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!'"

please explain

[yagu]

Please explain to me what this really is. I visited the page, and what it looks to be is the users' ability to download an unfettered "customized" mp3 from Simpson where (I assume) a laundry list of common names are inserted into the mp3 (dubbed, no doubt)... giving the customer the illusion of some connection with the artist. (So far, it appears a more correct headline would have been "Yahoo advocates DRM-free music, offers one DRM-free song from their catalog!)"

Obscene marketing and subterfuge aside, I find nothing in the general Yahoo Music offerings to suggest the rest of their music is offered unfettered, free of DRM. Indeed, the FAQ includes the following info:

1. Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users. Share function available only for subscribers to access another subscriber's Yahoo! Music Unlimited music files.
2. Using Yahoo! Music Unlimited subscription music with a portable device requires Microsoft Windows XP and is subject to an extra monthly/annual subscription fee and is not included in this free trial offer. See details during registration.
3. Yahoo! Music Unlimited: $59.88 per year, billed annually (that's just $4.99 per month); or $6.99 per month, billed monthly. Yahoo! Music Unlimited is available to U.S.-based subscribers only.

There is also a "requirement for Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher mentioned on the Yahoo Music home page -- sheeeesh!.

Any information/explanation or evidence to the contrary would be greatly appreciated, because, other than the free advertising, I'm not seeing any change in direction from Yahoo on this one.

Re:please explain

[Bryansix]

Yahoo! Music Unlimited is a subscription based service. This is not what the article is refering to. It is refering to the actual selling of music files. With the service you do not own any music but simply pay a fee to be able to access Yahoo!'s collection of music. If you bought the song in question then you would own it outright.

Re:please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is also a "requirement for Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher mentioned on the Yahoo Music home page"

Lots of site "require" WMP software that I do not have and would never run, being on Linux, but that hasn't stopped me yet. I do agree however that the wording most sites use is a bit over the top. They make it sound like Apple has never sold a computer and Linux/BSD are imaginary words.
That being said, http://www.nongnu.org/streamtuner/ [nongnu.org] has provided my music needs for a couple years now, and you can record/burn tracks DRM free, plus they list every genre of music most people would ever want to listen to.

Re:please explain

[cliath]

The big deal is that Yahoo! actually got the record company to allow them to sell DRM free music.

Re:please explain

[Luke Psywalker]

The tracks have unique inaudible soundwave watermarks that can be traced back to the buyer if they are found on P2P networks. This is the only reason the labels are going for it. The tech comes from Fraunhofer [fraunhofer.de]

Re:iTunes take note..

[TomHandy]

I'm confused, I can understand you making the decision to buy CD's from now on - but why did you buy CDs that you had already purchased through iTMS? Wouldn't it have been easier to burn CD's (which iTunes does let you do) of those purchased tracks, and thus had a physical CD that would be like what you bought again?

Re:props to yahoo

[anagama]

Now that's a whole other issue and I agree with you completely. Just because a tool has a potential illegal use is no reason to make the tool illegal. Practically everything in existance can be used illegally, right down to red plastic cups. Even though underage kids can drink beer in them, it isn't a remotely valid reason to make them illegal.

Re:iTunes take note..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even some rabid audiophile, but there is most definitely a noticeable difference between 128k AAC and uncompressed CD audio...which becomes even more important if you're going to be recompressing it. Might seem expensive, but if you can buy the CD's you're wanting to re-rip used, then sell them back, it isn't even all that pricey.

I was curious and bought it... here's my review:

[Chris Huelsbeck]

After some trouble with their website (a big fat banner was blocking access to any name between b and g) I was able to get my "personalized" version of the song. The name gets inserted twice in the middle of the song, but sounds kinda sloppy and she's not singing it, rather a backup singer / overdubbed. The mp3 is in 256kbit, but it's extremely quiet compared to other mp3s. I compared it with the version on iTunes and that one is at least 3-4 times louder. It's almost as if they used a non-mastered version of the song... not good...

btw: the instrumental of the song is so blatantly a ripoff of Madonna's Holiday that I wonder if they will get sued over it... ;)