April 2, 2007 5:18 AM PDT

EMI, Apple partner on DRM-free premium music

EMI Group will soon sell digital music with better sound quality and no digital rights management restrictions through Apple's iTunes Store.

EMI's entire digital music catalog will be available in premium DRM-free form via iTunes in May, the music label said Monday at a press conference in London. Beatles tunes under EMI's control, however, are not part of the plan.

Higher-quality music files, which will play on any computer and any digital-audio player, will not replace the copy-protected EMI music currently sold through iTunes. Rather, they will complement the standard 99-cent iTunes downloads and will be sold at a premium: $1.29 per song.

Consumers who have already purchased EMI tracks containing Apple's FairPlay copy protection will be able to upgrade them to the premium version for 30 cents, EMI said. Full albums in DRM-free form can be bought at the same price as standard iTunes albums.

"We are committed to embracing change, and to developing products and services that consumers really want to buy," said Eric Nicoli, chief executive of EMI. Nicoli cited internal EMI tests in which higher-quality, DRM-free songs outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10-to-1.

The higher sound quality of EMI's premium tracks is produced by increasing their bit rate, which translates to larger files with reduced compression.

After initially selling the premium DRM-free music through Apple, EMI plans to expand the program to other music outlets. Retailers partnering with EMI, which also plans to remove DRM from its video downloads, will be able to choose from a variety of levels of sound quality. Retailers will also be able to choose whether to sell files in the MP3, WMA or AAC format.

In iTunes, music will be sold in a 256 kilobit-per-second AAC format.

apple-emi

The packed press conference at EMI's London headquarters featured a performance by EMI recording artist The Good, The Bad and The Queen, as well as a guest appearance by Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

Jobs, who stressed the need for higher-quality music with the rise of high-fidelity home speaker systems, called EMI's move "the next big step forward in the digital-music revolution--the movement to completely interoperable DRM-free music." He added that "Apple will reach out to all the major and independent labels to give them the same opportunity."

Jobs expressed confidence in Apple's plan to offer the premium DRM-free tracks alongside standard ones. "What we're adding is a choice--a new choice," Jobs said regarding Apple's decision to make available two levels of sound quality and of DRM restriction. He suggested that half of iTunes' music tracks will be available in both DRM-loaded and DRM-free form by the end of 2007.

"EMI is pioneering something that I think is going to become very popular," Jobs said when asked if other music labels would likely add DRM-free music to their iTunes catalog.

But James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, said he believes that other labels may approach the prospect of DRM-free music sales with trepidation.

"The timing of when they sign on is going to be what's interesting to watch," McQuivey said. "They will eventually, but eventually could mean a year from now. Now that a major label has done it, they're all going to want to wait and see the proof that it worked."

In February, Jobs released an open letter to record companies, encouraging them to abandon DRM restrictions and claiming that Apple had only implemented the controversial system because the four major record labels would not have otherwise signed up with iTunes.

News.com Poll

Changing their tune
Will DRM-free digital music become the norm?

Yes, and sooner than you think.
Yes, but not for quite a while still.
No, it won't. Sorry.



View results

In the recent past, EMI has put forth some initiatives in digital-music distribution that could be considered somewhat experimental, most notably offering its music catalog to peer-to-peer services like Mashboxx and iMesh. But until this point, DRM-free music had been largely the domain of services like eMusic, with songs limited to those from independent labels.

"This is something that Apple wants, but it's something that EMI needs," McQuivey said.

"Together with the RIAA, (EMI) was one of the loudest voices among the labels sponsoring the aggressive lawsuits against people who were file-sharing music," McQuivey said of the Recording Industry Association of America's persistent legal battles against music pirates using peer-to-peer networks. "It's not to say that you can't aggressively pursue file sharers and develop a digital strategy, but they didn't. They chose to focus on the lawsuits, hoping to keep the CD business alive."

Last year, iTunes rival Yahoo Music tested the DRM-free waters by offering a Jesse McCartney album and a Jessica Simpson single for sale with no copy protection.

EMI announced the press conference on Sunday, leading to much speculation of whether it was a prank--"We are acutely aware that the invitations were issued on April Fools' Day," Nicoli observed--and whether the event might have been held to unveil the availability of songs by The Beatles on iTunes.

Music from the Fab Four has been released by EMI since 1962 and is currently unavailable for legal digital download anywhere on the Internet. When a reporter asked Jobs whether a Beatles deal with EMI was upcoming, Jobs replied, "I want to know that, too." Nicoli stressed that "we're working on it."

See more CNET content tagged:
EMI Group Plc., Steve Jobs, digital music, Apple iTunes, digital-rights management

169 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
I guess I can't have my cake and eat it, too...
I suppose I'm being extremely picky here, but I have quite a few
questions:

1. What's the quality diffference? If there's a 30 cents price
increase, then it'd better be very significant.

2. Does this mean that more audio devices can connect to
iTunes, since the songs can be played on any device?

3. If they increased the price because of the quality difference,
then why didn't Apple/EMI just go the Yahoo Music route and
offer unrestricted songs at the same quality? That way there
wouldn't be a price increase and it would appeal to consumers
far more.
Posted by toosday (343 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Answers for you'
1) It isn't significant - its only slightly discernable but the big thing you'd really be paying for here is the DRM-free bit, which is totally worth it.

2) DRM free means unprotected-AAC, which means that you can play these premium iTunes tracks on more players (Zune, Walkman, Creative players) however I'm pretty sure Apple wont be implementing a way for them to sync to iTunes :P
Posted by AKA_Ben (20 comments )
Link Flag
To answer your questions...
1. The original bitrate is 128 kbps the new DRM free music is
256 kbps. So double the quality for 30 cents. (that doesn't
matter to me though because I can't hear the difference between
CD music and iTunes music)

2. I doubt that you will be able to connect any other mp3 player
to iTunes, it just wouldn't make money sense for Apple.
However, you should be able to put the music on any mp3
player you want you'll just have to find the file on you computer
first (which is not a big deal)

3. This probably had more to do with EMI then Apple but the
answer is money. EMI's testing "higher-quality, DRM-free songs
outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10 to 1"
My guess would be they are betting people are willing to pay
more to not have DRM. And it is probably a good bet.
Posted by jones_8099 (177 comments )
Link Flag
I don't trust a word of it not one bleeping word
The best form of of control there is, Is music and big fatcat giglo-maniacs know this only too well.
One track takes roughly one 30th the effort a movie takes but is that reflected in the price.

Independent artists are filitered "really what the hell was the point in a freedom of speach/freedom of expression act".

It all uses lossy compression so its still not as good and certianly not better than a CD even with the 24bit credential.

The creativity is pretty much limited to monotone without much of a dynamic range(except clasical) And these so called modern artists seem to have never heard of tempo shifts.Do the maths (Hypnotic brainwashing for the masses, may anyone challange this we'll crush them(isn't that true Cnet(um mp3.com)).

the words that come to mind over this piticular issue i most certianly can not repeat on this forum but it is anything but cool more like crawl.
Posted by wildchild_plasma_gyro (296 comments )
Link Flag
Wooo Hooooo - Way to show some B@lls!
Now its our turn to respond with our wallets.

Almost everyone hates DRM, now we have a big label giving us what 'we want'. We need to show our support by buying their tracks. If this is seen as successful the other labels can't be far behind.

On to music Utopia! ;)
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not so fast!
The fact that they are only releasing higher quality tracks and charging extra to get them DRM-free leads me to believe that they are merely trying to charge a piracy fee. Why charge more when the higher quality file is just as easy to make unless you also assume that every customer is a pirate?
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
Yes this is a great move!
And all the people who called Steve Jobs a hypocrite need to issue retractions now.
Posted by fcekuahd (244 comments )
Link Flag
higher quality
I want iTunes to sell higher quality music, this is a good start
Posted by carstereos (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So all you Jobs haters...
Those of you who railed at jobs and called him a fraud when he
wrote his open letter supporting DRM-free music. Yeah, you
people, the one who smugly wagged your fingers and shouted "Put
your money where your mouth is."

Here's his response. I hope you don't choke on the feathers as you
eat your well-deserved crow!
Posted by ewelch (767 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I already have...
I already have best-sound-quality, DRM-free, music. It's called CDs. -grin
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If you're happy...
If you're happy with CDs then I'm happy for you. I, however, am
running out of the extra room for CD and DVD storage. Also, I can't
tell the difference in the sound quality of a CD and an iTunes track.
We might can blame that on my hearing (its not bad but its not the
best in the world either) but if I can't hear a difference then it
doesn't matter if there is one.
Posted by jones_8099 (177 comments )
Link Flag
nice..
The nice thing about CDs is you can then make your own DRM-free music files in whatever format you like! (I prefer FLAC personally, though most people are prob just as happy with other formats).
Posted by M A (51 comments )
Link Flag
I'd Buy Music If It Were DRM-Free
I for one am very glad they are doing this. If I buy a track, I want to be able to do whatever I want with it. I want to be able to put it on all my computers, all my iPod's, on my phone, on my PSP, on everything. I can finally do that since they are taking away the DRM. I think more people will actually start buying music, especially if they view it like I do.
Posted by MrEggsalad (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I would hold off...for now
I wouldn't go ordering iTunes DRM free music just yet. You better make sure all the devices you want to use can support AAC files. For now I would hold off until mp3 file formats are offered.

But you are 100%, this will be the catalyst to mass digital music sales.
Posted by hybris06 (66 comments )
Link Flag
No lossless
While today's announcement is certainly great news, I am a little
disappointed they won't be offering lossless audio.
Posted by Galley (55 comments )
Reply Link Flag
agreed..
When I read "higher quality" I thought they were talking about lossless (& come on, Apple supports lossless AAC, no?).

Honestly I think this is all marketing, higher quality really means lossless, hopefully they'll get to that eventually.
Posted by M A (51 comments )
Link Flag
it's not realistic...
a 40-50MB file... per song doesn't make sense yet. you won't see that until there 1TB iPods and T3's into every house.
Posted by OS11 (844 comments )
Link Flag
I'm happy!
I've got a high end hi-fi, and through careful examination, I've
decided that I cannot distinguish 256 bit AAC files from the
original cd.
Also, and for comparison, I've just ripped my cd from Pilot Speed
"Into The West" three times.
128 bit resulted in 58 mb of disk storage used up.
256 bit, 113 mb's
Lossless? A whopping FOUR HUNDRED FOUR POINT SIX MB's!!!
I've got over FOUR HUNDRED CD's!!!
At 256 bit sampling, I can, and do, carry everything I own
around on my iPod. Using lossless, I'd need to carry my desktop,
CRT and a very, very long extension cord with me, and I'd be
pretty unhappy about it, too.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
AAC Format
This is great news and is obviously the future of digital downloads (videos and music alike).

The only problem with this implementation is Apple's insistence upon AAC. Apple is trying to lock people into the "Applesphere" (sorta) once again.

If Apple was 100% serious about offering digital downloads DRM free then they would have offered them in the more universal mp3 format (I know AAC can be converted relatively easily but if I am paying a premium I don't want to have to waste my time converting the files).

Also, Apple should be offering encoding choices, for example, charge 1.30 for 256 VBR but maybe change 1.50 for 320 or lossless.

But all these things will come in the coming years (though you can get them now with AllofMp3.com).

As for now, I applaud EMI for taking this desperately needed initiative.
Posted by hybris06 (66 comments )
Reply Link Flag
damn.. some people are never satisfied
it's a FIRST STEP for christs' sakes...

1. the problem with the loseless format is that is not what the MAJORITY are asking for. As someone stated, most people can't tell the damn difference. FOr a music store, selling loseless files takes up a LOT more space and on the user end, A LOT more time to download. No, we're not ready to go there yet. You're better off buying a cd and converting it into whatever format you want if that kind of quality is important to you.

2. "The only problem with this implementation is Apple's insistence upon AAC. Apple is trying to lock people into the "Applesphere" (sorta) once again."

AAC is an OPEN SOURCE format! Not Apple's format! Let's get it straight. By using AAC Apple avoids the fees associated with mp3s (to the formats creators).
Posted by Musica360.com (106 comments )
Link Flag
AAC is NOT an "Apple" format!
will people ever wake up!?!

AAC is an OPEN Format, and is the replacement for MP3!

