Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

On 03/04/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:15 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out
> the"cost" of non-DRM. This is very significant, and something
> MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM Podcast.

The BBC Trust had already done that. Despite the likelihood^Wcertainty
of DRM systems being cracked, they concluded that "there is no
significant monetary risk" from such file-sharing, in part because
"mainstream audiences have shown a preference for legal alternatives".


Discussing this with Miles, he said:

"So, remind me, why do we have DRM? Why do content creators force us
consumers to spend money to secure their content if the content is
not at monetary risk to them?"

and, referring to http://2lmc.org/spool/id/5543 "I tend to agree with
the Spool - it'll be watermarked."

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:15 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out
> the"cost" of non-DRM. This is very significant, and something
> MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM Podcast.

The BBC Trust had already done that. Despite the likelihood^Wcertainty
of DRM systems being cracked, they concluded that "there is no
significant monetary risk" from such file-sharing, in part because
"mainstream audiences have shown a preference for legal alternatives".

-- 
dwmw2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Richard P Edwards]

Hi all,

I am surprised that this thread has pointed so strongly toward the  
price hike and quality as being risky.

Please let me be concise with some of the facts
Steve Jobs noted that about 3% of music on all iPods is copied from  
CD.. CD that is already non-DRM and sold by the major record  
labels. In the penultimate two years, the biggest selling albums have  
sold about 10 million copies each worldwide, down to 6 million in  
2006. Seeing that probably over a hundred different albums are  
released per month in the UK and US, the chance of a new recording  
being successful enough to make the charts in future is pretty slim  
on CD sales alone. if you look at the amount of new artists in  
the UK chart during any one year, I would be surprised if there were  
a crossover of upwards of ten percent in to the mainstream.


With this in mind, the major record labels are making pretty large  
investments in new product, which is cross collateralised from profit  
on their own successful artists. If one looks at the piracy issue,  
the biggest "loss" was through illegal copying of CD by industrial  
duplicators. The RIAA and others could average their losses by  
looking at the illegal manufacturing, in the physical sense. They  
then put their stall out by going after "high profile" sharers.  
mostly youngsters, as a way of changing public opinion. as well  
as trying to stop the real pirates with criminal legal action.
The relationship between the Majors and its public has been fraught  
for a long time, in my opinion since W.H.Smith was included in to the  
fold of record shops only selling what the Majors wanted them to,  
back in the late eighties when it was all about a monopoly on  
physical distribution. The top five lost much of their customer  
loyalty and as such the internet, and copying, was the perfect reply.
From way back then, EMI was parodied as "Every Mistake Imaginable"  
within the recording world. which if you look at some of their  
failures was pretty true.
I think that Steve Jobs has defined a market and it has taken a lot  
of persuasion to get the Majors involved... illegal file sharing  
will be eventually seen for what it was all along, a smokescreen  
covering the fact that the major record companies completely lost the  
plot at the beginning of the nineties. Now they have evidence to  
support legal downloading as a relevant revenue source.
There is still a huge market for high quality music and recordings,  
with sample rates better than CD on the horizon this is hopefully  
the beginning of that new market. With almost 0% manufacturing and  
distribution costs in comparison to a physical CD, they will surely  
make more money, not less, and EMI's share price will hopefully  
reflect the u-turn in policy.
For my ten pence, I would rather pay for a proper legal product than  
any of the crunched mp3 files that I have heard. In future I would  
even pay double the present license fee to watch BBC TV on my laptop  
worldwide through the net. and I hope to, eventually.
One of the most exciting parts of all of this entertainment is the  
growth and realtime connection within society as a result of TV  
schedules, tours, and album releases. across the board perhaps  
that has a value that is lost when the control of the distribution of  
ideas is lost, as has been seen due to concentrating on negative  
issues instead of the positives.


Remember that Thriller sold 40 million copies in its first chart  
run. and for all the losses, CD sales haven't done too badly,  
still, it is time for a change.


http://zobbel.de/stat/uksales_a.htm

Download sales increased by 65% in 2006, but in the UK digital albums  
are still only 1.4% of the overall album market. In the singles  
market, where all this is being promoted, 79% of the 65.1 million  
sales in 2006 were from legal downloads.
A quite astounding statistic is that CD sales, for many reasons, fell  
by 20% in the US in the first quarter of this year compared to  
last. perhaps CD has finally had its day  and now we can  
begin to enjoy larger files with better quality. Blueray at 96Khz  
with DTS for example, but then who wants a physical copy?


