Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Steve Jobs Announces (some) DRM-free iTunes

Posted by Hemos on from the about-time dept.

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.

48 of 838 comments (clear)

  1. Good job everyone! by AchiIIe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Good job everyone! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a win unless you reward them with your custom. Better buy now.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Good job everyone! by Luke+Psywalker · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...please refrain from further encouraging slashdotters to give themselves 'a hand'

    3. Re:Good job everyone! by superm401 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, albums are the same price, DRM or not. Only individual songs have the surcharge. Can't understand the logic, but I prefer albums anyway.

    4. Re:Good job everyone! by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real winner here is Apple, and the potential big loser is Microsoft. This may well kill Windows Media as a digital audio format.

      Think about it... If all the labels offer their music DRM free by the end of the year, then what incentive is there for any online music store, except for the Zune store, to offer music in Windows Media format, given that the iPod is incompatible with WMA and represents about 80% of the target market.

      There simply isn't any reason for an online music store that isn't owned by Microsoft to offer downloads that are incompatible with around about 80% of the devices that people own.

      More to the point. Microsoft is only offering the Zune as a means of pushing its own audio format. Yet even Zune customers will be now able to play DRM free tracks from the iTMS. Microsoft has just caught up to the idea that you have to have a closed system to succeed (which was never the case, as Jobs' said in his letter a couple of months back), and now they will have to go home and think again.

      Steve Jobs has just succeeded in the first step of completely destroying Microsoft's music strategy, and no-one seems to have noticed. He must be chuckling to himself.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    5. Re:Good job everyone! by WhyDoYouWantToKnow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Believe me, no encouragement is needed.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
      Marvin the Martian
    6. Re:Good job everyone! by sgant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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....

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    7. Re:Good job everyone! by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but I recall EMI saying that other companies would be selling DRM free music from EMI's catalogue, not just Apple.

      It makes no sense to offer those downloads in WMA format. Why lock out 80% of the user base? If I was an online music retailer, I would sell mp3s. Apple doesn't care about AAC the way that Microsoft cares about WMA. WMA is Microsoft's attempt to control digital music the way they control operating systems. AAC is the format Apple used so that they could have the DRM that the labels wanted.

      Today's announcement if the other labels go for it means that they have failed!!! failed!!!! FAILED!!!!!!! ...at this very moment chairs are being lifted into orbit from Redmond.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    8. Re:Good job everyone! by znu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But DJCacophony," you may say, "there are other players that can handle unprotected AAC." I am well aware of this, but the fact of the matter is that there aren't a whole lot, and Jobs knows this.

      This is a silly argument. True, there aren't a lot of other players that do AAC now. But if being compatible with iTunes downloads is as useful to Apple's competitors as you imply, they'll all support it pretty fast. The notion that Apple should adopt an inferior format just to save its competitors the trouble of implementing AAC is frankly ludicrous.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    9. Re:Good job everyone! by notthe9 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the Zune supports AAC.

    10. Re:Good job everyone! by nine-times · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are other reasons why Apple would stick with AAC beyond lock-in. First, AAC was designed to provide better sound quality at the same bitrate-- whether it delivers on this seems to depend on a few things, particularly the encoders you're comparing, but AAC is an MPEG standard developed to be better than MP3. Also, MP3 has additional legal (patent) issues which might be important for someone running an online store. According to the Wikipedia article, AAC doesn't require royalty payments for distribution. In other words, using MP3 would force Apple to pay royalties on their music sales, and AAC doesn't.

      Beyond that, Apple can't prevent anyone from making AAC encoders/decoders, so there really is no lock-in to complain of.

    11. Re:Good job everyone! by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't disagree that both Apple and Microsoft use DRM because the music industry makes them.

      But my original point was not about DRM, but about a format war. On the one hand, we have formats that are available to all stores, like AAC and mp3. Neither of these formats are owned by Apple. WMA on the other hand is owned by Microsoft, and the purpose of WMA was to create a default audio format controlled by Microsoft.

      As a minority marketshare holder in the computer market, Apple has an interest in making sure that the most popular formats for audio (and video) are able to play on Macs. If not, Mac users will be locked out from most content on the internet. Microsoft's shameful and half hearted attempts to make Windows Media Mac compatible are a case in point.

