Sony BMG will reportedly offer DRM-free music

In a move that could finally sound the death knoll for the universally-hated digital leech known as DRM, Sony BMG Music will reportedly become the last of the top four major labels to offer unprotected tracks for download. Citing people familiar with the arrangement, BusinessWeek.com reports that full details of the label's plan will be released "in the coming weeks," although at least part of its catalog will supposedly be available without DRM sometime this quarter. If this does indeed pan out, Sony would follow EMI, Vivendi Universal, and Warner in moving towards a much more consumer-friendly music distribution model.

[Thanks, Mack S.]

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 4th 2008 10:39AM]

I don't understand the big deal about DRM. It hasn't bothered me at all. You can easily get rid of the Apple DRM.

[SteveJ @ Jan 4th 2008 10:46AM]

Many people don't want the sound quality loss caused by recompressing already compressed source material. If you have some means for stripping DRM without quality loss, then the DRM is serving no purpose anyway, so they should just remove it and save everyone a lot of trouble (and them a lot of money, and perhaps even us if they by some miracle were to pass the savings onto the consumer.)

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 4th 2008 11:46AM]

Still don't see the problem with it. I haven't used a CD in about 3 months now. If you use your PMP for music playing, then DRM should have zero affect on you.

[tcc3 @ Jan 4th 2008 12:39PM]

As long as you hold your hands in front and dont move too much, handcuffs should have no effect on you.

[shanoboy @ Jan 4th 2008 1:21PM]

My boss used to act like DRM was no big deal either. A few weeks later he came to me and asked how he could put an audio file he bought off I-tunes on both his Ipod and his son's at the same time without rebuying the track.

I proceeded to show him how to 'easily get rid' (as Jon says) of Apple's DRM. He said that would be way too big a pain in the ass to do on the hundreds of files he already paid for.

Wow, an honest consumer who spent hundreds on music was being help up by DRM... who would have guessed?

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 4th 2008 3:51PM]

Well I guess when you put it that way it would be a pain.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 4th 2008 3:54PM]

isn't copying a legally purchased music track, stealing?

[Tech^Cellfish @ Jan 4th 2008 5:16PM]

It is a hassle to call Apple every time I change my computer or ipod just because I change them often. Others are not as nice and I will have to repurchase my digital tracks because I lost the password to some digital certificate file.... and music than only works in one software player is even worse.

DRM is a problem. Sony non-drm'ed tracks are welcome!

[Shane @ Jan 4th 2008 5:22PM]

@shanoboy--

It's easy to get music from one iPod to another without stripping the DRM. All you need to do is authorize the tracks on another machine. You can legally authorize purchased tracks on up to 5 different machines--more than enough for most purposes. Copy the files into the other machine's iTunes library, authorize the copied tracks by attempting to play them and then entering the username/password they were purchased with and then sync the second iPod to that library.

I hate DRM as much as everyone else but Apple has one of the more reasonable schemes I have seen if you don't mind being locked into iTunes and an iPod.

My preference is to purchase unprotected AAC tracks but my wife and I share protected tracks this way all the time with no problems.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 4th 2008 5:34PM]

So I guess DRM does suck. I get Rhapsody and don't bother buying tracks, so it's never bothered me before.

[SteveJ @ Jan 4th 2008 10:39AM]

I don't see how this could be considered the death knell for DRM, when DRM is still held tightly to by all companies for video formats. When they drop DRM for DVD, HD-DVD and BluRay, then we can call it a night. They need to kill region coding too.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 4th 2008 11:19AM]

Don't forget DRM for PC games/console games and region coding for console games...

[Steve Wallen @ Jan 4th 2008 2:10PM]

Disc based Console games don't have DRM: you can use your disc on whatever console you want. It doesn't lock the disc to the given console upon first insert.

[Galley @ Jan 4th 2008 10:48AM]

The best thing about iTunes Plus files is the 256Kbps bitrate; 128Kbps doesn't cut it. I've got several iTunes Store cards, just waiting for some more DRM-free tunes.

