Slashdot Log In
Steve Jobs Announces (some) DRM-free iTunes
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Apr 02, 2007 08:47 AM
from the about-time dept.
from the about-time dept.
Fjan11 writes "Steve Jobs just announced that starting next month on you can buy higher quality 256Kbps AAC encoded DRM-free versions of iTunes songs for $1.29. Upgrades to songs you've already bought will be available at the $0.30 price difference. Currently EMI is the only publisher participating, accounting for about 20% of the songs available." There's also reports from Reuters and ABC News. The deal excludes the Beatles. You can also read the official press release from Apple if you still think this a late joke; this story confirms earlier speculation.
Related Stories
[+]
IT: EMI May Remove DRM From Parts of Catalog 161 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting that EMI may announce on Monday that it will be freeing much of its catalog from the shackles of DRM. The Wall Street Journal, in a subscription-only portion of its site, is saying that that Apple CEO Steve Jobs will be present at the announcement in London and that the music will be sold through the iTunes Store and possibly other online outlets. In early February rumblings were heard that EMI was thinking about ditching DRM, but EMI was unable to entice the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and others. As it turned out, EMI wanted a considerable advance payment to offset what it perceived as a risk: selling DRM-free music online. EMI's position was simple: if they sell music without DRM, then users will find trading it that much easier." There's also rumours of an Apple/Beatles announcement sometime today, perhaps tied into this drm decision.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Microsoft Set to Unlock EMI Songs, Too 171 comments
linumax writes "Microsoft has stated that it may be close to reaching a deal with EMI to sell songs without anti-piracy protection via the Zune platform. This, from comments made by head of marketing for Zune Jason Reindorp. They come hard on the heels of EMI's announcement that a deal with Apple to sell songs without DRM protection through the iTunes Music Store has been struck. Mr Reindorp said: 'We've been saying for a while that we are aware that consumers want to have unprotected content. This does open things up a little bit. It potentially makes the competition more of a device-to-device or service-to-service basis, and will force the various services to really innovate.'"
[+]
Apple: Jobs Says People Don't Want to 'Rent' Music 203 comments
eldavojohn writes "PhysOrg is running a piece on a recent speech by Apple CEO Steve Jobs about DRM free music. While we know that Jobs is a self proclaimed proponent of DRM free music who's not all talk, he's now said that 'by the end of this year, over half of the songs we offer on iTunes we believe will be in DRM-free versions. I think we're going to achieve that.' Jobs pointed out what's obvious to us, the consumers, but isn't obvious to the music industry — 'People want to own their music.' He also dismissed subscription based music as a failure, and claimed a lot of other music labels are intrigued by the EMI deal."
[+]
Entertainment: Apple To Grant All Labels DRM-Free Distribution 410 comments
SexCaptain writes "MacRumors.com reveals a letter circulated by Apple to all producers of content for the iTunes Store, announcing that from May onward they can sell their music at higher quality and free of DRM. Hopefully this opens the doors for labels like Netwerk. This is a big step in the right direction, although it's unclear exactly what Apple means by 'higher quality,' and there is no mention of price changes. (Apple charges $0.30 more per song for DRM-free content from EMI and encodes it at 256K.) Quoting from the letter: 'Many of you have reached out to iTunes to find out how you can make your songs available higher quality and DRM-free," Apple wrote in the communication. "Starting next month, iTunes will begin offering higher-quality, DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to all customers."
[+]
Jobs to Labels- Lose the DRM & We'll Talk Price 459 comments
eldavojohn writes "Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been talking smack about DRM and has recently issued a verbal offer to major music lables stating that if they are willing to lose the DRM, he'd be willing to raise his 99 cent price for those iTunes songs. These tracks (such as the recent EMI deal) would also have better sound quality & cost about 30 cents more."
[+]
Anti-DRM Activists Take On the BBC 200 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Activists from Binary Freedom Boston have launched a campaign calling on the BBC to release their content online without DRM or proprietary formats. You might remember the BBC asking us about this earlier and even though the public chose not to use DRM by a landslide, they still decided to use it. EMI and Amazon have already ditched DRM. How long before the BBC does?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good job everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it... If all the labels offer their music DRM free by the end of the year, then what incentive is there for any online music store, except for the Zune store, to offer music in Windows Media format, given that the iPod is incompatible with WMA and represents about 80% of the target market.
There simply isn't any reason for an online music store that isn't owned by Microsoft to offer downloads that are incompatible with around about 80% of the devices that people own.
More to the point. Microsoft is only offering the Zune as a means of pushing its own audio format. Yet even Zune customers will be now able to play DRM free tracks from the iTMS. Microsoft has just caught up to the idea that you have to have a closed system to succeed (which was never the case, as Jobs' said in his letter a couple of months back), and now they will have to go home and think again.
Steve Jobs has just succeeded in the first step of completely destroying Microsoft's music strategy, and no-one seems to have noticed. He must be chuckling to himself.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
It makes no sense to offer those downloads in WMA format. Why lock out 80% of the user base? If I was an online music retailer, I would sell mp3s. Apple doesn't care about AAC the way that Microsoft cares about WMA. WMA is Microsoft's attempt to control digital music the way they control operating systems. AAC is the format Apple used so that they could have the DRM that the labels wanted.
Today's announcement if the other labels go for it means that they have failed!!! failed!!!! FAILED!!!!!!!
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, there's a new business model here!
1. Strap payload to chair.
2. Place chair near Ballmer.
3. Thwart one of Microsoft's business plans.
3. Profit!
See, no missing step!
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
But my original point was not about DRM, but about a format war. On the one hand, we have formats that are available to all stores, like AAC and mp3. Neither of these formats are owned by Apple. WMA on the other hand is owned by Microsoft, and the purpose of WMA was to create a default audio format controlled by Microsoft.
As a minority marketshare holder in the computer market, Apple has an interest in making sure that the most popular formats for audio (and video) are able to play on Macs. If not, Mac users will be locked out from most content on the internet. Microsoft's shameful and half hearted attempts to make Windows Media Mac compatible are a case in point.
As the leader in marketshare among PC operating systems, Microsoft does not need to worry about its users being locked out of content. It makes no sense for any content provider to ignore Windows users. WMA does not exist for any other reason than to try to ensure that Microsoft has proprietary control over digital media content, and that "open" standards do not give users a reason to abandon Windows in favour of the Mac or some other OS.
Apple's use of media formats is primarily defensive in nature (although not always). Microsoft's is just another attempt by that company to exert monopoly power.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't own AAC. It is a standard, like MP3. MS does own WMA and has patents on it. Apple is close to having monopoly influence with their iPod product. MS has monopoly influence with Windows. Apple bundles AAC with iPods. MS bundles WMA with Windows. Can you objectively look at what this implies?
Apple got into the music business to counter MS's takeover via a proprietary format. They had to include DRM because a cartel runs the show and required it, but Apple managed to negotiate looser restrictions than anyone previous to them. I doubt Apple even planned to make it big with the iPod. I think they saw it as a way to stop MS from locking macs out of the new generation of music and making them second or third class players. Apple still does not significantly benefit from DRM, which is why they have been pushing to remove it. They don't need a lock-in for their player since most people don't use Apple supplied music anyway. The customer confusion and bad press probably costs them more than the lock-in makes them.
MS might be able to make such a demand, but I doubt it. Apple sure can't. Online music sales are still a tiny fraction of the market and the RIAA is not afraid of breaking the law as they've proved numerous times. For MS, DRM is a benefit as it adds more lock-in to Windows, which is what they care about. To Apple, it is a detriment because they don't make any money on the music itself and they've already done everything they can to mitigate the lock-in.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed.
Yes, only those people MS is willing to license to and who pay MS. MS can use this to kill off anyone in this space they don't like or degrade service. This means they can prevent Linux from playing most new music, or the mac, or even competing players in the future if they decide to push the Zune.
Yeah, no one else has bothered to wrap AAC in DRM, but anyone that wants to can do so and neither Apple nor MS can stop them. More importantly, this also holds true for non-DRM'd versions of the same, which is not the case with WMA.
