Yahoo pulls an MSN Music (only faster)
This afternoon,
Yahoo alerted customers of its erstwhile downloadable music store that it would no longer provide support after Sept. 30 (download the cheerful e-mail here). The upshot: starting Oct. 1, said customers won't be able to revive frozen tracks or move working ones onto new hard drives or computers, because Yahoo won't be providing any more keys to the songs' DRM wrappers. But hey, they can always buy MP3 versions from Yahoo's new partner Rhapsody!
Yahoo is cutting off support at an unusually speedy pace for a company that's not going out of business. Consumer backlash prompted Microsoft to extend support for tracks bought from the defunct MSN Music store by at least three years. And Sony, which closed its Connect music store in March, will continue to support those tracks until the end of the year. Perhaps Yahoo will feel a similar blast of heat and maintain its DRM servers for a while longer. Or maybe it sold so few tracks that no one will care.
I've already said that my outrage needle isn't really moved by decisions such as Yahoo's. Plenty of online music sellers crashed and burned before the major labels stopped demanding that 99-cent downloads be warped wrapped in DRM. Consumers should be used to this routine by now. Beyond that, buyers should have been backing up their purchases onto DRM-free CDs to protect their data. If they hadn't been doing so, the email from Yahoo Music should provide enough incentive to do it now. Yes, they may lose some fidelity in the translation from DRM'ed file to CD to MP3, depending on the bit rates involved. But that's a small price to pay for extended life in an era of accelerated obsolescence.
It's also worth saying that Yahoo Music's last two top executives, Dave Goldberg (now a VC) and Ian Rogers (now at Topspin Media) were both strong advocates of a DRM-free approach to music. That's why it would be ironic for consumers to be ticked off at Yahoo, which didn't have either the leverage to change the labels' policy or the patience to wait on the sidelines (a la Amazon.com). Nevertheless, consumers are most likely to direct their ire at the company that sold them the soon-to-be irreparable goods, not at the wholesaler responsible for the defect.
Subscribe to this Blog - What is RSS?
Hell the writing for this has been on the wall ever since Microsoft backed out of it's own PlayForSure DRM a while ago.
Posted by: Universal Indie Records | July 24, 2008 at 09:55 AM
This is exactly the kind of customer-hostile stuff that is unavoidable with DRM. There's just no way for yahoo to avoid it except to get out of the DRM business as fast as possible.
Posted by: Lucas | July 24, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Good article if only it were all true.
This statement: "Consumer backlash prompted Microsoft to extend support for tracks bought from the defunct MSN Music store by at least three years."
is false. I challenge you to find one consumer that contacted Microsoft about the DRM license server turn down. I have yet to meet one.
A lot of writers made some change for their sites off banner ads by writing about this but consumers at large didn't care because it's been nearly 3 years since Microsoft sold a track on MSN Music.
Get your facts right.
Universal Indie Records: PlaysForSure is not the name of a DRM platform. It's the name of an ecosystem for devices and stores that support Microsoft's DRM technology of which there are hundreds on the Internet. Maybe if you had been paying attention when you were briefed on this and not typing on your crackberry you would have caught that part.
Furthermore, Microsoft did anything but back away from it. The name was caught up in the Vista marketing push however the technology is still in play around the web and very viable. It's also the #1 DRM technology in the world in use on the Internet.
NOW MUSIC INDUSTRY TYPES LISTEN UP:
Don't get distracted and mislead by "fire in the movie theater" writing like this piece. Apple still kicks the rear-ends of every distributor you have licensed your music to USING DRM. There is not a single MP3/DRM-Free music store on the web that even comes close to the numbers iTunes posts USING DRM. In fact if you add up all the numbers of every MP3/DRM Free store in existence they are still a loser to Apple's DRM-enabeld iTunes model 4 to 1.
Don't confuse DRM for being the issue here. You guys all sold your souls to Apple and made a monopoly out of losing money selling music online so Apple could walk up your back to profitablity. You made this monster. We are looking to you to kill it.
Get your facts straight and wake up.
Christopher Levy, CEO
BuyDRM
clevy@buydrm.com
619.838.3840
This comment has been edited at the writer's request.
