Steve Jobs and EMI Press Conference - No More DRM?

[Whistleway]

If anything, this thing is the biggest thing that Apple has ever done in its 31 years. And that is saying a lot.

Macrumor members, show your support by buying non-DRM songs on your starbucks monies

Great move Apple

 

[peterjhill]

If a label decided to pull DRM from their itunes selections, i would go out of my way to see if there was anything I wanted to buy from them just to support the move with my money.

 

[failsafe1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_hi_te/emi_apple;_ylt=AhJQ7wlgjf.kywzSXan3stis0NUE

It is being reported as official.

 

[EricNau]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_hi_te/emi_apple;_ylt=AhJQ7wlgjf.kywzSXan3stis0NUE

It is being reported as official.

That article is saying no such thing. It's just listing another possibility for tomorrow's event.

LONDON - Record company EMI Group PLC said Sunday it planned to unveil "an exciting new digital offering" with computer company Apple Inc., raising expectations that The Beatles' music catalog is about to be made available through Apple's iTunes online music store.​

 

[zap2]

and i still think selling DRM free music is a huge risk. people argue that DRM free music exists on p2p network in the form of files from CDs. I find this a very weak argument.

I still don't have a compelling reason why files should be DRM free. Can someone give me one? and I am not from RIAA either; in fact, they should replace some country as Axis of Evil

Why should it be any different then buy a CD? Some people see it as going out of there way to pay for music online, surely make legal "worse" then illegal download isn't a way to get more people to use it!

You catch more flies with honey then with vingar

 

[mags631]

Interesting Yahoo just had an AP headline saying Beatles and Apple to announce deal tomorrow.

The article that I saw on Yahoo seemed, at best, speculative.

That being said, I'd love to see a Beatles' catalog on iTunes. The DRM point is less of an issue for me, personally.

 

[iMeowbot]

The WSJ article was co-written by Nick Wingfield, who generally has really good sources.

So, the next question would be how much this cost Apple. EMI wanted concessions from download services, in particular more money up front, in exchange for unlocked tracks. This proposal had stalled about a month ago when retailers and EMI couldn't agree on a price.

 

[failsafe1]

The article that I saw on Yahoo seemed, at best, speculative.

That being said, I'd love to see a Beatles' catalog on iTunes. The DRM point is less of an issue for me, personally.

Totally misread the article. We will all see in a few short hours.

 

[SiliconAddict]

(Note: This story is not an April Fools joke.)

The one thing that I absolutely HATE about April Fools. Figuring out what is a joke and what isn't. If this happens my only remaining complaint will be quality. Come on Apple 256 kb/s!!

As for the Beatles. Overhyped group IMHO. Yes they have SOME good music (compared to the one hit wonders of today.) but I throw the Beatles in with Elvis overall. They both have good stuff however its nothing to wet yourself over when it does finally show up on iTMS.


Hmmm I wonder if Apple is going to somehow tag music that isn't DRM protected on iTMS. I can see it go both ways. If they do it might be a very good test to show how much of an impact DRM has on sales. If they don't it would be business as usual for iTMS. Hmm

 

[sigamy]

fingers crossed that this great news is indeed true.

this could be the beginning of the beginning!

 

[Music-Man]

T
So, the next question would be how much this cost Apple. EMI wanted concessions from download services, in particular more money up front, in exchange for unlocked tracks. This proposal had stalled about a month ago when retailers and EMI couldn't agree on a price.

Exactly, and this leads to me to wonder if Apple, or maybe Steve himself, would buy a bucket load of shares in EMI to show faith in the deal. It would also be money well spent rather than an upfront cash payment.

 

[shen]

that is some very good iTunes news, i hope this little DRM free stream breaks the dam open soon....

 

[jaw04005]

To be honest, Apple's copy protection is already quite liberal. I'm personally not going to benefit all that much from a non-drm iTunes store. However, I have no doubt this announcement is a win for digital distribution.