On the other hand, perhaps Apple and EMI are crazy. the  
evidence would suggest that they both have far to go forward, and at  
least they are willing to give it a go. At £15 an album, if the  
quality is good and the product is free of DRM, then I will certainly  
buy it. I hope that they achieve the success that the artists need in  
promoting their products, in a way that sounds as good as possible.

RichE

On 3 Apr 2007, at 13:15, Dave Crossland wrote:


Hi Jason!
On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>  
Yes, of course. However, I said "more people put the unDRMed file  
on the> torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to  
distribute, therefore> perhaps more people will.
The point about this 

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


When does radio become a "music distribution service"?


When it goes out over TCP/IP, because of http://streamripper.sourceforge.net


People like last.fm are riding a fine line here right?


I heard they  aren't licensed.
http://www.stationripper.com/record_lastfm/lastfm_details.htm is more
likely over the line ;-)

When will we see some Backstage feeds of the playlist schedules for
BBC Radio channels with millisecond-precise timings and other
essential metadata? :-)

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

The BBC delivers quite a bit of music as a service... bit different to
what the author meant though I'm sure.

When does radio become a "music distribution service"? People like
last.fm are riding a fine line here right?

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 03 April 2007 15:33
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excellent article from The Register...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_drm_analysis/

Concluding line: "Do we cease to pay artists completely, or do we move
to a model where music is a service? Thanks to EMI and Apple, that
choice is a lot clearer today."

But subscription based music distribution services appear not to be as
popular as download based ones.

Also, I think its worth comparing subscription services to license-fee
services, like Sky vs BBC.. ;-)

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Excellent article from The Register...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_drm_analysis/


Concluding line: "Do we cease to pay artists completely, or do we move
to a model where music is a service? Thanks to EMI and Apple, that
choice is a lot clearer today."

But subscription based music distribution services appear not to be as
popular as download based ones.

Also, I think its worth comparing subscription services to license-fee
services, like Sky vs BBC.. ;-)

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

Excellent article from The Register...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_drm_analysis/

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim Plowright
Sent: 03 April 2007 14:16
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'


> > You'd pay $30 and up for an album on CD? Are you mad?
> > 
> > I suppose you do get a convenient hard copy backup too...
> 
> Apple won't be changing the album price.

Not the point I was making. Ian was saying he'd pay $3 for an un DRMed
high quality track; which is a *silly price* when you compare it to the
cost of buying a physical instantiation of the same music. 

If people *do* start paying silly money for what can be marketed as a
'luxury' version of the product, then... Well. You'll end up with a DRM
underclass of people who can't afford free data. Pyhrric victory, innit?

Dave lab66 - I'm sure you make similar good points in your email but it
has come through with little whitespace and is near illegible. Might be
a problem with your client?

Kim

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Kim!
On 03/04/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dave lab66
lol :-)

I'm sure you make similar good points in your email but it> has come through with 
little whitespace and is near illegible. Might be> a problem with your client?