Posted by: Christopher Levy | July 25, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Thanks for the comment, Chris. As for actual consumer outrage, you're clearly not listening to the same people that the EFF is. Microsoft may not have sold tracks off MSN Music for a while, but it still reversed its course on the DRM server shutdown. If no one cared, why would it do that?
As for "PlaysForSure," given how Microsoft marketed its Windows Media DRM, I think it's easy for people to be confused about the nomenclature. And with Microsoft using a different DRM for Zune, its own music platform, you can't exactly argue that the company is as deeply invested in PlaysForSure as it used to be.
Finally, the iTunes store wouldn't dominate, I don't think, if the iPod wasn't a category-killing MP3 player. IPods ruled before iTunes made the scene, and then Apple gave iTunes a huge leg up by preventing other stores from working seamlessly with the iPods. So I don't think you can read consumers' appreciation for iTunes as an indifference about DRM. IMHO, it's evidence that they love the convenience that only Apple can supply.
Posted by: Jon Healey | July 25, 2008 at 05:49 PM
"Christopher Levy, CEO BuyDRM"
Just the kind of spokesperson DRM needs :-)
Posted by: Jack | July 25, 2008 at 07:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked, to hear that the CEO of "BuyDRM" is a big fan of DRM. No idea why that could possibly be. Fact is, ridiculous stuff like this, with honest, law abiding customers being punished, is the inevitable result of DRM. Not to mention the obstacles to cross-platform compatibility. People have, to an extent, accepted Apple's implementation because it is generally well built; but the demand for uncrippled music has been strong and consistent. emusic, Amazon, Rhapsody, and Apple(among numerous others) have all responded by selling as much uncrippled music as the media companies have allowed. DRM is grudgingly accepted in some quarters, or seen as inevitable; but it is inherently and inevitably customer hostile.
Posted by: phisrow | July 25, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Wow, the CEO of a DRM company failing to get the big picture and trying to bully the author.
Apple saved the music industry from the piracy keelhauling by handing over many billions in song sales back to the record labels. That's pure profit distribution at no cost to record labels.
In return, all Apple wants to do is sell iPods and its other media hardware. Apple certainly does not support DRM, has lobbied consistently against DRM, and now the poor consumer will experience what happens when DRM, subscription music, and proprietary formats suddenly disappear. Music without DRM plays perfectly well on all platforms, thank you.
Apple doesn't want to get shut out of other DRM that handcuffs the consumer, such as Windows Media DRM and proprietary subscription services such as Yahoo Music and Rhapsody that have never worked on the Apple Mac platform or iPods, which covers a significant chunk of the consumer base.
Imagine if back in the day, record albums and CDs only worked on proprietary BuyDRM machines!
Posted by: mugwump | July 25, 2008 at 09:59 PM
This story has more to do with Yahoo then DRM.
Yahoo Music has spent two years perfecting two things - billing credit cards and ignoring subscribers. The outcome was predictable, long overdue and they won't be missed.
Posted by: Burned | July 26, 2008 at 10:33 AM
funny how the guys who hate DRM are always soo full of smoke and indignation and the folk who like DRM focus on the business end of media delivery and what benefits DRM affords content owners- neither ever speak to the same arugment.
when has it ever, in business, been about what the consumer wants over what the owner is willing to sell? i got an apple, i bought it, ima eat it. all of a sudden i got this special apple, says only i can eat it but i can eat it as long as i want to, every day, 10x a day and it will still be whole and tasty every time i take a bite.
...but that jerk who sold me this magic apple, won't let me take it out and let everyone eat it. like jeebus, i could feed the world with one apple...jerkguy says he wants to sell others the magic apple directly to people and actually charge them for it--pfft.. !!!I should be able to do what i want with this apple, share it's goodness with anyone!!! i bought it right?! i' mean, sure i have the sensibilities and business knowledge of a naive college freshmen..with no concept of work or working for my money- spoonfed spoiled little children are we. we want what we want! we want one apple for all, the folk who are trying to stop us are EVIL.
wake up idiots. since you'all have never had to make a dime on the internet and work the counter at blockbuster just so you can pirate your collection of DVD's and games for free- you can go to hell cause your opinion does not count. you will never be in a position to make it count. you are a worker bee- buzz off.
we use DRM to protect our pr0n sites, using subscription and PPV models from a DRM provider. i laugh everytime i see jackholes who hate on the one thing that saved our industry from total pirated exploitation. Porn producers pay people to do it for money on video, no way we are going to continue to have surfers do it to us for free.
the author should stop being such a pandering, knee jerk middle waist servicer. You have all lost- business won before it started. teh King ez dead, long live teh Kingzor...and hot dub penny action.
