Apple and EMI ditching DRM is good, but it's not good enough
By Ryan Block 
posted April 2nd 2007 3:24PM
posted April 2nd 2007 3:24PM
For years Apple has said that given the choice between DRMed and DRM-free media ecosystems, it would always choose the former. Thankfully things seemed to be looking up when Jobs apparently had a change of heart after last year's crippling European pressures wrought havoc on the public perception of the iMonopoly. But we're still nowhere near there yet -- and we don't just mean that the other big labels, Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner, haven't switched over to DRM-free. What we're seeing here is a rabbit being pulled from a hat; it's wonderful, but what does it mean?
We should be clear to start: we don't believe Jobs is leading by example here -- EMI is. EMI is taking a huge, huge step in its business, and we fully commend them. Honestly, we do, kudos to you, EMI. Apple is taking the role of providing the first venue for EMI's great DRM-free music experiment; but what we find disconcerting is that Stevie J. is asking the labels do what he says -- not what he does. Now would be a good time to remind everyone that with last year's acquisition of Pixar, Steve Jobs became the single largest shareholder in the Walt Disney Company. With his $4 billion+ stake in the media megacorp and his seat on the board of directors, you'd think Jobs would be quick to encourage Disney-owned labels, like Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records, to "embrace [DRM-free] sales wholeheartedly." Perhaps Jobs and Iger don't see as eye-to-eye as they previously postured, or perhaps Jobs is waiting to see whether this is actually the right move for the business, consumers be damned.
The finer details of EMI and Jobs's announcement today were also dubious. Despite the silver lining, which is that full albums should cost the same but will now default to DRM-free files, the two businesses still conflated DRM-free music with the discerning tastes of audiophiles. Steve mentioned that 128-bit AAC just isn't good enough for the sharp-eared, so uncrippled tracks are being bumped to 256Kbps. This gives Apple the ability to sell the music as a separate product and price point, while giving consumers the illusion of greater value. But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's what we deserve, and we demand it. Asking customers to pay 30% more for no DRM and a higher bitrate is a distraction, a parlor trick to take our attention away from the philosophical issue: EMI is still selling DRMed music. EMI CEO Eric Nicoli said, "Not everybody cares about interoperability or sound quality." Since when did the two become so intrinsically linked? Sure, not everyone cares to vote either, that doesn't mean it's a premium privilege. Nicoli also stated EMI has taken the view that it must "trust consumers." It's true, today's announcement shows more trust than they ever displayed before -- but it's still conditional trust.
So why not make 99-cent 128-bit AAC tracks DRM free as well? We don't think there's an easy answer, but perhaps this is a move more tentative than people realize; this whole uncrippled music thing might just be an experiment. Assume it's a test to see how many people will buy DRM-free music, and possibly also a test to see how many copy it. If the experiment fails EMI and Apple can blame lack of consumer interest, or quickly inflated rates of piracy -- but they certainly wouldn't ever admit that the 30% price premium and inability to choose smaller file sizes and lower bitrates will have anything to do with lack of uptake. Meanwhile unwitting customers -- the type not to know of the crippling perils of DRM until it's too late -- will just go on buying the cheaper 99-cent tracks. So perhaps you can see why we don't fully believe that Jobs & Co. yet fully believe in a DRM-free ecosystem.
Now take a look at Steve's response to the question of whether TV shows will be sold without DRM. (And keep that $4 billion dollar stake / board of directors seat in mind.) Jobs stated he believed that video is different, and that movies are not an appropriate analogue because they aren't distributed without DRM at the same frequency of sales as music. But why is media not media to the man that's made peddling this media the crux of his business? What is the real difference between music and TV shows and movies when it comes to end-user consumption? We suspect we don't need to answer, but we'd also like to point out that it's probably safe to estimate that nearly 100% of Americans are in range of terrestrial analogue broadcasts from all the "majors" of their particular industry -- and all these broadcasts of flagship, primetime shows are completely DRM-free in analog and often digital TV streams, with which people can record and do with as they please. Jobs's argument about TV, movies, and DRM makes even less sense from a protection point of view: what's easier for users to pirate, a 50MB album, or a 5GB movie?