Didn't do anything unusual, guess GMail messed it up... Thanks for telling me!
Here it is again:
The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out the"cost" of 
non-DRM. This is very significant, and something MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM 
Podcast.
Since there's no transcript, here's my understanding of what Miles was on about:
The BBC was in a unique position to be the first to challengeentertainment 
businesses on their assumption that they cannot makemoney without DRM.
How? Calling their bluff by asking to cost it out, and negotiate overreal 
figures.
Apple/EMI have beat them to it, but as Tom Loosemore said at the startof the 
DRM podcast, the BBC dropped the ball on strategic future mediavision some time 
ago.
In a capitalist system, everything has a price, even intangibles. Sowhat is the 
precise figure of the risk that non-DRM formats poses toproducers?
Specifically, at what price would they sell the BBC the rights topublish online 
in non-DRM formats?
It makes sense for the BBC to offer non-DRM formats because it ispublicly 
funded, and restricting the public isn't good.
It makes sense for the BBC to seriously ask how much this would cost,because it 
is publicly funded and can actually pay a reasonablepremium for such non-DRM 
rights.
So far, this has not been discussed anywhere openly. All we have 
fromApple/EMI's no-DRM publishing is a 130% price, and a higher bitrate.
The higher bitrate is a misdirection, as someone else already said inthis 
thread.
The price is still significant, though.
The BBC is paying rightholders to be able to publish things in the DRMiPlayer, 
they could pay them 130% of that cost and have no DRM.
Sounds like that hundreds-of-thousands budget figure bandied about todevelop "Open 
Trust Model DRM" or whatever it was, could be betterspent on these 30%s.
Prices are ultimately set by what the market can bear, and whenproducers have 
talked about the price of non-DRM content before, namedvast sums that the 
market simply would not bear.
The BBC needs to be prepared to call their bluff on this.
If I can buy a DVD of a whole series for £20, watch any episode asmany times as 
I like, convert any ep to a format that will play on myiPod, and even share 
duplicate copies of the discs with my friendsusing software that comes with the 
operating system, then somethinglike £5 per showing per person is clearly a 
nonsense figure that themarket simply won't bear. Even with tards like Ian out 
there :-D
The thing about putting it into numbers is that they can be tested. £5per 
showing per person can be put to the test in the market, as anexperiment. If 
the public engages at this price point, amazing. Ifthey don't, either the price 
has to come down, or a better service hasto be provided.
I'll be interested to see what happens to the 130% price, if it goesup or down.
The other thing about putting it into numbers is that it examines theassumption 
that producers should be paid for things that haven'thappened yet. Performers 
are by their nature egotistical, and tend tooverestimate the size of their 
audience.
The risk that they are successful, and non-DRM files will hurt theirincome, 
must be considered next to the risk that they areunsuccessful, and they will 
have no income at all.
The other group who are influential in the BBCs use of DRM is the BBCTrust. For 
them to mandate DRM seems to be the tail wagging the dog.
Surely the "public value test," that the trust is meant to evaluateBBC 
activities with, is failed by DRM, since DRM provides no value tothe public at all?
Its possible that, despite this Apple/EMI deal, television productioncompanies 
will never take part in any non-DRM discussions.
The BBC has said it is committed to new talent, though, so if thisreally turns 
out to be the case, the BBC can either become an elitistinstitution propping up 
the old established players, or make good onits commitment and start giving new 
talent the exposure that theyneed, on the new terms that they will no doubt be 
comfortable with.
And pay them 30% more than the big boys!
-- Regards,Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Peter Bowyer]

On 03/04/07, David Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The reason why the price is higher is because they feel they can charge it;
that people will buy it at that price; and that overall they think they'll
make more money by offering the service than not.


Or maybe they're introducing a premium-priced product in order to make
their regular product appear better value for money.

Peter


--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[David Wood]

I'm not convinced that when it's all boiled down that torrents/piracy has
much to do with it. People don't [necessarily/always] know when they
download a torrent if there's DRM attached in much the same way as they
don't know if a tarball/zip file is password protected. The content is being
confused with the delivery mechanism here. How would pirated all-new
DRM-free Apple content be different to other pirated DRM-free content from
existing sources?

The reason why the price is higher is because they feel they can charge it;
that people will buy it at that price; and that overall they think they'll
make more money by offering the service than not.

And just maybe they've awoken to the concept that the pirate was
[reluctantly, in some cases] never a customer, and that there are potential
bucks to be made in giving the pirates an option to jump ship. Bad pun
intended.

On 4/3/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Yes, of course. However, I said "more people put the unDRMed file on the
torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to distribute, therefore
perhaps more people will.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 02 April 2007 19:34
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost

> of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what
> is this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more
> people put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?

DRMed files are put on torrents anyway.

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/





--
http://www.sleepydisco.co.uk

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Kim Plowright]

> > You'd pay $30 and up for an album on CD? Are you mad?
> > 
> > I suppose you do get a convenient hard copy backup too...
> 
> Apple won't be changing the album price.

Not the point I was making. Ian was saying he'd pay $3 for an un DRMed
high quality track; which is a *silly price* when you compare it to the
cost of buying a physical instantiation of the same music. 

If people *do* start paying silly money for what can be marketed as a
'luxury' version of the product, then... Well. You'll end up with a DRM
underclass of people who can't afford free data. Pyhrric victory, innit?

Dave lab66 - I'm sure you make similar good points in your email but it
has come through with little whitespace and is near illegible. Might be
a problem with your client?

Kim

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Tim!

On 03/04/07, Tim Cowlishaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


in areas of the
world where internet access is not yet as common as here, DRM is much more
prevalent, as they are attempting to lock down the recorded music market
*before* pervasive internet access becomes a problem for their business
model.