 

[Porchland]

No No...You got it all wrong...

It's the buyout!!!. Apple are buying EMI..

They are the perfect complementary business partner if Apple are to become the 'new Sony'. Apple will own The Beatles, just as they have always owned The Beatles. Yes, they will be available exlusively on iTunes - forever!

This is also why Warner made a 'last ditch attempt to buy just recently' and why EMI rejected it - the deal was already 'in the bag'...

You will now see that the Apple Computer Inc becoming Apple Inc makes complete and perfect sense.

Finally, somebody says it! I was working my way through these posts astonished at all the DRM and lossless gibberish and wondering why the discussion wasn't about whether Apple was BUYING EMI.

I don't necessarily think this is what the announcement is about (though I think there's a strong possibility), but a number of things point to it:

1. Apple Inc.'s settlement with Apple Corp. was oriented largely toward resolving the prior agreement that Apple Inc. not enter the music business. Prior to the deal, an acquisition of a record company would have directly violated the earlier settlement. (This was the source of the pre-loaded iPod rumors, but the possibilities are far broader.)

2. As you said, the merger talks between Warner Music and EMI show that EMI is open to the possibility. This is, of course, because:

3. The CD business is in a free fall, and the record labels need to find their dancing partners soon.

4. .....

must be something big for steve to be in London.

No way is Steve Jobs flying halfway around the world to talk about DRM. For that matter, The Beatles coming to iTunes is a big announcement -- definitely One More Thing worthy -- but it's not big enough for Apple to go to EMI.

I think...
* The Beatles catalog,
* a Beatles iPod,
* Radiohead catalog,
* some kind of "strategic alliance."

 

[JNB]

As for the Beatles. Overhyped group IMHO. Yes they have SOME good music (compared to the one hit wonders of today.) but I throw the Beatles in with Elvis overall. They both have good stuff however its nothing to wet yourself over when it does finally show up on iTMS.

A study of music history would suggest otherwise. The Beatles were seminal in their approach to melody and lyricism, essentially validating rock as a genre for over forty years. Granted, Sir George Martin was instrumental in the realization of that exploration and success, but the raw talent was there. Even their covers were ground-greaking.

They are as important to pop music as Mozart, or Wagner, or Copland are to their era. The potential of their catalog being released digitally is akin to DaVinci's works being released after years of being withheld from public view, except for photographs.

That being said, you don't have to like a single thing they ever did - there's a lot that doesn't "speak to me". You don't have to like Leonardo's work, either. But again, from a purely historical perspective, they are arguably the most important musical act of the mid- to late twentieth century for the influence they had.

I wouldn't insult you with a smug "you had to be there," because that actually taints my appreciation of them. I would propose that you study them academically a bit for curiosity's sake, even if you never voluntarily listen to - or purchase - a single song. That part is a matter of personal taste.

That's why my (admittedly small) iTunes library covers a fairly large range; from 1928 to 2007, Raymond Scott to Ozomatli and Skindred. There's a lot of good out there, but precious little significant. Enjoy as much of it as you can!

 

[Analog Kid]

Finally, somebody says it! I was working my way through these posts astonished at all the DRM and lossless gibberish and wondering why the discussion wasn't about whether Apple was BUYING EMI.

I don't necessarily think this is what the announcement is about (though I think there's a strong possibility), but a number of things point to it:
...

No way is Steve Jobs flying halfway around the world to talk about DRM. For that matter, The Beatles coming to iTunes is a big announcement -- definitely One More Thing worthy -- but it's not big enough for Apple to go to EMI.

I think...
* The Beatles catalog,
* a Beatles iPod,
* Radiohead catalog,
* some kind of "strategic alliance."

Apple's not buying EMI. That would be suicide in this space. As soon as they do something like that, every other label pulls their titles from the iPod and customers suffer, and then Apple suffers. If Apple is going to become a label, they'll have to do it grassroots-like. Probably in the same way they're handling podcasts now. They plug their audio production tools into their iTMS framework and let people publish themselves. They have to keep all the majors on equal footing.

