Yahoo! Music Store taking DRM servers offline, freezing out customers
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted July 25th 2008 10:04AM
posted July 25th 2008 10:04AM
In a move which at best could be described as unsurprising, Yahoo! has announced that it's taking its Music Store DRM license key servers offline come September 30th... and freezing customers from ever registering their music with another computer. Ever. Like a twin-sister rehash of Microsoft's PlaysForSure / MSN Music DRM debacle, this moves ensures that the only way you can take your tracks with you will be the (suggested!) technique of burning the songs to CD then ripping them back to your PC -- thus ensuring the absolute worst possible quality. Normally, we'd expect to see a massive backlash over a move like this, but given the near-insignificant nature of the Yahoo! Music Store, it may not be the firestorm Microsoft got itself into. Regardless of the outcry, this is a terrific reminder of the failure of DRM in general, and a slap in the face to the people who actually went to the trouble of buying their music in the first place.[Via Techdirt]
I pay $15 a month for Yahoo Music Unlimited. And I like it. However, I think I will soon be paying for $15 for the equivalent Rhapsody service. Hopefully, I'll like it.
You should try the ZunePass. It is actually pretty good.
I smell a class action lawsuit coming... Not that it will help anybody but the attorneys, but...
Thank God some anti-DRM news is out. I was afraid people were putting away their tin-foil hats.
I know when I ripped my 1,200+ CD collection, the biggest issue I had with DRM was that....oh yeah, I don't have DRM. Nevermind.
The Yahoo store was bigger than the MSN store FYI.
But Yahoo already shuttered it's store and migrated everyone over to Rhapsody (or tried to), so I'm not sure why they can't just point the DRM servers for downloaded tracks over to Rhapsody's servers.
I tried posting a comment here but didn't receive an E-mail confirmation because it was sent to my Junk box. Anyway...
I knew Yahoo Music was crappy from day one when I subcribed to it in 2005. After realizing that a few songs that I bought couldn't be played on any other CD player when I burn them to a CD...not even my CD player in my car, I cancelled my service immediately! Then came Urge.
I was using Urge which was great while it lasted! Unfortunately it migrated to Rhapsody's crappy service and crappy GUI and I was left to decide between iTunes or Zune.
In November of 2007, I bought a Zune 80. I have been very happy with Zune's service as I can also stream music using Xbox 360 (as I did before with Urge). At $15.00 per month with unlimited downloads through Zune, you can't go wrong! I have also been able to sync my Zune downloads with my smartphone as well. If there is any particular CD I like, I buy it used from Amazon.com, there, I can simply rip that sucker and I know it's all mine -- legally!
Zune's 192 /k bit rate is very decent, but I would like to see a "premium" service by Zune where you pay, say, $30.00 per month for higher bit rate of at least 320 /k or more and with meta data album cover of higher shaper images close to HD. I hope this suggestion can be passed along to Microsoft.
In regards to Yahoo Music, this is an example of how the public always get the short end of the stick when we play by the rules.
You lost me when you suggest "$30 a month." You're kidding right? No one is going to pay that much a month for downloading music. It's not happening.
@ Rob
I would, but again, it's a suggestion.
I think MS should work on a way of combining the services they offer now into one subscription option...
Something like $40/momth for ZunePass+Netflix+Live Gold.
And make the Xbox 360 capable of interacting directly with the Zune store and adding music to the Zune without a PC.
And make any TV shows you purchase from Live also work on the Zune and on the PC.
I'm a subscriber to Yahoo's subscription service and have to say that it will be sad to see it go. Fortunately, I never purchased anything from them, just paid for my monthly subscription for unlimited downloads and streaming. Since there was never any promise that I owned the content, I knew exactly what I was getting. I paid for the convenience, not ownership rights.
So, I'm getting moved over to Rhapsody - no harm, no foul. From my perspective, this is no different from Comcast closing up shop and letting me move my account over to another cable provider.
I think people get confused by failing to differentiate between subscription music (whether it's "to go" or not), and tracks actually purchased. Like many others, I think any purchased music should be DRM free. Obviously, rightfully, legally. Too bad the dinosaurs don't get it. That's why pirating will continue to flourish. Of course people are going to go for music without restrictions that's offered at a higher quality. They'd be stupid not to.