Wow. How awful :-(

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Tim Cowlishaw]

On 4/3/07, Daniel Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.

I was under the impression that DRM'd CDs were flawed, and have largely
stopped being sold? (Not to mention the bad public reaction of people
using their pc as a hifi buying a cd only to find it not working!)



In Britain, hardly any CD releases contain DRM - however, in parts of
Mainland Europe and South America, most major label releases (and a fair few
indies) contain macrovision software or a similar DRM system - an ad-hoc
survey I carried out in the Lisbon branch of FNAC last summer gave me an
estimate of 60-80% of releases (based on a sample of one  6' rack in their
pop section - I'm not a statistician, but I would imagine this is hardly a
representative sample). There are also leaflets available explaining to
parents how DRM stops your children becoming criminals - i have one of these
at home i'll try and scan and translate at some point.

It seems to me (and this is pure conjecture), that the record companies are
of the opinion that filesharing can't now be stopped in the UK and US
(although they can continue to litigate in the hope of scaring people off,
and gaining a little compensation in the process), however, in areas of the
world where internet access is not yet as common as here, DRM is much more
prevalent, as they are attempting to lock down the recorded music market
*before* pervasive internet access becomes a problem for their business
model.

Cheers,

Tim

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Jason!
On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Yes, of course. However, I said 
"more people put the unDRMed file on the> torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to 
distribute, therefore> perhaps more people will.
The point about this Apple/EMI deal is that they have costed out the"cost" of 
non-DRM. This is very significant, and something MilesMetcalfe suggested in the DRM 
Podcast.
Since there's no transcript, here's my understanding of what Miles was on about:
The BBC was in a unique position to be the first to challengeentertainment 
businesses on their assumption that they cannot makemoney without DRM.
How? Calling their bluff by asking to cost it out, and negotiate overreal 
figures.
Apple/EMI have beat them to it, but as Tom Loosemore said at the startof the 
DRM podcast, the BBC dropped the ball on strategic future mediavision some time 
ago.
In a capitalist system, everything has a price, even intangibles. Sowhat is the 
precise figure of the risk that non-DRM formats poses toproducers? 
Specifically, at what price would they sell the BBC therights to publish online 
in non-DRM formats?
It makes sense for the BBC to offer non-DRM formats because it ispublicly 
funded, and restricting the public isn't good. It makes sensefor the BBC to 
seriously ask how much this would cost, because it ispublicly funded and can 
actually pay a reasonable premium for suchnon-DRM rights.
So far, this has not been discussed anywhere openly. All we have 
fromApple/EMI's no-DRM publishing is a 130% price, and a higher bitrate.
The higher bitrate is a misdirection, as someone else already said inthis 
thread.
The price is still significant, though.
The BBC is paying rightholders to be able to publish things in the DRMiPlayer, they could 
pay them 130% of that cost and have no DRM. Soundslike that hundreds-of-thousands budget 
figure bandied about to develop"Open Trust Model DRM" or whatever it was, could 
be better spent onthese 30%s.
Prices are ultimately set by what the market can bear, and whenproducers have 
talked about the price of non-DRM content before, namedvast sums that the 
market simply would not bear. The BBC needs to beprepared to call their bluff 
on this. If I can buy a DVD of a wholeseries for £20, watch any episode as many 
times as I like, convert anyep to a format that will play on my iPod, and even 
share duplicatecopies of the discs with my friends using software that comes 
with theoperating system, then something like £5 per showing per person 
isclearly a nonsense figure that the market simply won't bear.
The thing about putting it into numbers is that they can be tested. £5per 
showing per person can be put to the test in the market, as anexperiment. If 
the public engages at this price point, amazing. Ifthey don't, either the price 
has to come down, or a better service hasto be provided.
I'll be interested to see what happens to the 130% price, if it goes up or down.
The other thing about putting it into numbers is that it examines theassumption 
that producers should be paid for things that haven'thappened yet. Performers 
are by their nature egotistical, and tend tooverestimate the size of their 
audience. The risk that they aresuccessful, and non-DRM files will hurt their 
income, must beconsidered next to the risk that they are unsuccessful, and they 
willhave no income at all.
The other group who are influential in the BBCs use of DRM is the BBCTrust. For them to 
mandate DRM seems to be the tail wagging the dog.Surely the "public value 
test," that the trust is meant to evaluateBBC activities with, is failed by DRM, 
since DRM provides no value tothe public at all.
Its possible that, despite this Apple/EMI deal, television productioncompanies 
will never take part in any non-DRM discussions.
The BBC has said it is committed to new talent, though, so if thisreally turns 
out to be the case, the BBC can either become anelitist institution propping up 
the old established players,or make good on its commitment and start giving new 
talent theexposure that they need, on the new terms that they will no doubt 
becomfortable with. And pay them 30% more than the big boys!
-- Regards,Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Daniel Morris]

> Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.

