EMI May Remove DRM From Parts of Catalog

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.

Comments

If this is true....

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If this is true....Let's hope disney/pixar content is next ;-)

(and the 'encryption' tag is wrong - encryption involves three parties & drm only two)

Re:If this is true....

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is true (and let's all hope so), I expect dozens of Apple haters who have been claiming that Steve was lying about Apple's preference for no DRM to man up and apologize here in this thread.

If it's not true, well, there's always another day.

Re:If this is true....

[i_should_be_working]

In the case of DRM the third party is the friend (an actual person or just another device) whom I actually want to let "eavesdrop" and get the information. But the music industry is making sure no third party can "steal" from us, whether we like it or not.

Re:If this is true....

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Steve was lying about Apple's preference for no DRM to man up and apologize here in this thread.

I said Jobs was hypocritical for arguing against DRM while Apple seems happy to dish DRM out to its customers.

If it's not true, well, there's always another day.

Judging by the fact that you're not willing to login, I'd say it's going to be another day....

Re:If this is true....

[Dogtanian]

If it is true (and let's all hope so), I expect dozens of Apple haters who have been claiming that Steve was lying about Apple's preference for no DRM to man up and apologize here in this thread. I notice that you're not sure enough about this to "man up", stand by your assertion for posterity and at least log in to say this.

By the way, "man up" is one hell of a stupid phrase, of the type spouted duckspeak-style by morons who base their definition of manhood on stupid, pseudo-macho, group-approved, adolescent language. The same type of people who'll buy any old crap if enough money is spent advertising it with a "macho" image. You're not men, you're insecure, immature and easily-influenced little boys.

Anyway, "man up" actually sounds pretty gay when you think about it; ironic when you consider that such adolescent pseudo-men are the most likely to spout such crap *and* be the most homophobic.

Re:If this is true....

[vought]

It would seem EMI has made their entire catalog available DRM-free, according to Reuters:

EMI and Apple Agree Anti - Piracy Software Deal
By REUTERS
Published: April 2, 2007
Filed at 8:30 a.m. ET
LONDON (Reuters) - EMI Group Plc (EMI.L) said on Monday it was making its music catalog available through Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) iTunes store without the anti-piracy measure known as digital rights management (DRM).

``The new higher quality DRM-free music will complement EMI's existing range of standard DRM-protected downloads already available,'' EMI said in a statement as the company began a joint press conference in central London with Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs.

Re:If this is true....

[Anonymous Coward]

So to you, a man is a hypocrite when he speaks out against something, and works to change it?

And don't give me crap about indie labels. They may be great, but most of Apple's customers are buying major-label music. If an anti-DRM crusade is going to matter, the big labels will have to be on board.

wmf, we all know you're a bit of a cynic, but today's announcement is a major and important shift in the distribution of online music, and it wasn't whining on message boards that made it happen. Steve has had a way of working as an intermediary between the labels and their customers which has brought us to what I think is a reasonable solution. Without Apple, we'd all be renting music from Microsoft&Co. at this point.

Re:If this is true....

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

So to you, a man is a hypocrite when he speaks out against something, and works to change it?

Of course not, I think someone's a hypocrite when they speak out against something whilst allowing it to happen within their own company(ies).

Re:If this is true....

[MBGMorden]

You're not men, you're insecure, immature and easily-influenced little boys.
Anyway, "man up" actually sounds pretty gay

Come on. You were doing so well :(. I agreed (and still do) with everything you had to say, but you killed your credibility with those two statements. You can't ridicule them for using masculinity as a measuring tool by insulting their masculinity, without thereby validating it as a valid measuring tool. Stick to your points at hand; if the argument is sound the opposition will look like idiots without you having to explicitly spell it out.

Re:If this is true....

[Fahrenheit 450]

Yes. Because becoming powerful enough to change something from the inside is always the wrong way to go.
Jobs had next to zero leverage when they started the iTunes store, he couldn't get the labels to do spit. Now he's got a bit of flex, and with EMI in his corner he's helped to open up the market to DRM-free major label music downloads. How horrible of him...

Of course, this won't mean anything if the consumers aren't willing to pay extra for their freedom or higher bitrate encodings.

Re:If this is true....

[Dogtanian]

You can't ridicule them for using masculinity as a measuring tool by insulting their masculinity, without thereby validating it as a valid measuring tool. I'm sorry, can you please explain that again?(!)

I was ridiculing them for defining their masculinity by following the stupid "man-phrase" of the week, relying on stupid media/advertising originated values and phrases, and in general noting that the people who seem most obsessed with being men also seem to be the least self-confident and willing to rely on the "safest" definitions of masculinity (usually put forward by advertisers and the like).

Re:If this is true....

[Lars T.]

(Restored partially parted quote)

I expect dozens of Apple haters who have been claiming that Steve was lying about Apple's preference for no DRM to man up and apologize here in this thread.

I said Jobs was hypocritical for arguing against DRM while Apple seems happy to dish DRM out to its customers.
You said

Am I mistaken that Jobs was enthusiastic about DRM in the early days?

Re:If this is true....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting to hear from the apologists that claimed Apple could not distribute non DRM music because it was too hard for the programmers to figure out how implement that feature into iTunes and that SJobs did not want both types of music because it would be too confusing for the customers.

Odd how they seem to be doing it now. I guess they finally hired some decent programmers huh?

Re:If this is true....

[MBGMorden]

It's simple: the whole "real man" argument is stupid, but you can't combat that by calling someone an "insecure, immature and easily-influenced little boy". As a matter of fact it's fine up until the "little boy" part, because that's simply an appeal to emotion: you're throwing out something JUST to piss them off. The same with stating that it's "gay". You're trying to piss them off by appealing to their emotion, rather than using reason.

It's kinda like calling someone out on racism, presenting a very valid argument about the equality of all human beings, and then calling them a "stupid honkey" for thinking otherwise. Yeah his position is wrong, but you should argue against it with facts and logic, not insults.

Re:If this is true....

[Dogtanian]

As a matter of fact it's fine up until the "little boy" part, because that's simply an appeal to emotion No, it's not. It's a statement that (in my opinion) their behaviour is the juvenile "masculinity" of small boys pretending to be men, but not really being men because they're simply following some image given to them by the media.

The same with stating that it's "gay". No; it may be a statement of opinion, but it wasn't thrown in there to piss them off.

not insults. You assumed that I meant "gay" as an insult; you were wrong, and you should have realised this when I attacked them for being homophobic.

Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[freedom_india]

All this removing DRM is fine, but if i download from iTunes, will i be able to drag-drop the same into a Rio?
Or am i still locked into iTunes iPod combination?
I own only an iPod, so i would not notice it even, but for some who own a Rio/some other music player, can i buy from iTunes, and then listen to it on Rio?
If not, then iam moving from a closer jail to a bigger jail.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[Khakionion]

"Or am i still locked into iTunes iPod combination?"

DRM is what locks iTunes purchases to the iPod. If you buy non-DRM tracks, they will play on anything capable of reading that format. The iTunes Store sells AAC tracks, so chances are it will work with any modern music player.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[Corporate Troll]

If your Rio supports m4a files (assuming the non DRM will be AAC) and presents itself as a disk drive to your operating system, then the answer is yes. Right now you can just select and drag songs in iTunes to any folder and it will simply copy the files. It even does this with protected files. It's a useful feature for backing up.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[jonbryce]

You may need to transcode it into a format the Rio supports, but without the DRM, that won't be a problem other than either a slight loss of quality or a much larger file size.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[MadJo]

My modern iAudio U3 does not play AAC.
But I can't run iTunes on my pc anyway (no linux client), so it doesn't matter much for me.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[FLEB]

Yes, but now you can format-shift without technical hurdles and legal prohibitions.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[i_should_be_working]

The DRM free music will not just be for iTunes, so they won't just be in AAC. So all players benefit, just not from iTunes which will probably still sell in AAC.

