Gizmodo offers some additional details behind today's announcement that EMI would be selling their music without Digital Rights Management.
A few of the more interesting tidbits from Jeanne Meyer, EMI's Senior VP of Corporate Communications:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Behind the Apple-EMI Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Gizmodo offers some additional details behind today's announcement that EMI would be selling their music without Digital Rights Management.
A few of the more interesting tidbits from Jeanne Meyer, EMI's Senior VP of Corporate Communications:
Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.
EMI is kind of making Apple look bad.
EMI is kind of making Apple look bad.
Wow...I would haev guessed it was Jobs righting for no more DRM, and EMI wanting the price increase. Either way Jobs did state he want no more DRM and now its happening.
If one music company can "get it" then there is hope that rest will also find a clue. This is just the catalyst we need to push the others over the edge.
Maybe the MPAA will figure this out eventually. (Yeah right.)
Maybe the MPAA will figure this out eventually. (Yeah right.)
Have they overtly stated yes or no on watermarking and to what depth of individuality?
Rocketman
P.S. Copy protection is a "new/failed thing".
Vinyl didn't have it, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD's didn't have it. Radio doesn't have it.
Rocketman
P.S. Copy protection is a "new/failed thing".
Vinyl didn't have it, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD's didn't have it. Radio doesn't have it.
Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.
EMI is kind of making Apple look bad.
Could also be Apple trying to throw an enticing bone to the other major labels, who are not as open-minded as EMI.
Putting DRM aside for a moment, I don't have a big problem with more $$$ for 2x bitrate.
If you don't want to pay the extra 30cents then don't. You can still buy the drm music and same price as yesterday.
Your given a choice.
Very interesting. I was assuming that Apple approached EMI about DRM removal, and EMI was the one to demand higher prices. ...Guess I was wrong.
EMI is kind of making Apple look bad.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/292677/
#278
I just want to know how anyone could possibly vote "negative" on this story on the front page. Are there RIAA lawyers logged into macrumors??? There's absolutely nothing about this that makes things worse for consumers - it's a win for everyone we care about - music lovers, music purchasers, Apple, ipod sales, iTMS sales.... christ, we should be rejoicing.
Interesting. Most of this was implied in the EMI press release linked to earlier: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm
Of particular note "EMI is introducing a new wholesale price for premium single track downloads, while maintaining the existing wholesale price for complete albums. EMI expects that consumers will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free downloads from a variety of digital music stores within the coming weeks, with each retailer choosing whether to sell downloads in AAC, WMA, MP3 or other unprotected formats of their choice. Music fans will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free digital music for personal use, and listen to it on a wide range of digital music players and music-enabled phones."
New wholesale price indicates that apple is probably paying more for these tracks. However, it might be five cents, and apple sees room for profit. We'll have a better idea when we see the competition's prices.
Yeah, looks like apple did a great job of manipulating the press into good publicity/exposure, when EMI was the one making the policy. Just look at the webpage of the press release if you want to see that apple is superior at marketing.
What shows me that it was EMI's initiative is that it didn't happen until EMI wanted it to, whereas if apple had initiated, it could have gotten the independent labels that already sell their music without DRM at places like emusic.com long ago.
Of particular note "EMI is introducing a new wholesale price for premium single track downloads, while maintaining the existing wholesale price for complete albums. EMI expects that consumers will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free downloads from a variety of digital music stores within the coming weeks, with each retailer choosing whether to sell downloads in AAC, WMA, MP3 or other unprotected formats of their choice. Music fans will be able to purchase higher quality DRM-free digital music for personal use, and listen to it on a wide range of digital music players and music-enabled phones."
New wholesale price indicates that apple is probably paying more for these tracks. However, it might be five cents, and apple sees room for profit. We'll have a better idea when we see the competition's prices.
Yeah, looks like apple did a great job of manipulating the press into good publicity/exposure, when EMI was the one making the policy. Just look at the webpage of the press release if you want to see that apple is superior at marketing.
What shows me that it was EMI's initiative is that it didn't happen until EMI wanted it to, whereas if apple had initiated, it could have gotten the independent labels that already sell their music without DRM at places like emusic.com long ago.
If you read the transcript of the questions on Thinksecret, the EMI person being interviewed said something to the effect that Jobs had always made his opinion on DRM known, implying that Jobs had always suggested DRM was bad. Sure EMI approached Apple this time, but Apple was just waiting because their stance was clear.
they are differentiating a superior product with a small price difference... they need to keep the DRM'd 99cent tracks around to not piss off the other labels. This is the label's decision to remove DRM and Apple wants to support it, but not overly pressure the other labels into it.
also, the storage cost of this music is 2x the original tracks...plus the time to re-encode.
how about buying the CD for even less money and having uncompressed audio to rip as u see fit totally unprotected. Whoohoo! Seriously raising the price is stupid and so is a 256 bitrate. I thought aac was supposedly perfect at 128 and thats what made the files smaller and better than mp3. If ther gonna sell it unprotected it should be uncompressed. What does apple lossless exist for if not that. then u could encode however u want...tho cds r still cheaper and easier
I guess we'll see if this is actually the truth or not once other music services begin offering "premium downloads" like iTunes is doing. If others begin to offer DRM-free tracks encoded at a very high bitrate for 99 cents, then we can point the finger at Apple for raising the prices. But not until then.