      As the leader in marketshare among PC operating systems, Microsoft does not need to worry about its users being locked out of content. It makes no sense for any content provider to ignore Windows users. WMA does not exist for any other reason than to try to ensure that Microsoft has proprietary control over digital media content, and that "open" standards do not give users a reason to abandon Windows in favour of the Mac or some other OS.

      Apple's use of media formats is primarily defensive in nature (although not always). Microsoft's is just another attempt by that company to exert monopoly power.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    12. Re:Good job everyone! by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Informative

      OF course, there would be more players that can play MP3s than any other format. But to say only a few can play AAC is pure humbug.

      Of the players in my house:
      SonyEricsson K800i: MP3, AAC, Real
      SonyEricsson W880i: MP3, AAC, Real
      Panasonic DVD player: MP3, WMA
      Jaguar Audio Connectivity Module: MP3, AAC
      iPaq (with TCP): MP3, Vorbis, WMA, AAC (and many more)
      PSP portable: MP3, AAC (maybe ATRAC, but not sure)
      CD Player: MP3, AAC (m4a), WMA

      in this list.. AAC is well represented in all but the Panasonic DVD player.

      But more so, the current future is Phones with Music Players, Nokia, Sony Ericssons (both walkman and non walkman) Motorola and SAmsung seem committed to providing AAC, as opposed to WMA.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    13. Re:Good job everyone! by CaptMoroni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are completely wrong. If there is one thing that should be fairly obvious to the world, it is that Steve Jobs quite unlike other CEOs. Yes, he is a very good a managing public perception, but, when he says he loves music and writes a letter regarding DRM - He is NOT just blowing marketing smoke. If it was any other CEO, I'd ask myself if they were just positioning things to their own strategic advantage. With Steve, I'm pretty certain that what he says is what he is truely passionate about. If he thought DRM was the future, he would ride the company into the toilet supporting it. If he says that it is a barrier to the success of the music industry and Apple would give it up if they could - that is what he truely believes in his heart.

    14. Re:Good job everyone! by pkulak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've got to be kidding, right? AAC is an open spec. It's more efficient then MP3, uses less power to decode (important for portable devices), and isn't saddled with 14 different, incompatible tagging schemes. It's also the format that Apple customers expect. Not only that, but just about every player that can handle MP3 can also handle LC AAC.

      That's fine that you've got some MP3 player from the nineties, but stop trying to find things to complain about and drop 80 bucks on something that can handle the newer format. Technology does become obsolete, you know.

    15. Re:Good job everyone! by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Funny

      Today's announcement if the other labels go for it means that they have failed!!! failed!!!! FAILED!!!!!!! ...at this very moment chairs are being lifted into orbit from Redmond.


      Wow, there's a new business model here!

      1. Strap payload to chair.
      2. Place chair near Ballmer.
      3. Thwart one of Microsoft's business plans.
      3. Profit!

      See, no missing step!
    16. Re:Good job everyone! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't fool yourself, DRM'd WMA and DRM'd AAC serve the same purpose; To attempt to control the online music industry, and to attempt to control what people do with the music they buy online.

      Apple doesn't own AAC. It is a standard, like MP3. MS does own WMA and has patents on it. Apple is close to having monopoly influence with their iPod product. MS has monopoly influence with Windows. Apple bundles AAC with iPods. MS bundles WMA with Windows. Can you objectively look at what this implies?

      Apple got into the music business to counter MS's takeover via a proprietary format. They had to include DRM because a cartel runs the show and required it, but Apple managed to negotiate looser restrictions than anyone previous to them. I doubt Apple even planned to make it big with the iPod. I think they saw it as a way to stop MS from locking macs out of the new generation of music and making them second or third class players. Apple still does not significantly benefit from DRM, which is why they have been pushing to remove it. They don't need a lock-in for their player since most people don't use Apple supplied music anyway. The customer confusion and bad press probably costs them more than the lock-in makes them.

      Microsoft or Apple could demand DRM-less music and record industries would have to comply, because they know they would lose tons of money to piracy or lack of purchasing if they didn't.

      MS might be able to make such a demand, but I doubt it. Apple sure can't. Online music sales are still a tiny fraction of the market and the RIAA is not afraid of breaking the law as they've proved numerous times. For MS, DRM is a benefit as it adds more lock-in to Windows, which is what they care about. To Apple, it is a detriment because they don't make any money on the music itself and they've already done everything they can to mitigate the lock-in.