Lastly, we'd like to point out that, coincidentally, very, very few devices actually stand to benefit from Apple selling DRM-free AAC tracks. The iPod plays MP3s, but popular devices devices by all the big companies -- iRiver, Creative, Archos, most SanDisk devices, etc. (we forgetting any?) -- do not support AAC. In fact, the only other devices that we can think of that supports AAC are a handful of Sony players, the Sansa E200R, and the Zune -- and good luck getting that to work with your Mac or iTunes. We understand it may be a little much to ask that iTunes break its vertical integration and be made extensible for additional device support with this new DRM-free approach, but really, what's the point? Almost no devices play AAC, and Apple is deliberately not making these downloads available in MP3.
The bottom line is this: we want to live in a DRM-free world, and while we're not necessarily convinced that Jobs, Apple, Disney, and EMI do too, at least some of the players in this ecosystem are willing to look at it from the consumer's point of view. That's some of the best news we've heard about the record industry in a long, long while, and we honestly do hope that it sparks an uptick in sales for an industry in turmoil. But we don't approve of misleading sales pitches, confusing conditions, and second guessing what should just be a better consumer experience, and making it seem like some kind of privilege. If these companies are going to dump DRM, they need to really dump it, and never look back -- the buying public, Engadget included, certainly won't.
It's a transition. That's just how Apple does it. They didn't release all the Intel Macs at once, they did it slowly. Wait, and we'll be DRM free one day.
Hardware and software are two totally different things.
This article is a bunch of bs. First you complain that Apple needs to get rid of DRM. Now it's the price.
I got a solution for ya: go buy the $18.99 10 track CD at a record store. You're an old fashioned & backwards thinking, Apple bashing and probably Zune carrying "reporter" that probably wrote an "apple will go out of business" article 10+ years ago. iPod is the market leader, so DEAL WITH IT!.
All this time you were crying about Apple unfairly locking its content to the ipod. Apple gets rid of DRM and doubles the sampling rate and you guys still complain. Go listen to your zunes and sansas.
jonbruck @ "Apple gets rid of DRM and doubles the sampling rate and you guys still complain."
I believe the issues are that:
1. Apple hasn't dropped any DRM, it's EMI that did the dropping. Apple in fact gets zero credit for this.
2. Apple didn't "get rid of it's DRM", it's still there on all the other labels. To make your statement factual Apple would have to tell all the labels they are now selling content without DRM, regardless of what they say.
3. The real thrust of the article is that we shouldn't have to pay extra for something that we should have had all along.
jonbruck: "All this time you were crying about Apple unfairly locking its content to the ipod. Apple gets rid of DRM and doubles the sampling rate and you guys still complain. Go listen to your zunes and sansas."
EXACTLY... who cares... there are way better players than iPod available anyways! (like the Zune and the Sansa) I am definitely not saying losing DRM is a bad thing ... I just agree that this benefits players like the Zune and Sansa more.
Soon people who were sucked into iPod ownership can branch out and try better (ie, innovative) products and not have to rebuild their library! They can still use iTunes!
This is a GREAT day for the consumer!
Apple didn't double the sampling rate, they doubled the bitrate.
I'd say this is a pretty big baby step. I understand we're not there 100%, but the tone of the article is a little too negative I think.
I plan on buying some EMI released DRM-free iTunes songs in May to support the move. I'll be putting my money where my mouth is.
Good for you. Or, you can just use QTfairuse. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting piracy, but Qtfairuse is great for listening to music from itunes with a player that's not an ipod.
Yes we will be DRM free one day, but not because of the deal Apple and EMI made, this deal was made for one reason sells, the Music industry is hurting so Apple and EMI came up with a gimmick to make people think that they was getting something new and oh by the way it will be $.30 more because of better quality. They could have always given better u better quality @ the $.99 price without adding cost to them to do it. and if they really was behind DRM free music they would stop selling the lower bit rate, there is no logical reason to keep doing so, except that they will @some point stop selling the higher bit rate because of sells, is not going to be what they want and that will be their reason to stop, if the pirates out there can offer u higher bit rates for free then they can give you truly unlocked music better quality for $.99. It’s a gimmick don’t fall for it they will get a spike in sells because a lot people who already bought the music is going back to get the higher right. (I recommend if u already bought the song @99 go find a higher quality of the song around the net______ and download it it’s not illegal because u already own rights to it). BOTTOM LINE its is a gimmick don’t fall for it (we want higher bit rates in mp3 format @ the current price or cheaper until that happens it not DRM free.Peroid)
Ryan,
Voting is a right. Habeas Corpus is a right. Etc. Purchasing a commercial product on your terms rather than those dictated by the person who is selling it is nice, it's not a right. Get some perspective.
