Sony BMG to Offer DRM-Free Music

[Pandaboots]

I don't want Apple to become a giant monopoly abusing it's power like MS and I'm not sure why anyone would want that. There are lots of companies that have to tolerate M$ because M$ is so powerful just like there are lots of companies that have to tolerate Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is so powerful. Before MS got busted for anti-trust violations do you really think companies like Dell or HP liked MS telling them how to run aspects of their business? Do you really think the movie studios like having companies like Wal-Mart dictating how the movie studios can distribute their products?

Competition keeps the market moving forward which is a good thing.


Lethal

Let me clarify my position on this iTunes/Amazon thing. I'm all for competition. But competition in retail usually means that each store sells the same crap and the consumer chooses which experience he/she wants. Do you want to go to Wal*mart or Target to buy your stuff? I really don't want to have to shop at Walmart to get sony music and target to get another labels music...see what i mean? What gets my feathers ruffled is that it seems the record companies and movie companies, etc. are giving Amazon most of the DRM free stuff, which IMO will make Amazon even more of a Monopoly than Apple could ever dream of being. iTunes and Amazon need to have the same songs for sale and if Amazon sells em cheaper hooray for them. Being a stock owner of Apple I'd still use iTunes Store and I also like the integration with the iTunes software. Also, my experience with buying from Apple has been positive so I'm a happy customer. I don't want to be forced to choose Amazon for higher quality music and videos because some dumbass execs decided not to allow then to be for sale through iTunes. Every company has it's time in the sun to dominate a market. Someday, what Apple is doing with iPods and music will be overthrown by some other company with something better and hotter. But to not allow fair competition with a company that started it all is ludicrous. Bottom line is this. The music cos and movie cos need to just DRM free everything and allow the consumer to choose the device they want and the retailer they want to buy it from (like it's always been in every other media format in history). There will always be the one company whose name is synonymous with something (Walmart for retail, Xerox, FedEx ,etc) Apple's just happens to be the iPod and iTunes...everyone should look to the future and try to think up the next thing rather than try to play catch up with Apple and punish Apple for their ingenuity and foresight. That is all.

 

[err404]

For the same reason they did business w/IBM, MS, and intel even though all three of those companies were "hated enemies" of Apple at various points in time. Things change due to unforeseeable events.

Why do you think everything will go to hell in a hand-basket if Apple isn't the only company serving up songs on-line?


Lethal

That's Dramatic.
Competition is a good thing. Unfortunately that's not what is going on here. The labels are providing a competitive advantage to resellers as compensation for accepting variable pricing as set by the labels, not the reseller.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think the labels are justified in their tactics. At the end of the day I could care less if iTMS exists since i don't use it. I'm just pointing out the motivation of the labels.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Let me clarify my position on this iTunes/Amazon thing. I'm all for competition. But competition in retail usually means that each store sells the same crap and the consumer chooses which experience he/she wants. Do you want to go to Wal*mart or Target to buy your stuff? I really don't want to have to shop at Walmart to get sony music and target to get another labels music...see what i mean?
.
.
.
That is all.

I agree that things are in a bit of a mess right now, but that's to be expected considering we are in the infancy of a major shift in the entertainment industry. IMO, on line music sales is not as big a clusterf*ck as the current HD-DVD/Blu-ray mess.

That's Dramatic.

Hey, what's Friday w/o a little internet drama?


Lethal

 

[VanNess]

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.

Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007

[W]e’re not going to broadly license our content for unprotected digital distribution.

A senior executive at one major label, who requested anonymity to avoid straining relations with Apple, quoted in the New York Times
February 7, 2007

rresponsible, or at the very least naïve

Zune Marketing Director Jason Reindorp, responding to Steve Jobs call for abandoning DRM
February 7, 2007

Let me be clear: we advocate the continued use of DRM in the protection of our and of our artists’ intellectual property...We will not abandon DRM, nor will we disadvantage services that are successfully implementing DRM for both content and consumers.

Warner Music Group chief Edgar Bronfman Jr., responding to Steve Jobs call for abandoning DRM.
February 9th, 2007

We don't think that a wholesale abandonment of DRM is necessary

Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the RIAA.
February 9, 2007

EMI Music’s entire digital catalog of music will be available for purchase DRM-free (without digital rights management) from the iTunes® Store worldwide in May.

Apple Press Release
April 2, 2007

Universal Music Group is committed to exploring new ways to expand the availability of our artists’ music online, while offering consumers the most choice in how and where they purchase and enjoy our music

Doug Morris, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of UMG announcing DRM-free downloads
August 10, 2007

By removing a barrier to the sale and enjoyment of audio downloads, we bring an energy-sapping debate to a close and allow ourselves to refocus on opportunities and products that will benefit not only WMG, but our artists and our consumers as well

Warner Music Group chief Edgar Bronfman Jr announcing DRM-free downloads
December 31, 2007

A lot of these tests have led people to believe that maybe this works

Unidentified Sony BMG executive quoted in Businessweek as Sony announces DRM-free downloads
January 4, 2008

 

[em500]

That is a fascinating study of subjective listening preferences among the various codecs and "lossless" sources. I appreciate the fact that you actually provided references for your argument.

Still, the argument presents subjective tests, whereas my study provides an objective test of the actual waveforms produced by the AAC, MP3, and WMA codecs when compared with the "lossless" source signal regardless of bitrate.

The oscilloscope analysis doesn't lie.

Spectrograms are not very useful to compare perceptual codecs, it akin to comparing JPEG compression by superimposing the picture bits on a waveform and trying to listen to the difference. Seriously, if you compare the spectrum of a properly compressed low-pass filtered file to the original, you'll see a lot of differences. If you look at the non filtered compressed file, it looks much closer to the original, but it will sound much worse, as it wastes lots of bits encoding parts that 99.9% of people can't hear, making parts that people do hear less accurate. But the inaccuracies of the second file on the spectrum are completely overwhelmed by the high-frequency differences which are much more visible.

How individuals perceive the codec output is most important I admit, but again this is quite subjective in nature and results can be colored by a myriad of factors such as the playback device, the reproduction devices (amplifier, receiver, speakers, room acoustics, mood), etc.

That's why tests whether a codec sounds better are only valid with very controlled settings or a large number of participants. And why the answer in general is only givin in statistical form (i.e., with an indication of the sampling error). But luckily individuals can also easily perform the test for themselves, to determine what works best for them.

In my case, I listened to tracks from several identical albums on Amazon (MP3) and iTunes (AAC). The sources were of various dynamic quality ranging from rock, classical, jazz and vocal. I used 2 different headphone models: a Sennheiser HD 600 and a Sony MDR-V900. In each case I determined that the iTunes AAC track sounded significantly better than the corresponding MP3 track.

This wasn't a formal study so I don't have a white paper to reference. Nonetheless my opinion remains firm: based on the objective test (oscilloscope) and my own subjective test using high-end headphones, iTunes AAC beats Amazon MP3 easily.

Again, forget the spectrum analysis. Any codec developer will tell you that they're almost worthless for perceptual codec evaluation.

If you've done a good sampling of iTunes vs Amazon tracks and you prefer the former, that's all you need. Be careful to control for (subconcious) biases though, and be sure to level the track volumes. And do recognize that that's not comparing AAC vs MP3 per se. To do a controlled experiment, it's best to rip and ABX your own CDs. I don't know of good Mac tools, but for Windows you can use this:
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
Very few people who've done this can distinguish Lame MP3 at around 192kbps VBR from the original CD. But it varies from person to person, and also depends on the tracks. A nice plus of doing an ABX yourself is that you can determine for yourself personally at which bitrate which codec is good enough, without biases or prejudices (either concious or subconcious).

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Another Macworld Prediction...

