EMI, Apple To Sell DRM-Free Music for $1.29/song

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Search Engine WEB
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 am

   
   http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

   EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire

   EMI Group CEO Eric Nicoli today hosted a press conference at EMI’s headquarters in London where he announced that EMI Music is launching DRM-free superior quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire and that Apple’s iTunes Store will be the first online music store to sell EMI’s new downloads. Nicoli was joined by Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The event also featured a musical performance by The Good, The Bad & The Queen

2. Robin Wauters
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 am

   Great news!
   Hopefully this will help the process of making DRM redundant.

3. Aurimas
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 am

   Wow. That’s cool news. I think especially for RIAA and Microsoft as well. It seems one more standard has just started to finish its days…

4. Nathan
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:38 am

   Well, I guess it’s a good first step. But since most of what I listen to is at http://emusic.com, I’ll stay with their service since I get completely legit DRM-free high quality audio for something closer to $.30 per song. I just can’t justify spending an extra $1/song to buy the kind of audio I should have been getting all along.

5. Peter Cooper
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 am

   Never thought I’d say this, but.. I think I’ll pay $2 a track for that (the cost here in the UK). It’s worth it to validate the non-DRM model. Perhaps prices will start to drop once it picks up.

6. Allen Stern
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 am

   So… drm-less songs for MORE money? Considering that removing the overhead of DRM (maintenance, upgrades, security, etc.) should reduce the cost, not raise it.

   Similar to ATM machines.

7. Michael Arrington
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 am

   Allen - I’m just glad we’re finally getting rid of DRM. We can work on the pricing next.

8. Yohay
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 am

   Its a first step in totally abolishing DRM.
   Hallelujah!

9. Shannon Clark
   

   April 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 am

   What will be very interesting is if beyond the big labels if Apple and iTunes makes it easy for smaller, independent labels to make their content available via iTunes DRM free as well (and if they also insist on selling at the new, higher per-track prices)

   If so, and customers agree to that new price point, then Apple may have both made a major step forward in getting rid of DRM and in getting an ~30% raise in the per-track price (not clear if it is 30 cents here in US or if it will be more) - depending on how this additional money is split, it may also help many parties with greater revenues from digital distribution.

   As a consumer with many diverse devices (not to mention virtual machines running inside of other systems), I welcome the new capability (potentially at least) to avoid DRM on tracks I chose to buy online.

   I’d say this is one major nail in the coffin for the CD as well - as DRM free digital files (especially higher quality ones) makes me even more comfortable getting music as a download - as I know I can move it to future devices (whereas I have previously often preferred a CD for the futureproofing, as well as the control over the quality when I rip it).

   Shannon

10. OhCash
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 5:53 am

    Obviously this wont make everyone happy. But all in all, I think this is good and encouraging news. Getting rid of DRM, it’s on the right track. Wondering whats next… The music industry really needs some reorganization.
    Business and Investment

11. Colin Dowling
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 am

    Good news. They/we have to start somewhere, and simply getting DRM free music on the map in a wide scale is good news. Like Mike said, the pricing/value can be tweaked going forward.

    I’m just glad their finally appears to be a crack in the dam.

12. Matt
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:00 am

    April 2nd 2007 the day DRM died

    Ive been hearing from a few content distributio executives I know that this day was coming I just didnt know it would be announced this soon .

    I predicted August 2007 and I suppose that will be the case wien all the other content services set up thier own DRM free deals .

13. Michael Arrington
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 am

    People will no longer have any real argument to using bittorent or allofmp3 based on DRM alone. I expect this to have a significant upwards impact on sales.

14. Bob Caswell
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 am

    I know I will be purchasing more… now that I get the value I expect.

15. Jason L. Baptiste
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 am

    Today is a beautiful day. 50% of all music on the itunes store will be DRM free by the end of 2007? You know S. Jobs has this statistic almost guaranteed in order for him to announce it. I agree Mike, we’ll get the pricing perfect later.

    -JLB

16. Michael
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:15 am

    Is anyone else annoyed that this has be announced as some partnerhip with iTunes?