I was under the impression that DRM'd CDs were flawed, and have largely
stopped being sold? (Not to mention the bad public reaction of people
using their pc as a hifi buying a cd only to find it not working!)

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2146367/garnter-piece-tape-defeats-cd

It's a few years old now but I remember reading about a new technique to
prevent computer games being copied. The code slowly degrades as the
files get copied. The first couple of copies work ok, but then the game
starts to break as the copies progress.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4248


Daniel Morris | Web Developer 
BBC Entertainment : Manchester : New Media 

int.   01 44217
ext.  0161 244 4217

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

On 03/04/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.


And that recently the publishers stopped putting DRM on CDs, because
they've realised that hurting their customers only hurts them.

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Kirk Northrop]

Kim Plowright wrote:

You'd pay $30 and up for an album on CD? Are you mad?

I suppose you do get a convenient hard copy backup too...


Apple won't be changing the album price.

--
From the North, this is Kirk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Andy]

On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Yes, of course. However, I said "more people put the unDRMed file on the
torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to distribute, therefore
perhaps more people will.


Apart from the fact that once the DRM is stripped no one else has to
know about DRM.
Most people sharing files on torrents are using the unDRMed version.
Once one person strips the DRM and starts to upload it, everyone else
can download and upload it without knowing what DRM is. This ratio can
be huge, 10:1, 100:1, 1000:1, theoretically 1million:1.
This is the ratio of people to the original uploader, not the ratio of
download to uploaders, it's only the original uploader who has to
strip DRM, all the other uploaders are doing is uploading the bits of
the file they downloaded.

There is bound to be one person who knows how to strip the DRM and
takes the time to do so.

Making the file DRM free may reduce piracy.
DRM free is a better product, it can be played in the users choice of system.

Why spend money on a poorer version when you can get DRM free data?
And as most people are not skilled enough to strip DRM themselves,
then their only way of getting DRM free music is to download it
illegally, until now that is.

Note that many CDs have some form of DRM on them.

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

Yes, of course. However, I said "more people put the unDRMed file on the
torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to distribute, therefore
perhaps more people will.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 02 April 2007 19:34
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost

> of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what 
> is this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more 
> people put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?

DRMed files are put on torrents anyway.

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Phil Winstanley]

The increased price is paying for the perceived increase in risk to the
copyright holder and to ensure that there's a choice which could
potentially prove the demand for non DRM music is low (statistically).

IMHO.

Phil.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:36
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has 
> decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rs
> s&feed
> =4

Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm>

And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.

Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:
> "The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded 
> interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."
(from the BBC article linked above)

Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?

Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
I hope it will be available without iTunes.

Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless
though.
Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
bandwidth being used).

Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball
effect?
Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
isn't good for them either?

Oh well enough of my idle speculation.

Official press release:
<http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm>

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

--
received to: andyb.com
Message ID : ob3d45ad6f0084f10878b6eebd0786c8f.pro
Sender ID  : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Msg Size   : 3k







This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of
the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been
scanned for the presence of computer viruses, though it is not
guaranteed virus free.

Original Recipient: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Original Sender   : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Original Send Date: 03/04/2007  - 00:21:15



-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Dave Crossland]

On 02/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?


DRMed files are put on torrents anyway.

--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Kim Plowright]

You'd pay $30 and up for an album on CD? Are you mad?

I suppose you do get a convenient hard copy backup too...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Mr I Forrester
Sent: Mon 02/04/2007 18:53
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
 
Got to say I'd personally be happy paying up to $3 a song if it was DRM 
free and recorded at a high bit rate.