Also, all new Sony players play AAC, and more and more players are supporting that format which is actually more open than mp3, since you don't need to pay royalties to support it. Plus, you could easily drag your purchased DRM-free songs out of iTunes and into whatever software you use to load files onto your Zune... if you have one... somebody must. That's the point of DRM-free. Just because you bought it with iTunes doesn't mean you have to use iTunes to load it onto your device.
Anyway, you made some okay points, but some of your facts are way off, which makes your argument weak. Mind you, I'm sure you'll get a lot of support from the 14-year-old "iPod=sux0rs" people who always post on Engadget, but come on, you could do better.
I added Sony (forgot about that), but otherwise my facts aren't off. Media management in Zune is definitely a hassle, and not even using MTP, it's not like you are anywhere near a drag and drop experience, which is what DRM-free should be.
We believe cripple-free media is a right. Maybe not a constitutional-fight-to-the-death kind of right, but we believe it's a right nonethelesss. It's important to remember that Apple has a very real agenda here, and it's not always just about doing what consumers want. It is, though, *always* about doing what Steve wants, and I don't think he's committing -- I think he's tipping his toes in the water, and this piece is just calling it like it is.
Hmm. I think you're misusing the word "right." I don't think any dictionary definition would back you up. It is your right not to buy anything that you don't want. I have never bought a song from iTunes before even though I'm an iPod owner and a Mac user since 1988. I exercised my right to be an informed consumer and I still buy music that I like on CD because that format gives me the most flexibility and the music I listen to is good enough that I don't think the price is outrageous. I might actually buy something from iTunes now, though I rarely pay enough attention to who's on what label (especially with the "majors") to know if anybody I like (that I don't already have on CD) is on EMI.
I think some Sansa players and Nokia phones and all of them Palm devices now also play AAC. Wikipedia has a list in their AAC article.
I agree, though, SJ and Apple have an agenda. I think that agenda is to make money and stay in business and it's a tightrope walk. Apple's tenuous market share could be lost with a misstep and, even while some complain about Apple's total control over user experience, it is also their greatest selling point. I think Jobs does want to sell DRM-free media, but he want to keep making money as well and he doesn't want Apple to lose its position in the market. I think the decisions one would need to make in order to fulfill these goals would be very difficult and they aren't always the decisions that would result in the immediate granting of every gadget-head's wishes.
That said, keep up the good work. I love your site and your podcast.
I'm curious what points the article got wrong? I didn't see any glaring issues so it would help others if you could clarify the points you found.
Whether it is or isn't a right is probably a pretty good argument for the courts. The narrow definition of 'right' that Jaroslav is talking about fails to take into the fact that there are hundreds of rights acts outside of the constitution. Businesses, consumers, medical patients, prisoners all have other rights.
Some day this will all have worked itself out, through the courts, fiscal interest, or an evolved open community. The issue needs to be pushed though, and it seems to me that engadget may be in a position to be heard. Blogging isn't really a small thing. And this isn't a small blog. Is it inconceivable that someone that could take the message may well read it here? Marketers crawl these things, I'd bet there are congressional interns, maybe even congressmen, certainly a chairman of the board or two.
Blogs are allowed to voice opinion. There's an editorial section in your newspaper. This article isn't written as fact, it's speculative and one perspective of fact. It's written in an appropriate voice.
Sony also supports AAC.
SACD isn't exactly DRM-free! When's the last time you ripped an SACD?
Other gadgets that support AAC include the Sony PSP and Nokia cell phones.
As a previous posted mentioned, lack of DRM means easy transcoding to other formats where required, and let's not forget much easier playback on PCs and media streaming devices.
I say bravo to EMI and Apple.
