Amazon Taking DRM-Free MP3s International in 2008

[MacRumors]

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

Amazon announced (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1100346&highlight=) today that they would be rolling out their Amazon MP3 store (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fbrowse.html%3Fnode%3D163856011&tag=linkcode-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 ) internationally in 2008. "We have received thousands of e-mails from Amazon customers around the world asking us when we will make Amazon MP3 available outside of the U.S. They can't wait to choose from the biggest selection of high-quality, low-priced DRM-free MP3 music downloads which play on virtually any music device they own today or will own in the future," said Bill Carr, Amazon.com Vice President of Digital Music. "We are excited to tell those customers today that Amazon MP3 is going international this year."
Amazon's MP3 store is presently the largest Digital Rights Management (DRM) Free selection of downloadable songs available for sale online. As of January, Amazon had managed to sign on all the major record labels to their service and will be launching (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/04/sony-bmg-to-offer-drm-free-music/) a billion song giveaway during the Superbowl (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/04/sony-bmg-to-offer-drm-free-music/).

MP3s downloaded from the Amazon store are compatible with Apple's iTunes software as well as their iPods and iPhones. Amazon offers a list of bestsellers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fb%3F%255Fencoding%3DUTF8%26node%3D324382011&tag=linkcode-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) including a number of freely downloadable MP3 tracks.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/27/amazon-taking-drm-free-mp3s-international-in-2008/)

[Eidorian]

Just more options for us consumers. :D

I need to get an iPod/Phone now...

[lozanoj83]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

that's good thing for the people overseas's

[sjbartnik]

The Amazon store is pretty good. The interface is obviously not nearly as good as iTunes but their little Downloader program that automatically puts the songs into iTunes works well.

I now do a little comparison shopping between the two stores. I prefer buying from iTunes but if the price is equal and the iTunes version has DRM while the Amazon doesn't, then Amazon gets the sale. Often though the Amazon price is below iTunes and often the iTunes option is not iTunes Plus, so it still has DRM and is only encoded at 128kpbs. In this case, Amazon is the obvious choice.

So Apple, it's about time to make the whole store DRM-free. I know that's not completely up to them. But in making the choice, DRM-free wins every time.

[superleccy]

Finally I get somewhere to buy songs from apart from iTunes! :) Hope the selection is good.

SL

[flopticalcube]

I thought the qtrax announcement (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=422517) was more interesting.

[skyrider007]

Great news!:)

[ltldrummerboy]

The only thing better about iTunes Store right now is the interface and usability. Apple makes it so darn easy to spend money. Good for consumers, though. Competition means better products/lower prices.

[Animaniac]

The AmazonMP3 store is many steps ahead of the iTunes store. MP3 is a more compatible and portable format than AAC, and Amazon encodes their MP3s using LAME in the -V0 setting, which is the "industry" standard. The term "industry" is being used loosely. Music pirates, who on a by-volume basis are essentially the industry, have long figured out that LAME -V0 is is the best format for storing and transfering music. Furthermore, listening tests have shown that LAME -V0 is indistinguishable from source material (which is also true for 256 kbps AAC but not 128 kbps AAC). Lastly, their entire catalog is offered without DRM, making music purchased from the Amazon store as "future-proof" as possible, i.e. portable, CD-transparent audio in the industry-standard format. On top of all that, they are often priced lower than iTunes.

Hands down, Amazon's offering provides the best possible consumer value. While Apple's leadership with the music labels created the environment in which a consumer-minded service like AmazonMP3 could be conceived, Apple's market dominance can only help them for so long against the retail juggernaut that is Amazon.

[Steel Wheels]

In my mind the AmazonMP3 store is many steps ahead of the iTunes store. MP3 is a more compatible and portable format than AAC. In addition, Amazon encodes their MP3s using LAME in the -V0 setting, which is the "industry" standard.


I haven't found any evidence of this in any of the mp3 files I have purchased from Amazon. As much as I'd like it to be true I haven't been able to determine what their files have been encoded with. Whatever they're using doesn't sound good to my ears.

I will agree that Lame is a top notch encoder. I can't tell the difference between a lame or itunes aac song at 256 kbps.

