Apple & EMI: "Pay 30% more for higher-quality and no DRM"

The news is out and sadly, you won't be trotting down Abbey Road listening to the Beatles on your iPod just yet. No, the story is semi-expected due to a Steve Jobs commentary on DRM: Apple and EMI have agreed to sell digital audio without DRM restrictions starting in May (just a month from the expected iPhone launch...hmmmm...). You'll pay a 30% premium for them to remove the DRM that you didn't want in the first place, but in return for audio files that you can move across multiple computers and devices, you'll also get higher quality sound: the $1.29 tracks are encoded in 256 kbps AAC format as opposed to the DRM-tunes at 128 kbps in AAC. That's a fair trade-off in my opinion, and you can pay the additional $.30 a track to "upgrade" tunes you already own.

Which labels are next to follow? More importantly, which on-line music stores will over the same or do they need to? Will folks just buy the DRM tracks from iTunes and move to their Zune, Sansa or Dell DJ? OK, perhaps not the Dell DJ, although that was my first DAP. ;)

Comments

[Nikoooo]

That's the way to go Apple! I find this very smart. For the consumer, having interoperability... and for EMI/iTunes a good commercial horse. Indeed they will sell "less" for more money. Less: no need to develop a special DRM... but make it more "for audiophile" by encoding the songs at 256 kbps :) Last they will avoid any legal action as taken by European countries. It is really a win-win-win position...

[John in Norway]

Why can't you have Beatles songs on an ipod? Can't you just copy them across from a PC? Sorry if this is a stupid question. Never used an ipod and don't know anyone that has one.

[Mike Cane]

Duh.

This way to the egress.

Why not just BURN DIRECT TO CD from iTunes then re-rip to MP3? No DRM that way.

And NO fekkin AAC, either.

[DBL]

"Duh."

"This way to the egress."

"Why not just BURN DIRECT TO CD from iTunes then re-rip to MP3? No DRM that way."

"And NO fekkin AAC, either."

Sure ... if I want double-compressed 128K MP3s that sound like absolute crap. I'd rather listen to AM radio. Seriously. And as for AAC -- nothing wrong with the unprotected version at all. In five years every device will play it and you'll be using it.

[Steve in NC]

BTW, it looks like the albums will still be the same $9.99 price as DRM'd 128kbps albums. Another incentive to buy the whole album.

[Kevin C. Tofel]

John & Mike: you're both right of course. I often overlook the fact that if you own a CD, say one from the Beatles, you can certainly rip the songs onto your computer sans DRM and in turn, play the songs on a DAP.

With the advent of digital music stores, it's easy to forget the CD approach, which of course, is what those stores want. While you or I might not have an issue with the CD-rip approach, I'm betting that mainstream consumers feel it's too much of a hassle.

Long story short: you can certainly rip CD music purchases for playback on portable devices; the Beatles included. In fact, I just put the "Please Please Me" album on my Zune.

The REAL question we should be asking ourselves in all this is: why did they let Ringo actually sing on this album? Just kiddin' Mr. Starr: saw you in Philly about 10 years back although I doubt you remember. ;)