    EMI could have done this without Apple’s support.

17. Stan Schroeder
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 am

    EMI decided to go in slowly rather than throw away DRM completely. I like the fact that they’re trying to add value with higher sound quality. Let’s just hope that the higher price won’t hurt the sales of DRM-free content.

18. Michael Arrington
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 am

    Michael - the only thing that annoys me is that I had to get up at 5 am to listen to this webcast.

19. Jason L. Baptiste
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:19 am

    No, I’m not annoyed at all. In order for this to gain traction, it needs to have the strongest partner in the game. Apple is the leader in digital music sales, along with portable MP3 players. Yeah, let’s have EMI do this alone, or better yet, with Napster… which would have made it DOA. Just my two cents.

    -JLB

20. Allen Stern
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:19 am

    Yep Mike #13 - it will - 30 cents more per song.

    Here is me with my accountant hat.

    1. Many people who have ipods have no idea what DRM is. They just want their music - they will believe that the boost in quality is worth 30 cents more.

    2. you can already burn itunes songs to a cd for your car. What is the real purpose for buying this?

    3. who else plays aac format (i actually have no idea)

    4. If I use the atm machine as my example, it was supposed to make things easier and better and there would never be a fee since we were “helping” banks. Yet now, use an atm not your own and pay up to $5 fee.

    I saw your smiley Mike and I hope that the price will come down to 99c, but I doubt it. What would be the benefit?

    Here is my prediction. 1/1/2008 - DRM’ed songs on iTunes are gone and the only option is the $1.29 drm free song.

21. Michael Arrington
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:21 am

    Allen - let me rephrase - no “ethical” argument. In past debates about AllOfMP3 here, a lot of people have defended it because it was DRM free, saying it wasn’t about the price of music, just the DRM.

22. Shannon Clark
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:21 am

    Allen - I actually think that a subtle but also important element here is that there is now a much clearer advantage to buying an album digitally, whereas previously it was only for the occasional “long” track that iTunes for some reason refused to sell individually (and to a lesser degree for other “bonuses” etc).

    Now there is a price and quality incentive directly as well.

    (and remember that just days ago Apple also announced that if you have bought individual tracks, you can buy the whole album at a discount)

    Both seem very reasonable (and non-restrictive) moves on the part of the industry to try to woo buyers back to buying whole albums. (of course whether artists/bands will make albums worth buying is another matter).

    I don’t currently buy a lot of music (never have - either in CD’s or digitally), still have lots still unlistened to from cd’s, but I do think as a business that the race towards negligible prices per track was not good - even from a fan’s perspective. For one, it means that as a fan just buying the song (or the whole album even) mostly only supports credit card companies and other service providers with next to nothing going to the band. However at a price of $1.30 though still not all that much, there starts to be more money split all around, and perhaps a stronger signal to the bands (and their business partners such as labels) from the actions of individual fans.

    Shannon

23. Rick
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 am

    A lot depends on how Apple is going to build this into the interface of the iTunes store. I stopped buying CDs because I didn’t want to have to check the back of every case to see if it was copyprotection mutilated. I’m not gonna do the same in iTunes. Having to pay a few cents more (for a while) is the only hoop I’m prepared to jump through.

24. Allen Stern
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 am

    good point #22 shannon

    here is another thing to think about….
    Buying a cd, I can purchase anywhere I want. These “legal” drm free songs are only offered from iTunes forcing me to purchase from Apple?

    Put these drm free songs on multiple networks and maybe we will see a price drop. Otherwise if apple is the only provider, my statement still stands.

25. Soroush
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 am

    It’s good to hear that DRM is dead at last.

    I’m just wondering if this would be a bad thing for Apple, since you can now put these songs on any mp3 player, and not just the iPod. Any ideas?

26. Allen Stern
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 am

    Mike - you can go back to bed - I will wake you when Google buys DoubleClick.

27. Michael Arrington
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 am

    thanks Allen. night.

28. Stephen Sclafani
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 am

    Allen,

    This isn’t an Apple exclusive. The press release states that they hope to do similar deals with the other services in the coming weeks.

