Slashdot Mirror
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.
If you were one of the thousands of bloggers/netcitizens demanding DRM free music, give yourself a hand. This is a win for us.
Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
.. everyone who wanted DRM-free music put your money where your mouth is!
Uh, no? Jobs isn't stupid. As the summary says, these files are encoded at a much higher bitrate. So what you're really paying more for is higher quality files. Of course, you could get higher quality files on anti-DRM principles, but the result is still the same: You get twice the "standard" bitrate for about 30% more. You can decide for yourself if that's a deal or not.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
There's also an EMI Press Release.
Just like McDonalds you can Super size for $0.30 more that gives you more than you actually need to consume.
DRM is *very expensive to produce. There's the R&D costs, programming, buying up congresspeople. How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I think this is a good deal for people like me who like to buy the whole album instead of singles. We get higher quality at the same price without being locked-in.
I didn't see it mentioned in a brief look at the articles above, but albums will automatically be 256kbps and DRM free at the normal price. This should help encourage album sales. Ideally, they would offer the lower quality songs without DRM as well, but this is undoubtedly prevented by their current contracts with the other labels. Only by offering a new "product" were they able to remove the DRM. This is the same reason that they are unable to remove the DRM from songs released by indie labels that requested no DRM.
I hereby rescind my Apple-phobia. Jobs has achieved a BIG GOOD THING. /you'll still have to pry my iRiver out of my twitching, techno-spazzed fingers.
Good on ya, Steve!
ceci n'est pas un 'sig'
So what exactly is their justification for leaving DRM on the $0.99 tracks? It can't be that they are afraid people will release them into the wild if the higher quality tracks are now DRM free, so why not remove it?
No, it doesn't. As others (who have read the article) said, the .30 price increase is due to the doubled bitrate. It might be a convenient cop-out, but it still doesn't give anyone the right to distribute the file.
Starmen.net
This is excellent news! I love that they are offering the option to upgrade any previously purchased songs to the 256 kbps DRM free version for 30 cents a track. I plan on upgrading all of my tracks as soon as they are available. While I think that $1.29 is a little bit high for a track without DRM (I'd like to see them for the same price as the version with DRM), it's reasonable enough for me. You get twice the quality and no DRM for 30 cents more a track.
It also appears as if deals with other studios are imminent. From the press release [apple.com]:
Since the AAC files are DRM free, you can just transcode to MP3. And there are a number of players which can play AAC, including the recent Sony players. So this in no way keeps you locked into using the iPod only (a point Steve even touched on at the event, saying that Apple wasn't worried about it because they compete based on having the best platform, not based on having people locked into their products).
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.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Many portable players actually support AAC. The real problem is with GNU/Linux; AAC's patented, so there's no legal decoding free/open source decoding software. I already asked them to offer Ogg Vorbis. Either way, though, it's a lot better than DRM and I intend to partake..
The format is still locked to the Ipod, which is entirely the problem!
Ummm, no it's not. AAC is a fairly standard format (though not as ubiquitous as mp3). Many players out there will play non-DRM'd AAC files with no problem. The Zune comes to mind. Hell, my Samsung phone will play them. This is a good thing all around. And since album prices are staying the same, I can only view this as a good move.
This guy's the limit!
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.
gameDB
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?
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
Here's where that doesn't quite work though. The record companies have been trying to pound it into our heads for years that we're not buying a song, we're buying a license to listen to that song. If that's the case, then we should ALREADY have the right to listen to a higher quality encoded version of the song. Yes, I'm well aware that the record companies will say that you only purchased a license to listen to that specific lower-quality encoding of the song, but let's be honest, that's pure crap. Quit re-selling us the same stuff we already purchased! If there's some huge cost associated with re-formatting the material, then fine, charge a nominal fee. But in this case, the files were most likely encoded at higher bit-rates long ago.
This is a great first step but I'd still need to convert the music in MP3 before I can do anything with it. The format is still locked to the Ipod, which is entirely the problem! I'll probably buy a song to help move things along but until the format is MP3 it ultimately doesn't change much for me. When next month and which artists? Will this be all ITunes stores or just The States?
No, its not just the iPod.