Read about it here:
EMI's press release

I wonder if indie labels will also be able to sell non-DRM'd tracks on iTunes now.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[MadJo]

and lose quality ;)

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[soft_guy]

Just when all doubted there would still be things for people like you to whine about, you've restored our faith in your ability to whine like a baby.

Waaaahh! My MP3 player won't play AAC and there isn't iTunes for Linux (unless you use WINE). Waaaaaahh!

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[SilentChris]

Or, alternatively, you can just click the files and convert them to MP3. That was always a nice feature in iTunes but it never worked with protected files (for obvious reasons).

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[MadJo]

I wasn't whining... I was merely stating a few facts.
Fact1: iAudio mediaplayers do not play AAC.
Fact2: There is no (native) Linux client of iTunes.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll still be locked into iTunes. iTMS uses a proprietary format for their music files. The file contains an Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) stream, but uses a proprietary container format that prevents other players from playing the file.

So, no, you'll still be locked into iTunes+iPod. You didn't think Apple would just give that up, did you?

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[pedestrian crossing]

It would play AAC (plus many more formats) if you ran Rockbox on it...

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[simm1701]

There is no loss of quality in moving from AAC to FLAC or raw audio :)

True moving to mp3 will lose quality, but then how many people actually have a good enough pair of headphones on their ipod to be able to tell?

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[cygnusx]

IIRC Amarok (and lots of other players on Windows) handles unprotected AACs just fine?

Anyway, the DRM-free AAC thing is only from Apple. EMI will make it available in whatever format the retailer wants to sell in:

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.

So you'll probably see Microsoft offer them as unprotected WMAs and eMusic (which, as EMI's CEO noted, could also offer EMI's catalog if it chooses to pay EMI's wholesale price) could offer MP3s.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[Corporate Troll]

Funny, I just right now discovered that myself by poking around in iTunes.... Thanks for telling me anyway :-)

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[Lars T.]

Yeah, when you convert 256Kbps AAC to 64Kbps MP3, you are going to lose quality.

Re:Will it play on iPod and Rio?

[senatorpjt]

Sorry if your post was supposed to be a joke, but did you even read the article you cited?

Highlights:

1. "In contrast with the MP3 format, which requires royalty payments on distributed content, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. [3] This reason alone makes AAC a much more attractive format for distributing content, particularly streaming content (such as Internet radio)."

2. The entire section "Products that support AAC:", which lists far too many players to duplicate here.

Don't count on others following suit.

[HugePedlar]

EMI's share price has been plummeting for months. My guess is they're desperate to try anything. Hopefully the risk will pay off, but if the share price continues to fall, it won't look encouraging for other record companies. As of this morning they're only up half a percent.

Re:Don't count on others following suit.

[Southpaw018]

Bad for them, good for us. If this works from the industry's standpoint - and right now, there's no telling whether it will or not - then that should open the door for the other labels.

Note that there's a very big "if" followed by a medium sized "should" here, so there's no telling what might happen. But if the music industry is shown (because they won't see for themselves) that DRM is bad for business, then and only then will they do the right thing.

Re:Don't count on others following suit.

[MadJo]

perhaps EMI should try a little 'bum rushing the charts'? :)

Re:Don't count on others following suit.

[Technician]

Hopefully the risk will pay off, but if the share price continues to fall, it won't look encouraging for other record companies.

The jury is still out. There are too many unknowns. Will the price still be about a buck a track or something like 3 bucks a track? Will it be only 128K bitrate? Will it be in MP3 so it will play on non-AAC player? In short, will they raise the value enough to a big enough market to increase sales more than just a couple points? Will the new tracks kill sales from the sneakernet at school?

Re:Don't count on others following suit.

[ZoneGray]

The shares won't move until some results are in. If this increases EMI's download sales (as I suspect it will), then it'll likely spread to other companies.

Remember, if Apple doesn't have the costs associated with DRM, so they're probably giving EMI a larger cut on the non-DRM sales. Add in the $.30 premium, and their margin might be almost 30-50% higher than on non-DRM sales. And probably *much* larger margins than CD sales.

The most fundamental problem for the labels remains the fact that their ability to promote new talent is significantly diminished, and may never return. In all the fuss over merchandising, nobody seems to have noticed this.

Re:Don't count on others following suit.

[Eccles]

$1.29/track. 256K AAC encoding. Starting in May. These are known unknowns, RTFA. They'll even still sell the DRM'ed, lower encoding rate ones so you can choose.

Re:Don't count on others following suit.

[Technician]

$1.29/track. 256K AAC encoding. Starting in May. These are known unknowns, RTFA. They'll even still sell the DRM'ed, lower encoding rate ones so you can choose.

That covers one online retailer Apple. Since EMI is offering the tracks in other encodings and qualities, I wonder what other online retailers will do with the music. The pressure was on Apple to break the 99 cent price ceiling. The pressure on the industry was on to offer DRM free. They both gave a little and took a little.

"From today, EMI's retailers will be offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality," EMI added.

From ;
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesti ng.aspx?type=allBreakingNews&storyID=2007-04-02T12 4659Z_01_N01345958_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-EMI-UPDATE-3.XM L

EMI may offer DRM-Free audio formats in a variety of bitrates up to CD quality, but Apple is picking only the AAC choice at one DRM free bitrate.

Am I the only person

[Runefox]

Who thought they meant electromagnetic interference?

Re:Am I the only person

[MichaelSmith]

Who thought they meant electromagnetic interference?

Probably.

But now that you mention it, sufficently large amounts of EMI would certainly remove DRM from most types of media but this may be in the category of cures which kill the disease and the patient.

Risky

[Random BedHead Ed]

I'd consider paying for and downloading DRM-free music, but it sounds pretty risky to me. I know, CDs have no DRM, but we're talking about unprotected digital files here. I think I'm going to need a considerable downpayment to offset the risks, say in the order of a few million US dollars. Anyone else feel they need a downpayment before risking a download? Sounds like Apple's wallet's open.

Re:Risky

[cyclop]

Yes but CDs become digital files so easily and so often today that the division between the two realms is pretty much senseless.

Re:Risky

[chanrobi]

Risky to you? It's not like you can contract an STD through drm-free music file. And why should the record companies pay you to download their music? But hey if you want to spearhead the push to get the record companies to pay me to download their music, i'm all for it ;)

Re:Risky

[Dr. Manhattan]

I'd consider paying for and downloading DRM-free music, but it sounds pretty risky to me.

I have ready access to all the games I could want thanks to a friend I know who's a very big pirate. I also know about GameCopyWorld.

However, I still buy games. I don't pirate them. (Then I use the stuff at GameCopyWorld to allow them to be played without the original CD, but that's because I have small kids all over the place and I keep those valuable archival media on a high shelf.) Similarly, I buy CDs and rip them (on the rare occasions that any new music actually appeals to me). I've technically 'pirated' some music, but that was only for music I already had paid for in older analog formats.

In my experience, the people who would pirate stuff, would pirate stuff if it cost any amount greater than zero. But there are plenty of people who will be honest, too. I'm sure there's a sliding scale and everyone's somewhere on the spectrum, but I think there's enough people toward the honest side to enable a successful business.

