Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To Grant All Labels DRM-Free Distribution

Posted by kdawson on from the you-asked-for-it dept.

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."

72 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Competition for emusic by vakuona · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Competition for emusic by Mr+Jazzizle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, at 1.30 per song, iTunes' DRM-free AAC cost about 6 times as much as eMusic DRM-free MP3, but for all those people looking for DRM-free top-40-type music, dream come true, eh? (how big is that overlap, anyway?)

    2. Re:Competition for emusic by vakuona · · Score: 4, Funny

      But smaller publishers might also price their music lower. Isn't it conventional slashdot wisdom that they are less greedy than the average big four label?

    3. Re:Competition for emusic by Ahnteis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. It's now significantly more expensive to buy music from Apple compared to Wal-mart. This is progress?

    4. Re:Competition for emusic by vought · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. It's now significantly more expensive to buy music from Apple compared to Wal-mart. This is progress?

      It's also considerably more convenient. And not that much more expensive. Apple doesn't censor the music or movies they carry. You can buy one song at a time or the entire album. And there's no wasteful packaging.

      Yeah, I'd call that progress.

    5. Re:Competition for emusic by wall0159 · · Score: 4, Interesting


      What you're missing is that anyone can now release DRM-free 256kbit/s music. This means that small labels will have advantages against RIAA labels (EMI aside) who might be reluctant to release DRM-free music.

      The policy of iTunes has always been (AFAIK) to have a fixed price for individual songs, but a varied price for albums. Hence an indie band can release a DRM-free 256kbit/s album for $8 if they want to... This might mean we see some real competition in the commercial music scene... finally!

      Also, allow me to plug eMusic (www.emusic.com) - You can't beat it for discovering great new music. No personal affiliation, just a satisfied customer. Magnatune seems good too.

    6. Re:Competition for emusic by onepower · · Score: 5, Informative

      The album price is the same for DRM free, higher quality... $9.99 for most albums. That makes the convenience and lack of censorship worth every penny. It isn't like you can buy a single DRM free track from Walmart either.

      --
      Yeah, I use OS X... so sue me.
    7. Re:Competition for emusic by e.+boaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's now significantly more expensive to buy music from Apple compared to Wal-mart.


      Except that you don't have to burn fossil fuels to get your music to your house. Nor is there any fossil fuel expended in transporting the disk to the store. Nor do you have to listen to the limited previews through headphones used by 90% of the people in your area. You can shop naked if you wish.

      Yes, this is an improvement.
    8. Re:Competition for emusic by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that you don't have to burn fossil fuels to get your music to your house. Nor is there any fossil fuel expended in transporting the disk to the store.

      Uh, yes you did have to burn fossil fuels..

      It takes electrical energy to power all those computers, disks, routers, repeaters and cables. Energy which is in the main generated by burning stuff (Unless you live in France, where 80% odd of the electric grid is powered by nuclear plants).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    9. Re:Competition for emusic by DaleGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yay for Apple fan logic.

      Generally I would expect that not needing packaging, delivery trucks, shelf space, etc, would result in the end product being cheaper due to the lack of need to pay for all that stuff... but no, somehow delivering less is a "feature" that makes sense to pay extra money for.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't care much for the packaging either, but calling it progress to pay extra for the lack of something is quite bizarre.

    10. Re:Competition for emusic by oyenstikker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup. If Apple didn't have iTMS, they would still have all the hardware sitting there turned on, doing nothing.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    11. Re:Competition for emusic by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am not really a fan of the iTMS -- I've bought maybe a half-dozen songs from there since it opened, and most of those in the first few weeks it was running, on a lark -- but after going down to Target to buy a CD a few days ago (on the assumption -- proved hideously incorrect -- that it would be a little less of a shitshow than WalMart), I would gladly pay 60% extra to not have to fight with the dregs of humanity in order to buy some data.

      (And yes, I'm aware there are still real "music stores" around, but I've never been in one where I felt particularly comfortable, or that had ample parking. And if I'm going to give someone my money I figure I should at least get those just as a given.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:Competition for emusic by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      here's absolutely no reason why transferring 100MB of data should cost more than fabricating, packaging, storing, delivering to a shop, displaying and selling a chunk of metal and plastic


      And it doesn't.

