Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Grant All Labels DRM-Free Distribution
SexCaptain writes "MacRumors.com reveals a letter circulated by Apple to all producers of content for the iTunes Store, announcing that from May onward they can sell their music at higher quality and free of DRM. Hopefully this opens the doors for labels like Netwerk. This is a big step in the right direction, although it's unclear exactly what Apple means by 'higher quality,' and there is no mention of price changes. (Apple charges $0.30 more per song for DRM-free content from EMI and encodes it at 256K.) Quoting from the letter: 'Many of you have reached out to iTunes to find out how you can make your songs available higher quality and DRM-free," Apple wrote in the communication. "Starting next month, iTunes will begin offering higher-quality, DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to all customers."
This could get really interesting. Of course emusic uses the more ubiquitous mp3, bt I bet eveyr 'mp3' player will now come playing unprotected aac as standard now Apple is making things interesting.
They used to like 128kbps AAC uploaded to them, but now they want lossless - so it's been on the cards for a while (not the DRM free, but higher quality). Anyway, means they can encode to anything they want for all the new stuff without having to transcode. Hasn't helped with their congested servers though.
Apropo of nothing I suppose, but thought it might be interesting.
Hopefully Apple will eventually allow labels to set their own prices. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of old songs languishing at barely measurable sales numbers-I think that a hell of a lot of those could sell pretty well at $.25 or $.50. We could see back-catalog price wars! It would also allow smaller labels labels and independent musicians to compete by leveraging their lower overheads--one can sell for less when a album was self-produced in a week with no advance and no A&R guys to feed.
"Many of you have reached out to iTunes to find out how you can make your songs available higher quality and DRM-free. Starting next month, iTunes will begin offering higher-quality, DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to all customers."
Translation from Jobs-esque:
"People asked for DRM-free content, and EMI said fine, but we'll charge more. So we said, ok, we'll up the bitrate and justify the higher price with that."
However, $13 per album is on the order of a CD. So, for the same money I can get a bad copy with no DRM, or a good copy with DRM, the only hassle is the 3 minutes that it takes to rip, and the need to physically purchase the product. Though iTunes is still a reasonably good deal, it is no longer the great deal it once was.
I will admit for single track purchases the money for the DRM free is compelling. I can see them moving toward a 100% DRM free collection, with a $1.29 price tag. This in a time when the value of CDs are plummeting. WHat did Steve Jobs say? iTunes has to compete with free? How exactly does this scheme do this?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
But can I import them into iMovie or Final Cut (Express or Pro)?
I'm not a music collector. I can fit all my CDs into one carrying case with their jewel cases. But if I can get per-track purchases able to be mixed into my own video projects without hassle or fee (for my personal use) I may buy a few tracks.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
But no, this is breaking one of the key laws of consumer marketing - once prices go up, they will not come down, regardless of the expenses.
Convenience has gone up. That's what you are paying extra for.
Pizza delivery proves that people will pay more for convenience, especially in a culture that is moving toward cocooning at home in front of the TV and computer.
You're hardly an ass, as you're one of few skeptics to admit that your original (hardly outlandish) accusations turned out to be wrong, which makes you more intellectually honest than many self-appointed DRM wonks. That group includes, most notably, Cory Doctorow, who blasted Jobs in a Salon article after "Thoughts on Music" was first posted on Apple's web site. When Jobs came through on his pledge, Doctorow was pleased but never saw fit to mention, "Hey, I probably went a bit overboard with that screed in Salon."
Unless...Cory, is that you?
I don't normally respond to trolls, but it brings up an interesting topic for conversation, so why not?
Why is DRM okay in some contexts, but not others? Is it evil to apply DRM to music but not software? What about movies?
I think that music is something that we are naturally possessed with - it probably coincides with the emergence of humanity. We hum, we whistle, we walk around with our Walkmen and our iPods. We even amended our copyright law to give music a special exemption for format-shifting and copying for personal use. I think this is why DRM on music offends us so much... DRM prevents us from doing something that we as a society have already decided we should be able to do!
Movies and software, on the other hand, aren't in the same ball park. Movies have only recently become part of our culture, and it was only 30 years ago that you could realistically bring them into your home. It's only been about 5 years since it became feasible to walk around with them, and that's still awkward. Maybe we'll feel more strongly about movies as technology makes format shifting more important. It already irritates me that I have to jump through hoops to back up stuff.
Software - I think it will be a long time before society gets worked up over software... after all, the best software is invisible. Besides, the whole concept of format-shifting is hard to apply to software. I mean, the kind of software application that you expect to work on you Desktop computer is pretty unsuitable for your cell phone.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Out of curiosity, who gets the $0.30 for the songs, Apple, the producer, the musician? A quick search didn't turn up anything.
Please note that I said average pop song. They've been engineered to sound best in the audio quality available on a CD. On the other hand, classical music was designed to be enjoyed in person(no other real choice those days), and generally use a much wider frequency range.
I used classic music as the most obvious example. Still, there's many forms of music that could benefit from a higher rate source, Jazz, rock, even many pop songs.
If it becomes common enough, people will start producing more music for it. Still, that's fairly unlikely because building a music system capable of reproducing the music costs far more than a system barely capable of playing CDs decently.
I don't read AC A human right