Re:Risky

[Fordiman]

*whoosh*

You missed the sarcasm there entirely. Of course, this just indicates you failed to RTFA.

Re:Risky

[Fordiman]

Ah... CDs are a collection of a specialized raw format of 44100Hz, 16 bit, stereo PCM file, with error correction built into the physical transport layer.

They are a media for transporting digital information; not only is the separation senseless, it's imaginary. If you buy a CD, you've bought eight-to-fourteen digital files.

Re:Risky

[Virgil Tibbs]

It's not like you can contract an STD through drm-free music file.
See Sony and the Rootkit (episode 1)

Good for EMI

[thefirelane]

However, it sounds like they are still tentative. The dumb thing is, DRM does much more for Apple than it does for EMI. Basically, they've created a group of consumers who are locked into continuing to use Apple's Store. This increases Apple's power and bargaining position. If they were smart, they'd remove DRM ASAP, so consumers could eventually have choice about where to buy music.. which would make the stores compete for the business of EMI. Oh well, I think they're too blind to realize this, so they'll continue to march off the cliff

Re:Good for EMI

[teh kurisu]

Basically, they've created a group of consumers who are locked into continuing to use Apple's Store.

Nah, it doesn't lock them into the store. There's nothing to stop iTS customers buying from elsewhere. It locks customers into buying Apple hardware (iPods), which is far more lucrative.

Re:Good for EMI

[TheRaven64]

I've just received the press release from Apple about this. Starting in May, they will be offering EMI tracks on the UK store at 256Kb/s AAC with no DRM for 99p. This is in contrast to other music which will remain 79p for 128Kb/s DRM'd AAC. Strangely, none of the indie labels (who already sell DRM-free downloads) appear to be on board.

I'll probably have a look and buy a couple of albums to encourage this kind of thing. 256Kb/s AAC is pretty good, and DRM free is excellent. Now all they have to do is offer some music that I want...

By the way, customers who already bought the DRM'd versions will be able to upgrade for 20p/track; just paying the difference between the two prices and not having to re-buy. I think this is a much more interesting precedent to set. How many people would have wanted to upgrade their entire collections from tape to CD and just pay the media cost?

Stop IT!

[ebackbone]

hello?!?! it's already april 2. stop posting april fools material!! :@

(that's what you get when you go overboard slashdot admins)

Re:Stop IT!

[tijmentiming]

Stop using windows live messenger smileys. It makes you lame.

And MP3???

[Anonymous Coward]

What about MP3, getting rid of the DRM makes it easier to put on my MP3 player but I'd still rather just buy the damn MP3 VBR format to start with.

I have to say I'm suspicious, I just want to buy the music, I don't want to sign up to a store that may or may not have DRM'd music, I just want to buy a track and know it will be mp3 vbr, with no nasty surprises, and no complicated EULA, and no BITE ME IN THE ASS drm.

Am I asking too much? I have money, real money with no EULA to sign before you take it, it is yours to spend, I'm not claiming any IP rights over this money. You know, you sell me a copy of what I want, I give you money in exchange. Remember the good old days???

Re:And MP3???

[Fordiman]

It will very likely be in AAC format. This isn't bad, per se, as many mp3 players support AAC very well (though, they ALL support mp3).

Also, AAC transcodes at very low loss to MP3, if you're using the right software.

Re:And MP3???

[FLEB]

if you're using the right software.

Don't leave me hangin'... such as?

Re:And MP3???

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't want to sign up to a store that may or may not have DRM'd music,"

I think you have a problem then, since EVERY store "may or may not have DRM'd music," even stores that have nothing to do with music.

"May or may not" has to be the most idiotic phrase currently in use, since it establishes absolutely nothing.

Re:And MP3???

[TheRaven64]

Why on earth would you want MP3? The sound quality is lower, and even a cheap mobile phone can play AAC these days, let along a dedicated player. I can understand complaining that AAC is too low quality and wanting something like FLAC, but wanting to ditch AAC in favour of MP3 is just silly (both are equally patent encumbered, by the way).

Re:And MP3???

[Rocketship Underpant]

So shop at Allofmp3 already like the smart people do. Great selection, your choice of format and bit-rate, and no bullcrap EULAs.

Re:And MP3???

[Anonymous Coward]

"May or may not" has to be the most idiotic phrase currently in use, since it establishes absolutely nothing.


Thank you for highlighting one of the more pervasive weasel phrases in use today. It is filler language invented by people to serve as a disclaimer ("I didn't say we would, just that me may or may not...") and now used by the masses to sound more intelligent.

Re:And MP3???

[Technician]

This isn't bad, per se, as many mp3 players support AAC very well

From what I have seen, there are more players that play MP3 and WMA than there are players that play MP3 and AAC (Not counting the sheer volume of iPods) If the reason to drop DRM is to expand the market to the population not owning iPods, keeping the AAC format will limit expansion to the segment that has AAC players instead of the segment that have MP3 or MP3 & WMA players.

I have an MP3 / WMA player and it does not play any DRM format. (Under $40 Coby player)
I am outside any DRM store and outside any AAC format store. There is lots of free online MP3's of podcasts and music (not pirated). I bought a player to play MP3's. Any other format is a bonus, but not a requirement.

Go Buy!!

[Martian of Death]

If they do announce this, I will go to the iTunes store and buy $50 worth of EMI music this evening. The only way other companies will follow suit is if Apple is telling them that EMI is selling more songs after DRM is removed.

Re:Go Buy!!

[soft_guy]

That was my reaction also. Now, I've just got to find some EMI music on iTunes that I want and don't already own. (Might be hard.)

Re:Go Buy!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they do announce this, I will go to the iTunes store and buy $50 worth of EMI music this evening.

You might want to delay that impulse. Jobs says the non-DRM infested tracks will be available from May.

I Call April Fools

[Shihar]

The idea that Apple would sell non-DRMed music is laughable. DRM is what keeps the iTunes locked to iPods, and iPods locked to iTunes. It isn't like Apple has been begging other companies to let them strip the DRM from their products. On the contrary, indie labels that use iTunes have been begging Apple for years to let them sell their music DRM free and Apple has shown absolutely no interest in doing so.

Personally, I call April Fools. The day Apple doesn't try and tie hardware, software, and content all together is the day hell freezes over. If Apple really wanted to strip DRM from some of their music, they would have already done so for the labels that are begging for it.

Re:I Call April Fools

[yamamushi]

It's April 2nd :)

Re:I Call April Fools

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is what keeps the iTunes locked to iPods, and iPods locked to iTunes.

You can use an iPod without the iTunes software and you can play non-iTunes store music on them so iPods are not locked to iTunes. You can also use iTunes without an iPod so iTunes isn't locked to iPods either. You can even use the iTunes software with non-iTunes store digital music. What I think you meant to say is "DRM is what keeps iTunes store purchased music locked to iPods for portable music playing". Which I freely admit isn't such a catchy sound-bite but is superior to what you said in that it has some basis in reality.

NB - I did not at any point challenge whether the rest of your commentary on Apple is true and I do not currently own any Apple products.

April fools? There was some speculation about EMI doing this at least a month ago so though this utterance may be a late April fool the idea that EMI are flirting with such a notion pre-dates April fools day 2007.

Re:I Call April Fools

[TheSunborn]

A much bigger problem, is that the music from the ITunes store is bound to ITunes, and that Apple therefor controls which operation system, and which portable music players, can play the music. That's the problem.

But once I get some free time, I will lock into the drm removing software, to see If I can play Music from the ITunes music store on Linux and Solaris.

