Poll of the Day - Would you pay more for DRM-free music?

Poll of the Day - Would you pay more for DRM-free music?

Summary: Would you be willing to pay more for DRM-free music?


Quick poll - If, say, iTunes (just an example) started selling DRM-free music, would you be willing to pay more for it?

[poll id=79]

Topic: Legal

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I just bought a DRM free CD this weekend...

    I would say 80% of the songs I like... It had 19 songs on the album.. I got it for 10 bucks. Do the math.. I got them cheaper than 99 cents a song.
  • I would consider

    I would consider BUYING DRM-Free music. I would not buy music encumbered with DRM. I don't consider non-DRM music to be a premium, however I do think of DRM-encumbered music as a diminution.

    I prefer to buy songs individually, as the CD's don't seem to contain more than 2-3 songs worth listening to these days.
  • What do you mean by "more"?

    If you mean, would I pay more than current rates (99 cents per song), then the answer is no. That's already a pretty high rate. As an eMusic subscriber, I get non-DRMed songs for less than 25 cents each.

    But I do think it would be reasonable to sell songs at varying prices. Charge less for a crippled version. Charge less for a lower bandwidth version. I think it's fair that if you're offering a lower quality product (either in sound quality or in usefulness), you charge the buyer less for it.
    tic swayback
  • Why pay more?

    Is the song worth more? Just because it doesn't have DRM, why should I be taxed? They are saving money by not having to manage the DRM (or develop it for that matter). Why would I pay more for a usuable product? Oh wait, I guess I just answered that....

    Anyway, why should I be taxed just in case I MIGHT BE a criminal? Why not punish the crooks who are sharing DRM free pirated music online every day? Why tax the good guy? Oh wait, maybe it's becuase they can't catch the bad guys. So I should pay more becuase crooks are sharing songs? How's the logic there? They are getting my money, isn't that good enough? The fact that I am PAYING should be enough for them. Shouldn't that prove my honesty? Oh wait, I guess since I am willing to pay I should be viewed as a crook. Or is that a sucker?
  • Hell No

    I'm not paying for DRM any way you look at it. DRM simply needs to go away.
  • In general, yes

    All other factors being equal, I would be willing to pay more for a recording that's not crippled by DRM than for one that is. Does that mean that I'd pay the going rate for either one? Not necessarily; that depends on how much I'm willing to pay for the recording (I might think both versions are overpriced).
    John L. Ries
    • I'd pay more too

      The reason being simply that my buying a DRM-less version of said content would tell the media industries this message: [b]I value flexibility with the content I buy over price and restrictiveness[/b]. That's why I buy CDs when I want content from "the big boys" and go to E-Music and Magnatune for everything else.
      Tony Agudo
      • Every purchase is a vote

        Every time you buy something, you're telling the vendor that you prefer his offering to all other alternatives as of right now. That in and of itself ought to be incentive to go out of one's way to buy what one wants, instead of settling for an inferior good for the sake of convenience.

        Vendor-serving gimmicks like DRM will only work if customers accept the restrictions.
        John L. Ries
  • Less than what?

    Are you asking if there is a choice between a $0.99 DRM infected song or a $1.99 non DRM infected version of the song at the same time, I'll just refuse to purchase either, price gouging for the sake of gouging. I could purchase the DRM infected version, strip it and have it DRM free, but that is supporting the DRM sales model. Purchasing the non DRMed version also provides and incentive to keep DRM alive.

    Now, if you are asking if I would pay $1.29 for a DRM free song if a Music company stated that they would discontinue DRM with a current price of $0.99 and REPLACE it with a $1.29 version, that I would probably consider.

    What I would pay more for is higher quality. $0.59 for 128kbit MP3, $1.59 for VBR-5 Ogg vorbis.

  • DRM Free music should cost less

    DRM free music does not have...

    the development costs.
    the on going maintenance costs.
    the support costs.
    the staffing costs.
    ect. ect.

    The savings that the music industry will save should be past right on to the consumer.

    Not to mention if they charged say 20-25 cents a song they could save a lot on lawsuits and lawyers that they wouldn't need for suing their customers. The customer would be much more likely to purchase the music instead of sharing it.

    I will still continue boycotting music purchases if they charge more for DRM free music (like I have for the past 6 years).
  • Only if by "more", you mean anything at all.

    I'm willing to pay for DRM-free music. I'm not willing to pay anything at all for music encumbered by any form of DRM.
  • Economics

    What were the economics of driving to a local Music Store and purchasing an LP album?

    You could take home play it as many times as you wanted.

    You could also 'dub' a cassette so that you could listen to in your car and nobody cared--it was an acceptable practice.

    You weren't mass distributing your dubbed cassettes--it was for your personal use.

    I say lose DRM and most will STILL pay the prevailing 'cha ching' to gain access to and download music they want--provided pricing is 'reasonable'.

    Go too far and supply/demand will ALWAYS work its magic.

    Pure Economics.
    D T Schmitz