Posted by: Dwayne Hoobler | July 28, 2008 at 09:03 AM
John I commend you for signing your posts. In this day and age that's a rarity. Can you tell me exactly how many customers EFF has spoken with that were affected by the MSN lights out? We believe MS changed course to all the viscious press they got and not consumers. We believe consumers long since left the MSN store for other properties. MSN stopped selling music almost 3 years ago right?
In regards to PlayForSure[ Windows Media Rights Manager], it's still the most licensed DRM technology in the world and the prevailing technology on the web where industry-leading properties like NBA.com, UFC.com, NetFlix.com, Vongo.com, QTrax.com, GirlsGoneWild.com and many others use it to successfully monetize their video assets. To date Microsoft has spent over $1,000,000,000 on DRM development. It's hardly been overlooked and I think it would be a reach to say Microsoft is not deeply invested in it.
The iTunes/iPod issue is a very simple one. Apple created FairPlay to prevent other content owners from selling encrypted content to iPods and to prevent iTunes content from working on other players. That's the reality. Yes it's convenient but no more convenient than DRM implementations like the sites above. In essence we agree that iTunes users don't mind DRM because they don't see it. DRM is not an issue for iTunes users.
Mugwump... let's dispense with the naive and short-sightedness. Apple is a major proponent of DRM. If you really believe Jobs letter about DRM was heartfelt, I have a .com domain I want to sell you. Yes Apple uses DRM to lockout other vendors and to lock you into the iPod. That is correct. Apple sells music at a loss to get you to buy their hardware. DRM is a key component of their business model. The rest of your comments just seem to be non-sequitor and not based on reality.
and yeah I am a spokesperson for our business and I believe, like hundreds of my customers, that content owners have the right to take whatever legal and responsible means they deem necessary to protect and monetize their content. This is the USA right?
Regards,
Christopher
Posted by: Christopher Levy | July 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM
funny how no one has a real answer to my questions/ comments. when a real DRM user steps up and says, "this is what it is and this is why we use it and it's awesome!!!" evebody goes silent cause they too busy with customers at the blockbuster counter or working on memorizing thier times tables to reply.
Come to the Valley kids, let us show you how we do it to you in your eyeholes, protect our porn and sell encrypted files all day long to folk who don't care about your stupid beef with DRM. IMHO the EFF is just another group of monkies, picking and eating eachothers fleas, throwing poop from behind the bars at the not-so-curious onlookers...revel in your paper-thin, ever diminshing relevance.
btw, i went to the EFF site, found the contact email and have sent some passwords so you myopic wanna-be nerds can see the DRM in action. i am guessing that none of you have ever actually bought anything on the web or interacted with a protected file- so i thought this might be a solid first entre to legitimizing/legalizing your entertainment viewing practices- and hopefully gaining a better understanding of the crap you are blathering about. you may continue blathering now- you shiftless, saggy pants, peter brady haircut, crappy tattoo wearing, ear hole expanding, trust fund wishing- haters. good luck with minimum wage. filthy theives, the lot of you..can't wait till we start suing folk like the RIAA does- I'll laugh all the way to the bank- even more.
come see us at our booth at Internext in Las Vegas this year- I'll make sure to devote a few minutes to verbally abusing you infront of our half naked starletts.
Posted by: Dwayne Hoobler | July 28, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Dwayne, if you have DRM on your (not free) pr0n, you're getting it from the wrong place...
I don't know who you are, but you come off like an 80-year old man yelling "get off my lawn you no good kids."
It's not about removing DRM so that we can "share our magic apple" with all of our friends, all for free. It's about being able to actually use, to actually own, the content that you pay for, and to use it as you wish.
Methinks you are the idiot who needs to wake up. The RIAA/MPAA bemoan piracy while continuing to break box office records, while iTunes is pumping faster than a (well I won't finish that one!! hah), and musicians are selling out 50-city arena tours at $150 a ticket.
