Apple and EMI Ditching DRM is Good, But it's Not Good Enough

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/02/apple-and-emi-ditching-drm-is-good-but-its-not-good-enough/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/02/apple-and-emi-ditching-drm-is-good-but-its-not-good-enough/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The finer details of EMI and Jobs's announcement today were also dubious. Despite the silver lining, which is that full albums should cost the same but will now default to DRM-free files, the two businesses still conflated DRM-free music with the discerning tastes of audiophiles. Steve mentioned that 128-bit AAC just isn't good enough for the sharp-eared, so uncrippled tracks are being bumped to 256Kbps. This gives Apple the ability to sell the music as a separate product and price point, while giving consumers the illusion of greater value. But we don't believe having free, usable, uncrippled media is a feature -- it's a right, and we demand it. Asking customers to pay 30% more for no DRM and a higher bitrate is a distraction, a parlor trick to take our attention away from the philosophical issue: EMI is still selling DRMed music."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/FastHand.jpg" /> <br /><br />Ryan Block over at Engadget has written a great article on the hidden shortcomings of today's Apple/EMI announcement. The higher bitrate is nice, but they're still selling a DRM'd version at a lower price, which is going to skew the results of this little experiment. On top of that, it's still in AAC format. There are very few Digital Audio Players that support AAC outside of the iPod lineup, so it's not really a win for consumers who own something other than an iPod. MP3 would have been a more appealing choice. Nonetheless, it's a start, and a small victory for consumers everywhere.

[jmulder]

I believe that the official press release said that the non-DRM'd tracks would start on iTunes, but would eventually be available at all major online music stores. So URGE, or whatever the hell MS is using these days would be able to sell non-DRMd music as well.

In any case, why shouldn't EMI and Apple charge more for something that has more value (or is less crippled, depending on your point of view)? It frustrates me that corporations are somehow expected to provide addidtional benefit for free. If you can't afford the increase, buy the DRM's 128kb/s track. If you can (and you want it), buy the non-DRM'd 256kb/s one. Just stop bitching when it isn't given away for free.

[Felix Torres]

In any case, why shouldn't EMI and Apple charge more for something that has more value (or is less crippled, depending on your point of view)?

Because the non-crippled CDs are cheaper still? ;-)

As the headline implied, this announcement is pretty much a non-issue.
It only impacts the 2% of the music market that isn't getting their music on CDs, which are generally DRM-free, resellable, and encoded in a lossless format that plays on any brand of music player. :twisted:

The stripping of DRM off iTunes is just an attempt to expand the limited appeal of the iTunes store.

As pointed out elsewhere, some people would rather risk a legal encounter than deal with iTunes. :twisted:
(Oh, I'm gonna burn for that one! Worth it, though. :lol: )

[Felix Torres]

BTW, while Apple was trying to use this to defuse their DRM anti-trust issues in Europe, something else blew up in their laps:

http://news.com.com/E.U.+charges+Apple%2C+record+companies+on+iTunes+sales/2100-1027_3-6172679.html?tag=nefd.top

[Macguy59]

As pointed out elsewhere, some people would rather risk a legal encounter than deal with iTunes. :twisted:
(Oh, I'm gonna burn for that one! Worth it, though. :lol: )

Or deal with the Zune marketplace. Also pointed out elsewhere.

[RichL]

On top of that, it's still in AAC format. There are very few Digital Audio Players that support AAC outside of the iPod lineup, so it's not really a win for consumers who own something other than an iPod.

AAC is the most widely support codec after MP3 and provides plenty of benefits. It was jointly developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and Nokia. Any modern music playing cell phone supports AAC (300 million+ devices a year!), it's supported on Sony's PSP and PS3, it's supported by SanDisk... even Microsoft's Zune plays AAC!

Even better, it's easy for any device manufacturer to license AAC. There's nothing stopping other manufacturers from supporting it in future.

The music being in AAC format really is a non-issue.

[Jason Dunn]

The music being in AAC format really is a non-issue.

Tell that to my car stereo deck, which plays MP3s and WMAs, but not AAC.

MP3 would have been the way to go here, not AAC.

[RichL]

But is this a wide-spread problem? I'd reckon that 95% of the consumers already own a device capable of playing AAC (DAP, cell phone and even most car stereos according to its Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Products_that_support_AAC)).

If not, iTunes provides one click conversion to MP3. It's not ideal but, for the small number of people with a AAC-less audio player, it's better than the unconvertible DRM-ed tracks that iTunes touts from other record labels.

MP3 is very lout-dated by today's standard. AAC is the obvious replacement.

[Felix Torres]

Or media capable DVD players; again, MP3 and WMA, yes; AAC, no.

It'll be a while before anybody starts designing AAC support into their media products; until now it was a non-issue because Apple had effectively cordoned-off AAC playback with FairPlay. Unable to play copy-protected AAC, most maufacturers have ignored the unprotected version because it invariably leads to service calls and returns.

That may change now.

[Vincent Ferrari]

AAC probably makes the most sense for a digital distributor though. Smaller file sizes and higher quality at the same bitrates as MP3.

This may not be the be all and end all, but if you think about it... It's a major record label finally realizing that they can sell music that isn't DRM'ed. Unless you're a moron, you want this to succeed because if it goes well, other record labels will eventually follow suit.

I personally don't find the DRM too onerous. It has never kept me from doing what I want with my music. I can listen on my iPod, burn it to a CD, or listen to it on any computer I own (and even a few I don't). Frankly the benefits of being able to pick up any song I'm interested on a whim on iTunes means more to me than anything else.

Oh sure, the roflmaoomfgloll334 crowd probably hates that DRM exists at all, but in the end, most of them are opposed to DRM on principal and some (like Cory Doctorow) think everything in the world should be free at all times period (unless it's Boing Boing's content, of course, in which case, there's a license for how you're allowed to use it).

People can rag on this Apple deal all they want, but unless you want the crap from Emusic or some of the mostly crap off of Magnatune or Podsafe, this is a welcome step forward and others would be wise to hop on board.