Wow I think this is the 1st time I will ever buy music from Itunes. Hopefully the other labels follow suite.
I really do have to agree with you. I beleive this is more of a stunt to shut everyone up and see what happens.
Also, I think that these files are at a high bitrate to make them easier to track. Unless someone does a conversion before placing it up on a Bit torrent network, these "larger" files will stand out like a sore thumb. This will make it very easy for Apple and EMI to scan the file sharing networks and quickly gage the percentage of piracy due to drm-free music.
If this turnes out to be the case, this could end up being one of the most hurtful blows felt by the DRM-Free community.
So my suggestion to everyone out there in internet land? DO NOT PIRATE THIS MUSIC. This is your test. If people screw this up, we will never see a DRM-free world...
I think the files are watermarked, which would make tracking them easier still.
ENGADGET:
You guys really don't know a good thing when you see it. DRM-free music is not a right. That's just your liberal wet-dream. This is a first step in a very complicated situation. Anytime a big, money hungary company (which is surrounded by other money hungary comapnies) makes a pro-consumer move like this, stop your bitching and be happy it even happened.
And stop beating on Steve for changing his stance on the DRM issue. It's getting old. I don't see any other CEO's going out on a limb and posting open letters to an entire industry asking them to step out on a limb and do something that will benefit the consumer, and eventually, themsleves. No matter what the motivation, it takes balls to do what he did, and what he is doing.
Yes, you could argue he's doing it to ensure the longevity of his business. Maybe so, but what he's doing is something that is good for the consumer, and to be sure, something that is totally opposite of the norm and could very easily backfire.
Get off your high horse ENGADGET. I don't see you effecting any change worth writing about.
Bill Gates was the first major CEO to come out against DRM in public:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/14/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-xxi-gates-tells-consumers-to-ditch-dr/
He may have said it, but did he do anything about it?
I don't see the Windows Media or Zune DRM going anywhere!
Thank you! Finally someone who realizes that although its a step in the right direction, its not that big of an annoucement. Until Apple opens up their file format, its still DRM. DRM-Free is when you can purchase the song and do whatever you want, copy it to any MP3 player, and have full control over your file
All the big players support ACC
its not an apple only format.
AAC isn't an Apple format, its an open format developed by many companies quite a few years ago now, Apple weren't one of the group who created it. Many phone companies and Sony were, thusly almost all phones support AAC, its just the choice of Creative, Sandisk etc. that they don't support it.
Apple must have chosen it for a reason back when they announced it was becoming standard, its not their fault that other PMP makes didn't follow suit, its a bit harsh holding them accountable for other companies choices, particularly when AAC isn't an Apple format, and is by no means controlled by Apple at all.
"Thank you! Finally someone who realizes that although its a step in the right direction, its not that big of an annoucement. Until Apple opens up their file format, its still DRM. DRM-Free is when you can purchase the song and do whatever you want, copy it to any MP3 player, and have full control over your file"
Dan, you're a fricken' idiot. AAC is the audio format of MPEG-4. It's MPEG-4 Audio, an open standard implemented by an open standards body.
Seriously, man, educate yourself before ranting.
And no, "proprietary formats" doesn't equal "DRM." Windows Word is a proprietary format, but I can cut and paste content into other formats.
Everything you said was wrong.
It's not Apple's file format, it's Dolby Labs, dope. All you have to do is pay Dolby licensing fees to use it. If Apple opened the format, they'd be dead.
And given the Microsoft loss of the mp3 suit, even the old tried and true might have problems. At least Dolby invented AAC and holds all rights.
You're absolutely right, Ryan. Steve is going for a test-phase, and he's making sure that he doesn't get beaten down for it, from a business point of view. You've managed to pin down every move that Jobs has made, and removed his sugarcoating from it to show people the business aspect of it.
For that, I don't blame Steve Jobs at all. While it would be wonderful to live in a DRM-free environment and be able to use our content on every player of our choice, it's not really a step that Steve Jobs can take. Until the record labels get on board, he's as tied down as the rest of us.
Though he's still released the DRM-free tracks in a proprietary format, at least he's taken the initiative. I don't blame him for taking precautions for his business, because that's his right and he's smart for doing it.
