Rob, why doesn't Real drop all the pretense of desiring to have an interoperable solution with the Ipod and actually use one for their downloads site? The Ipod supports a few standard file formats and one DRM encumbered one. If Real were really about customer choice, they'd sell non DRM encumbered files and then be able to shout from a mountain that their music works with the Ipod as well as almost every other digital media player.
This is an excellent question, but if I may take a shot at the answer -- major labels simply aren't going to license their music in straight MP3 (or Ogg Vorbis or whathaveyou) format. Opting for DRM-free tracks basically limits you to being MP3.com II.
I agree that the major labels certainly won't go for straight MP3, at least not for time time being, but there are some encouraging trends going on with some labels/bands who seem to "get it."
Like many people, I'm stuck in a conundrum. I don't want to buy CDs any more because I think music should be cheaper due to cheap electronic distribution. I buy occasionally from iTunes, but fears about "losing my music" when my iBook dies and I forget to back it up often enough or some other weird technical thing renders me music-less because of DRM scares me. And I spend a lot of time listening to music on unsupported players. I like xmms, and I'm going to keep using it, so iTunes means I have to burn+rip to convert stuff. (I finally compiled hymn, but need my key off my iBook, I'm lazy, and xmms's aac player module seems to not compile...*sigh*)
I have basically all the money I want to spend on music. But whether tracks are $.39 or $.99 or $1.99 means nothing to me if I'm worried about just losing them. Some of this music I've already had ripped ot mp3 for like 7+ years now, and I can't even count the number of computers I've gone through, and it's nice and portable.
I think at some point, a brave label or two will band together, open their own store, and just offer raw 160+kbps mp3s for something cheap - probably $.49 to $1.49 for singles (probably based on the buzz level), $2.99 to $9.99 for a cd (again, popularity based pricing)... and will open the floodgates. They will do so much business they will be absolutely stunned. Ever music consumer will be amazingly spending 3x what they use to be. Record companies will be delightfully rolling in profits; consumers will be awash in music and ecstatic... everyone wins. Artists who couldn't sell CDs in the bargain bin will find audiences who will pay $2.99 for their albums, and the music industry as a whole will launch into a new era of growth.
We can only hope they realize that peoplpe hate hurdles, and DRM stops more customers from buying than it stops pirates from buying. Anyone with a clue should realize that a lot of music pirates will NOT buy music regardless of whether its free or not. If it is, they'll get it; if not, they won't. But either way, they won't pay. But many customers will pay for unencumbered music but will buy minimally or not at all from the DRM bin.
I think at some point, a brave label or two will band together, open their own store, and just offer raw 160+kbps mp3s for something cheap
It looks like that's already starting to happen, hopefully the trend will continue: my comment on that [slashdot.org] (from the same thread actually).
TMBG is doing 256Kbps (not sure about the other bands using Backoffice), Bleep is at VBR (up to 320), I'm not sure what emusic is doing now (back in The Day they were 128, but I know they've gone up since then).
Then Real could be the first company to really revolutionize the music industry. They could offer genuinely good deals to independent musicians and labels that aren't hostile to their customers. I think the result would be soaring profits for both Real and these musicians.
And what was bad about mp3.com besides Michael Robertson?;)
Yeah, because then Real's music store will leap to the head of the online music market with its impressive collection of public domain jingles and amateur-recorded classical music.
How on earth is this post insightful? Even if we assume that Real was willing to use an unencumbered format, then what about the actual copyright holders, like the RIAA, who have made very clear that this sort of thing would be totally unacceptable? By the same token, why doesn't Apple sell unencumbered MP3s (or AACs, or whatever your particular poison is in this case) so that Linux users can play them without the hassle of messing around with Wine?
Let's keep some perspective on this whole thing, folks....
Just wanted to remind you that while it's easy to lump all record companies into the RIAA, movie studios into the MPAA, etc, there is a difference.
In the case of your post, the RIAA is not the copyright holder. Either the labels or (in a few rare cases) the artists hold the copyright to the music. The RIAA is just the trade group of which many but not all labels are a member. Some of those who aren't were discussed here [slashdot.org]. (I also recall a discussion regarding labels listed as members who actually weren't, b
This is a stupid question, don't waste an interview question on something like this.
The answer is as follows:
To compete with Napster 2.0, MSN Music and iTunes, Real needs to have a similar amount of music available to them, and a similar amount of big names.
The big names are, for the most part, only available through labels that are members of the RIAA. You can gripe about this if you want, but the fact is that the artists *signed* the form to grant the label distribution rights, and that's exactly what the label is doing.
For Real to get these big names, they need to deal with the RIAA. The RIAA has shown in the past that it will not endorse any music that is not restricted in some fashion... either streaming, or DRM. If the best Steve Jobs could do was 7 playlist burns, you can bet that Real can't do any better.