A list of players is available on wikipedia
Its a substantial list, and its an open format. Its actually much better than MP3, and at 256 kb/s its probably about the same as a 320 kb/s MP3. In other words, very good quality. Apparently you can even play it on the Zune, although I suspect that the zune will DRM it before transfer. Not that this matters, as pretty much nobody actually has bought a Zune.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
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
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
After Jobs made his "get rid of DRM" speech a month or two ago, they were coming out of the woodwork blasting him for being a hypocrite. Maybe these know-nothings will now realize that he couldn't make these changes on his own, he needed the labels themselves to come along.
NOW that one of them is promoting anti-DRM versions, expect the indy stuff to follow suit. These same anti-Jobs people will lament the fact Jobs didn't do this with indy bands 1st. It's called negotiations people. Getting a major label to do this is 10 times better than having ONLY the indy bands DRM free. This is a major change in thinking for the big labels. And that made it well worth the wait.
Maybe if the anti-Jobs people would focus more on Microsoft and their disabling of the Zune wifi for a change, even more progress can be made in the DRM free world. But I'm guessing that the anti-Job reaction to his speech wasn't atually about his speech, it was more about being Microsoft lap dogs.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Some of these comments make me wonder if Slashdot has been overrun by spoiled, bratty teenagers. It's like they've been given a brand new car and they're accusing their parents of ruining their lives because it's not the right color.
Crap--I just accidentally made a car analogy.
Yeah, it's important to have some perspective here. You can argue till your face turns blue that DRM doesn't work/doesn't make sense/is evil/whatever, but the reality of it is that there are people out there with different opinions. And a bunch of those people are old businessmen who run big companies that see, over the horizon, the end of the business model on which they've built their little empires and made their fortunes.
/. mentality is correct, and DRM is not a workable solution, then the market will flesh that out and we can all get on with our lives. But to expect and preach anti-DRM like the heavens will open up and everyone will see the light and hold hands and all DRM will disappear tomorrow is not only unrealistic, it makes you look silly.
It's easy for you as a consumer or a musician to argue for the new "music economy" because you have little to lose and much to gain. A lot of these big record companies have plenty to lose. You might be able to make an argument that with the right business savvy and some smart decisions that they have a lot to gain as well, but nothing is guaranteed, and big companies tend to be risk adverse.
The point is, if the general
Baby steps are what we should expect and really hope for. Each sign of progress should be a reason for celebration, not a bitch session about everything you still don't like about the music industry. Yay for steps in the right direction!
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
The press conference has only streaming WindowsMedia and Real, no Quicktime?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
From the format's wiki entry:
That lock-in is softer than a pair of fur-lined handcuffs. Probably about as easy to escape, too.
Apologies: the above blockquote should have carried the following reference.
g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Codin
There, fixed that for you.
The iTMS has a couple of advantages over buying physical CDs: convenience and the ability to buy songs piecemeal. Convenience is a standard reason to charge premiums, so why is this such a punch in the nuts to you? Are you equally pissed that 7-11 charges $4 for a box of cereal that costs $3 somewhere else? (Then again, maybe you are. :) Just go shop at the supermarket instead.
The funny thing is, you stress over how your mix sounds and then I buy the CD and rip it to 128kbps MP3 and play it through my earbuds or my 14 year old stereo and can't hear a damned difference.
Maybe you're the one with the problem.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
New albums from EMI are $9.99, 256kbps, and DRM free. RTFA.
Now, sure, if you build a MIX AND MATCH album of you're fav singles at 256kbps, it would wind up costing you $20. But name me a music store where I can go in and buy a mix-and-match CD?
You're comparing apples to oranges there.
There are all kinds of players that can play AAC besides the iPod.
And lots of other players are format-upgradeable , and thus will probably support AAC soon now that DRM free tracks will be on the iTunes site.
AAC is an open standard. Sure it is patent encumbered, but so is MP3.
If you bought some WMA/MP3 only player that's not upgradeable, that's your own fault. You locked yourself in.
I think one reason for AAC is that AAC is the future of digital audio whereas MP3/non-DRM-WMA is the current/past. With as fast as the industry changes, these media players become obsolete very fast. I would predict in a few years, AAC will be the norm.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Three things occur to me here.
1. Critics have maintained that Apple should allow independent artists to offer their music iTMS without DRM, but the standard response is that this would be technically infeasible. Now that this is not the case, I hope to see Apple offer DRM-free music from independent producers soon.
2. The Big Studios have been pushing to get Apple to charge a higher rate per song for years now. This outcome has Apple saying, "Hey, get rid of DRM and we'll do it." I wonder how tempting that will be to the other studios.
3. Anti-DRM advocates need EMI to be very successful; a rise in sales will allow the initiative to grow, while a drop in sales will herald calls of piracy. This is one case where giving money to a large company may actually do some good. (I know many purists would scoff, but big corporations are like big, very cunning animals: they are dangerous, but perhaps can be trained.)
What players, besides iPod, support the non-DRM AAC format?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
Life needs more saving throws.
1. Critics have maintained that Apple should allow independent artists to offer their music iTMS without DRM, but the standard response is that this would be technically infeasible.
Complete the sentence: "this would be technically infeasible given their current contracts with the labels." You know, like EMI.
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.
The nerve of Steve Jobs is incredible. He is asking people to pay again for songs that they already bought!
Only if you want to increase the bitrate and drop the DRM, and he's only charging 30 cents more to do that.
Other services have been selling songs at a more reasonable bit-rate all along (eg. Yahoo was selling songs for a while at 79 cents for 192Kbps), only Apple was selling at 128Kbps. Even the NYT writer (who loves Apple) wrote that 128 is insufficient and that people were making a mistake to spend money on stuff at this quality. The loyal defenders insisted that when and if a higher quality became necessary and available it would be free for everyone who had already bought it.
Please learn the difference between AAC and MP3
Now you have to pay again just to get decent sound quality!
There's nothing wrong with AAC 128k. It fits onto portable devices quite well at an average of 1MB per minute of audio.
I think I'll stick to ripping from CD's.
Let me guess, you're ripping to 320K MP3, correct? If so, you are neither benefitting from the smaller size of a compressed audio file nor are you benefitting from the higher quality sound of a lossless CD. And on average you are paying more per album than the rest of us.
I hope you understand why your opinion is in the minority, considering the growing popularity of online sales and declining popularity of CD sales.
Fuck the RIAA, except for EMI. We do have to hand it to them for taking the courageous step, breaking rank from the other big labels, and taking a chance on selling standard format music. Now if they can just distance themselves from the suing of little old grandmothers, I might even be motivated to exclude them from my RIAA boycott, provided they have music I'm interested in...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
... for finally doing the right thing.
I know it is hard for those of you into person or brand name worshiping to understand, but it is quite possible to compliment people or companies for the good things they do, and at the same time criticize them for the bad things they do. Just because you define your world into personal (or brand) loyalties, it does not mean the rest of us are similar restricted.
From what I understand of AAC audio, an essentially lossless CD rip of most CD's can be done in far less than the 320kbps used by mp3.
In fact, some have said that 128kbps is almost as good as 320kbps.
Couple that, with the fact that that you can sample AAC up to 96khz rather than just 48khz, you can encode up to 48 separate channels, and that EMI encodes their tracks from the digital masters rather than a lossy CD.
I suspect that the quality of these tracks may actually rival that of CD's... perhaps be superior in some regards.
I especially like the multi-track encoding idea. Labels could release the music so that the lead vocal, background vocals, and music were all on separate tracks... instant karaoke and instant remix ability. I don't suspect we can expect anything like this very soon, but the AAC format allows for it.
Can anyone confirm, is 256kbps enough for an AAC file to be indistinguishable from a CD in a true double blind listening test?
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
The jerks! Imagine the gall! Attempting to set prices on their own product!
You don't want to pay the price they are asking, they don't want to sell for the price you're offering. I don't see how that alone makes either of you an "asshole". Just don't buy it.
Complete albums, DRM free, will cost $9.99 (the same as DRM'd albums), so no, either you'll be buying one or two tracks (and thus less than the price of a complete CD), or the entire album (for around the same price as a CD, a cheap CD at that) without DRM.
Either way, $1.29 for a track, or $9.99 for the whole album is reasonable by the metric of comparing them to CD prices.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There are several free/open AAC implementations.
But are there any good ones? Not all encoders are the same, and last I checked libfaac kinda sucked.
If you don't like your 256kbit AAC then you can easily transcode to whatever you want since it's DRM free.
Please, just don't suggest transcoding lossy compression schemes. It's just off the table.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is all.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Haven't seen this in the postive column, but aside from other players that can do AAC (PSP and PS3 which would be nice for Sonyphiles) unshackled locked iTunes is a biggie. I'm at 3 mac-clients now and won't have to worry about additional client-swapping and other rigermoral (like limitiation on how often I can do this etc) as I upgrade to new macs in the future as more of the library migrates (if Apple's Press Release is on target with their library hopes). People with an obscene number of iTunes clients should be quite happy with this development.
I haven't even checked into how AppleTV fits into all this - is it regarded as another client?
whereas Microsoft happily licenses their DRM scheme to whoever asks for it in order to encourage interoperability.
Bull -- they license their DRM scheme, but not to foster interoperability, they do it to solidify their monopoly into a new realm. They want to own digital music as thoroughly as they own operating systems, and this means that they need to get all the hardware manufacturers on board.
They have no interest in interoperability, except where it furthers their power over more hardware and software; look at how quickly they abandoned PlaysForSure with Zune. They were all set to pull the rug out from under all their "partners" that they had licensed PFS to. (Of course, Zune was a flop instead of the amazing success that Microsoft apparently hoped it would be, but had it been successful, SanDisk and all the other makers of semi-generic WMA players would have been left out in the cold, quite by design.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
We won't know for certain until the tracks become available. But Apple has said it is "30 cents per track". And so far, it only includes EMI content. I would *HOPE* that albums that were purchased for a total price that made them less than 99 cents per song will have a cheaper upgrade fee. (Like, say, $3.00 for a $9.99 album, regardless of number of songs.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Because EMI wants more money to make up for the file sharing that will occur - and Apple wants more money to pay for the doubled file size (the non-DRM songs will be 256 kbps AAC vs. 128 kbps for all other songs on iTunes).
This space intentionally left blank.
Why not get a player that supports AAC? Just saying "WMA" makes me cringe.
I bought it because it was under $40 and it does play MP3. It just also claims to play WMA files in the feature list, but I haven't tried it.
Cringing would be if it supported MTP or Janis DRM that broke the simple thumb drive drag and drop no driver ease of use. It is compatible with any OS that supprts a thumb drive. That is why I bought it. Having an SD slot is a bonus. Easy expansion and an easy way transfer files without needing a cable. I have the choice of connecting with a USB cable, or plugging the memory card into the card slot on a PC or laptop.
The truth shall set you free!
First off: bitrate is bitrate. One song in 256kbps MP3 is almost exactly the size of another song in 256kbps AAC/OGG/WMA/Whatever. Slight differences are mostly due to overhead (ID3-tags and album art). The sound quality will most likely differ though, with 256kbps AAC sounding a lot better than its MP3 counterpart.
And yes, unless you have some pretty nice equipment with good range, you're not likely to hear any difference between 256kbps AAC and the CD you bought. You do, however, have the songs in a digital form that will last quite a while, quality-wise. That's why I encode all my CDs to V0 MP3 (variable bit rate, mostly ranging from 250+ up to 320 kbps). With disk space as cheap as it is, it's an assurance that I don't have to re-rip my albums in a very long while. I can buy pretty much any stereo I want, and it'll still sound completely indistinguishable from my store bought CDs.
So ultimately I agree with you. Now that DRM is moot, all I want is higher bitrates. Preferably FLAC or any other lossless format that I can transcode to whatever codec I want. If I'm going to pay close to the same amount as I would the original CD, at the very least supply the same quality.
Blog -
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Interestingly, there is no support at present for searching by publisher in iTunes (wonder if they'll add that), but if you want to plan your purchases for next month, you can look at this wikipedia article for a list of EMI artists. With few exceptions (the Beatles, primarily, since they're still not available in any online format), the whole catalog will be available...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_sig ned_to_EMI
My faves from the list: The Beach Boys, Bob Seger, Coldplay, David Bowie, Depeche Mode, Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, Erasure (can't help it), Garth Brooks, J. Geils Band, James Brown (Hit Me!), Joe Cocker, Kate Bush, Norah Jones, Pet Shop Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead (pre-2003), The Knack, The Decemberists. They also have a very respectable classical music inventory for folks that that swing that way.
