News

EMI Considers DRM-free Music

Friday, February 9th, 2007 at 7:55 AM - by

Big name record label EMI is considering selling its music library without any digital rights management copy protection in an effort to help increase music download sales. The Wall Street Journal reports that the label is currently gathering information from several iTunes Store competitors including eMusic.com, MTV Networks, MusicNet, and RealNetworks to determine if the idea is financially viable.

EMI's probe into DRM-free music marks a major departure from the other "big four" record labels that consider copy protection to be vital in protecting online music sales from piracy. The move is, however, in line with comments Apple CEO Steve Jobs made in his open letter that speaks out against copy protection in digital songs.

In the letter, Mr. Jobs said that DRM is ineffective and is hampering the growth of online music sales. It goes on to say that the recording labels are responsible for imposing music copy protection on consumers, and that allowing for copy protection-free music sales from online stores would help give consumers the same experience they get when buying a physical CD.

The increase in legitimate music downloads has not been able to keep up with the declining sales in physical CDs, which is something the labels have been working to overcome. Even though they might lose some sales to music pirates if tracks are sold without DRM, the possibility of additional legitimate downloads is enough to keep EMI actively pursuing the idea.

8 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:24 am

Who edits these articles? Loose (as in Foot Loose) verses lose (as in win or lose)

Quote this post ↓

mahuti said:

member since 09 Jan 2003 with 374 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:01 pm

"Even though they might loose some sales to music pirates if tracks are sold without DRM, "

Man, I just can't imagine being so feckless to think that DRM stops music "PIRATES." It DOES stop downloaded music from being copied to the BUYER'S multiple computers & devices, and that's the real reason that music companies Loooooove DRM. The music companies believe that they should be able to make multiple sales of the same song to one buyer, therefore any buyer that copies his own music is a PIRATE.

I think of a pirate as someone that either gives away music en masse to "stick it to the man" or as a person that buys one CD, and dupes it hundreds of times & sells it illegally (aka bootlegger.) The record company thinks of a pirate as, well... YOU!!!

Given the choice consumers may simply ignore purchases rather than be forced into restrictions, and perhaps EMI is starting to figure this out. Steve jobs is totally right that DRM doesn't protect anything. Unless EMI decided to ONLY distribute files through the iTMS store... then DRM might actually provide protection. Like the Steve points out, CDs are left wide open, so what's the point of protecting one without protecting the other?

Quote this post ↓

jbruni said:

member since 14 Jul 2006 with 105 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:28 pm

It would be interesting to see what happens when one of the Big Four goes open. I bet they all jump (sort of like lemmings in a way).

Quote this post ↓

Photodan said:

member since 11 Jun 2001 with 3112 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:28 pm

"the label is currently gathering information ... to determine if the idea is financially viable."

Well the idea of DRM-less music has been viable ever since they've been pressing vinyl, recording cassettes and burning CDs, so this shouldn't take too long.

I actually stopped buying CDs because I didn't want to accidentally buy one that had the god-awful digital protection. If I can't play it on my Mac and rip it to iTunes, I'm not interested.

-Dan

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:08 pm

mahuti wrote:
"Even though they might loose some sales to music pirates if tracks are sold without DRM, "

Man, I just can't imagine being so feckless to think that DRM stops music "PIRATES." It DOES stop downloaded music from being copied to the BUYER'S multiple computers & devices, and that's the real reason that music companies Loooooove DRM. The music companies believe that they should be able to make multiple sales of the same song to one buyer, therefore any buyer that copies his own music is a PIRATE.

I think of a pirate as someone that either gives away music en masse to "stick it to the man" or as a person that buys one CD, and dupes it hundreds of times & sells it illegally (aka bootlegger.) The record company thinks of a pirate as, well... YOU!!!

How many computers and devices do you have? FairPlay allows copying songs you buy to up to five computers (Macs or PCs) and an unlimited number of iPods. You can burn 10 CDs of a PLAYLIST--you can burn a particular song to an unlimited number of CDs by changing the playlist.

What you think a "pirate" is is of no consequence beyond your own head. What matters is what the LAW says. It doesn't require giving away music en masse--just one. It doesn't require selling hundreds of bootlegged CDs--just one. It doesn't even require getting money--ask the folks hit by the RIAA suits for sharing files.

Quote this post ↓

mahuti said:

member since 09 Jan 2003 with 374 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:44 am

gslusher wrote:

How many computers and devices do you have?

I've run into the fairplay issue before, because I've had my music on 2 laptops at home, a kitchen family computer, my home office computer, as well as my 2 work computers. Do the math. It means that the music I bought for myself and listened to myself, didn't work on all of the devices I needed it to. I've also burned more CDs than I'm allowed, becuase I make mix CDs for myself to listen to in the car as a backup for when I don't feel like toting the ipod. You act as if it's impossible that a real world scenario could cause consternation with the limits of fairplay, and that's just not true. Fairplay isn't the worst, but it's not perfect.

gslusher wrote:

What you think a "pirate" is is of no consequence beyond your own head. What matters is what the LAW says.

I completely agree, and it's obvious that you're missing my point. My point is not about how big or little a pirate is. My point is that DRM doesn't stop pirates. It stops LAW abiding citizens from getting 100% out of their legally purchased music. So, your point could conversely apply to the recording industry "what [they] think a pirate is is of no consequence beyond [their] own head." I'm not a pirate, but THEY think of me that way, and want to TREAT me like I am.

