RIAA: DRM not dead and likely will make comeback

The RIAA's David Hughes sits next to former IFPI CEO Nic Garnett. To Garnett's right is the MPAA's Fritz Attaway

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET News.com)

LOS ANGELES--News of DRM's death has been greatly exaggerated, according to an executive with the Recording Industry Association of America.

At a time when the top recording companies appear to be phasing out digital rights management (DRM), the RIAA is predicting that the highly controversial software will make a comeback.

"(Recently) I made a list of the 22 ways to sell music, and 20 of them still require DRM," said David Hughes, who heads up the RIAA's technology unit, during a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference. "Any form of subscription service or limited play-per-view or advertising offer still requires DRM. So DRM is not dead."

Hughes just stated the obvious. DRM still exists; one can find it at iTunes, RealNetworks' Rhapsody, and at free-music service SpiralFrog just to name a few. But his statement was startling because the top four music labels have seemingly been warming up to unprotected music files.

Last January, when Sony BMG became the last major recording company to sell DRM-free tracks at Amazon, plenty of observers considered the technology buried. Since then, a growing number of online stores have begun offering at least some open MP3s, including Walmart.com, Zune's Marketplace, Amazon, as well as iTunes.

Not so fast, said Hughes, who predicted that DRM would reemerge in a big way. "I think there is going to be a shift," he told the audience. "I think there will be a movement towards subscription services, and (that) will eventually mean the return of DRM."

Hughes also said that DRM must change so that the public sees it less as a sort of policeman that locks music a way. He would prefer a mode where consumers don't notice DRM at all. "People just want music when they want it," he said. "It's about access. If they get that then they don't care about DRM."

Not everybody on the panel agreed. Rajan Samtani, director of business development at Digimarc Corp., a company that provides watermarking technology, said he worked for ContentGuard, a company that tries to help find less obtrusive ways to implement DRM.

"I think it's time to throw in the towel," Samtani said. "These kids have too many ways to get around DRM."

Fritz Attaway, executive vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America said: "We need DRM to show our customers the limits of the license they have entered into with us."

[tashman]

Yea 20 of 22 services use DRM, guess which 20 I will never use.

[The_Decider]

The model of the future is what Trent Reznor is doing today. What that means for the RIAA and its members is that it renders them obsolete.

[taphilo]

We need to get Congress to add a law stating that anything that is DRM enabled the company that issued the DRM version must track each and every buyer every year and notify them as to the date the DRM copyright expires and when it does they must give each person - or their heirs - a NON DRM copy of the same material. If they are unable to find the person then they must donate a copy of the material to the nearest libray, school, (online or physical) in that person's name at the company's expense.
No one has EVER addressed as to what happens to DRM enabled content when it is no longer covered by Copyright in 95 years.
Tom Philo
http://www.taphilo.com

[davidwb45011]

I'm with tashman - I'll never accept DRM in music.

[Leria]

Neither will I, at least not for tracks that I buy. For streaming music..... it is a LITTLE bit more acceptable to use DRM of some form on the stream so that someone who DOESN'T subscribe to the service cannot play the music.

[jcconnor]

Did he mean subscription services like the Microsoft Music store which just changed their DRM and effectively killed using those tracks on another device / system if the one "authorized" dies / breaks? Those tracks that you paid good money to access and "use" but are going to become useless bits?

Sure, a subscription service like that is exactly what music customers want. They want to be able to spend good money over and over and over again for the same item 'cause they got nothing but cash flowing out their #&%^ and the RIAA just wants their share - like a 90% share.

Puullleeaaasseee take that trash somewhere else. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. But sue me once and I will drive your business to it's knees.

[catch23]

Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about. The MSMusic store problem was for purchased content. The person owns the content, and should not lose it.
With subscription, you don't own or pay full price for the content. It is a rental model. Instead of paying $3 million to Apple to own it, I pay MS $15 a month for access to it. But just like renting a car, I have to 'give it back' when I no longer subscribe.
Do you get to keep the movies from NetFlix? I mean, you paid for them right?
The only fool is you. You ignorance and FUD spreading is total BS, and only shows how little you can open you mind and how much you open your mouth.

