Apple Notifies Partners: DRM-free Music and DRM-free Music Videos Soon

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Yesterday, Apple sent out short notices to their iTunes partners who provide the music content to the iTunes store. The notices let partners know that they would soon be able to offer DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to customers through iTunes.

Many of you have reached out to iTunes to find out how you can make your songs available higher quality and DRM-free. Starting next month, iTunes will begin offering higher-quality, DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to all customers.

The new unrestricted format appears to be open to any publisher who is interested. Apple and EMI first announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/02/emi-apple-press-conference-coverage/) earlier this month that they would be distributing DRM-free EMI songs via iTunes for $1.29/song with higher quality settings. The first of these new songs are expected in May.

In the earlier press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html), it was revealed that Music Videos would also come DRM-free from EMI but with no change in price.

[Project]

So does this mean that all those smaller artists / publishers who wanted their music DRM free on iTunes can do so?

If so, good news.

[arn]

So does this mean that all those smaller artists / publishers who wanted their music DRM free on iTunes can do so?

If so, good news.

Looks like it. I think it was sent to everyone who publishes music on iTunes.

arn

[davidjearly]

It's not the first time that DRM free music videos has been discussed. This was already disclosed in the EMI deal. Thats what I thought.

It was when asked about video content (i.e. non-music (tv shows & movies)) that Steve said it was completely different and there were no details.

David

[SRSound]

so this means we'll be able to download direct from iTunes on to our iPhones - no DRM hassle = download and transfer freedom

[iMikeT]

This was unexpected.

[arn]

It's not the first time that DRM free music videos has been discussed. This was already disclosed in the EMI deal. Thats what I thought.


you're right. story updated.

arn

[Object-X]

DRM free is great and everything, but I will still only buy Apple products, so it's just not an issue. I guess I'm still amazed that after all these years no one has been able to seriously challange Apple. Still, freedom is good.

[Nermal]

(Edit: Decided not to go there, although you can still see what I said in the next post)

[coolfactor]

Yay! Death to DRM! I'll be able to buy a real music player soon :cool:

Care to elaborate on what a real music player might be?

[Shagrat]

Care to elaborate on what a real music player might be?

This? (http://sandisk.com/Products/Item(2219)-SDMX4-8192-Sansa_e280R_Rhapsody_8GB_MP3_Player.aspx)

[Queso]

This is very good news. The more minor labels jump on board with DRM free, the more likely it is that Sony BMG, Warner etc. will follow EMI and open up their stuff too.

Dolby are going to be laughing all the way to the bank. The numbers of manufacturers that licence AAC is going to skyrocket :)

[robPOD]

This? (http://sandisk.com/Products/Item(2219)-SDMX4-8192-Sansa_e280R_Rhapsody_8GB_MP3_Player.aspx)

This is a good step in the right direction. And btw that Sandisk Sansa Rhapsody is one ugly peice of S..T. I would prefer an iPod any day.

[Brandon Sharitt]

It looks like digital music may replace CD sales for me very soon. The low bitrate DRM'd tracks of iTunes was a real deal breaker for me, though I do buy stuff from eMusic when they have something I like, but unfortunately their catalog is quite small. Hopefully the fall of music DRM will help the get more music in their store, though a DRM free iTunes would kill the only reason I use them now.

The next step is to get DRM free HD quality movies and TV shows from iTunes, that way the AppleTV actually looks useful, though for the AppleTV specifically the later is more important, and I suspect it will be here soon, but I won't hold my breath for the former.

[peestandingup]

It looks like digital music may replace CD sales for me very soon.
You & everyone else. :)

[oober_freak]

I can't believe how demanding Apple users are. Some one rated this story negative. :rolleyes:

[PlaceofDis]

awesome. hopefully more and more labels pick this option. :D

[Nermal]

It looks like digital music may replace CD sales for me very soon.

CDs are digital!

[gnasher729]

It looks like digital music may replace CD sales for me very soon.

Excuse me, but...

Digital music sales have almost completely replaced analog music sales in the last twenty years. Most digital music sales are in the form of CDs.