      But once again, much to our collective befuddlement, the buyers don't seem to care much about the costs. They just demand X quantity at Y price and the ever watchful marketeers are happy to sell them X much and collect X*Y in cold hard cash.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    13. Re:Competition for emusic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yay for Apple fan logic.

      Generally I would expect that not needing packaging, delivery trucks, shelf space, etc, would result in the end product being cheaper due to the lack of need to pay for all that stuff...

      Yay for a complete lack of understanding of economics.

      The price Apple charges has nothing to do with the cost of delivering it. It is simply the highest price that users will pay, such that Apple maximises their profits.
    14. Re:Competition for emusic by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      calling it progress to pay extra for the lack of something is quite bizarre.

      Not when you can have soup for $1, or bodily-fluid free soup for $5.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    15. Re:Competition for emusic by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The cost of downloaded music by all logic should be below the half of what the CD of the same stuff costs.

      You are only looking at a fraction of the actual costs. How do you know what Apple's costs are, vs. the costs incurred by a physical distribution company? The costs are not just for the physical media and distribution, or the network bandwidth, iTMS development and hosting costs, but also the negotiated per-title royalties that must be paid. The labels get their cut, and that's probably the most expensive component of the price.

      And even after all that, sure, Apple's costs may be lower. But Apple's prices are apparently higher by your measure, and I think that's why you're complaining.

      You see, there's this funny idea called 'Capitalism'. Capitalism pretty much means "if you want to sell a product at whatever price you want to sell it, go for it. If you make money, congratulations. If you lose money, tough." The corollary to that is "if you want something and are willing to pay the asked-for price, you can buy it. If you are unwilling to pay that price, you can try to negotiate a new lower price, shop elsewhere, or go without."

      So if you think a DRM-free song is worth only $0.25, why not write to Apple and ask them to sell you that song for $0.25? If they're unwilling to negotiate with you, then you are free to go to another source and pay their asking price. Otherwise, contact the record labels yourself and start a music distribution business of your own, set your prices at $0.25, and make lots of money. Let us know how that works out for you.

      --
      John
    16. Re:Competition for emusic by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The cost of downloaded music by all logic should be below the half of what the CD of the same stuff costs."

      This article is a bit wordy, but it does a pretty good job of explaining why retailers do not set their pricing according to the cost of production. It happens in other markets, too: Kenneth Cole can sell a shirt for $150, while Sears sells one for $15, and they have roughly the same cost of goods. I'm sure you can think of many more examples. It even happens in other forms of media: movie A might be an art house flick that cost $10MM to make, and movie B might have cost $100MM. Yet both will cost about nine bucks to see in the theatre, and both will cost about $20 when they're released on DVD.

      Believe me, you're not the first one to be befuddled by this... but it's a widely recognized principal. We can complain, but it won't help. Kenneth Cole will keep selling those $150 shirts as long as people will keep buying them. Logic be damned!

      "Now allofmp3.com had reasonable prices."

      ...and allofmp3.com is there to serve a certain type of customer. The iTunes store serves a different type. There's room for both of us in this world.

      As an aside, I think lots of Slashdotters have a flow chart in their head which has a constant terminus labelled "...and thus, I am still morally entitled to pirate music!". The flow chart keeps changing along with the market. Ten years ago, it was price and selection (tracks were $3.00 and selection was pitiful). Once Apple drove the price down and online catalogs exploded, the path was modified to encompass DRM. Now that DRM seems to be going the way of the dodo, it's back to price.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    17. Re:Competition for emusic by Macka · · Score: 3, Insightful


      And don't forget that by buying off iTunes you're also saving the planet. Just think of all those dirty emissions you avoided creating by staying at home instead of driving. Add to that the emissions saved by by using 1 less CDs worth of plastic, packaging and transport to the store of your choice.

      You just got greener .. be happy :)

    18. Re:Competition for emusic by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You see, there's this funny idea called 'Capitalism'. Capitalism pretty much means "if you want to sell a product at whatever price you want to sell it, go for it. If you make money, congratulations. If you lose money, tough." The corollary to that is "if you want something and are willing to pay the asked-for price, you can buy it. If you are unwilling to pay that price, you can try to negotiate a new lower price, shop elsewhere, or go without."


