×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

391 comments

Poor MAFIAA (1, Interesting)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20922997)

Everyone is jumping ship on DRM. Boo-hoo. The consumer wins!

Re:Poor MAFIAA (5, Interesting)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923225)

I will gladly pay the protection money to Yahoo to keep DRM away. Give me high bitrate and lossless choices and watch my downloads soar!

Re:Poor MAFIAA (2, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923487)


Amen! I'm over in the UK and I'm just waiting for Amazon or Yahoo or someone to start selling me quality downloads. I'll spend £40.00 on the service the first night it goes live, I have no doubt. I've bought a few albums from 7digital.com but a good portion of their stuff is still in WMA and they're also more set up as an online music service than a store for streaming your music wherever you are. (Everything you buy sits in an online basket that you can never get rid of and for Linux there's no convenient way of downloading your music except clicking on slow file downloads - takes fifteen minutes of clicking to get your files).

I can't wait until services are actually selling me this stuff properly.

Re:Poor MAFIAA (5, Insightful)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923361)

Not so fast, but RIAA and its beloved DRM will fail, within the next few years. RIAA still has control over majority of the music market. Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. What RIAA fails to realize is that a successful business is all about what the customers want, not what the company wants. There are countless examples of failures because the company lost touch with the people. And here we are just witnessing another failure in making.

Re:Poor MAFIAA (4, Insightful)

dotgain (630123) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924413)

Not everyone is well-informed to know and seek for better alternatives. Some are happy to follow whatever the record labels throw at them. Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. Most of them are bound by contract to the labels for a certain time or number of releases. It's not that they don't know to switch, but that they can't.

Re:Poor MAFIAA (4, Interesting)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923395)

Nine Inch Nails were never on the "other ship". Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) publicly hates his label, and has leaked every NiN release so far. This isn't some sudden turn about. Check out quoteunquoterecords.com for another example (donations based).

I hear a lot of shit on the radio that "this would never work for lesser-known artists", which is a total load of rubbish. The independent artists have been doing this more than the big bands. Of course I'm happy that we're moving away from the fat cats to a clearer artist/listener relationship, and I'm also a radiohead fan, but this whole thing is totally overegged.

Re:Poor MAFIAA (5, Interesting)

Hymer (856453) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923605)

...and poor Microsoft who has totally fucked up Vista (and delayed it several times) just to implement a "unbreakable" DRM system... instead of fixing some of Windows' real problems.

Labels Wising Up? (5, Insightful)

wdr1 (31310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923019)

What record labels are finally learning is that just because they can steal, doesn't mean the majority of people will.

-Bill

Re:Labels Wising Up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923267)

Records labels have learned nothing. They just try not to disappeared.

Internet makes them redundant since Artists want to reestablish a closer relation with their public and they are tired to see their revenue eaten by overinflated marketers.

Thank all these people whom have uploaded/downloaded music/movies for years. They are the true freedom fighters against the evil corporations.

Now if you want to reward artists go to their concerts.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (5, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923345)

Actually, it even more pronounced than this:

Some people will always steal and you are not going to succeed selling to them. They will always find a way to cheat even if you force them to buy the product through legislation. The percentage depends on geographic location, society, culture, etc. Usually these are a minority.

The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (-1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923391)

The majority of people don't think of it as stealing. You idiots who do have obviously never been stolen from.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (-1, Offtopic)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923445)

Are you playing my game to spin up the pirates a little? I sorta remember arguing with you about this once, with you on the opposite end.

I could be wrong, though. Modern pharmacopoeia has destroyed my memory.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (0)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923651)

It is stealing.

While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not. I would much rather pay him direct and buy direct.

As far as the article headlines are concerned I would not jump up and down with joy hearing about yet another band going truly independent. This will make the market for pop music very similar to the one for classical. Classical music is quite different from the pop. While the all of the pop is priced at roughly the same level as a consumer good, classics prices are all over the place. A single CD with Beethoven sonatas can cost anything from 5£ to 60£. A collection of Beethoven symphonies can set you back by a 3 digit number.

Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example).

Re:Labels Wising Up? (1, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923773)

"It is stealing."

Thank you! I was wondering if I'd ever see a post say this and be modded up.

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.

Before the trolls ask, yes, I have stolen and been stolen from, both with physical property and IP. I don't like any of it. You don't end the day with a good feeling under any of the situations.

