What's Brought Steve Jobs All The Way to London Today?

EDIT: EMI and iTunes have agreed to drop DRM on the EMI content (Still no Beatles music, though)

No, it's not reading, but DRM is DRM (and DRM is Bad), and the Publishing industry seems to be following the Music Industry's lead on it (sorta), so, here's the deal: apparently, Steve Jobs is in London today, meeting with EMI (one of the world's top four music labels, it seems), and everyone is expecting big news. What will it be? One rumor is merely that iTunes might be picking up a lot of Beatles music (piffle), but the more interesting one, and the one that the Wall Street Journal is touting, is that EMI and iTunes are about to drop DRM from a substantial chunk of their offerings.

From the tiny sliver that the WSJ (http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=evo-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1175 47255583356319.html%3Fmod%3Dhome_whats_news_us) (graciously, if I'm honest about it) allows out for free:In a major break with the music industry's longstanding antipiracy strategy, EMI Group PLC is set to announce today that it plans to sell significant amounts of its catalog without anticopying software, according to people familiar with the matter.From Crave (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49288905,00.htm):
EMI has previously experimented with distributing music on the Net without copy-protection. Late last year, the label released a track by popular artist Norah Jones completely devoid of DRM. The song was unprotected, meaning there was no barrier to pirating, and had to be bought from Yahoo's Web site. It sold incredibly well. This move was instigated by Yahoo, but it seemed that extracting DRM-free music from a major label was harder than pulling iron from your blood with a magnet. That might be about to change.The resounding success of the small number of DRM-free tracks released on to the Net by major labels should only further highlight that most people are honest and will pay for the music they like, but they also want to use it in whatever way they see fit, on their computer or on whichever portable player they choose.

Only two months ago, Jobs himself called for the end of DRM, claiming "[DRM-free music] is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."Crave further notes that the second most popular legal download venue (after iTunes, duh), eMusic (http://news.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029666,49287145,00.htm), is totally DRM-free. While it does tend to offer music that is less mainstream than iTunes, it clearly manages to make enough money to keep its artists/labels happy completely without DRM, " ... because it recognises music fans will pay for music they could always pirate for free, and it doesn't treat its customers like criminals."

Crave's conclusion:For these reasons, we think today's announcement from Apple and EMI could go one of two ways, if not both, and either would be met with voluminous applause by music lovers. Music without DRM would be a sensational success and EMI has the power to prove to the other three major labels -- and the world -- that music lovers are not crooks; they're devout and passionate people who will continue to support the artists they love by paying for music.If it's only the Beatles thing, then the e-reading world might not be too excited (except, of course, for the Beatles fans among us http://www.mobileread.com/forums/images/smiliesadd1/wink.gif), but if it's the DRM-Dump, then we should have something to cheer about too -- if the music industry goes without in a big way, and succeeds (as we all expect it would), then the publishing industry won't have them to point at and tell us, "See? we have to do this DRM stuff to stay alive!" -- we'll be able to point to that same music industry and say, "See? No you don't!"

Right... and will they stop suing everyone in sight?

Still good news, if true.

Right... and will they stop suing everyone in sight?Didn't see anything on that one, neko. :laugh4:

Yeah, if it's true -- I should have mentioned that there's supposed to be an announcement of whatever it is at "1 pm" (no indication of what time zone that is), so we should know more sometime today. :shrug:

Guess they meant 1pm GMT. :grin:

EMI has agreed to drop DRM on its iTunes offerings.

LOTS (and lots) of detail here (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=1114950664).

German Heise Newsticker has more http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/87754

This seems to be EMI trying to get an advantage over its competitors. Buy those DRM-free music. It will increase EMIs sales and force the competitors to follow.

Leave it to my home town 'newspaper' the Houston Comical (as we call it), to miss the whole bloomin' point (they're quite good at that, actually):

EMI: Beatles Catalog Not in Apple Deal (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4680393.html)

They do manage to pay some slight attention to the real story toward the end. (sigh)

Hey! NatCh! .... Beetles? :laugh4:

I guess you're not too fond of them?

It's kinda funny how Apple was saying all those years to indies who wanted no DRM on their tracks that it would be "difficult to implement" and "confusing to the users" to have both DRM and non-DRM tracks in the store. But when EMI asks, it's suddenly no big deal at all.
P.S. Aha, there's a catch: DRM-free tracks will be 256kbps, but sold for $1.29.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html

ZDNet has an article with a run-down on the implications of the price structure that I thought was interesting. http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4768

But yeah, I agree, igorsk, it is sort of ironic that it was too difficult then, but it's fine now, for 30¢ more, of course. Although, I'm not entirely sure that it was EMI that did the asking. Jobs' recent anti DRM remarks have muddied the water enough that I can't tell who asked what of whom. I also haven't been following the matter that closely. :shrug:


Hey! NatCh! .... Beetles? :laugh4:

I guess you're not too fond of them?Well I'm not really a 'music' person, but I like them okay. I enjoy most kinds of music to varying degrees, but I don't really seek it out much. Even my favorite, fiddle music, I don't seek out all that much. :shrug:

Classical pieces I usually find a bit baffling until I become familiar with them enough to know what parts I want to listen for -- I try to listen to all of it, which doesn't work too well. Oddly enough, I quite enjoyed the pieces CommanderROR uploaded for us, but I think that was because there was only the one part to listen to, so I wasn't distracted by all the other instruments. (yes, I know: weird http://www.mobileread.com/forums/images/smiliesadd1/rolleyes5.gif)

I think it's because my brain insists on monitoring my environment to a high degree (my filterer-outer is a bit under strength -- I'm often ignoring stuff, but I don't often just not notice stuff), so I often find music too distracting if I'm trying to do anything that requires much concentration. It's great for situational awareness, but not so great for other things. :shrug:

Practical upshot: I'm not much of a music person. :wink:

That Steve Jobs, man... he can do everything, and convince anyone of anything. He makes computers, music, cellphones, TV commercials, and even movies better, just because he touched it. He's like Christ in a turtleneck!