      Actually people going around telling their friends and aquaintances that a certain vendor is too expensive and they can buy the same product cheaper somewhere else is also a part of Capitalism.

      Given that the theoretical baseline for old fashioned Free Market theories (100% information awareness for all participants) doesn't really exist, the real world way of compensating for the information gap (between single consumers and multimilion dollar companies with big consumer research and marketing departments) is doing exactly what the GP is doing: "Dessiminating the information that he has".

      Actually, the only reason why we don't have DRM free music at $0.25 a pop is because Government has created and granted artificial monopoly rights (aka copyright) to some of the players.
    19. Re:Competition for emusic by n2art2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You really don't get it, and that is why you will never make it as a business owner. It's not ripping off the customer if the customer is willing to pay the price you ask. It's good business. Supply and demand. Capitalism. Take your pick.

      You think 40% margin is high? It's not. If you want to talk about profit margins, take a look at what the profit margin of a cup of coffee is at the gas station, or the price difference between a 2-liter of Pepsi, and a 20 oz. bottle.

      Or better yet. . . Check out the prices of a hot dog and a coke at your next professional sporting event, and compare that with the already huge margin on the same product at your local convience store. Then compare that with the cost you would incure if you purchased a package of franks at your local supermart.

      So it cost a fraction more to get the convience of purchasing a per tract, at home song, then it does to drive down to the store and purchase a complete cd (even if you only wanted one song). Hmm. . . who has the bigger profit margins?

      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
  2. ITunes Producer now uses Apple Lossless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, 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.

    1. Re:ITunes Producer now uses Apple Lossless by Zaknafein500 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the answer is, they don't want to be in the music business, at least no more than they have to be. The only reason they are curently is because the music business provides content for their hardware business, which is where the real money is made. The iTunes Store is effectively a loss-leader to sell iPods. Jobs has said as much already.

      --

      "The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
  3. Obvious? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    It seems pretty clear to me-- they're offering the same pricing scheme that they've announced with EMI. They will continue to sell 128 kbps DRM-wrapped AACs for $0.99, but will additionally offer 256kbps DRM-free AACs for $1.29. Anyone familiar with Apple's tactics will tell you that they'll want to keep it simple. They'll offer the same pricing for the same product across the board.

    I'd guess that this is all transitional anyway. Apple will continue to try to pressure labels to drop prices and remove DRM on everything. In the mean time, this is a step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Obvious? by vought · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Obvious? by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I suspect that prices will begin to come down once two things happen:

      1) iTMS gets some actual competition at the same ease-of-use level, yet maintain complete interoperability with it. It wouldn't take much technically to rig up a competing app that runs across platforms and make it sync tunes in and out of the iPod (gtkpod can almost do this now in Linux, I think?) - the interoperability part is the kicker, however... I don't see Apple making that easy by any stretch.

      2) DRM finally dies in music firmware (or at least obviates it, depending on the implementation of #1 above), once and for all, allowing freely transferrable music... and on its way down, I believe that the last hangers-on to DRM (Hello, MSFT?) will forcibly drive down their prices (even at a loss) just to stay competitive. I could (almost... almost!) see MSFT making the Zune itself 100% DRM-free at some time just as a last gasp to keep it alive as well. Yes, I know about SanDisk and etc... but they haven't managed to make the same name and ubiquity for themselves, and don't have nearly the marketing budgets.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  4. Now we just need free pricing. by supabeast! · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by osviews.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they do this... they open the Pandora's box of also making new songs higher priced.

      Personally... I prefer the consistency approach.

    2. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, letting the labels set their own prices WON'T result in lower prices. Here major label logic for you:

      Popular Tracks: Need to cost more to cover the demand for them
      Unpopular: Need to cost more to cover the cost of making them available.

      If anything 99 cents will be the 'base' cost and things will just go up for there.

    3. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Or at least $.05, if allofmp3.com proved anything. Whatever the price point is there's a lot of money being left on the table because the labels aren't smart enough to go after it.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    4. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by supabeast! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they do this... they open the Pandora's box of also making new songs higher priced.

      So what if they do? It's just new music; nobody needs it to survive, and nobody is being forced to buy it.

    5. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by Llywelyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, its amazing if you steal something how cheaply you can then sell it for.