    17. Re:Good job everyone! by Thrudheim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Publicity stunt? Come off it. Jobs said that if the labels would agree to go with DRM-free music Apple would do it in a heartbeat. Then, he cuts a landmark deal with one of the big four do do precisely that! Some people just won't stop complaining. Apple is always the bad guy, no matter what they do. First, they get accused of trying to lock everybody into a propriety format. Then, they make music available with no copy restrictions, and people still complain.

      You act like the record companies are blameless when it comes to DRM. Did you notice the reaction to Jobs's letter from Warner execs? They want DRM and Jobs was absolutely right to focus blame on them since Apple, rather than the labels, is getting the attention from Norwegian and other European consumer regulatory agencies.

      Personally, I am very glad that they didn't use mp3 format. AAC is better. It's too bad more manufacturers players haven't bothered to adopt this open format. It's not like they haven't had YEARS to get on board. At the vary least, they should have seen millions of iTunes users import their CDs into AAC format and had the smarts to figure out that giving their players the ability to play this freely-available format might give them the ability to win some customers who didn't want to transcode all their files. Even Microsoft was able to figure this out with the Zune. Sony has done it too, finally, which only makes sense since they were part of the group that helped develop it.

      This is huge. A stake to the heart of DRM on music. Applaud it. Press for the other big labels to do the same. Enjoy DRM-free and transcodable high-bit rate files.

    18. Re:Good job everyone! by squidfood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I REALLY don't mind paying that for 256kbps non DRM AAC.

      I'm surprised I haven't seen this on the thread, but will we all need iPods with bigger drives now? Mine's maxed at the lower sample rate. Is that the other win for Jobs?

    19. Re:Good job everyone! by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the fact that he just put his money where his mouth is and there is DRM free music on iTunes today? (Duh, that's what this article is about.)

      There were a lot of people like you who said "oh, he'd never do it - he just doesn't want to take the heat for supporting DRM". OK, well you were proved wrong.

      Yes, Steve Jobs wants his companies to be successful. And lately he has been doing a pretty good job of it. The cool thing about Steve is that consistantly through his career he has done that by focusing on quality and innovation. Compare him to someone like Jack Tramiel who made his career and built his businesses by cost cutting and underhanded dealing (stabbing partners, suppliers, and employees in the back, not keeping his word, etc.)

      Seriously, not all business people are exactly the same and Steve Jobs is a very good businessman in the best sense of that word.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    20. Re:Good job everyone! by CaptMoroni · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    21. Re:Good job everyone! by NtroP · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 30 cents not only buys you a DRM free version, but also a higher quality version. So you pay 30 cents for twice the bit rate and no DRM. I, personally, think it's a decent deal.

      You are forgetting something here. Most of the "iTMS suxorz" and "DRM suxorz" crowd that say "sell me high quality, DRM-free music, and I will pay for it" have now had their bluff called and now they're pissed. They never intended to pay for content in the first place. They will still pirate their music.

      If Apple would have just come out and said "We are now offering 'audiophiles' higher quality AAC encoding for a small premium" and kept the DRM you'd still have the same crowd saying "What? It should be loss-less for $0.30!", or "I'd buy it if it wasn't for the shitty DRM!". But now they are showing their true colors. They will whine about anything if it means they have to pay for it. Look at some of the comments: "OMFG, it should be in .mp3 format! AAC suxorz! MP3 roxorz!"

      Give me a break. Personally, the audio equipment I usually play my content on is not of sufficient quality and not in an acoustically-correct enough environment (my iPod, my car, my living-room) to be likely to tell any difference in the higher-quality format. At this point it will come down to "Am I willing to pay $.30 extra for DRM-free content?". I have to say that, even though my music collection is end-to-end Apple-compatible (iTMS->iTunes->AppleTV-or-iPod) I still prefer to make a statement about DRM-free music and will choose to put my $$ where my mouth is. As a "bonus" I get a higher bit-rate encoding, which, who knows, may sound better. Do I wish I could get all of this for $0.00 or the whole ball-of-wax for only $.49? Yes. But, oh well.

      I don't like DRM any more than the next guy, but I've moved out of my parent's basement and have discovered that, in the real world, you actually have to pay for things. Even thought the restrictions should never have been there in the first place, I am willing to pay for that "added benefit" of no restrictions. The "yeah, but my 'XYZ MP3 player' won't play the superior AAC encoded content" argument doesn't affect me because my "MP3 player" can. I feel sorry for you. Call the company up and tell them you want a version that plays AAC content. I think more of them will now. All of Apple's content is already in AAC format, why should they change and sell it in MP3 format which would have to be larger to keep the same quality? Besides, isn't Apple already in a lawsuit about MP3s?

