“As even digital music revenue growth falters because of rampant file-sharing by consumers, the major record labels are moving closer to releasing music on the Internet with no copying restrictions — a step they once vowed never to take,” Victoria Shannon reports for The New York Times.
“Executives of several technology companies meeting here at Midem, the annual global trade fair for the music industry, said over the weekend that at least one of the four major record companies could move toward the sale of unrestricted digital files in the MP3 format within months,” Shannon reports. “Most independent record labels already sell tracks digitally compressed in the MP3 format, which can be downloaded, e-mailed or copied to computers, cellphones, portable music players and compact discs without limit.”
Shannon reports, “For the major recording companies, however, selling in the MP3 format would be a capitulation to the power of the Internet, which has destroyed their control over the worldwide distribution of music. Until last year, the industry was counting on online purchases of music, led by Apple’s iTunes music store, to make up the difference.”
“But digital sales in 2006, while 80 percent ahead of the year before, grew slower than in 2005 and did not compensate for the decline in physical sales, according to an industry report released in London last week,” Shannon reports.
MacDailyNews Take: The ability to buy (or steal) singles – or only the good songs – cuts into the labels’ profits as they can longer rely on selling 1 or 2 good songs bundled with 8 or more filler tracks as they could with physical media like CDs.
Shannon continues, “”There is a groundswell, and I say that on the basis of private conversations,’ said Rob Glaser, chief executive of RealNetworks, which sells digital music protected against piracy through the Rhapsody subscription service. ‘It will happen between next year and five years from now, but it is more likely to be in one to two years,’ he said.”
Full article here.
Today’s easily-removed DRM only hinders legal users, not the pirates. Removing DRM will increase online music sales. Bring it on – the sooner, the better!
Related articles:
Report: Apple to license FairPlay DRM – January 17, 2007
Hollywood movie studios demand Apple strengthen DRM limitations before joining iTunes – November 29, 2006
Apple’s vs. Microsoft’s music DRM: whose solution supports more users? – August 17, 2005
realist
I would bet that a majority of the illegal downloads are for older songs. Cap’t ob is right most of the new music is crap.
At the moment I have no interest in buying aac files, the quality is pretty poor compared to a CD or LP, I would rather buy the CD’s and Limewire the music I have a vague interest in, sorry. itunes downloads need to be in offered in a CD comparible format or better and much cheaper.
stormy,
And how is that a justification for stealing? In any case, I would like to see some data that backs us your assertion.
We’ll never see DRM free pop music.
Why? NAPSTER
NAPSTER will always be THE prime example of the dishonesty of millions of music lovers.
I have a suggestion to the record industry: Start making really good albums that have longer tail a.k.a. sell better in a long run. Filler tracks are total shit. The pop album that I can remember from 90’s that didn’t have Filler tracks was New Radicals’ Maybe You’ve Been Brainwashed Too. OK, it isn’t really that pop, it’s just closest I’ll ever get to pop music.
Point is: Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Rolling Stones, etc. are still selling a lot albums every year. I don’t see any one asking about Britney Spears’ first album in the record stores.
If the record labels started to aim at making most albums really good in terms of music, they might see their cash flow go up. At least I’m not gonna buy some shit like My Chemical Romance or what ever it was.
It’s often claimed that Apple wouldn’t remove the DRM on music tracks because that would lead to unacceptable amounts of piracy, but I don’t buy that argument. When Apple sells a copy of OS X or many other apps, it’s sold in an unprotected form. There are undoubtedly people who make multiple installs from what was supposed to be just one single licence, but Apple doesn’t get too uptight about it.
If they can accept not having DRM on software that sells for a hundred dollars, I don’t see them worrying about not having it on a music track that sells for 99¢, particularly when Apple only retains a few cents from that sale.
Steve Jobs has often argued that nobody photocopies a newspaper because buying your own is so cheap and much more convenient. If buying legal music downloads is done at a fair price and it’s a very convenient process, then piracy becomes a much less attractive option.
The record labels try to make piracy impossible, or illegal, but those approaches have failed. Offering a really convenient and affordable alternative to piracy has made a massive difference and will continue to make a greater difference – if allowed to continue.