Most people do -not- want to break the law, and they do -not- want to take things they aren't entitled to. But it's also true that most people have desires, and if you put up too many roadblocks for their desire, they'll go around them instead of paying the tolls. If a person wants a CD and knows there's DRM on it and they won't be able to rip it to their iPod, they'll simply save the time, money, and hassle and download the songs instead. They could buy the CD and then download the songs, and I'm sure some do, but why give good money for something that doesn't fit your need?

I used to be a PC gamer. Then DRM started to get out of control with rootkits and nasty drivers that crash the system and games that had DRM that didn't work right and I had to download a crack to play the game I rightfully bought. NWN is a good example of the last. I bought it first day, and bring it home. I installed it and started to play, and it crashes a few minutes later. I start it over and over, and it always crashes a few minutes later. It was unable to verify the DRM on my top of the line system, and instead of telling me, simply crashed the game so I'd lose all progress. I ended up getting a cracked version and everything worked fine.

One last thought: Scare tactics. I have seen a TON of misinformation about cracks. Everywhere I go, I see people saying that cracks often have viruses. I have applied cracks for dozens of games (because having to have the CD in the drive is idiotic) and not a single one has ever had a virus. The problem isn't the crack, but where you get it from. Don't download EXEs from P2P. It's stupid.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924207)

I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.

It's also important when dealing with little things like the US Code.

Funny thing, though, if it WAS actually stealing, the fines would be a lot lower. It would actually be in a P2P sharer's benefit for downloading "stolen" music to be classified as theft.

Just more proof that the scare tactic is working. Stealing: effective social scare tactic, tiny fine. Copyright infringement: pathetic social scare tactic, huge fine.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (2, Interesting)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923865)

Check me if I'm wrong, but with your example of Radiohead, aren't they going to a "pay whatever you want" price format for their latest album as a download? Why yes, they are. Yeah, they're also offering a high(er)-priced "with all the extras" version if you want a physical copy. But they're hardly asking for extortionate prices.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (4, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924393)

It is stealing.

While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not.
No, it isn't. Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc. There are also several new business models these days (ad-driven, etc.), but it is too soon to tell about them.

Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example).
No, quite the opposite. One of the reasons we have a few acts making the vast majority of money in music is the RIAA, who through extremely costly and aggressive marketing make a few acts control the charts. If the RIAA vanish tomorrow, music will 'democratize' - more artists making money, fewing really big money-makers; prices will stay reasonable. This is a very good thing, and it is already starting to occur.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (5, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924237)

The rest will avoid stealing if they can. They will however steal if you force them by making the "legitimate" product unusable for them. These are the majority.

Well put. For those who don't get what he said, let me give examples...

You are asked by a bride to put together a slide show, here are my photos and here is the music I want played.. Now try to get permission from the school photographer to scan and project the images on the screen. Now get permission to play the show with a public performance music soundtrack. Now get permission to burn the show to DVD and give them to the bride and extended family. Now get all the permissions (photo, music, songwriter, ASCAP etc) to put the mess on YouTube or MySpace.

Most of us can't do any one of the tasks to do any of the above required steps. We don't ask. We just do the show and hope nobody cares enough to sue. Unless you are a pro-video production company, your chances as an individual of not intentionally breaking someone's copyright is pretty slim. If you took the copyright violations in my last wedding slideshow and charged me $5,000 for each violation, the total would be in the mega millions. There was copying the music (bride provided, I didn't own) copying the photos (lots of school and sports photos done by a studio), public performance of the resulting package, and duplication and distribution for putting it on DVD. The show ran 15 minutes and used 4 songs.

When will the industry learn that outdated copyright is preventing use of the product. There is no outlet of the industries providing anyplace where I can obtain the license to use the products. As a result, I no longer use photographers who won't sign my work for hire contract which gives me the copyright. They either adapt or lose the job to someone who will. Copyright reform is required. It does not recognise how the products are typically used anymore.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923355)

What record labels are finally learning is that just because they can steal
No, as soon as the record labels get a chance to steal from the artists, they will.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (5, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923541)

I don't agree with that completely, Bill, but I think you're heading in the right direction.

I think that given the opportunity most people will take something for free if they can and there isn't much risk involved. The real point is that the people who [i]would[/i] have paid for the content originally are still likely to pay for the content regardless of what everyone else is doing. Maybe they enjoyed the content enough to want to support it's creators. Maybe for this group of people having the opportunity to access the content using a nice interface that's reliable (in terms of service level and making accessible what they're searching for) is worth the expenditure versus the effort involved in other methods. Maybe they just want to stick to the law.