The thing to see, mainly, is this: Though the key point that record labels make is that if the music is protection-free, it'll be pirated like hot-cakes, it's not really a valid point; there are very few tracks that are available exclusively through iTunes, and the others are already being pirated online anyway. They wouldn't be offering anything new, nor in a higher quality. That's just an excuse they give to keep people quiet.
Steve is taking the first steps, and he's making sure he doesn't fall totally for it; I hold nothing against him for that. It's smart business, and it's good for the people. If he refuses to take the next steps, it's a different story. But so far, he's the only man I see who has done something or allowed someone (EMI) to release DRM-free music.
And don't you fanboys and anti-Apple people forget that.
I love your article, Ryan. It should prove to people once and for all that Engadget is not Apple-biased, as they so often and droningly say.
I don't love Ryan's article, although I do agree with some of its points.
However, the tone is just wrong. Instead of encouraging the companies on their (fairly) bold step in the right direction, and encouraging consumers to show their support for a good opening move, it's full of dismissive and paranoid what's-the-real-agenda accusations. Well, Ryan has an agenda too!
Which, as I see it, is to dismiss the transitional nature of the move as being cynically motivated and not enough right now. It's either *all* DRM on *all* music, *all* videos, *all* Disney movie DVDs, and *all* fluffy bunny Disney toys is removed *now*, or Jobs is a big fat flaming liar.
It is also factually incorrect on a number of points. For instance, the article states Jobs only recently saw the DRM-is-bad light and that he preferred the lock-in that DRM gave the iPod. Actually, if you view the 2002 keynote where the iTunes Music Store was launched (it's probably on YouTube), Jobs said quite specifically that Apple asked the record companies to let them have the music DRM free. The companies said no. That statement is there, in black & white (color really), in a 2002 video recording. Of course, that's before Engadget existed, so how could Ryan be expected to research into prehistory!
The article also states not many players can handle AAC, and emphasizes its proprietary nature. Actually, AAC is the MPEG-4 advanced audio codec, the successor to MPEG-1's Layer 3 audio codec aka MP3. Both MPEG, both proprietary, and no, Apple didn't develop either of them. AAC is certainly not .wma.
It's also rather easy and fast to encode into MP3 from a DRM-freed AAC, if the device dates from before the many on-chip decoders which have support for it was built. A gadget expert who "would never buy an iPod" (quoting from the few Engadget podcasts I've heard) should know that.
Agendas and dismissive tones aside though, I do agree with Ryan's vision of a DRM free world. I feel I should be able to buy a DVD and have the right (and software makers be allowed to make easy to use software to do it) to copy it onto any video playing devices that I have.
And that goes for the anticompetitive DVD region encoding too, which I see as even more insidious. I would like to be able to buy a DVD at an airport in LA and play it on a London-bought laptop, and replace it with a Sydney bought DVD on the flight back. If you've actually tried that, however, you're in for a shock.
Another call to arms for you, Ryan!
"It's a right" where do you live man? That's something left to the UK or EU Engadget web site. Don't fall off the cliff. Last I checked Apple Computer is a US company, under US law, and last I checked the US operated in a (mostly) free market. Unlike our brothers on the other side of the pond. If you want to be socialist, go live there. If you aren't happy with the way things Apple does it, go buy it somewhere else. Keep buying your CDs and don't complain about "rights."
I don't like DRM myself, but I feel stronger about freedom in America than getting music from Apple without DRM. I'll by it somewhere else, from someone else, if they can do it better. But as of right now, Apple's doing the best job, and I'll pay them for it.
If you don't agree, go somewhere else and buy your music.
I find the way Americans react to the word 'right' being used rather amusing. Is it not possible to talk about somebody having the right to do something without it having been written down in a bill? Perhaps I'm just on the wrong side of the pond to understand these things....
Surely the issue about DRM rests with the fact that if you go and buy the CD, you can rip it and use it any way you please. But because you download it you get all sorts of restrictions. If pirates really want to pirate, they can go to a local record store, buy a load of CDs and pirate away, this is how I have always got music off the internet, since before DRM existed as an issue. So from this, I think you can say that we have a 'right' to be able to receive the same usability for our music whether it's on CD or downloaded.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Ryan says in this article, and am glad to see engadget putting anlaysis onto this site. Keep up the good work guys.
