Yahoo! Sells, Advocates DRM-Free Music

prostoalex writes "Jessica Simpson's 'A Public Affair' will be sold on Yahoo! Music in MP3 format with no DRM attached. According to Yahoo! Music blog, this is a big deal for the major online music store: 'As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: DRM doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling DRM-free music every day -- the Compact Disc), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that DRM has a cost. It's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the DRM back off, anyway!'"

Wah!?

[MagikSlinger]

I was taken aback by this. Something tells me they won't be allowed to succede, but it reminds of when WB tried selling a DVD without copy protection and discovered a) it was cheaper for them, and b) made no difference to their sales.

But when I clicked on the link, it took me to a Jessica Simpson page. MINE EYES!!! *clutches eyes and runs away*

Re:Wah!?

[AuMatar]

Funny- normally my eyes are ok looking at her, its my ears I want to shut off.

Re:Wah!? OH NOES MINE EYES TOO!!!!

[cloricus]

I was about to say non DRM is awesome but seriously...Jessica Simpson?

Who's going to buy her music let a lone pirate it!

No DRM not worth the cost of downloading that song

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the original article read:

"According to Yahoo! Music blog, this is a big deal for the major online music store: 'As you know, we've been publicly trying to convince record labels that they should be selling MP3s for a while now. Our position is simple: Jessica Simpson doesn't add any value for the artist, label (who are selling Jessica Simpson-free music every day), or consumer, the only people it adds value to are the technology companies who are interested in locking consumers to a particular technology platform. We've also been saying that Jessica Simpson has a cost. She's very expensive for companies like Yahoo! to implement. We'd much rather have our engineers building better personalization, recommendations, playlisting applications, community apps, etc, instead of complex provisioning systems which at the end of the day allow you to burn a CD and take the Jessica Simpson back off, anyway!'"

Ah great!

[The Munger]

Ah great! Now I have to balance buying a non-DRM'd product to show the people in charge that it can actually work against owning a Jessica Simpson song. The agony of these modern times.

I guess DRM has some uses

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope they keep Ashley Simpson's msuic DRMed.

Re:please explain

[hackstraw]

Re:please explain

I second the motion.

WTF? Being a good slashdotter, I did not read the article before checking out the posts, and then I read the parent post and had to check this out for myself.

So, for $2 I can have my name embedded somehow in a music file of Jessica Simpson? Maybe having her titties embedded in my face, I might throw down $2, but after reading the two links, I still don't see what the extra $1 gives me over a standard $1 track.

I'm all for the token statement against DRM. Its dead on. Yes, DRM free stuff is sold every day. Yes, its still practically illegal or at least easier and better to get MP3s the old fashioned way that are free of DRM. But I have no clue what the point of this Yahoo! thing is besides a slashvertisement astroturfing or whatever you call marketing today.

In a related development...

[Anonymous Coward]

...nobody steals my dog's crap out of my front yard! It's just sitting there. No lock on it! Plain sight. Anyone could take it.

Re:PSSSSSTTTTT!!!!

[Frogbert]

On'tday alktay aboutway usenetway

Re:Great news!!

[askegg]

I look forward to the "good taste" DRM that refuses to play music of questionable quality - maybe we can call it peril sensitive?

Sounds good, but...

[Jugalator]

1. What's the bitrate? It needs to be at least 192 kbps.

2. Jessica Simpson's "A Public Affair"? Hmm, I was considering downloading just to show I'm supportive of a non-DRM model, even if it would need future tweaks, but just to try get the industry on the right track. BUT... Jessica Simpson? I really don't know if I can do this. :-(

Re:please explain

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

WTF? Being a good slashdotter, I did not read the article before checking out the posts... Maybe having her titties embedded in my face, I might throw down $2, but after reading the two links, I still don't see what the extra $1 gives me over a standard $1 track."

Being a good Slashdotter, I have to ask if maybe the extra $1 will offer any tentacle interaction.

Speaking of Simpsons...

[identity0]

Bart Simpson: "Hello, I'd like to be included in the song please. Last name Diekoff, first name Aikatmai."

Jessica Simpson: "OOOh, baby, I want you so bad, Aikatmai Diekoff! ... Damnit! Listen, you little saw-headed twerp, if I ever catch you, I'm going to shove my Botox needles down your eyeballs and sic my Pomeranian on your ass!"

Re:Translation: Market Speak to Reality

[Fordiman]

"this is a massive audience that Yahoo, Napster, Rhapsody, exc can't touch"

While eMule and BitTorrent touch, caress, stroke and fondle it.

And, if you've downloaded Tenacious D, Double Team it.