I think many of us would make the argument, for example, that we have a) used the Internet to discover content that we've later gone on to pay for, but also b) we've also downloaded some content "for free" that really we would have never seen enough value in to pay for anyway (although perhaps we might have, if we could have chosen to pay less for it than was asked). So for certain pieces of content we fall into category A, and category B shouldn't really have much impact on a business - if I wasn't going to pay anyway who cares? The only impact is if the number of people in category A decreases.

And that's where I think the problem lies. The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years. Many of us simply do not believe that the artists get a real share of revenues these days, diminishing some of the reason that might cause people to fall into category A. Some of us don't want manufactured pop pushed on us all the time, and this means less content in category A because that's mainly what the industry spits out (as far as what is considered "mainstream" and well known). If we're smart, none of us want to be locked into a platform via DRM that limits where we can take our music and what we can do with it (again, fewer people in category A). And most importantly, the RIAA can [i]not[/i] cause people to psychologically move content from category B into category A via lawsuits.

This all goes back to what we've all been saying for a long time:
* Compensate creators well so that as a consumer I know that when I spend my money I am really supporting the creator
* Build many platforms competing for my business. I shouldn't be locked into iTunes if I want a wide selection, and I should be able to choose a platform that serves my needs.
* Territory restrictions need to go away. If we want to get our hands on a piece of music and you refuse to sell it to us legally, guess what is going to happen?
* Don't use DRM. Why do I want to pay money for content I really only have the option to use with your permission, and that I can't load onto any kind of playback device I might own?
* Allow me to contribute to an artist at less than retail price if I want to. In the past few days we've seen certain artists trying this out. It's better than a category B (aka "I wouldn't pay retail for this anyway") decision.

Finally, remember that each of us has a finite amount of disposable income to spend on music, and a finite ability to discover new music over time. The act of adding DRM does not suddenly make these problems go away. Even if you killed 100% of all piracy tomorrow that does not mean that we'd all suddenly buy more music. Which takes us back to where I started - it's all about making sure the people who are buying now still see the value in buying tomorrow. Look after category A and you'll be fine.

I'm really tired. I hope this post made sense.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923603)

Finally, remember that each of us has a finite amount of disposable income to spend on music, and a finite ability to discover new music over time.

Further thought: The more you combat piracy (remembering that category B is not a real loss), the more you inhibit discovery, one of the two key factors that influences our spending. How many DVD box sets do you think get sold because people get addicted to watching series on YouTube, or albums because fans get to link their friends to their idols performing?

Re:Labels Wising Up? (2, Funny)

tzjanii (1170411) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924003)

--The recording industry in particular has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the years.

It's worse than that. By this point, they may as well be wearing lead prosthetics.

Re:Labels Wising Up? (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924283)

I think the labels (or at least some of them) have realized that they have to compete with the free music available on P2P. The first step in competing with free is to increase the value for customers, and DRM does the opposite. DRM reduces the value of purchased music, it limits how the music can be consumed (ie play for sure wont play on your iPod) and eliminates fair-use.

The challenge facing the labels (or Bands that decide to go it alone ala Radiohead et al.) will be how to continue making a living in a world where music can be downloaded for free on P2P networks.

Lesson for Apple: (4, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923023)

If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience.

Let's hope Apple starts following this line too. iTunes/iPod domination allowed DRMd music to be accepted by far too many.

Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.

Re:Lesson for Apple: (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923449)

Let's hope Apple starts following this line too. iTunes/iPod domination allowed DRMd music to be accepted by far too many.

Let's leave it to MS to attempt to legitimize DRM.


Yea, let's let's. But fitting Apple and Microsoft to prebuilt models in your head won't change reality. Apple has at least as (if not more ) interest than Microsoft in keeping the DRM on iTunes for most of the tracks.

Jobs wants more market control and more money. The rest is just the means he uses to get those two.

Re:Lesson for Apple: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923765)

Even Microsoft have changed tack - the new Zune store has no DRM, and the only uses is the "squirt" function on Zunes, which I think is fair enough, frankly. It's taken long enough, and there's some way to go yet, but I think DRM is slowly but surely dying, and companies are waking up to the fact that whether or not they DRM-encumber music or not, it's an issue. On the other hand, it may just be slowly but surely replaced with digital watermarking... which isn't /quite/ so bad, but still isn't a good thing.