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding</a>

MP3 isn't what you want, it's horrible! AAC is the modern format, please learn this.
Posted by OS11 (844 comments )
Link Flag
Open mouth, insert foot.
Please, please take 30 seconds to research things before you
post in a tech forum, won't you? AAC is a completely 100% open
format. "AAC was developed with the cooperation and
contributions of companies including Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG),
AT&#38;T, Sony and Nokia, and was officially declared an
international standard by the Moving Pictures Experts Group in
April 1997.
AAC is NOT APPLE.
AAC does NOT LOCK ANYONE INTO ANYTHING.
AAC is the core of MPEG-4.
AAC CREAMS MP3 in every way imagineable, too. Higher quality,
smaller files when ripped at the same bit-rates, you name it.
Google it. Go and read up on it before posting next time, and
save yourself some embarrassment.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
Licensing issues with mp3
If you haven't noticed, the owners of the license for mp3 just won a judgement against Microsoft with probably more suits to follow. I don't believe AAC has that baggage.
Posted by jmmejzz (107 comments )
Link Flag
I wonder if...
... there is some sort of signiture or something that identifies a drm-free file that you can recognize as being a copy of a purchased tune. Seems like the music company would want to be able to recognize if you were file-sharing these songs.
Posted by shoffmueller (236 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Could that really be called DRM free?
You might as well keep the iTunes DRM model.
Posted by jones_8099 (177 comments )
Link Flag
It's a good start...
...but I would have been happier if they used MP3 instead. Yes, I know AAC is not a Apple standard, and it is arguably better, but it simply isn't as commonly supported. Hopefully this will be a success.

Thanks Steve!
Posted by Siegfried Schtauffen (269 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Excuse me
You should only comment if you have something to say. Not if
you are posting complete nonsense, showing that you are
"working" for some other entity to spread comlete bull--it.

S.S you have just showed you don't even know what MP3 and
AAC are, nor do you even have an clues as to what iTunes is.

iTunes is soooo easy to use, that you don't have to "convert"
your files directly, or manually. You simply set your preferences.


Keep your bul-s-it to yourself, and send the checks back to
Microsoft. You're a lousy propaganda stool anyway. Unless you
reconsider the meaning of "stool" in your case.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Why support MP3. It is an old standard
Just do a bit of googling and you will find that not only do ACC songs sound better at the same bit rate but there art ACC compatible players from Panasonic and Creative. Also, the Zune and Xbox 360 support non-DRM'ed ACC files just fine.

Of course, I don't care since I listen to most of my music on my laptop at home and on my iPod when I'm on the road.
Posted by aristotle_dude (165 comments )
Link Flag
Regarding the price premium...
Most of you seem to be assuming that the price difference is due to the increase in quality, I have a different idea.

I think that the only way that EMI would sign up to this is if they knew that they would make more money, the only way that Apple could get them to change their ways, was to offer them an incentive, and it worked.

In the future I think we'll see all of iTunes converted to non-DRM music, but also reduced back to 79C, if this whole test works, which I think it will.

I'm glad to see that Apple is taking the first major steps in the industry to make this happen, they have gone further than 'dipping their toes in' as Yahoo! did, and have made a positive move.

Also shows that El Jobso wasn't just posturing in his open letter, its nice to see someone in this (or any) industry, keep their promise to consumers.

Kind of restores some faith in Big Business I guess.
Posted by grandmasterdibbler (78 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I have my doubts
I am disappointed they didn't free the "low quality" music. I would have gleefully accepted the higher quality downloads for a premium price. And I still do. But there is no reason that they couldn't remove the DRM from both tiers of quality. None. I see no reason other than to profit.

From that angle, I don't see them bringing the price back down. I think $1.29 is the new price, and they will likely just phase out the 99 cent downloads by making them less appealing.
Posted by airwalkery2k (117 comments )
Link Flag
Well now... looks like I can start buying from iTMS.
I refused to purchase anything from the iTunes Music store since its inception because I would much rather pay once for music and spread it around to any device I own.

For a long time I would simply rip CD's, which insured that I only paid for the music once, in a high-quality format.

This little act also made a statement, however small, that I refuse to buy any DRM product... and I believe that I'm not alone in this.