I think MS should work on a way of combining the services they offer now into one subscription option...
Something like $40/momth for ZunePass+Netflix+Live Gold.
And make the Xbox 360 capable of interacting directly with the Zune store and adding music to the Zune without a PC.
And make any TV shows you purchase from Live also work on the Zune and on the PC.
Ordeith,
I agree with your suggestions.
One more reason I stay as far away as possible from Yahoo! and wait for Google to make the same thing just ten times better! ^_^
And thank God for torrents and Frostwire! :-D
Because Google Video was such an amazing success.
that's why i use nuTsie.com for FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I guess people don't bother actually learning about something rather than go off on a rant.
I use Rhapsody (previously Yahoo Music) as a jukebox. I feel like listening to some Heavy Metal, I can. I feel like listening to Jazz.. I can. I play a monthly subscription to have access to all these movies.
Funny, people don't complain about Netflix! You don't pay your monthly fees, get the DVD's and keep them, and get more DVDs and keep them (keeping the subject of ripping them out of the discussion of course).
I think of subscription services as soemthing like Netflix. I can listen to stuff I probably wouldn't bother buying, but may want to listen to from time to time. If I like something, I usually buy it on CD, or better yet, if its available on Amazon's Non-DRM'd music store.
So, people who downloaded music from the subscription service aren't getting ripped off. Not anymore than people who subscribed to Netflix would be screwed if they ever shut down...
"Illegally downloading music? We're the RIAA and we'll bend your over and give it to you. Legally purchase your music online? Hmm... we'll use lube."
whats a music store?
"thus ensuring the absolute worst possible quality." Oh my God you are such a liar. Most people will not even notice the quality. Also, buy a clue. You should be mad at Yahoo. Its Yahoo who failed, not DRM.
Apple has given up DRM and making more of its music DRM free in the Plus format for the same price and higher quality. They do this as the market leader and therefore potentially allowing any AAC-capable player use the ITMS and still people moan. Anyone who dissents the ITMS for reasons other than having burnt fingers are just ignorant to its role in changing the music world and the way people access it. For me, it's been a revelation turning my occasional music purchase into a regular occurrence.
Your right! They really have given up DRM! Thats why 80% music still is 128 DRM'ed shit.
And ACC is a bullshit format.
AmazonMP3 FTW
I just wish Yahoo would have kept their hands off of MusicMatch. That was a pretty good program (I didn't care a whole lot about their DRM'd music, but occasionally bought it).
Just like MM slid their users into Yahoo, Yahoo is sliding their users into Rapshody (sic). Who will they slide customers into?
"burning the songs to CD then ripping them back to your PC -- thus ensuring the absolute worst possible quality"????
Are you drunk? As other people said, burning to CD is a lossless process; and redbook CD itself is able to hold more quality than MP3; ripping back to the computer won't necessarily ensure the absolute worst possible quality - if you choose a lossless encoding, you'll end up with the same quality as the original MP3, and if you choose a lossy compression format but keep the same bitrate as the original MP3 (or choose a higher bitrate, but not a lower bitrate), you'll still end up with the same quality as the bitrate hasn't changed.
Apple should offer these users a bail out by allowing them to download the same tracks off of iTunes (DRM free if possible of course).
Why would apple want to lose that money?
I won't ever deal with any DRM bs again. I used to download from iTunes like 3 years ago and I tried sharing music with my friends. And then...ya it didnt work (duh?)...now i just use iTunes for finding new music, once I found something i like, i fire up limewire, 1 minute and BAM a high quality DRM free track that i can share with anyone. Limewire sends my song to the iTunes library, i plug in my ipod and its on my ipod in 10 seconds....thats the beauty of piracy....
my sides are ripping in half from laughing that anyone is still paying for music. unless you actually want to support the artist and go buy their CD. That's okay. But downloading from a online music store? LULZ
DRM forced me to join up with pirates. I got tired of buying a disc and not being able to play it with my upconversion dvd player because of the 'non hdcp compliant' error.
I refuse to ever buy a DVD again.