Even Apple have been making baby steps towards removing DRM, and I can't help but feel they helped start the whole industry trend, even if their competitors are two steps ahead of them now.

how about the unbox video service? (2, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923047)

How about removing the DRM on video content?

Re:how about the unbox video service? (1, Informative)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923203)

hahaha!

You crack me up. Oh wait, you're serious?

That is so far from happening its not even funny. Never mind that almost all leaks and interweb releases of films are from cinema's, pre release versions or rips from already decoded dvd's

The thing is that so few people have even the slightest inclination to rip their dvd collections that people aren't feeling the inconvenience that music users felt over the drm currently in dvds. They won't until it becomes standard to store movies etc in electronic form only. That's a long way from happening, by which time drm, unless ultra unobtrusive (ha) will be a fact of life and very hard to dislodge.

you... (5, Informative)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923049)

...never can have enough DRM. really! see... you can have a mp3 for 0.99 or a value added wma with protection against EVERYTHING. even listening! how great is that?

i, for one, would prefer the newest single by britney spears in a totally unplayable format.

Re:you... (5, Funny)

Chouonsoku (1009817) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923141)

You, sir, are a visionary. What better way to protect our children against the auditory abomination that is today's pop artists? I feel that DRM is a wonderful thing, we simply haven't been using it correctly and to it's full potential.

cosmocain fo prez.

Is it really that hard... (1, Offtopic)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923051)

to link to a news site instead to a car-less skater guy's blog who had an issue with pigs and ponies.. ooohhh wait...

The 'No DRM' card (3, Interesting)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923079)

As much as the No DRM makes sense from a political & ethical point of view, the fact that people are recognizing DRM as a bad thing is starting to dawn on people. When Apple iTunes wanted DRM out of the way (for audio, though not for video), I thought of it as a win-win-win [dotgnu.info] situation for everyone including the artists, APPL and the users (screw the RIAA).

Now Y! is doing the same thing and very intelligent of them too. Yahoo! music engine is not something I would use (or *could* use) despite getting a promotional offer (*disclaimer* as an employee) and tying down people to such idiotic client lockins (*cough* jukebox) is not working out well for it at all. If it would work well with Amarok or even the less popular Songbird [songbirdnest.com], I'd happily use it over Last.fm (which streams directly into amarok happily).

Finally, it is a good thing that Y! is realizing that Convenience is a Feature++ - one way or the other.

Won the battle... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923165)

It seems that in recent days, the draconian overlords of music (RIAA) have won a local battle, suing and winning from a poor woman over $240,000 for about a dozen songs, and lost the entire war. Consumers kicked them to the curb 5 years ago. Now artists are starting to do it. Artists know how much companies take and how much they get. Its very likely that artists getting paid directly by fans for music on the web may have a better payday than if they stayed with the company. In general, it seems they won the battle and lost the war.

guess I have some records to buy (4, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923175)

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels, and nope, I haven't been downloading illegally either. If some of the big groups are going to divest themselves of their overlords, I'll be starting up with the purchasing again.

Re:guess I have some records to buy (2, Insightful)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923309)

Actually, Radiohead in their interview are very supportive of large labels.

When their first album came out ( and before Creep blew-up ), they made no money but the label paid for a full tour of Europe even though the labels would lose a lot of money for doing the tour.

Basically, the label paid for a young band to play music and tour, sort of paid for their education.

They say that if they weren't on a rich label, the tour wouldn't have been possible, the exposure to get the song Creep heard wouldn't have been possible.

And, without big labels it's impossible for the bands to really invest in paying a decent studio to record, mix and master their CD and hire engineers by themselves. I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Re:guess I have some records to buy (2, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923583)

I just don't see how there can be a mega-band without a major record label company.

Sure, but do we really want mega-bands in the first place?

Why? (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923367)

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels

Geez, you've really been depriving yourself unnecessarily. One word: emusic [emusic.com].

STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923511)

Emusic has been brought up so many times, is there anyone who visits /. who hasn't heard of it? I would be very surprised to learn that every single post is from a genuine fan and a not from some paid shill.

Signing up for emusic is selling yourself short as a consumer. You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information. They use the anti-consumer "AOL method" of signing people up, by forcing people to cancel a free trial. Sorry, but I have no idea how difficult they'll make it for me to cancel, even if I were stupid enough to give them my credit card information without having any idea what they're selling. And since I can't browse their catalog, I'm betting most people won't be interested in most of their catalog.

