Finally, DRM seems to be losing

[b0rsuk]

It's very heartening to see people realize artificially removing value and features is bad.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=drm

It may not be very scientific, but the tendency seems clear. Note the top headlines:

Apple: Record labels should drop DRM
    Globe and Mail - Feb 7 2007   
EMI, Apple to go DRM free
    Inquirer - Apr 2 2007   
Apple launches DRM-free iTunes
    AURUM3 NewTech - May 30 2007   
Universal Tests DRM-Free Music
    NewsFactor Network - Aug 10 2007   
Amazon launches DRM-free "Amazon MP3" music downloads
    engadget - Sep 25 2007   
Apple iTunes DRM free
    MyADSL - Jan 7 2009

[DawnFalcon]

It's also easy to see EMI as the driver in getting iTunes to go DRM-free, and Apple piggybacking on the publicity when it wasn't really want they wanted (since it ends their lockin for the iPod).

Anyway, Play.com and other services have been entirely DRM-free from the start.

[Abecedary]

To be clear, that's DRM on music. So far we have little to no indication that DRM is going away on ebooks. We only have hope. However, if it were to go away completely, then we could also say goodbye to ebook checkouts from the library.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

if it were to go away completely, then we could also say goodbye to ebook checkouts from the library.

It's still present on streamed music, I'd expect DRM would remain on ebook library checkouts...

[EowynCarter]

Yeap. DRM on music have been dead for a while. FNAC began, amazon follow by opening amazon mp3 to france.
And i don't know why, that's the moment i began considering buying music online.

[JSWolf]

DRM on eBooks is stronger then ever.

[Nitrousoxide]

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. We only have hope. However, if it were to go away completely, then we could also say goodbye to ebook checkouts from the library.

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?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Apple piggybacking on the publicity when it wasn't really want they wanted (since it ends their lockin for the iPod).

Except of course for Steve Jobs open letter asking for an end to DRM music before EMI got on board:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/



Doesn't look like removing DRM has hurt song sales:

Jan. 2005: 250 million songs sold
Jan. 2006: 850 million songs sold
Jan. 2007: 2 billion songs sold
Jan. 2008: 4 billion songs sold *first year since starting DRM-free sales
Jan. 2009: 6 billion songs sold *80% songs DRM free
July. 2009: 8 billion songs sold *100% songs DRM free

[DawnFalcon]

kjk - And by that point, EMI were probing to find out who was willing to drop DRM. And Apple were, apparently, both not initially receptive and insisted on a price premium.

Look, Apple are all about control - look at their other products. They are not the good guys on DRM.

[Shaggy]

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?

Assuming that's all the DRM did.

[Hellmark]

Apple does what ever it will take to make more money. Dropping DRM meant just that for them. They don't care one way or another for DRM, it'll use it or reject it as it sees fit.

[fugazied]

It does reflect a trend - consumers don't want DRM, it is prohibitive to sales if anything. From consumer surveys they saw people hated being unable to transfer material they payed for between players like they could a physical CD. It was a commercial choice, they make more money without DRM as people are more inclined to buy DRM free music.

The same thing will happen in the publishing industry, it is just like looking 7-8 years into the future. Publishers are very far off the cutting edge, have archaic licensing agreements and fear the Internet, so are the last ones clinging onto the old way of doing things (like newspapers).

[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 realise it, I'll be very surprised

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Apple does what ever it will take to make more money. Dropping DRM meant just that for them. They don't care one way or another for DRM, it'll use it or reject it as it sees fit.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

kjk - And by that point, EMI were probing to find out who was willing to drop DRM. And Apple were, apparently, both not initially receptive and insisted on a price premium.

Look, Apple are all about control - look at their other products. They are not the good guys on DRM.

I'm well aware of Apple's business decisions, and their other products, thanks.

I never said they were the "good guys on DRM". I just don't see things so black and white. As Hellmark noted, they are a business, and did what they thought was best for their business. And as far as music is concerned, they made a choice that benefitted both them as a business and me as a consumer.

You made two claims- one, that Apple merely "piggybacked" on EMI's publicity, and two, that Apple wanted DRM for music because of lockin for the iPod. I don't see proof of either.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It's also easy to see EMI as the driver in getting iTunes to go DRM-free, and Apple piggybacking on the publicity when it wasn't really want they wanted (since it ends their lockin for the iPod)....

Hm, not really the way I remember it, so I did a quick search and found this:

EMI, Apple partner on DRM-free premium music

"... In February, Jobs released an open letter to record companies, encouraging them to abandon DRM restrictions and claiming that Apple had only implemented the controversial system because the four major record labels would not have otherwise signed up with iTunes.

In the recent past, EMI has put forth some initiatives in digital-music distribution that could be considered somewhat experimental, most notably offering its music catalog to peer-to-peer services like Mashboxx and iMesh. But until this point, DRM-free music had been largely the domain of services like eMusic, with songs limited to those from independent labels.

"This is something that Apple wants, but it's something that EMI needs," McQuivey said.

"Together with the RIAA, (EMI) was one of the loudest voices among the labels sponsoring the aggressive lawsuits against people who were file-sharing music," McQuivey said of the Recording Industry Association of America's persistent legal battles against music pirates using peer-to-peer networks. "It's not to say that you can't aggressively pursue file sharers and develop a digital strategy, but they didn't. They chose to focus on the lawsuits, hoping to keep the CD business alive." ..."