On your other point-- either removal of DRM or the digital distribution of the Beatles would justify a CEO flight to London. Those are both huge, seminal events and Apple is going to want to milk them for what they're worth.

People here can debate the value of the Beatles all they want, but the numbers have already been tabulated and the Beatles have dominated modern music. Doesn't mean you have to like them, or their music, but you can't argue that releasing that one band's catalog on iTunes will have a major impact.

 

[Avatar74]

Finally, somebody says it! I was working my way through these posts astonished at all the DRM and lossless gibberish and wondering why the discussion wasn't about whether Apple was BUYING EMI.

Because it's an absurd conjecture based purely in fantasy.

Apple is indeed moving in new directions but becoming a recording company is not one of them. There's no strategic advantage it offers Apple for their product line when they already reap the benefits of providing an extremely low-margin (read: loss leader) retail channel for the catalogs of other record companies without the expenditures associated with A&R, radio promotion, channel sales and marketing, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

All the gains for Apple are in the hardware, and strategic alliances give them the ability to incur minimal expenditures while realizing maximum profits from the marginal sales that iTunes Store actually affords them.

Additionally, Apple management clearly understands through its direct negotiations with independent artists that record labels are becoming an anachronism. Artists have the ability to go directly to the retail channel via the internet without the middlemen of the recording industry. The record industry's distribution monopoly is the only thing that keeps it profitable and Apple by supporting internet distribution is effectively backing the death knell of companies like EMI.

In the long term, acquisition of a record company has no future. Just ask Time-Warner why they dumped Warner Music Group entirely on Edgar Bronfman who is furiously tap dancing with his ad hominem attacks against Steve Jobs and Co. to try to rationalize the lingering existence of such dying distribution monopolies that, if unprotected, would be devoured up by the free market global economy of the internet.

Acquiring EMI would be the stupidest thing Apple ever did since putting John Sculley in the driver's seat.

 

[EricNau]

No way is Steve Jobs flying halfway around the world to talk about DRM.

Are you sure about that? How often does Steve Jobs post a several page document on Apple's homepage for weeks discussing his "thoughts?"

 

[Silencio]

Are you sure about that? How often does Steve Jobs post a several page document on Apple's homepage for weeks discussing his "thoughts?"

Agree. Even if the announcement tomorrow is "just" about removing DRM from one major label's songs on iTMS, it represents a huge kick in the family jewels to Microsoft. All the time and money and effort they spent on Janus to try to control all digital content and make it flow through Windows will be for naught if Apple successfully redraws the playing field without DRM.

Apple is obviously not too concerned that people will start buying Creative Zens and filling them up with music from Urge or Napster when this happens.

 

[Curtis72]

Are you sure about that? How often does Steve Jobs post a several page document on Apple's homepage for weeks discussing his "thoughts?"

Somewhat true. But I think that Steve Jobs (being a the CEO of a major company) has other business to take care of in Europe. Its one thing to write a letter and post it online. It's quite another to get fly to another continent. They could have telecast his appearance. Yes. that would required him to get up by 3am or 4am PST.

Who really knows. Anything possible. I have been thinking recently that Apple may try to become the like Sony. A company that has a full spectum of products and services from computers, consumer electronics, entertainment, and so on.

 

[motulist]

No way is Steve Jobs flying halfway around the world to talk about DRM.

I disagree, I think this is just the type of Insanely Great industry-changing type of accomplishment that Jobs revels in. Just imagine his speech.

"We sell songs through iTunes, and it's amazing. But what if I want to take this song I downloaded through iTunes and send it to my Samsung phone, since the iPhone isn't out yet. (audience laughs hahaha).