[solipsism]

Good for competition. But, to my ears, Amazon mp3's just don't sound as good as an iTunes AAC file.

Which one? iTunes AAC+ which is encoded at 256kbps or Protected AAC which is encoded at 128kbps? Despite AAC being a newer and better codec than MP3, the comparatively low bitrate of most iTunes songs to Amazon's MP3s makes iTunes a worse choice for sound quality.

However, all of this all depends on the source file being used to encode the audio. I assume that both Amazon and Apple are getting the same source files.

[Cassie]

I thought the qtrax announcement (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=422517) was more interesting.

Cool. March 18, I'll be all over that.

[Animaniac]

I haven't found any evidence of this in any of the mp3 files I have purchased from Amazon. As much as I'd like it to be true I haven't been able to determine what their files have been encoded with. Whatever they're using doesn't sound good to my ears.

I will agree that Lame is a top notch encoder. I can't tell the difference between a lame or itunes aac song at 256 kbps.

That's odd. Free tools such as Dnuos (used to be Oidua) and EncSpot identify Amazon MP3s as LAME 3.97 -V0.

[Blue Velvet]

Music pirates, who on a by-volume basis are essentially the industry, have long figured out that LAME -V0 is is the best format for storing and transfering music.

But not actually listening to it. ;)

[twoodcc]

more competition for apple i guess. they need to start stepping it up it seems

[Doctor Q]

I've already spotted Pepsi packs in the supermarket that have codes inside to be redeemed for Amazon.com music when pepsistuff.com goes live on February 1.

[bigandy]

Well that interests me as much as roadkill. :o

[greendragon]

boycott amazon!! :apple: don't let us down, please...

[Steel Wheels]

Which one? iTunes AAC+ which is encoded at 256kbps or Protected AAC which is encoded at 128kbps? Despite AAC being a newer and better codec than MP3, the comparatively low bitrate of most iTunes songs to Amazon's MP3s makes iTunes a worse choice for sound quality.

I should have made that more clear. I meant amazon mp3's compared to itunes plus songs.

I agree. Amazon mp3's make a better choice than a protected song from itunes. Itunes songs encoded at 128 kbps, to me, have some noticeable artifacts.

[peestandingup]

I haven't found any evidence of this in any of the mp3 files I have purchased from Amazon. As much as I'd like it to be true I haven't been able to determine what their files have been encoded with. Whatever they're using doesn't sound good to my ears.

I will agree that Lame is a top notch encoder. I can't tell the difference between a lame or itunes aac song at 256 kbps.This is the free song that you get when you sign up at Amazon.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/peestandingup/amazon.jpg

There isnt a huge difference between Amazon's LAME & iTunes' AAC at the same kbps, but iTunes at first charged more for their higher bit rate songs, doesnt have its entire library available DRM free, etc. Whereas Amazon does & MP3 is more of a standard.

[SheriffParker]

Good news for people who love buying MP3s outside of the US.

[r88my]

15 positives, 6 negatives. Why? This is a good announcement for everyone outside the US.

[megfilmworks]

The lowest rate I buy (or encode) is 256. I will stick with Apples's 256 non-DRM or buy the CD. Hopefully Amazon will realize that sound quality is more important than non-DRM. Both would be great!

[clevin]

15 positives, 6 negatives. Why? This is a good announcement for everyone outside the US.

positive/negative is a vague judgment, some apple stock holders/fanboys probably are thinking in terms of apple's profit rather than benefits for end users.

The lowest rate I buy (or encode) is 256. I will stick with Apples's 256 non-DRM or buy the CD. Hopefully Amazon will realize that sound quality is more important than non-DRM. Both would be great!
well, so I think you would be happy with amazon after all!
All songs I bought from amazon is 320kbps MP3s.
Hopefully amazon will realize....??? Time to update your information :)

[Steel Wheels]

This is the free song that you get when you sign up at Amazon.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/peestandingup/amazon.jpg

There isnt a huge difference between Amazon's LAME & iTunes' AAC at the same kbps, but iTunes at first charged more for their higher bit rate songs, doesnt have its entire library available DRM free, etc. Whereas Amazon does & MP3 is more of a standard.