AlanAudio,
Dont forget we’re talking about artists earning a career here. Each sale on iTunes will give them a few cents in the pocket. If DRM is removed then artists are not going to be very happy, and I would see artists losing faith in iTunes
Newspaper is not a good comparison to music as newspapers make their real money through advertising, and Apple makes their money through hardware sales, not software. A music track, however, is an artists only source of income (live performance notwithstanding)
To: Trollin’
Depends on a band. Dinsaur Jr. earns their money from tours and they said that illegal music downloads are like flyers. 😀
I guess they’re little different from the rest.
The music industry is using some made-up statistics from an industry trade group (the International Phonographics Association or some other) to cite that growth of digital song sales is slowing. For example, the group above claimed that only 800 million digital songs were purchased in all of 2006. We know from MacWorld that Apple alone sold more than 1 billion songs in just 10 months in 2006. So whatever their methodology, it’s clearly off by at least 25%, which conveniently produces a “slowing growth” conclusion.
On the other hand, their methodology to calculate album sales is completely different, which makes it rather difficult to compare the two. You can’t compare the weight taken from a broken scale with the weight taken from a working scale and say that one item weighs more than the other.
I for one don’t care that music I buy online contains DRM. Apple’s solution seems fair to me.
However I still buy mostly CDs because I want a higher bit rate.
I can’t see how DRM-free songs will work because songs bought online will be pirated in an instant just like the CD version is now.
My solution would be to halve the price of online music to 50 cents per song and so have it compete better with CDs and encourage online purchases. Then an album would cost around 5 bucks and may be worth it despite the low bit rate. If the bit rate was also raised then I would buy most songs that way.
@ Trollin
Of course I realise that the artists are involved, the fact that I mentioned that only a small part of the fee goes to Apple implies as much, although it’s the labels who take the biggest share.
But the point I’m trying to make is that a system that allows convenient and cheap music downloads is going to work for the benefit of everybody, including the artists.
At the moment more tracks appear to be pirated than sold legally. If there were no DRM, I think that the added convenience and versatility would boost sales to such an extent that the risks associated with not having DRM would be outweighed.
Some lesser-known artists have already had successes by distributing music without DRM. We’re starting to see musicians who are a little better known coming along and testing the water. It must be only a matter of time before a seriously mainstream artist at the height of their career does it.
Alternate title for this article:
“Media Producers Consider Pulling their Heads out of their Greedy, Ignorant Asses”
But, I’m not getting my hopes up. RIAA got their wish lists answered with the Zune’s Digital Restriction Management, but that system’s not selling, even with Microsuck subsidizing the effort.
But they may just be intelligent to realize that the genie’s already out of the bottle: even if they shut down and sue every company, web site and individual who steals and shares music via peer to peer, people just aren’t going to go back to spending fifteen or twenty dollars on a CD with one or two songs that’s worth listening to.
Zune Tang, and his tinfoil hatted comrades notwithstanding, who would want to buy a system as locked down as the Zune? Or windows Vista?
if i take your TV you dont have a TV i Stole it
if i take a copy of your mp3 u still have your mp3
who gets hurt?
why is this stealing?
i would never buy it so they havent even lost revenue?
if i dl some mp3 i really like i buy the CD
it’s stealing ‘cuz you didn’t pay for it, criminal
Heck yeah, bring it on MP3, AAC or OGG style
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Has anyone done a study of cd sales in the original napster era? My guess is that it spiked!
man this would suck for MS. It seems their whole direction (I mean Windows PCs–you know the thing people actually buy–though Zune would be included) is to put DRM at the core of everything, with unprecedented requirements for hardware to deliberately degrade things. The kind of move ONLY a monopolist (including the government) could do as it puts the interest of their customers last over the interests of the people they want to suck up to.
Music prices will have to drop significantly in order to disincentivize illegal copying in a DRM-less environment. The whole music industry will have to adapt. In the long run, this may offer more variety and freedom for individual artists/independents who will market their own wares on the internet and are not forced to compete with large corporations pushing a small subset of bands with massive promotions.
This chaos is what happens when the recorded reproduction of music is made the primary source of income for so many people unrelated to the performance of that music. Recorded music should be considered advertisements or enticements to see and hear a band perform in person or a substitute for those who cannot enjoy a live performance and any profit from such recordings considered incidental.