users1.wsj.com — In a major reversal of the music industry's longstanding antipiracy strategy, EMI Group PLC is set to announce Monday that it plans to sell significant amounts of its catalog without anticopying software, according to people familiar with the matter.
Apr 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
buckcynnieApr 2, 2007
Well, that was a fun April 1st. Hmmm....
macparrotApr 2, 2007
In other words, call me when Apple sells me music in the format "I" prefer as compared to the format that most people can use without downloading more software. Or is it, call me when Apple sells music in the format "I" want so I can start finding other reasons to download songs off P2P sites and feel justified for doing so. Why not just admit you'll never legally purchase music online because you're a cheapskate. Not like we don't see it anyway.
cthellisApr 2, 2007
Seems like a valid follow-up. Truth be told, I'm not sure why they weren't already, excepting that maybe they didn't consider the customer confusion to be worth the addition until a major label supported the move.
irelandApr 2, 2007
I think a better overall solution would have been to drop DRM completely for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM-free and .99c (128bit), and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles alike.
fordiApr 2, 2007
Something bothers me about it all, though. I don't get why the DRM free stuff is more expensive. DRM requires licensing to be used, right? Wouldn't it then cost more?
quixApr 2, 2007
"I doubt Apple has the storage or the bandwidth at this point to start selling lossless tracks."They certainly have both. I can get a 500 MB TV show for $1.99. Why can't I get a 30 MB lossless song for $1.29?What Apple should do is allow you to choose your preferred bitrate in your iTMS preferences. If I select "Lossless," every song I purchase will be losslessly encoded. If I select "128 kbps," well, you get it.I'd wager the vast majority of the buying public wants small song files so they can fit more on their iPods - they listen to their music on cheap headphones and aren't overly concerned with sound quality. I think the percentage of customers who would actually choose the lossless preference would be fairly small. And Apple's servers could certainly handle the slightly-increased load.That said, 256 kbps AAC is still very, very good...
cleverboyApr 2, 2007
According to Jobs, interoperability and higher quality are "extra features". That's why you're paying a premium when you purchase it. They'll be happy to give people a break on albums however. I don't think its rocket science. A friend of mines recently put an album on iTunes, and was dissappointed she had to charge $9.99 for her album instead of $12.99 she charged on CD Baby. While $1.30 is still a bargain over what Singles used to cost, the extra charge is a clear incentive for content makers to switch over to the new format. Potentially, higher demand, more profit. As a higher quality file DRM-free file, it also gives the consumer more value. Just seems logical in the end.An interesting point made, is that "movies" and "tv shows" are seen as already being sold with DRM in the form of DVDs (however much people have systematized its circumvention). Unfortunately, its a different market, and Apple accepts that fact.
dmitriyvozJun 19, 2007
The author has mentioned very much a vital topic today. It seems to me that the problematics of this clause enables to reflect and draw conclusions. You can as to look sites in Russian which mention this theme: <a class="user" href="http://www.rolid.org">http://www.rolid.org</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.se-ua.com">http://www.se-ua.com</a>
turdiggJun 26, 2007
Not quite enough to get me buying music off of iTunes, <a class="user" href="http://www.voyage-voyage.info">http://www.voyage-voyage.info</a> but it's a HUGE step in the right direction. My three requirements are DRM-free, <a class="user" href="http://www.vip-tour.biz">http://www.vip-tour.biz</a> a significant amount of the money going to the artist, and good encoding quality (I'd like 320k or lossless; at least 256k), <a class="user" href="http://www.viptraveler.info">http://www.viptraveler.info</a> in that order. The idea of DRM has just killed purchasing music for me - I don't even bother with the free iTunes singles anymore, since I'm tossing music between my computers all the time and can't be bothered with a mess of authorization. And, naturally <a class="user" href="http://www.ukrtravel.org">http://www.ukrtravel.org</a> , I want to support the artist, <a class="user" href="http://www.megatourism.info">http://www.megatourism.info</a> not some fool in a suit. The bitrate is more out of principle than anything else - their distribution costs are next to nothing, <a class="user" href="http://www.autorial.info">http://www.autorial.info</a> so why should I get something with about 10% of the bitrate when I'm paying 80% of the price of a normal CD <a class="user" href="http://www.automig.info">http://www.automig.info</a> ?