Re:I Call April Fools

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The idea that Apple would sell non-DRMed music is laughable.

Not really. Apple makes money selling iPods. They run their music sales business as break even as a way to sell more iPods. Unlike the computer market, where hardware is a commodity and Apple's differentiator is software, music is a commodity. I think last time I looked only 15% of iPods had any music from the iTMS on it, with the rest coming from CD rips and filesharing. Further, Apple advises all users to back up purchases onto non-DRMed CDs right after they are purchased. So the only "lock-in" is the small number of people who both bought from iTMS and did not back up and who do not want the hassle of burning and re-ripping. Remember, Apple was the first company to get the record companies to allow a way to burn to CD and bypass the DRM in the first place. Why would they fight to get that if they're concerned about lock-in and how do they benefit from this lock-in?

Apple is not afraid to let the iPod compete on its own merits. They don't need DRM lock-in and the inconvenience caused by DRM to users and the bad press they get probably costs them more money than what they make from users too lazy to bypass the DRM who buy an iPod only for that reason.

If Apple really wanted to strip DRM from some of their music, they would have already done so for the labels that are begging for it.

Because you know what contractual obligations Apple has to the RIAA members? Please post the confidential "trade secret" contracts Apple has with those RIAA labels so that we can see none of them include a clause saying Apple can't offer any non-DRMed music without permission from that label, and I'll take your argument seriously. Otherwise, you're just talking from a position of ignorance.

Re:I Call April Fools

[Anonymous Coward]

he idea that Apple would sell non-DRMed music is laughable.

Start laughing. It's being reported (by reliable sources, on April 2nd) that EMI will be allowing Apple to sell higher quality non-DRM selections.

Here's a pre-dupe for you, from CNET:

EMI's entire music catalog will be available in premium DRM-free form via iTunes in May, the music label said at a press conference Monday.

Higher-quality music files, which will play on any computer and any digital-audio player, will not replace the copy-protected EMI music currently sold through iTunes. Rather, they will complement the standard 99 cent iTunes downloads and will be sold at a premium: $1.29 per song.

Consumers who have already purchased EMI tracks containing Apple's FairPlay copy protection will be able to upgrade them to the premium version for 30 cents, EMI said. Full albums in DRM-free form can be bought at the same price as standard iTunes albums.

Isn't great to be wrong?

Re:I Call April Fools

[Shihar]

I'll start laughing when iTunes lets indie labels sell at 99 cents DRM free. Until then, sinking the DRM free music by charging a higher price is not going to get an applause from me. The fact that iTunes will let EMI strip their songs of DRM (at a higher price of course) begs the question as to why in the hell they wont let indie labels do it.

Not a Joke (I hope)

[RotateLeftByte]

This is not an AprilFools joke.
Jobs is in London and an announcement is due at 14:00BST today.
Quite what will be said remains a matter of speculation.

If this is true

[Psx29]

then I have no doubt that "parts of it's catalog" means they may be testing it on a few select artists that may or may not even be popular.

Re:If this is true

[init100]

And you were wrong. EMI will make their entire catalogue available without DRM, albeit at a slightly higher price, but also with the bitrate doubled.

Unlimited edition

[Dogtanian]

EMI's share price has been plummeting for months. My guess is they're desperate to try anything. I tell you it was all a frame, they only did it 'cos of fame - who? EMI.

Not a joke

[daveschroeder]

Reuters and the Wall Street Journal are already reporting it.

Re:Not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: whoosh!

Re:Not a joke

[mykdavies]

Hot off the EMI website:
http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.

Re:Not a joke

[clickclickdrone]

>$1.29/1.29/£0.99
Since when did $1.29 = £0.99? £0.65 maybe... Even by the usual ripoff $/£ conversion rates this is a bit much.

Re:Not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

No, dipshit. There are TONS of people who think this is an April Fool's joke. The original poster is no doubt one of those idiots, even though this is reported in numerous places (and no, didn't originate from an April Fool's joke, either, as some people also still believe).

One word: whoosh!

Re:Not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"(that's what you get when you go overboard slashdot admins)" --from the OP

See that line? That's what tips you off that the OP knew it wasn't a joke, but was berating /. for posting too many of them yesterday.

Hell, I was so conditioned to think like that yesterday that I thought the tsunami being reported on the BBC was fake at first.

Will you go back and eat your words?

[daveschroeder]

To all the people who thought Jobs' statement was PR bullshit to deflect criticism and that it "never really intended" to remove any DRM from any of its tracks, will you now go back and eat your words?

All the folks who erroneously expected/thought that Apple should have been able to do this in "2-3 days, tops" on a massive service and infrastructure like iTunes, will you now go back and eat your words?

To all of the people who think Apple can just "flip a switch" for indies, utterly ignoring the fact that there may be other binding legal or contract obligations that need to be ironed out, will you now go back and eat your words?

For the people who ignorantly don't realize that there is a massive support operation behind iTunes, and Apple doesn't want to break things or confuse customers, and wanted to do it right, and wanted to force the labels' hands such that a big one would jump first, will you now go back and eat your words?

I'm willing to wait at least for the official announcement, but since Reuters and the WSJ have already independently reported this, all you naysayers who kept on saying this was just a big PR conspiracy by Apple and they really were oh-so-in-love with DRM and iTunes/iPod lock-in that they'd never remove DRM, you're welcome to use this thread for your apologies.

This, if all the reports really are true (and no, it isn't the result of an April Fool's joke for anyone who still thinks it is), represents the biggest shift in online media since online media itself: the biggest online store, actively willing to sell content without DRM, proving that Apple isn't interested in DRM and did only apply it because of studio demands.

And then, pragmatically getting ALL of the major studios onboard into online sales, working in countless countries and jurisdictions with different legal systems, doing something that no other company had done before, and just biding its time and dropping the no-DRM bombshell in the form of Jobs' statement.

I know people probably won't thank Apple for this, especially the folks who love to hate Apple. But for all of the people who ask "what Apple ever does", or "how do they innovate", here's yet another answer.

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[ady1]

No but we can lick the monitor a bit.

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[sarathmenon]

I'd eat all that, if it were a burger or something. :)

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[FLEB]

But for all of the people who ask "what Apple ever does", or "how do they innovate", here's yet another answer.

Where is that other answer? Missed that. Apple started making noise just ahead of the popular-opinion wave hitting, and the press that can't see past the blinding Apple glare hyped it up as the next, first, and only time DRMless media had ever been proposed.

I'll still be sticking with the services that never had DRM in the first place. I'm not about to give anyone a standing ovation just because they finally unbolted the restrictions that they put there in the first place.

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I haven't followed all these Slashdot comments to which you are referring and I certainly never wrote any of them. Still, here I am replying to your message. I'm not here to "eat my words", as you say. Nor will anyone else respond to do so. The reason is that, given the facts at hand, some of the above opinions were reasonable ones at the time. They may or may not turn out to be wrong (after all, the non-DRM content is not yet available), but that doesn't make them unreasonable, except in retrospect.

Yet here you are, shouting about how you were right and everyone else was wrong. All this demonstrates is that you may have been right this once, and the tone of your message seems to indicate an unhealthy trust in Apple. Do you also register as a Republican or a Democrat and vote for whichever it is, regardless of how idiotic the candidate happens to be this iteration (if you aren't American, rinse and repeat for whatever idiocy passes for politics in your corner of the world)? Do you think that every action Microsoft makes is evil, simply because it's Microsoft, and all of Google's actions are good because it's Google?

Do us a favor. Learn to think and get back when you're not such an arrogant ass.