Apple announces more DRM-Free songs to iTunes store, and actually will team up with Sony BMG, and Warner....

The reason is that while the record company announced DRM free songs for Amazon, they might have decided to wait the announcement for iTunes store until Macworld Expo.....

 

[sundoggy]

Most people don't care, and that's why iTunes continues to reign

Most people (like the 99% of iTunes customers that don't read this blog, or any other technology site) don't care about DRM one way or another as long as they can get their music onto their iPod and burn a CD.

What most people care about is a good selection (which iTunes has, though most of it may be DRM'd) and ease of use (where iTunes clearly still leads, though others are catching up).

However, even though many of the iTunes competitors may offer more non-DRM music or something close to iTunes simplicity and ease-of-use, they still don't offer something that the compeitors will never have--the built-in tie in to the iPod via the iTunes application.

So though in principle we can argue to death the issues of whether DRM is good or bad, for most people it just doesn't matter. Apple continues to win just because they've got the built in audience, because they still offer the best selection of music players (and whether any single device is the best is really up to the individual user preferences).

It will be a long time before anyone offers a serious threat to iTunes dominance. It took a long time before Sony lost its leadership with the original Walkman, and I'm sure we'll see the same thing happen with the iPod. And when it does happen, Apple will be focusing elsewhere (as they have already started the transition to video capable iPods and the iPhone).

 

[hagjohn]

I have.. Amazon is using 320kbps and it was a dime cheaper with no DRM.. can't lose, IMO.

Have you even tried Amazon MP3?

They've got just about everything working in their favor.

1. Better quality throughout their entire selection. Sure, Apple has iTunes Plus, but ALL of Amazons catalog is in the ~256 kbps range.
2. Better pricing on popular songs and albums. Period.
3. And for Mac users, the Amazon MP3 downloader couldn't be much better than it is right now. It integrates the songs you buy with iTunes perfectly. What more do you want?

 

[hagjohn]

That would be the last day I buy any music.

Yet if the RIAA is successful in legislating/adjudicating making a digital copy of your CD to play on your computer or PMP illegal, the next step would be to make it illegal to copy a purchased and downloaded song on your computer to your PMP or a purchased and downloaded song on your PMP (via the iTunes Store button on the iPod/iPhone) to your computer.

The goal is to make you pay every time you listen to a song, no matter where, when, or on what device. Perpetual revenue.

 

[xnu]

Its about the hardware. Sure DRM free music is great for us but in the long run it defeats what the Music industry is trying to do, they are short sighted. I think it just devalues the music and says its OK to steal in most peoples eyes. I think Apple's solution has a great balance and I easily purchase all my music through iTunes. In the end the iPod will rule because the market has changed, it is no longer just music which is desired it is also video and Hollywood is not going to release DRM free movies anytime soon.

People will still buy iPods because they will have the multimedia ability, and iTunes is still the greatest delivery and organizing system. There is a lot of news about nothing here but the music industry getting in the way of itself. Good for Amazon, Apple has sold what 3 billion songs in 5 years? 3 billion isn't a lot when you consider Apple is projected to do over 20 billion in 2008.

This will just let other Music stores establish a position and remain for more than a year or two not like most that we have seen fail. It actually reinforces the fact that any music store in order to survive has to be compatible with the iPod and I view that as the music industry throwing up the white flag.

 

[Jetson]

Have you even tried Amazon MP3?

They've got just about everything working in their favor.

1. Better quality throughout their entire selection. Sure, Apple has iTunes Plus, but ALL of Amazons catalog is in the ~256 kbps range.
2. Better pricing on popular songs and albums. Period.
3. And for Mac users, the Amazon MP3 downloader couldn't be much better than it is right now. It integrates the songs you buy with iTunes perfectly. What more do you want?

I want my tracks in the better sounding AAC format

 

[sal]

Well, unless competitors come out with more appealing hardware than iPod, and a more user-friendly, convenient integration system than iTunes for managing content between computer and Mp3 player, iPod will continue to dominate the market.

there is no need to create a better product than the ipod. the beauty of this is as a consumer I have the choice to take my DRM free music to my ipod or any other musical device I want.

