The Controversy of DRM'd music... Thoughts from a Mac user

[chrisw357]

I did some thinking about DRM'd vs non DRM'd music. More than that, other thoughts were about buying digital downloads versus buying physical media.

Some users may argue: Why pay to download music (off iTunes or whatever, pick your poison here!) when you can get it for free off P2P? Well, I have a problem with that. Simply put, I wouldn't like to be the musician who isn't getting paid because people want the music for free. This is PART of why the record industry shafted us with the DRM pole.

Now, I've been buying from both sources; online mail-order and purchasing album downloads. I see the merits of both sides of that argument.

I'm more the convenience person, as well as an admitted penny-pincher, so I usually do the paid download thing. Fast and less expensive compared to the physical CD, even if I buy a blank CD to burn it. The downside to this convenience is, of course, the limitations imposed by DRM.

When I can't find what I'm looking for in an online download "store", I'll resort to Amazon or any other distributor that can give me the best price. The advantage is no DRM encoding (shame on Sony for trying that one!) and usually it has a good package including the info booklet with lyrics, even a free vid included sometimes! The downside: higher cost and a delivery time of up to a week (unless you want to pay even more money for same-day shipping!).

Admittedly, I've used iTunes for most of my purchases this year. Lately, I've started archiving all of the paid downloads (with the dreaded DRM) to an external backup drive and then burning all these full album downloads as audio CD's. I've also ripped these just-burned CD's back into MP3 format, nixing the DRM. Some people have said that there's a generational loss in sound quality after doing this. So far, I've been comparing the audio from the DRM'd music to the ripped MP3 version and I can barely tell the difference, if at all.

My point in all of this: I can't make a big issue of DRM if I'm not seeing the problem from my own user standpoint. It hasn't hindered me in any way from using the music to my satisfaction, though I understand that (with the FairPlay DRM limits) I can only use the DRM'd files on up to 5 computers and I can only burn the same playlist 7 times. Already burned and converted, no problem. I also understand that a few users (using downloaded DRM'd content, from iTunes or ANY other source) either see huge problems with this or have had bad experiences with this.

I'm writing a blog entry on this issue, hence the posting. I'd like other people on the forum to sound off on their thoughts. I'd like to hear from the musician's standpoint as well. What do you think of the issue?

 

[terrymx]

mp3 popular. napster come along. labels not happy. napster shut down. drm come along, big software business other persuade labels. now alot of mp3 selling online. itunes do a very good job at this and currently the one of the largest online music vendor.

drm isnt the only scheme to against user, but also SACD and DVD-A, which failed. and the upcoming blue-ray and hd dvd. and once a while copy protected cd with hidden virus.

personally i think drm is shit and useless and i will never ever buy it, even if they give every cent i paid competely to the artist, plus 500% bonus. i will not buy it. along with what you said about drm limitation, there are compatibility problems like you might not be able to broadcast/shoutcase it wireless in your own home network. or it wont work with certain mp3/music player. i'm not going to pay for a product that limit me on its usage, that's ridiculous if you apply that idea on other physical products.

its not a good idea to buy mp3 as the only way to own music, because you lose so much sound quality. for casual listener okay, but for peoplre who invest in quality audio and spend a lot of time listening, i can tell the difference between low quality 128 and 192kbs mp3 vs. cd easily. also you only own the digital form. its not satisfying as a sentimental object and you cant resell it to make money back, and maybe a profit if it is a rare cd. now there was allofmp3.com or somethign like that which offer lossless flac files, which retain the sound quality which is a better deal.

now itunes i think is $1 for 1 song, so one whole album cost $10, whats more you can only play that mp3 with apple product or software (i think). a real cd also cost me around $10, might as well buy real cd. so people will look for cheaper prices, but watch out a bit, many of these russian mp3 download website are scam and do not pay the artist. one give away is the consistency of their mp3, different bitrates between cds and even within songs. they probably just download the mp3 off p2p and then put it up. i'm not saying they all do it, but just watch out if you actaully want to support your artist.

i am not against mp3 download because it is a great way for me sample a new band or album before going out and buy the real cd. i'm just questioning the value of what being offer (crappy sounding mp3). a good value would be: more format selections, ie. lossless encoding (such as FLAC), and big and detailed scanned cd cover, and like you said, other contents. lyrics and detailed band and album info would be nice.

 

[chrisw357]

Thank you, terrymx. And thanks for not flaming me!

I need to clarify on iTunes... the format they use isn't MP3. They use their own proprietary format called AAC (MPEG-4), which doesn't have the DRM encode... until it's downloaded. When it's downloaded, the iTunes software takes over and encodes the user's info onto it, so that it's registered to the user that bought it. AAC is supposed to be better in sound quality than the equivalent bitrate MP3, though I haven't done an unbiased test to confirm this. I will say that, on careful listening to the AAC files from the iTMS, they do sound very good in quality.

You're right about the files bought from Apple, though. They will not play without iTunes or on any other player than the iPod. That does seem like a raw deal dealt by Apple, even though the iPod is still a great player. Also, I didn't think about the collector's aspect you brought up. Shame on me... as I now think about all the LP's I have stashed away in the closet!