I guess their library must be inconsistent as far as encoding methods. None of the songs I have purchased reflect this information in iTunes.

[grappler]

Too bad Apple got left out of this. I like 'em, but I just will not buy DRM'd music. Amazon is where I go for songs now; their selection is far better than iTunes Plus.

[Abstract]

Option? This isn't just another option. 256 kbps songs from all 4 major labels at a price of $0.99.

Goodbye iTMS. There's no way I'd buy their 128 kbps AAC files for the same price.

[yg17]

boycott amazon!! :apple: don't let us down, please...

Why should I boycott Amazon when they offer a superior product for the same, if not less, money?

Damn fanboys :rolleyes:

[clevin]

Option? This isn't just another option. 256 kbps songs from all 4 major labels at a price of $0.99.

Goodbye iTMS. There's no way I'd buy their 128 kbps AAC files for the same price.

actually, its 320kbps mp3. and mostly $0.89.

[DTphonehome]

Maybe this will push Apple to finally make their whole catalog 256k and DRM-free. The rest of the industry is passing you by, Steve.

[chicagostars]

Well that interests me as much as roadkill. :o

And the vast majority of the buying public likely agrees with you in regards to the tracks being DRM free. No matter how many people scream and moan on message boards, the majority of the general population doesn't appear hugely concerned about DRM or even mp3 v. AAC. (folks, just think about it a moment before shooting off narrow hypothetical cases) I say this as someone who wants high quality and usage flexibility, but many people simply don't understand/care about the ramifications of DRM. And quality? A great many songs on P2P networks are of horrible quality, but still make the rounds. Sure there are many high quality encodings out there, but low quality files are still being downloaded. Sad for the ears of the user, I know. Now the availability of Amazon's library worldwide? That's a bit bigger. [/MY OWN CRYING, RANTING, AND MOANING. SIGH.]

[Blue Velvet]

Maybe this will push Apple to finally make their whole catalog 256k and DRM-free.


Maybe it's not up to Apple. It seems obvious that the majors are seeking freedom from Steve Job's preconditions on music sales, flat rates etc. So, why not use Amazon as leverage?

Amazon may have flat rates right now, but what if Jeff Bezos negotiates lossless distribution with a choice of other compressed bitrates, and allows some form of variable pricing.

With the recent news that iPod sales seem to be levelling off somewhat, its ubiquity may not prove the bargaining chip it was two years ago.

[clevin]

Maybe it's not up to Apple.
Its hard to believe, since SJ was previously described as almighty on this very issue of DRM-free music. and there is a lot of evidence that its apple who want a rigid flat rate on the content. Not majors.

[DTphonehome]

Maybe it's not up to Apple. It seems obvious that the majors are seeking freedom from Steve Job's preconditions on music sales, flat rates etc. So, why not use Amazon as leverage?

Amazon may have flat rates right now, but what if Jeff Bezos negotiates lossless distribution with a choice of other compressed bitrates, and allows some form of variable pricing.

With the recent news that iPod sales seem to be levelling off somewhat, its ubiquity may not prove the bargaining chip it was two years ago.

I agree with you completely. In fact, I bet the record companies are "punishing" Apple by not offering the same terms.

[deggs37]

Anything with DRM should be boycotted IMO. iTunes and Xbox Live quickly come to mind.

[hagjohn]

I hate DRM... so anything that is DRM free has my support.

[Stella]

boycott amazon!! :apple: don't let us down, please...

Why boycott?

---


This is great news and can only bring more options for the consumer. This will drive innovation. Competition is a good thing.

It is generally not a good thing for one company to dominate a particular market.

[Blue Velvet]

Its hard to believe, since SJ was previously described as almighty on this very issue of DRM-free music. and there is a lot of evidence that its apple who want a rigid flat rate on the content. Not majors.

You misunderstand me. Amazon currently have flat pricing; they want to develop their own market. And when it has reached a certain critical mass, why shouldn't Amazon and turn round and give the labels what they want — variable pricing — with the proviso of offering a range of bitrates or even file formats? Win-win for both of them, Apple isn't part of that picture.