29. Allen Stern
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 am

    Thanks Stephen!

30. StartupMeme
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 am

    So the King has finally done it, congrats to everyone

31. rack pallet
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 am

    This is great! ;

    - I suspect them to be moving to .99 cents soon!

    -Rbowles

32. Bilal Hameed
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 am

    The DRM is dropped so songs downloaded from iTunes can now be played on any player, does this means iPod will lose a competitive edge ?

    Whats your take Allen

33. swissfondue
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 am

    Please note that the price is still the SAME for albums, but you will get drm-free 256 bit encoded AAC tracks as of May.

    This is also a push to help sell albums (which become even cheaper in comparison to individual drm-free tracks).

    USD 1.29 x 12 songs = USD 15.46 as compared to an album price of USD 9.99.

34. Rex Dixon
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 am

    GREAT NEWS. I’m glad it actually went down as we had suspected from the early news.

    Rex

35. Andrew
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 am

    Bilal, I don’t think it’s any player. It’s “any device that plays AAC format.”

36. Rian
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:50 am

    The higher price could also be because they want to make up for the losses from people who start sharing these new, cool, drm-free, tracks on the populair p2p’s..

    However, even though I can legally download anything I want legally from anywhere (dutch laws) I’ll be installing some type of converter software that does AAC to MP3 or OGG and download my DRM-FREE songs from the iTunes store from here-on. This is a great great move forward in a world without DRM of any kind and everyone should embrace it.. it’s only the beginning, if we show that this does increase the track sales the other 3 are bound to come across as well.

37. Michael Markman
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 am

    @24 Done.
    from the press release: “EMI is introducing a new wholesale price for premium single track downloads, while maintaining the existing wholesale price for complete albums. EMI expects that consumers will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free downloads from a variety of digital music stores within the coming weeks, with each retailer choosing whether to sell downloads in AAC, WMA, MP3 or other unprotected formats of their choice.”

38. Ijonas Kisselbach
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:12 am

    Great news today!

    1.) This blows a huge hole in Norway’s ‘consumer protection’ case. I imagine they would now find it difficult to argue that Apple is responsible for the DRM-lock-in imposed on iPod users via the iTunes Store. It can now be argued that the remaining record companies Sony, BMG, etc. are imposing the lock-in on the consumer.

    2.) What’s today’s announcement going to do pricing of tunes ? Current DRM-protected tunes from ITMS cost US$1.55. In the US, that same file costsUS$ 0.99. Without the geographic-protection provided by DRM, will we see a levelling of prices across geographic areas ?

39. Marinus
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 am

    I’m in the Music distribution, and by default than in the DRM, business and I hope we can start seeing innovative concepts based on major label content soon ….

    cheers,

40. TallFreak
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 am

    If this is the case, they will have to make Nano’s that hold more than just 4GB.

41. Ijonas Kisselbach
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:14 am

    The price I mentioned in my previous comment was the price that British customer pay at the ITMS, i.e. £0.99 == US$1.55 / track.

42. Simon Gooch
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 am

    The geographic-protection isn’t provided by DRM. This is simply specified in the meta data that the label provides sites like the one I work for. Apple, for example, blocks purchase on a credit card level as far as I am aware (eg. with a US credit card you can only buy from the US iTunes store).

    I think Michael is spot on when he writes: “I’m just glad we’re finally getting rid of DRM. We can work on the pricing next”. One battle at a time.

43. Gerd Leonhard
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 am

    Way to go, EMI, smart move, Steve (as usual). Now we can bundle and package music with convergent media. Now it will play for sure sure sure. People will abandon the ’secure’ format quicker than you can track it. Everybody will have to follow suit. UMG will be next. soon, is my hunch. And the prices for the consumers will drop drop drop - since they will be cross-promoted with ads and sponsorships. Finally, the dam has opened for sure. Read more at more blog above or at http://www.musiclikewater.net

44. Merankorii
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:23 am

    This is BAD NEWS for those here fighting against DRM. I wrote here why, but it’s basicly because they’re turning user RIGHTS into EXTRAS, something you pay more to have. Well, to EMI and Apple I keep giving the finger.