      Less flippantly: an item is worth what the market will pay for it.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    6. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, letting the labels set their own prices WILL result in lower prices. Here [sic] Indy label logic for you:

      RIAA Tracks: prices just went up, and customers aren't happy with that
      Indy Tracks: 25 - 99, we'll make it up in volume! :D

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    7. Re:Now we just need free pricing. by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, people are willing to pay a lot more for the latest from (insert pop star of the week) on their cell phone, for a fraction of the song, at a fraction of the quality.

      I don't care if they charge $3 for whatever the #1 pop single is... more power to them.. that's what a free market is about... If I can get the new Bionic Jive album from iTMS for
      I think the price lock really sucks... it would be easy enough to give the big labels, and independents a control panel to set their own pricing. If people aren't buying, they can lower it... Hell, could even make it so they can only go up in price on a song/album once... IE, first 1000 downloads of Jessica Simpson's newest single go for $.25, then jumps to $3... then can only go down from there... Could be used as a better promotional tool.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  5. Translation by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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."

    1. Re:Translation by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."

      Actually here's an even better translation:

      "EU asked for DRM-free content, and EMI wanted higher prices. So we said fine, we give you higher prices (we'll justify with bumping up the bitrate), you give us DRM-free tracks & we got a deal."

    2. Re:Translation by mashedbananasoup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just wondering.. Is the price hike with higher bitrate a similiar justification to the older change in format from cassette tapes to cd. Didn't the record labels do that? Claiming its new technology! so it'll cost ya. But is it apple doing this now?

  6. Re:Redundant? by FedeLebron · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's encoded at a higher bitrate AND DRM-free.

  7. Re:Redundant? by evilbessie · · Score: 2, Funny

    But but but, DRM is an "Enabling Tool"...

  8. Why Pay more? by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The $10 per album on itunes is cheaper than most CDs, so the reduction in quality, and the inconvenience to remove the DRM, can well be justified.

    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
    1. Re:Why Pay more? by Donniedarkness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you misunderstood something-- Apple is offering HIGHER quality AAC's w/ NO DRM for $1.29. The $.99 deal still applies for the DRM'd version, which is the same quality it always has been (or at least, as far back as I remember).

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    2. Re:Why Pay more? by Kenshin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The price of DRM-free albums remains unchanged. It's only DRM-free singles that go up in price to $1.29.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    3. Re:Why Pay more? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and the need to physically purchase the product.

      Don't discount *that* - that's the argument in a nutshell. I have to spend $10 in mileage costs to go buy a physical CD. If I was billing the round-trip time to a client instead of driving to go get it that CD probably costs well over a hundred dollars (not that I work 24/7/365 - I sleep too, but you get the point).

      I will admit for single track purchases the money for the DRM free is compelling.

      Yeah, especially if you don't have to give up the sound quality as well. I have CD's that I've tried ripping to 128K AAC and it's not good enough to replace the CD's for all needs.

      WHat did Steve Jobs say? iTunes has to compete with free? How exactly does this scheme do this?

      Some people would rather download the lossless or high-quality track from P2P rather than buy a very lossy version from iTunes (see the above for reasons why they might not just go buy the CD).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. Wait a minute by Richard+McBeef · · Score: 5, Funny

    How am I supposed to manage my digital rights now?

  10. How DRM-less? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:How DRM-less? by crayz · · Score: 2, Funny

      You get DRM-free audio encoded in a non-proprietary format, what do you think?

    2. Re:How DRM-less? by RustNeverSleeps · · Score: 2, Informative

      They'll be DRM-free so of course you can import them into iMovie or Final Cut. Of course, you can already do so even with DRMed iTunes files. Apple has had support for using iTunes purchases in iMovie for a long time.

  11. There's the rub by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    This is exactly why I'd expect the RIAA to pull out of iTunes if they allow this. No matter what, they don't want an efficient market - not when they're selling artificial scarcity.

    It's interesting to see Apple as the potentate with the ability to change the music industry with small changes in policy. I think they're doing a good job as benovolent dictator, but there's some deeper meaning, I'm sure, to the fact that iTunes is only 5 years old and we're talking about things this way. The power of the Internet to change markets, demonstrated, perhaps.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Re:What we reallly want... by fangorious · · Score: 5, Informative

    what Apple wants is their AAC to become the defacto standard over mp3.

