'm lazy.

[Segaholic2]

Any good client should let you select which files to download.

[Shadow Hog]

Even the official one does! Well, you can at least specify which files to download first.

Hmm, I've been sort-of-kind-of looking for a place to buy MP3s without having to resort to iTunes (because iTunes uses QuickTime which I absolutely abhor for a variety of reasons). This Amazon thing sounds roughly like what I was looking for... Let's have a looksee.

ED: Oh lawd, I have to use RealPlayer to preview the clips? That's even worse!

[Isuka]

Does Real Alternative help?

Also, if the entire album is compressed in a zip/ rar/ 7z/ whatever, I'm afraid you're not able to choose what to download. The same applies for every other kind of "pack download" (images, clips, assorted files), if they're compressed in a single file a winrar is not you. :(

[DackAttac]

Pardon my inadequacy with BitTorrent and the like; I haven't used it in forever. Comcast's managed to block off all torrents, I'm not savvy enough to bypass the blockage, and none of the alternative services reach my building. And you may also have gotten the impression from my post that I'm not really huge into piracy unless I have no other choice.

ED: Oh lawd, I have to use RealPlayer to preview the clips? That's even worse!

On Amazon? Don't think so; they have a flash player set up for their MP3 pages. I don't have Real Player, (since I, y'know, respect myself), and I've had no problems playing the samples without installing any shitware.

IThe only thing I don't like from Amazon's offer is the differently priced songs thing, other than that it looks to be at least as good as iTunes.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you don't like? I know the RIAA was begging iTunes for the chance to do this so they could charge stupid-high amounts, but Amazon set a hard cap at 99¢, only exceptions being lengthy songs, like 7+ minutes.

DRM sucks.

Why can all my posts always be summed up in two words?

[Isuka]

'Cause, you know, they're all songs, there's absolutely not a single standard by which you can tell one is worth more then the other, only a general notion that some of them are more "milkable" than the rest.
The price tag itself is actually fine (I wasn't aware of it), but extra bucks because of extra seconds? I know downloading them may consume a tad more bandwith, but you see, in a world of hundreds of petabytes worth of porn *insert link to any variation of Avenue Q's theme on YouTube* I think it's completely negligible.

And man, just look at your ISP, it's darn aweso... err, I mean, Comcastic! We have that kind of services down here too, I laugh at the people who must use them.

[Frieza2000]

Comcast's managed to block off all torrents, I'm not savvy enough to bypass the blockage,

Really? I've got Comcast and I downloaded and seeded a torrent just last month. If you ever find the need for one, try Utorrent and see what happens.

[DackAttac]

'Cause, you know, they're all songs, there's absolutely not a single standard by which you can tell one is worth more then the other, only a general notion that some of them are more "milkable" than the rest.

I suppose that's a legitimate complaint, as it really is treating music as product rather than art. I guess, as a musician, I like having the option of pricing my product competitively.

I know downloading them may consume a tad more bandwith, but you see, in a world of hundreds of petabytes worth of porn *insert link to any variation of Avenue Q's theme on YouTube* I think it's completely negligible.

And let me know when Amazon starts selling it. Because that is a good day.

And I have the story of hammer lady printed out. I meant to hang it on the fridge, but I've misplaced the papers.

[RocketPunch]

I thought iTunes stopped slapping DRM on files awhile ago. What's this iTunes Plus schtick I've been seeing on certain songs in the store?

[DackAttac]

I thought iTunes stopped slapping DRM on files awhile ago. What's this iTunes Plus schtick I've been seeing on certain songs in the store?

In early 2007, Steve Jobs expressed his discontent with DRM and worked together with EMI, one of the Big Four record labels, to drop the DRM from all of their acts, but no other major label followed, (although some indies went along).

[RocketPunch]

</illiterate>

[Rolken]

I'm extremely confused by why any of the major labels are giving Amazon the time of day. I always assumed that they let Apple take control of distribution because that was preferable to distributing themselves without the option of DRM that worked on iPods, but there seems to be no upside to selling on Amazon whatsoever. Is it possible that the music labels are so out of touch with reality that they don't realise what a simple matter shopping cart + bandwidth + HTML is? Not to say that it's child's play, but it's by no means rocket science, and if it's the difference between underpricing your product and what you think they're actually worth, I sure wouldn't let it stand in my way.

Not that I -want- them to have control of pricing, but in a world where people will pay $2-$3 for ringtones, it seems like an extremely poor business decision to give up pricing so pointlessly. People will be going to Amazon for the songs they want, not buying songs because they're on Amazon.

[DackAttac]

I'm extremely confused by why any of the major labels are giving Amazon the time of day.

