Slashdot Mirror
Sony Announces DRM-Free Music at Amazon
sehlat brings us a New York Times report that Sony has agreed to start selling DRM-free music from Amazon's MP3 store. This comes days after Sony revealed plans for physical MusicPass cards that would allow DRM-free access to a small portion of Sony's library. Now that all four major record labels are on board with Amazon, some are expecting Apple to make moves away from DRM as well. From the NYTimes:
"Sony's partnership with Amazon.com also underscores the music industry's gathering effort to nurture an online rival to Apple, which has sold more than three billion songs through its iTunes store. Most music purchased on iTunes can be played only on Apple devices, and Apple insists on selling all single tracks for 99 cents. Amazon, which sells tracks for anywhere from 89 cents to over a dollar, offers the pricing variability the labels want."
i think we might be the only ones here right now. why don't we talk this over? i really think we still have a chance.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
He wants to know why suddenly everything down there is now... FROZEN!
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Those of you who feel that the free market has no recourse against the large corporation and cartel, take note - this is the voting power of your dollar at work. Or, the lack of the dollar thereof, specifically.
It didn't take dismantling of the RIAA, court-ordered cessation of their ridiculous lawsuits, or legislative intervention to protect the consumer - it took your disillusionment with the industry and unwillingness to part with hard-earned cash to pay for crippled formats and less freedom with the content you purchased.
The next step will be the determining factor in the future of media sales. Will you buy MP3s, unrestricted, for a reasonable price? Or will you continue to download it for free via Limewire?
Option A will reinforce a reasonable business model that will benefit the industry, the artist, and you.
Option B will reverse the progress that has been made.
Choose wisely, Indiana Jones...
correct me if I'm wrong- but amazon only sells drm free tracks - and itunes sells a few drm free tracks. i don't think anyone is arguing over who did it first.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Apple had become too powerful and arrogant, so basically the labels had become more scared of Apple than of the consumers.
Plus you get a nice plastic case, sleeve notes & a nice shiny disk that sounds better in a reasonable hi-fi than any lossy downloaded file.
Oh, and did I forget to mention that good music albums (of which there are thousands) do not have just one or two good tracks - that particular property is reserved for the "great unwashed" who never shop beyond the shelves of their local supermarket for music.
You mean ***PAY*** someone to cause the heads of my hard disk to write a few ones and zeroes????
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
No-ones doubting that Apple was first, but for Sony to do this is a big thing indeed. They're a dinosour, and one of the worst DRM offenders (just having DRM isn't as bad as those darn silly rootkits), so if they have finally got the message, that's a sign of good things to come.
Personally I'm of the mind that iTunes tracks have always been DRM free though, since you are allowed to burn them to CD. If you just want to use the iPod alone, there's no need. This in built burn to cd option hasn't been the case for other DRM schemes that I know of.
Try as I might, I can't hear any difference to a track I've burned to CD and encoded as mp3. Aac has its advantages (aside from the drm everyone mutters about), I do like the bookmark feature.
Apple would love to "make moves away from DRM." Obviously they will do this as soon as the RIAA-signatory record companies make the DRM-free music available to them. The DRM is not central to Apple's business but is something the record companies forced on them to make the initial deals that created itunes.
After Jobs released the memo linked above, EMI made DRM-free music available to Apple, and Apple immediately started selling it DRM-free. Of course they'll do the same with the other labels.
Unfortunately, they didn't think to also drop their geographic restrictions, so this is only available to their US users. I can only presume that they got pressure from the music industry to do this, because they think they can get more out of people in their own countries. Of course, it really just means that overseas Linux users will either download the files illegally or they just won't listen to big 4 music at all.
X-Has-Sig: yes
That's not true. emusic.com was doing this years before iTunes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I argued it before here that DRM is a dead end, killing itself by limiting it's own market. And apparently this is really happening, and happening so much that it's starting to cut in profits.
Apple has more or less a stranglehold now on the market, and the labels demanding DRM on their music help Apple maintaining this stranglehold, and block e.g. Amazon from selling music that plays on the iPod. After all, when they must use DRM, they can not use Apple's DRM, and thus the market for Amazon and the rest is limited to the non-iPod market. And that market of course is small, and no serious competition for Apple.
The only way out for the labels, the only way to break Apple's hold including the demands of one price for all songs, is to drop the DRM requirement. And finally they do so - it started of course with some iTunes-plus songs, and then one after another the labels realised that they themselves are locked in by DRM as much, if not more so, than the consumers. Even "rootkit" Sony BMG apparently finally realised that.
Now the only thing I can hope for is some real competition. US$ 0.99 (HK$ 7.7) for a single song is imho way too expensive. For that price I can buy complete movies (legal, mind you - old ones, but still, a complete movie, on VCD, sometimes go for HK$10 for two). A new movie on VCD costs here HK$ 40-50, a DVD costs about HK$ 90-120, a music CD costs HK$ 70-100 for local artists and HK$ 110-150 for overseas artists. This for legal copies, not the cheap illegal import from China.
So now finally the labels have cut the DRM from the songs, allowing Amazon and presumably soon other vendors, maybe Microsoft or Yahoo, to sell songs without DRM. Amazon is now selling a lot at prices lower than iTunes, this will likely attract customers away from iTunes. iTunes is getting competition, and may be forced to lower their prices. iTunes may also decide to give up on their DRM, the lock-in is broken up by the supply side and there is no need for them to put on the DRM. After all adding DRM costs money: it takes computer cycles, requiring more computer power; it requires extra logic on their chips or software in the iPods, etc. DRM less media is cheaper, even if only marginally so.
