MetaFilter posts tagged with MP3 and drm

Dead men walking

caddis — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:18:23 -0800

“You can’t roll a joint on an iPod” or how the iPod killed the music industry. First the music biz overlooked the computer CD rom when they put copy control on cd burners. Then they eliminated the single. Shortly after that "mp3" replaced "sex" as the most popular search term. Apple has become the largest music seller largely against the wishes of the music biz, but 99 cents beats free. Yesterday Apple announced they were eliminating DRM. The questions remains, who needs Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Warner Music Group, and EMI, does Apple? When is Apple just going to replace them? There were rumors a year ago that they would launch a record label with Jay-Z but that does not appear to have come to fruition.

then we were niggy's band

fleetmouse — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:58:46 -0800

Saul Williams releases his album with several payment options: $0.00 gets you 192k mp3s, and 5 bucks buys your choice of 192k or 300k mp3s, or FLAC. All DRM free of course. Trent Reznor, who was recently sighted complaining about the insane prices for his last album in new zealand, is to blame. Need a taster? Saul and Trent have leaked a track on pirate bay.

Fear is the dealkiller...

I, Credulous — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:48:08 -0800

MSNBC soft pedalled the story while others have offered their regurgitated take on the press release. But I can't find anyone asking the tough questions about the new deal between Microsoft and Vivendi/Universal wherein MS will pay Universal a flat price for every Zune player sold.
With big names like David Geffen saying, "Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music." are we really getting to the point where everything we think we know about property and theft is going to be re-defined in terms of someone's perceived loss?

New kids on the block

pfafflin — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:08:35 -0800

Amie Street: "[A] recently launched music Web site that carries independent -- and mostly little-known -- artists, is trying an unusual model for selling music. Instead of selling songs at one fixed price, the site determines prices for songs based on how frequently they're downloaded." [WSJ link].

Beatpick: not evil at all at all?

nthdegx — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:29:27 -0800

We know Magnatune aren't evil, but as web record labels go, are Beatpick less evil still? In his response to a post at the Creative Commons blog, Beatpick's David D'Atri sets out their philosophy, and highlights some differences.

Labels seek end to 99c music per song download

diVersify — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:04:07 -0800

Labels seek end to 99c music per song download
"...the major five labels think that 99 cents per song is too cheap, and are discussing a price hike that would increase the tariff to $1.25 up to $2.99 per song." How about free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid.? Will the RIAA ever see the light?

Rebis — Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:00:11 -0800

Microsoft to cripple MP3 capabilities I don't think anyone has posted this yet; Microsoft's new Windows XP operating system is set up so as to cripple MP3 copying, in order to nudge users into using Windows Media Player format for all their music files. Of course, the latter is a proprietary format with copy protection built in. Not only does the built-in software not copy MP3 files at a higher sampling rate than 56kps, but third-party MP3 software apparently does not work properly. --As usual, this will not stop knowledgeable users from finding workarounds, but the goal is to make unprotected copying too difficult for the average Joe.