Don't hold your breath for DRM-free iTunes news
Rumors coming out of Europe that claim Apple will begin offering unprotected music files from the three largest recording companies on Tuesday are bogus, according to my music-industry sources.
Yes, Apple is in negotiations with the three biggest music labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group about acquiring licenses to sell music free of digital rights management software.
No, none of the deals is final as of Monday afternoon and one source told me it's unlikely Apple will have anything to announce regarding DRM-free music from the top labels before the end of the year. According to AppleInsider, a French tech-news site, ElectronLibre claims Apple will remove DRM from tracks published by the top three labels on Tuesday.
An Apple representative could not be reached for comment.
It's important to note that Apple and the music industry have been in talks before. Only one label, EMI, the fourth largest of the majors, offers DRM-free tracks on iTunes.
Many iTunes' competitors offer music stripped of copy-protection software and some fans of Apple's digital music store want Apple to follow. DRM software prevents music owners from freely moving their music to different devices. Another risk DRM poses to music owners is if a music vendor should stop issuing server keys the music will be locked onto whatever device it resides on.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
i recommend buying from Amazon.. they've been DRM free for a while.
Even as a mac user, i hate how the songs become "trapped" once bought from itunes
Sadly, most Apple haters blame DRM on Apple, when the blame rests squarely on the record labels. Amazon doesn't give you DRM-free because they're being nice to you and Apple hates you - Amazon gives you DRM-free because the record labels allow them to but don't allow Apple the same benefit. Some would call this an unfair competitive advantage. But others would manage to spin it into an anti-Apple rant.
Troll Different.
No one will just wake up over night and say "apple start selling DRM free songs"
Apple should be the one to make that happen.
Extracts from one of my assignments for you all to put this Apple and it so called DRM lock matter to rest.
Firstly I am a IT technology consultant, my job is to understand, know and advise businesses on technology and its direction, I am not an Apple 'Fanboy' though I am pro Apple. But that is because of my studies and research I have come to the concusion that currently they are the technology leaders and innovators.
Apple believes in and has figured out the most successful selling point to a product is a good user experience, one that can only be achieved by a total control of the entire ecosystem by one company, in this case: from iPod to iTunes to the iTunes store.
How does Apple benefit from a DRM free market?
Apple knows that even if DRM free music can be brought from another music store iPod owners will still buy from its iTunes store especially if the products are identical (which also why Apple WANTS and NEEDS the same DRM free license given to others). For example why would you buy a song from another vender by going to their cumbersome store downloading in their application or a web browser and then importing it in iTunes. When all this can be dome seamlessly in one application, iTunes. You can see evidence of this already, statistics show most people still buy iTunes DRM songs despite their being a alternative DRM free ones available that will play on their iPod. Why? It's the User Experience, stupid. People go for convenience over quality, look at what is happening to CD sales.
Microsoft has also seen this, which is why they abandoned their PlayForSure strategy of multiple venders and have consolidated to one Zune ecosystem similar to Apples.
iTunes will only work with Apple, so Apple's lock on the consumer isn't with their FairPlay DRM, it is with their User Experience.
It is also this 'User Experience' that drives iPod sales, how many times have you heard people say, "Oh that iPod, it's so easy to use". Yet if you ask them what's so easy about it, most won't be able to give you a clear answer. It is because they are unaware, they are not just talking about the iPod - though it is a very ease to use device itself - but are actually talking of the entire experience. The ease in which they can transfer/sync songs onto the iPod, the clean categorised interface in iTunes of their music library and with the iTunes store (and now their Genius technology) its easy to add new songs too.
But this all happens on a sub conscious level, consumers love the user experience, they know its easy to use, but they do not know why.
Here is a break down of the User experience:
The User clicks the Buy Now button, this one action securely sends the customers credit card information to Apple and makes the payment, iTunes delivers the chosen track within seconds to the customer, that track is automatically categorised by iTunes in the users music library which is then transfered/synced to the iPod.
Apple have consolidated this entire workflow down to a single mouse click.
It is a system that is a LOT harder said then done (replicated by others) especially when multiple patents and multiple venders are involved. This is what will keep customers continually buying iPods, which in turn generates sales to their iTunes store, which in turn generates sales of iPods. It is an inescapable paradox.
Lastly Apple never rests on its success, their philosophy is to always produce a product better then the competition, they never enter a market if they believe their product will not be innovative and stand out -and if your (Apple) product is already the best (like the iPod). Then compete with yourself.