What the news articles often leave out is those Blockbuster kids you mention probably spend all their money on music, movies and games. Very often the people the industry accuses of being thieves are in fact already their best paying repeat customers. So no, I really don't feel very guilty if I copy a CD one in a blue moon, since over the years I have spent thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars buying media. I enjoy it and will continue to. But the industry needs to stop treating its best customers like they are responsible for its failure to appropriately and correctly adapt to modern technology.
Posted by: matt | July 29, 2008 at 07:07 AM
Dwayne, if I say I agree with you on Apple, will that make me less of a knee jerk middle waist servicer? At the very least, would you mind telling me what that means? Although I suspect I'll have to block the comment as inappropriate.... Kudos to you for some of the most creative invective that's been hurled on this site. I'm not persuaded by much of it, but I am entertained.
Let me agree with you and Chris Levy that DRM needs to be viewed from the perspective of what it means for the bottom line. Having spent a lot of time with paying customers and pirates around the globe, however, I'm not persuaded that DRM is helpful for anything other than segmenting lines of business. Putting DRM on download-to-own material strikes me as unnecessary and counterproductive because it slaps limits on people for doing the right thing. If I buy a downloadable movie, I want it to be as portable as a DVD. DRM stops that. If all I want to do is steal the movie, I wouldn't buy it in the first place -- there's plenty of copies available online.
The interesting question is whether DRM deters buyers from small-scale piracy -- e.g., making copies of the movies they buy for a handful of friends. It probably does, but what does that mean for the overall market? If people could make a couple of copies of the movies they buy, would that lead to fewer purchases (because the free copies would satisfy some of the demand) or more (because the ability to copy disks increases their perceived value)? I don't have science or religion on that question.
At any rate, content producers can't avoid having to compete, directly or indirectly, with pirated sources of their goods. If DRM gets in the way of providing an effective competitor, that's not a good thing. If it enables a better offer than pirates can match, that's a good thing. Regular reader(s) of this space know how much I love subscription music services, which I argue (against considerable pushback) can't be done without DRM. So I think DRM isn't always a hindrance, it depends on how and where it's used.
Posted by: Jon Healey | July 29, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Matt- trust me on this one- YOU ARE the dum little kids I’m referring to.
You said, “It's not about removing DRM so that we can "share our magic apple" with all of our friends, all for free. It's about being able to actually use, to actually own, the content that you pay for, and to use it as you wish. “
…but the reality is, you don’t own the music, ever and you could never legally do as you wish with it. There have always been legal copyrights on music, movies, etc. and most folk back-in-the-day, making mix tapes, bootlegging 8-tracks were breaking the law in doing so. In the “digital age” these illegal practices were expanded due to the ease of duplication and “sharing” that they precipitated the demise of an already beleaguered greedy-dumb industry. What you “want to do” and how you use media is illegal. I didn’t make these rules up- wise up kid.
We use DRM on our “Free” and “Paid” content. The Free content allows us to syndicate our files across multiple websites and drive traffic from affiliates. The encryption and non-monteized business models gives us the ability to drive surfers to our site, collect double opt-in emails and even offer ad-based content files that are much larger than the free clips we distribute through third parties. For our subscription models, I can virtually eliminate password sharing, hot linking/ deep linking(not that you would understand any of this) and offer Subscription and PPV while only hosting one copy of the file! Brilliant stuff- really.
Matt, you justify your actions in an interesting manner as well stating that other people actually buy stuff on the web and further, since you gave so much $ in the past to the record companies, buying CD’s of all things, that you don’t feel bad about stealing/copying a CD and not paying for it. You are the person that DRM hopes to deter- you are the problem. I’m shocked at how you put your response together- poor logic, badly constructed…good luck even getting a job at Blockbuster.
John- thank you for your veiled compliment. My “kneejerk” comment was kind of off the cuff and a result of frustrations in past dealings with a small % of our customer base who, like the low brow kid above- see nothing wrong with sending a copyright protected file they downloaded to their buddy or posting a free link to it via some free storage/hosting service.