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
    22. Re:Good job everyone! by cthellis · · Score: 4, Funny

      So remember folks... not only is Apple at fault when they don't support open standards like OGG, but they're also at fault when others don't support open standards like AAC!

    23. Re:Good job everyone! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who owns what format is irrelevant, what is relevant is who can play them.

      Agreed.

      DRM'd WMA? Hundreds of different mp3 players from tons of companies.

      Yes, only those people MS is willing to license to and who pay MS. MS can use this to kill off anyone in this space they don't like or degrade service. This means they can prevent Linux from playing most new music, or the mac, or even competing players in the future if they decide to push the Zune.

      DRM'd AAC? ONE mp3 player from ONE company.

      Yeah, no one else has bothered to wrap AAC in DRM, but anyone that wants to can do so and neither Apple nor MS can stop them. More importantly, this also holds true for non-DRM'd versions of the same, which is not the case with WMA.

      How can you claim that Microsoft is trying to control the music industry and Apple isn't, when Microsoft is the only one of the two who implements an open-format DRM scheme to foster interoperability?

      MS does not implement an open format DRM scheme. Their format is closed and their DRM is closed and all of it is proprietary. They simply licensed it temporarily to hundreds of companies who make hardware because they did not have hardware of their own. Now they have hardware and you'll note there are already compatibility problems between the Zune, the Zune store, and other WMA players.

      Look to motivation. Apple has no real way to "take over" the music market. Nothing they have done stops anyone else from doing the same thing. Apple also has consistently made moves to lessen and remove DRM, including making public statements that they would prefer if they could license DRM free music and now their pushing for a label to remove DRM. If their plan was to control the music industry, why would they do this?

      Apple uses music sales as a way to sell iPods and a way to stop MS from leveraging one more market against them. For both those purposes DRM-less AAC or MP3 or another standard works fine. DRM-less WMA, is still an MS controlled format, with MS being the only one who can agree or not agree to some implementation of it.

    24. Re:Good job everyone! by Thrudheim · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's the proof that Jobs' letter was not just some publicity stunt. During the question-and-answer at today's press conference, EMI CEO Eric Nicoli was asked this:

      Q: It's a pretty radical step, Eric. How did you reach the decision to do it? Was it Steve Jobs' letter that convinced you? Was it the internal surveys you've done? What was the moment in which you said, "Damn it, we're gonna go DRM-free?" And will the extra sales be enough to compensate for the declining physical sales?

      A: We've always known Steve's view on the subject, long before his open letter.

      Jobs, it seems, has long been advocating this position to the labels behind closed doors. The letter just made these views public. I assume he was getting frustrated with all the complaints about Apple being the bad-guy on DRM and wanted to redraw the lines of responsibility. The full transcript can be seen here: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2624
    25. Re:Good job everyone! by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know I won't be happy until I can pick music filled MP3 players off of trees growing in public parks. And even then only if the tree seeds from which these music player trees sprouted weren't produced by the Monsanto Corporation, or planted by illegal immigrants, or prison chain gangs, or anyone in a hat or in any way asociated with any kind of nudity whatsoever.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    26. Re:Good job everyone! by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes there are exceptions to the standard corporate CEO it's-all-about-the-profit that is so common.

      You know, I've witnessed a heated argument between my old company's CEO/President and its Vice President, where the CEO was stubbornly sticking to his guns in the face of the VP's proof of how this was costing the company money. It was almost absurd, indeed the VP was laughing out loud at many points in the face of the CEO's apparent complete disregard for the idea that the point of the company is to make money. But like any good CEO, our CEO had a vision of where we wanted to be, and the right way to get there, and we were going to do it right, profits be damned. Of course, part of that conviction was that if you did the right thing, the profits would eventually follow, so perhaps its just another brand of "it's-all-about-the-profit" attitude, with a longer-term view, but regardless, the pragmatic effect is that the CEO was more interested in doing what's right than in what would generally be regarded as profitable.

      And he wasn't the only one, just the example that sticks out in my mind most, after that day and that argument, giving me a really nice inside peek into the mind of a very successful CEO, hearing him articulate his reasoning not to outsiders or even employees in general, but to a couple of his most trusted insiders.

