Steve Jobs Announces (some) DRM-free iTunes 838
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.
Good job everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!!!!!!!
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!
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.
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.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
"How can you claim that Microsoft is trying to control the music industry and Apple isn't, when Microsoft is the only one of the two who implements an open-format DRM scheme to foster interoperability?"
Very easily. Microsoft's "open format DRM scheme" is only open to anyone who wants to sell audio files to users of Microsoft Windows. It fosters interoperability between producers of audio content and devices and MICROSOFT software products. Strangely, it does not seem to foster interoperability between said producers of audio content and devices with anyone other than MICROSOFT.
Again, the point is not about DRM, but about WMA (DRMed or not). Microsoft's attempt to make WMA a standard had only one purpose: to exert proprietary control over online music and to lock out competitors by making sure that the only "interoperability" available involved sucking at the sweaty, Ballmerian Microsoft teat.
Non DRMed AAC (what Apple wants to offer and is now actually offering) does not lock users into Apple products at all. Apple products will play them, but so will other products. And you can throw away all your Apple products, buy someone else's stuff, and still play them.
Try playing your WMAs with decent quality if you decide you hate the pus filled sac that is Windows. See the difference?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Interesting)
Was I only imagining that my Palm Tungsten T was playing AAC audio (downloaded from the iTunes Music Store and decrypted with the software available at the time)? Is the other poster who said the Zune can play AAC audio BSing us all?
Maybe it's just that Apple wants to offer a better product. AAC delivers better audio quality at a given bitrate than MP3, and it's supported by a wider variety of hardware and software than you think. Just because it doesn't work with your no-name fresh-off-the-boat $30 player doesn't mean it sucks. I ripped my CD collection into 192-kbps AAC (with K3B and FAAC, not with iTunes), and everything plays on my Linux boxen, my Mac, my iPod, and my Treo (would still work on the Tungsten if I could find it) without issue.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes there are exceptions to the standard corporate CEO it's-all-about-the-profit that is so common.
You know, I've witnessed a heated argument between my old company's CEO/President and its Vice President, where the CEO was stubbornly sticking to his guns in the face of the VP's proof of how this was costing the company money. It was almost absurd, indeed the VP was laughing out loud at many points in the face of the CEO's apparent complete disregard for the idea that the point of the company is to make money. But like any good CEO, our CEO had a vision of where we wanted to be, and the right way to get there, and we were going to do it right, profits be damned. Of course, part of that conviction was that if you did the right thing, the profits would eventually follow, so perhaps its just another brand of "it's-all-about-the-profit" attitude, with a longer-term view, but regardless, the pragmatic effect is that the CEO was more interested in doing what's right than in what would generally be regarded as profitable.
And he wasn't the only one, just the example that sticks out in my mind most, after that day and that argument, giving me a really nice inside peek into the mind of a very successful CEO, hearing him articulate his reasoning not to outsiders or even employees in general, but to a couple of his most trusted insiders.
Given this, I have trouble swallowing the cynical stereotype that it seems most people have about the typical CEO. Maybe the ones I've known have been atypical. I imagine it's skewed by the fact in the cases I've known, the CEO was also one of the founders of the company -- necessarily a group with "the vision-thing". But guess what, Steve Jobs was a founder of most of his companies too, including Apple.
My own experience makes most of the cynical assessments of Jobs actions and motives sound improbable to me. It's not that these kinds of CEO's aren't interested in profit, it's just that they tend to think long-term, and have unshakable confidence that doing "the right thing" will be what's most profitable in the long run. They're high on idealism, often apparently low on the "connected to reality" meter, and except in the face of certain disaster, willing to sacrifice profits for what they think is right. And sometimes, not even certain disaster dissuades them, which is what causes boards of directors to oust them from the CEO position as often as they do, and as happened to Steve Jobs at least once.
So, go ahead, keep your cynicism. I've known these kinds of people before, in all their apparent looniness, and from knowing them, I know it's far more believable that Jobs did what did because be believes its right than as part of some ploy.
Almost got it... (Score:4, Funny)
Now, if they'll go just one more step, and sell lossless music with no DRM, I'll be one of the first in line to purchase it!!!
I want my 'source' to be as good as I can get it...and I'll transcode to lower qualities myself for poor listening environments like portable players, the car etc. I can do that and have the higher quality sound for my home soundsystem.
So close...so close....
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.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Interesting)
Artist Title DRM Price DRM-free Price
Justin Timberlake Something $.99(click here) $1.29(click here)
Justin Timberlake Some Song $.99(click here) $1.29(click here)
Where is the average joe and jane six pack going to click?
