RSS
Twitter
Did Yahoo Not Pay Attention To What Happened When Microsoft Pulled The Plug On Its DRM Server?
from the apparently-not dept
I recognize that Yahoo was a bit busy fending off the repeated acquisition offers from Microsoft a few months back, but could they seriously not have noticed the massive backlash that Microsoft received for telling people that it was turning off its DRM servers, effectively locking all the songs people had "bought" to their current computers. The loud complaints resulted in Microsoft backing down and agreeing to keep the servers running for a few more years.
So, what does Yahoo! do? It mimics Microsoft's original move. It's sent out an email to users noting that its DRM server will be shut down, preventing the "buyers" from moving the songs to new computers. This seems doubly ironic, given that Yahoo's last two music bosses, David Goldberg and Ian Rogers had spoken out against DRM. While neither is still with the company, it's rather amusing that Yahoo is now helping to prove the point -- though probably not in the way that was intended when either Goldberg or Rogers spoke up.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The practice of bittorrent couldn't have a better supporter.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Micosoft anf Yahoo
Well it was a good idea in the begin, but just like the world we went down the wrong fork in the road, if a person dd not want to marry me and live happy ever after, then think about the million's eggs you two just make.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Or is it just another revenue scheme so people will now be forced to purchase music again?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Purchase music?
this type of nonsense is the exact reason I don't buy music from online stores.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
buying music
It's a good thing I don't. No worries about DRM here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Micosoft anf Yahoo
Do you ever make sense?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jukebox
This is why I never moved my musicmatch jukebox over to yahoo jukebox
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You know what's great about this is that these weren't small companies. These were the giants of the software, internet, and music industries. So next time a record executive talks about how DRM provides "choice" for consumers, we can just ask them, "What happens in three years when I buy a new computer and you've shut down the service?" After all, if it happened to Microsoft, Sony, and Yahoo, who can't it happen to?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
iTunes is tolerable
Whenever my wife purchases music from iTunes, I make it a point to rip that music into DRM-free formats as soon as possible. We've already had several songs lost as a result of DRM issues from Apple, but I respect its decision to carry DRM-free music now. iTunes is the best store for us, but keeping the music in its DRM cage is like leaving your music CD face up on the road; it's only a matter of time...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I just buy mp3s from Amazon. Same price, DRM free. Why do people buy mp3s with these DRM restrictions? It baffles me. Also baffling me is how the Patriots lost the superbowl. Still painful...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: iTunes is tolerable
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The music industry is such a mess. Lots of people like music, understandably. If we buy protected mnusic online, this may happen. If we dont buy the music, we'll get 'in trouble.'
Maybe CDs aren't so bad after all?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: iTunes is tolerable
Just buy from Amazon (www.amazon.com/mp3), same selection as iTunes, cheaper price and no DRM.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hmmm...
Does anyone else find it ironic that the person suggesting that the "criminal" (I have issues with the description of it as a crime, no matter what a few hundred pages in a book with the government's seal on it say) reveal their identity when they won't do so themselves?
Or perhaps I missed a funny.....
... In which case, please excuse me while I go wipe the egg off my face....
-T
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hmmm...
GWB
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is exactly the reason I will NEVER pay for anything (music, movies or software) that has to rely on remote authorization to function.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A change is needed
The music industry just needs to make a change. I see both sides of the argument...on the one hand, the Industry needs the money to give to the artist so that the artist can create the album and go on the tour...on the other hand, the consumers have gotten used to being able to download anything and everything at their fingertips for free; the only thing hindering the consumer is how fast they can think of songs to download. DRM is not helping matters either. It is in my opinion that if the consumer does not want their music in the AAC or WMA formats, the consumer has the right and should be able to convert it to any format of their choice. What happens when someone who has downloaded HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of dollars from the iTunes store wants to switch from the iPod to its competitor the Zune? They can't convert their music to a file type the Zune will accept and the Zune won't accept the files the way they are. Yeah one can burn all their music to an audio CD, but that's more trouble than what it's worth because you'll have to retag everything and use several CDs just to do that. Plus its very time consuming. At this point, I'm glad to say that I have never purchased any digital music because it is just a mess. CD's are the way to go.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A change is needed
"on the one hand, the Industry needs the money to give to the artist so that the artist can create the album and go on the tour"
Hah! You must have been living under a rock or something all this time... "the Industry needs the money to give to the artist"... Hilarious!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: A change is needed
"Yeah Right" how do you think artists get the money to put up to make an album? Do you think they use their own? How about new artists? I'm talking about ones that only perform at night clubs, pubs, bars, and small family get-togethers. Do you think that after a producer or A&R Rep discovers talent, 2 million dollars (yes this is the approximate cost to make an album with all expenses) appears in the artists' bank account without help from the label? Because if you do, you're sadly mistaken and might want to check your sources. Here's a brief overview.
After an A&R rep discovers talent, he then signs the band or singer to the label, at which point a check is made out to cover the expenses to make and record an album. This is called an advance. These expenses include, but are not limited to, cost of studio time, cost of studio musicians, cost of recording engineer, cost of producer, cost of mastering engineer, production, manufacturing, and a little extra for the artists' work. It is at this point that the sales of albums/songs is used to pay back, or recoup, the the money the label loaned the artist. If the artist does not recoup the money advanced to them with their first album, one of two things could happen. 1) The artist is dropped from the label, or 2) The artists' next album's sales is used to recoup the money. This is called cross-collateralization. The artist doesn't see a dime from record sales until his money has been recouped. Also, if you think that artists don't make any money off album or download sales, think again. They might make less then a dollar off each album, but with the amount of albums that most mainstream artists sell, be it digital or CDs, still adds up to a pretty penny...more than the average American makes in a year, especially if the album goes gold (500,000 copies sold) or platinum (1 million copies sold).
If you think that by getting signed to a record deal automatically makes you rich just because you see rappers and rock stars of whom you haven't even heard of yet wearing 3,000 dollar fur coats and a 5,000 platinum chain around their neck driving the latest and greatest cars, then I would suggest turning off MTV.
Next time, don't make a snide remark to someone who has a B.A. in Music Business. Also, before you make remarks, you might want to have your facts straight because, you never know when you're going to run into someone who has just a tad bit more knowledge in the area then you do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
if they are shutting down there servers wouldn't in be time for them to produce some sort of patch to disable the DRM from the Music in question? or perhaps sign a deal with a 3rd party that would authenticate the songs in question?
I am assuming there was some sort of agreement saying: user would pay X amount and Yahoo would provide X service, doesn't yahoo shutting down its DRM servers stop yahoo from fulfilling its part of the deal?
I find it hard to believe that users have no recourse.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: A change is needed
Your 2 million dollars figure is horribly incorrect in today's society. There is this thing called the Internet, which reduces the cost to essentially zero. Many musicians are generating thousands of fan through MySpace alone; they are able to then go on tour to various locations and make money.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: A change is needed
Don't think that a B.A. in "Music Business" (I didn't even know there was such a thing) makes you the know-all of the music business because you never know when you're going to run into someone who has just a tad bit more knowledge in the area than you do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There was most likely a clause in the agreement which stated that Yahoo was free to alter the terms of the agreement at any time. I'd also bet that there was a clause about how users are permitted, but not entitled to access the authorization servers and how such access is not guaranteed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hah! You must have been living under a rock or something all this time... "the Industry needs the money to give to the artist"... Hilarious
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hi
I am assuming there was some sort of agreement
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment