Sources: Apple to expand DRM-free music, pricing
Editor's note: This article was written Monday, before Apple made any announcements about changes to iTunes. You can read the story that followed the company's formal announcement at Macworld 2009 here.
Apple has cut deals that will finally enable iTunes to offer songs free of copy protection software from the three largest music labels, according to two sources close to the negotiations. In exchange, Apple has agreed to become more flexible on pricing, the sources said.
Under the terms of the deal, song prices will be broken down into three categories--older songs from the catalog, midline songs (newer songs that aren't big hits), and current hits--said one of the sources. Apple has offered songs free of digital rights management protections from EMI for more than a year. But EMI accounts for less than 10 percent of music sold in the U.S.; these new deals will expand iTunes' DRM-free library to include songs from the other three major labels (Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner Music).
Apple and the music labels have also apparently come to terms on over-the-air downloads, according to a source. That would allow iPhone owners to download songs to their mobile devices via cell networks and without the aid of Wi-Fi. Apple, which closed the deals last week, could announce the agreements as early as Tuesday at the Macworld Conference and Expo in San Francisco.
Apple did not respond to requests for comment.
DRM-free songs are something that many iTunes users have requested for some time. However, the celebration over their appearance at the country's largest music retailer may be overshadowed by increased prices on some hit songs, which might be seen by some as an Apple surrender on pricing. Apple fans have long applauded the company for holding the line on pricing despite loud complaints from the major music labels.
The good news is that the price of catalog music is falling to 79 cents per song. The labels will get an opportunity to price some hit songs for more than 99 cents but eventually those songs will drop to 79 cents, according to one source.
Before iTunes users get too worked up, they should remember that song prices at iTunes haven't increased in five years. According to the Consumer Price Index, a 99-cent song in 2002 would be worth $1.17 today.
Not only will new music downloads be free of copy-protection software, but Apple and the labels will begin removing DRM from music already available in the iTunes Store, the source said. However, it's unclear what will happen to songs that have already been purchased.
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. 
If labels will give Amazon the same tracks at the same general quality for less, why in the heck would they raise the price on one store? If prices go up universally, which they probably need to, then I'm OK with that. But if I can get it cheaper at the same quality, I'm all for it.
Have fun with MP3 based songs.
>>I guess you don't care about quality.
Are you just stupid? On the crap headphones that ship with any iPod, you would never notice a difference.
Even on good equipment, with good headsets, your dreaming if you think you can tell the difference between Amazon mp3's and Apple AAC.
If quality was important, you would buy neither, and get the CD or the LP. But unnoticeable, meaningless 'quality' differences are only important when you can applaud Apple, right?
Worthless hypocrite.
I don't think I've used my headphones more than five times since I bought an iPod. I use a direct interface with my in car Pioneer head unit and Onkyo receiver; and yes, you can tell a major difference in the quality of sound between an mp3 and ACC. But in my case, I buy CDs used for dirt cheap from Amazon and simply rip them to my computer in Apple Lossless format, which makes a HUGE difference. It may not be FLAC, but it's better than the $@&% you listen to on your rinky-dink headphones.
Go principles!
DRM: 0
Don't buy iTunes.
What Ernie means is that he/she has 2700 songs in his/her itunes library and they were not bought from itunes. they were rather downloaded for free and without the presence of DRM. therefore, DRM = 0
Why deal with Apple at all? Better quality songs (at equivalent bitrates). Larger catalog. Easier to use.
Why deal with Amazon at all?
P.S. I'm also opposed to the weasel-esque antics of the labels - allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free but not allowing Apple the same. It's market manipulation, and it sucks.
CDubber... yeah it really sucks.. enjoy your DRM music.. while mine is free of the chains of evil DRM"
There is a difference in the sound then?
Higher quality for much cheaper, I can listen to them online at any computer I want and they are automatically added to my iTunes collection on my Mac without me doing anything. And on top of that, they're creating an iPhone app (according to TechCrunch).
I'm glad Apple is dropping prices and DRM, but I've moved on to greener pastures.
Or else, I'd just get the music elsewhere for cheaper, and avoid iTunes altogether.
Itunes sucks once they've converted the crap. Converting it back is a damn joke. I hate Itunes and only buy Amazon tracks.
At least it's mine.
That isn't what causes something to cost more or less. It is demand. Less demanded stuff is cheaper than popular new releases.
Well technically it isn't yours, there are some restrictions. From Amazon's terms of service:
1. The Service
The Service offers downloads of digitized versions of audio recordings, artwork and information relating to such audio recordings, and other content (individually and collectively, "Digital Content") and other services under the terms and conditions in the Terms of Use.
2. Digital Content
2.1 Rights Granted. Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the Terms of Use. You may copy, store, transfer and burn the Digital Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the Terms of Use.
2.2 Restrictions. You represent, warrant and agree that you will use the Service only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use and not for any redistribution of the Digital Content or other use restricted in this Section 2.2. You agree not to infringe the rights of the Digital Content's copyright owners and to comply with all applicable laws in your use of the Digital Content. Except as set forth in Section 2.1 above, you agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Digital Content. You acknowledge that the Digital Content embodies the intellectual property of a third party and is protected by law.
Amazon has cheaper stuff because the labels are committing RICO-baiting strong arm tactics against Apple because they don't like Apple doing to them what they've been doing to consumers and artists for decades. I know one of the people who created the Amazon store. And maybe his mom and dad think it's better then iTunes so it must be, right?
I buy lots of my music used from Amazon so that not only do the labels not get a single dime from me, but it costs less for the whole album much of the time, even with shipping. I buy albums from Amazon some times. Mostly when they have $1.99 or less specials on albums.
I really doubt anything will sell for more than 99 cents until it's DRM-free and when Amazon is forced to raise prices to match.
They adjust the CPI under the assumption that the higher a commodity is priced, the less someone will use it, and therefore the actual index is lesser than the actual cost increase. The increase of oil therefore, did not figure as prominently this past Summer in the CPI, as much as the actual rise in price.
Further, songs are commodities that have no resource restrictions, and should be lowering in cost and price, than be artificially tied to the CPI (and somehow be worth MORE now than they were in 2002).
That's just ridiculous that anyone would suggest that a digital file is worth more now than in 2002.
Truth be told downloads aren't even worth $0.79.
Ultimately what the overall population determines whether something works or not. Just because something doesn't make sense to you or I doesn't doom it to failure.
Note: This story must be at least partially false. If Apple was supposedly bowing to the differing pricing structure of the record companies in return for DRM-free songs, then what is Apple getting from the deal? Apple is a big supporter of DRM. If it wasn't, we'd see DRM-free music videos on the iTunes Music Store - you know, the same ones you can watch for free, legally, on Youtube.
Apple is a big supporter of DRM. If it wasn't, we'd see DRM-free music videos on the iTunes Music Store
=====================================================
Right, since Apple owns all that content I'm sure they're keeping DRM on it to control their customers.
Hint: does Apple own all that content, or are they subject to the whims of those who do own it?
There is nothing like proving to the world that you are an idiot, is there.
It is an obscure dialect of English used mostly in a small island nation. What he is saying is that things generally cost more in the United Kingdom. :)
No, I've lost my English-to-insular-moron-who-can't-decipher-one-very-common-symbol-that-isn't-used-in-his-dialect dictionary.
- by marc99999 January 6, 2009 5:19 AM PST
- i use the script from advantageousmp3.com. so i can windowshop at iTunes. And then buy from Amazon. Guess i won't need it anymore.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (52 Comments)