Finally, DRM seems to be losing

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

To be clear, that's DRM on music. So far we have little to no indication that DRM is going away on ebooks.

http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/09/h...lishing-house/

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by igorsk

http://www.teleread.org/2009/11/09/h...lishing-house/

Well, it's only a Harlequin imprint at this point, but it's a start. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Nitrousoxide

Having DRM for stuff you're just renting makes perfect sense. If you're paying less for a time limited license, why shouldn't you expect it to automatically explode at the end of that time?

Time limited license are a difficult commercial proposition in the US. Businesses would be forced under our advertising law to use terms like "rent" and "lease" in lieu of buy and purchase. I expect it would go over like Circuit City's Divx discs.

[Kali Yuga]

1) I don't see how the Google Trends line proves anything; it certainly doesn't say anything new.

2) Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. There is no particular reason to presume that "going DRM-free" was solely (or even predominantly) responsible for the increase in iTunes music sales. E.g. promotion was minor; and the number of iPods sold went from 28 million by the end of 2005, to 226 million by the end of 2008. I'm gonna guess that was one factor (among many) for an increase in song sales volume.

3) eMusic has sold DRM-free MP3's for years and years. Care to guess what their sales are like?

4) DRM in various forms is still a huge component of digital content, even materials distributed by Apple. E.g. the billion-plus apps sold for the iPhone are all restricted; iTunes videos are still restricted; video games, DVD's, Blu-Ray, computer applications and so forth, none of that has changed.

5) Music has a significant issue with digital distribution, namely they released their entire catalog for years in an unprotected digital medium (CD's); so it's a snap to rip an album and share it. The horse was out the gate and long gone by the time they started selling DRM-free tracks. Books don't quite have that issue.

Despite the numerous similarities between ebook and digital music sales, I do not see any indication -- and nothing new -- that "DRM seems to be losing."

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

2) Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. There is no particular reason to presume that "going DRM-free" was solely (or even predominantly) responsible for the increase in iTunes music sales. E.g. promotion was minor; and the number of iPods sold went from 28 million by the end of 2005, to 226 million by the end of 2008. I'm gonna guess that was one factor (among many) for an increase in song sales volume.

Correlation does prove relationship though. Unless you believe it's just coincidence. (I'm not good enough at statistics to compute the odds on that, but I am good enough to figure the magnitude, and it's astronomical.)

So it could be that the increase in iTunes music sales was what caused them to go DRM-free. Or it could be that both factors were caused by a third. Or, it could be as claimed, that going DRM-free caused the increase in sales. Pick whichever one of those makes the most sense.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

1)

2) Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. There is no particular reason to presume that "going DRM-free" was solely (or even predominantly) responsible for the increase in iTunes music sales. "

I said it doesn't look like removing DRM hurt song sales. Which is what record companies and proponents of DRM have always claimed-that without DRM no one would buy songs-they would just steal them. If Apple's digital sales plummeted after the songs went DRM free, then they would have something to point to as proof. As it is, the iTunes store (and Amazon) seem to have shown everyone that you can have DRM-free content for at least one type of media without going out of business.

Will it work for books or films? I'm guessing films and TV shows will inevitably follow music. I don't have the same optimism for books, if only because that industry seems even slower to react than Hollywood. Love to be proven wrong, of course.

And eMusic always had one problem-lack of mainstream content. Their catalog never came close to the other online offerings, although they have some great independent labels-I've been a member for years.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by kjk

I said it doesn't look like removing DRM hurt song sales. Which is what record companies and proponents of DRM have always claimed-that without DRM no one would buy songs-they would just steal them....

OK. But you do know that overall music sales are tanking, and that digital sales are not making up the difference, right...?

I've also seen estimates that illegal/infringing music downloads for 2008 as high as 40 billion tracks. Even if the figures are off, I don't think there's much proof that a flourishing DRM-free music retail offering is substantially reducing piracy.

That said, I don't think there is solid evidence that the two largest digital music vendors going DRM-free has either hurt or helped sales. I'm not even sure you could get reliable data on the matter -- I don't think it's a clear-cut issue.

Originally Posted by kjk

Will it work for books or films? I'm guessing films and TV shows will inevitably follow music.

Why?

Granted it isn't hard to rip and share video, but it requires a heck of a lot more bandwidth, it's rare to stream pirated video, DRM has minimal effect on streaming services; video codecs are also a bit of a mess. As to books, right now I just don't see the same kind of pressures as you had in music; e.g. the back catalog that has been pirated just isn't as extensive as it is for music.

Originally Posted by kjk

I don't have the same optimism for books, if only because that industry seems even slower to react than Hollywood.

Yeah, I don't buy the whole "zomg publishers are luddites" thing. Few industries react well to highly disruptive technologies, and books are handling the transition better than some others out there.

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Correlation does prove relationship though. Unless you believe it's just coincidence. (I'm not good enough at statistics to compute the odds on that, but I am good enough to figure the magnitude, and it's astronomical.)

