Comments on: Music executives judge Jobs, lament losses
At digital music conference, industry honchos debate what's wrong with their business. At the top of the list: Apple and DRM.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- U.S. seeks agreement on Cape Cod wind project
January 5, 2010 6:08 AM PST
- Skype reaches the living room via HDTVs
January 5, 2010 5:27 AM PST
- Live coverage of Google's Android phone announcement
January 5, 2010 4:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Apple, Microsoft and Real to encode their songs in plain old mp3
format, but still keep track of the music files, right? And you can
play them on ANY mp3 player.
I won't even get into what I feel about Steve Jobs' statement, but
I'll tell you this: As much as I like my Mac, I would like to be able
to use a service other than iPod+iTunes. And I'd love to be able
to have hte flexibility that Windows-users have with online
content. (Although some of that is Microsoft's fault for not
making their DRM compatible with Macs; the other rests on
Apple's shoulders for not allowing content distributors the
ability to access FairPlay cleanly.)
Digital watermarking seems like a good way to allow both Mac
and Windows-users the ability to access the same content, if I
understand it correctly. Help me out with this, folks. Here's an
article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/
20070227-8937.html
To see my point, all you have to do is look at the brilliant output from Chicago from 1969 to 1976, to what they are doing now. From 1967, when they started (They celebrate their 40th Anniversary this year, along with the Doors) to 1974, they were one of the most sophisticated, but also one of the most serious rocking, outfits going. They, along with Led Zeppelin, dominated the early and mid-70s musical landscape in the pre-disco days.
Chicago employed a three-vocalist system, and the horn section was fully integrated into the rest of the music, instead of just being background or punctuation. In this way, they revolutionized horns in popular music, and wound up selling five number one albums in a row. They had become a pioneering jazz-pop-rock fusion band that dabbled in just about all genres of music. They had even earned the respect of old masters such as Duke Ellington, who had them on one of his shows late in his life. Even the great Jimi Hendrix admired them to the point where he was the one who gave them their first big tour.
Now, with their original lead guitarist dead, their original drummer fired, and their original lead vocalist / bass player performing solo, they are now in a rut they haven't been able to get out of.
Why?
Part of it is because of the aforementioned losses. However, I think the biggest part is due to the fact the record companies want them to continue doing "ballads", where they got typecast in the 1980s, despite their success. Part of it has to do with the record companies not willing to allow the kind of creativity that was once Chicago's hallmark.
Thus, when they came out with Chicago XXX last spring, it was not very well received. It was front-loaded with ballads and then had some more daring(?) cuts on the tail end. They even dabbled with some country-tinged tunes, due to the fact they worked with Rascal Flatt's Jay DeMarcus, and the Rascal Flatt's band performed with them on one of their single releases, "Love Will Come Back".
It is long past time to allow bands to start expressing more creativity, and perform the kinds of music they enjoy making. To me, it is the gatekeepers, the record companies and commercial radio, which is holding artists back. Chicago themselves back in the mid-90s even tried to break out of their "ballad" mode with the never released Stone of Sisyphus (even some songs have made it onto compilations and the recording became a bootleg classic), but the record company they were with at the time told them to go back and make some ballads. Chicago, to their credit, told them to take a hike.
The popular music world needs to embrace a new era of creativity, where both old and new artists can express themselves fully. It happened before, and it can happen again.
albums ... er CDs.
I agree with the premise ... it's the gatekeepers that are holding
music back. And these gatekeepers ... the music industry in
particular ... are the most ardent advocates of DRM.
1) Law suits by the 1000's. People are voting with their wallets. You're just too blind to see it.
2) Sony Rootkits.
3) 90% of the music you put out stinks, 9% of is is mediocre, and 1% is worth buying. You can't make a profit with quality like that.
4) People who like music would rather buy straight from the artist than through a bunch of do-nothing slackers like the RIAA. I'll send a musician $20 for a home pressed CD with no art, no packaging and no ad buget, but I wouldn't pay the RIAA a penny. I'd speculate that muscians lose sales because their label is a member of the RIAA.
5) RIAA acts like they own the music. You keep wanting to tell me that I can't do this or that with music I purchase, and try to enforce this with DRM. You don't own the music, you didn't create it, you don't add any value to the music I buy. I refuse to touch music that's crippled by your ideas of DRM, and wouldn't download DRM music even if it were free.
6) Your contracts with artists are a travesty. Just once I want to hear you justify things like 'breakage' for digital sales.
7) Unethical behavior. Just where does the money you get from the people you sue go anyway? Have any artists ever seen a penny of the millions you're pulling in from lawsuits?
8) RIAA SWAT. Every time I see news shots of people in law enforcement style windbreakers with RIAA and stories of how the RIAA assisted in the 'break of dawn, guns drawn, shots almost fired' seizure of computers from some person you've accused of violating a copyright, I'm reminded of why I refused to by products from RIAA members. The thought that you're wasting the time of real law enforcement types with such things is pretty sickening. I'd much rather the law enforcement types work on real crime.
9) DMCA.