(drags and drops itunes song onto samsung phone, popup says you can't do that) Whoops, I guess I forgot about the DRM that locks the song into iTunes. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to get rid of DRM on our EMI songs (click fake DRM 'light switch' to off) (Cheers and screaming break out from the audience) (drag and drop song again) (transfer completed successfully)

We changed the way the world listens to music before, and we're about to do it again. Starting today, all our EMI iTunes songs are completely free of DRM allowing you to use your music how you want it, where you want it, when you want it. And this is just the beginning, we've been talking to the other labels and I'm sure that once they see that removing DRM from their songs doesn't reduce sales, I expect to see all the other labels soon decide to remove DRM from all the songs in the itunes catalog. (Massive cheers, people throw flowers, young women cry for Jobs to impregnate them.)"

 

[Mac-Mariachi]

Ok, Apple buys EMI, no more DRM, We get the full Beatles catalog, and probably a Beatles iPod (with some of iphone features).

And there is an unannounced band playing in the event.... Paul Mcartney and Ringo Starr performing several Beatles songs and showing the world what good friends they are with SJ.

I say win-win situation!

 

[ElderscrollsV]

What????

So basically you are saying you want to only "steal" songs?

99¢ is a very good price on average. CD Singles used to cost around $3 (some came with mutlple versions of the song, other songs, or sample songs) back before the music industry mainly dumped that format.

I did buy a Jay-Z Enhanced CD (could have been a DVD) with 2 songs and music video on it 2 or 3 years ago. It had some other features too. I remember correctly that cost me around $5. So in iTunes "dollars, the equilavent is $3.97. But thing is, I don't want the other song or video!

That's why I never bought singles.....but no seriously 1 dollar is way to expensive for 1 lousy song..when cd's were around you didn't pay $1 for a song...the eminem show..cost me 17 bucks and it had more than 17 songs..AND I GOT A BOOKLET AND A CD AND A CD CASE......1 dollar a song is a rip off

 

[EricNau]

That's why I never bought singles.....but no seriously 1 dollar is way to expensive for 1 lousy song..when cd's were around you didn't pay $1 for a song...the eminem show..cost me 17 bucks and it had more than 17 songs..AND I GOT A BOOKLET AND A CD AND A CD CASE......1 dollar a song is a rip off

On iTunes albums cost $7.99 to $12.99.

 

[ElderscrollsV]

I disagree, I think this is just the type of Insanely Great industry-changing type of accomplishment that Jobs revels in. Just imagine his speech.

"We sell songs through iTunes, and it's amazing. But what if I want to take this song I downloaded through iTunes and send it to my Samsung phone, since the iPhone isn't out yet. (audience laughs hahaha).

(drags and drops itunes song onto samsung phone, popup says you can't do that) Whoops, I guess I forgot about the DRM that locks the song into iTunes. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to get rid of DRM on our EMI songs (click fake DRM 'light switch' to off) (Cheers and screaming break out from the audience) (drag and drop song again) (transfer completed successfully)

We changed the way the world listens to music before, and we're about to do it again. Starting today, all our EMI iTunes songs are completely free of DRM allowing you to use your music how you want it, where you want it, when you want it. And this is just the beginning, we've been talking to the other labels and I'm sure that once they see that removing DRM from their songs doesn't reduce sales, I expect to see all the other labels soon decide to remove DRM from all the songs in the itunes catalog. (Massive cheers, people throw flowers, young women cry for Jobs to impregnate them.)"

Yes, You actually sounded like jobs in that. Well done....

Ok, Apple buys EMI, no more DRM, We get the full Beatles catalog, and probably a Beatles iPod (with some of iphone features).

And there is an unannounced band playing in the event.... Paul Mcartney and Ringo Starr performing several Beatles songs and showing the world what good friends they are with SJ.

I say win-win situation!

No beatles ipod with iphone features....wishful thinking though

On iTunes albums cost $7.99 to $12.99.

Thankyou captain obvious, but 1 dollar is still to much for a song considering I payed less than that per song when I bought the eminem show for 17 dollars way back in the day and I got a cd, cd case and a booklet.