[Jared @ Jan 4th 2008 10:51AM]

[cough] amazon mp3s [cough]

[drakono @ Jan 4th 2008 11:15AM]

You must be an audiophile to be so discontented with 128 kbps. I'm not saying you can't tell the difference -- and if you truly can, you have my sympathies for having to put up with lower quality music. But most people can't tell the difference.

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/few_listeners_can_distinguish.php

[ReductiMat @ Jan 4th 2008 11:54AM]

drakono, "...asked respondents to listen to the Copland recordings using their computer speakers"

Thanks for coming.

[drakono @ Jan 4th 2008 12:58PM]

ReductiMat: And thank YOU for being a curt jerk. Computer speakers are capable of producing good sound, if you have a decent set. But you'll find (just as that survey did -- surprise, surprise), that this tracks with how much the user considers himself an audiophile. Maybe I should've been more clear before: most people can't tell the difference with the equipment that they use. And most people listen to their music collections with low-quality computer speakers, earbuds, or car stereos. My point was that most people are sufficiently satisfied with 128 kbps and wouldn't benefit from higher bitrates. (Those more selective with their playback devices will, of course, need higher bitrates to realize the full potential of their audio systems.) And that point still holds true, even in the face of your "argument."

[ReductiMat @ Jan 4th 2008 2:05PM]

drakono, you stated "You must be an audiophile to be so discontented with 128 kbps" and backed that up with a survey done by people most likely using dollar store paper based speakers.

Perhaps we simply disagree on the parameters that constitute an audiophile. In my opinion, spending hundreds of dollars on equipment does not make one an audiophile. Rather, you must be of the type who are interested in spending $6,820 for a wooden volume control.

[abadtooth @ Jan 4th 2008 10:53AM]

DRM free FTW!!!

[Shane @ Jan 4th 2008 10:59AM]

Funny...I didn't think there was an ice blizzard forecast for Hell today...

[Andrew @ Jan 4th 2008 11:22AM]

Yeah... Sony, lol, DRM-free. That would be sweet... But I definitely didn't expect this. Their practically the king of DRM with their rootkit a while back.

[Eddie @ Jan 4th 2008 12:15PM]

That was the first comment I thought of when I read the headline!

We'll just have to wait and see what DRM they put in place of DRM.

[kal326 @ Jan 4th 2008 12:38PM]

Yeah evidently so, I heard 4 guys on horseback complaining about how cold it was...

[Flashpoint @ Jan 4th 2008 11:10AM]

Since I got my first computer - a Hewlett Packard Pavilion 8570c (Pentium 3 450mhz with 96MB Ram) - 8 years ago, I been using nothing but 128 kbps MP3s from every download system from Napster, to Cute MX, to Scour, to WinMX, to Limewire.

Sony finally figured out DRM sucks.

[Vega @ Jan 4th 2008 11:16AM]

The ironic thing is that the labels caused this situation themselves. First they demanded DRM from every store operator. Then one operator became too dominant for them (Apple). Now they want to break this dominance, but in order to do so they have to abandon DRM in order to make music offered through other suppliers compatible with the market leading DMP (ipod).

[mlody11 @ Jan 4th 2008 11:37AM]

Excellent... now if we can get rid of the Real Idiots Against Americans (RIAA) and the Morons Prospecting Against Americans (MPAA) we'll be well on our way.

[Ed @ Jan 5th 2008 6:17AM]

Unfortunately this has NOTHING do with those idiots at all. Not even remotely.

The MafIAA is funded in part by the record labels, but it does not specifically have anything to do with DRM being implemented by said record labels.

The MafIAA is only defending the copyrights to those labels from infringing use by the public at large. Just another TOOL (used by tools themselves. lol) that the labels use to beat us into submission. Getting rid of the DRM, just got rid of another tool that Sony could use to enforce the will on us all.

Even if all of our music becomes DRM-less, the MafIAA will still come after those that are sharing it on Kazaa or some other type of P2P that has a shared folder in its implementation.

That's how they found that guy, who famously, created the shitstorm surrounding the, "You can't RIP CDs" scandal.

I got some bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad news for you too. When the MafIAA DOES finally go away, it will ONLY be because they finally bribed enough US Senators to enact laws far more reaching and scary then the universally hated DMCA.