When we made the switch to using DRM, we did lose a small % of our audience but it was more than made up for by a significant drop in bandwidth costs from streaming transfer- a 40%reduction- and our ability to pass these savings onto our customers in the form of cheaper monthly and per file end-user fees. Oddly enough, dropping fees brought in more customers than ever before. Knowing we could lock our files down sufficiently allowed us to see every sale as incremental revenue from a file, instead of from a “one time send it and try to get the most out of it cause it’s just going to be stolen and repurposed” p.o.v.
Download to own content is just as/more susceptible to theft because the file is wide open for repurposing-including redistribution for sale, trade or for free- for the life of the digital file. Again (tired of saying this- listen) you are not buying a file, you are buying the right to access the file- buying the file is the first step toward doing the “right thing”(yer kidding right?) The DRM enforces that proper action and says, “hey, yep, two years later and you still can’t share this file.”
If you understand the limitations on usage, prior to purchase, you will not be upset. We outline this on our user page- prior to purchase- so folk are rarely confused. The key, I guess, to happy surfers, is proper expectation management; yahoo did this badly but it’s not a fault with the DRM- that’s all yahoo- who I shorted a few months back- nice return.
John, you said, “If I buy a downloadable movie, I want it to be as portable as a DVD. DRM stops that. If all I want to do is steal the movie, I wouldn't buy it in the first place -- there's plenty of copies available online.”
…yes(sigh-naive) and I want water to be less wet and a motorcycle to be a car but in reality, the place where we do business (yes this is a crack at folk who make their living writing about other folk making a living but don’t really understand what they are writing about and just dump a bunch of emotionally loaded gobblygook on the page) one thing is not another and right now, technology and the law limits usage of digital files to prescribed methods.
I know a guy who has a Netflix account, 3 actually- and he spends most his time ripping DVD’s, sharing these ripped DVDs out for duplication by his friends, making cool disc art from images stolen from the internet and has literally thousands of movies at his fingertips. He actually buys DVD’s that he can’t rent, copies them too. This kind of blows your whole, “If all I want to do is steal the movie, I wouldn't buy it in the first place -- there's plenty of copies available online.” argument all to heck.
Subscription content has the same restrictions that PPV content has, just different usage timelines. There is no difference between DRM for subscription services and PPV and one last time, you are never buying anything, just renting it for a short or a long period.
I hope this helps.
Posted by: Dwayne Hoobler | July 29, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Dwayne, I probably should have added this after praising your ability to insult people colorfully: you might want to consider the possibility that people who disagree with you aren't dumb, unethical or otherwise lower forms of life. You need to win on the argument, not the invective.
Given that we're repeating ourselves here, let me say again that it's all about the bottom line. I suspect even the EFF folks who don't like DRM think the same way -- they believe DRM hurts the bottom line because it lowers the value and utility of products without stopping piracy (as evidenced by your pal the Netflix subscriber, who has to defeat CSS to copy those discs) (yes, I know, it's easy enough, but so is circumventing Windows Media DRM) (and btw, if you're suggesting that's typical Netflix behavior, you're more cynical than I am and we should swap careers). You say, "Oddly enough, dropping fees brought in more customers than ever before." If that's purely a consequence of DRM, that's your best argument for it. Perhaps it's just because I'm a dumb low-life, but I couldn't tell from your comment whether the lower fees flowed directly from the DRM (and I can't intuitively see why that would be the case).
And as for your assertion that people don't buy copyrighted items, they just license them, that's true in the courtroom but not the minds of consumers. If I pay $15 for a download and discover that I can't watch it on my TV because it doesn't work with my home network, I'm going to think I've wasted $15. That's what Matt was talking about, I think -- DRM doesn't map well to *legitimate* users' expectations. Warning folks up front about what they can and can't do is a really good idea. But again, since this is about the bottom line, the question isn't whether DRM stops some leakage. It's whether it generates more revenue. Don't make the fallacious assumption that every stolen file represents a lost sale. And don't ignore the sales lost because some people don't want to be bothered with DRM'ed files.
Posted by: Jon Healey | July 29, 2008 at 08:49 PM
I’m not sure I would characterize my comments as invectives- more as playful jibes (insert hug).