45. William Ryall
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:28 am

    They should have made it 30 cents cheaper to give a big “wake the f*** up” to the rest of the music industry.

    Still, well done.

46. Jeff
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 am

    BOOOOOOOOOO.

    LAME.

    So now a CD’s worth of digital tracks, without the cost of the case, CD, paper insert, and land-based distribution network… is $19.50.

    F THAT.

47. Gerd Leonhard
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Merankoorii you have a point there but it is only step 1 — and the only one they can take now. Price is next - and plenty consumer brands will be willing to subsidize music; meaning the labels and artists will get paid regardless of end-user prices for ‘the people formerly know as consumers’

48. La Guardia
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 am

    It’s a bold move and I believe the pricing is pretty reasonable and justified.

    First of all the quality of the downloaded music will be much higher. Traditionally prices have always risen when there’s a move to a new format with better sound quality… which this new offering will provide. Also the costs of storage and bandwidth increase providing 256k music files.

    They didn’t make the argument in the conference call, however, they are obviously assuming far greater risks by putting their entire catalog of music out there in a high quality DRM-free format. But it appears EMI have finally understood to win customers back they need a great product, ease-of-use, and stop treating all their consumers like thieves. (something Eric alluded to in the conference call)

    This is a giant leap in the right direction for music lovers.

49. Jamie
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 am

    Jeff number 46

    DRM free albums will cost the same $9.99, not 19.50, as an incentive for people to buy digital albums to offset the falling physical numbers.

    Im quite frankly amazed that people are picking this thing apart. Its not perfect, but a big step forward for the industry.

50. Mind Booster Noori
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 am

    I’m sorry Gerd and Jamie, but I can’t agree with you. See, as has been reported several times, CD’s are selling less, digital music is selling more. A report (I don’t know which one now, if you want ask me and I’ll look out for the link) says that in ten years or so you’re going to have digital music as the “standard” way of people purchasing music (more than 50%). Now, what moves like this are making is turning the “usual digital music buy” to be a DRMd file, and to have the “all the rights you really have on music” files (non-DRM ones) as (using EMI’s words) “premium content”. This act tries to (1) make DRM and non-DRM files cohexist (legitimizing DRM) and (2) turns your rights into “extras” that you have to ponder if you really want to pay more for, in each buy you do. At the end, you’ll have “DRM as default” in all the music industry, which is what we are fighting against, from the start.

    As for me, I’ll keep boycotting Apple and EMI until they stop f*cking around with their costumers.

51. La Guardia
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 am

    The other great thing EMI/Apple are doing is giving customers the ability to upgrade tracks they have already purchased to the higher quality, drm-free format for the price difference (30 cents) between the two formats. Does anyone know if this means customers will be able to upgrade their existing album purchases to the DRM-free format for free?

52. Mind Booster Noori
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am

    La Guardia: as far as it concerns me, it means that they’re making people happy to buy TWICE the same music.

53. dreadsword
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am

    Wow - I never thought I’d actually see the day. Is it all EMI songs, or just a portion of their catalog?

54. Marc
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:02 am

    no DRM, great, but charging the same for albums? No subscription model, on volume, artists, anything? Still a rip-off.

55. Mind Booster Noori
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 am

    DreadSword: it’s EMI’s entire catalog.

56. La Guardia
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am

    As Jamie said, the price of albums will be the same in both DRM and DRM-free formats. And the price increase is actually the price they have been wanting to charge consumers for a good 12 months for individual single track downloads. Now is the best possible time to sell this as a win to customers who get higher quality music, more freedom, and the number one music format they trust for a little extra. I have a feeling 99 cent downloads for new singles will eventually disappear with the DRM format itself

    The different tier pricing is nothing new. When the superior CD format came along with better sound quality, tapes and vinyl were priced less. Consumers were willing to pay more for a better sounding product…. and eventually it became the standard format for distributing mass quantities of music.