It's all profit driven remember? When they get their DRM transferred into actual LAWS that allow them to do what they want, why would they need to still spend money on the MafIAA? They will just refer infractions to the local district attorney.

What's scarier than the MafIAA? The Department of Intellectual Property Protections (DIPP). Invading your ISP's and personal machines to search for content. Guilty before proven innocent AND at risk of having your property seized and auctioned off.

[ChillyWilly @ Jan 4th 2008 11:45AM]

Now if they would all just cut the deal with Apple so iTunes will be included on this DRM-free goodness.

[Zeeliv @ Jan 4th 2008 7:14PM]

That's the entire point of what they are doing though. This isn't about them doing what is right for consumers, it's about them trying to get power back that they gave to Apple. They want people to start buying elsewhere so that they have leverage with Apple.

[tcc3 @ Jan 4th 2008 12:43PM]

Why does it matter anyway? As long as its an un-drmed mp3, you can still put it in iTunes if you want.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 4th 2008 12:51PM]

@tcc3

Purely convenience. I don't want to have to download another program, install it, use up system resources, give my credit card number to yet another company, and copy the MP3 back into iTunes if I don't need to.

[yoshi @ Jan 4th 2008 12:54PM]

Prediction: Reverse Power Play by Apple.

Apple starts their own label. In addition to other modern bands, they get the Beatles recordings. Now, if Sony or Universal won't play nice with Apple, Apple won't play nice with them. The more bands they can get, the more effective this will be.

[Steve Wallen @ Jan 4th 2008 2:12PM]

I could see Apple, being Apple, waiting for MacWorld to announce that all their music was now DRM free.

[m @ Jan 4th 2008 2:55PM]

hold on, let's not give apple so much credit--they're not running a non-profit or trying to save the world. first, everything on an apple label would be AAC, effectively leaving millions of non-ipod owners out in the cold. second, and more importantly, who says they wouldn't also keep drm on their own releases? right now, they're anti-drm simply because it helps sell more ipods, which is their only real interest. if they started a label, things would change instantly, and i bet they'd sell us out just like sony did. sony used to be a great manufacturer of recording technologies, until they bought columbia, which resulted in a major conflict of interest.

[TMS @ Jan 4th 2008 11:48AM]

Now if Sony Ericsson can just get this integrated with PlayNow...

Yay Walkman phones?

[Winston @ Jan 4th 2008 12:46PM]

"Sound the death knoll"? For JFK maybe. For DRM, it'd be the death KNELL.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jan 4th 2008 12:57PM]

It's ironic that Apple started the ball rolling here and they aren't being invited to the party. Even the Warner CEO who called Jobs crazy for wanting DRM dropped decided last week to go DRM-free with Amazon. In the end, this won't hurt Apple since their iPod cashcow will play Mp3s just fine. Personally, I'm glad to see the DRM dropped and iTS getting some real competition on the downloads front.

[Phineas J. Whoopie @ Jan 4th 2008 1:04PM]

This IS bad news for Apple; it will cut into iTunes sales.

Why would a consumer buy an iPod only format now, when you can purchase a 256-bit mp3 from Amazon that will play on every music device made?

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jan 4th 2008 1:25PM]

@ Phineas J. Whoopie,

iPod aren't tied to the iTS, but the iTS is tied to the iTS current DRM. most people buying other online music will still be using iPods. Amazon even boldly states that their tracks will play on the iPod.

[Phineas J. Whoopie @ Jan 4th 2008 2:18PM]

@ Leonard Nimrod

Right, I agree. I'm saying that iTunes sales will begin to decline, not iPod sales.

People will still buy iPods, but now they have better options to buy their music elsewhere (DRM-free and in mp3 format from Amazon).

The bottom-line: fewer iTunes song sales = less money for Apple.

[Andrew @ Jan 4th 2008 2:26PM]

@Phineas:

I think they probably make a lot more per iPod. While I haven't really come across anything conclusive, the general consensus is that at $.99/track, Apple is either profiting very little (a couple of cents per track), breaking even, or possibly even losing a small amount.

I would guess that selling a $300 ipod makes apple at least $100. So even if you figured apple made as much as $.10/track, which is almost definately more than generous, they would have to sell each iPod owner 1000 tracks to equal what they made on the iPod.