The intention of copyright law was not to lock-in a person to buying one of the same thing over and over and over and over. The point of copyright was originally intended to secure rights for a group long enough so that innovation could flourish, so that someone could publish a book or song and make money off of it, before the world had a chance to just scoop it up & rip them off. The RIAA & big four have long been slathering over the idea of perverting copyright into making endless piles of money by selling the same thing 5 times to one person. Originally, it was seen that there was artistic merit in being able to eventually disseminate works after a cooling off period.. what was it.... 25 years? After that published items went into public domain. Unfortunately copyright is no longer seen as a tool to drive artistic proliferation & innovation, it is now a brusque tool used solely as a prybar in the war of recording industry against consumers... the average person that hears a Christina Aquillera song on the radio will now be dead before the song possible has a chance of entering the public domain and being freely open to all to experiment with, without the fear of civil recrimination.

That being said, I don't have a problem with copyright in general and I don't think it's cool to steal music. I do think that copyright has gotten out of hand that the pendulum should start to swing back a little in the favor of consumers. Whether it requires revision of law, or good faith from the recording companies... I don't care, but something has gotta give.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:49 pm

mahuti wrote:
gslusher wrote:

How many computers and devices do you have?

I've run into the fairplay issue before, because I've had my music on 2 laptops at home, a kitchen family computer, my home office computer, as well as my 2 work computers. Do the math. It means that the music I bought for myself and listened to myself, didn't work on all of the devices I needed it to. I've also burned more CDs than I'm allowed, becuase I make mix CDs for myself to listen to in the car as a backup for when I don't feel like toting the ipod. You act as if it's impossible that a real world scenario could cause consternation with the limits of fairplay, and that's just not true. Fairplay isn't the worst, but it's not perfect.

Your situation is probably unusual. Would you be happy if Fairplay allowed 6 computers, instead of 5?

As to the number of CDs, you can burn a particular song an unlimited number of times. It's playlists that are limited to 10 CDs.

In any case, while I'm not thrilled about DRM, in general, and without going into the philosophy and business reasons behind DRM, I see it this way:

- I can get music completely DRM-free and put it on any number of computers by buying CDs. I can also choose to have higher quality (higher bit rate, lossless format, etc.).

- The limitations in Fairplay are the price I pay for the convenience (and cost savings!) of buying individual songs, rather than complete CDs. (I do buy albums on the iTunes Store on occasion, if I want enough songs to make it worthwhile and/or the CD is more expensive.)

I also buy a lot of audiobooks. With a subscription to Audible.com, those are a lot cheaper to download than to buy on CD and a lot more convenient to play--I don't have to fumble around with changing CDs every hour or so. (I have an "iPod2Car" adapter in my 2004 Prius, so the iPod plays directly through the car audio system, without using an FM transmitter.)

mahuti wrote:

The intention of copyright law was not to lock-in a person to buying one of the same thing over and over and over and over. The point of copyright was originally intended to secure rights for a group long enough so that innovation could flourish, so that someone could publish a book or song and make money off of it, before the world had a chance to just scoop it up & rip them off.

...

... the average person that hears a Christina Aquillera song on the radio will now be dead before the song possible has a chance of entering the public domain and being freely open to all to experiment with, without the fear of civil recrimination.

...

That being said, I don't have a problem with copyright in general and I don't think it's cool to steal music. I do think that copyright has gotten out of hand that the pendulum should start to swing back a little in the favor of consumers. Whether it requires revision of law, or good faith from the recording companies... I don't care, but something has gotta give.

Minor quibble: you may have confused copyrights with patents. Copyright has nothing to do with "innovation." Copyright applies to expressions, not ideas. Some "originality" is required for a copyright, but, for example, this message would probably qualify.

It's possible to "experiment" with songs, even if they're copyright. As I understand it, parody, for example, may be fair use. Putting other words to the music may also be a fair use. (Check an intellectual property attorney to be sure.)

There's also a difference between the rights to a song (the music & lyrics) as opposed to a particular rendition of the song. For example, if I understand correctly, Michael Jackson owns the "rights" to most of the Beatles' songs--but not to the Beatles' performances of those songs. The copyright to those is still held (in large part) by Apple Corps. IOW, if you want to make a new recording of "Hey, Jude," contact Jackson's agents. If you want to play the Beatles' recording of "Hey, Jude" on the radio, contact the Beatles' agents. The RIAA, as I understand it, doesn't really give a damn about the rights to songs, just the rights to particular recordings. (Rights to songs are the business of groups like ASCAP.)

There's no doubt that current US copyright laws have been written to favor large corporations. (Copyright laws are not unusual in that respect--nearly all federal laws have been written or rewritten to favor large corporations, especially in recent years.) The joke goes that, every time the copyright on early Disney cartoons is about to expire, the Congress extends the copyright period. (Again, we have to keep straight the difference between copyright, which has a limited period, and trademarks, which do not.) That situation is unlikely to change (in the US, at least) as long as large corporations can pour huge amounts of money into political campaigns and lobbying.

FWIW, it's "Christina Aguilera." (I have the same problem--I usually have to backspace to replace the "q" with "g." I suspect that, if I spoke Spanish, I wouldn't have that problem.)

Quote this post ↓

mahuti said:

member since 09 Jan 2003 with 374 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:25 pm

gslusher wrote:

Minor quibble: you may have confused copyrights with patents. Copyright has nothing to do with "innovation." Copyright applies to expressions, not ideas. Some "originality" is required for a copyright, but, for example, this message would probably qualify.

Still missing the point by quibbling over irrelevant details (mine included... I shouldn't have strayed from my topic... my apologies.) My point is; DRM does not help music downloads sales, does not protect music, ultimately harms the consumer more than it aids the record companies. Quibbling about copyright, patents, and spelling does not argue against my point.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.