[clevin]

You misunderstand me. Amazon currently have flat pricing; they want to develop their own market. And when it has reached a certain critical mass, why shouldn't Amazon and turn round and give the labels what they want — variable pricing — with the proviso of offering a range of bitrates or even file formats? Win-win for both of them, Apple isn't part of that picture.

?? I think there is something not quite right, I bought quite a few mp3s from amazon, their price isn't flat AFAIK?

[deathshrub]

15 positives, 6 negatives. Why? This is a good announcement for everyone outside the US.

Because this is macrumors.com, not randominformation.com

[greendragon]

Why should I boycott Amazon when they offer a superior product for the same, if not less, money?

Damn fanboys :rolleyes:

Why boycott?

---


This is great news and can only bring more options for the consumer. This will drive innovation. Competition is a good thing.

It is generally not a good thing for one company to dominate a particular market.


:apple: started this drm free movement... why should amazon benefit? i for one will not sell out itms or apple, you shoulden't either!!

[yg17]

:apple: started this drm free movement... why should amazon benefit? i for one will not sell out itms or apple, you shoulden't either!!

Amazon should benefit because they've done a better job of it. They have a wider selection, the prices are cheaper, and they're using the more universal format. Besides, I'd hardly call what Apple's done a movement. Their DRM-free selection is pitiful. Besides, you sure don't seem to have a problem buying Apple computers when other companies started the PC movement.

Amazon won, Apple lost. Deal with it.

[peestandingup]

Why should I boycott Amazon when they offer a superior product for the same, if not less, money?

Damn fanboys :rolleyes:Agreed. You'd have to be the biggest fanboy on the planet to do that.

I for one am completely threw with anything DRM. I moved from an iPod to a Zune recently (personal choice. I think the iPod is better overall) & I knew the day would come that I'd have to re-rip all my iTunes purchases to get the DRM off them. Luckily I didnt purchase that many songs from the ITMS.

Regardless, Im done with the iTunes/iPod "lock in". I want my media to be interchangeable regardless of what device or OS I choose. If they want any more of my money, they better get it together & realize people want media freedom.

[greendragon]

Amazon should benefit because they've done a better job of it. They have a wider selection, the prices are cheaper, and they're using the more universal format. Besides, I'd hardly call what Apple's done a movement. Their DRM-free selection is pitiful. Besides, you sure don't seem to have a problem buying Apple computers when other companies started the PC movement.

Amazon won, Apple lost. Deal with it.

Agreed. You'd have to be the biggest fanboy on the planet to do that.

I for one am completely threw with anything DRM. I moved from an iPod to a Zune recently (personal choice. I think the iPod is better overall) & I knew the day would come that I'd have to re-rip all my iTunes purchases to get the DRM off them. Luckily I didnt purchase that many songs from the ITMS.

Regardless, Im done with the iTunes/iPod "lock in". I want my media to be interchangeable regardless of what device or OS I choose. If they want any more of my money, they better get it together.

i buy :apple:, and i will support them. if that makes me a fanboy, then hell yes!!

[clevin]

:apple: started this drm free movement... why should amazon benefit? i for one will not sell out itms or apple, you shoulden't either!!

Intel started intel chips, why should apple benefit?
Its not like apple invented everything, follow your logic, why do you want to buy anything from apple?
Why should any scientist get awarded since all (mostly) they do is based on previous achievement of others?
i buy , and i will support them. if that makes me a fanboy, then hell yes!!
lol, its ok to be a fanboy. but don't come up with fake reasoning. Somebody would call it trolling.

[uv23]

I can't stand the iTunes music store. It's slow as hell, the DRM-free selection is poor, and the search is abysmal. I will very very gladly use AMazon when it comes to Canada. Currently, I buy most of my music through bleep (http://bleep.com).

[peestandingup]

:apple: started this drm free movement... why should amazon benefit? i for one will not sell out itms or apple, you shoulden't either!!Someone done lied to you. Maybe it was SJ with that open letter he wrote?

Whatever the case, I can assure you that Apple solely wasn't responsible for the studios moving to DRM-free, its just where the industry was naturally going. Stevie knew it & jumped on it with that letter of his so people would think "Yeah! SJ is our savior!"

C' mon, think about it. If Apple was solely responsible for it, don't you think iTunes would have all their music DRM-free by now & instead of places like Amazon, who've had it for months now???

[John.B]

Still, searching for music on Amazon is teh sucks.

[Stella]

:apple: started this drm free movement... why should amazon benefit? i for one will not sell out itms or apple, you shoulden't either!!

Absurd argument.

You could equally say:
"Apple didn't invent the digital music player - so why should they benefit".
"Apple didn't invent or create the cell phone market... blah blah blah".

I'm glad of the competition and will be definitely buying from Amazon when they bring it to Canada.

[pmoeser]

Good for consumers, though. Competition means better products/lower prices.

I don't think so.

The only reason Apple had Fair Play originally was to prove to the record companies that music couldn't be pirated.
The record companies didn't think Apple could pull it off.
When they did, they realised they wanted to make more money out of Apple by raising prices.
When Apple said "No" they have worked very hard behind the scenes to find a way to "increase competition" by finding a partner who will let them have their way of increasing prices for new release songs.
If the record companies were serious about competition they would immediately let Apple have access to the DRM free songs and let Apple, Amazon and others slug it out. Real competition.
Their current method just serves to make Apple look like they are hanging on to Fair Play to try and monopolise iPod/iTunes to make more money Certainly there is also a reasonable amount of truth in this, but Steve Jobs is on the public record saying he will drop DRM in a heartbeat.
While any of these large players (Apple Amazon Record companies) continue to only restrict their on-line products (movies, TV shows, rentals, DRM free music) to the US only, file sharing will continue unabated and even grow unless the equal playing field is established.
My 2 cents from an Australian perspective (rounded up to 5c as we don't have 1 and 2 cent coins anymore)
We want the iPhone!!!!

[gerardrj]

To all the responses along the lines of "good, it's more competition and will bring down prices"

Music is not a free commodity, Apple can't just sell music as they want to, the rights must be negotiated with each label in each country. If it were up to Apple they would most certainly sell all DRM free tracks, but the music industry won't allow that.

I don't understand how exactly Amazon is going to go world-wide with their store when Apple has had to negotiate with the rights-holders in each country to open a store there. If Amazon has found some technical loophole in international law or the music industry's licensing schemes then I'm sure Apple will jump on board with the world-wide distribution thing quite quickly under the same auspices.

[stcanard]

Its very simple: the first company that is able to sell me DRM free music is going to get my business.

I notice Puretracks has finally started selling to Apple users, so they are at the top of the list, but I think their selection is somewhat limited.

Amazon is currently looking like a close second.

Apple? Well I'm still waiting for even an indication they are even interested in expanding that market.

[jfanning]

15 positives, 6 negatives. Why? This is a good announcement for everyone outside the US.

Well that really depends on what they define as "international"

[illitrate23]

"We have received thousands of e-mails from Amazon customers around the world"
i wonder how many customers Amazon have in total around the world
it seems to me that 'thousands' would be a tiny percentage of all their worldwide customers

[Loge]

I don't understand how exactly Amazon is going to go world-wide with their store when Apple has had to negotiate with the rights-holders in each country to open a store there. If Amazon has found some technical loophole in international law or the music industry's licensing schemes then I'm sure Apple will jump on board with the world-wide distribution thing quite quickly under the same auspices.

They did not say they were going to set up a single world wide store, just that they were "going international". Expect it to be on a country by country basis, just like iTunes have been doing for years.

[Digital Skunk]

I haven't found any evidence of this in any of the mp3 files I have purchased from Amazon. As much as I'd like it to be true I haven't been able to determine what their files have been encoded with. Whatever they're using doesn't sound good to my ears.

I will agree that Lame is a top notch encoder. I can't tell the difference between a lame or itunes aac song at 256 kbps.

I agree. I am no audiophile but I do know that the sound quality in most digital formats isn't as good as the RAW stuff. I won't touch an audio track that is to be used in my projects unless it's AIFF. If it's multitrack then I better have each track as a separate file.

MP3s and AACs are pretty much all the same to my ears, a bit muddy. I do like that Amazon's store is taking off because it will force Apple to make some changes in their offerings to keep people using the store. Hopefully, Apple will just make a deal with the music industry to strip the files of their DRM.