There. I just answered the question and I'm not even CEO of anything at all. Poof.
Real doesn't need to compete with iTunes Music Store. They just need to turn a profit. If the current market leader, Apple, is having a difficult time turning profits from DRM encumbered music sales from the record oligopoly, then Real should try a different method.
Yes, yes, it's now been said a thousand times by angly slashdotters that the big labels want DRM. But whose problem is that? Apple worked for years to get the big labels to cave in and veer from their subscription fetish. Apple did all this so they could sell stuff people like for their iPods, and do it in their usual classy Apple way -- they did not do it so that they could crush freedom all over the world with their iron fist of Apple oppression, as some people here seem to think. Apple fought with the lab
"If Real doesn't like the new system Apple put all this effort into creating, then Rob Glaser can stand in front of label execs and argue why DRM is a bad idea."
Exactly. Instead of whining to Apple that he doesn't like playing by the rules setup by the RIAA.
Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.
interoperability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:interoperability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:interoperability (Score:3, Informative)
So, certainly no BMI groups in there, or anything, but here's hoping that it'll trickle up a bit...
Not Yet - But Maybe They'll Get It (Score:5, Interesting)
I have basically all the money I want to spend on music. But whether tracks are $.39 or $.99 or $1.99 means nothing to me if I'm worried about just losing them. Some of this music I've already had ripped ot mp3 for like 7+ years now, and I can't even count the number of computers I've gone through, and it's nice and portable.
I think at some point, a brave label or two will band together, open their own store, and just offer raw 160+kbps mp3s for something cheap - probably $.49 to $1.49 for singles (probably based on the buzz level), $2.99 to $9.99 for a cd (again, popularity based pricing)... and will open the floodgates. They will do so much business they will be absolutely stunned. Ever music consumer will be amazingly spending 3x what they use to be. Record companies will be delightfully rolling in profits; consumers will be awash in music and ecstatic... everyone wins. Artists who couldn't sell CDs in the bargain bin will find audiences who will pay $2.99 for their albums, and the music industry as a whole will launch into a new era of growth.
We can only hope they realize that peoplpe hate hurdles, and DRM stops more customers from buying than it stops pirates from buying. Anyone with a clue should realize that a lot of music pirates will NOT buy music regardless of whether its free or not. If it is, they'll get it; if not, they won't. But either way, they won't pay. But many customers will pay for unencumbered music but will buy minimally or not at all from the DRM bin.
Re:Not Yet - But Maybe They'll Get It (Score:2)
It looks like that's already starting to happen, hopefully the trend will continue: my comment on that [slashdot.org] (from the same thread actually).
TMBG is doing 256Kbps (not sure about the other bands using Backoffice), Bleep is at VBR (up to 320), I'm not sure what emusic is doing now (back in The Day they were 128, but I know they've gone up since then).
Re:interoperability (Score:2)
And what was bad about mp3.com besides Michael Robertson?
Re:interoperability (Score:1)
it rocks...
Re:interoperability (Score:2)
Check it out if you haven't.
Re:interoperability (Score:2)
Re:interoperability (Score:2)
Re:interoperability (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth is this post insightful? Even if we assume that Real was willing to use an unencumbered format, then what about the actual copyright holders, like the RIAA, who have made very clear that this sort of thing would be totally unacceptable? By the same token, why doesn't Apple sell unencumbered MP3s (or AACs, or whatever your particular poison is in this case) so that Linux users can play them without the hassle of messing around with Wine?
Let's keep some perspective on this whole thing, folks....
Re:interoperability (Score:1)
In the case of your post, the RIAA is not the copyright holder. Either the labels or (in a few rare cases) the artists hold the copyright to the music. The RIAA is just the trade group of which many but not all labels are a member. Some of those who aren't were discussed here [slashdot.org]. (I also recall a discussion regarding labels listed as members who actually weren't, b
Re:interoperability Mod this down, wasted question (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is as follows:
To compete with Napster 2.0, MSN Music and iTunes, Real needs to have a similar amount of music available to them, and a similar amount of big names.
The big names are, for the most part, only available through labels that are members of the RIAA. You can gripe about this if you want, but the fact is that the artists *signed* the form to grant the label distribution rights, and that's exactly what the label is doing.
For Real to get these big names, they need to deal with the RIAA. The RIAA has shown in the past that it will not endorse any music that is not restricted in some fashion... either streaming, or DRM. If the best Steve Jobs could do was 7 playlist burns, you can bet that Real can't do any better.
There. I just answered the question and I'm not even CEO of anything at all. Poof.
Re:interoperability Mod this down, wasted question (Score:2)
Re:interoperability (Score:2)
Apple fought with the lab
Re:interoperability (Score:2)
Exactly. Instead of whining to Apple that he doesn't like playing by the rules setup by the RIAA.