Cheers

Ian

Jeremy Stone wrote:
> The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice 
> $1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
> Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
>
> On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has 
>> decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:
>>
>> http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rs
>> s&feed
>> =4
>> 
>
> Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm>
>
> And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.
>
> Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:
>   
>> "The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded 
>> interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."
>> 
> (from the BBC article linked above)
>
> Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?
>
> Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
> I hope it will be available without iTunes.
>
> Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless
> though.
> Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
> bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
> bandwidth being used).
>
> Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball
> effect?
> Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
> isn't good for them either?
>
> Oh well enough of my idle speculation.
>
> Official press release:
> <http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm>
>
> Andy
>
> --
> First they ignore you
> then they laugh at you
> then they fight you
> then you win.
> - Mohandas Gandhi
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
> please visit
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
> Unofficial list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
> Unofficial list archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>   

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

<>

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Mr I Forrester]

Got to say I'd personally be happy paying up to $3 a song if it was DRM 
free and recorded at a high bit rate.


Cheers

Ian

Jeremy Stone wrote:
The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice 
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has 
decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:


http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rs
s&feed
=4



Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm>

And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.

Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:
  
"The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded 
interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."


(from the BBC article linked above)

Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?

Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
I hope it will be available without iTunes.

Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless
though.
Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
bandwidth being used).

Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball
effect?
Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
isn't good for them either?

Oh well enough of my idle speculation.

Official press release:
<http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm>

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
  


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jeremy Stone]

 

> Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company  has 
> decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:

"Video content has developed pretty differently from music ... I
wouldn't hold the two in parallel right now," [Steve Jobs] said.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048507,00.html

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:36
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has 
> decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rs
> s&feed
> =4

Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm>

And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.

Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:
> "The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded 
> interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."
(from the BBC article linked above)

Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?

Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
I hope it will be available without iTunes.

Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless
though.
Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
bandwidth being used).

Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball
effect?
Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
isn't good for them either?

Oh well enough of my idle speculation.

Official press release:
<http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm>

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jeremy Stone]

The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice 
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has 
> decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rs
> s&feed
> =4

Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm>

And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.

Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:
> "The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded 
> interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."
(from the BBC article linked above)

Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?

Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
I hope it will be available without iTunes.

Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless
though.
Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
bandwidth being used).

Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball
effect?
Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
isn't good for them either?

Oh well enough of my idle speculation.

Official press release:
<http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm>

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Andy]

On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has decided
to not bother with wasteful DRM:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed
=4


Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):


And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.

Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:

"The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded interoperability by 
going
DRM-free and that starts here today."

(from the BBC article linked above)

Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?

Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
I hope it will be available without iTunes.

Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless though.
Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
bandwidth being used).

Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball effect?
Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
isn't good for them either?

Oh well enough of my idle speculation.

Official press release:


Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Richard P Edwards]

:-)
As here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm

For sure the vote will be said to not reflect public opinion, but 86%  
saying there should be less DRM is quite a statistical majority.
I'm over the moon that "higher quality" is one of the future  
intentions, I am tired of trying to listen to great songs that sound  
like rubbish on any computer especially if I paid for them.
The future is getting brighter, once you all get to hear a recording  
at 96Khz then you may understand, just like HDTV.
Can everyone stop dumbing down within the argument of "for the sake  
of the license holders" now, in all spheres?

RichE
On 2 Apr 2007, at 13:42, Brian Butterworth wrote:

Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has  
decided

to not bother with wasteful DRM:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html? 
gusrc=rss&feed

=4

'In a major change of policy for a record label, EMI is expected to  
announce
later today that it will begin selling songs without copy  
protection through

Apple's iTunes music store.

Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs, will attend a press conference
alongside Eric Nicoli, his counterpart at EMI, in London at 1pm today.

According to reports over the weekend, they will announce that EMI is
ditching the anti-piracy technology that currently restricts how  
people can

copy and listen to their digital music tracks.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the group will announce  
that "it
plans to sell significant amounts of its catalogue without anti- 
copying

software".


Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/742 - Release Date:  
01/04/2007

20:49


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,  
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ 
mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- 
archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

[backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Brian Butterworth]

Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has decided
to not bother with wasteful DRM:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed
=4

'In a major change of policy for a record label, EMI is expected to announce
later today that it will begin selling songs without copy protection through
Apple's iTunes music store.

Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs, will attend a press conference
alongside Eric Nicoli, his counterpart at EMI, in London at 1pm today.

According to reports over the weekend, they will announce that EMI is
ditching the anti-piracy technology that currently restricts how people can
copy and listen to their digital music tracks.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the group will announce that "it
plans to sell significant amounts of its catalogue without anti-copying
software".


Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv
 
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/742 - Release Date: 01/04/2007
20:49
 

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/