EMI To Sell DRM-Free Tracks Through iTunes Music Store
from the score-one-for-steve dept
For a while, EMI has been the most progressive of the major record labels, and it had been rumored that the company would start selling DRM-free digital tracks. Today, the company trotted out anti-DRMista Steve Jobs to announce that it would begin selling its digital catalog without DRM through the iTunes Music Store. EMI's songs will be available in the AAC format, and will be encoded at 256kbps, twice the bitrate of standard songs sold through iTMS. They'll also carry a higher price: $1.29 per track in the US, compared to 99 cents for versions encumbered with DRM. While that price difference will certainly elicit some complaints, it does reflect that DRM-free tracks are more valuable than those with pointless and frustrating copy protection. But what's a little more interesting about the higher price is that Steve Jobs has relented from the $1 per song price point, which he's steadfastly maintained despite continual pressure from record labels to raise prices. While we dismissed Jobs' earlier anti-DRM rant as little more than a PR stunt, it appears that now he's using a carrot-and-stick approach with the record labels: drop the DRM, offer consumers a more valuable product, and he'll charge consumers a higher price -- and presumably, pay a higher wholesale one as well. While that's simple and straightforward for most of us, it may still be a hard sell to the music industry, who puts a lot of effort into trying to get consumers to pay more for less.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
whole album
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whole album - no DRMs - 2 million tracks
As you would expect, you'll find music from ALL major and independent record labels (they host over 2 million tracks). But Just Music Store is proving that there is more than one business model for digital music downloads, and that e-retailers can make a go of selling digital downloads with or without DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's still Apple's DRM - AAC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But it's still Apple's DRM - AAC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But it's still Apple's DRM - AAC
I will have to buy at least one EMI album from iTunes to "vote" my support to this step in the right direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is less a "carrot-and-stick" approach, and more a way to gradually introduce higher prices in a way that appears justified. One might argue that the itunes store is a loss leader, but I'm sure Apple would love for an outside justification for a price increase. They appear to not back down to record company pressures to raise prices on the existing product. But this is something new (in a sense).
...just another take on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A couple missed details
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a start..
Not all of choose to buy into the whole ipod ecosystem, and yeh I know I could buy it, burn it, convert it.. blah blah blah, but that still means I gotta use the iTunes software.
I do applaud them for at least trying this instead of the same old worn our DRM arguments, and whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One customer has returned
So it may not be a big thing but one label has just had "one customer" return. I wonder how many other "ones" there are like me. I'll be making my first purchase tonight when I get home.
(Yeah, I have an ipod, and a mac, and iTunes IS the worst piece of crap media manager out there. But hey, now I actually have a reason to use iTMS.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still not right for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: still not right for me
although above 20k is supposedly inaudible to the human ear, (and saving space for more data was probaby more of a concern when digital recording first started), what some people don't realize is that these frequencies actually effect and change the sound of the other frequencies BELOW 20k. So even though by themselves 20k frequencies and up can't be heard, the lack of these sound frequencies is one of the reasons that recorded performances of live music sound much different than actually being there (even on very high quality sound systems).
recording technollogy on vinyl actually boosted these frequencies above 20khz, however it also dramatically reduced all frequencies below 20 hertz, which is why some of the bass-heavy pop music sounds so inadequate on record as opposed to cd, while opera music sounds much superior (in my opinion) on vinel than on cd.
this is more of an issue with folk music, acoustic music, classical music....etc.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: still not right for me
I'm not sure that I agree, when fifteen DRM -protected songs cost more than a DRM-free CD.
When high-quality MP3s are $0.50 or less I will start buying. Until then it is cheaper to and more convenient to buy the CD.
But that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple is still as devious as ever, because they want to improve their public image, but they're doing it in a way that makes it so that you still have to use their iPod to play the music files, and therefore it's still a closed system. I don't know of any other portable music player that plays AAC files. It's just one big ripoff after the next, after the next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AAC only on iPod
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A) MP3 requires licenses, so its not open. And if you think you need mp3, again, you are confused. the "first" to the market is not the most open, nor is it the best. You will find no difference in quality between a 320k mp3 and a 256k aac file. You're just deluded if you think otherwise.
