Yahoo! to offer DRM-free MP3 downloads - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 21st Jul 2006, 16:26

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07...mp3_downloads/

Faulk_Wulf · 21st Jul 2006, 16:38

I'd pay $1.98 for DRM-free songs. Unfortunately it means it would be cheaper to buy a full album at Wal-Mart. But for a single song? $2 for DRM-free music is amazing.

Bindibadgi · 21st Jul 2006, 16:40

uncompressed option?

quack · 21st Jul 2006, 17:06

Let's hope this takes off, and the rest of the industry takes note.

It's nice to see a "completely legal" service taking a DRM IS BAD! attitude. We all know allofmp3.com can supply songs without DRM cheaper, but it's also under fire from the RIAA, IFPI and BPI for being "illegal".

mclean007 · 21st Jul 2006, 17:14

Good step in the right direction, but DOUBLE the price? How can they justify that when they say DRM is expensive to implement? They definitely need to rethink that pricing model if it's going to take off.

I would also be interested to know the quality they're offering. Anything less than VBR MP3 encoded with LAME as --alt-preset standard, and I'm not interested. To be honest they really should have an uncompressed option.

My thinking is, I can buy a CD online for £8, then rip it to MP3/OGG/FLAC and do as I please. Given they are cutting out the physical packaging (which I rather like), but on the other hand are giving the consumer the convenience of immediate access to the media, I would say £0.80 a song / £8 an album for a choice of MP3/OGG at various qualities, plus an uncompressed option, would be fair. That way everybody wins - the record company makes more profit b/c they don't have to package a physical profit; I get my media legally, immediately and at the same price.

No damn way am I paying $2 a song (will probably translate as £1.50+ thanks to the Euro-ripoff margin = £18 for the average 12 track album) for crappy compressed content.

Firehed · 21st Jul 2006, 17:42

I think I'll stick with AllofMP3, thanks. Don't get me wrong, huge step in the right direction, but if I won't pay $0.99 for music through iTunes (I have a couple times, but more as a demo than anything else), no way would I even consider paying twice that. $10 an album is fair for a retail copy if you ask me, should be no more than half that for some protected lossy junk through the totally legal online stores. I'd say $9 max for a lossless unprotected album (which you can get from allofmp3 on many albums, but usually about half that price)

Still, a big step in the right direction. Except that they'll just end up "proving" that consumers don't care about protection because nobody flocks to the store. You know how the RIAA has an amazing way of overlooking that obvious thing we call price. People use iTunes because it's cheaper than most CDs, not because it's hugely convenient (iTunes integrates just as well with CD ripping as it does with the music store)

Vergil_117 · 21st Jul 2006, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faulk_Wulf

I'd pay $1.98 for DRM-free songs. Unfortunately it means it would be cheaper to buy a full album at Wal-Mart. But for a single song? $2 for DRM-free music is amazing.

You are forgeting that walmart doesn't sell uncut music (though will sell rap albums they deemed back in like 1998 bad and refused to sell em (such as eminem and 50 cent), but now I see them selling eminem but still no slayer or marilyn manson.

BTW has anyone else gotten damaged CD cases when buying from best buy (or it just the louisana located store)?

DXR_13KE · 21st Jul 2006, 18:17

bah....this is rather nice, its not cheap....but DRM free music rocks

i hope they have success, so they can lower their prices...anyway they will be shot down by the RIAA....

Paolo · 21st Jul 2006, 18:41

Quote:

The company currently sells MP3s at double the price of the same music on iTunes, but without the DRM constraints. Yahoo! maintains that DRM is very expensive to implement, and that the company would much rather spend that money on improving other aspects of its service.

Umm... what?!

So what they are trying to say is that, even while their process actually costs less than what companies like Apple use by not implementing DRM, they are charging double the price anyway?

This really doesen't stick with me at all.

Paolo

riggs · 21st Jul 2006, 20:04

Expensive, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

DXR_13KE · 21st Jul 2006, 20:14

and it wont make the people at RIAA mad.......screaming bloody murder and saying its un-natural.

Faulk_Wulf · 21st Jul 2006, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vergil_117

You are forgeting that walmart doesn't sell uncut music (though will sell rap albums they deemed back in like 1998 bad and refused to sell em (such as eminem and 50 cent), but now I see them selling eminem but still no slayer or marilyn manson.

BTW has anyone else gotten damaged CD cases when buying from best buy (or it just the louisana located store)?

I just meant Wal-Mart as a generic store. It was jsut the first one that popped into my head.

*Y@h00k@* · 22nd Jul 2006, 11:30

expensive... yeah, but I'm wondering if that was yahoo's choice or if it was the record companies asking more. If it picks up with consumers, record companies will make a lot a money, if it doesn't then DRM-free music is just a myth, which is how they like it. Either way, record companies seem to be winning here.

just thought I'd try another point of view here...

simosaurus · 23rd Jul 2006, 14:50

hey guys

this is great, and i know we are all aware what a pain in the ass DRM is, but is there enough of us around to make a dent in the likes of i-tunes and make the record companies take notice?

Dizman · 23rd Jul 2006, 17:35

I would definitely pay 2 bucks for a DRM-free download. Mainly because no DRM that I know of supports my vintage archos jukebox. I wouldn't pay twice as much for an album though, and would just continue to buy an actual CD. But for the odd song that I just have to have, I would buy from yahoo if they drop the DRM.