10) Blank media taxation. Adding levies to blank media just because it might be used in ways that you don't approve has probably cost you 10 times in ill-will what you receive in monies. Oh..and where does this money go? How many artists have seen a dime of this money you collect in their names?
A big music fan, A bigger RIAA enemy.
I'm constantly amazed at the tripe that shows up in top 40s and the 'indie' (britpop) scene is just horrible, *metal fan btw*.
Record companies would sell more music, if there was good new stuff to buy.
> that perhaps if they create some
> quality music more people will be
> willing to pay for it
I couldn't agree with you more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying that downloading music for free (unless it's legally free) is right in the least, but I've often times said to myself "how do they expect to sell this garbage" when I hear a new tune on the radio.
The quality of music has been going down the tubes for a long time, but the entertainment industry doesn't seem to notice that.
How convenient of them.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Technology exists today that will enable whatever song is purchased to play on any player and still have a form of DRM on it. DRM has to have rules and the DRM must be agreed to by all the players.
The rules should be simple. A verification that the song was purchased or is legit. If the player finds that the song can not be validated, it won't play the song period on any player. But, what you say? Suppose I record my own tune by singing or playing an instrument. Does this mean that I won't be able to play my recording on any player. Absolutely not, the technology exists that when you record the tune it is automatically validated with your own DRM.
Technology also exists that will allow the person who owns the legit copy of a CD to be able to make a copy if the copy they own gets scrached or destroyed. If the CD was purchased, the legit DRM verification key can be retreived from the distributor of the disk or company that made the disk. If it's your own manufactured disk that you DRM'd you should have maintained a copy of your DRM varifacation and you can make as many copies as you want.
And if they want to stop piracy, how about:
1. Stop ripping off consumers. $25 for a throw away CD from some vacuous pop star is a rip off.
2. Start looking for genuine talent instead of celebrities will will generate "buzz".
3. Stop assaulting consumers. Ten years ago the music industry was just sleazy. Now it's the customer's enemy.
When it restricts them from playing their purchased media on their purchased devices, then there is a problem.
Unfortunately, DRM in its current state can't tell the difference.
And no, even implementing your 3 steps (I personally like #3), piracy will not stop. Too many people like a free ride. The original Napster and BitTorrent prove that.
1. All DRM enabled products must be fully supported by the copyright holder until the copyright runs out on the item.
a) authentication schemes, registration databases, methods of authentication used at time of initial disbursement or at any time thereafter
b) Any company that fails to support past methods of DRM looses copyright to said material and item #2 is then invoked.
2. All DRM enabled products at the end of copyright period must be exchanged for a non-DRM item at that time by the copyright holder without any embedded advertisements, DRM, on the media choice of the returnee.
3. The manufacturer of DRM enabled products must support all the equipment till the end of copyright that it is designed to be played on if it is specific to a technology which is required for it to play.
4. Products advertised on DRM media (think DVDs) must be sold at the price advertised on the original media until the copyright expires.
5. Companies that create DRM and subsequently go out of business without transferring rights to another company looses copyright
6. Companies buying out other companies inherit all DRM obligations
How would they like a liability trail of a maximum of 105 years to support DRM of a corporate item? An individual can go LIFE of the individual PLUS 70 years - so if they distribute something it could be 150 years of maintaining DRM for one item!
If we could get everyone to write congress who owns ANYTHING with a DRM embedded method to pass a law that guarantees that anything produced MUST be supported by those same people - there would NOT be any DRM around.
Tom Philo
tom@taphilo.com
www.taphilo.com
over the net makes them increasingly obsolete. As online music
sales grow relative to CD sales, the huge CD distribution
networks offered by the labels become irrelevant. The ability to
discover new music through various web-based services makes
the publicity machine of the labels less-and-less relevant as
well. Musicians, hopefully, will take more control over their
music and go directly to market through online services.
The music industry execs hate this new world and will do
everything they can to hang on to the past.
stop the lawsuits. The ill will and bad PR is simply not worth it
and is no good for either side.
The music industry should give away mp3 files of essentially all
of its music with a 5-15 second audio advertisement at the
beginning of the file that leaks for a second or two into the
music file. If the customer wants a higher fidelity version, or a
version without an ad, they can buy the CD or buy the track on-
line for 99 cents or some other reasonable price.
The RIAA needs to understand that for a few years their
revenues will remain somewhat off, but this advertiser-
supported model plus the growth of online serives will over time
grow their industry bigger than it ever was before.
Stop this stupid war and let's move into the future already!
Why saturate our mindspace with even more advertising, if implementing an efective micropayment system that directly benefits the artists would be technically as easy?
business is going to become a 1 billion dollar business. This is a
reasonable fear, but is also somewhat groundless.
Fact is, people will spend just so much on music and no more.
The RIAA should want as much music for sale as often as
possible in front of as many faces as possible. The CD is dying
rapidly, but people will always be willing to buy music as a
casual purchase provided they see some entertainment value in
doing so.
Take the corporate and copyright politics out of music and make
it fun again and sales will bounce back stronger than ever with
ubiquitous digital distribution.