The same can't be said about drm protected music I have bought on itunes. That music is stuck with the ipod. Unless i choose to downgrade the quality further and burn it to cd and reimport.

In 5 years, DRM will be ancient history and we'll look back and wonder why anyone ever put up with it in the first place.

Probably. Except those who made a very large investments in itunes music. I think they'll be a little upset when they everyone around them is enjoying drm free music and they are locked into their ipod.

The only problem is that iTunes isn't what it used to be in the Windows market. I like the interface, however it's just to fat. I actually bought my first MAC a year ago largely due to the horrible performance of iTunes for Windows.

the itunes experience on windows is HORRENDOUS! Come to think about it, most apple software on windows is not good either(safari, quicktime)

I don't understand why the labels want to take "power" away from the iTMS. Do they try to take power away from other retail outlets like WalMart, HMV, or Virgin?

Control. It's all about control. Labels feel they don't have enough control on itunes, so they are going somewhere else.

I don't think the DRM issue is as big as many of us on message boards make it; most people in the general public aren't familiar and DRM encoded tracks fit their needs just fine. As long as they can easily access it in iTunes and get it on their iPod (not Zune, Sansa, et al.) they'll bop along on their merry way.

"As long as"?

that "as long as" statement has me worried. How will I know that I'll always want to use an ipod? Apple wants us to always use an ipod but how can you be sure you'll always want to use an ipod? or do you just do what apple tells you?

sure the ipod is great now but what if farther down the line, I want to play it somewhere else? not necessarily on another player but just another device(ex game system) I won't be able to, unless apple and/or labels removes the drm from the music.

i still don't understand why people use these services, just go buy a damn CD, then u get uncompressed music u can rip to whatever format u want. The only time i use itunes is for exclusives

convenience Why go to the store, when I could just buy it online? for many of us the extra cost is worth the convenience. Also why buy a $10-$20 album if I just want 2 or 3 songs off the cd?

 

[Jetson]

sure the ipod is great now but what if farther down the line, I want to play it somewhere else? not necessarily on another player but just another device(ex game system) I won't be able to, unless apple and/or labels removes the drm from the music.

I'm sure you realize this, but others don't seem to.

Apple is NOT interested in DRM - they only use it because the labels forced them to in order to get a deal for digital music.

Remember, Steve Jobs wrote that open letter to the industry back in February 2007 asking the labels to drop DRM.

Thoughts On Music

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Could it be possible that Apple will announce more DRM free songs on iTunes on Macworld?

It could be possible that records company like Warner and etc might have signed a deal with Apple already to sell DRM free songs on iTunes, but Apple could have told the record company to wait the announcment about making their songs on iTunes DRM free until Macworld, but allowed them to make the Amazon announcment early....

Also, record company will have better chance of earning more money on iTunes, since iTunes have higher price, 99 cents, compared to Amazon, which is 89 cents, meaning sale with iTunes is an oppertunity for record company to earn more profit....)

 

[BWhaler]

This is great news.

Now I just want them on the iTunes store.

What the labels need to understand is I have built my music library through:

1. Buying DVD's and ripping them
2. Buying from the iTunes store

If they were smart, they would give me the opportunity to upgrade the music I purchased in iTunes to iTunes plus. That's another 30% per song.

One day I may buy from Amazon--I like the store overall and spend a lot of money there--but iTunes is so tightly integrated, and it is so much easier for me to discover music on it. iMixes, celebrity playlists, etc.

The Amazon music store is OK for in-and-out shopping. But the iTunes store has more of a record store experience where I can get lost for hours exploring music and downloading new albums, songs, and even music videos now and then.

But I am done with DRM. And unless it is iTunes+, I don't buy. I have enough music at this point it is a nice-to-have purchase.