Also, while you're at it (and just to poke some wounds): If Apple didn't want the DRM at all, then why is it that iTunes wasn't originally designed to distribute DRM and non-DRM music for those labels that didn't want DRM? Also, consider that, unlike the Indie labels, EMI has weight to throw around, and, if it wants DRM off its content, Apple is in a much worse position to argue with EMI than the Indie labels.

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[daveschroeder]

Please direct me to the other major label music or media stores legally selling major label content online without DRM.

Thanks!

(Believe it or not, some people want major label content.)

And the restrictions are there because they needed to be. Apple is now using its power and clout to slowly remove them, because DRM is worthless for all the reasons we already knew, including the reasons Jobs, in his statement, articulated. If EMI was teetering, Jobs statement pushed them over the edge.

Like all things Apple does, no, they weren't "the first" and may not have "invented" said concept, but, as usual, they're the first to do it right, do it with tools (or content) people actually use, and do it en masse. Like it or not, this is huge, and just like all of the other things Apple didn't invent but actually took mass-market and made easy to use, like the mouse, the GUI, desktop publishing (LaserWriter), 802.11 (AirPort), a usable online music/media store (iTunes), etc. and so on, this will stand as a major shift in online media.

No, Apple isn't some kind of savior. But give credit where credit's due.

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[swissfondue]

Michael Gartenberg is giving the credit where it is due: "It is a good step forward for consumers but more importantly, it showed Apple at the forefront of acting as "champion" for consumer interests. After all, it wasn't Rob Glaser or Bill Gates up there with EMI. "

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[daveschroeder]

First of all, I haven't followed all these Slashdot comments to which you are referring and I certainly never wrote any of them. Still, here I am replying to your message. I'm not here to "eat my words", as you say. Nor will anyone else respond to do so. The reason is that, given the facts at hand, some of the above opinions were reasonable ones at the time. They may or may not turn out to be wrong (after all, the non-DRM content is not yet available), but that doesn't make them unreasonable, except in retrospect.

Well, it is indeed true: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

But the comments were absolutely unreasonable. To say that Jobs' statement was nothing more than a PR conspiracy and that it "didn't really want" to remove DRM was foolish.

For those who thought Jobs' statement wasn't accompanied by any tangible "action", to not understand that the statement itself WAS the "action" was also foolish.

When Jobs made this shot across the bow of the major media companies, as one of the most powerful people in online media sales, and a board member of a major media company no less, this wasn't some complicated disinformation stunt to deflect criticism from Apple. It was exactly what it was: the most significant pressure on the major media companies to remove DRM, to explain why DRM doesn't and will never work, to show that DRM hurts and confuses only honest customers, and that it will always be able to be defeated.

That's why the statement was met with such vitriol from some major media execs and folks at the RIAA.

Except Apple's plan is working. It has enough clout, and labels like EMI which were teetering on the verge of their own decisions have now been pushed over. These things don't just happen overnight, as many expected them to, but now Apple and EMI will be the first to, in any meaningful way, sell major label content on an online media store, legally, with no DRM.

And that's huge, and exactly what Jobs intended to occur when the statement was made.

Yet here you are, shouting about how you were right and everyone else was wrong. All this demonstrates is that you may have been right this once, and the tone of your message seems to indicate an unhealthy trust in Apple.

Haha. "Unhealthy trust in Apple." What does that even mean?

Anyway, it isn't hard to look at Apple's track record of innovation and forcing change in the industry - first computer, and now online media. To ignore Apple's massive contributions to computing and innovation (even if it didn't "invent" the technology/item in question) and pretend it hasn't been significant is to be utterly and willfully ignorant.

Can I predict the future? No. But it was clear exactly what Apple was trying to do, and in fact was doing, when it made that statement, and this EMI announcement is but the first of the fruits of that effort.

Do you think that every action Microsoft makes is evil, simply because it's Microsoft, and all of Google's actions are good because it's Google?

Nope, neither. Next?

Do us a favor. Learn to think and get back when you're not such an arrogant ass.

Touché.

Also, while you're at it (and just to poke some wounds): If Apple didn't want the DRM at all, then why is it that iTunes wasn't originally designed to distribute DRM and non-DRM music for those labels that didn't want DRM?

Haha. Yeah, "poke some wounds". Ouch. :~(

The answers to your questions are of course simple ones, they're just not the ones you want to hear.

To directly quote myself:

[...] the business processes that go into rolling something like this out are probably far more complex than the technical processes. This actually speaks to my point: technically, sure, it may be that "2-3 day" operation people think it should be. From a business and support perspective, it's not. There may even be legal issues in one or m

Re:Will you go back and eat your words?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it appears to be true. However, that doesn't make your post any more reasonable.

To say that Jobs' statement was nothing more than a PR conspiracy and that it "didn't really want" to remove DRM was foolish.

Only in retrospect. It makes a lot of business sense to tie music sold on iTunes to the iPod. If you can't see that, you're denser than lead. Most people don't even know what DRM is, so it's not really harming Apple's consumer base, except for us Slashdot-reading crowd. Why should Apple allow the music they sell you to run on devices that they didn't sell you when they don't have to? You can argue it from an altruistic perspective or a business perspective. You seem to have chosen to view the statement as altruistic. I find that laughable given Apple's and Jobs' histories, hence my comment about an unhealthy trust in Apple. Whether you say it quite that way or not, you seem to be trying very hard to sing Apple's praises in this thread.

This wasn't some complicated disinformation stunt to deflect criticism from Apple

Since when was saying, "He did it!" a complicated disinformation stunt? If Apple wants to point that finger at someone else, the record companies are an easy target and his memo was accurate, anyway. No doubt, regardless of whether Apple wants DRM, the record labels do. It just so happens that Apple also has an interest in keeping DRM.

To ignore Apple's massive contributions to computing and innovation (even if it didn't "invent" the technology/item in question) and pretend it hasn't been significant is to be utterly and willfully ignorant.

Your bias is showing. I certainly never claimed Apple hadn't contributed anything to computing and innovation. However, perhaps you might think of how Apple came about innovating with things it didn't invent before you so staunchly defend them. But I digress.

Very long, rambling quote snipped

That's nice. I also didn't claim that supporting non-DRMed music or different pricing schemes was easy. However, my point was more subtle than that. Try to catch it this time. If Apple was really against DRM all along and it's only there because the mean record labels made them put it there, why didn't they design iTunes *from the start* to support non-DRM music, just in case there were some people who were willing to go without it?

You think that Apple removing DRM for a few piddly indie labels would speak louder than any statement could

Nope, I never said that. You must be confusing me with someone else.

where other big time execs are now climbing on the bandwagon

Oh? I read EMI, not "EMI, Sony, BMG, etc.". I must work on my reading comprehension, I suppose. One troubled record company does not a bandwagon make.

And now that Apple has obviously gotten the support, business, and technical frameworks in place to support DRMless music on iTunes, and got a major label to topple, indies may be next.

What makes you think this change is related to Apple's posturing? As you note yourself, EMI is in trouble. Isn't that just as likely an explanation for their sudden decision to try non-DRM music?

I do have to hand it to you. That's some creative mental hoop-jumping just to avoid admitting that this is a big, big move by Apple, and may even represent the beginnings of a death knell for DRM, at least in some sectors, if there ever will be one. Now that's the battle we have to watch.

Thank you. But I must say that I'm much more impressed by your abilities. You seem to have gone from one troubled label releasing part of its collection (now upgraded to all, I notice, but it wasn't at the time you wrote that), presumably to try to stimulate sales, to a bandwagon of execs releasing their music collecti

Confirmed!