[stadidas]

CDs are digital!
Haha, I was thinking that too. They're "better" digital too (PCM > perceptual encoding).
As good as this is, I still hope physical music and films never go away. I like to have artwork and something I can actually hold in my hand (Vinyl for example is a joy). Also buying music on a CD means you have a backup without having to backup as it were.
It will be great not to be tied down by any DRM for the music I do buy online though.

[zap2]

I hope all the the music studios take this offer, I'll be really happy when I can use my music they way I should have been able to since day 1.

[4np]

Great! :)

Hopefully this will allow Apple to get rid of the most annoying thing in iTunes: the restriction that your iPod library has to be identical to the library on your Mac/Pc. If I have 60GB of music on my iPod I don't want to have this amount of data on my Mac as well... :mad: I'd rather use the storage on my Mac (in my case a PowerBook) for other more usefull things...

[BenRoethig]

DRM-free is good. It makes Apple look good and avoids those nasty anti-trust lawsuits.

[gnasher729]

So does this mean that all those smaller artists / publishers who wanted their music DRM free on iTunes can do so?

Everyone who signed a contract with Apple (or could have signed a contract) can do so. If you are a music publisher, you can take the contract between EMI and Apple, replace the name "EMI" with yours, and sign it :D

Actually, publishers who _didn't_ want their music DRM free (like EMI a year ago) can do it as well, and the way that Apple has arranged things, I think they will all profit from it. The publisher would get: (a) money from people who decide to upgrade music from DRM to DRM free. (b) more money than before from people who purchase DRM free/256KBit instead of DRM/128Kbit. (c) money from people who wouldn't have bought at all with DRM. (d) money from people who buy the whole album because it is now better value for money.

That is typical how Apple does things: They have structured the deal in such a way that customers are likely to pay more money for better or more products. Apple wants a customer who says "I paid more and I'm glad I paid more" because they get more for their money.

[stadidas]

Great! :)

Hopefully this will allow Apple to get rid of the most annoying thing in iTunes: the restriction that your iPod library has to be identical to the library on your Mac/Pc. If I have 60GB of music on my iPod I don't want to have this amount of data on my Mac as well... :mad: I'd rather use the storage on my Mac (in my case a PowerBook) for other more usefull things...
Can't you do that by using manual sync? I have stuff on my nano that is no longer in my library.

[aspro]

I hope the free upgrades will be across the board with anyone who takes up this offer. :) (Unless I have the wrong end of the stick and there are no upgrades.)

[meli]

I wonder what the hold-up is with those DRM-free Pixar films?

[boer]

It looks like digital music may replace CD sales for me very soon. The low bitrate DRM'd tracks of iTunes was a real deal breaker for me

Sounds to me you are just troubled with the knowledge of the bitrate and not the quality itself. Personally I do not care if the bitrate is 1kbps if it still sounds great. (I could fit plenty of songs on my iPod too.)

There was a site recently mentioned on Digg where one could do a "blind test" for music of different bitrates. 50 % of the visitors could not tell a difference between a high bitrate mp3 and a medium bitrate mp3 indicating a random choise on average. I bet many of those visitors would have "heard" the difference clearly if they were told beforehand though...

[AlBDamned]

As good as this is, I still hope physical music and films never go away. I like to have artwork and something I can actually hold in my hand (Vinyl for example is a joy). Also buying music on a CD means you have a backup without having to backup as it were.


LOL, I know what you mean, sort of, although I'm buying all my music online these days (once you could get artwork that was it for physical music).

The funny thing is, this is going to be one of those things that 20 years down the line, your kids or your kids' kids are going to say: "wow, you mean you used to have these crappy discs that could hold 700MB on them and you used to go to a shop and actually buy them there? Wow! That's so ********* retro man!"

[cepler]

I would only consider these higher priced songs if they were losslessly compressed (ALE) format.

[Brandon Sharitt]

Sounds to me you are just troubled with the knowledge of the bitrate and not the quality itself. Personally I do not care if the bitrate is 1kbps if it still sounds great. (I could fit plenty of songs on my iPod too.)

There was a site recently mentioned on Digg where one could do a "blind test" for music of different bitrates. 50 % of the visitors could not tell a difference between a high bitrate mp3 and a medium bitrate mp3 indicating a random choise on average. I bet many of those visitors would have "heard" the difference clearly if they were told beforehand though...