To make matters worse, their subscription method makes absolutely no sense from the consumer point of view. What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now? What if I don't want to buy anything for a couple of months? Their subscription method only makes sense from their point of view. They can manage their books a bit easier and get free money for consumers who don't use all their downloads.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC (2, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923737)

Emusic has been brought up so many times, is there anyone who visits /. who hasn't heard of it? I would be very surprised to learn that every single post is from a genuine fan and a not from some paid shill. Signing up for emusic is selling yourself short as a consumer. You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information. They use the anti-consumer "AOL method" of signing people up, by forcing people to cancel a free trial. Sorry, but I have no idea how difficult they'll make it for me to cancel, even if I were stupid enough to give them my credit card information without having any idea what they're selling. And since I can't browse their catalog, I'm betting most people won't be interested in most of their catalog. To make matters worse, their subscription method makes absolutely no sense from the consumer point of view. What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now? What if I don't want to buy anything for a couple of months? Their subscription method only makes sense from their point of view. They can manage their books a bit easier and get free money for consumers who don't use all their downloads.

I am not a shill, I am a satisfied customer.

Here's my take:

For a long time, people here complained about iTunes, and essentially said, "Just give me the damn MP3s at a reasonable price". I agreed with them. Along came emusic, and that's what they did. I chose to support that decision with my wallet, which is the only real vote we have in the marketplace.

So I took a chance with the "free" trial. Yes I had to give up my CC, but I figured that if these guys are ripoffs, they aren't going to last long.

What I saw when I got into their site was a breath of fresh air. I have very eclectic musical tastes, and the breadth of their selection was simply astounding. I realized right away that I was not going to have any problem choosing 90 tracks every month for the forseeable future.

Sure, if you are looking for "mainstream" mega-label stuff, it's mostly not there. But if you're fucking tired of the crap you hear on radio, and like to hear other genres than just 70's rock, wow.

You are entitled to your petty objections about emusic, but I will not stop "shilling" for them. For me and many here, emusic kicks ass. It's time to stop whining on slashdot, get out on the market, and vote with your wallet.

Doing anything less is "selling yourself short as a consumer."

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923767)

What if I newly discover an established band and want to buy all their albums right now?

You can pay for a booster pack if you absolutely cannot wait a month.

Re:STOP PLUGGING EMUSIC (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924013)

Quoteth the AC: "You can't so much as browse their catalog without giving up your name, address, and credit card information."

I thought that when I went to the site, too. But a quick Google for "emusic " takes you straight to the list of what they have for that band, and from there you can continue to browse.

e.g. www.emusic.com/artist/11592/11592805.html - their page of Underworld stuff.

I'm not entirely convinced emusic wanted their site to work that way, but seeing they had the stuff I was after is persuading me to sign up, so they probably won't complain too loudly.

Question (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923807)

I haven't purchased music for years because of the behavior of the labels

Which makes me wonder. If you don't participate in the market, how do you cast your economic vote?

Choosing not to vote doesn't even come close to being as powerful as supporting the entities that you agree with.

Re:Question (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924209)

I vote the only way I can, by active non participation, They do not get my custom, where they would if they dropped drm, I used to buy a lot of music. What other way is there? buying their stuff doesn't help.

Re:Question (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924311)

Active non-participation? WTF is that? Self-disenfranchisement.

You have to participate to get a say.

See my other comment about emusic. There are things about them that some don't like, but they have non-DRM tracks for a reasonable price (two of my big problems with iTunes), so they get my vote.

I used to buy tons of CDs (5-10 per week). Then the shit really started with the labels and I stopped, took a look around and supported someone else. Just abstaining doesn't do the job, the drop in sales is just attributed to piracy.

If you want to make a change, you have to actively participate in the market. Silence==status quo.

interesting indeed. (3, Informative)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923185)

this is truly an interesting read.

shame I cannot get MP3 from Amazon yet as I am in the UK. :-( Boo!

but I will be buying NIN and Radiohead albums - not only do I like the music its very important that the artist and the RIAA get the message.

though I suspect (and hope) they will be getting two very different messages.

the important thing to realize is that there will be no quick change here - the RIAA has the majority of artists by the short and curlies because they are mostly currently locked into draconian contracts for fixed duration and no. of albums. currently only the lucky few who are nearing the end of their terms (or should that be sentences) can escape to artistic and hopefully monetary freedom.

truly, we live in interesting times.

It's finally happening (4, Funny)

rossz (67331) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923197)

Everyone, the retailers, the talent, the consumers, are starting to realize that when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

Re:It's finally happening (2, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923519)

when the record industry bent them over the desk for a serious buggering, it turned out to not be as nice as they promised. It is, in fact, a bit of a pain.