FWIW, EMI's chief exec said this at the press conference today... "Remember that we don't set the retail price. We set the wholesale prices. We're making available downloads in standard form and in premium form. Retailers can take them or not take them." "Our products and our prices are available to everybody."
IMO, I take that to mean that they are likely offering the "standard" tracks to retailers at one price point and the "premium" tracks at another (higher) price point, but time will tell for sure. If that's the case, and Apple is indeed paying EMI more for the premium tracks, you can hardly blame them for passing that additional cost on to the consumer.
FWIW, EMI's chief exec said this at the press conference today... "Remember that we don't set the retail price. We set the wholesale prices. We're making available downloads in standard form and in premium form. Retailers can take them or not take them." "Our products and our prices are available to everybody."
IMO, I take that to mean that they are likely offering the "standard" tracks to retailers at one price point and the "premium" tracks at another (higher) price point, but time will tell for sure. If that's the case, and Apple is indeed paying EMI more for the premium tracks, you can hardly blame them for passing that additional cost on to the consumer.
So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever.
MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go. Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM. If that is the case then a standard CD is "premium" music.
At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.
I just ripped a couple albums in 256kbps AAC. I am very impressed with the quality. Any sane person will never tell the difference between this and an uncompressed version.
While Apple is entirely entitled to provide higher-bitrate singles at a "premium" price, and I for one would buy them, it is insulting for them to say they can't remove DRM on the lower-bitrate songs as they don't want to force users to pay more. If DRM is there to protect against piracy, and the higher-bitrate songs are sold without it, then it makes absolutely no sense to force it on people happy with 128kbps singles, nor equate DRM-removal with extra cost. It should not be a "privilege" to be able to play it on other players or software. I doubt you can tell the difference in quality on an iPod, nor do most people have quality Hi-Fi equipment hooked up to their computer, so frankly 128kbps would suit most just fine who may not even know what "bitrate" means.
Also, it should be noted that it was said that the Albums would all be 256kbps with no DRM at no extra cost, so does that mean if you buy a DRM-protected single and take up the offer to complete an album, will you get a new copy of the single in high-bitrate non-DRM format? I would assume so, as anything less would be a ripoff and disincentive to buy singles, as opposed to providing incentives to "upgrade" to a full Album.
Also, it should be noted that it was said that the Albums would all be 256kbps with no DRM at no extra cost, so does that mean if you buy a DRM-protected single and take up the offer to complete an album, will you get a new copy of the single in high-bitrate non-DRM format? I would assume so, as anything less would be a ripoff and disincentive to buy singles, as opposed to providing incentives to "upgrade" to a full Album.
EMI would have NEVER done this had Steve Jobs not written that open letter.So regardless of who started it I'll happily pay $1.29 for a 256k DRM-free song.
As soon as Apple updates this in May I'm gonna pay the extra $.30 per song to update my large library too!!
This is a good start by two people who understand the music business.Let's hope it has a domino effect.
As soon as Apple updates this in May I'm gonna pay the extra $.30 per song to update my large library too!!
This is a good start by two people who understand the music business.Let's hope it has a domino effect.
i see nothing wrong with this decision,paying more for better quality, the only risk for Apple is however, that others may decide to undercut Apples pricing to try and gain market share.
However, I don't see that happening too quickly, also those companies will want to make money.
So screwing their customers over is an Apple decision. Not surprised. At all. In any way whatsoever.
MS and pretty much everyone else has been offering 256 since the get go. Personally I don't define premium as not having DRM. If that is the case then a standard CD is "premium" music.
At this point I want to see MS kick Apple's butt. Its obvious that Apple is pulling all the strings they want, with no consequences.
If MS makes their store compatible with iPods, maybe, I ain't gonna buy a Zune.... So it'll be iTunes for me for the foreseable future.
This is a joke of an explanation. Jobs is being a hypocrite here. WHy not offer 128bit AAC EMI music for 99 cents??? As far as I understand, the ITMS database holds all the music in unprotected format and adds the DRM as each individual downloads the music. That means that they wouldn't have to reencode everything to offer all EMI music without DRM.
Instead, not only do they screw with the simplicity of the ITMS by offering tracks in two different qualities for two different prices, something that they have repeatedly refused to do when labels have requested so (IE raise prices on new singles). TO me the only rationale for apple keeping the DRM'd tracks is to get more people to buy DRM'd, iPod only music. They have no other excuse.
The same goes for all the independent labels that sell music on ITMS. Almost every independent label licenses their music to be sold DRM free. Apple chooses to put DRM on it. Their is no cost to apple. Well, actually, it we are to believe Jobs' notorious letter, they would save money, bc there would be less music to worry about upkeeping DRM on (this was jobs' rationale for not licensing fairplay to other MP3 player companies or music stores).