In an e-mail this summer, Yahoo! informed customers that its online music store would be shutting down, as well as its DRM key servers. For those who purchased music from the store, this meant they would no longer be able to authorize their legally-downloaded MP3's on other machines. To compensate, Yahoo! advised customers to work around the DRM by burning their songs to CDs, then ripping them onto the computer. This did nothing to satisfy critics who say this method is too costly, forcing consumers to lose blank CDs, sound quality, and metadata in order to listen to music they have already purchased.
Customers of the MSN Music store were faced with a similar situation earlier this year, when the store and its DRM servers were set to close. They were told by Microsoft to commit to which computers and devices they wanted to play their music. Microsoft later decided to maintain the servers through 2011. Yahoo! has also since relented to the complaints of former customers, agreeing to provide those affected with coupons that would allow them to purchase songs again on Rhapsody, Yahoo!’s new partner. Refunds will be offered to customers who “have serious problems with this arrangement.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation has praised Yahoo!’s decision and criticized that of Microsoft.
Yahoo's decision sets a good precedent for when this problem inevitably arises again. Vendors that sold DRM-crippled music must either continue supporting tech that no one likes — as MSN Music chose to do — or take Yahoo's path and fairly compensate consumers with refunds. It's the right thing to do.
Nate Anderson of Ars Technica points out that buyers of music with DRM are being faced with hassles that those who download songs illegally or buy them on CD are not. DRM is implemented to prevent consumers from acquiring music in such ways, but it is, in a sense, encouraging it. Anderson argues that the entire principle of DRM is based on faulty logic and schemes to nickel-and-dime consumers. He challenges the rationale that DRM helps to combat piracy, saying that DRM is largely broken, evident in Yahoo!’s own recommendation to strip tracks of DRM. Another aim of DRM, Anderson says, is to force consumers to accept a “pay-for -use” system in which the transfer of music becomes a “privilege,” and an opportunity for profit.
The demise of online music stores like MSN Music and Yahoo! Music is shedding light on some of the many downfalls of DRM. It’s becoming apparent that “Digital Rights Management” does little to protect the rights of authors, and has the opposite effect on consumers. When we steal music from its owners, it’s considered a crime – a violation of their rights. What about when distributors take away our music? Is it then simply an inconvenience? Such double standards can be likened to those arising from the read-only versus read-write culture debate. Both situations have created an imbalance of power that leaves consumers holding the short straw. To take away rights to music we have legally purchased is a violation of our rights, and should be discouraged in the same way piracy is.
Thankfully, the music industry is beginning to take notice and all of the major labels have started to sell DRM-free music online. While there may be no end in sight for those affected by the flawed DRM technology of the past, in the future we may be able to avoid catastrophes like those presented by the failures of the Yahoo! and MSN music stores. As this counterproductive practice is phased out, the music business can thrive and consumers can enjoy their favorite music free of the hassles of digital restrictions.
Source: DRM still sucks: Yahoo Music going dark, taking keys with it
No comments:
Post a Comment