128-192 kbps files are much more common, but they sound like crap on my home and car stereos.
B) that's comical. 9 out of 10 audiophiles can't correctly guess which mp3 is which bitrate when subjected to a blind test (comparing rates over 192k), and thats on really damn expensive monitor quality equipment. If you think you have 4k$ monitor grade speakers in your car, again, you're probably just delusional.
I will not resort to paying for 256kbps AAC files which I then have to convert to MP3, losing quality in the process.
C) Yeah, that would be rather dumb to lose quality reconverting. But that would be your own dumb choice. Most "mp3" players do not advertise themselves as such, because they do not limit their playback capabilities to just proprietary formats (that would the mp3 format there, skippy). there's nothng open or free about the mp3 format, and you're just deluded if you think otherwise.
MP3 has been the standard for a looooong time now, and they need to get that through their thick heads.
D) Most people prefer to reject proprietary closed licensed required formats as "the standard". There is no open standard at all, save ogg vorbis. Which has an absolutely horrid adoption rate. However, AAC does not require content licenses, whereas mp3 does. (you have to buy a license to use mp3 technology in an application, you have to have a license to distribute in mp3, you have to have a license to playback mp3 AND you ahve to have a license for every file distributed in mp3)
Apple is still as devious as ever, because they want to improve their public image, but they're doing it in a way that makes it so that you still have to use their iPod to play the music files, and therefore it's still a closed system.
E) Where did you read that? I see absolutely no reason to suspect that. The whole reason to remove DRM is for openness and so consumers can do what they want with their purchases. Perhaps you are just basing this ASSUMPTION on all of your other assumptions above.
I don't know of any other portable music player that plays AAC files. It's just one big ripoff after the next, after the next.
F) Ah, for someone who claims to be able to tell the difference in bitrate saturated codecs, you sure dont have a clue corncering what you're ranting about. Here's a link to get you started on your newfound path of enlightenment.
Wikipedia - Advanced Audio Coding
And every "portable music player" that has yet to sign its own death certificate supports playback of the AAC format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
B) that's comical. 9 out of 10 audiophiles can't correctly guess which mp3 is which bitrate when subjected to a blind test (comparing rates over 192k), and thats on really damn expensive monitor quality equipment. If you think you have 4k$ monitor grade speakers in your car, again, you're probably just delusional."
Thank you. I'm sick and tired of hearing about all these audophiles who think they have super-human hearing.
You don't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Format War Mark 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yawn......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying that these new tracks are effectively DRM encoded because they're AAC is the same as saying that a text file is DRM encoded because its in RTF and not TXT.
Maybe a little research would be useful before yawning in ignorance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
I'm still not buying any download digital tracks from the iTMS until they are available in either FLAC, ALAC, or AIFF but that's because if I'm going to pay approximately the same amount per song as I would on a CD, I'd like the same quality. A lower quality song shouldn't cost as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, the price for an entire album will stay the same. Only the individual DRM-free songs cost more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double Yawn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Double Yawn...
I don't need an excuse. The record companies deserve to be ripped off until they go out of business and die. Hopefully, destitute living on the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If people don't pay for the product, sooner or later the product will stop being offered. DRM might not be perfect, but artists need to be paid for their work, or they will stop producing it.
It might be nice to say look for new business models or to make your money elsewhere, but do we want the labels to go away? Do we want the labels to start taking a piece of concert revenue, again discouraging artists from producing music?
Free is nice, but you better be prepared for the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#13... AAC>MP3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop your BI*#HING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop your BI*#HING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop your BI*#HING
Pent-up frustrations maybe?
Vent elsewhere. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watermarking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watermarking?
EMI may finally be on to something. There are a number of individual songs I would like to purchase, but not enough to buy a whole album. I have never downloaded any music -- won't go illegal, and the legal stuff had too many unacceptable restrictions.
When they get clever and let you assemble a 12 song playlist at the album price, things will really take off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should also be noted that Apple isn't raising the quality of the music - their just lowering it less. Until I can buy songs in FLAC or some other lossless codec, I won't be buying music online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid painting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]