Steve Jobs Announces (some) DRM-free iTunes

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.

Comments

Good job everyone!

[AchiIIe]

If you were one of the thousands of bloggers/netcitizens demanding DRM free music, give yourself a hand. This is a win for us.

Re:Good job everyone!

[sgant]

no pleasing some people. If they offered it at the same price, they'd still complain that not ALL the music on iTunes is DRM free. Once they do that, then they'd complain about the .99 cents saying it's too much.

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:Good job everyone!

[CaptMoroni]

20 years of watching the man, as well as many other technology CEOs + 6 years of working for him. He is passionate about some things amd music is one of them. He manages his brand (meaning the brand of "Steve Jobs") even more carefully than he manages the Apple brand, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about music and that he would NEVER write a public letter to the industry as a cheap bit of marketing hype. The fact that, within weeks of that letter, Apple has taken today's step of releasing DRM free music in a higher bit rate and in an open standard format provides hard evidence that he wasn't blowing smoke.

Re:Good job everyone!

[brouski]

As of right now, AllofMP3 is still up. /shrug

Re:Good job everyone!

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't think you can throw down on AAC...AAC is an open standard, developed by the same people who developed mp3 (technically AAC = mp4), and it's got substantially better quality than mp3 as well. AAC and ogg are the only two formats I'm willing to encode cd's into.

The fact that a lot of players choose to only support mp3 is a sign of their own shortsightedness, not some special virtue.

Re:Good job everyone!

[ncc74656]

Jobs didn't want that, though. He didn't want universally compatible music, he wanted ipod-and-only-ipod compatible music, which is why these new higher priced songs are only offered in AAC. It allows him to keep leveraging his near-monopoly between itunes and ipods in the same manner that Apple-DRM-Protected files did.

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!

[PyroMosh]

Now the question is what will happen going forward, when AmErIcAnIdOl62614 logs on to ITMS, and sees the following choice:

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?

Wait a Minute

[Mateo_LeFou]

DRM is *very expensive to produce. There's the R&D costs, programming, buying up congresspeople. How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?

This is what I've been waiting for...

[phayes]

My current music collection is high quality MP3s (192-256Kbit) I've ripped myself which I listen to on Slimboxes connected to quality speakers.
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.

cojones

[suzerain]

Man, say what you want about Steve Jobs. He's got a famous temper, he doesn't compromise, he likes closed systems, etc. and so on. But one thing he definitely has is balls, and sometimes we can benefit from it.

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.

A good thing, but...

[Pirogoeth]

Personally, while I see it as a good thing from different angles (customer: music can be played on any software/player, reseller: Apple makes more money because people will come to them to buy DRM-free tunes, supplier: EMI makes more money from the higher per-song price, artists: still get screwed) I don't see it as jumping for joy news. I'm not much of an audiophile, so the higher quality would probably be lost on me, and I drank the Apple kool-ade years ago, so I'll be using iTunes/iPods forever so the presence of the DRM doesn't really impact me..

Question(s):

1: If you buy music through iTMS, will you spend the extra $$$ for the higher-quality DRM-free versions?

2: Will you spend the $$$ to take up the offer to "upgrade" any existing music you have previously downloaded?

3: How long will it be until major label #2 makes a similar announcement?

Re:Alright Slashdot...

[CaptnMArk]

It would be better to have a

[ ] search for DRM crippled songs

checkbox.

WaterMarking

[tecker]

Another advantage of the higher bitrates is the ability to slip in watermarking. Thanks to perfect digital replication the instant this appeared on P2P they could trace the file back to the person that purchased the media.

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

[One Childish N00b]

This is a problem, why?

You still shouldn't be allowed to distribute the content freely - much as a good portion of the /. userbase thinks "information wants to be free", companies are still perfectly within their rights to sue people for illegally distributing their material - at least with this method it would be the original uploaders getting punished, rather than downloaders or reuploaders who just leave the files in their shared directory and forget about them - the only people that would get sued would be people who consciously and deliberately upload copyrighted material.

Personally I feel that watermarking would be the perfect solution for all parties involved.

Re:WaterMarking

[jafac]

Back in the late 90's when the mafIAA were suing Napster, the web-folk were complaining about free speech and "infringing uses" - and they were saying that the people who are infringing (ie. actually sharing the music) were the ones that should be sued, not the company, not the technology, and not the tools. (I bet Shawn Fanning is spinning in his grave - or his hot tub, whatever). Now the record companies are doing it - and people are still complaining. There's no equivalence between buying a CD, and letting your brother borrow it, or ripping it and sharing the files with 250,000 of your "closest friends".