MS does not implement an open format DRM scheme. Their format is closed and their DRM is closed and all of it is proprietary. They simply licensed it temporarily to hundreds of companies who make hardware because they did not have hardware of their own. Now they have hardware and you'll note there are already compatibility problems between the Zune, the Zune store, and other WMA players.
Look to motivation. Apple has no real way to "take over" the music market. Nothing they have done stops anyone else from doing the same thing. Apple also has consistently made moves to lessen and remove DRM, including making public statements that they would prefer if they could license DRM free music and now their pushing for a label to remove DRM. If their plan was to control the music industry, why would they do this?
Apple uses music sales as a way to sell iPods and a way to stop MS from leveraging one more market against them. For both those purposes DRM-less AAC or MP3 or another standard works fine. DRM-less WMA, is still an MS controlled format, with MS being the only one who can agree or not agree to some implementation of it.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a silly argument. True, there aren't a lot of other players that do AAC now. But if being compatible with iTunes downloads is as useful to Apple's competitors as you imply, they'll all support it pretty fast. The notion that Apple should adopt an inferior format just to save its competitors the trouble of implementing AAC is frankly ludicrous.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
There are other reasons why Apple would stick with AAC beyond lock-in. First, AAC was designed to provide better sound quality at the same bitrate-- whether it delivers on this seems to depend on a few things, particularly the encoders you're comparing, but AAC is an MPEG standard developed to be better than MP3. Also, MP3 has additional legal (patent) issues which might be important for someone running an online store. According to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], AAC doesn't require royalty payments for distribution. In other words, using MP3 would force Apple to pay royalties on their music sales, and AAC doesn't.
Beyond that, Apple can't prevent anyone from making AAC encoders/decoders, so there really is no lock-in to complain of.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
Of the players in my house:
SonyEricsson K800i: MP3, AAC, Real
SonyEricsson W880i: MP3, AAC, Real
Panasonic DVD player: MP3, WMA
Jaguar Audio Connectivity Module: MP3, AAC
iPaq (with TCP): MP3, Vorbis, WMA, AAC (and many more)
PSP portable: MP3, AAC (maybe ATRAC, but not sure)
CD Player: MP3, AAC (m4a), WMA
in this list.. AAC is well represented in all but the Panasonic DVD player.
But more so, the current future is Phones with Music Players, Nokia, Sony Ericssons (both walkman and non walkman) Motorola and SAmsung seem committed to providing AAC, as opposed to WMA.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine that you've got some MP3 player from the nineties, but stop trying to find things to complain about and drop 80 bucks on something that can handle the newer format. Technology does become obsolete, you know.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
You act like the record companies are blameless when it comes to DRM. Did you notice the reaction to Jobs's letter from Warner execs? They want DRM and Jobs was absolutely right to focus blame on them since Apple, rather than the labels, is getting the attention from Norwegian and other European consumer regulatory agencies.
Personally, I am very glad that they didn't use mp3 format. AAC is better. It's too bad more manufacturers players haven't bothered to adopt this open format. It's not like they haven't had YEARS to get on board. At the vary least, they should have seen millions of iTunes users import their CDs into AAC format and had the smarts to figure out that giving their players the ability to play this freely-available format might give them the ability to win some customers who didn't want to transcode all their files. Even Microsoft was able to figure this out with the Zune. Sony has done it too, finally, which only makes sense since they were part of the group that helped develop it.
This is huge. A stake to the heart of DRM on music. Applaud it. Press for the other big labels to do the same. Enjoy DRM-free and transcodable high-bit rate files.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
There were a lot of people like you who said "oh, he'd never do it - he just doesn't want to take the heat for supporting DRM". OK, well you were proved wrong.
Yes, Steve Jobs wants his companies to be successful. And lately he has been doing a pretty good job of it. The cool thing about Steve is that consistantly through his career he has done that by focusing on quality and innovation. Compare him to someone like Jack Tramiel who made his career and built his businesses by cost cutting and underhanded dealing (stabbing partners, suppliers, and employees in the back, not keeping his word, etc.)
Seriously, not all business people are exactly the same and Steve Jobs is a very good businessman in the best sense of that word.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
I REALLY don't mind paying that for 256kbps non DRM AAC.
To be honest, I expected that they were going to spoil it by charging $2, but $1.30 is very reasonable.