Anyway, I hope Apple and the other record companies come to terms. This whole thing is stupid and it's making me not buy more music from both of them.

 

[surferfromuk]

this news simply validates the digital music revolution. As long as Apple remain competitive with iTunes, which may mean allowing music labels to control content, then iTunes will be the best store available.
If Apple continue to strongarm the labels then they will ultimately lose first place. History will remember that Apple at least tried to give the consumer a fair deal, even if the labels ultimately regain control of their products and start price jacking again. Let's face it, until digital downloads are quality equivalent to cd's they really aren't in a position to demand top dollar.
All of this, however, doesn't change the fact that ipod is still far and away the best digitial music player ever made. Apple will continue to sell millions of them - another drm free music store simple enhances their appeal.

 

[CWallace]

Could it be possible that Apple will announce more DRM free songs on iTunes on Macworld?

It would be nice.

Also, record company will have better chance of earning more money on iTunes, since iTunes have higher price, 99 cents, compared to Amazon, which is 89 cents, meaning sale with iTunes is an oppertunity for record company to earn more profit....)

Depends on the deal. Amazon might be taking a smaller cut themselves then what Apple is taking from iTunes, allowing the label to make more money on each sale even with a lower sale price.

Amazon has the advantage of selling the content in physical form (CD and DVD) plus being new, they might have been willing to work a worse deal (for at least a time) to get the content and launch the service.

 

[CWallace]

History will remember that Apple at least tried to give the consumer a fair deal, even if the labels ultimately regain control of their products and start price jacking again.

Never forget Apple's goal is to push iPods, not music. Apple could have charged more for content sold through the iTunes store and made more money from each sale. Instead, they wanted cheap prices on content sold through the iTunes store because they wanted people to buy songs which required them to buy new and larger iPods to hold them. And they were willing to accept DRM on that content because it did not affect the sales of iPods - you could use the song on your Mac and your iPod.

Apple benefits from DRM-free Amazon.com and other stores because that music can be used on played on iPods which drives iPod sales. So they don't need to worry about matching prices as much.

Let's face it, until digital downloads are quality equivalent to cd's they really aren't in a position to demand top dollar.

Depending on the format and the listener, a CD and a digital file have identical quality.

 

[PNW]

Depending on the format and the listener, a CD and a digital file have identical quality.

Point in case, Robert Johnson still doesn't sound right to me unless he playing on my Dad's old turntable with all the crackle and hiss that only old vinyl can produce. Other artists and genres are a different matter.
Even on top dollar equipment people will hear different sounds, and those sounds will not appeal to them in a uniform manner.

The genius of Steve Jobs in all of this was in recognizing a price point where the vast majority of people would turn away from stealing via file sharing toward a legal commercial system where everyone gets paid. By screwing around with that price point, the record companies are in danger of killing that goose. That being said competition is always a good thing for the consumer and I hope to hear about all of these catalogs being offered on itunes.

 

[Jetson]

Will Sony/BMG's Reputed DRM-Free Music Files Be Watermarked?

Sony/BMG will be selling digital music files without DRM, but they may include watermarks.

The inclusion of a potentially unique tracking identifier hidden in the song's audio -- remains cloudy.

According to Wired.com these unique identifier watermarks could be used by the RIAA to trace the origin of tracks found on a file sharing network.

Wired.com Sony's Watermark Article

 

[Project]

No need to worry. Sony has shot themselves in the foot once again

NEW YORK — Sony BMG Music Entertainment on Jan. 15 becomes the last major record company to sell downloads without copy restrictions — but only to buyers who first visit a retail store.
The No. 2 record company after Universal Music will sell plastic cards, called Platinum MusicPass, for individual albums for a suggested price of $12.99. Buyers enter a code from the card at new Sony BMG (SNE) site MusicPass.com to download that card's album.

"The bigger picture is to make our music available in many different formats, through many different channels, in many different ways," says Thomas Hesse, president of Sony BMG's global digital business and U.S. sales.