I will still be purchasing my most loved music as CDs however....

[kkat69]

ROFL my wife asked me "So what does this all actually mean"

To which I replied, "Means more people will be hitting torrent sites now"

She didn't understand so I gave this example:

"Hey man you got that album?"
"Yah, got it off Amazon"
"Cool can I get a copy?"
"Sure"
--one less customer
Now don't get me wrong, I am not against DRM nor for it, but this is what they have to deal with.

Also, what this does is in fact Amazon does loose say a few sales (by few I'm talking probably in the thousands) but they do in fact gain a customer because that one person who "copied" songs from a friend or co-worker just might visit Amazon to buy more songs, so in the end they do win out.

I'm neither for nor against either iTunes or Amazon. I just look at a more realistic side of both. They are both good and both bad in their own respective ways. I will (depending on the selection) patron both sites, since as some of the posters have mentioned, I have a choice.

I'm not going to get caught up in a DRM debate since there is NO debate. DRM is there for a reason. Again not for or against it. DRM is like a software serial number. We apparently have NO TROUBLE typing in a serial number for software but soon as someone says music everyone is like "DRM FREE, FREE MUSIC MAN!" when in fact they are one and the same. DRM is NO different than a serial number for a software. We are under the false assumption that music should be DRM free since we hear it in so many medium throughout our daily lives. I mean, we don't hear MS Office 2008 playing on the radio. Hence we never associate the 2.

Personally I like the choice but if your gonna pay for software, then we should pay for music. Both were developed and work was put in by individuals to bring us both software and music. As far as DRM and DRM-free, well, IMO we might as well have serial number free software as well.

Again, not for or against, just providing a different light on the subject.

[clevin]

ROFL my wife asked me "So what does this all actually mean"

To which I replied, "Means more people will be hitting torrent sites now"


Again, not for or against, just providing a different light on the subject.

lol, hardly a different light, bt population and music purchasing population don't overlap that much from the begining.

more like you want to find a way to make the news negative.:p

[sellitman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I boycott Amazon because they are a major contributor to the Repiggies. Apple is a "Blue Company"

[lazyrighteye]

This can only be good news for the consumer.

[weckart]

actually, its 320kbps mp3. and mostly $0.89.

The album I got before Amazon broke the site for non-US consumers was encoded at a VBR between 205 and 281kbps.YMMV.

:apple: started this drm free movement... why should amazon benefit? i for one will not sell out itms or apple, you shoulden't either!!

EMI of the major labels started this DRM free movement. Apple only joined in because the EU and Norway was onto it for monopolising the DRM market with Fairplay and it saw this as a quick escape route. As a fanboy, you should have remembered reading about that here.

[Stella]

The music files are water marked so you still have to be careful. If you pass your purchased music to other people and it gets onto a torrent site then that mp3 can be traced back to YOU.


ROFL my wife asked me "So what does this all actually mean"

To which I replied, "Means more people will be hitting torrent sites now"

She didn't understand so I gave this example:

"Hey man you got that album?"
"Yah, got it off Amazon"
"Cool can I get a copy?"
"Sure"
--one less customer
Now don't get me wrong, I am not against DRM nor for it, but this is what they have to deal with.

Also, what this does is in fact Amazon does loose say a few sales (by few I'm talking probably in the thousands) but they do in fact gain a customer because that one person who "copied" songs from a friend or co-worker just might visit Amazon to buy more songs, so in the end they do win out.

</snip>

[Rantipole]

I'm not going to get caught up in a DRM debate since there is NO debate. DRM is there for a reason. Again not for or against it. DRM is like a software serial number. We apparently have NO TROUBLE typing in a serial number for software but soon as someone says music everyone is like "DRM FREE, FREE MUSIC MAN!" when in fact they are one and the same. DRM is NO different than a serial number for a software. We are under the false assumption that music should be DRM free since we hear it in so many medium throughout our daily lives. I mean, we don't hear MS Office 2008 playing on the radio. Hence we never associate the 2.
Not a good analogy.

The main protest against DRM music is its potential lack of interoperability. You can't download an ITMS DRM song and play it anywhere. If you buy a Zune, you're out of luck (for several reasons ;) ).