As such, I don't think Apple cares what you put on your iPod, or whether you buy it from them or not. They just want you to buy the iPod.

[NG @ Jan 4th 2008 1:02PM]

Gadget prices are dropping, most ppl at least have 2 or 3 CPU, MP3 players, mobiles, CD players... etc (active or no-active machines), why shouldn't we allow to have the same music in those?

[shanoboy @ Jan 4th 2008 1:26PM]

True that, but atleast it may be a step in the right direction.

On the other hand, I would guess people tend to copy music files from one place to another a lot more than they create copies of thier movie and software collections. So the demand for a removal of DRM on these things are in a lot less demand by the public as a whole I would assume.

[JBo @ Jan 4th 2008 2:02PM]

Sony could give me their entire library DRM-free for $9.99 and I still won't give them a single penny. Lest we forget that nobody was ever brought to justice over their little illegal rootkit incident. That was one of the worst ethics (and legal) offenses and corporation has ever committed, but because most people do not understand what it means, Sony got off scott free. Sony doesn't get another penny from me until someone is in prison over that.

[Ed @ Jan 5th 2008 6:00AM]

I FUCKING SECOND THE MOTION!!!!!!!!

If everyone in America, and the world, actually UNDERSTOOD what a ROOTKIT is....... there would be pitchforks and torches headed to Sony headquarters. A good ol' fashioned tar and featherin'.

I always bring it up in posts, since it was one of the worst (and really illegal) actions of a company on the US public, and indeed the world.

I still don't understand how people did not go to prison over that. They installed software at the lowest level in a person's OS that affects their ability to use IP that they already owned. You actually have to install and AGREE to use DRM in windows. It's a deal that occurs between both parties up front. It may suck, but it is still out in the open.

FORGET interference in a contract (other IP agreements with non-sony Music), there was larger issues at stake. A Rootkit is now, and was, considered Malware. How the heck did Sony pull off covertly installing Malware on people's machines?

A Rootkit by its very NATURE is deceptive, covert, etc. It can't possibly be used for good at all. It's a tool used to hackers to compromise a system at it's lowest level that can actually bypass all known security tools, that are publicly available. You would have to search to find tools that can reveal a rootkit. I don't think Norton, McAfee, AVG, etc. have the capability of detecting rootkits. Even if they did, they're are ways to defeat even that. To ever be sure, you really have to access that OS from another clean system by inspection of it's hard drive in controlled conditions. Meaning, the OS is not running and the HD is most likely connected to a clean, temporary OS used forensically and then re-imaged when done to prevent any possible contamination of the tool itself. Extreme, I KNOW, but so are Rootkits.

[Andrew @ Jan 4th 2008 2:20PM]

Well, it's another step in the right direction.

Next up, Windows sans activation.

[insertAlias @ Jan 4th 2008 2:57PM]

Ignorant.

Windows is already heavily pirated. If Microsoft dropped activation, pirating would increase even more. The reason Apple can get away with activation-less OSs is because they make more money on the hardware anyway. Even if you pirate leopard, you still bought the Mac you are putting it on. Microsoft doesn't sell the computer to you, only the OS. They have to protect themselves somehow.

Maybe their implementation is bad, but for them it is a necessary evil.

[Andrew @ Jan 5th 2008 12:22PM]

How would pirating increase? Give me about 2 minutes and I'll give you a volume license key for every widely-used windows OS that will pass WGA.

So...It's a lot like DRM'd music, isn't it? Sure, it's there, but anyone can crack it, and it isn't stopping anyone.

[Adnan Osmani @ Jan 4th 2008 3:52PM]

I think that the 128kbps vs. higher bitrates issue comes down to the quality of your headphones and the device you are playing it on.

I've played tracks with different bitrates on a myriad of med-high end players and the 320kbps tracks always shine through, especially at higher volumes.

I don't see what the problem is...if you're *paying* for something, surely you should have the choice of what bitrate you want to get the file at.


I sometimes wish the rest of the music industry would just copy the model followed by most Russian mp3 outlets...well, minus the questionable legality of it all of course.