[datafr0g]

On EMI's website....

http://www.emigroup.com/Default.htm

DRM-free downloads: EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads. From 1pm London time there will be a live audio webcast of this announcement.

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

Re:Confirmed!

[tommie_1138]

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.

Re:Confirmed!

[terraformer]

Well, what I really want to know is how about stuff I have already bought??? And yes, I know there are unofficial ways but I would rather see an official method.

Re:Confirmed!

[supersat]

Sadly, these tracks are more expensive -- but they claim that they've increased the audio quality, so perhaps that's an acceptable trade-off. They're also allowing you to upgrade your existing purchases.

Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.

Steve Jobs just announced that iTunes will start selling these tracks in May, at 256kbps AAC. He also explained how to circumvent the existing DRM with burning songs to a CD and re-ripping them. ;)

Re:Confirmed!

[datafr0g]

$1.29 for DRM Free tracks,
$.99 for the normal DRM track
$.30 for the upgrade per song

Apparently the DRM tracks also are encoded at a higher quality.... seems odd that they'd offer DRM still, but it will be interesting to see how well they sell vs the cheaper DRM encoded tracks.

Re:Confirmed!

[clickclickdrone]

I just hope they have some stuff I actually want to buy, but great news. I can now start buying some stuff and be sure the money is going to the right people. Yaaaaay!

Re:Confirmed!

[cibyr]

Still not lossless, and I can still torrent FLAC albums for free...

Re:Confirmed!

[C0rinthian]

And by doing so, you are simply reinforcing the RIAA's position that "People really want our music! But they're STEALING it!"

If you don't like how they sell something, buy it from someone who offers an acceptable deal. If noone is selling what you want to buy, then DON'T CONSUME AT ALL.

Keep it honest, or else the vote you make with your dollar is meaningless.

Sex Pistols Revenge?

[Black-Man]

"EMI... Good-bye"

Press release says "entire digital repertoire"

[Nicolas MONNET]

From the press release:

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.

... therefore, not just parts of it.

Re:Press release says "entire digital repertoire"

[datafr0g]

Too bad that their "entire digital repertoire" is not the same as their entire catalog.

Still no Beatles... yet...

Re:Press release says "entire digital repertoire"

[R2.0]

Whoa, there, big fella.

"DRM-free superior quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire"

The key word is "across", and that doesn't necessarily mean "all encompassing".

Re:Press release says "entire digital repertoire"

[memojuez]

It's not really a "Beatles" deal since Michael Jackson owns most of their catalog.

Dear EMI

[clickclickdrone]

So far, the only people I have bought MP3s from is allofmp3.com. The reason I don't buy it from anywhere else is DRM and fear that at some point, the system will stop me listening to it on some device or other.
Most albums I listen to I already have on LP, CD, special edition CD and every other variant you tempt me with.
If you remove the DRM, you can bet I'll start buying MP3s from your catalogue too. Hope that helps in your decision.

30 (US/euro) cent upgrade

[ynotds]

Which is exactly the difference between the price of the old fidelity DRM tracks and the new (higher) fidelity non-DRM tracks.

Without DRM everything is easier

[giafly]

EMI's position was simple: if they sell music without DRM, then users will find [any verb] it that much easier.

[any verb] = listening to, backing up, sampling, mixing, making a compilation including, etc. But don't forget buying.

Official press release confirms

[SonniesEdge]

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

The catch...

[monsted]

Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Source: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

Ah, i knew there was a catch. Mr. Jobs, i'd like to save those 30 cents and get the non-upgraded quality without DRM, thank you.

Re:The catch...

[gsslay]

Well thank goodness! With DRM (thankfully) dead, I was thinking for a moment there that people would have to start thinking up yet another excuse as to why pirating music was not only ok, but in fact a good thing.

But here's a ready made one! Let the file sharing and self-serving moral posturing continue!

Re:The catch...

[monsted]

What are you going on about? I simply feel that the quality of the currently offered music is good enough and don't want to pay extra to get the non-DRM files. Bundling these two features is only an attempt to gouge us for more cash.

Of course, this is probably just an excuse for them to be able to tell everybody that noone really wants drm-free music, since they'll still sell more DRM-infected than DRM-free songs...

Re:The catch...

[TheRaven64]

This also weakens iTunes DRM, which is a very smart move for Apple. Now you can buy the DRM'd tracks and think 'If I want to listen to them elsewhere, all I have to do is pay 20p/track and I can upgrade to the DRM-free versions.' Then, when you are next shopping for a portable music player, you mentally add on (number of iTunes DRM'd files * 20p) to the price of iPod competitors.

Re:The catch...

[Kjella]

Oh don't worry, there's plenty to choose from. E.g. why don't they sell it at the price of allofmp3 (which pays bandwidth and the rest being pure profit), why can't I get it in FLAC/OGG/whatever obscure format, it's still feeding the RIAA money which sues preteens and kills puppies and so on.

With danger of invoking Godwin's law, everyone from Hitler to Hannibal Lector have been able to justify their own actions to themselves. Anything from general anti-megacorporations to whatever will do "All the big corps are screwing us, so why shouldn't I screw them back when I get the chance?"

You want to know why EMI is worried? Because I'm such a pessimist that I think very soon there'll be a "EMI collection", all the offical AACs in one easy package. No more looking through a bunch of fakes to find the real one, there'll be one dominant version. Casual copying is back in full force. I still think the iTunes store sales will go up though. But I'm not sure EMI will be happy with the total picture.

Re:The catch...

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, I'll continue my total boycott of RIAA labels*, and trade via P2P only artists who aren't retarded enough to not WANT me to trade.

Yes, P2P helps artists and labels, does NOT hurt them. Every sihngle study save the RIAA-funded one has shown this. Which is why the RIAA doesn't want you trading songs; you might trade Mad Donna for somebody who will open your brainwashed mind to something that will make you realize you've been listening to lowest common denominator commercial pap.

McDonalds does NOT want you to know that Prime Rib is available and cheaper than a Big Mac.

*So if I absolutely HAVE to have something from the majors, I'll buy it used. And no, I'm not going to waste my bandwidth uploading something that the owners stupidly don't want uploaded. They have radio and empty-v, isn't that enough exposure for these talentless hacks? Let the RIAA labels die the death they're heading for with the stupid decisions they've made since computers and the internet came along. Good riddance to them.

-mcgrew (sm62704)

Re:The catch...

[gsslay]

Yes, P2P helps artists and labels, does NOT hurt them. Every sihngle study save the RIAA-funded one has shown this.
Unfortunately these (unquoted) studies are only true in a system where most other music isn't online, or has DRM. Remove these parameters to your equation and your studies are no longer valid. Make all music free and suddenly maybe you'll find that the other free music doesn't seem quite so attractive any more. Would I investigate that new act with the free downloads when I can download an act I do know for free too?

Which is why the RIAA doesn't want you trading songs; you might trade Mad Donna for somebody who will open your brainwashed mind to something that will make you realize you've been listening to lowest common denominator commercial pap.

Please! Not this old chestnut! The RIAA doesn't give a damn what type of music you listen to, or who performs it. Why would they? They just care you've bought it off them. And the vast majority of P2P music file-sharing is not a wonderland of obscure acts and exotic styles. It's the exact same "commercial pap". It's what most people want. That's what "lowest common denominator" means. Do you honestly believe that if all music filesharing was made legal tomorrow, then suddenly everyone would be listening to obscure, minority taste acts that you personally judge better than "commercial pap"?

Re:The catch...