A pain in the arse, in fact.

Nice move, Trent. (1)

hawe (1117323) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923237)

I can't wait to start buying NiN's CDs now. Hopefully more companies will realize that their current way of doing things isn't working.

Re:Nice move, Trent. (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923307)

I hope the record companies Quake at this!

Bad pun, but back then I thought the idea of putting a lot of NIN audio tracks on a game CD at a time when CD burners were expensive was the least intrusive copy protection I have seen. I was probably more impressed because the thing was in the discount bin for $10.

DVDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923281)

TFA: "I'm here to tell you today that I for one am no longer going to fall into this trap. If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. I will tell Yahoo! to give the money they were going to give me to build awesome media applications to Yahoo! Mail or Answers or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don't have any more time to give and can't bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life's too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out."

So how about "pathetic attempts for control" like DVDs with CSS, region-coding, and un-fast-forwardable previews? Still going to be selling those?

Good for NIN and Radiohead (3, Insightful)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923305)

It is great news that established artists are able to leave the big labels behind.

But has any music artist achieved anything like their success without the marketing power of a major label behind them?

I do understand that making enough money by playing music to have a decent standard of living and support a family should be enough for a real artist.

But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?

If this has happened already, please enlighten me because I've missed it (I know who NIN and Radiohead are, but haven't heard of any, so you have some serious convincing to do.)

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead (2, Informative)

cliveholloway (132299) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923417)

I think the Bastard [myspace.com] Fairies [thebastardfairies.com] are doing rather well. It's been interesting watching them grow over the last year. Though they're not exactly after the stereotypical stardom level, so i don't know if they qualify for your criteria...

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead (2, Informative)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923463)

> But is there even a remote possibility for an independent artist
> to win the lottery and make it to the big time without a major label?

Yes, the Artic Monkeys have certainly done well and they have never been involved with the majors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_monkeys [wikipedia.org]

Signed to a fairly big indie label now.

Re:Good for NIN and Radiohead (1)

Papabryd (592535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924113)

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah is a pretty good example of a band reaching high levels of success without the backing of a label. Their stuff made its way onto the internet and was picked up at various places including Pitchforkmedia.com, a pretty big "indie" music review site. The mountains of positive press increased demand to the point that they had to repress their debut CD, all without ever signing a record contract.

New bands (1)

forgoil (104808) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923335)

Guys like NIN and Radiohead can go independent now because they already have made money. Prince can give away his music because he is already rich. What we need is new good acts that can stand outside of the horror that is the RIAA and still succeed. That will have some real impact. That will make way for changes. It shouldn't be about greed, it should be about music and fairness.

Re:New bands (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923635)

No doubt such bands already exist (and sometimes [wikipedia.org] make a reasonable break into the "mainstream" and a boatload of cash in the process).

However in general they must struggle to make a mainstream impact when the big labels are spending a boatload of cash on saturation marketing for their artists (and then clawing the money back off the artists).

Perhaps the best thing about major artists leaving their stables will be a reduction of funds wasted on marketing so that new artists stand a chance of being seen. A return to (authentic) reputation and word of mouth would be great.

If you all would switch.... (2, Interesting)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923369)

If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ [thinner.cc] you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-) Except that you probably don't enjoy free, and fascinating electronic music.... no you want David Hasselhof's new band "singing about love" - you know the neat band they play when your inside McDonalds, or ordering a coffee at Starbucks, or passing by a sexy shot of a model on MTV - oh wait that was a tampon ad.... yeah the lyrics are so unique that it just catches your ear so you download it to your Ipod because its so easy to give them your credit card number. God I bet the band really appreciates your help. To put it more bluntly, it is my experience that it is the type of music you listen to that will get you locked into money schemes like DRM. /love the minimal

Re:If you all would switch.... (2, Funny)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923413)

Popular music that sucks gets DRM'ed. Music that sucks that nobody listens to... why even bother?

Re:If you all would switch.... (1)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923951)

Yeah nobody listens to it, why bother -- I must be some kind of nut if I find it enjoyable

Re:If you all would switch.... (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923421)

I've recently taken an interest to electronic/house music (normally, I'm a death metal and classical kind of guy :P), particularly Daft Punk and Justice.