    AAC isn't Apple's codec. It's the MPEG group's replacement for MP3.

  13. This sucks by catbutt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Jobs came out with his "Thoughts on Music", I made all kinds of cynical comments saying that he was being disingenious for this or that reason. After all, Job's in incredibly successful and people all over the world laud him and his company's products, so he NEEDS to be brought down a notch.

    Well now he's making me look like an ass.

    1. Re:This sucks by TPIRman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

  14. Jobs and Apple are still EVIL by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Funny

    To sum up the list of objections to this move by Apple:

    • Apple is still not offering something for nothing, which pisses me off.
    • This is just a big PR stunt. Apple isn't really doing this for the right reasons, so it's still wrong.
    • This should have been done a long time ago, so the fact that they're doing it now makes it evil.
    • Apple is just trying to make their EVIL, proprietary AAC (Apple Audio Compression) dominate the free, open, wonderful MP3 format!
    • I don't like iTunes, therefore this move toward the elimination of DRM in music doesn't help me. This is Apple's fault. They're evil.
    • Steve Jobs wears sweaters. I hate sweaters. Sweaters are evil. Therefore, Jobs is evil, and so is Apple.
    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Jobs and Apple are still EVIL by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      He wears turtleneck sweaters ok? If that aint Dr Fuckin' Evil, I don't know what is.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  15. Re:Is Apple going to extend that grant? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  16. Zunior.com by leoc · · Score: 2, Informative

    For the regular price ($8.88 CDN per album) you get 192kbps non-DRM'd MP3's. For $2.00 CDN extra, you get the same album in FLAC format. Their entire catalog is in non-DRM format and they have been doing it this way for a lot longer than Apple. As an added benefit, they a support all platforms equally, so you can use Windows, OS X or even Linux to browse and buy music.

    --
    STFU about slashdot bias.
    1. Re:Zunior.com by mblase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their entire catalog [zunior.com] is in non-DRM format and they have been doing it this way for a lot longer than Apple.

      Your argument is significantly undermined by the fact that their entire catalog consists of artists and labels I've never heard of before in my life.

      They could price their albums at $1.25 apiece, and most people still wouldn't be interested.

  17. Perfect quality! by rmdyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll give them $2.00 a song if they will give up on this compressed stuff and sell me lossless. I'd like to have the same music that comes on the real CD. That way I can compare a checksum with a "global public" value, and make sure they haven't watermarked the song. They could even go to $3.00 a song for people who are aficionados and release the 24 bit stuff.

    So we have...

              $0.99 = DRM'ed AAC at 128kbps
              $1.30 = Non-DRM'ed AAC at 256kbps
              $2.00 = Non-DRM'ed, lossless.
              $3.00 = Non-DRM'ed, 96KHz-24bit per Channel.

    Still dreaming.

    1. Re:Perfect quality! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's funny is that he wants masters that don't even exist for a huge majority of stuff that's out there. Sure, some things have been mastered at 24/96, but those are generally only the things that have been released on DVDA and SACD. A good 95+% of the stuff out there was mastered for a 16-bit, 44.1kHz delivery mechanism. But let's not quibble with the minor details of reality...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Perfect quality! by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

      $3? $3?!!

      For $3 per song I want the band to come play live in my drinking establishment.

      $3.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Perfect quality! by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
  18. Re:Is Apple going to extend that grant? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You make some reasonable points, but I couldn't disagree with you more about software & movies. The point you used to illustrate software was particularly misguided:

    I mean, the kind of software application that you expect to work on you Desktop computer is pretty unsuitable for your cell phone.

    You do realise the iPhone is going to run OS X don't you? Do you realise that you would be able to run OS X in a vmware window if Apple didn't actively prevent you from doing so?

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  19. Who gets the money by Nutty_Irishman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, who gets the $0.30 for the songs, Apple, the producer, the musician? A quick search didn't turn up anything.

  20. Top 40??? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative
    but for all those people looking for DRM-free top-40-type music, dream come true, eh?