And what of the "rights" of the content owners. The "rights" of the people who create the content? What about them. Interesting how everyone only cares for and write and stresses their "rights" as users of content, but no mention of the rights of those who own and make it.
Ignorance is bliss!
Ben and others:
It's amazing to me how socialists view "rights". In America, we have afforded people freedom. It is up to them to get things done. The government simply affords the freedome to do things. In many countries, people do not have the freedom to go to school, get medical attention, etc. This is much different than the 'right' to it where in socialist countries, it would be paid for. Sadly the US is following this 'popular' trend. We're mixing up freedom and rights. We have a 'right' to life, so our goverment provides protection. When it comes to music, the creator and owner have rights, it's theirs, they can do with it as they please. If people don't want it, they won't buy it and don't have to. And they will go out of business. However, in a socialist government, not only are companies forces to make and sell their products in certain ways, but evenually the customer will be forced to only buy from them. It may not be that way now, but that is the socialist ideal.
If you as an individual want to do something, do it, don't depend on a government to force society as a whole to follow you in something you want to do.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS physical protection of one's life and health of self and property and to provide freedom as long as it does not harm others. This is the true purpose of government.
I'm getting tired. If you don't get it, you never will...
Taylor I think they're rights are being trampled by the same people. The only way is through the cartel, whether you're buying or selling. They're getting screwed by the actions of that cartel. Without them music piracy doesn't exist.
Ack it cut off my quote for the above message
"And stop beating on Steve for changing his stance on the DRM issue. It's getting old. I don't see any other CEO's going out on a limb and posting open letters to an entire industry asking them to step out on a limb and do something that will benefit the consumer, and eventually, themsleves. No matter what the motivation, it takes balls to do what he did, and what he is doing."
To be clear, Disney's main contribution to iTunes is Movies. It's obvious the author doesn't know anything about Hollywood. Disney isn't the only one involved in there projects, usually 3 or 4 studios are involved on Disney movies, which means each individual movie will have to be cleared with 4 separate companies FOR each project, and usually it's different studios everytime. Movies are a logistical nightmare for DRM because each group has a controlling interest. With music it's clearer but it's still not easy. Not only that today they announced that EMI wouldn't be the only one.
I don't understand how DRM-free music is a right. Music is a product. Buy it or don't buy it, it's not an unalienable right. Just because a CD doesn't have a DRM on it doesn't make it legal to copy it and distribute it to everyone you know. A copyrighted book (another type of media) doesn't have a DRM but if I were to go around photocopying it and giving it away, or selling it, I would be breaking the law. It would be wonderful if all information (books, music, movies, art, plays, classes) was free, but then who would agree to produce the information if they couldn't get get paid? True artists? Perhaps, but starvation would seriously limit their output both in quanity and quality.
If you want something DRM-free, create a market for it, and be ready to pay for it - it's called capitalism. Oh, hell let's get all free everything for everybody - that's called communism, and you still pay, but with your liberties.
I can't believe you're so seriously negative in your attitude to the EMI/Apple deal. Surely this article is a Dvorak-type provocation? Of course EMI/Apple aren't offering anything free "as a right", they're running businesses with costs to pay, and will do what they think best to optimise their profits so they can invest in future innovation, otherwise why be in business? Try being grateful for Apple's creative risk-taking in innovating user experience (imagine a techno-world without Apple, completely dominated by Microsoft, command-line interface anyone?). Try being grateful for EMI's risk-taking in being the first major to go out on a DRM-free limb. Sure we'd all like free music and MacBooks but neither would exist.
Also your argument about AAC is wrong, I haven't been able to find any players (except $39) ones that don't support AAC from the big companies, Also what about movies? You think other players are going to support an h.264 decoding chip?
While I agree with most things that you said, I do not think that Apple should have gone with MP3 over AAC. I hope that with this transition Apple kills off MP3 and moves to a (much) better audio codec (in their case AAC). It should not be that hard for the other music player companies to add AAC support to the devices OR add on the fly AAC to MP3 converting into the import software if they do not wish to support AAC.