Unfortunately, Daft Punk is on EMI, so I can't support them by buying their albums. :(

Re:If you all would switch.... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923663)

Daft Punk is on EMI, so I can't support them by buying their albums

Why not? EMI is the (only) label that sells the DRM free songs on iTunes called "Plus". Sure, a bit more expensive, but DRM free. I, for one support that....

Re:If you all would switch.... (1)

nick.ian.k (987094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923697)

If you all would switch to listening to electronic music, especially from netlabels like Thinner http://www.thinner.cc/ [thinner.cc] [thinner.cc] you wouldn't need to worry about DRM. :-)

Which is all well and good if you're willing to merely exchange cliches. Some of us judge music on artistic merits rather than how well it assumes a genre-centric posture and don't have the option. Though that's probably better: less bad pseudo-political punk choruses and less samples of bad third rate soul vocals to give otherwise white music a bit of "soul" going 'round.

Re:If you all would switch.... (1)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923997)

Actually my point is to illustrate that there is free music out there that is just as good if not better than commercialized music. And the genre you choose is up to you... I just happen to love sounds like thinner's. Believe it or not those guys enjoy their work and they get paid for their music even though it is free to you and me. I think this business model of "free" promotes actual innovation in music, not just high production costs. That's why I was blown away by the new and original sounds when I found that netlabel 4 years ago. If you don't contribute to the big dollar bullies of the industry they lose their power to screw you and these artists we love and appreciate.

NIN (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923435)

Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now ...
and the enemy of my enemy is my ... friend? damn you, NIN!

Actually (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923475)

Radiohead's album will be out in the shops in 2008. I know I could get it now for free*, but I think I'd rather wait for the CD and rip it in the format that I want (it's available as 10 x 160kbps MP3s, probably encoded in the wrong version of LAME that leaves gaps between the songs).

*You can opt to pay nothing, but you still have to pay a 45p bank charge.

Re:Actually (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923805)

The bank charge is only if you actually want to donate an amount. If you put £0.00 it doesn't even ask for your card details.

Second thought about what Radiohead and NIN do... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923481)

...can't really conclude if this is good or bad, but one thing for sure is that the next up and coming 'big' act will need to sign away their life if they want to be on major label.

Broken Records? (1)

MLS100 (1073958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923529)

Hasn't NIN been under Trent's label Broken Records for some time now? Or was there still some kind of contractual agreement with the recording industry that wasn't renewed?

Re:Broken Records? (1)

ximenes (10) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923689)

Nothing Records was a vanity label attached to Interscope. The whole vanity label thing is basically just a way for the very few major labels to at least project the impression of a more personal experience, but of course the money goes to the same place.

Its defunct now by the way, NIN's last two albums were directly on Interscope (which in turn is part of Universal Music Group, paired up with Geffen and A&M). There are a million vanity labels, boutique labels, divisions and other things going on yet theres really only four main companies behind all of this.

Re:Broken Records? (1)

DaveCar (189300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923825)

A "vanity label" is known as an imprint [wikipedia.org] in book or record publishing, and may be used to differentiate between genres of music.

Not *necessarily* to project the impression of a more personal experience ;)

Get a CD, pay what you want... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923801)

I heard that on the 20 euros that most CD cost, artists only see 2 or 3 euros...
I suppose that when they sell on their website, more than 80% of the selling price goes into their pocket, so it is not an idealist fight anymore, it is just a matter of making profit. 5 euros for a CD is cheap by today standard and would earn the artists more money, it will be a hard year for middle-men

Power to the bands (2, Insightful)

Archie Gremlin (814342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923847)

I keep hearing the phrase "bands make most of their money from touring etc not from CD sales".

If this is true, then Radiohead aren't losing any money by giving away their music. They're just building a fan base by giving away music instead of building a fan base by getting a label to sell CDs. It also means that DRM protects the label and actively damages the band.

Has the internet finally created a world in which the bands don't need labels any more? Perhaps in 5 or ten years time, we'll see that the labels will morph into music marketing companies who are hired by bands as necessary. Either that, or they'll have to start paying the bands a decent royalty on CD sales.

Hey, dumbasses.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923965)

If it weren't for the labels, you wouldn't know who Nine Inch Nails and/or Radiohead was.

For all the bullshit that the RIAA & MPAA spew, the trolls and losers beat 'em by a factor of ten.

All the grownups know that most of the anti-DRM garbage is just an indrect way of bitchin' about the labels making it harder for you to steal their crap.

Radiohead album available! (1)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924021)

Just in time for this story, Radiohead's new album [inrainbows.com] is now available for download for the price you name.