    The MP3s they are about to start selling will become the premium digital product. They sound miles better, they are more convenient working across virtually all portable devices, oh and they extend the playback time on your mp3 players too. (DRM formats consume significant battery resources)

    Unfortunately for some the industry will never be able to go far enough. It’s impossible competing against ‘free’ for some, and the industry will just have to continue educating these folk the hard way. (through the legal system)

57. Harry L
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 am

    I applaud the move in general, but it’s misleading to say that this is offering high quality audio. It is still a lossy medium. What they are really doing is charging a higher price for DRM free music, and they will see if the public buys it.

    Since the sound quality is still inferior to cd’s I don’t think this will spell the end of cd’s just yet. There are still a few people out there that listen to music on decent stereo systems, not just portable players.

58. dreadsword
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 am

    I never thought I’d see the day. That being said, EMI/Apple are taking a big risk here - if EMI sales don’t show big gains, the DRM-free concept will be poisoned for the rest of the labels. And confusion and value recognition can sow enough uncertainty among consumers that those big gains may not happen.

    More on this thoughts here:
    http://techfold.com/2007/04/02.....lications/

59. Michael Markman
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 am

    @46 The Album price remains the same. No increase.

60. JW
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 am

    “DRM free albums will cost the same $9.99, not 19.50, as an incentive for people to buy digital albums to offset the falling physical numbers.”

    So? I thought the whole point of digital music was choice. The album format has the serious disadvantage of forcing a lot of junk on us.

    At $1.29 per song, the markup is not just $0.30 over DRM. It’s $0.40. Wal-Mart Music has sold DRMed music at $0.88 for some time now. Now, per track, we pay $0.10 for the “Apple is Cool” markup and then an additional $0.30 for the “cool News Blurb of the day” markup.

    And the other record labels — they are going to have a cow over this one. So EMI songs are “high quality” — that makes theirs what, low quality? This is the message they want to send consumers; they’re the “low quality, processed cheese” alternative? I bet Sony BMG can’t wait to hear that Britney is low-quality!

    To me this marketing is about the most absurd ever. How is Apple going to explain to consumers why one song costs $0.99 and the other costs $1.29? Even if they keep the other labels at bay, this is a very, very, very confusing message for consumers — non-technical ones, especially. A pop music track is a McDonald’s hamburger, guys.

    Hey, maybe the price issue WILL work itself out. The other labels will find a way to negotiate a price increase for themselves! Then we’ll be glad we embraced this brave, new world!

61. TH
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am

    Michael (your comment #18), you had to get up at 5 for the announcement, but to balance things a bit you get the tunes for $1.29, whereas the UK consumers will pay £0.99. With the current exchange rate, this is close to 2 bucks. Now that’s unfair…

    But I agree, getting rid of DRM was a big victory, and pricing will be the next issue. iTunes isn’t the cheapest option to buy digital music online anyway, and to be fair it doesn’t claim or try to be.

62. Abhay Kumar
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am

    I love how the survey they cited was back in May 2005. It took almost two years to turn around the change.

63. Drama 2.0
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 am

    I thought old media didn’t get it? What happened?

64. Nathan Schmidt
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 am

    ‘Bout time they did this. I’ve purchased more computers than songs from Apple in the last four years - this is the change that will get me back in the infinite loop. Now if [any publisher] would just sign some listenable acts…

65. Alaska Miller
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 am

    iTunes songs was always artificially held low. Now we get un-DRMed pricing for singles and still a 9.99 cost for an album and people still bitch.

    Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.

    1. How has music DRM intentionally screwed you or your family?

    2. How has your daily life been affected by music DRM?

    Jesus Christ. Get a perspective on this whole thing: WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DIGITAL MUSIC, AN IDOL LUXURY THAT FEW ON THIS WORLD CAN ENJOY.

66. Alaska Miller
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 am

    I used idol instead of idle. I’m not too good at this blogging thing.

67. Ninja47
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am

    I guess stuff like this becomes much more important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EMYDg5IH_Q

68. Veyes
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am

    I dont see the point in paying a plus per song for DRM-free music which I believe is my right.