Personally, I think that people who are contining to grouse about quality are somewhat like those that swear by vacuum tube amps. When I did my own double-blind tests of LAME-encoded MP3, I found that the sweet spot was 192Kbps, but that there where occasional passages of very unusual music (orchestral or Peter Gabriel's Passion) where I could hear a tiny difference (a slight beating oscillation) that didn't go away until 256Kbps. So I rip lossless and downconvert to 192K for actual use on most players. Would I prefer lossless? Sure, but 256K AAC not only adequate, but excellent. I will buy extensively when it becomes available, both because I like it and to encourage other labels to do the same.
Final point: cynics may say that EMI is doing this partly because they've been seriously short of sucessful acts lately and will do anything to create sales. See this Forbes article for more. Whether that's true or not, I intend to buy, buy, buy. Scr** you Sony!
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
Now, if they'll go just one more step, and sell lossless music with no DRM, I'll be one of the first in line to purchase it!!!
I want my 'source' to be as good as I can get it...and I'll transcode to lower qualities myself for poor listening environments like portable players, the car etc. I can do that and have the higher quality sound for my home soundsystem.
So close...so close....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In case you're reading this, Apple, I'm ready to be a customer. And a moderately large one at that (I have about $5,000 worth of CDs). Unfortunately I only have Linux machines - is there a good path for me to buy from you?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
this is /. after all. But, I agree this is huge. All other big media companies will look bad if they stay defending their old position on DRM. All it takes to brake an oligopoly is a single traitor, and EMI seemed to be it.
I hope people aren't naive enough to think that either EMI, Jobs or Apple Inc. are the "good guys". They simply showed a longer term vision than the other players. It is not unlike the stance on environment friendly production - the organizations aren't supporting it because they truly care about the environment, but instead they foresaw a chance in being different from the rest in the eyes and perception of the public. This anti-DRM stance is the same, and it would have happened much sooner if there weren't so few publishing/recording groups controlling the market. Now the ball is in the consumers court - if we flock to non-DRM formats, then the other publishers will be forced to play the anti-DRM game as well - the last one to jump in will be seriously hurt. If consumers react with apathy, then EMI might have to reconsider - it will be under considerable pressure from its former peers, pressure that only big money can justify.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Double the quality and I can only fit half the amount of music onto my iPod.
Come to think of it - maybe that's the plan. We'll all have to go out and buy larger, more expensive iPods to replace the ones we already have...
My Journal
the nytimes article says the album upgrade fee is $0.00, the bump is only for per track purchases.
O RLY?
n fo.apple.com/iTunes7/Win/061-3153.20070316.3RRgf/i TunesSetup.exe
sudo apt-get install wine
wget -c http://appldnld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/content.i
wine iTunesSetup.exe
Works for me (on Linux, i use a Mac usually)
Another advantage of the higher bitrates is the ability to slip in watermarking.
I wrote about this a few weeks ago - current watermarking techniques are not significant with regard to quality compared with lossy compression.
Watermarking is a real solution to piracy - it enables Copyright Law to be the default mechanism for handing these problems, just like in the Old Days, before the Dark Times, before the DMCA.
To summarize my thesis: Watermarking solves piracy, DRM is about forced repurchasing. Links and more there.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I mean, sure, mp3s, if you want to make sure none of your users even have the chance to be confused.
Or, un-DRM'd AACs, for probably the most reasonable size/quality on iPods.
Or WMA for Zune. Or Vorbis for Linux geeks. Or whatever.
I'd encode to everything, because encoding music is, at this point, a completely automatic process. Given an hour or two and a decently fast computer, you could encode an album in every conceivable format in every conceivable container, even vorbis/mkv.
But no matter how many you choose to do, I'd throw FLAC in there -- both for archival purposes (if you don't actually keep a multitrack recording somewhere), and so that if your customers are reasonably savvy and want a format you didn't think to support, or if they just want to make sure they encode it their way, they can do it themselves.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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?
Read Pynchon.