So will Apple give up on their DRM? Sure. I'm really sure they will. Maybe not anytime soon, but as soon as Amazon et. al. get some traction, they will. As soon as there comes a real competitor to the iPod, they will do as well just to keep there store going.
Of course, but remember that the definition of "reasonable" is that the price is something both seller and buyer will agree on.
Until the current pricing has proven to actually be reasonable, nobody knows if we're there yet. The "reasonable" price for a song could very well be $0.01 per song, and then the current uncrippling of extremely over-priced songs wouldn't prove anything.
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The fact that it is possible to burn to an inconvenient physical format an then rip to a DRM free format does not make iTunes DRM free. There is an inevitable loss of quality in this time-consuming process. I cannot play the original file on anything but iTunes or an iPod. That is DRM and it does not equate to consumer choice. Happily, Apple will now be forced to get rid of DRM - in the US, at least.
I have no problem with AAC - it's a good format and it can be played by Rockbox, but the DRM is not acceptable. I will never buy restricted media.
Does anybody seriously believe that Apple wants to have DRM on iTunes ? Of course not - after all it was Steve Jobs who penned the open, anti-DRM letter in the first place.
What the record companies are attempting to do here is break iTunes' monopoly on music downloads. They see the way to do this as supplying another retailer with a superior product (ie. DRM-free music) whist still insisting that iTunes sells DRM'ed tracks. They are then hoping that people will move over to Amazon's system, killing iTunes, whereupon they will then either declare DRM-free a failed experiment and re-lock the music, or force you to download entire albums only, or set variable pricing, or any other nefarious scheme they have dreamt up.
If you believe that the record companies have 'caved in' or are doing this out of the goodness of their own hearts, then you really need to develop a healthy sense of cynicism, and quickly ! The record companies are actually being incredibly anti-competitive here, allowing one sales channel access to a superior product that they deny to another.
iTunes has been a massively positive force for music downloads - it offers a-la carte choice and fixed-price downloads. It's extremely easy to use, and, well, just works. The record companies were handed a 'get out of jail free' card for internet downloads, something they hadn't been able to figure out themselves, and all they can do in return is attempt to bring down the very system that saved their necks. I think this says something about their mentalities.
The thing is, I don't think this will change anything. The average consumer values convenience over DRM, and nothing is as easy to use as iTunes. Eventually the record companies will have painted themselves into a corner, or will face a legal challenge from Apple, and all have to offer DRM-free on iTunes. Either that or Apple will do deals directly with the artists (lets' hope) and leave these backstabbing, money-grubbing bastards out in the cold.
There was a number of online stores with DRM-free catalogs prior to Apple's involvement, and the DRM removal on iTunes was at the request of EMI, not the other way around.
Until music producers start using open source software to produce and mix music, I refuse to pay for it. The vast majority of studios use proprietary software that runs on Windows and Apple operating systems, and their music suffers for it. It is a sign of narrowmindedness and sheep-like thinking that is reflected in their art.
TIAEAE!
Sony - FUD. Redundant by design.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
If I want an old sixties song, it is not worth 99c. No wonder Limewire flourishes. Old music should be more like 10c a track, then piracy can be combated. Apples rigid 99c rule has been a big impediment to the uptake of digital sales. And the music needs to be at a higher bit rate. 128kbs became popular when everyone used dialup. I would prefer 320, the very least 256. If I am paying for a track I want some audio quality. Apple do not own aac, it is a part of mpeg, the other music players can use it if they want, once it is free of DRM. But, again at a higher bit rate. my ten cents worth :)
Man, I'm really feelin' the love in this room.
You're expressing frustration, but don't paint "the other sources" as the way to go. Of course it takes effort to get the bands signed to a download store... this is what we all cheer for, "sticking it to the Big Label".
What you're describing is a market opportunity for labor. As I understand your post, once the majority of small labels are signed, you'll be content. This becomes a When-Not-If scenario. My projection is three years if a dedicated negotiating force buckles down with no more white noise interference.
Then there will always be the bleeding edge bands who formed last week, and it will be the thing to do to get them signed as a favor, in return for comped cd's *for services performed*.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Quote:
IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Never, never, never trust these idiots. Don't run the risk that they will include some additional "content" but call it something other than DRM.
They will never have my business again. They proved themselves untrustworthy and only fools ask to be taken twice.
but amazon only sells drm free tracks - and itunes sells a few drm free tracks.
True, but Amaxon is selling tracks in the universal format. Apple is not. Tracks from Amazon will play in by son's iPod, my daughter's Creative Zen, my Coby MP3 player, and in my living room DVD player. Itunes tracks on the other hand will play on my Son's Ipod and a couple computers and nowhere else. The choice of music vendors is simply a matter of compatibility for many. DRM is a compatibility issue. So is formats other than MP3.
The truth shall set you free!
U.S. only.
I've tried to purchase a track at Amazon already two weeks ago. I was turned down. They only sell to buyers located in North America.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
I have what I think is an awesome idea for Amazon. Give everyone who buys mp3s a free S3 storage account. For every mp3 purchased, create a virtual link to the file in their S3 account.
Now you have a backup of all your purchased music at no charge, which you can download at any time at standard S3 download rates. And, of course, you can feel free to use that S3 account for other purposes if you like. But there's no monthly fee for storing the mp3s since Amazon only needs to keep a single copy of each song for all users.