[gsslay]

I actually wasn't criticizing you. Just commenting that you've provided the much needed excuse. You might have a point, but I do seem to recall one of the justification bleats for not buying music online legally was that it just wasn't high enough quality and that DRM should properly be regarded as a degradation of the music. So is there anything wrong with asking people to pay more for a better quality product? Capitalism has been asking people to do this since forever. Why should this be any different?

EMI artists

[clickclickdrone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_sig ned_to_EMI

Re:EMI artists

[escay]

what would be more interesting is that if artists now decide to switch sides and sign new contracts with EMI - more people would be ready to buy non-DRMed music so this would be a good way for the artists to reach more audience, besides gathering some good cred along the way for supporting non-DRM.

It would also make the other big music companies sit up and take notice, when they suddenly start losing their golden-egg laying geese.

Re:Confirmed! Superior quality and pricing

[swissfondue]

Yes, instead of getting Apple to pay upfront, consumers will be asked to pay more for drm free music.

"DRM-free tracks at twice the sound quality or Standard sound quality tracks with DRM".

Pricing will be higher as well.

yeh but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's AAC through iTunes, then stuff I buy from iTunes MAY OR MAY NOT WORK on my MP3 player. If they have their DRM on it, it won't because I can't transcode it.

So it would be like walking into a mine field, maybe I'll be OK and navigate the field correctly, but maybe I'll download something and BOOM, stupid me, that track has Apple's DRM all over it and I can only play it on iPod. I'd just rather not do that.

When they offer MP3 through a store I trust not to trick me, then I'll buy. I'm hopeful that this will happen as a result of EMIs move. I'd like to backfill my MP3 player. There's a lot of good bands in the EMI catalogue I'd like to buy.

Re:yeh but...

[init100]

So it would be like walking into a mine field, maybe I'll be OK and navigate the field correctly, but maybe I'll download something and BOOM, stupid me, that track has Apple's DRM all over it and I can only play it on iPod.

Except that the DRM:ed tracks will be 128 kbps and 99 cents apiece, while the non-DRM:ed tracks will be 256 kbps and 1.29 dollars apiece. If you cannot read before you buy, that's your problem.

If you download some of EMI's non-DRMed music...

[clickety6]

.. could you send me a copy to try ;-)

Open

[simpl3x]

As they've publicly announced, this will hopefully dispel all of the statements that Jobs was full of it and playing games with his opinion piece. Since I have never purchased anything from the iTMS, I have no copy protection. I've loaded files on a Nokia N880 and they play, so they should play on the Rio if AAC is supported.

As you can export any of your non-DRM music from iTunes, any jail cell you inhabit is of your own making. Apparently, here on /. your not alone in that cell however.

Re:Open

[Lars T.]

As they've publicly announced, this will hopefully dispel all of the statements that Jobs was full of it and playing games with his opinion piece. Well, now they will say: "This only proves that EMI forced Jobs to drop DRM."

Thats why i love EMI

[unity100]

It has been 4-5 months or so. or maybe 7-8 i dont remember.

i bought an emi compilation of classic music titles, called "Best of Classics 100", and "Best of Classics 2" (100 again). each of them are 6 cd, total of 12 cd, classic music titles performed by renowned performers/orchestras.

came home, put these in my 6 cd changer pioneer set. set shuffle play and voila. play on sweet chariot.

when i am working, sitting, and even sometimes gaming, i play classical music. so it was on the air around 10-14 hours a day with only intermittent pauses.

but i advise against such incessant playing on a set that dates 1991 - as very soon you would find yourself in my situation - cd changer wont play at all. i dont know how much it would cost me to get it repaired.

i put the cds one by in my dvd rw at my pc. ripped them off one by one in high quality. all of them. with NO problems.

acquired an altec lansing fx 6021. i have a creative x-treme music sound card.

now im playing them incessantly through winamp. or whatever i wish. i made a list from my favorites among them, and its on constant shuffle.

i wouldnt have that convenience if there was DRM shit.

so i would like to thank the all people at EMI, who thought that selling music without DRM shit was a good idea.

thank you.

Re:Thats why i love EMI

[nikostheater]

Well,i think that it is major news today. The other labels now must respond or else they lose.. And the whole thing is a major blow to Microsoft as well with the "Universal tax" in zune and the stupid drm restrictions in zune player... Hopefully the market will adjust to drm free high quality music in reasonable fee. Oh,i forgot..and without silly litiligation against mothers and dead poeple ans such. (please excuse my poor english).

Looks like it *is* true

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As I write this, the BBC have a "breaking news" article that appears to confirm that EMI are dropping mandatory DRM.

Short version: you will be able to buy DRM-free files, which will cost you more, but will also be of higher quality. You will also be able to upgrade existing DRM'd music to the "premium" DRM-free format for a small fee.

Re:Looks like it *is* true

[Fahrenheit 450]

Here's the press release from Apple.

The headline is already outdated

[Conanymous Award]

EMI does now offer its entire catalog DRM-free (and in higher quality), first on iTunes.

1.29US$ = .99GBP

[bazorg]

wow, next time I visit the US I'm bringing a big suitcase full of these MP3 things so I can sell them in Great Britain.

with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/1.29/£0.99. .

This could boost iPod sales if it takes off...

[samalone]

Since the new tracks without DRM are going to be encoded at twice the bitrate, only half as many songs will fit on your iPod. So if Apple's strategy becomes popular, this has the potential to drive the purchase of larger, more expensive iPods.

Of course, it could very well drive the purchase of larger players from other companies, too. But an awful lot of people are going to stick with the iPod brand and interface, and just look for more capacity.

Re:This could boost iPod sales if it takes off...

[neminem]

You don't know how happy that would make me. I'm currently the proud owner of a complete no-name brand mp3 player, which suffers from a rather mediocre interface, but has the honor of being the only player currently capable of supporting 100 gig drives. I bought it for that exact reason.

Classical music

[swissfondue]

I never bought classical music on iTunes due to the low (for classical music) AAC bit rate. In May, when I buy an entire album, I will be able to buy classical music at a higher quality encoding, drm-free and for the same price as today.

Yay!

Whose the customer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Am I the customer with the money wanting to buy the product or you?

I know the quality of a good MP3 VBR encoding and it's no different than AAC and I don't want to change players. Since MP3 is the defacto pirate standard, millions of other people seem to agree.

So why should I buy AAC from Jobs? And why would I buy it from Jobs if I have to read the small print to see if it has DRM or not? The only people who frequent iTunes are iPod owners, and that's the way it will always be.
I'll wait till we get DRM free MP3 from an MP3 store.

Re:Whose the customer?

[C0rinthian]

How about you wait and see how they label the DRM free tracks before complaining about it being confusing?

Call me a music snob but....

[pandrijeczko]

There's also rumours of an Apple/Beatles announcement sometime today, perhaps tied into this drm decision.

...if you're too stupid to be able to rip Beatles songs from a CD yourself, or, indeed, you believe you can understand the full nuances of the Beatles music while listening to it through tinny (and tiny) headphones while you're on a gym treadmill, then my advice is stay away from their stuff altogether in the first place.

Stick to the "music for the masses" claptrap that infests the pop charts today - and you'll still be nice and fashionable with your iPod also...

Re:Call me a music snob but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me finish that for you... "And if you do listen to the Beatles with the proper reverrential mindset and on quality equipment, you will one day be able to come off like the elitist snob I do."

Jeezus, dude... I bet John Lennon would either be lauging his ass off or verbally kicking your butt if he was still around to hear you spout off like that.