That is the Apple way.
I hope this helps you understand more, and while often companies to have a hidden agenda it is not always a cynical one
Who do you think demanded (and got out of EMI) DRM-free music in the first place?
You might get away with burning to CD and then re-ripping in a lossless format, but your file size will be bigger if that even matters anymore, and might not be supported by your media player.
Apples culture is about controlling everything. Why would they suddenly want to give users the option to take their music elsewhere?
Like Shahnyboy, I'm one Mac-user who's already moved on. Amazon MP3 has the variable pricing that Apple refused and I can get many of the songs I want for much less than I can on iTunes. Apple is behind the curve in terms of music store innovation. (Heck, even Zune has out-innovated iTunes in terms of music store options!) I get my music from either Amazon MP3 or Lala.
I know Apple has plenty of other users, but they've lost one: Me!
Cant sync with two computers, cant extract files from an iphone or ply them like you can with an ipod on another computer. IiTunes is happy to use the lyrics and cover art and all of the ID3 tag information my Amarok player puts in the files but wont add them itself.
And seriously, 500MB ram used for a music player! come on!
I have not and never will buy a DRM track from iTunes - ever. I want to be ale to play the music on the mp3 player in my car, on my chipped xbox with xbmc in my lounge, on my windows PC, on my mac and on my linux laptop.
The only thing I download form iTunes is posdcasts. because they are free and in transportable formats when they arrive on my machine.
Apart from iTunes, I love my iphone though.
Variable pricing is bad for the consumer, it only favors the labels. If consumers were to pay a higher fee (more then $.99) for popular tracks and less ( below $.99) for the not so popular ones, consumers end up paying more in total then if they had a fixed $.99 fee.
Of course if you happen to be the extremely few who just so happen to mostly like non-popular music, you would pay less. But that's not how it is in the real wold most people like popular tracks...that is why they're called popular.
Apple is doing the consumers a favor by not allowing the labels variable pricing.
Little common sense people. Or a little basic maths in this case please people.
I thought competition was a good thing. Imagine if every gas station charged the same price, or air lines for ticket prices, or... well competition is a good thing. Look what happened to the cable industry. They have no compeition and the prices just steadily keep going up and up with no benefit to the consumer. Power companies as well are in the same situation.
Personally, I would rather have competition. It means the service has to do something to earn my business and if Amazon offers me something that Apple doesn't, then that's where I will go.
Vegaman_Dan are you back again - didn't you learn the last time.
Yes competition is a good thing, but the argument of price fixing and comparing it to gas, cable or other products cannot be used in this case.
First of all we are not talking about price among multiple venders here, we are taking about single track prices within a single store,
Example - all tracks with the iTunes store or all track with the Amazon Music store. Competition regarding price between iTunes and Amazon are not the issues here.
Nor are the Labels talking about letting the stores dictate the price, the Labels want to dictate the price on a track by track basis, and that is the price they want it sold in all the stores. Which means if the Labels wanted to charge $1.99 for track X, then track X will be sold at $1.99 in all stores. We are not talking about iTunes selling at $1.99 and Amazon selling it at 99 cents here, because that is exactly what the Labels don't want, their popular tacks being sold at "only" 99 cents.
Lastly iTunes and Amazon are making cut-throat margins for each track there is no room for price compitition been them or any other store for that matter - unless the Labels take a lower percentage of the current price they are charging the stores. Since both are will to sell track at almost zero profit that mean prices will come down if the Labels are will to cut the price from the current $.99 but that is noting to do with variable pricing.
Look at history namely the mobile ringtone business and see what happened when the Labels had their way in pricing.
And how are they going to do that if the labels refuse giving them a DRM free license. Apple has all ready shown an interest in DRM free tracks, in fact they were the first to do so.
Don't be fulled.
Plus to publicly 'attact' and show a willingness to offer DRM free tracks should the labels allow it. - http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Don't you be fool. Open your mind an little, sit back and analyse the information available to you.
A French tech site claims Apple will announce deals for DRM-free music with the three largest music companies on Tuesday. Don't believe the hype.
1. Did iTunes originally apply DRM at the client side automatically when a track was downloaded, rather than at the server side?
2. Did Apple have to release a new version of iTunes when EMI unprotected tracks started appearing? If Apple didn't want DRM, why did they have to add the DRM-free feature to iTunes? Wouldn't it have just already been there?
- by mastavic April 7, 2009 10:21 AM PDT
- So much for your sources. iTunes went DRM-free today.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)