[zeroplane]

I second Trashman, I will never buy any music with DRM. If I am forced to I will spend the time to convert an analog signal into a non-DRM digital copy. Sorry RIAA but you can't DRM sound waves in the air (yet). ~raises fist proudly into the air and extends middle finger~

[MTGrizzly]

It's amazing the RIAA still thinks it is "kids"... No wonder they are so clueless...

[wzrobin]

"Hughes also said that DRM must change so that the public sees it less as a sort of policeman that locks music a way."

Personally, I don't view DRM as a policeman, close to the mafia... or in the case of the Windows Vista DRM, more like a virus.

[Ian Kirkland]

And those 20 services have what market share?

And how does DRM actually prevent people from getting music without DRM?

[wangbang]

Look how old those guys are. No wonder they are totally clueless.

[limey100]

"I think there will be a movement towards subscription services..."

Aha, Yup, Sure. Good luck with all that!

[taphilo]

DRM objective is to make it so inconvenient to do anything with any material other than how the producer wants it used, that 95% (3 standard deviations) of the people will pay over and over again to use the same material in different formats. 5% would never pay for it anyway and will work to defeat it so that income "loss" is built into the cost of business and the others pay extra to make up for it.
Those "old guys" are paid to make money for who they work for regardless of how people work around it - and by making it difficult for the majority, so be it. Not their problem or their objective. That is why that comment to try and make it disappear for the average user to even notice DRM is there. False hope on their part. Now they are clueless as to the true cost to support DRM - and if congress imposes a law forcing them to support each DRM method forever (see prior comment) then it may go away.

[limey100]

Hey wangbang, enough with the agism! It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with greed.

[gerrrg]

Reznor's model won't work; it devalues hard copies that are subsequently released. Why buy a CD, when the FLAC file is free? I think the FLAC file should have a value attached to it, whether it is $1 for the entire album, or $5. Sure, make the MP3s free or inexpensive (forget the iTunes $0.99 model - that's just dumb), but charge for the lossless files.

The RIAA and the MPAA don't get it; price goods cheaply and people will forgo 'free'. If goods are cheap enough, people will risk beyond their pool of known artists.

[The_Decider]

You don't understand the model he is using. The givaway he recently did is not the actual model. The model is the licensing terms AND what he did with ghosts. The free model he is using right now is designed to get people to come to his concerts and it is working. Look for his next record to be released under similar terms to Ghosts.

[ivorycruncher]

"It's about access. If they get that then they don't care about DRM."

For the most current implementations, the very nature of DRM prohibits the level of access that people want, so that statement contradicts itself.

"I think it's time to throw in the towel," Samtani said. "These kids have too many ways to get around DRM."

Exactly. You just hit the nail on the head. You are NEVER going to be able to lock down the content the way you want and still make people happy. Obviously the record labels are discovering this. It's not that I want to see anybody out of a job, but I would like to see more artists go independant of the record labels and RIAA. It's obvious that the RIAA is really nothing more than a protection racket, and the labels aren't much better in that regard. There is still a place for labels, don't get me wrong. I just don't believe that continuing to support them in their current form is a good idea. They need to learn to change with the times, just like everybody else, and unless their bank account starts to hurt a lot, they won't have any incentive to do so.

[chuck_whealton]

Well, if they're going to continue to use DRM, or work on bringing it back, then I'll simply continue to survive on the myriad of DVDs that I legitimately purchased when I was younger.

I will NEVER buy music with DRM.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[random1138]

Fully delusional. DRM is increasingly a CLM for record company execs, though not all of them know it yet.

[timothywmurray]

To taphilo and others: Please don't say that no one ever thinks of what happens to DRM content when it eventually falls out of copyright. There is a whole profession of Librarians who have been thinking writing and speaking out on this issues for at least five years. And they have had success in some areas. MIT recently forced SAE to remove DRM from it digital archive.

And
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA315183.html
I'm not a librarian but I sell stuff to libraries.

[taphilo]

The Libraries may worry about it and talk about it - but they have no clout to do anything ABOUT it.
The companies coming up with DRM code and those using them also don't care about the long term aspects. Reselling the same item over and over again as technology changes and then selling it again when the copyright wears out is just more money to them and is IN their best interest to have these problems - they will make even more money from an item.
This comes back to the old "not my problem" when solutions are implmented. The secondary problems caused by using them "are not my problem."
Bring back the Dewey Decimal system to libraries - much easier to understand and find items than the Library of Congress system.