Frankly - I think that there's a "scary" direction this could all take. (as if senators saying that the mafIAA should have the right to "destroy" your computer isn't scary enough) - if Apple goes DRM free, and EMI buys into it, then other services, and labels, will have to as well. If they don't, Apple wins, and gets a monopoly. My guess is that not every record company is ready to do this, and we'll see some labels leave Apple. OR - maybe all the labels will feel pressure to offer DRM-less recordings, on all services. (I don't think this is going to cut into sales - I really don't - especially if the mafIAA keeps suing sharers). If that happens, then labels will probably try to differentiate themselves via exclusivity with services. The choice won't be "DRM or DRM-free" - the choice will be "Artist X (from service Y) or Artist Z (from service W)" - this model cuts out the services as the distinguishing factor. It takes the service providers out of the equation (why choose iTMS over Zune, or any other service - other than specific Artist availability?) A service provider is a player, a web site, and a server-farm. Not much latitude for a product to distinguish itself. We may even see a "race to the bottom" as far as "cheap" service goes. Apple may maintain its status as a boutique brand, wrt its music player (iPod) features, and style. But there's no longer a real economic incentive for a person to stick with iTMS as a service provider - other than Artist availability - which is controlled very tightly by the label.

This means; the Record Labels could very well have the last laugh here - for FINALLY doing what fans have been clamoring for since 1996. Chuck DRM under the bus.

Players

[mwvdlee]

What players, besides iPod, support the non-DRM AAC format?

A moron says what?

[Grashnak]

F*** you and your ilk, Steve Jobs. Why should I have to pay more for DRM free music? If we're getting *less* than what we would get with your DRM laden crap, we should be paying less too. How exactly is buying DRM-less music at a much higher bitrate (256) getting "less" than the standard DRMed file at only 128?

I swear that if Steve Jobs announced tomorrow that all iTunes music would be available DRM-free and would be given away at no cost, people would log on here to complain that Apple should be sending hookers to everyone's house to give them a free blowjob while the music is downloading.

When will other labels join in?

[rekoil]

I'm really curious what the future holds for other labels now that we've had a major break in the DRM ranks. Several independent labels, most notably Nettwerk, have gone on record as being willing to sell their tracks DRM-free (and AFAIK they do on emusic.com), but have been unable to get Apple to do so, citing Apple's desire for "user consistency" or some other bullsh*t...so I wonder if we'll see DRM-free tracks from those labels as well sooner than later given this mornings news.

Re:Better than CD?

[pkulak]

"Can anyone confirm, is 256kbps enough for an AAC file to be indistinguishable from a CD in a true double blind listening test?" Actually 128 is for all but about three people on HydrogenAudio. :D I see 256 as a bit of a waste.

Structure first

[SuperKendall]

Would you care to explain how having DRM-free indy bands' tracks on iTMS would have made such negotiation with major labels somehow more difficult?

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?

I'll pay to avoid the B&Ms, thanks.

[Kadin2048]

Do they realize that an entire album, which I can purchase at a brick-and-mortar or an online retailer, will now be cheaper. I can rip that CD using Apple Lossless encoding. Maybe I'm missing the point???

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.

When Reporters Set Agendas

[bananaendian]

Michael Gartenberg wrote:

"Had another funny call with a media outlet this morning. When I called them back on the Apple/EMI news, first question was. "Do you think this is a bad thing for Apple and EMI." When I said "no, it's a good thing", they said "thanks for calling but we only want to talk to someone who thinks this is a bad thing."

Higher Bitrates not Required

[bill_mcgonigle]

Another advantage of the higher bitrates is the ability to slip in watermarking.

I wrote about this a few weeks ago - current watermarking techniques are not significant with regard to quality compared with lossy compression.

Watermarking is a real solution to piracy - it enables Copyright Law to be the default mechanism for handing these problems, just like in the Old Days, before the Dark Times, before the DMCA.

To summarize my thesis: Watermarking solves piracy, DRM is about forced repurchasing. Links and more there.

Likewise - iTunes for windows suuuuuuuucks

[caitsith01]

I have an iPod, and I love it, but iTunes for Windows is the WORST THING EVER. Ok, maybe not ever. But at least in the last 10,000 years or so.

It is massively bloated, requires you to install the equally heinous Quicktime, tries to upgrade itself 14 times a week, doesn't conform to the Windows GUI standard AT ALL*, and tries to seize control of all of your music and video files and associate them with itself. Quicktime is apparently DESIGNED to fuck up your web browsing experience so that you no longer have the ability to download MOVs or anything in an Apple format, and instead are forced to watch it in a tiny plugin window with no real controls, which once again doesn't conform to any kind of Windows GUI standard.

There are alternatives for using an iPod (such as the reasonably excellent ml_ipod for Winamp) but there aren't any for using the iTunes store.

Please Steve, I'll consider giving you my money now that you've stripped away DRM, but for christ's sake, just make a web-only version of your store...

* seriously, how would Mac users feel if Office for Mac literally ran in a simulated Windows XP environment, complete with Windows-style widgets and the XP GUI skin layed over the top of it?