Best Buy (BBY), Target (TGT) and Fred's (FRED) stores will be first to sell them. By Jan. 31, they'll be in Winn-Dixie, Coconuts, FYE, Spec's and Wherehouse. Like gift cards, MusicPass cards are activated at the store.

Sony BMG initially will offer cards for 37 albums by performers including Alicia Keys, Avril Lavigne, Bruce Springsteen, Chris Brown, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Jennifer Lopez and Santana.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Sony | Music | CDS | BMG | Thomas Hesse
Buyers also can download a digital booklet like those with CDs and material such as bonus tracks and videos.

For a suggested $19.99, Sony BMG also will offer cards for Kenny Chesney's album Just Who I Am: Poets & Pirates and Celine Dion's Taking Chances that let users download a second album by the same artist.

"I'm excited that Taking Chances will be included in the launch of these new cards, and I hope that my fans will see it as a great Valentine's Day present," Dion said in an e-mail.

The cards come as music sales continue to fall. Sales of 584.9 million albums or their digital equivalents last year were off 9.5% from 2006, according to Nielsen SoundScan. The outlook remains cloudy as retailers cut space for CDs, and online piracy continues.

Other record companies have already thrown in the towel and sell music without copy restrictions online, where sales were up 45% last year. Lifting copy limits lets fans listen to their songs on any PC or player. Warner Music (WMG) joined the bandwagon in December with a deal to sell on Amazon's MP3 service.

While conventional download services, such as iTunes, (AAPL) make impulse music buying easier than the cards, Sony BMG feels "strongly that there's a group that will enjoy carrying the imagery of an artist they love around with them, or sharing it with their friends," Hesse says. Cards allow one download, though they have a provision for a backup.

He says that Sony BMG would like other music companies to offer album cards. It also expects to sell MusicPass cards in additional stores and possibly at concert venues.

Astoundingly bad move. Absurd.

 

[mr.666]

quote from a member on forbes.com:
Hmmm... Warner, and Universal, and Sony, all selling their DRM-free music through Amazon, while deliberately freezing out the iTunes Store? Can you say, "collusion?" I bet a federal grand jury can.

and can you belive that sony is thinking of selling you a plastic card for $12-19.99? wow, lets incease our profits by giving the consumer even less! you want a disc... buy one and burn it at your own (extra)expense. want an insert? print it yourself (it's your ink). etc. F THEM!!!!

why is it that they havent offered us anything new in years and still charge the same? 5 yrs ago a 10mp digital camera would have cost ya 10-15k... now you can fit one in your shirt pocket for $400. the labels havent passed any tech savings down to the buyer.

also for those who STILL dont believe that tis is all about appple holing to
$.99. Proof that the GREEDY labels are already on the move... NAPSTER just raised the price of a sub 30% to 12.99. hahahaha. 89¢ amazon will not last it's a shell game, SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS!

 

[CWallace]

No need to worry. Sony has shot themselves in the foot once again...

Astoundingly bad move. Absurd.

Yeah, really. One of the major (if not the major) point of online music purchases is to bypass the trip to the "brick-and-mortar" retailer.

If I have to go to the physical music store to buy the card to come home and download the music from the virtual music store, that costs me time and money and lessens the value of the service.

If I have to go to the physical store, I might as well buy the physical media and then rip it to my format of choice. Which may very well be the point - make the process pointless so nobody uses it.

 

[solarguy17]

Project -

I am glad I am not the only one that caught Sony;s dumb way of "selling" DRM-free songs.

They just dont get it. People dont want whole albums, they want the popular radio songs. And very few other songs off a cd, this is got to be the worst idea I have have ever heard for selling music.


Sony stock is gonna crap, some one buy some.

 

[jim.arrows]

No need to worry. Sony has shot themselves in the foot once again

Astoundingly bad move. Absurd.

That's hilarious, they truly are idiotic... thanks for the laugh!