Your software example, however, is interoperable. Well, at least you know ahead of time whether you want PC or Mac. But, you can move that software to any other computer with the same OS. You may have to uninstall from one computer before loading on the other, but the point is you can move it. You cannot do that with DRM music.

[CWallace]

Another option is good. I prefer MP3 because it is easier to move it amongst my various devices now and will likely remain so in the future.

I agree with Blue Velvet that it is unlikely Apple is intentionally dragging their feet to support DRM-free music. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company and while I am sure they privately welcome Amazon's service (because it helps sell more iPods), they would very much like to move to DRM-free music on the iTunes Music Store because it supports the same result.

The music labels are using these new services to get Apple to accept practices that will make some music - especially "popular" music - more expensive. Apple doesn't like this because it means people are spending money on music and not iPods. However, Apple will accept these practices because it is in their long-term best interests to do so and they know it. The record labels know this, as well, but want to put some pressure on Apple in the interim just to try and "level the playing field" a bit more between them and Apple.

[Rantipole]

Another option is good. I prefer MP3 because it is easier to move it amongst my various devices now and will likely remain so in the future.
What device do you have that doesn't support AAC? Even the Zune supports AAC. My Blackberry supports AAC, and I know the Sony phones do, as well.

I don't know if I can agree with the arguments claiming 256 LAME encoded MP3 have the same sound profile as 256 AAC. Does anyone claiming that have a link to a study showing the results?

[Loge]

The music files are water marked so you still have to be careful. If you pass your purchased music to other people and it gets onto a torrent site then that mp3 can be traced back to YOU.

Not proven. My understanding is that the watermarks, which may apply to some tracks, only identify the retailer and do not contain personal information. So it cannot be tracked back to the individual who purchased it.

If you have information to the contrary please post a link, since it would be interesting to know.

[happydude]

dude, apple, get the memo or be prepared to have iTMS obsolete . . .

[happydude]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I boycott Amazon because they are a major contributor to the Repiggies. Apple is a "Blue Company"

huh, good info. i'm on board with you. just wish apple would see the writing on the wall and let go of DRM . . .

[stcanard]

The music labels are using these new services to get Apple to accept practices that will make some music - especially "popular" music - more expensive. Apple doesn't like this because it means people are spending money on music and not iPods. However, Apple will accept these practices because it is in their long-term best interests to do so and they know it. The record labels know this, as well, but want to put some pressure on Apple in the interim just to try and "level the playing field" a bit more between them and Apple.

It is exactly situations like this that are leaving my blood boiling. I have steadfastly avoided violating the copyright on published works, as I do believe in fair compensation. I am growing increasingly incensed at:

1) A large amount of taxation and levies that I am paying to support an activity I do not engage in (apparently in Canada copyright violation is not even "guilty until proven innocent" -- even if I did prove my innocence there is no mechanism to get the money refunded to me)

2) A refusal by the companies to proved music and video in a format that is convenient to the customer

3) Attempts to strongarm governments to strip away their citizens rights, while providing inaccurate statistics to justify it (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080122-oops-mpaa-admits-college-piracy-numbers-grossly-inflated.html)

I am very close to a breaking point now brought on especially by the high definition fiasco (not only do I have to gamble on a disc format, they won't even let me buy hi-def movies online if I want to try that way).

I have now decided: If the industry is unwilling to provide a reasonably future proof way for me to view their content I will find my own way to see it.

My money is there for the taking ... apparently they don't want it. When they do I will be willing to give it to them in return for fair use of the copyrighted content.

[jpferreira]

i guess the botton line is: buy from amazon (and similar sites) and help the record companies screw us in the future. ;)

[Syrus28]

I think Amazon is in a good position to really capitalize on this. I mean, its an existing service so millions of people already have an account with a credit card attached to it already. All it takes is a click over to the MP3 tab and they have a music service to compete with Itunes. No installing any software, no constant updates...

I also like that if Amazon is missing a particular cover art, you can add it yourself so other people don't have to go searching for it. So they end up having a bigger selection of album art. Of course, this probably isn't as important to some as it is to me. Nothing worse than rotating the ole' Touch to see empty album art... :D