    Mmm, no. Not just top 40. Apple carries all manner of classic rock, hard rock, symphonic, blues, and more. beat them up for DRM (OS or other) all you like, but let's not just lie about things, ok?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  21. Re:Whoopty-do. AAC itself is proprietary and locke by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    This announcement doesn't mean much at all. AAC is still a proprietary format that only exists in Apple's reality sphere, and outside of iPods and Macs, doesn't have much reason to exist at all other than to have yet another standard out there. AAC is a format only used by two types of people: iTunes customers who have no choice, and the rabid Mac fanatics who will happily jump to a locked, patent encumbered protocol because Apple approves it.

    When Apple comes to the table with something industry standard like MP3, OGG, FLAC, uncompressed WAV, or even (gasp!) WMA, then this will be a newsmaking event. Otherwise, its just the same old stuff. People's music is still locked down in a non-standard format nobody would even go near if it wasn't Apple's baby.

    You are either a uninformed troll or an MS shill but again for the record: AAC is a part of the MPEG standard that is used by many other players like Sony's PS3, MS Zune, SanDisk Sansa e200R, numerous cell phones, etc. The licensing scheme of AAC is even more generous than MP3 as there is no license on distributed content. Also for the record, WMA has never been the industry standard. It was a standard foisted up us by MS which actually suffers from the same defects that you claim about AAC. If you change AAC in your ranting with WMA and Apple with MS, your statements would actually be true.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  22. Re:Is Apple going to extend that grant? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm very skeptical that it will be OSX in anything but name, or possibly kernel. But almost any application that is suitable for a phone would not be very usable on a desktop and vice versa. Video games have a much higher threshold on a desktop. Excel would be a travesty on a phone. Even the VNC version that I have on my desktop would positively suck on a phone. Even phone-centered apps like Address Book or iCal are not suited to the tiny screen on the iPhone.

    Even if the iPhone worked perfectly with all OSX applications, it would be but one example in an ocean of counter-examples. I have never seen a Palm or WindowsMobile application that is as functional as it's desktop equivalent.

    I'm not saying that DRM doesn't restrict software - clearly it does (as in your vmware example). I'm just saying that we, as a society, seem to hold software to a different standard than music, and I was simply pontificating on why I thought that was the case.

    I think that video is somewhere in between the two - perhaps when it takes less than 2 hours to encode a H264 movie people will start to care more. Right now, ripping a CD takes about 2 minutes and it's pretty bulletproof.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  23. Re:"Just a ruse to get Norway off his back..." by Envy+Life · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a) he doesn't need the money. Seriously. Do you really believe that if someone doesn't need money they no longer take it? Does Donald Trump now do charity work? Did Larry Ellison recently retire? When did US Congressmen stop taking campaign contributions from multi-national corporations? Did Dick Cheney disassociate himself from all his and his friend's oil interests before going along with the invasion of Iraq? I want to live in your world.
  24. Re:Is Apple going to extend that grant? by travail_jgd · · Score: 3, Informative

    I agree with your point, but not your rationale.

    I'm *gasp* 35, and for as long as I can remember music has been freely copyable. Radios with built-in cassette players could often record "free" [1] music directly from the radio, without any external microphone. One radio station even spent Sunday nights playing entire sides of LPs.

    The CD era made it even easier to make high quality tapes. It was easy to record, and in some cases the quality was better than a mastered cassette. Some of the "portable systems" [2] could actually calculate optimal song orders to put as many tracks on a tape as possible.

    My point is that at least two generations have grown up with the ideas of "free music" and "freely copying music". Right or wrong, it's a part of the American culture. The sudden appearance of DRM when freely copied/format shifted music has been permitted for decades is a culture shock, and is only turning people away from the big labels.

    1: Sure, someone was paying for it, but to the end user the only costs were electricity and cassettes.
    2: aka boom boxes. I'm a child of the 80's.

  25. Really? by ZxCv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't get me wrong, I don't care much for the packaging either, but calling it progress to pay extra for the lack of something is quite bizarre.

    Really?

    There seem to be many people willing to pay extra for the lack of something.

    Like those willing to pay for satellite radio, because it lacks stupid DJ's and excessive ads.

    Or those willing to pay more for their steak, because it lacks the fat and toughness of a cheaper steak.

    Or those willing to pay more for their new car, because it lacks the mechanical problems of a cheaper used car.