Re:AAC is smaller. (But where's the lossless?) (Score:4, Informative)
And yes, unless you have some pretty nice equipment with good range, you're not likely to hear any difference between 256kbps AAC and the CD you bought. You do, however, have the songs in a digital form that will last quite a while, quality-wise. That's why I encode all my CDs to V0 MP3 (variable bit rate, mostly ranging from 250+ up to 320 kbps). With disk space as cheap as it is, it's an assurance that I don't have to re-rip my albums in a very long while. I can buy pretty much any stereo I want, and it'll still sound completely indistinguishable from my store bought CDs.
So ultimately I agree with you. Now that DRM is moot, all I want is higher bitrates. Preferably FLAC or any other lossless format that I can transcode to whatever codec I want. If I'm going to pay close to the same amount as I would the original CD, at the very least supply the same quality.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm glad someone finally stated that. AAC is not just any standard, it is the MPEG/ISO standard.
IOW, AAC is to MPEG4 what MP3 is to MPEG2. As you stated, AAC is the official successor to MP3. That's why Apple chose it when they did. At the same time MPEG4 became their standard for video AAC became their standard for audio. That was before the iTMS even went on line.
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How much to upgrade full albums? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll pay to avoid the B&Ms, thanks. (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but it's worth a significant amount of money to me (and I expect a lot of other people besides) to not have to go anywhere near a shopping mall or other B&M retailer.
Going out to a store, round-trip, is probably an hour of my time, not to mention gas for the car, and is just a giant hassle. It means fighting for a parking space, and then getting into the store, and finding what I want, and waiting in line behind a bunch of teeny-boppers while some stoned clerk plods along through the checkout procedure. I can feel my blood-pressure going up just thinking about it. That's not how I want to spend one of my few free hours after work or on the weekends, thanks much.
If Apple charges a slight premium to allow me to buy DRM-free music from the comfort of my own home, where I can decide to buy something and have it on my computer to listen to, through my stereo, while drinking my beer, in five minutes -- that's value added.
Apple's real competition, at least for me, isn't B&M stores, it's online stores that sell physical CDs, particularly used ones (Half.com). There, it becomes a trade-off between how much I want to pay, and how long I want to wait. Although waiting in a line in a store gives me the urge to stab people, I'm not normally enough of an impulse-buyer to mind waiting a few days for a $4 CD. I could see buying particular tracks that I want to listen to right now from iTunes at $1.30/each, but it's probably not going to be the primary source of my music.
Wait a Minute (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wait a Minute (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.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.
Re:Wait a Minute (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't ignore the other tidbit in the announcement about the re-release of the music. It's all going to be released 256kbps, rather than the current iTunes Store standard of 128kbps. So if you buy DRM-free music from iTunes, you're actually getting a higher quality rip than they previously sold. There's a very small number of people who can hear the difference, although a larger number of people think it matters. Either way, Apple has actually improved the quality of the deliverable, not just removed DRM.
At twice the bitrate, the songs use twice the bandwidth when downloaded, so Apple even has slightly higher real costs on the new downloads, although I doubt that the incremental increase in cost is as high as 30 cents per song...
-JMP
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:5, Informative)
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....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good job everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
'Should'? What you should get in any deal involving money is exactly what you asked for. In this case, 99c/79p gets you a 128 kb/s DRM'd track. If you don't think it's worth it then by all means don't buy, but don't think for a second that you have any entitlement to anything more. Charging as much as your customers are willing to pay is a mainstay of market economics, and to be honest paying an extra 20p for a higher-quality, DRM-less track looks pretty enticing to me.
I've also got to say that it's pretty typical of the Slashdot crowd to be bitching and moaning even after we get exactly what we want. It's a step in the right fucking direction, be glad that it's happening at all.
For a single song? One of the advantages of the iTunes Store for me is being able to cherry-pick the songs that I want from an album, without paying for the songs I don't like. I've been willing to put up with the DRM up until now for that very reason. Sure as hell beats buying a physical single for £2.99.
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?
Alright Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Alright Slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alright Slashdot... (Score:4, Interesting)
[ ] search for DRM crippled songs
checkbox.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't run itunes on my computer (maybe it works under Wine? I haven't tried that).
But the more important issue is... I'm currently interested in Japanese bands and they don't seem to want to sell this to me in Canada. I would literally jump at the chance to buy music, DRM free, at $1.20 per song. Shipping the damn CD's into Canada costs me a mint. Luckily I can bundle it with my manga purchases, but I'm still looking at close to $30 for most CDs (each) to get it here.
S
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
EMI Press (Score:3, Informative)
American way... Super size (Score:4, Funny)
$9.99 Albums will be 256kbps/DRM Free (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's finally done it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good on ya, Steve!