 

[terrymx]

actaully i was afraid i was going to get flame next. i get high blood pressure easily these day because of people online.

i'm going to stray off topic a bit and talk about portable mp3. mainly because it is related and there is so little discussion in the tech forum, but this is very related to buying online ditigal music and how corp will make more money from consumers, it will be the next revolution, i am sure it will happen soon, its wireless on the go:

yes i actaully agree with you on AAC good sound quality and looking to buy my next portable mp3 player that support AAC, but its not an Ipod. Archos 604 Wifi, it's a pmp that support dvd, divx, and music, etc. but with wireless internet connection, webbrowsing, touchscreen, and linux based so ability for future softwares. after the player is release it will have integrated some kind of online music buying feature, but also paid internet tv, ITV or something. this is the new way they are selling digital media to you. others brands already trying this, but they are never heard of and do not have a fanbase or good design for anybody to want to buy their player. but if it was an ipod, it would be big.

there is one feature that i think would be interesting to implement for these wireless player, which is the ability to detect other people with the same player nearby, and list their playlist. sort of like a last.fm thing so it let you know if someone listen to the same music as you do.the microsoft player Zune have something like this where you can share music wireless, but to tell the truth their design just isnt so attractive. to be sucessful they need a good fashion, and very easy to use design. i think Zune right now is more for techie and geeks. another person talks about how the CEO of Microsoft vs Apple very much reflect the personality and design of their product. And obviously, even though I despise and dont buy ipods, I think Steve from Apple know what people wants, even if there is a sacrifice of more complex features. sound like queer idea, but slowly and surely these cross player transfer and wirelress will be implement. I heard people saying in japan there are dating portable music player, that alert the user if an opposite sex is nearby with the same player listening to similar music as you.

 

[RockMyMonkey]

Wow, you people know of artists that get paid for album sales? Really? Are you sure about this? This is a pretty rare thing, so I find that shocking.

Seriously, the only reason I stick with cd's is because it gives me more control over my music. I can rip the cd to MP3 for my portable player, play it in the cd player in the bathroom when I takie a shower, or play it on my computer speakers when I go to write the review. When I rip it with the software I bought, it gives it no DRM, so I can play it with any number of players. Plus, systems crash data gets lost, bit rot, but I can always rip the cd again if I have the real thing.

 

[terrymx]

yeah you're right about one thing. many musicians signing deal to records don't know about the complex laws and system of the music business, and just one word in the agreement can change everything. i want to get involve with music until i do some learning about it and now i'm giving it a serious consideration. i rather be a engineer to work with electronics than involve with all the business itself. some small project or band rather stay independent and manage their own sale an send out cd batch to vendors that do the sale for them minus small commision.

 

[RockMyMonkey]

Yeah, if someone is smart enough and has the money to pull it off, it is way better to be your own record company.

Amazon has their Advantage program that let's any little band get on their website. So I always tell bands to stick some free mp3 samples (no full songs) on their website, a link to the Amazon page, and then toss two thousand into a month of ads from Fixion Media. Maybe hire a press agent if they can afford that and they have done more then what most labels will do for a new band. A good press agent can cost about 3 thousand a week though, so an independant band might be better off just putting that into more ads that go directly to the fans.

Now because Amazon does grab more profits then say a simple PayPal link direct to the band, offer a t-shirt to any fan that doesn't go through the Amazon. That way you get the sale no matter if they trust PayPal and the band more or Amazon more.

 

[Blacken the angel]

$1 for 1 song !!! c'mon , check out this site they sell the whole album in less than $0.25 http://www.mp3-reactor.com and also they sell videos, and this site is dedicated to metal music !!

about the drm , there're some programs that let you "record what you here" , this way you can record every thing that comes out from the speakers ...
so in this case the drm protecting music files is useless.. hehe

also mp3 files @ 320 kbps sound very clear and they're not crappy..

 

[Warheart666]

those russian sites are crap. Maybe you do get the album for less than $0.25, but the artists never see that money. It's no better than downloading for free. No, it's worse.

 

[MikeEnRegalia]

Wow, you people know of artists that get paid for album sales? Really? Are you sure about this? This is a pretty rare thing, so I find that shocking.

I thought it was pretty common - the only problem is that they only get like 5% of what we (the end users) pay.

 

[ATGuitar_NInja]

Think about the economics involved in album sales. The Record Company pays the artist for the performance on the recordings that usually the Record Company owns. So the CD store selling the CD buys X number of copies at a certain price then adds a markup so they can generate some profit off of each sale. Most of the sale at the time of purchase goes to the store and record company. The band members respectively get a fraction of a fraction of a dollar for every CD sold. Something like 5% or less to split however many ways. Now it gets better if the Record Company also has a Publishing Company under its wing and they own the rights to the songs too. Then the artists are really screwed and owe the Record company for the cash advance for marketing and CD production, all that usually gets paid back through sales of CDs. If the artists own the publishing rights then all airplay is a good thing then they can collect royalties forever. If not then the Record Company gets paid twice. At least that's as good as I understand it at this point. Hope that makes sense.

More on topic however, Mp3's a great but not the same quality as a printed CD. They sound as good but that's cause the human ear is slow. the difference is barely noticeable. Still I find it more convinent to use CD's in my car and rip them for my computer use. Portable music has always been the desire for people though so it's no surprise iTunes and whathave you are very popular. Funny thing is the recording industry was selling singles back in the 1950's for $1 each at that time! think of the inflation value now per song. That'd be like $10 a song! ahahahhahhahhaha. Funny how history repeats itself.

 

[infoterror]

You're all nuts. You will be unable to stop music copying. You need a new strategy other than "law" and "economics." If you cannot think how that might work, stop: you're out of your depth and should let others discuss this.

Elitism forever!