In this last volley- your argument has shifted- and it seems that you are saying that since DRM can be cracked, it doesn’t make any sense to use or deploy.
OK, hmmm- let’s see if I can elucidate the situation; you are in the desert- middle of nowhere, prob going to end up a desiccated lump found by archeologists from another planet in 1000 years. You have a large rim hat, sunscreen and water but realizing the futility of your situation, you strip off your protective clothes, easily I might add, and start walking to the next mirage- naked. You think to yourself, “I could have taken that job with Dwayne doing those movies, why didn’t I listen to him?”
Getting back to the argument at point, did it make sense for you to have taken off your clothes and hurried your demise? Now think of yourself as a digital file. Yes, you can be a hot girl on girl with fuzzytoy file. If DRM, like the clothes, hat and sunscreen is easy to take off, why wouldn’t you? I’ll tell you why, because the sun protection, like DRM is the best thing available now. It’s gotten 1000x better than when we tested it in 2002 and its all but stopped theft of our streaming media and bandwidth bleed to a significant degree.
Fact: using DRM lowered our streaming bill 40% in the first month (that’s a lot of money- more than I make in a month- which is a lot). Fact: that 40% was purely from theft- DRM stopped it. Fact: the customers we lost were more than made up by our lower pricing and increased users; an admittedly ancillary benefit of using DRM. The significant cut in expenses allowed us to be able to experiment with various price points without losing money from when we started using DRM. As I said, we are making more now.
John, you said, “as for your assertion that people don't buy copyrighted items, they just license them, that's true in the courtroom but not the minds of consumers.” …and I can’t answer to this. Your argument has made another leap, and this time to the wholly illogical/emotional side. What the hell is the courtroom of the mind? This argument is worse than any that halfwit Matt or anyone else here made. I pitch invectives, you respond with feelings. I get it- but we are still trying to have a logical discussion.
I don’t share your courtroom of the minds sentiments. It’s like I’m on the roof of a building, talking rationally about ideas, expressible concepts and you are in the basement fiddling around with soft concepts and wet matches. “Where’s the fire, son?
DRM is not perfect, it never will be. I can buy and screen capture or play and record any file that can be output. So why use it? I hope it’s clear now that the DRM, like the sun protection does its best to protect from casual damage/ casual theft.
Are Matt and his illegal file sharing cadre going to be deterred? Probably not. Is someone with the technical knowhow of the average American going to be deterred? You betcha. How many people have stopped using share sites because they don’t want to get busted? I’m guessing a lot. Between DRM and societal gestalt shaping groups like the RIAA, et. al.- the rampant digital theft pendulum seems to be at least- not swinging any farther out.
1 Solution: If parents/ schools actually stressed solid morals and values to their kids, they would better appreciate and respect all rights, including digital. Maybe that’s where we need to change- in the hearts and minds of the consumer- to make them understand. You could help here.
We pay several thousand to produce a 60 minute video- why are we wrong to do our best to protect it? Why are consumers rights even considered on par or mentioned in the same argument with copyrights? One doesn't exist- the other does.
We put out high quality HD pron maybe folk would say, “who is Dwayne to be talking about morals?”…but we are not really talking about whether it’s ok to film chicks getting it on for money. We are talking about ecommerce and theft. It’s not about folk enjoying DRM or non-DRM protected media and the ramifications of being an honest user annoyed by DRM constraints. It's about content owners and distributors using available deployable technologies to enhance their business. The constraints are in place because a lot of folk feel like Matt; these constraints are supported by US law, by Locke’s concepts of property and by 9,000+ years of trading and commerce.
I doubt this helped.
Posted by: Dwayne Hoobler | July 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Apparently Yahoo! Music can't wait until September 30. In trying to burn all the music I have bought from Yahoo to CD, I find that most of it has lost access to the license. All attempts made by me to reacquire the license get exactly nowhere. I contacted their tech support. They told me the were sorry about my frustration but I was out of luck. I'm not sure how that works when their licensing servers are advertised to be up and running through the end of September.
Posted by: Gary | August 14, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Did they offer you a coupon for MP3s from Rhapsody? See http://opinion.latimes.com/bitplayer/2008/07/yahoo-rethinks.html.
Posted by: Jon Healey | August 14, 2008 at 04:45 PM