EMI music on iTunes -- now DRM free and higher quality

It's been rumored for weeks and now, just as the Wall Street Journal predicted, EMI music is DRM-free. True to his word, Steve Jobs has "embraced it in a heartbeat" making it available for download from Apple's iTunes store, first, starting in May. It's taken so so long but now even (one of) the Big Four realizes that DRM fails to prevent piracy -- succeeding only at being an unnecessary nuisance for the vast majority of law abiding consumers. Bravo EMI, bravo. Now it's your turn to vote with your dollars. We'll see just how long the remaining majors can claim that removing DRM is "completely without logic or merit."

Update: And now for the specifics: iTunes customers will have the choice of 256kbps, non-DRM'ed tracks for $1.29 per, or the same songs in regular 128kbps AAC locked up all nice and tight with FairPlay for the usual 99 cents. What's more, any EMI tunes you've ever downloaded from the store can be upgraded to the new, higher-quality versions for just 30 cents apiece.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 2nd 2007 1:33PM]

@Flying? So any retailer that prices their product above what it costs them to get it into the shop is overpricing their stuff? Is no-one allowed to make a profit then?

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 2nd 2007 2:03PM]

I'm not speaking about what they can or can't do. of course they can sell at the price they want. I'm not even speaking about downloading illegal stuff until they propose appropriate prices (in my opinion).

All I'm saying is that they have to consider the comparison between the two products and the regular market (CD), because the consumer will certainly do so. On one hand you got a DRMed low-quality song, on the other and a DRM-free medium quality song 30% more expensive. Sure you get advantages from the more expensive alternative.

But. I personnally am not ready to pay more for something that I could get with the cheaper version, knowing that it will cost absolutely nothing more to the retailers ... I can pay more for an extended version of a movie, a software, because it takes more R&D, more work, etc. but paying for something LESS? nope. All they do is create a relative advantage of the "high-end product" by restricting artificially the "low-end" product ...

However I did not read entirely the news about EMI: they seem to price @ 10$/€ the whole album for the both DRMed and DRM-free versions. That seems cool as long as you only buy complete CDs. Occasional listener who only wants one song or two will have to pay more ...

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 2nd 2007 2:13PM]

Firstly your comparison with CDs is only valid for complete albums anyway since CD singles cost more than the digital versions.

So its a 256 kbps Product availble at any time of the day or night and without having to drive into town vs a higher quality physical product but one constrained by the limitations of being physical, so it can onyl be sold from a shop with opening hours in a shopping centre. Bear in mind some shops won't stock all CDs all the time etc

Another factor is that most people cannot tell the difference between 256 kbps and CD quality audio, blind tests with professional audio equipment confirm this and that driving into town means you have to pay for a parking ticket, take time out of your day etc

So it's really a relatively marginal increase in quality against a pretty big increase in conveniance for around the same cost (for new CDs) and more for old CDs (itunes is always in stock though).

It'll really come down to personal preferance and depend on the individual but the products are a lot more comparable than you seem to imply.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 2nd 2007 1:52PM]

To hear the actual press conference:

http://w3.cantos.com/07/pjxrobbi-703-5zvx0/interviews.php?task=view

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 2nd 2007 5:05PM]

it's all a bit gay, i'd prefer to choose the bitrate, esp. for my 8gb nano, half as many tracks on it doesn't sound too good

[DBailey635 Posted Apr 2nd 2007 2:25PM]

There is one question that no-one (even the traditional news outlets) seems to have asked yet: Will the DRM free tracks be watermarked with your name/account details and the fact that they were purchased online through the iTunes store?

If EMI and Apple want to monitor how many of these DRM free tracks make it onto the file sharing networks, then watermarking will have to be used. If it is, could we see people getting banned from the iTunes store if a track they purchased ends up on BitTorrent? Will they use this watermark information to bring a copyright infringement prosecution?

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 2nd 2007 2:32PM]

Can they do that without making the file unreadable to regular MP3 player?

Obviously they'll never ban someone from the iTunes store: why stoping someone from buying something? it certainly won't stop the illegal sharing of the files ...

[DBailey635 Posted Apr 2nd 2007 2:48PM]

Flying> I believe so. The process is probably similar to that used by Digimarc to protect JPEG images:

http://www.digimarc.com/tech/dwm.asp

[scoville Posted Apr 2nd 2007 3:58PM]

bleh. my comment above was written a few hours before it showed up. Nevermind it now. ;)

[Jesse S Posted Apr 2nd 2007 4:48PM]

I would still rather buy my own CD's and rip them to 320kbps, OGG Vorbius Q10, or FLAC. Or, there is always the pink palace...

Seriously, up the bitrate, or forget it.

[(Unverified) Posted Nov 28th 2007 9:55AM]

Love iTunes, hate digital right management. I now only buy iTunes PLus songs and life is good.