Mainly because iTunes has done so much business, they're near monopoly status. The labels are scared. They've tried other distributors, nothing's come close to slowing down the Jobsmobile. And like I mentioned, Amazon managed to strike that deal with Pepsi, which brought the best bargaining juice to the table: great benefit with a stiff deadline. Drink 2 or 3 sodas, get a song. That's apparently done great with iTunes, and with Amazon being identical to them, just casting off their biggest flaw, it's bound to reap even more business.

...There seems to be no upside to selling on Amazon whatsoever.

Two reasons: One, what little and confusingly structured DRM-free music iTunes has supplied has sold like hotcakes.

Two, Amazon has potential to generate a ton of overflow revenue. You been to a CD page on Amazon lately? There's a link right there onto the MP3 page. That's one click away. Two more to buy it. A little research on an album could easily turn into "Hey, nice customer reviews and... holy shit, six bucks for the MP3s? Hell, I don't need a booklet that badly. Done."

Really, there's not a lot of money or effort involved in getting a label's catalogue on an online store, compared to what it takes to ready a CD for the country. You don't need any physical materials to craft or print. So, really, you shouldn't be baffled over what the upside could have been to sell on Amazon. (You wouldn't believe the masses of music stores that have just been slaughtered because iTunes just became the player/store combo of choice.)

Is it possible that the music labels are so out of touch with reality that they don't realise what a simple matter shopping cart + bandwidth + HTML is?

Unfortunately, Yes. It is so possible it hurts sometimes. I know I sound like every other pissed off faux-punk angstmonger who ever figured out how to jam his anti-corporation opinions onto the internet; but believe it or not, I went into this field with a level head and an open mind to both musicianship and music business, and a succession of analytical classes just simply confirmed that the Big Label bigwigs really do have their heads so far up their asses they're picking corn out of their teeth.

The sad thing is, the industry wasn't always so stupid. They embraced the compact disc early on in its life, believe it or not. The businessmen who promoted it made the right call, and have made a format that's lasted well past 25 years. The problem is, the grunts that made these decisions and pushed for the format have gotten so spoiled on its success they just plugged their ears and turned the other way when piracy started. After all, they discovered the Ultimate Format, right? There's never been anything else that compared.

If the Labels had the common sense they exercised back when CDs came out when it came to digital music, the labels would have been selling MP3's directly to you before your mom even knew what Napster was. Because there wouldn't be need for any piracy to be anything near as user-friendly (which is always a synonym for veteran-hostile) as Napster. As Ghost so eloquently put it, it wasn't vigilantism that drove people to steal, it was the simplicity. The labels could be selling you the music you listen to for $2.50 a song if they wanted to (and they made it clear to Apple once, they wanted to and probably still do), but they didn't. Apple established 99¢ as a fair price, and because they were the first to lay down that law, it was established.

But you're right. The reason why they went to Amazon instead of doing this themselves is because they practiced ignorance unfit for the remedial special ed dunce cap, and they did it for over a decade.

[Rolken]

Really, there's not a lot of money or effort involved in getting a label's catalogue on an online store, compared to what it takes to ready a CD for the country. You don't need any physical materials to craft or print. So, really, you shouldn't be baffled over what the upside could have been to sell on Amazon. (You wouldn't believe the masses of music stores that have just been slaughtered because iTunes just became the player/store combo of choice.)

Well, I meant the upside of going on Amazon as opposed to their own store... but I think that point ultimately came across.

I know I sound like every other pissed off faux-punk angstmonger who ever figured out how to jam his anti-corporation opinions onto the internet; but believe it or not, I went into this field with a level head and an open mind to both musicianship and music business, and a succession of analytical classes just simply confirmed that the Big Label bigwigs really do have their heads so far up their asses they're picking corn out of their teeth.

It was already fairly evident that they weren't using both sides of their brain when they decided that suing their customers and treating them like criminals was a superior business model to actually delivering the product that they were asking for, but this is a new kind of screwup.

The sad thing is, the industry wasn't always so stupid. They embraced the compact disc early on in its life, believe it or not. The businessmen who promoted it made the right call, and have made a format that's lasted well past 25 years. The problem is, the grunts that made these decisions and pushed for the format have gotten so spoiled on its success they just plugged their ears and turned the other way when piracy started. After all, they discovered the Ultimate Format, right? There's never been anything else that compared.

Plus CDs ultimately weren't that different from vinyl or cassettes as a business model. The primary differences to doing business were different manufacturing methods and the task of selling people new players.

One incident that drove home how lost they really are is the friendly video they sent to news organizations around Christmas that, among other things, said you could identify your pirated songs by lower quality. I'd always assumed that they had referred to pirated music being worse out of cynical manipulation... but to refer to it as a point of identification means they must actually believe it.

I think these people shut off their brains in the 1980s. I used to get mad at their complete mismanagement and abuse, but now it's hard to feel anything but astonished pity. (But not impossible, since they're still raking in the cash)