It's also very dependent on what you are listening too the music with. I have a very good speaker system, and there is a noticeable difference between the iTunes downloads and a CD(and I'm not even close to an audiophile). Since I haven't played back their newer high bitrate stuff yet, or any new iTunes stuff for a while, so there is a chance that they've improved the encoder, which plays a huge role(ie Lame can make very good MP3s at lower bitrates). Either way, the current iTunes downloads(the 128k stuff) are not quite up to the task of loud heavy metal on good speakers, although I can't tell a difference on my iPod since all I have is the ear buds. Though I suspect that is the reason for the current encoding, it is good enough for iPods, and anybody who says they can tell the difference on the ear buds is probably either lying or somesort of super audiophile with very sensitive hearing. Even a slight bump to 192 would be nice for the home theater stuff, hopefully Apple TV and the push for the living room can make it work.

[Brandon Sharitt]

CDs are digital!

Obviously I meant all digital, with no physical media.

[johnmcboston]

I like to have artwork and something I can actually hold in my hand (Vinyl for example is a joy).

You sure most of the people here will know what vinyl is? :)

We old farts will remember the days when CDs first started coming out - they were all for sale in the 'long boxes' to prevent theft. When the long boxes were going away people would worry the artwork on CDs would be too small. Of course now we buy music with no artwork at all... Even the booklets in CDs have been replaced by band web sites and blogs.

[Queso]

The funny thing is, this is going to be one of those things that 20 years down the line, your kids or your kids' kids are going to say: "wow, you mean you used to have these crappy discs that could hold 700MB on them and you used to go to a shop and actually buy them there? Wow! That's so ********* retro man!"
In 20 years time it'll be "Wow! You actually listened to music rather than having it piped directly through your cerebral cortex? That's soooo lame!!"

Those with ears will be so passé :D

[thejadedmonkey]

You sure most of the people here will know what vinyl is? :)

We old farts will remember the days when CDs first started coming out - they were all for sale in the 'long boxes' to prevent theft. When the long boxes were going away people would worry the artwork on CDs would be too small. Of course now we buy music with no artwork at all... Even the booklets in CDs have been replaced by band web sites and blogs.

Even my 12 year old sister knows what vinyl is.. it's not going away that quick, mainly because so many adults still have a nice size collection that they listen to

[AlBDamned]

Obviously I meant all digital, with no physical media.

Everyone knew what you meant, they were just being pricks :rolleyes:

[SheriffParker]

Great! :)

Hopefully this will allow Apple to get rid of the most annoying thing in iTunes: the restriction that your iPod library has to be identical to the library on your Mac/Pc. If I have 60GB of music on my iPod I don't want to have this amount of data on my Mac as well... :mad: I'd rather use the storage on my Mac (in my case a PowerBook) for other more usefull things...

If you haven't figured out how to get music off your ipod to your mac, which I believe Apple actually lets you do with iTunes Purchased music anyways, then just burn data CDs or data DVDs as backups and erase the songs off your harddrive. Also, turn on manual library control on your iPod. Autosync is the default, but there's nothing stopping you from changing that.

[AlBDamned]

In 20 years time it'll be "Wow! You actually listened to music rather than having it piped directly through your cerebral cortex? That's soooo lame!!"

Those with ears will be so passé :D

I hope they have bass implants to go with that sort of stuff! Just imagine, all the chavs would show their mettle by having a big neon stick coming out the side of their head. :D

[stadidas]

Though I suspect that is the reason for the current encoding, it is good enough for iPods, and anybody who says they can tell the difference on the ear buds is probably either lying or somesort of super audiophile with very sensitive hearing.
If you get proper ones (http://www.ultimateears.com/custom/Custom-Ear-Monitors.htm) the sound difference is there ;) . I agree though, for most people 128Kb/s is fine.

In 20 years time it'll be "Wow! You actually listened to music rather than having it piped directly through your cerebral cortex? That's soooo lame!!"

Those with ears will be so passé :D
If they ever make that I'll be the first person in line.

[lazyrighteye]

I wonder what the hold-up is with those DRM-free Pixar films?

Ha! Great question.
Steve?

[papadopolis1024]

Are EMIs music videos not DRM free as of now? I thought they ever put DRM on there music videos.

[papadopolis1024]

Ha! Great question.
Steve?

Steve says he dose not want DRM free movies and tv shows just music.

[NightStorm]

Pixar films have never to my knowledge been available DRM-free in a digital form (through legal means). This was the entire basis for Jobs' statement on DRM earlier this year, and I don't think we'll be seeing DRM-free shows/movies anytime soon.

[sdds]

Obviously I meant all digital, with no physical media.

No physical media? You mean like, suspended in space, pure energy, no matter? Maybe in Star Trek, but not any time soon on this planet... ;)

[stadidas]

No physical media? You mean like, suspended in space, pure energy, no matter? Maybe in Star Trek, but not any time soon on this planet... ;)
Come on, play nice. :p

[AlBDamned]

If they ever make that I'll be the first person in line.

Why, do you not like your ears or something? ;)

[xenotaku]

I can't believe you are all willing to pay 1.30 to buy a song. Will DRM free albums still cost 9.99? Or is that price going to jump too?

[stadidas]

Why, do you not like your ears or something? ;)
Not especially. I have tinnitus and my custom made in-ear monitors cram the wax in. Fiber Channel HD audio in would be wonderful.

I can't believe you are all willing to pay 1.30 to buy a song. Will DRM free albums still cost 9.99? Or is that price going to jump too?
Albums are set to stay the same price, only individual song downloads cost more.

[xenotaku]

Albums are set to stay the same price, only individual song downloads cost more.


So an album with 15 tracks, DRM free will still cost 9.99? But in reality, based on each song, should be costing around 19? If thats true, that sounds pertty good. Still crap compared to eMusic, but in the right direction for sure.

[Warbrain]

So an album with 15 tracks, DRM free will still cost 9.99? But in reality, based on each song, should be costing around 19? If thats true, that sounds pertty good. Still crap compared to eMusic, but in the right direction for sure.

Yes, that's the case. 9.99 an album. I don't know what eMusic's plan is, but if I remember right isn't it a subscription service? I'm not paying for that.

[kresh]

The new unrestricted format appears to be open to any publisher who is interested.

Is Apple saying this is going to be a new music format other than MP3 for these DRM free tracks? OR It's a new format of iTunes store?

The reason I ask is because of the lawsuits that are going on with the MP3 licenses. I can see why Apple would want to get away from MP3's, but if it's a new format then it will mean DRM free music, but not interoperable if they only play on an iPod.

[LagunaSol]

Sounds to me you are just troubled with the knowledge of the bitrate and not the quality itself. Personally I do not care if the bitrate is 1kbps if it still sounds great. (I could fit plenty of songs on my iPod too.)

The problem is, plenty of people CAN perceive a lack of quality in 128 kbps music, myself included. I've shied away from buying from iTunes for this reason as well. Flat, tinny, muddy - however you want to describe it, with a good pair of headphones you likely won't be happy with 128 kbps.

256 kpbs, well that's a different story. 192 kbps is the point where I personally can't distinguish from lossless, so 256 kbps is great.

[CHSE]

I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.

[LagunaSol]

I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.

AAC isn't "Apple's format," and there are other devices that play AAC (like the Zune).

[bdj21ya]

I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.

I'm fairly certain that AAC is NOT an Apple format at all. Protected AAC with Fairplay is Apple only. AAC is just a compression algorithm/format which actually does a better job than mp3 at keeping the quality of the song.

Other devices can already play AAC, those that don't could easily build it into future versions.

[bdj21ya]

so this means we'll be able to download direct from iTunes on to our iPhones - no DRM hassle = download and transfer freedom

Because previously we wouldn't have been able to do this??? Or are you trying to make a comment about ringtones? (If so, this still doesn't answer the question of how much freedom the iPhone will allow on ringtone selection)

[Alloye]

I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.

AAC is not Apple's format. It is an MPEG standard. See Advanced Audio Coding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding) for more details.

[Diatribe]

I would only consider these higher priced songs if they were losslessly compressed (ALE) format.

Well, it depends on the source for the format conversion.
If they use a high bit, high kHz source and convert it to 256 AAC then this should sound better than a Lossless file ripped from a CD.

Now if only we knew what the source the labels use...

[RichardI]

All they need now is some decent music to sell.

[archer75]

now they just need to lower the prices to something more reasonable.

[Peace]

This is nothing new.Jobs already said all EMI and independent music would be DRM free starting in May.This is just Apple giving notice to the folks that upload the "EMI and Independent" music to make it DRM free..


I don't see a big story here.Am I missing something?

[shawnce]

Steve says he dose not want DRM free movies and tv shows just music.

That is NOT what Steve said. He said that movies have been distributed with various type of DRM since the get go, unlike music, and that it is unlikely that the MPAA members would want to break away from what they are used to having.

He never said he WANTs DRM for movie / TV shows.

[Krevnik]

This is nothing new.Jobs already said all EMI and independent music would be DRM free starting in May.This is just Apple giving notice to the folks that upload the "EMI and Independent" music to make it DRM free..


I don't see a big story here.Am I missing something?

The big story is that this was sent to /all/ labels that publish music onto the iTMS, that the option will become available to them.

[Peace]

The big story is that this was sent to /all/ labels that publish music onto the iTMS, that the option will become available to them.

If thats the case then it will fall on deaf ears because the "other labels" would be owned by Warner Bros. et.al. and can't make their music DRM free without said owners giving permission.And it's my understanding Apple is still negotiating with the other "big" labels.

[shawnce]

Well, it depends on the source for the format conversion.
If they use a high bit, high kHz source and convert it to 256 AAC then this should sound better than a Lossless file ripped from a CD. Correct.

Now if only we knew what the source the labels use... It has been stated that Apple encourages encoding from master digital recordings which are often these days done at 24/96 (24 bits per sample and 96,000 samples a second). Standard CDs are encoded at 16/44 (16 bits per sample and 44,100 samples a second).

24 bits = 16,777,216 levels per sample
16 bits = 65,536 levels per sample

Doing a perceptual based lossy encoding (e.g. ACC) from 24/96 will result in a better product then doing that same thing from 16/44. Also if the perceptual encoding is done at a high enough bit rate it can surpass the human perceived fidelity of a lossless encoding from 16/44.

I would argue that 256 kbps ACC is of sufficient bit rate to achieve CD or better then CD quality (perceptually) when being encoded from 24/96 (for many types of music).

[Krevnik]

If thats the case then it will fall on deaf ears because the "other labels" would be owned by Warner Bros. et.al. and can't make their music DRM free without said owners giving permission.And it's my understanding Apple is still negotiating with the other "big" labels.

I think this particular call is sent to everyone, but aimed at the smaller labels that /aren't/ under the thumb of the RIAA (Yes, they do exist).

[richard4339]

You sure most of the people here will know what vinyl is? :)

We old farts will remember the days when CDs first started coming out - they were all for sale in the 'long boxes' to prevent theft. When the long boxes were going away people would worry the artwork on CDs would be too small. Of course now we buy music with no artwork at all... Even the booklets in CDs have been replaced by band web sites and blogs.

I'm not that old, and I remember that...

[NOV]

I can't believe how demanding Apple users are. Some one rated this story negative. :rolleyes:

Maybe one of these guys:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs

[theBB]

Maybe one of these guys:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs
I cannot watch the whole movie from work (it is 20 minutes long), but the quality of this movie is amazing for youtube. Incredible, somebody must have put a lot of effort into it.

[Diatribe]

Correct.

It has been stated that Apple encourages encoding from master digital recordings which are often these days done at 24/96 (24 bits per sample and 96,000 samples a second). Standard CDs are encoded at 16/44 (16 bits per sample and 44,100 samples a second).

24 bits = 16,777,216 levels per sample
16 bits = 65,536 levels per sample

Doing a perceptual based lossy encoding (e.g. ACC) from 24/96 will result in a better product then doing that same thing from 16/44. Also if the perceptual encoding is done at a high enough bit rate it can surpass the human perceived fidelity of a lossless encoding from 16/44.

I would argue that 256 kbps ACC is of sufficient bit rate to achieve CD or better then CD quality (perceptually) when being encoded from 24/96 (for many types of music).

Well, encourages doesn't mean that they are actually doing it. But I'd love it if it were true.

Nice post btw. Pretty much sums it up and should shut up people wishing for Lossless (if they use the master that is).

[impierced]

I can't believe how demanding Apple users are. Some one rated this story negative. :rolleyes:

Why should someone have to pay more for DRM free music? :eek:

[xenotaku]

Yes, that's the case. 9.99 an album. I don't know what eMusic's plan is, but if I remember right isn't it a subscription service? I'm not paying for that.

Why not? You pay 9.99 for 90 songs a month, DRM free, high quality, and you own them forever. 100X better than iTunes.

[Project]

eMusic is NOT 9.99 per month for 90 tracks. Its for 30 tracks. And eMusic offers none of the music from the big 4. Might not be a problem for everyone, but to suggest it blows iTunes away is naive.

[natejohnstone@g]

This is all great and wonderful, and I'm happy to pay $.30 for higher quality music that's also non-drm.

...BUT...

All I really want is HD movies and TV shows!
Come on iTunes, please please!!

[Maccus Aurelius]

I rarely buy single tracks, so the fact that albums remain unchanged with the price is a big plus for me.

I can't imagine why anyone would want iTunes to sell lossless. Some songs can average around 30MB in size in this format. How much is one willing to pay for a 20-30MB large file? Is Apple going to simply hold onto these huge 700+MB large albums and sell them for just a smidge more than the regular compressed stuff? heh :rolleyes:

[stadidas]

Correct.

It has been stated that Apple encourages encoding from master digital recordings which are often these days done at 24/96 (24 bits per sample and 96,000 samples a second). Standard CDs are encoded at 16/44 (16 bits per sample and 44,100 samples a second).

24 bits = 16,777,216 levels per sample
16 bits = 65,536 levels per sample

Doing a perceptual based lossy encoding (e.g. ACC) from 24/96 will result in a better product then doing that same thing from 16/44. Also if the perceptual encoding is done at a high enough bit rate it can surpass the human perceived fidelity of a lossless encoding from 16/44.

I would argue that 256 kbps ACC is of sufficient bit rate to achieve CD or better then CD quality (perceptually) when being encoded from 24/96 (for many types of music).
Err... no.

Encoding from a 24-Bit 96KHz source to 256Kb/s AAC would introduce a level of quantization error and aliasing which would strip any benefit over a CD that has been professionally mastered down to 16-Bit with correct dithering and a decent sample clock. I agree, encoding from a 24/96 source to AAC would be better than ripping the AAC from a CD, but using AAC at 256Kb/s on the master wouldn't get as good a result as a CD made correctly.
Also the decoding algorithms built into the iPod don't even process 44.1KHz sampling correctly (it drops samples and introduces jitter). A Lossless 24/96 file wouldn't even decode on an iPod, and that requires less processing than a compressed file. The iPod wasn't built for HD audio.

Pretty much sums it up and should shut up people wishing for Lossless (if they use the master that is).
Audio obviously isn't your field.

I can't imagine why anyone would want iTunes to sell lossless.
Because some people want the same quality from iTunes as they get on a CD. I don't think that's too much to ask considering the broadband speeds available these days, it's not like it's impossible.

[Rantipole]

Even my 12 year old sister knows what vinyl is.. it's not going away that quick, mainly because so many adults still have a nice size collection that they listen to

78s were last produced in high quantity, what, 50, 60 years ago? Most people know what those are. And, in fact, they are a few still being used on occasion!

[wmmk]

Can we still get DRMed songs at low bitrates for $.99? I tend to buy cheap singles on iTunes, and then buy actual CDs if I like what I hear. I could really care less about iTunes bitrates, and being an iPod user, interoperability isn't exactly a big deal either.

[stadidas]

Can we still get DRMed songs at low bitrates for $.99?

Yes, those will still be available.

[Cult Follower]

I;m ready and waiting although i hope soon other music companies get on board.

[twoodcc]

seems like good news to me