No, the odds are not "astronomical." It's merely fallacious to assume that two events occurring simultaneously have a causal relationship, especially when you ignore the other events and results happening at the same time (e.g. decline in total music sales, increase in iPods sold, consolidation in digital music sales retail etc).

Originally Posted by calvin-c

So it could be that the increase in iTunes music sales was what caused them to go DRM-free. Or it could be that both factors were caused by a third. Or, it could be as claimed, that going DRM-free caused the increase in sales. Pick whichever one of those makes the most sense.

I think I'll take "none of the above," thanks. My suspicion is that most users don't care about DRM, except for the moments when it interferes with their ability to do something. Customers didn't flock to eMusic because it was DRM-free; they went for Apple because it had a smooth user experience and later, good song availability and perhaps better editorial aspects. But again, I don't see any solid evidence of the DRM issue affecting sales in either direction.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

OK. But you do know that overall music sales are tanking, and that digital sales are not making up the difference, right...?

Yep, and the biggest purchasers of music? Are people who also engage in unauthorised copying.

Sales were already falling before music distribution on the web really kicked in, and the labels shot themselves in the foot when they let Apple sell individual tracks cheaply, killing off the album.

[EowynCarter]

But again, I don't see any solid evidence of the DRM issue affecting sales in either direction.

Im my case, my PC under linux will not read drm, neither can my Mp3 player.
So, unless it was some mp3 without DRM , no point in buying someting i can't read. Buying CD's ? most of, ended up in "yuck, 20 euro ??? ". Never mind, i can live without that.
Being able to get mp3 at a resonable prise mean i went buying music again.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yep, and the biggest purchasers of music? Are people who also engage in unauthorised copying.

That may well be the case, but again the study doesn't really determine causation in any direction, from what I can tell. Are those individuals buying more because they download more, or in spite of that habit? Are they just music fans who collect high volumes of music and do not know or care about copyright? Are they finding material illegally that they can't get legally? Are they sampling product and buying just what they like? If they did not view piracy as a viable option (either morally or practically), would they buy more music?

And returning to the initial assertion that "DRM is losing," have punter's habits changed at all based on DRM, or the introduction of streaming services like Pandora or Spotify? After all, if the shift away from DRM is a key component in the increase in digital sales, shouldn't we see a proportionate decline in infringing downloads?

Lots of questions, and I'm not seeing any solid answers yet....

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

After all, if the shift away from DRM is a key component in the increase in digital sales, shouldn't we see a proportionate decline in infringing downloads?

My argument would be that a shift away from DRM on digital (downloadable) music hasn't lead to a decline in digital sales, or even a decline in the growth of digital sales.

So what good was the DRM?

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Apple (& Steve Jobs) know that DRM doesn't and can't work. There would not have been any DRM on the iTunes Music Store if the music labels hadn't insisted.

See this interview from 2003:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...tone_interview

"...we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

"Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it — puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."

It took from 2003 to 2009 for the music label to realise that Jobs was right.

If it only take the book publishers another six years to relaise it, I'll be very surprised

Read the whole interview, Jobs was not talking about removing DRM. He was talking about how DRM on CDs does not prevent illegal file sharing, which all of us here already know. The context is that music labels did not want to sell online due to fear of more illegal file sharing. Jobs says he convinced them that that was a baseless fear, and the only way to fight illegal file sharing is to have legal digital product available to people.

But there are other uses for DRM that are successful.

[DawnFalcon]

Yes, and quite bluntly, given the way Apple uses DRM liberally on other products, I simply don't believe him. He's taking advantage of the fact that EMI were telling him they wanted to put up their music DRM free.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Read the whole interview, Jobs was not talking about removing DRM.

I have indeed read the whole interview. Several times. Jobs is clearly stating that they worked to persuade the Music companies that easily purchased on-line music was the way to go, and that DRM on such music wouldn't work. They failed to persuade the companies at that time on the DRM issue, but did negotiate remarkably lax terms, including the ability to burn to CD-R.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, and quite bluntly, given the way Apple uses DRM liberally on other products, I simply don't believe him. He's taking advantage of the fact that EMI were telling him they wanted to put up their music DRM free.

Apple use DRM very sparingly on their products. The only limits on the Operating System are checks that it's running on Apple hardware.
Their software mostly has installation codes to enter, like nearly all software, but iLife and iWorks '09 do not.

Apple do not have any other retail IP products. All their other material -- music, audio books, tv shows, movies, iPod apps, is licensed from other parties.

And by and large, those parties are still insisting on DRM.

Apple are controlling, especially when it comes to the integration of hardware & software. But they're not DRM enthusiasts.

[DawnFalcon]

No? I must of mistaken their case against Psistar which was based around their DRM, when they could of handled it on other grounds. That's not enthusiasm, true, it's fanaticism. DRM is gone from their music, but isn't gone from much of the other content they provide, their actions with the iPhone show their addiction to DRM and control clearly as well...

Okay, yes, DRM is just a vehicle for their control addiction, but it's the visible fist of it.