30 cents? No sweat. If it sends a message that the other music companies can take their DRM and shove it, then it'll be worth the $.30 per song to say it.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Here, here
I second that e-notion.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
I can't wait to steal it
Seriously, how many out there will find it easy to "share" the catalog? I fear this will confirm the record execs worst suspicions.
Posted by mark88 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
And?
People do this now with tracks ripped from CDs and DRM-cracked files. Where is the difference?
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
For the 1st time - I will report you
Record comapniee locking up songs, degrading quality, etc. to try to force me to buy a CD has always ticked me off. As such, I would not care if everyone I know "backed up" thier music library for others to share. Now however, I am on EMI's side. If I can buy a DRM free album for the same price as a DRM encoded album, then I need to just pay. As long as people were working against the Copyright police I could look the other way. Now, its just stealing and that is wrong.
Posted by Im-Not-TED (21 comments )
Link Flag
Hopefully this is a slippery slope! (nt)
-
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Elaborate
what you mean?
Posted by shoffmueller (236 comments )
Link Flag
Half of iTunes library DRM-free this year?
"EMI is just the first, according to Jobs. He said Apple expects well
over half of the songs on the iTunes Store to be DRM-free by the
end of the calendar year."
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Talk of bitrates MP3 or ACC? There is a difference
I hear a lot of people talking about bitrates but I have to wonder if they are talking about ACC or MP3 or if they don't know if there is a difference.

Just do a google search comparing ACC and MP3. You will find that, according to independent listening tests, a 128kps ACC was equivalent to an 192kps MP3.
Posted by aristotle_dude (165 comments )
Reply Link Flag
ACC is better quality than MP3 at same bitrate
True ... ACC is a more efficient codec than MPEG-1, Layer 3. The
result is that we can have good audio quality at smaller file sizes.
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Link Flag
So...
If this is true (AAC 128kbps = MP3 192kbps - or at least the two sound indistinguishable), then is AAC 256kbps &gt; MP3 320kbps that many people here are claiming to be the minimal level of compression to ensure close to 'lossless' audio?

and IF this is the case, why the heck are so many people complaining? Also, why are people complaining that Apple and EMI are trying to make a profit? Last time I checked they were not charities... Now, maybe if the Salvation Army started selling MP3s through an online store...
Posted by jamesm1973 (13 comments )
Link Flag
Looking deeper..
EMI and Apple working together at last, it's a great sight to see.
But whom are they working for? EMI is notoriously known for it's
greed and aggressiveness in the fight against piracy. Steve Jobs
has publicly lambasted EMI's views on piracy and what is good
for the consumer, so much that he declared them (as well as the
rest of the industry) greedy. Now they are offering tiered pricing?
Talk about a hypocrit.

Greed can do funny things, even to the evangelical Steve Jobs.
Long has Apple's CEO protested multiple price points, often
stating that it would further confuse the customers and add to
an already confusing array of formats and pricing options.
Surely the Apple faithful still think Steve can do no wrong as he
further gouges customers even though his previous statements
contradict his current actions.

Apple is a marketing genius, there is no doubt about that.
However, when these supposedly better tracks are released, they
will have to educate and possibly convince novice digital music
buyers to purchase the "enhanced" song over the cheaper 99
cent choice. How do you explain to an already purplexed user,
why they should pay extra to do what they want with their
music?

With Jobs' intentions to make half the iTunes library DRM-Free in
the near future, this will only further confuse and turn off
prospective buyers. Even if Apple avoids hawking these premium
tracks to new users, and aims for the tech savvy, that may also
be a hard sell. Audiophiles and tech enthusiasts already have
large CD libraries, and most would rather wait for lower prices to
purchase music digitally.

Legal digital music as a whole, is still in it's infancy. With iTunes
leading the pact, I just do not understand why Apple would risk
it all for a possible marginal sales increase.

"....only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the
average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store..."
Great way to risk your digital dynasty for a gamble.
Posted by naterandrews (256 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sure it might confuse people, but...
This isn't a losing situation for Apple, they get to look like the heroes, by being the first to offer DRMless music from the store.
Customers are thinking that this is a good thing (even if they don't understand this that well) and that is all Apple needs.

Many people will just be, 'huh? DRM,30c more, no way!' which isn't going to hurt anyone, but it also gives those who care, the same opportunity.

Apple can't lose, they've played the game brilliantly well, and are now back on top, and just gained shining armour from public perceptions of greedienss and doubtless the praise of many analysts who complained about DRM music. This move shows Jobso meant what he said in his open letter, earning him even more brownie points!
Posted by grandmasterdibbler (78 comments )
Link Flag
Jobs is a genius
He's a charismatic, persuasive genius. I can't imagine any other technology leader being able to pull this off.