What is the justification (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Led Zeppelin Box Set [wikipedia.org] contains 44 tracks, and every single one is worth having. In fact, in Indiana, you had to know every measure of every single track to get through high school.
This is what I've been waiting for... (Score:3, Interesting)
I never bought any music from iTunes because:
- Apple's DRM protected files were too low quality for me to bother with (I would have to rip to CD then reencode to MP3 which usually meant hearable artifacts.)
- DRM meant that the music I bought would never be 100% protected from "upgrades" forced on me by the RIAA (much as Apple already reduced the number of authorized hosts).
- I've already bought the same album in 3 formats: Vinyl, Tape, & CD. I refuse to pay a fourth time unless I am sure that it would be the last time.
I'm not overenthused about the premium over itunes normal pricing, but there appears to be enough goodness in this announce to finally get me onboard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
Re:WaterMarking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WaterMarking (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mostly they have been congratulating him... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it is hard for those of you into person or brand name worshiping to understand, but it is quite possible to compliment people or companies for the good things they do, and at the same time criticize them for the bad things they do. Just because you define your world into personal (or brand) loyalties, it does not mean the rest of us are similar restricted.
Structure first (Score:4, Interesting)
Why certainly.
Having indie labels sell DRM free music first, would have had a different structure than the current deal. Apple needed a way to figure out how to move forward with DRM free music in a way that labels would accept - so they had to work through negotiations with EMI to see how the could arrange pricing and quality options in a way that would appeal to them. Once that framework was laid, then other indie labels could get the same deal, only now there is a single clear option for DRM free music going forward and also a clear path for other larger labels to follow down a road that one has already found to be acceptable. It took a little longer but now everything is simpler both for the consumer, and the music studio large and small.
How many contracts with giant paranoid music studios have YOU managed, Mr. backseat negotiator?
April's Fool (Score:5, Informative)
Three thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Critics have maintained that Apple should allow independent artists to offer their music iTMS without DRM, but the standard response is that this would be technically infeasible. Now that this is not the case, I hope to see Apple offer DRM-free music from independent producers soon.
2. The Big Studios have been pushing to get Apple to charge a higher rate per song for years now. This outcome has Apple saying, "Hey, get rid of DRM and we'll do it." I wonder how tempting that will be to the other studios.
3. Anti-DRM advocates need EMI to be very successful; a rise in sales will allow the initiative to grow, while a drop in sales will herald calls of piracy. This is one case where giving money to a large company may actually do some good. (I know many purists would scoff, but big corporations are like big, very cunning animals: they are dangerous, but perhaps can be trained.)
Complete the sentence. (Score:4, Informative)
Complete the sentence: "this would be technically infeasible given their current contracts with the labels." You know, like EMI.
Players (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Players (Score:4, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
I imagine a few more hardware vendors will now be looking to try to add support, however.
When will other labels join in? (Score:3, Interesting)
Better than CD? (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, some have said that 128kbps is almost as good as 320kbps.
Couple that, with the fact that that you can sample AAC up to 96khz rather than just 48khz, you can encode up to 48 separate channels, and that EMI encodes their tracks from the digital masters rather than a lossy CD.
I suspect that the quality of these tracks may actually rival that of CD's... perhaps be superior in some regards.
I especially like the multi-track encoding idea. Labels could release the music so that the lead vocal, background vocals, and music were all on separate tracks... instant karaoke and instant remix ability. I don't suspect we can expect anything like this very soon, but the AAC format allows for it.
Can anyone confirm, is 256kbps enough for an AAC file to be indistinguishable from a CD in a true double blind listening test?
Lame (Score:4, Funny)
When Reporters Set Agendas (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux Customer, Reporting for Shopping (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:30 cent copyright levy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, its not just the iPod.
A list of players is available on wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Its a substantial list, and its an open format. Its actua
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But are there any good ones? Not all encoders are the same, and last I checked libfaac kinda sucked.
If you don't like your 256kbit AAC then you can easily transcode to whatever you want since it's DRM free.
Please, just don't suggest transcoding lossy compression schemes. It's just off the table.
huh? (Score:3, Informative)
From the format's wiki entry:
missed citation (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Codin
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The funny thing is, you stress over how your mix sounds and then I buy the CD and rip it to 128kbps MP3 and play it through my earbuds or my 14 year old stereo and can't hear a damned difference.
Maybe you're the one with the problem.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only if you want to increase the bitrate and drop the DRM, and he's only charging 30 cents more to do that.
Other services have been selling songs at a more reasonable bit-rate all along (eg. Yahoo was selling songs for a while at 79 cents for 192Kbps), only Apple was selling at 128Kbps. Even the NYT writer (who loves Apple) wrote that 128 is insufficient and that people were making a mistake to spend m