69. The Pageman
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 am

    the DRM Emancipation Declaration! EMI -> EMI’s Music Independence

70. Hashim
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 am

    I hope DRM stays around, along side DRM-less downloads. Why? DRM is the only way content owners will allow digital renting of tracks.

    I rent from Yahoo Music, and I enjoy the service. I’ve downloaded about 7,000 tracks in 18 months, most of it music I would not want to pay even 50 cents for.

71. Mind Booster Noori
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Hashim, if you want music that is cheaper than $99 cents that’s just fine. You should avoid iTMS and simillar fixed-price stores then, and take a look on stores like Amie St.. You don’t have to _rent_ music, there’s plenty of music way cheaper than 50 cents, even free.

72. Shuki Haiminis
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 am

    I think what Hashim is saying is that he is able to “rent” tracks of artists that are on major labels because of DRM. While Aimest has affordable music that is DRM free it may not have tracks that Hashim is interested in at the moment.

73. Austin Storm
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am

    Woo boy! Eat this, Macromedia.

74. saintchuck
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    Now I can justify buying an iPod and using a iTMS. Although the DRM-free is a great thing, I always stayed away from iTMS due to the encoding rate. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will lessen the use of file-sharing at all. Hopefully the increased profits will be enough for EMI to keep this up.

    I suspect it won’t take more than a couple of months for Steve to have enough ammo to take to the other labels and convince them.

75. pffft
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    #6 allen - think of the DRM’d version of the song as “crippled”. the non-DRM is the “full-featured” version. from that perspective, the higher price makes sense.

    also, if it’s true that the price of a full album is in line with the price of a CD, then this pricing model actually makes sense.

    think of the album as a “bulk discount”. so, the highest price point is the most flexible product. you get the exact song you want with the flexibility you want.

    i think the higher price for non-DRM makes sense in their pricing structure. i’m not saying that the absolute price point makes sense. just that the relative pricing of drm, non-drm, on-album, etc. make sense.

    pricing often has nothing to do with cost.

76. saintjohn
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    >>EMI will offer all songs from its digital catalog without DRM

    That makes no sense. Why would they drop DRM protection from songs only and not from all their tracks???. Or did you mean tracks? FYI, songs are not the same as tracks. Unless you stand up and applaud after every moment during a Concerto or Opera … :\

77. Graham
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    I apologize for my lack of knowledge here, but is there a difference between AAC and AAC with DRM? I guess I have not bought (or tried to share) enough iTunes tracks to fully understand the difference.

    Can someone also please explain why they are not providing the music in the universal mp3 format which every music player on the market supports, rather than just AAC? What other players support AAC? This now requires us all to download an AAC to mp3 converter in order to have a music collection that is fully transferable between players. This is still an annoying and time-consuming process.

78. helio
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    >What other players support AAC?

    Very few. Some sony’s and oddly, the Zune. That’s one reason why it was an easy decision for Jobs to make. Although this is great, the real move is DRM free MP3. Luckily, EMI is the one really driving this and so we will see that elsewhere.

    I’m curious about the backend deal. Other labels (indies) have approached iTunes to sell DRM free and they were rebuffed. I wonder why? Was Jobs not prepared to go off the 99 cents yet?

79. saintchuck
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    @ Graham (#77)

    MP3 is not the universal audio format. It requires licenses at every level.

    AAC is not Apples format. It is the format that Apple chose to use. It requires no licenses at any level.

    For more reading and a list (not very complete) of players:
    Wikipedia AAC

80. david8
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    I’m with Nathan (#4). I’ll only buy from places like audio lunchbox at 192 kbps (or better) or I buy the physical CD (only if DRMless) and rip it myself. Otherwise, they can keep their music.

    Considering many popular CD’s even turn up at the used CD store fairly quickly for about 8 bucks, I’m getting a good deal and I get my music just how I like it. So why should I get real excited over paying EMI $1.29 per track for DRMless music. Woo ding. Most of the new stuff is crap anyway. I don’t need a Justin Timberlake CD. Thanks but no thanks.