      Given this, I have trouble swallowing the cynical stereotype that it seems most people have about the typical CEO. Maybe the ones I've known have been atypical. I imagine it's skewed by the fact in the cases I've known, the CEO was also one of the founders of the company -- necessarily a group with "the vision-thing". But guess what, Steve Jobs was a founder of most of his companies too, including Apple.

      My own experience makes most of the cynical assessments of Jobs actions and motives sound improbable to me. It's not that these kinds of CEO's aren't interested in profit, it's just that they tend to think long-term, and have unshakable confidence that doing "the right thing" will be what's most profitable in the long run. They're high on idealism, often apparently low on the "connected to reality" meter, and except in the face of certain disaster, willing to sacrifice profits for what they think is right. And sometimes, not even certain disaster dissuades them, which is what causes boards of directors to oust them from the CEO position as often as they do, and as happened to Steve Jobs at least once.

      So, go ahead, keep your cynicism. I've known these kinds of people before, in all their apparent looniness, and from knowing them, I know it's far more believable that Jobs did what did because be believes its right than as part of some ploy.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  2. Alright Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. everyone who wanted DRM-free music put your money where your mouth is!

    1. Re:Alright Slashdot... by mgv · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the more important issue is... I'm currently interested in Japanese bands and they don't seem to want to sell this to me in Canada. I would literally jump at the chance to buy music, DRM free, at $1.20 per song. Shipping the damn CD's into Canada costs me a mint. Luckily I can bundle it with my manga purchases, but I'm still looking at close to $30 for most CDs (each) to get it here.

      How about buying some Japanese iTunes gift cards on eBay?

      Certainly I use US iTunes gift cards in Australia...

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    2. Re:Alright Slashdot... by OS24Ever · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few bands...

      Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Kraftwerk, and Kate Bush. These are some listed on their website EMI Records UK. I don't know if that's the label, or if it's the entire EMI Group.

      If that's the case, You've got the Beach Boys, David Bowie, Coldplay, Duran Duran, Gorillaz...OK Go, Liz Phair...

      Wow, I might be upgrading a few of those.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  3. Re:New prices by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you can pay more for the service that you should have had in the first place?

    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
  4. American way... Super size by vision33r · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just like McDonalds you can Super size for $0.30 more that gives you more than you actually need to consume.

  5. $9.99 Albums will be 256kbps/DRM Free by scifience · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. What is the justification by zeoslap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:30 cent copyright levy by bilbravo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. It's a Start! by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is excellent news! I love that they are offering the option to upgrade any previously purchased songs to the 256 kbps DRM free version for 30 cents a track. I plan on upgrading all of my tracks as soon as they are available. While I think that $1.29 is a little bit high for a track without DRM (I'd like to see them for the same price as the version with DRM), it's reasonable enough for me. You get twice the quality and no DRM for 30 cents more a track.

    It also appears as if deals with other studios are imminent. From the press release [apple.com]:

    "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."
  9. Re:DRM-Free AACs are still locked to Ipods! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  10. cojones by suzerain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  11. Re:Wait a Minute by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is the DRM going to make a profit if their product's marginal utility (apparently) is -$.30?

    Without DRM there'd be far less excuse to charge extra for the DRM-free version. The $1.30 version will subsidise the $1 DRM-encumbered version.

    It's a bit like the way the supermarkets virtually wiped out tastier (but odd-looking) varieties of fruit and veg for cosmetic reasons. They're then selling them back to us as luxury items now we're used to eating the pretty (but tasteless) varieties.

  12. WaterMarking by tecker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:WaterMarking by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not really seeing a problem with that.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    2. Re:WaterMarking by bilbravo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you download a song and then distribute it illegally, why should you be upset if you get sued? Privacy concerns aside, your argument is based on being upset that people might get in trouble for actually DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

      --
      Starmen.net
    3. Re:WaterMarking by dlsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. DRM is bad because it attempts to control illegal activity by heavily restricting legal use. If you're publicly distributing somebody else's copyrighted music without permission, you're breaking the law; if the technology exists to much more accurately distinguish legal from illegal use and restrict accordingly, they should use it in favor of DRM.

  13. Where are all those anti-Jobs people now? by SengirV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"

  14. April's Fool by Lars+T. · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  15. Wrong by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  16. EMI Deserves Praise Also by WiseWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  17. When Reporters Set Agendas by bananaendian · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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."
    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications