excellent news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17902329/

SAN FRANCISCO - EMI said it was making its digital music catalog available without the anti-piracy measure known as digital rights management (DRM), with Apple Inc.’s iTunes as its first retail outlet.

“The new higher quality DRM-free music will complement EMI’s existing range of standard DRM-protected downloads already available,” EMI said in a statement on Monday as the company began a press conference in central London with Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs.

“From today, EMI’s retailers will be offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality,” EMI added.


Apple said iTunes would make individual tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29, 1.29 euros and 99 pence.

As expected there was no announcement regarding a Beatles deal, as some followers had anticipated when EMI announced on Sunday that it would hold a press conference with Apple.

EMI has acted as the distributor for the Beatles since the early 1960s, but the Fab Four’s music holding company Apple Corps Ltd. has been a high-profile hold-out from Internet music services like Apple’s iTunes.

Earlier this year, Jobs called on the world’s four major record companies, including EMI, to start selling songs online without copy-protection software, known as DRM, for digital rights management. DRM software is designed to thwart piracy but also makes using music cumbersome for many consumers.

Jobs argued that there appeared to be no benefit for the record companies in selling more than 90 percent of their music without DRM on compact discs, while selling the remaining small percentage of music online encumbered with DRM.

Executives at several rival record companies said they had expected EMI to drop DRM but questioned whether EMI had done sufficient market research to justify the move.

“It’s problematic,” said one executive. “EMI haven’t tested it enough so they don’t know what the market reaction is going to be to open MP3s.”

MP3s are an open audio format that allows digital music fans to share songs or albums with other listeners. The music industry has shunned the standard in favor of formats that require some form of copy protection.

“The issues are will MP3s help expand the market and how will it affect piracy? We just don’t know,” the executive said. EMI’s biggest market test was with Norah Jones’ single ”Thinking About You” in January, while Sony BMG tested the market with Jessica Simpson’s “A Public Affair” last summer.
[Edited 4/2/07 6:39am]

Yup, totally excellent... the other labels are going to bitch up a storm and then finally give in.

I love it. Steve Jobs, the bigest instigator of brand product protection pretends he's now all for free trade!

Also, if we can now by premium quality downloads, what is the shit he's been pushing at us for the last few years?

Yes, this is great news. Although I'd actually prefer 128-kbps downloads so I can fit more songs on my iPod, I'm glad there are going to be higher-quality alternatives.

Say what you want about Jobs, but he's obviously quite brilliant. Leveraging their position as the leader in digital downloads to offer DRM-free music seemed to good to be true, but he did it.

AlexdeParis said:

But this is EMI, who are in desperate need of a boost in sales, trying to increase revenues by offering a new "premium" download. Jobs is simply jumping on their coat tails because he runs the largest download site.

If Jobs is so obviously brilliant, and a true promoter of freedom of use, why do you think he keeps the apple stuff locked in via hardware/software?

SquirrelMeat said:

But the record companies' argument all along has been that unprotected files can be shared, causing a drop in revenues. If one person downloads a song, it can then be shared with thousands instantly without any hassle.


What Apple stuff are you talking about? Both iTunes and iPods can play a variety of formats, including MP3, WAV, AIFF, and AAC, so you're obviously not talking about them. Perhaps you mean files downloaded from the iTunes Store? While it's true they can only be played on one portable device (iPods), they can be played on any computer and can be burned to CD. It's also important to note that iTunes is still the only major store that sells DRM-protected tracks to both Windows and Mac users.

DRM = NPGMC

MATRONIL STILL HAS NASTAY PURPLE NITEMARES!

AlexdeParis said:

Thats what I meant (sorry, I didn't phrase it very well ).

The decision to prevent iTune tracks from playing on other players is not one of DRM, but one of Apple trying to control the hardware market.

This is completely hypocritical of "big" Jobs.

He tries to make out Apple is this innovator, when it is simply a copy of existing technology, but with tie ins to prevent you going elsewhere. The isheep lap up the marketing and get locked it.

He has waited until millions of people have become locked in, before saying, "hey, I'd prefer an open market!"

As for Itunes being the only major store to sell to both PC and Mac, that quite simple. No other site is interested in providing downloads to Mac users. No one is going to bother to support Mac (3% of the computer market) because the sales are simply not there. Only Apple themselves are going to offer it.

AlexdeParis said:

They should have introduced it in OGG format then u will have 1/2 the file size and better quality at 256kbps

asg said:

True, but it just doesn't have a catchy name.

"Hey dude, I'm just gonna chill out and listen to a few Oggs!"

SquirrelMeat said:

Size is everything

SquirrelMeat said:

Please tell me you're joking! You're actually saying that the Mac market is too small in the very same post you're criticizing Jobs for not supporting the non-iPod market? I hope you see the irony in that.

The iTunes Music Store was the first major music store. Since the iPod had already conquered the digital-player market before that time, why aren't you criticizing the other stores (Napster, Rhapsody, BuyMusic, Sony, etc.) for not making their tracks compatible with the iPod? It's no surprise that the company that did that (eMusic) is now the #2 download service. And no, Apple doesn't have to license their DRM technology to them; they could've just offered MP3s like eMusic does. The only problem was that the record companies wouldn't agree to that. Now, thanks to Jobs and Apple, at least one has agreed to offer unprotected songs for sale.
[Edited 4/3/07 10:09am]

asg said:

It can't be half the file size if it's also 256 kbps. That doesn't make any sense.

AlexdeParis said:

In the mists of the realm of ogg everything is possible, dear Frodo

MikeMatronik said:

That would certainly take some elfin magic.

AlexdeParis said:

Maybe we should seek guidance with the White Sourceress from North, Bjorkmustir!

SquirrelMeat said:

I'm calling bullshit on that one. Steve Jobs has been against DRM for some time, even going so far to post an open letter on the Apple site calling for non-DRM music. As he points out, restriction free music is sold every day in the form of CDs. He's been talking about this long before EMI came around.

The fact of the matter is, when the iTunes store was created, if you wanted to convince the labels to sell downloads online you HAD to have a DRM system in place. Jobs would have never signed a single major label at the time, otherwise. ...and as far as DRM schemes go, FairPlay is probably the most lenient around.

Now that they are the biggest download service in the world, they have the power to direct change bit by bit, just like when the labels wanted to raise prices a while back and didn't get their way.

Outside of that, Apple is a business and businesses want to make money. It's ridiculous to think they would normally do something to jeopardize that on a daily basis. Even if Steve Jobs or Apple itself got it in their head to do something altruistic - the shareholders would never allow it if it meant affecting the bottom line.
[Edited 4/3/07 10:25am]

asg said:

No, actually, you wouldn't.

AlexdeParis said:

Its a new codec which is much more efficient then mp3 and ogg is free

http://dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm

asg said:

I know all about ogg, it's not new, and, most importantly, there is no way something that is 256 kbps can be half the size of something else 256 kbps if they're the same length.

The idea behind more efficient codecs (like both Ogg and AAC) is that you can have equal (or even better) quality at lower bitrates than MP3. At the same bitrate, they'll sound better than MP3, but they'll be about the same size.

asg said:

Yeah, ogg is not new and the files are not half the size at the same bit rates.