    Point being, there are countless times when paying more for "less" makes sense. But then again, in those cases, "less" is very subjective, depending on who is actually doling out the cash.

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    1. Re:Really? by asninn · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between selecting for quality (high-quality/high-price steaks, for example) or removing something that's naturally there (boneless fish comes to mind) on one hand and ceasing to add something YOU YOURSELF added in the first place.

      So, for example, it makes sense to charge more for lactose-free milk since lactose occurs naturally in milk and has to be removed in a process that costs both time and money. If, on the other hand, lactose was only added in the manufacturing process and did NOT occur naturally in milk, then there'd be no real reason why lactose-free milk should be more expensive (assuming, of course, that the lactose would be added purely for taste or similar reasons, not in order to keep other costs down for the manufacturer).

      So there is a difference.

      (And BTW, the example of a new and/or more expensive car lacking something because it might have less mechanical problems than a used and/or cheaper one is downright silly - using that logic, *everything* can be seen as the lack of something else, even if it's just a lack of a lack of a feature. But that's obviously not what people mean when they talk about a "lack" of something, and it's not what the GP meant, either.)

      --
      butter the donkey
  26. Re:You've never heard of ... by demars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I actually thought you were joking (I have moderator points and I was going to mod you funny) until I read down your list and saw Barenaked Ladies (who should be sued for false advertising, by the way! Barenaked Ladies indeed!).

    Besides them and possibly Sarah McLachlan, are you really under the impression that most people have heard of ANY of these?

  27. That's what Apple *wants* you to believe.... by PapayaSF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they don't want to be in the music business, at least no more than they have to be.

    Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I wonder about this. That is Jobs' pitch to the record companies: "We're not your competition, we just want to sell iPods." But is it really true? Jobs thinks long-term. Maybe he's just lying low, trying not to spook his prey until it's too late. With iTunes becoming huge, what young musician wouldn't be tempted to sign up with iTunes as a label? Particularly if, instead of the artists getting a small slice of the record companies' cut of an iTunes sale, they got most or all of it? Wouldn't that increase the artists' income from digital sales by something like 400%?

    The major labels would excrete bricks if this happened, but if iTunes gets much larger, it may be inevitable. At that point Jobs will have the major record companies over a barrel, and could make them obsolete while getting cheers from everyone else by vastly increasing what musicians make for digital sales and giving the fans what they want.

    Imagine the PR coup that would be. I see it as a "One more thing..." item at a future MacWorld Expo keynote.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:That's what Apple *wants* you to believe.... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is Jobs' pitch to the record companies: "We're not your competition, we just want to sell iPods." But is it really true?

      Well, I think it is true, but at the same time he is trying to mislead the record companies about the future of the music industry, as Apple envisions it. Apple benefits from their cartel being undermined, but at the same time I don't think Apple wants to become the sole gatekeeper for a number of reasons.

      With iTunes becoming huge, what young musician wouldn't be tempted to sign up with iTunes as a label? Particularly if, instead of the artists getting a small slice of the record companies' cut of an iTunes sale, they got most or all of it? Wouldn't that increase the artists' income from digital sales by something like 400%?

      Labels manage multiple items, not just iTunes. They manage advertising and they manage hardcopy to store sales and in many cases live performances. Those needs aren't going away and it is so far outside of Apple's core competence that I doubt they want to try to extend themselves that way.What Apple is motivating is not a switch to Apple as a label, but a switch to an indy label where artists get a much, much larger cut, without losing the iTunes retail channel and without losing their advertising.

      There are other problems with Apple becoming a label, including antitrust issues. The iTMS is tied to the iTunes software and the iPod. The iPod is dangerously close to having monopoly influence in a market. Leveraging that into a monopoly on online music distribution would be really shaky legal ground and Apple is a lot more susceptible to bad press about their antitrust actions than MS is.

      I do think Apple wants to gradually undermine the big labels, but at the same time I think they plan to simply democratize the market and keep either MS or the RIAA from controlling it. Apple isn't afraid to compete on the merits of their hardware and software since those are their strengths. I think they'll count on those strengths and avoid the dangerous position you mention.

  28. Re:You've never heard of ... by lisaparratt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because someone doesn't like the same artists as you doesn't mean they only like the Top 40.