Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
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 thecost 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'
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'
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'
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'
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'
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 thecost 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 developOpen 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'
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'
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'
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'
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'
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'
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'
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 Apple/EMI
Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
:-) 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=rssfeed =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/
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=rssfeed =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/
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 sfeed =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'
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 sfeed =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'
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'
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 sfeed =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'
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 sfeed =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/ winmail.dat
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/
RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'
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 sfeed =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/
