Amazon MP3 Store to Go Global in 2008
Amazon announced in a press release today their plans to sell DRM-free music worldwide through the Amazon MP3 store beginning later this year. This news is being viewed by some as the latest volley in Amazon's digital music sales war with Apple's iTunes. Since Amazon has completed its plans to offer DRM-free music from all four major record labels (most recently, Sony and Warner), the global availability of the MP3s can only be excellent news for customers.
This is what I've been waiting for, seriously. I will be able to buy my music online, and actually own it now. I don't think anything more than "awesome" need be said.
-Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
I have a website
It's nice to hear about these companies that are going to release DRM-free music, but I have yet to see anything real. It's the kind of thing that makes a nice press announcement, but it seems like they don't really have to do anything. With today's technology and the existing infrastructure, it should take about 15 minutes to get this thing up and running. What's the hold-up? I'm still waiting on my Beatles on iTunes that was announced in early 2007!
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
I was wondering that myself.
All the tech stories are tagged with WCPGW. Not that the tagging system really means anything, but doesn't tagging everything with the same tag make it more worthless?
I shopped a lot at Allofmp3.com and now at their sister site, mp3sparks.com. However, there is no denying that their insane prices were in part due to not giving anything back to the artists/record companies. You can scream all you want about artists not really getting much back from record companies all you want, but 0.01$ is still more than 0.00$.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Being UK based I remember last year I got all excited about some obscure MP3's I found on the amazon.com download section - and then spotted the little (Amazon MP3 Purchases are limited to U.S. customers.) disclaimer. D'oh!
I guess it won't be there much longer...
"He Who Dares Wins"
It's easy to charge low prices when you don't actually pay the people who make the music.
No, because unlike AllOfMp3 these stores are operating according to U.S. (or similar) law; and more importantly to me, purchases from Amazon MP3, iTunes Plus, et al. result in the artists actually getting paid for their work. (Yes, I know, "the evil record labels don't pay their artists that much anyway, blah blah blah"... but if an artist is in a bad contract, at least it's an arrangement that he or she voluntarily entered into; AllOfMp3, on the other hand, is profiting off these artists' work without any compensation or agreement. If you give a crap about your favorite musicians, you don't buy their stuff from AllOfMp3.)
Quality rate, obscure bands not signed by one of the big corporations, etc.Amazon MP3's quality is good, better than iTunes but not quite on par with iTunes Plus. Tracks are encoded with LAME 3.97 at a high VBR bitrate (~230 kbps or so?). The collection is still a tiny bit spotty, but growing fast. It certainly has a better selection than iTunes Plus does, by a long shot. All things considered, it's an excellent service.
My biggest pet peeve with Amazon MP3 is that while you can purchase individual songs through the standard Amazon web interface, purchasing whole albums (and thereby receiving the album discount, where applicable) requires the Amazon MP3 Downloader. On the plus side, this program seems well-written, can pause downloads or resume interrupted ones, automatically imports your songs into iTunes or other MP3 players' libraries, and doesn't behave suspiciously. But why should it be necessary? The downloader is currently available for OS X and Windows, and a Linux version is "forthcoming".
It's not the $0.01 which is the problem, the problem is that to buy the music legally so that the artist gets $0.01, I have to give many more times that to scumbag corporations, who (on a lot of the music in question) long ago covered their costs and earned their profits, yet still charge me and the artist a premium for expenses, many of which no longer exist.
All while wreaking havoc with society by causing copyright terms and powers to go crazy out of balance when at the same time society actually needs them less and less .
Based on what I've read, I think the record companies are trying to avoid a situation where iTunes has a monopsony in the (wholesale) market for digital music. If iTunes is the only reseller of digital music then Apple has a lot of bargaining power in price negotiations and will be able to pay the labels a low price.
By not allowing Apple to sell tracks DRM free while at the same time allowing stores like Amazon to do so, they allow the other stores to gain market share and catch up a little with Apple. Then no one buyer has the entire market and the record labels can retain some price setting power.
What makes you think music corporations should or could work any differently from any other industry? No industry reaches a point where they have "earned their profits". Where is there the point that says "ok stop now, you've earned enough from that"?
On the other hand, it's VERY much typical behavior for Steve to try and lock people into his products.
Proof?By the way, Apple lowered their "iTunes Plus" (no DRM) prices when Amazon came out with their MP3 service. It now costs the same as regular DRM songs. This should indicate to you that Apple is willing to ditch DRM entirely, seeing as how they are willing to charge the same prices.
I'm surprised you haven't seen the common theory that the major labels aren't giving non-DRM rights to Apple yet in order to retain pricing control. I don't know if anyone can prove it, but it certainly is the most common theory and really the only one that makes sense, given the facts. If you really care to know (you're not a troll right?), then google it. Duh.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.