I have to side with Jaroslav. Calling interoperability a right kinda makes lite of Free Speech.
some great point and good on ya for calling out Steve's reluctance to make his other businesses, DRM free
DRM-free music is not a right, but it sure is nice to have. I personally say kudos to Apple and EMI for leading the charge here. The music labels are stubborn and Apples done an amazing job bringing them into the 21st century.
Also, iTunes can convert AAC to MP3 quite easily, and at such high bitrates a new compression won't hurt things much. So the whole "but it doesn't work with other devices" doesn't hold much water. If the iTMS used some really weird format that couldn't be converted you'd have something, but it's really, REALLY super-brain-dead easy to convert the AAC files to MP3 format, right in iTunes. Odds are if you care so much about keeping things in MP3 format you already have iTunes set to import to that format, so all you have to do then is highlight the songs you want to convert, and click on "Advanced" and choose "Convert Selection to MP3", and iTunes does the rest. Easy.
This announcement is a good thing, but your cry-baby attitude is what is wrong with society today. You state, "But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's a right." It is not a right. You (and I for that matter) may want it very badly, but we no basic right to DRM-free music! If we don't like DRM, then simply DON'T BUY IT! Plenty of people have in fact done just that and EMI has heard the voice of the market.
Promote the end to DRM - I am with you, but please don't try to give this issue "Give me liberty, or give me death!" magnitude. It is music, which is the product of hard work. As a product, it is sold to consumers as the owner sees fit. If consumers don't like the product (or how it is sold) they don't buy it and the message is sent loud and clear that the owner needs to try something else. That is exactly what has happened with this EMI announcement.
If you live in the USA, you have a right to life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, freedom of speech, etc. You don't have a right to DRM-free music. Don't cheapen your true rights by overstating your position and coming across like a cry baby.
Good point. DRM is no friend of mine, but it is not like the government is forcing us to use it. It's the free market, baby.
Go buy a CD instead.
Thanks! I hoped it would be clear, but I guess I'll reiterate for everyone on the thread: YES this is a good first step. I think the message here, which is that DRM is bad and consumers want to be free of it, is great.
My point is that looking at this from a business perspective, it's not a purely pro-consumer move, and it's not a real commitment. It's a small step in the right direction, coated with a lot of hypocritical rhetoric, and that's what I'm calling out.
syadasti:
So Bill said he doesn't like DRM. Did he really push for change? Did he do anything other than tell some bloggers what they wanted to hear?
I think some people forget that as a requirement, if Apple (or Microsoft) wants to sell Sony's music online (or BMG or any of the other label's) they are required by contract to use a DRM system. Sure, Apple can try and negotiate, but until now, no CEO or company has been able to get the music labels to drop their DRM requirement.
I say good work Steve. And hopefully things go well for EMI and the other labels become convinced that this is the way to go.
The other labels are viewing this as an experiment that they don't have to pay for. Either EMI will succeed or they will fail. If EMI is successful (read: they sell lots of DRM-free tracks) then the other labels will feel pressure to follow suit.
That is the only way DRM-free music will become commonplace. PERIOD. So if you Mr. Joe-consumer want to effect change,go buy some DRM-free tracks from iTunes and show the other labels that this is the ONLY way forward.
This article's take is too bogged down in the details. It's trying to hard to find the conspiracy. The big news is lost on this author. Make no mistake: *today's announcement is a watershed for downloaded music.* This is a big deal. This is one of the Big Four legally releasing their tracks (all of them!) DRM-free into the download market. To argue otherwise is to be distracted from the core issue.
Ryan (and the rest of the team), this article might hold some water, but i think posting it right now is too soon (IMHO). Give them a chance. It's a first step.
Also, I am not sure we should really be surprised that a corporation such as Apple, EMI or any other company out to make money, acts in their best interest. Even though I believe SJ has the consumer in mind more than most CEO's, he is still a corporate CEO and is charged with making the shareholders money.
Some of these comments are nauseating.
Some of you really ought to take basic economics classes.
These companies aren't doing things for anybody.
They're doing this move because they believe it will benefit them.
And why should it be any other way?
This is a free economy after all and everyone should operate according to their own motives within the bounds set by the government.