The RIAA wants more for the DRM-free songs, because there is nothing stopping people from sharing. I think that is fair, though there is really nothing stopping people from sharing CD's so whole albums should not cost any more than a real life CD. But of course, they will.

21st Jul 2006, 16:26	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Yahoo! to offer DRM-free MP3 downloads http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07...mp3_downloads/ __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

21st Jul 2006, 16:40	#3
Bindibadgi Richard Swinburne bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Omnipwntent Posts: 28,284	uncompressed option? __________________ Made you look, made you stare, made you clicked this in your underwear! Den of Geek!

21st Jul 2006, 17:06	#4
quack \o/ Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: England Posts: 5,222	Let's hope this takes off, and the rest of the industry takes note. It's nice to see a "completely legal" service taking a DRM IS BAD! attitude. We all know allofmp3.com can supply songs without DRM cheaper, but it's also under fire from the RIAA, IFPI and BPI for being "illegal". __________________ Denying Rights to Music lovers. Denying Rights to Movie lovers.

21st Jul 2006, 17:14	#5
mclean007 Officious Bystander Join Date: May 2003 Location: Nodnol Posts: 1,597	Good step in the right direction, but DOUBLE the price? How can they justify that when they say DRM is expensive to implement? They definitely need to rethink that pricing model if it's going to take off. I would also be interested to know the quality they're offering. Anything less than VBR MP3 encoded with LAME as --alt-preset standard, and I'm not interested. To be honest they really should have an uncompressed option. My thinking is, I can buy a CD online for £8, then rip it to MP3/OGG/FLAC and do as I please. Given they are cutting out the physical packaging (which I rather like), but on the other hand are giving the consumer the convenience of immediate access to the media, I would say £0.80 a song / £8 an album for a choice of MP3/OGG at various qualities, plus an uncompressed option, would be fair. That way everybody wins - the record company makes more profit b/c they don't have to package a physical profit; I get my media legally, immediately and at the same price. No damn way am I paying $2 a song (will probably translate as £1.50+ thanks to the Euro-ripoff margin = £18 for the average 12 track album) for crappy compressed content. __________________ Demand Naked DSL in the UK!

21st Jul 2006, 17:42	#6
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	I think I'll stick with AllofMP3, thanks. Don't get me wrong, huge step in the right direction, but if I won't pay $0.99 for music through iTunes (I have a couple times, but more as a demo than anything else), no way would I even consider paying twice that. $10 an album is fair for a retail copy if you ask me, should be no more than half that for some protected lossy junk through the totally legal online stores. I'd say $9 max for a lossless unprotected album (which you can get from allofmp3 on many albums, but usually about half that price) Still, a big step in the right direction. Except that they'll just end up "proving" that consumers don't care about protection because nobody flocks to the store. You know how the RIAA has an amazing way of overlooking that obvious thing we call price. People use iTunes because it's cheaper than most CDs, not because it's hugely convenient (iTunes integrates just as well with CD ripping as it does with the music store) __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

21st Jul 2006, 16:38	#2
Faulk_Wulf Internet Addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: USA Posts: 280	I'd pay $1.98 for DRM-free songs. Unfortunately it means it would be cheaper to buy a full album at Wal-Mart. But for a single song? $2 for DRM-free music is amazing.

21st Jul 2006, 18:17	#8
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,479	bah....this is rather nice, its not cheap....but DRM free music rocks i hope they have success, so they can lower their prices...anyway they will be shot down by the RIAA.... __________________ RENEGADE X CONTEST! <---- CLICK if you want to win a free Command & Conquer 4 beta key!

21st Jul 2006, 20:04	#10
riggs ^_^ Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lincs. Posts: 1,645	Expensive, but at least it's a step in the right direction. __________________ Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun PSN ID: buster2006

21st Jul 2006, 20:14	#11
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,479	and it wont make the people at RIAA mad.......screaming bloody murder and saying its un-natural. __________________ RENEGADE X CONTEST! <---- CLICK if you want to win a free Command & Conquer 4 beta key!

22nd Jul 2006, 11:30	#13
Y@h00k@ What's a Dremel? Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brussels, Belgium Posts: 17	expensive... yeah, but I'm wondering if that was yahoo's choice or if it was the record companies asking more. If it picks up with consumers, record companies will make a lot a money, if it doesn't then DRM-free music is just a myth, which is how they like it. Either way, record companies seem to be winning here. just thought I'd try another point of view here...

23rd Jul 2006, 14:50	#14
simosaurus Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 348	hey guys this is great, and i know we are all aware what a pain in the ass DRM is, but is there enough of us around to make a dent in the likes of i-tunes and make the record companies take notice? __________________ lian-li v1000b 700GB RAID 0 Array X2 4800+ 7800 GTX SLi X-Fi FPS 24" dell Aqua Watercooling

23rd Jul 2006, 17:35	#15
Dizman Multimodder Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Vermont Posts: 218	I would definitely pay 2 bucks for a DRM-free download. Mainly because no DRM that I know of supports my vintage archos jukebox. I wouldn't pay twice as much for an album though, and would just continue to buy an actual CD. But for the odd song that I just have to have, I would buy from yahoo if they drop the DRM. The RIAA wants more for the DRM-free songs, because there is nothing stopping people from sharing. I think that is fair, though there is really nothing stopping people from sharing CD's so whole albums should not cost any more than a real life CD. But of course, they will.