Time for us to encourage it, by actually buying these songs.
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised I haven't seen this on the thread, but will we all need iPods with bigger drives now? Mine's maxed at the lower sample rate. Is that the other win for Jobs?
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
If Apple gave away the music for free in FLAC or Apple Lossless people would STILL complain ("these files are too big...etc etc").
Again, no pleasing some people. Even though you could buy the full album at the higher bitrate AND it being DRM free AND it's still cheaper than buying the physical CD. pfft....
Parent
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are forgetting something here. Most of the "iTMS suxorz" and "DRM suxorz" crowd that say "sell me high quality, DRM-free music, and I will pay for it" have now had their bluff called and now they're pissed. They never intended to pay for content in the first place. They will still pirate their music.
If Apple would have just come out and said "We are now offering 'audiophiles' higher quality AAC encoding for a small premium" and kept the DRM you'd still have the same crowd saying "What? It should be loss-less for $0.30!", or "I'd buy it if it wasn't for the shitty DRM!". But now they are showing their true colors. They will whine about anything if it means they have to pay for it. Look at some of the comments: "OMFG, it should be in .mp3 format! AAC suxorz! MP3 roxorz!"
Give me a break. Personally, the audio equipment I usually play my content on is not of sufficient quality and not in an acoustically-correct enough environment (my iPod, my car, my living-room) to be likely to tell any difference in the higher-quality format. At this point it will come down to "Am I willing to pay $.30 extra for DRM-free content?". I have to say that, even though my music collection is end-to-end Apple-compatible (iTMS->iTunes->AppleTV-or-iPod) I still prefer to make a statement about DRM-free music and will choose to put my $$ where my mouth is. As a "bonus" I get a higher bit-rate encoding, which, who knows, may sound better. Do I wish I could get all of this for $0.00 or the whole ball-of-wax for only $.49? Yes. But, oh well.
I don't like DRM any more than the next guy, but I've moved out of my parent's basement and have discovered that, in the real world, you actually have to pay for things. Even thought the restrictions should never have been there in the first place, I am willing to pay for that "added benefit" of no restrictions. The "yeah, but my 'XYZ MP3 player' won't play the superior AAC encoded content" argument doesn't affect me because my "MP3 player" can. I feel sorry for you. Call the company up and tell them you want a version that plays AAC content. I think more of them will now. All of Apple's content is already in AAC format, why should they change and sell it in MP3 format which would have to be larger to keep the same quality? Besides, isn't Apple already in a lawsuit about MP3s?
Parent
Re:Wait a Minute (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?
Without DRM there'd be far less excuse to charge extra for the DRM-free version. The $1.30 version will subsidise the $1 DRM-encumbered version.
It's a bit like the way the supermarkets virtually wiped out tastier (but odd-looking) varieties of fruit and veg for cosmetic reasons. They're then selling them back to us as luxury items now we're used to eating the pretty (but tasteless) varieties.
Parent
Alright Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alright Slashdot... (Score:4, Interesting)
[ ] search for DRM crippled songs
checkbox.
Parent
Re:Alright Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Kraftwerk, and Kate Bush. These are some listed on their website EMI Records UK [emirecords.co.uk]. I don't know if that's the label, or if it's the entire EMI Group [emigroup.com].
If that's the case, You've got the Beach Boys, David Bowie, Coldplay, Duran Duran, Gorillaz...OK Go, Liz Phair...
Wow, I might be upgrading a few of those.
Parent
Re:Alright Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
How about buying some Japanese iTunes gift cards on eBay?
Certainly I use US iTunes gift cards in Australia...
Michael
Parent
Re:Alright Slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
American way... Super size (Score:4, Funny)
$9.99 Albums will be 256kbps/DRM Free (Score:5, Informative)
What is the justification (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a Start! (Score:5, Informative)
This is excellent news! I love that they are offering the option to upgrade any previously purchased songs to the 256 kbps DRM free version for 30 cents a track. I plan on upgrading all of my tracks as soon as they are available. While I think that $1.29 is a little bit high for a track without DRM (I'd like to see them for the same price as the version with DRM), it's reasonable enough for me. You get twice the quality and no DRM for 30 cents more a track.