I might try some of those reproducible tracks myself.
Posted by bob donut (90 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Jobs is a genius
He's a charismatic, persuasive genius. I can't imagine any other technology leader being able to pull this off.

I might try some of those reproducible tracks myself.
Posted by bob donut (90 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The real story is in the fine print ...
A great victory for all who decry DRM and its many inconveniences, and let's hope it symbolizes the start of a major change. But as usual the real story shows that it is the recording industry, not artists or consumers, that comes out on top once again. Check out <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://broadclip.blogspot.com/2007/04/emi-cracks-and-removes-drm-sort-of.html" target="_newWindow">http://broadclip.blogspot.com/2007/04/emi-cracks-and-removes-drm-sort-of.html</a> for the real costs and numbers behind the deal.
Posted by Broadclip (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
looks like he missed the regular print
DRM-free albums will be the same price on iTunes - $9.99. So you actually save more money by buying the entire album now.

But the labels will definitely be making more money on the singles now.
Posted by markusfarkus (96 comments )
Link Flag
Broadclip = blog spam
Don't use false information to shamelessly promote your own blog.
Posted by murray627 (7 comments )
Link Flag
Nothing new
I've been saying the same thing for many years. Downloaded content costs a fraction of physical media, yet the labels want us to pay the same price. They must consider it a convenience tax. We as consumer should just say no. We should get a cut of the cost savings too.
Paying the artists less if the track is downloaded is complete horse sh*t greed on the label's part. It's not justifiable in any sense.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Link Flag
Oh Please
AAC is a modern Open codec that anyone can add to their players
for playback. Why can't they coexist. What this move does is keep
the playing field level. No WMA BS &#38; all the hardware makers are
not beholden to MS for a DRM'd codec.
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Explanantion for MR. Winky
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding</a>
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Read it yourself!!! Hahahahaha!
Did you miss this part?

"Overall, the AAC format allows developers more flexibility to design codecs than MP3 does. This increased flexibility often leads to more concurrent encoding strategies and, as a result, to more efficient compression. However in terms of whether AAC is better than MP3, the advantages of AAC are not entirely conclusive, and the MP3 specification, while outdated, has proven surprisingly robust. AAC and HE-AAC are better than MP3 at low bit-rates (typically &lt; 128 kbps). At medium to higher bit-rates (typically &gt; 128 kbps in stereo), the two formats are more comparable in most fields."

Oops!

-Mister Winky
Posted by Mister Winky (301 comments )
Link Flag
Finally, a solution! But...
Pay more for what people can already get for free, though illegally. Yup, good solution guys! That'll fix things right up!
Posted by mattumanu (599 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Upgrade
You can also upgrade the EMI music in your library to the higher
bitrate

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html</a>
Posted by scweezil (171 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This Could Actually Work
The fact that any CD's are still being sold shows that people are willing to pay substantial sums of money for convenience and quality control. Many customers will gladly pay a nominal fee for the quality assurances and convenience of an official source, and still be getting a bargain over the price of retail CD's. Diehards will still find ways to collect music for free, but by removing the inconveniences of proprietary formats and license management, EMI has effectively removed much of the temptation for most paying customers to seek out illegal sources.
Posted by annanemas (79 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not a chance in hell
This could discriminate some more and defy our freedom of expression.
Think back for a minute P2P networks alwys seem to go on thorth and a good percentage of music downloaded and such on it is populist music. So the media makes you interested a new populist fad, you download it then they say hey all that you own is mine. The words to discribe that kind of pratice is not allowed in this forum.
What if you accessed a centraless P2P buffered website not much diffrent to the old MP3.com where you could find real artist that we're really interesting who after listening to thier lowish bit version you could purchuse their track from their website. With all this done at somthing the
size of the old mp3.com maybe even bigger. Sort of like limewire cross mp3.com.That way fatcat beeps can't miniplulate what you listen to like that and you do have to bow to them not "one bit",people like mr Jobs no matter how honerable you think their backgroud is "when did he ever produce anything interesting to listen to".

Then if EMI or whoever thinks someone is avading some probably dubious copyright issue they have to deal with the artist instead of crushing the best thing this planet ever had(MP3.com).
as you may tell i'm a tad bitter.
Posted by wildchild_plasma_gyro (296 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.