eMacca

Much has been said about Paul McCartney's decision to release Memory Almost Full through Starbucks' Hear Music label, but in making a DRM-free download of the record available legally through eMusic, the newcomer coffee people prove that they have a better grip on content delivery and customer preference than the major labels who have been in this business a long time.

(Memory Almost Full eMusic)
(but first you need to be a member or sign up for a free trial)

EMI’s DRM annoucement: on second thought…

So while I stand behind my earlier statement that it's a step in the right direction and certainly something that'll ruffle the feathers of EMI's major brethren, the more I think about the price hike, the more my mouth tastes like batteries. So I'd like to back off my original excitement just a smidge.

Sure, the files are of a higher quality, but Steve Jobs might wake up one day soon and realize what a Pyrrhic victory it's been to sacrifice the universal $.99 pricetag in order to set this DRM-less ball rolling. The majors have long demanded variable pricing for their wares on the iTMS and Jobs has, until now, heroically resisted. Even if the extra $.30/song eventually brings the rest of the majors into the ring, it's going to cause more than a few of the last remaining music buyers to heed the heretofore unheeded siren's call of the pirate bay's waters, depths from which few sailors ever fully return. These songs should ALWAYS have been DRM-free. And they probably always should have been 256kbps, too. Why should the cost of the RIAA's missed opportunities be passed on down to the consumers?

Why can't the majors, just once do something right without insulting its customers in the process? Can you imagine how many people would be rushing to give their money to EMI if they had made this announcement with a price DECREASE?

I'm reminded of that most torturous brand of word problem from 8th grade algebra class where you have a quadratic function and one axis is price and the other is profits and well...something tells me the curve doesn't peak at $1.29. But hey, it has been a while since I took algebra. This might be a job for indexed.

Holy freakin’ heck! EMI FTW!

EMI announced today that they will be making their entire catalog that's already available online (The Beatles being a notable exception) available WITHOUT DRM. It's not a total victory because for the time being, iTunes will have a per-track price premium for the unprotected songs, presumably to be justified by the higher sound quality accompanying the DRM-free files (full albums will automatically be sold without DRM):

Apple's iTunes Store (www.itunes.com) is the first online music store to receive EMI's new premium downloads. Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.

This is a step in the right direction, and you should expect to see other majors scrambling to catch up now that one of their own has broken from the fold. I'm looking at you, Edgar.

DRM

A few of my favorite blogs have touched on this topic today (Idolator did twice) and at this point it honestly seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me to even comment on it, but as long as record companies continue their blind assault on the city walls of common sense, I figure every voice counts.

Forget the moral highground. Nobody is buying it. Everyone knows that the RIAA is comprised of some of the slimiest swindlers in the history of commerce and when Mitch Bainwol (or his latest mouthpiece Ric Keller (R-FL)) open their mouths to reveal several rows of razor-sharp teeth and play the morality card, it's laughable. But I'd rather not waste the keystrokes on moral theory.

The current reality is that Pandora's Box has been opened and nobody, not even if Voltron and Optimus Prime worked together, is ever going to be able to shut it, morality be damned. And here are the record companies, clinging to DRM like that kid in kindergarten whose parents hated him enough to let him bring his "blankie" to school. I know it's a scary new world out there, guys, but DRM is not going to protect you. It just makes you look fucking stupid.

Here's the bottom line: Someone, somewhere, is going to beat your DRM no matter what. They're going to have fun doing it, they're going to brag about it to their friends, and the day after they've posted it on their torrent site of choice, it'll be on every torrent site. The Idolators have an interesting argument today that this might not even be such a bad thing. Your energy and funds would be better spent on something, ANYTHING, other than a battle that you will definitely, without a doubt, not win.

How about artist development? Just a thought.

SanDisk CEO Eli Harari replies to Steve Jobs

In an open letter (that reads kinda like a sales pitch) on the SanDisk website, Chairman and CEO Eli Harari responds to Steve Jobs, although he never mentions Jobs, iTunes, or iPods by name:

As a loud debate continues over how digital music is sold and used by consumers, SanDisk believes there is another way to address this issue—an approach less confrontational than that voiced by others in the industry.

The answer is to protect the interests of everyone involved, not to chastise rights holders for trying to safeguard the entertainment they create and support.

As a leader in the digital music industry, SanDisk has always supported freedom of choice for consumers. At the same time, we believe that entertainment companies and artists must be compensated.

Consumers deserve fair use of the digital entertainment they purchase, with the freedom to enjoy content on any device they own. SanDisk’s approach is to let consumers decide how and where they acquire and play back their music.

Proprietary systems, in short, aren’t acceptable to consumers. In recent months, there has been a rising chorus of complaints in Europe about the anti-competitive nature of closed formats that tie music purchased from one company to that company’s devices, and tie that company’s devices to its music service.

SanDisk is already offering an alternative with its Sansa line of MP3 players, which connect to many major online music stores, including Rhapsody, Napster, URGE, Yahoo! Music, emusic and Best Buy Digital Music Store. Users purchasing songs from those services can also play them on many non-SanDisk devices. SanDisk and our partners have full support from the four major music companies, and we believe our offering is no less secure than closed systems.

What’s more, the decision on using digital rights management (DRM) should rest with the music industry, not with device makers.