Don't believe the hype! Don't just buy anything, especially if is being touted as 'free'! Take back your own capacity for clear expression and judgement!
And by the way, DRM is just too much hassle. It prevents people from playing music on devices that don't support DRM. I for one will NEVER buy ANY music with DRM on it. Period. If consumers could download high quality mp3's with NO DRM at a decent price (ala allofmp3.com), sales would take off. If you don't get rid of DRM, iTunes and Steve Jobs will own you. DRM locks customers into their business model. Likewise, if Windows Vista takes off (God help us), Gates and Company will own Hollywood. Get a clue before the GAME IS OVER!
- Schools cutting the Arts programs is catching up with us.
- Drunk driving laws and the liability associated with it has hurt
LIVE music venues - which leads to less places for msucians to
play - which leads to less desire to learn, and yes, buy, music.
- There is a lack of good bands that can actually compose and
perform quality music. The Beatles were fabulous _musicians_!
Good musicianship takes dedication, not just learning licks and
singing as many notes as fast and as high as you can. Not
everyone can be Stevie Wonder, sheesh.
- These guys have thier heads in the wrong place. They should
THANK Steve Jobs, not scapegoat him. Where have they been??
the music industry HOPE, right when they needed it most. If it
wasn't for Apple, the record companies probably still wouldn't
be getting anything from online downloads. What have the
record companies done with Apple's gift? NOTHING, except let
Apple use it to sell more iPods (and scrape in some money for
songs that are actually WORTH something.) The record
companies need to INNOVATE, like giving us extras, and provide
content for which customers are willing to pay. Maybe they
could put their energies into attempting to create a better model
than Apple.
companies and their execs. And most of the music I like cannot
be found in either pirated or legal downloadable form! OK I have
eclectic tastes, but you would be amazed at what is offered for
sale direct from the artists websites, and its good karma since
the artists get paid as well.
At 48, I have bought records (33, 45 and 78), cassettes, and
OMG 8-tracks! I do believe that the music offered in recent
times is really commoditised. For me the best music was from
1965 to about 1985, do there!
Everybody with any taste is lamenting the state of the industry!
I don't buy any CDs because of the lack of good music to buy.
There's too much ghetto materialism (rap) and pansy whine-rock
(emo pop) and not enough real soul.
Audioslave rocks, Robert Randolph, etc... they make CDs good
enough to buy. The fatcat executives are crying because they're
not as rich anymore, but that's just what went around coming
back around - they chose the crappy music to promote.
When I listen to it now I am just expecting to hear the kerchunk of the 8 track deck. Memories. Back then, music was worth paying for, even whole albums of it sometimes.
What creativity between those two bands - the kind of creativity you will never see again due to record industry b.s. And if you missed it a couple of years back, Chicago / Earth, Wind & Fire was brilliant. Fortunately, the DVD of them performing at the Greek Theatre is out there. I would advise purchasing that one, because the show I saw with them was awesome.
Who knows someday they'll be able to charge you for breeding!
Wake up. And if you think that you're ripping the artist off, think again -- go and get the facts of the greatest rip off of any century, where the industry charges consumers for everything and most artists get zilch -- phuqk all. Of course some of them get stinking rich, but that's just to keep the rat race going...
Guess I got carried away and the typos carried me... ;)
Shame on you!
We, the people, find the way your refer to us, outrageous.
We are NOT milking cows, 'users', or thieves.
Music is fundamentally anchored in the soul of humanity. You want to sell it like a luxury product. People want to express themselves through music, and others want to hear what other people have to sing.
Yet you turn the so-called 'industry' into a star system, where only a few can be heard and a few can afoord to hear. You spend millions in packaging and image, and then you ask us, the people to pay for it. You waste billions of dollars in DRM and other schemes that you use to make sure that we pay the price you are putting on the music, and you expect us to pay for it!
Because of the very way you do business, you stiffle creativity and send away new talents. Steve Jobs said it well when he said your industry is greedy. What he didn't say is that your attitude is short-sighted and foolish.
Thank God for iTunes and other such services that propose an alternative to your megalomaniac behaviour.
We, the people, are not turning back.
We love chosing our songs on the Internet instead of getting a whole album which contains B-tracks we are not remotely interested in. We love the fixed price instead of the premium you'd place on some items.
Paying a fair price for a concert is normal.
We want to support the artists, and the industry. We have no qualm about it.
Stop messing about with DRMs, with high-fee CDs where only half the tracks are decent, or with useless promotion of a 'product' we do not really want.
We, the people, are holding the key to your future. Remember this. And treat us as such.
- Return to the original model
- by bluemist9999 March 1, 2007 8:35 AM PST
- Originally, artists made money from their live performances, and gave the music away to build fans for their live performances.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (91 Comments)Even if we say live performance isn't as big of a deal as it used to be, the music could be sold DRM-free at a low cost to drive sales of other merchandise and experiences such as exclusive streaming video virtual concerts, access to Podcasts, etc.
After all, I'd guess selling is much more successful with a small base of dedicated fans rather than trying to sell something to a broad group of people.