Only downside is they are 160 kbps mp3:s, which may not make everybody happy.

The Radiohead thing (1)

Lurks (526137) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924049)

Dropping DRM and basically opening up the album to the masses is something we all want to see. That said my initial enthusiasm stemmed from being surprised by another Radiohead album rather than being told about it many months before it shows up as normal.

More relevantly for this discussion, the really cool digital distribution mechanism has been marred somewhat by the patchy way the whole thing has been delivered. 160kbps CBR MP3 rip (well below par quality wise) is causing expected waves but, in my view, worse still is the amateurish mastering of the album itself.

I've come to the conclusion that to some degree the lo-fi approach is by design but I've also concluded that it appears in so many places, rampant master-level clipping on overlayed sections, that it's really not something I find pleasurable. Then there's also the brutally inept stereo imaging too. I applaud Radiohead for the approach, don't get me wrong, but in some sense it does strike me as a bit self indulgent. They really COULD have benefitted from a real studio and a professional audio engineer. The shame is that record companies will hold this up as an example why that approach is better, when in fact this is just an error on behalf of Radiohead's where they came to believe they could do that stuff themselves too. They can clearly afford to hire out the appropriate resources.

Anyway, I've written a bit more about the whole thing here: http://www.electricdeath.com/blog/1200 [electricdeath.com]

I have a question (3, Insightful)

nysus (162232) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924075)

As the guy in the article points out, it is trivially easy to move bits from one person to another.

If I amass a 1,000 song collection with mp3s, won't it be trivially easy for me to "share" my music with all my friends? Wouldn't that really help build my reputation with them? And wouldn't those who received the free music be inclined to give away their music to others as well to help build their reputation?

It's good that the record companies now understand the scourge of DRM, but I don't see how the artists win in this scenario.

Relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20924099)

Great. Now can we get the same kind of action from artists who have done their best work in THIS decade? Just asking.

More innovation from independent bands (5, Interesting)

thbb (200684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924105)

> Another straw in the wind: Nine Inch Nails has now followed Radiohead in ridding themselves of the labels
> and going independent.

Since 2001, Einstürzende Neubauten [neubauten.org] has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription. As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!

They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is
a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free" [neubauten.org].

Re:More innovation from independent bands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20924137)

Bah, I followed ENB from the mid 80's and bought everything
they released till they dissappeared in the early 90's. I was
really pleased to see a CD in the shops around 2002 and on the
back was written "this CD does not play on computers".

DRM monkeys -- fuck `em

Not making money on CDs (2, Informative)

ColourlessGreenIdeas (711076) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924107)

...seems to be largely because the record labels keep it all. If a band sells a CD, the record company gets most of the money. If they sell a t-shirt, they've bought the shirt wholesale and keep the rest.
Some friends of mine [loverselectric.com] were touring as the support act with a largeish (reformed '80s) band recently. The main band wasn't selling albums at the gigs, as the wholesale price the record company wanted for the CDs was too high. My friends were making quite good money, as they were unsigned so just had to pay the CD making factory.

Radiohead...just bought...downloaded w/passion (4, Interesting)

jefreyisnotzen (1091273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20924297)

I'm sick of the RIAA!!! I just paid $11.08 total to download the new Radiohead...CD, no, it's not CD anymore.:P But yes, the whole album. Well, whatever it's called these days. I'm a bit old school...I listened to LP's and even had an 8-track back in the day...Queen, News of the World...on 8 track...yuck, but oh the memories. Now NIN?!! Yes. I hadn't even heard any music off of the new Radiohead, but I love 'em. I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA, and perhaps even the MPAA or anyone else interested in DRM or IP. I will pay, but I don't want to pay for something that's restricted because you're afraid I will steal, and what DRM entails, or EULA's may or may not entail. Restrict all you want xxAA or whoever, if I don't want it, I won't buy. And no, I'm not going to steal it either. Simple economics. Radiohead and their current musical or financial allies, not the RIAA anymore, will get my money, because I don't want to buy what the RIAA has to offer. I still do though, but I don't like it. I bought Radioheads new release though, with passion...freedom! And it's their music to do with what they want now, how they want to sell it. And, since I like their music, and it's DRM free, and doesn't have the usual EULA stuff that goes with other sites like Amazon, I'm more than happy to even to pains with currency conversion stuff. What a breath of fresh air this is!!! I love this! And, I'm listening to the new release...it's good, BTW.:) Namyohorengekyo.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...