EMI & Apple say no DRM for you

18 thoughts on “EMI & Apple say no DRM for you”

  1. I believe this is a positive step and one long overdue on the music industries part. Even if they secure digital downloads, music labels simply cannot prevent piracy or copying through CDs, radio stream rips and other mediums. P2P and torrents will always stay a step ahead.

    They opened pandoras box when they rejected Napster’s partnership offer (paving a way for underground p2ps such as Kazaa, limewire, emule etc) and DRM is clearly not an effective tool in preventing piracy.

    Danial Jameel
    http://www.UReporting.com

  2. The brilliant aspect of this deal is that all the labels just re-entered into a multi-year agreement to sell their songs on iTS at $0.99 per song. Jobs patiently waited for them to lock themselves in before springing his open letter.

    With this move, EMI is suddenly making much more profit per DRM-free song sold. The other labels now have to enter into new agreements with Apple or sit on the sidelines selling much less profitable DRM’d songs.

    No wonder Jobs is confident that half the songs will be DRM-free by the end of the year.

    One thing is for sure – if this turns out to be the huge hit it appears it will be, then it will be the end of music subscription services since they all require DRM. Goodbye Napster, Real, and PlaysForSure.

  3. Also all of the indies are being offered the option and many will choose it.

    Note that it also gives Apple a differentiation for subscription if they ever choose to add that (they may not).

    This also cements aac as a necessary default codec along with mp3 and probably kills wma.

    Lots of swearing coming from Redmond today…

  4. The fact that albums will be priced the same for 128 kbps, DRM’d or 256 kbps DRM-free will be a major catalyst for selling whole albums. Should be more profitable for both apple and emi since more money per transaction. This will also be a further enticement to bring other studios on board. Classic Apple to seduce the user into spending more money rather than demand it.

  5. I don’t see this as the end of subscription services; in fact, I don’t know that it is even related. Subscription allows unlimited streaming, which works well for people who like to listen from their laptops, or connect them to their stereos. DRM-free songs don’t make this concept any more or less attractive. I don’t see a sudden rush to e-mail out a personal catalog of DRM-free music to a group of friends, which would reduce one’s incentive to hold a subscription, but I suppose that is one of the hypotheses that will be tested over the next year.

  6. DRM-free is very important, but so is 256kbps. There is no way I’m going to pay iTunes prices for 128 kbps quality. Still, I wish they had bit the bullet and gone all the way to 320 kbps (I guess this would be the limit as it’s all the iPod will support).

  7. When all is said and done, interoperability needs to be at the center of this debate. Apple choosing to use the AAC format without DRM doesn’t really make the music a whole lot more open to other devices. Currently, AAC is supported by Apple and Sony, but not most of the other popular MP3 players.

    Let’s push the focus away from DRM and towards the real roadblock, interoperability.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.