Re:Call me a music snob but....

[coleridge78]

Welcome to the real world, of people who recognize that the Beatles are music for the masses "claptrap". They had some good songs that went a little further than the strict norm, but certainly not a lot further.

Anyone who tells you they were groundbreaking is lying to you. They were popular enough that they could bring the innovations of others, extremely watered-down, to the great white mass.

Re:Call me a music snob but....

[DeathElk]

My recipe for "Leek, Potato And Elitist Minority Soup"... Peel and slice 6 Leeks, 6 Potatoes and 1 Beatles Listener...

Comfirmed: PR from Apple

[Oniros]

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.h tml

Re:Comfirmed: PR from Apple

[Luscious868]

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 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:

"We are going to give iTunes customers a choice--the current versions of our songs for the same 99 cent price, or new DRM-free versions of the same songs with even higher audio quality and the security of interoperability for just 30 cents more," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We think our customers are going to love this, and we expect to offer more than half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the end of this year."

Re:Comfirmed: PR from Apple

[dlsmith]

More labels to follow, apparently. From Steve Jobs:

We think our customers are going to love this, and we expect to offer more than half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the end of this year. I wouldn't think he would say this if it were nothing but wishful thinking...

Wait!

[datafr0g]

The Non DRM Tunes will not be be released until next month...

My gods...

[bhsx]

Would you rather they do like everyone else and just say $1.29USD==£1.29? Everyone here she be applauding Apple for at least one part of the announcement. It seems everyone instead has decided to bitch about at least one part of the announcement. Welcome to Slashrock... Out in the street, they call it murder...

Not idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

'"May or may not" has to be the most idiotic phrase currently in use, since it establishes absolutely nothing.'

It establishes uncertainty. i.e. the thing has multiple outcomes, but the actual outcome cannot be defined with certainty.

There is uncertainty in the transaction, why I buy music from iTunes, I am uncertain if that music will be playable (i.e. DRM free) and hence it (the iTunes store) is devalued in my eyes.

"since EVERY store "may or may not have DRM'd music," even stores that have nothing to do with music."
Not so, some stores will sell DRM free music, some will sell DRM'd music. Those stores no longer "may or may not" sell DRM music since there is certainty in what they sell.

Re:Not idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not so, some stores will sell DRM free music, some will sell DRM'd music. Those stores no longer "may or may not" sell DRM music since there is certainty in what they sell."

Nay. "May or may not" is what logicians call a tautology, a statement that is always true, irrespective of the subject matter. Tautologies contribute nothing to argument.

For another perspective, to quote Maddox, he hates people that say "may or may not, as if there were some hidden third possibility that we weren't aware of."

Re:Not idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nay. "May or may not" is what logicians call a tautology"

Giving it a name doesn't change what it is, an expression of uncertainty vs certainty.

X is red
Y is black
Z is red or black.

If I pick a Z it may or may not be red. I cannot say that for the other two. If I pick X then I cannot say it 'may or may not' be red, because I know it *is* red. If I pick Y I cannot say it *may or may not be* be red, because it *is not* red.

The presence of 'may or may not be' indicates uncertainty about a claimed property. In this case the 'drm freeness' of Apples music.

Maddox is complaining about the flabbiness of the phrase. Fine, but it's there to add emphasis to the uncertainty so it has a usage whether he like that use or not.

But why continue selling DRM'd tracks?

[dlsmith]

The good: you can upgrade your DRM'd music to a non-DRM'd form for $.30 per track. Not perfect, but it does set a reasonable precedent for the future: if FairPlay dies eventually, Apple might actually provide an upgrade path without asking consumers to re-purchase their entire music collection at full price.

The bad: lower-quality tracks are still sold with DRM. What possible reason (nefarious or otherwise) could there be for this? If the motivation behind the DRM is to defeat illegal sharing, isn't its purpose nullified by making DRM-free tracks available? The argument that inconsistency causes confusion doesn't really fly anyomore, because the offerings already *are* inconsistent. Maybe they've determined that consumers who are willing to pay the "premium" price are less likely to participate in illegal sharing? (This feels kind of like they started to sell CDs pre-scratched -- the way pants are sold pre-worn -- and then decided to sell non-scratched CDs for $25.)

A push to sell albums instead of individual tracks

[swissfondue]

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). This is inline with the recent iTunes Store "upgrade to album" offer.

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

So if I buy 8 songs from an album, it is cheaper to buy the album. This compares to 10 individual tracks from the same album under previous pricing.

Gives Jobs some leverage in his problems with EU

[guidryp]

The EU countries that have been after Apple about interoperability will now have to take his argument seriously that DRM is not his desire as he will now sell DRM free tracks that are not locked at all. He can blame the locking on the record companies. If Push comes to shove he can go EMI only in countries that force interoperability.

I have to think negotiations for this were already underway with EMI when he wrote his open letter previously.

I may have to look into what they have to offer for the first time consider buying something from Itunes. Though I would prefer they were MP3 and thus more universal to eliminate the need to transcode, though starting with a higher quaility original will help.

A step in the right direction.

How about...

[pedestrian crossing]

eMusic? Almost all of their stuff is VBR MP3, no DRM.

The only stuff that is not VBR are tracks that are already lo-fi, like stuff from old 78's, etc..

But no DRM, no gimmicks. And as long as you have an account with them, you can re-download anything you already downloaded, for free.

All for about 25% of the cost of buying from Apple...

Re:A push to sell albums instead of individual tra

[dlsmith]

That's the way it's presented for the moment -- higher quality albums for the same price. But album prices are determined by the labels, and are limited by the cost of individual tracks. If they eventually ditch $.99 tracks, the maximum reasonable album price will go up, and we'll start to see albums going for a standard rate of $12.99. I'm all for DRM-free and higher-bit-rate music, but this also feels like a sneaky way to raise prices.

When the government works for the labels...

[FatSean]

...I can't seem to muster up much concern.

How to reward this

[cdrguru]

1. Set up a fund with PayPal or something which is dedicated to purchasing all of the DRM-free catalog.
   
2. Purchase it! Every single unprotected song.
   
3. Make it all available via BitTorrent!
   

Of course, this being the Internet the same thing will be accomplished with less organization and over a much longer period of time. Why do they think they can still sell music?

Great News

[Xybot]

I, for one, am quite happy to pay more for the same product with the designed defect removed. In the near future I am fully expecting to be able to buy an IPod with a user changeable battery (at a premium price of course).

Watermarking with the extra bits???

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard songs purchased from some services at reasonable bit rates (160+) that had terrible actual fidelity.

My guess is that at least some of those extra bits will be watermarks.

Two people that purchase and DL the same song need to get together to compare the two files.

Re:If this is true.... pity about the quality

[speardane]

a good step forward - Thank you EMI & Jobs - I almost feel compelled to buy just out of principle to show EMI / Apple this is the right move.

But 256 MP3s are only slightly higher fully lossless (FLAC or whatever) is the only way to get CD quality across your digital system - please give us high quality and access to similar artwork etc - if you want to charge similar prices to CDs

In fact please give us higher quality than CDs

And just to anticipate, yes I can hear the difference, it's why I buy vinyl, when I can and only buy CDs, when there is no choice. With a decent (non-free) pair of headphones I can from my portable player

Bit Torrent is overrated.

[jotaeleemeese]

IT is great if you are trying to get popular things, it is crap if you are trying to get niche stuff.

I will be installing the Itunes sofware in my Windows Vmware emulated machine tonight, the obvious ease of use of Itunes and now the offer of unencumbered DRM music are winners for me.