Napster unleashes a-la-carte, DRM-free MP3 store
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted May 20th 2008 10:48AM
posted May 20th 2008 10:48AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
now this is a tempting switch from itunes
As opposed to Amazon?
And the labels continue to screw over the vast majority of their customers in trying to manipulate the market by allowing Amazon and Napster to sell DRM-free music and not allowing Apple to do the same with iTunes.
To their attempt to screw me, I reply: screw you.
@quix. I think it is more about Apple locking you into their ecosystem than the music industry not wanting to sell music.
The fact is, if there is no reason to stay locked into iTunes, then other media players seem a lot better than the iPod family.
@ John:
Wrong. Just flat out wrong. Jobs publicly proclaimed that DRM needs to die. And one of the major label executives was quoted as saying they were happy to keep Apple locked in DRM for awhile to allow their competitors a little catch-up time. This is a deliberate attempt by the labels to try to knock some points off Apple's market share. It's anti-competitive and it's sleazy.
This "Apple wants to lock you in with DRM" chestnut is complete rubbish - just more FUD from the traditional Apple-hating horde. If the media companies would allow it, Apple would go DRM-free on every single song they sell. Right now. Today.
Quix, you poor misguided fool. Apple gets as much or more from the DRM on iTunes tracks as the labels get. They get every one of the customers who buys the vast majority of tracks from iTMS being locked into the iPod family (if they don't want to transcode to mp3 or break the DRM, which most people don't even know is possible).
As far as the "anti-competitive" actions of the labels in giving the vast majority of their DRM-free tracks to Apple's competitors, you do know the extremely powerful market position that Apple holds, don't you? If Apple wanted to force the issue, they could, and the labels wouldn't have a choice (or they could remove their music like NBC, but I don't think they are in the position to take that action). Apple likes the situation the way it is, and they will change it when they have no choice (because Amazon, Napster, etc. are taking a meaningful chunk of their marketshare).
@ 0megapart!cle:
Wallow in your Apple-hating ignorance if you must. Just don't pretend you know what you're talking about.
"Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly." - Steve Jobs
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Megaparticle, John,
Quix is completely correct.
You two are misguided for reasons that have little to do with the facts.
FACT: Apple originally wanted to sell DRM-free music, but only added DRM because the labels would not sell without it (and Apple needed a store). Google "steve jobs rolling stone". QUOTE from JOBS: "When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content. --No one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."
FACT: Microsoft "opened" up its "ecosystem", and it only proliferated DRM everywhere, and caused the problems Apple foresaw, to the point where Microsoft is now "killing off" support for people that need to reauthorize music they've purchased in the future (if they change machines, etc). Check out the recent stories on the MSN music servers.
FACT: Apple would GLADLY sell music without DRM, because they use their store as a loss-leader (they are now selling digital movies at a $1 per sale loss). Apple knows that they have other "controls" on retaining customers, like their brand, ease-of-use solutions, and cultural strangle-hold. Not to mention their patents and arrangements like the Made-for-iPod program. If it makes it easier on consumers to use their products (and they sell more hardware through that reason) Apple is for it.
FACT: Apple TRIED to "force" the issue. Don't you remember? They made their huge announcement with EMI and offered it to all of their other partners. Universal snubbed them, and everyone else began to realize that they could use this as a lever. --Only, Apple still wins. If all the other stores become iPod compatible, and still require people to load their iPods through some joint solution with iTunes... Apple wins. Apple would not have created iTunes if ease-to-use solutions had already existed. They felt they could do it better.
FACT: Apple would even make FREE non-DRM music and content available through iTunes if they could... oh, hang on a minute... they already DO! They're called podcasts, and you can move them wherever you like. "Foot-traffic" is king, and creating barriers discourages consumer usage and the entire "ease of use" experience.
The music industry needs to sell DRM-Free music EVERYWHERE. People will continue to buy from iTunes regardless, and they're only creating more and more buyers that are "locked in" to DRM. Apple has left the door open for more new "iTunes Plus" partners to see the light. They only need to walk into it. It's moronic.
historical pirate networK?
I'm pretty sure pirates didn't have internet.
Seriously, though, what does En mean?
Napster used to be a file sharing network used to pirate mp3s
OMG, I feel old. I can't believe there are people that don't know Napster's beginnings...
@BuddyBoy: except that was a completely different company; Roxio bought the brand after Napster was forced into bankruptcy. The Engadget author here is being sloppy by identifying the current Napster with the old P2P network.
I know Brian, it scares me too. I just keep telling myself he lied when it asked him if he was 13...but I don't think that's the case....
I think you guys are missing the joke. 'Historical' and 'pirates' conjures up guys with eyepatches, not file sharing.
Pirates only have Internet when there's a nearby ship with unsecure wireless.
Bah! Seems to be US only, just like Amazon.
I want proper access to DRM free in the UK not just the selection of EMI and the indies we get.
Don't we all (want these services in EU)
Also, Napser brings such nice memories, I vividly remember downloading so many copies of Music and all of them were corrupt at the end.
Apparantly it's coming to the UK with the next software update. They're refusing to say when that'll actually happen tho :P
You never know, they might even bother to convert the prices into pounds rather than think it's OK to just change the symbol and charge us double.
@BuddyBoy
I feel your pain. In Canada we don't have anybody with a good selection of MP3s either. There is Puretracks but their selection is spotty.
I have money to spend and the music companies are making it hard for me to give them that money!!! WAKE UP music industry.
Subscribers will remain in DRM land? The MP3s are DRM-free?
Which is it?
Subscribers, aka those who sign up for a monthly flat rate "all you can eat" plan, have DRM.