Time and again, we have seen that open choice prevails. The “walled garden” approach may offer a smoother user experience in the short run, but ultimately restricts user choice. Protecting music doesn’t require confining consumers to a single company’s service or devices. It’s time to tear down the walls.

SanDisk is looking at the big picture, by creating solutions rather than conflict. Building an infrastructure to give consumers fair access to digital content while protecting content creators is vital for the long-term health of the music industry, as well as to our business and to our competitors. SanDisk stands committed to making this happen.

Truth be told, I've been incredibly happy with my ARCHOS since I retired my old iPod a while back. I agree with Harari here about walled gardens. But I think he misses the big picture that Steve Jobs was painting: that DRM simply doesn't work ANYWAY, and that clinging to it is hurting all the content owners, stores, and hardware in this space.

Come on. Really?

Every time Steve Jobs opens his mouth (or types something, I guess) it's awesome for bloggers. And his latest missive about DRM apparently has ruffled some feathers over at Warner Music:

Warner Music chief executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. said in a call with analysts that the argument to drop copy protection also known as digital rights management (DRM) is "without logic and merit. We will not abandon DRM."

Oh Edgar, perhaps you should take a look at Warner Music's SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT DROP IN PROFIT LAST YEAR and re-think your logic and merit.

This reeks of arrogance and myopia. The walls are CRUMBLING AROUND YOU. These majors are laying off their staffs, placing all their eggs in the baskets of a few huge-selling acts (EMI on Coldplay ring a bell?), and fiddling as the city burns. Get with the program, Edgar. The old ways aren't working any more.

::smacks forehead::

The RIAA responds to Steve Jobs' open letter regarding DRM that was posted yesterday:

"Apple’s offer to license Fairplay to other technology companies is a welcome breakthrough and would be a real victory for fans, artists and labels. There have been many services seeking a license to the Apple DRM. This would enable the interoperability that we have been urging for a very long time."

The validity of whether it would be "a real victory" or not aside, Jobs didn't offer to license Fairplay. He stated why licensing Fairplay would never work in the process of constructing a pretty decent argument for abolishing DRM.

Honestly (and I'm being candid here) there isn't a word for stupid that is strong enough for the RIAA. How do they even still exist? Who in their right mind supports these buffoons? Even if this is a joke (as the LA Times generously suggests), it's not funny.

(via engadget.)

Steve Jobs doesn't like DRM

Steve Jobs adds a pretty deep, bellowing voice to the deafening chorus of people that are pretty darned tired of DRM:

"If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies"

If any one man has the power to bend the will of THE MAJORS (ominous ones, they are), it's Mr. Jobs. He famously refused to be bullied when he set up iTunes in the first place, which is arguably the secret ingredient for its success. (via REUTERS)

In other slightly-heartening-if-you're-into-that-sort-of-thing news, OZZFEST will be free (asterisk) this year.

The Big Bad Wolf is gonna getcha

Honestly, is there anybody left in the world that doesn't think the RIAA is evil? It would take decades of charitable donations to starving children and subway ads with little tigers drinking out of baby bottles with bows tied on their heads to even begin to regain the public's good will. More lawsuits? That's not gonna get the job done. Especially ones like this.

Satellite radio (and internet radio) have battled every step of the way with these bastards. Because presumably there are nefarious do-badders in the world who would record our station directly, successfully edit out all our station id's and fadeouts and me talking over intros all the time, and cultivate for themselves a massive library of music. For FREE. For SHAME. There are about 1000 easier ways to get this stuff, if breaking the law is your thing.

Basically, XM sells a radio that enables listeners to record songs they like for playback later. You may have done this yourself as a kid. I certainly used to tape top 5 countdowns on my boombox when I was about 13. This kind of activity is PROTECTED BY LAW.

But the Judge Deborah A. Batts, who is allowing this case to proceed, thinks that XM's subscription model changes things:

"It is manifestly apparent that the use of a radio-cassette player to record songs played over free radio does not threaten the market for copyrighted works as does the use of a recorder which stores songs from private radio broadcasts on a subscription-fee basis."

O RLY?

How about TiVo'ing something off HBO then? Am I going to buy Entourage on DVD if I have every episode sitting at home on my DVR? But that's video, and I digress.

The Wikipedia article for the Audio Home Recording Act (yeah, I know I linked to the same thing twice) has an interesting note at the bottom regarding this lawsuit:

The AHRA is important in the recording industry's suit against XM radio for Samsung's Helix and Pioneer Inno XM receivers, which allow users to record blocks of satellite radio and disaggregate individual songs. XM argues that the both devices are "digital audio recording devices" under the AHRA, and thus enjoy an exemption from copyright infringement actions for private, non-commercial copying. While neither the Inno or the Helix include SCMS, neither device allows any transfer of songs off of the device, effectively preventing any copying. The recording industry's complaint makes no mention of the AHRA, and argues that by marketing the devices, XM is using the compulsory statutory license to operate a digital download subscription service. Some commentators believe this is part of a larger attempt to undermine or eliminate the home taping rights guaranteed by the AHRA.

Watch out. The Big Bad Wolf is gonna getcha.

(There's a kinda neat program called Screamer Radio that I've written about before on this blog that will record radio streams for you in a very similar way to the devices in question in this suit.)