    Knowledge is power. Learn how things work. It’s not that hard. Rip your own tracks using winamp or EAC etc. and then import them into your ipod or whatever. The record companies keep screwing folks because we let them get away with it. Stop doing it.

81. david8
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    By the way, that higher encoding will take up more room on your ipod. So incidentally I guess you’ll want a newer fancier ipod with a bigger hard drive — that Apple will be happy to sell you. Well, I’ll be darned!

82. david8
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Also, you can always convert DRMless music between formats. So don’t get so hung up on aac versus mp3 versus whatever.

83. Bob
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like everyone is overly excited about paying a 30% premium for nothing. This might be the greatest Jedi mind trick of all time. DMR free doesn’t mean you can do what you want, copyright and DMCA still apply.

    Please, give them 30 cents more for something that most of you will never use.

84. Danny
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    @ saintchuck 73 - Good link but:

    “However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs.”

    >Also, you can always convert DRMless music between formats.

    Yeah but converting between lossy formats sucks!

85. Neil J. Squillante
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Graham, iTunes converts AAC to MP3 so there’s no need for a conversion utility.

86. longdns
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    我是来自中国的，感觉这个网站很不错。顶一下。

87. Shakir Razak
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    What value do YOU give music?

    A cynical Genius with a red-herring, and an incompetent Chief Executive!

    What is to stop anyone from posting their once-bought track, and making it available to everyone?

    There seem to people here who seem to think that they have a right to [created/owned by others] music and would prefer it for free.

    History shows that where consumers see value(/quality), and a bargain (free/pirate), especially in entertainment (e.g. pay-tv) people will make the effort (initial layout) to get it.

    The same history also shows where that happens beyond a certain tipping-point, those businesses/industries also collapse.

    There’s a reason why every shop in the world doesn’t simply have a trust box, but cash tills.

    The red-herring that Steve Jobs has been good at promelgating is the statistic of the amount of itunes-bought music on iPods.
    Well, DUH! any fool would recognise that we are in a transition phase, where those who have, even now, bought iPods, are the ones who are already into music, with a collection of Legacy CD’s.
    By doing this, EMI is abdoning the future for the sake of the old.
    What happens to the greatly proven and working model of Mobile Phones, which have great multiple technical and UI attributes, where their bought-and-stored content can already be outputted to car-systems and televisions.
    Where that market already exists, serving people who haven’t bought music-playing hardware for decades or are too young to ever have, but will receive it courtesy of the mobile-phone company with an understanding of the value-chain and impulse-purchasing.
    -In the UK, at least one UK carrier, allows you to buy tracks on your mobile, and have them delevered/available from your PC in a single purchase.

    The genius of Steve Jobs, of course, is that having built up this massive market-share for iTunes and iPods, this massive anchor, using non-sensical statistics, he can now sell to everyone and anyone after having built such a lead, that with all things being equal, how could anyone else compete (if the other companies sign up).

    This will make no difference to the torrents, but will make what was a tech/nerd-literate thing, permissable to anyone and everyone, with no loss [in quality] and no trace.

    If Eric Nicoli, after about a decade in charge of EMI, wasn’t negotiating from a position of weakness (and tech-ignorance), he wouldn’t have bent so easily to Job’s campaign.

    Yours Kindly,

    Shakir Razak

88. Sotek
    

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    This is certainly a great news for music fans. But there’s still a long way to go in terms of dropping DRM completely…

89. david8
    

    April 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 am

    #84 said: Yeah but converting between lossy formats sucks!

    Danny, I don’t think that folks listening to 128kbps in their ipod notice or care about the difference. Besides, there’s only so much sound quality you’ll ever get out of an ipod.

    So the REAL issue for most folks isn’t 128 vs. 256 vs. 320 kbps, it’s PORTABILITY. They want to be able to buy something and play it in their ipod or iriver or computer at work or whatever without any problems.

90. KE Liew
    

    April 3rd, 2007 at 4:52 am

    Only people like us really care about such things. Average users don’t. It’s us who drives the market to how it is, in some ways.

    That said, I’m glad it’s DRM-free.