People who buy the tunes a-la-carte, aka one song at a time for a set price per song, get the track DRM-free.
The MP3 format does not support DRM.
Any info on bitrate or other such encoding details?
"content is available at a high-quality 256kbps bitrate, and downloaded tracks include high-resolution album art."
Where's he love for Canada?
No mac support = FAIL
You pretty much signed up for vendor lock-in when you bought that mac.
Why no support for Mac ?
You can buy the mp3 which is just using a normal browser (plus Adobe flash if you want to listen to preview).
the Mp3 can be downloaded to your ipod / any players without any problems.
But, if you are talking the DRM subscribers -> well, its up to you, but its a "no no" for some people.
@telepheedin - LOL. Yeah. I have to get Jobbsy round just to turn the f**ker on....c'mon. Do non-mac users really believe this shit? Like i have no third party apps/hardware on my mac...LOL
@Tirta -really? I only had a very quick look, TBH - but seemed to be suggesting to me I had to d/l the app to get even the drm free stuff? will check it out again...
Ah ok, mystery solved. I'm in the UK so it won't let me get at the online store. instead it's trying to get me to d/l the windows only client. sneaky...
Sorry Joshua, but that is a contender for the most misleading title for a post! Napster has unleashed a DRM free store and an a-la-carte store, not an a-la-carte, DRM free store. Fail.
the table d'hôte (subsription) is not DRM Free, a la carte (individual) is!
I wasn't complaining about my ability to discover this, I was complaining about the shoddy title to the post!
The store is a-la-carte and drm free. What is misleading about the title?
The comma implies a connection between DRM-free and a-la-carte. The title suggests a DRM-free, a-la-carte store, rather than a DRM-free store as well as an a-la-carte one.
You're an idiot... The a-la-carte store /is/ DRM-free. Instead of analyzing the title, why don't you read the article.
What you are missing, sir, is that a-la-carte MEANS "by it self". So, an a-la-carte store means buying MP3 one at a time.
I believe you are thinking a-la-carte is all you can eat, which is NOT the case.
napster... bad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE
Fire, BAD!
Napster to go is great, even with DRM... because it's easy to remove the DRM. Not that I'd condone or suggest such a thing, of course. DRMDBG is a useful tool to research.
That is pretty impressive.
Been looking for a reasonable way to acquire MP3s legitimately. Will look into this.
Amazon already offers this type of store, though I don't know how their library size compares. I've been able to find pretty much all the artists I like though.
I can't believe it took us 9 years to get to this point... and we're still not there as I'm in the UK!
Soon I will feel guilty if I pirate music, but not until there's a legal way for me to do what I was doing 9 years ago - e.g. clicking on a song,downloading it, using it as I want.
But good work Napster on being one of the first.
Ugh—their UI is made up to look like iTunes, and doesn't cope with different font sizes. The result is that, in my browser, the line spacing is half the font size, so I can't read most of the text.
I'll stick with Amazon.
Apple is quaking in it's boots.....NOT! iTunes is A#1.
Which is now the better option for MP3 purchase, Napster or Amazon? .......Don't say iTunes Fanboy.
There are only two kinds of stores: a-la-carte and subscirption. They certainly didn't make the subscription service DRM free. That would be unlimited free music for a flat monthly fee. The DRM free music IS a-la-carte. The DRM free store and the a-la-carte store are one and the same.
iTunes is A#2
hmm... the mp3s only seem to be 128kbps. You're better off using amazon.com
1 word.... MuvAudio.. google it :D worth every penny
I'm still going to keep using iTunes no matter what because I love my iPod and its just so easy to sync all my songs and videos.
99 cents per song? It's still cheaper to buy a whole CD and rip it in EAC. Especially since if I rip my own albums, I can encode in Ogg Vorbis and i don't end up paying $0.99 for 30-second 'tweener tracks, for example.
I'm glad of the departure from DRM, but these guys need to work on their business plan. We need to demand:
A) user choice of codecs
B) and bitrates
C) prices set according to total filesize (to accomodate A and B, and also shorter tracks)
D) MUCH lower prices. They should realize that if a 3-minute song at 192kbps ended up costing more like 30 or 40 cents, their profits would skyrocket as people would end up buying many, many more songs.
This is great. No DRM on the paid downloads, DRM on the subscription tracks. Sounds like a fine deal to me.
Now for those who hate DRM in any form, yeah, I'm with you in philosophy. But let me tell you what DRM lets me do. I can listen to nearly any track in the Napster library, of course, but there's more than that.
I play harmonica at our church, and when our worship leader emails out a song list, I pull up multiple versions of each song in Napster and listen to them. If they're in the wrong key (as they usually are), I download them and open the WMA files in Transcribe! (www.seventhstring.com) to transpose them to the right key and even see what notes are being played.
All that without paying for the tracks.
If they didn't DRM the subscription tracks, there wouldn't *be* a subscription service, so I couldn't do that.
And now, when I want an non-DRMed copy, 99 cents and it's mine. What's not to like?
FACT: Even without DRM it wouldn't be available in common formats.
This deal sucks, anyway, though - eMusic, Amazon, Amie Street, and every other method I use to buy my music is still much cheaper, on average, than the stated pricing.
I'm not interested in buying music until I can redownload the songs I buy later on if I need to.
Not only is there a large chance of losing the files I download, but if I want them on another computer, it may be much easier to just download them again then to transfer them.
Basically, if I'm not getting any sort of physical copy, I really want to be able to get them again later. I have enough stuff to backup and transfer, gigs of music isn't something I want to add to that.
Amazon.com is better... eMusic is the best (for indie at least).