It also appears as if deals with other studios are imminent. From the press release [apple.com] [apple.com]:
Re:It's a Start! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Now, sure, if you build a MIX AND MATCH album of you're fav singles at 256kbps, it would wind up costing you $20. But name me a music store where I can go in and buy a mix-and-match CD?
You're comparing apples to oranges there.
Parent
cojones (Score:5, Interesting)
So, he apparently finally has convinced one label to drop the DRM, and yes, he's charging more for the content, but he goes and ups the bitrate, just so the content from the non-participating labels looks like shit in comparison. That takes some cojones, and I gotta say, I admire him for that. Could it possibly be that DRM will become one of those horrible memories from the past that we can all suppress? Time will tell, but at least today, I say this is relatively good news.
And, you know..."fuck the RIAA" goes without saying.
EMI Deserves Praise Also (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
WaterMarking (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. Apple has not released the details of the tracks other then "256kb aac" w/o DRM. They don't say that it will be delayed downloading (rather then the buy, download, listen now) could be "Thanks for purchasing. Your music will arrive shortly in you library and purchased media areas." Then about 5 minutes later the track downloads. And seeing how apple doesn't allow for a redownloading (i think) they simply add the watermarking into the database and delete the track.
EMI find a DRM free version of the music on the internet (Coldplay-Clocks.m4a) and downloads it from people. They compare the watermark, it comes back to you, you get sued like no other on the planet as an example.
(the old tired method of this but):
1) Announce DRM Free media
2) Release DRM free media w/ Watermarking
3) Download version from internet
4) Link watermarking to individual
5) SUE THE PANTS OFF OF THEM!!!
6) ??? (Repeat?)
7) Profit somehow.
Its a possibility. Don't just celebrate yet. I've got a feeling this wont be with out some strings
Re:WaterMarking (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WaterMarking (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Where are all those anti-Jobs people now? (Score:5, Insightful)
NOW that one of them is promoting anti-DRM versions, expect the indy stuff to follow suit. These same anti-Jobs people will lament the fact Jobs didn't do this with indy bands 1st. It's called negotiations people. Getting a major label to do this is 10 times better than having ONLY the indy bands DRM free. This is a major change in thinking for the big labels. And that made it well worth the wait.
Maybe if the anti-Jobs people would focus more on Microsoft and their disabling of the Zune wifi for a change, even more progress can be made in the DRM free world. But I'm guessing that the anti-Job reaction to his speech wasn't atually about his speech, it was more about being Microsoft lap dogs.
April's Fool (Score:5, Informative)
When Reporters Set Agendas (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no? Jobs isn't stupid. As the summary says, these files are encoded at a much higher bitrate. So what you're really paying more for is higher quality files. Of course, you could get higher quality files on anti-DRM principles, but the result is still the same: You get twice the "standard" bitrate for about 30% more. You can decide for yourself if that's a deal or not.
Parent
Re:New prices (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy for you as a consumer or a musician to argue for the new "music economy" because you have little to lose and much to gain. A lot of these big record companies have plenty to lose. You might be able to make an argument that with the right business savvy and some smart decisions that they have a lot to gain as well, but nothing is guaranteed, and big companies tend to be risk adverse.
The point is, if the general
Baby steps are what we should expect and really hope for. Each sign of progress should be a reason for celebration, not a bitch session about everything you still don't like about the music industry. Yay for steps in the right direction!
Parent
Re:30 cent copyright levy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DRM-Free AACs are still locked to Ipods! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, no it's not. AAC is a fairly standard format (though not as ubiquitous as mp3). Many players out there will play non-DRM'd AAC files with no problem. The Zune comes to mind. Hell, my Samsung phone will play them. This is a good thing all around. And since album prices are staying the same, I can only view this as a good move.
Parent
You're own fault (Score:4, Informative)
And lots of other players are format-upgradeable , and thus will probably support AAC soon now that DRM free tracks will be on the iTunes site.
AAC is an open standard. Sure it is patent encumbered, but so is MP3.
If you bought some WMA/MP3 only player that's not upgradeable, that's your own fault. You locked yourself in.
Parent