Now, if we could only get him turned on to e-books.

The labels wanted a price increase, had been pushing for it for almost a year. Jobs wanted something in return. He got no DRM which he had been pushing for for a few months due to the regulatory climate in the EU. He also got double file size (128 to 256) which will help fill up iPods faster, which will encourage people to buy newer, bigger iPods, which was originally the whole point of the iTunes store, to sell iPods.

It's only a matter of time before the rest of music industry follows suit. With such a big player as EMI moving away from copy-protection, DRM will become more and more a competitive disadvantage for the rest. From a business standpoint, I think it's a very smart move to make the DRM-free versions more expensive and offer a higher bitrate as an added incentive. Yes, Steve Jobs has proven once again he can move mountains.

I do not know how to create a poll on this site but I wonder how many people would buy a non DRM version of a book if the price is 30 percent more then a DRM version?

I do not know how to create a poll on this site but I wonder how many people would buy a non DRM version of a book if the price is 30 percent more then a DRM version?

Good question! I wouldn't. I listen to music many times over and read books only once.

I do not know how to create a poll on this site but I wonder how many people would buy a non DRM version of a book if the price is 30 percent more then a DRM version?

There'd be nothing wrong with that idea, except that e-books are generally not fairly priced to the consumer, the way iTunes music is. Most E-books are still priced at or above the cost of a hardback book, one of the biggest issues holding them back from widespread adoption.

If DRM e-books were, say $2.00, and non-DRM e-books were, say, $2.50 (I know, I couldn't resist!), that might be reasonable to consumers.

EMI will see the price increase as a victory over Apple which refused price increases until now.
The next step will be competitors doing DRM-less music also and then the price will fall again.
In the meantime it will bring new customers to Apple. Those without iPod namely.
In the end we will get cheap DRM-free music for download.

We could turn the question around, how many would be more inclined to buying DRM'd books if they were 70% of the non-DRMed ones.

But I think I tend to agree with Robert, they're just too expensive for what they are, for the most part. (Folks like Robert, and Baen excepted, of course!)

We could turn the question around, how many would be more inclined to buying DRM'd books if they were 70% of the non-DRMed ones.

Well, since I can rent books (in some cases eBooks) from the local library for free, I don't think that many people would pay much of anything for a DRMed eBook.

There'd be nothing wrong with that idea, except that e-books are generally not fairly priced to the consumer, the way iTunes music is.

But iTunes isn't fairly priced.

1 CD is about 15 songs and costs about $15. So $1 per track is the purchase price for music.

iTunes doesn't sell DRMed music. They license (i.e. rent) it. Does anyone pay Blockbuster purchase price to rent a DVD? I don't think so.

So $1 per DRMed song is not even close to "fairly priced to the consumer."

If DRM e-books were, say $2.00, and non-DRM e-books were, say, $2.50 (I know, I couldn't resist!), that might be reasonable to consumers.

I can rent books for free from my local library. Why should I pay any money to rent a DRMed eBook? It's a poor value.

Now, for a purchase price, $2.50 for a non-DRMed eBook seems reasonable - depending on the author, size of the eBook, etc.

I can rent books for free from my local library. Why should I pay any money to rent a DRMed eBook? It's a poor value.
1. You have to go to the library, costing time and gas.
2. You cannot read most library books electronically.
3. You want to keep the book longer than the library allows.
4. You want a book that is easier to transport.
5. etc, etc, etc...

I think you meant it's a poor value to you. Obviously it's not a poor value to others or eBook sites would not be selling thousands of ebooks. And just as obviously iTunes is fairly priced or they would not have sold billions of songs.

But iTunes isn't fairly priced.

1 CD is about 15 songs and costs about $15. So $1 per track is the purchase price for music.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962095.html?categoryid=18&cs=1&nid=2568

Perhaps 99c per song seems like a good deal when one only has to pay for the songs one actually wants, rather than the whole album, which often seems to consist largely of "filler."

But I think I tend to agree with Robert, they're just too expensive for what they are, for the most part. (Folks like Robert, and Baen excepted, of course!)
Is not being expensive a compliment? ;-)
I just bought a dozen used books for 150 Euro to complete my Heyne SF collection (books up to number 4000).
Also wait until you have to pay me :-)

$1 per track is not too expensive because the people buy it at this price. Albums are out of fashion now so simple price comparison is not fair anymore.
In Germany renting is impossible. It would entitle the consumer to immediate fix of any problems.

I think you meant it's a poor value to you. Obviously it's not a poor value to others or eBook sites would not be selling thousands of ebooks.

And what sites are those? The last time I checked, the DRM eBook sites are not doing very well.

I will also point out 2 things:
1. P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute."
2. Many people do not understand that a DRMed eBook is a rental - not a sale.

And just as obviously iTunes is fairly priced or they would not have sold billions of songs.

And those billions of songs sold represent a small percentage of the music on MP3 players - as Steve Jobs knows and has stated.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962095.html?categoryid=18&cs=1&nid=2568

So, in other words, iTunes has bought their prices down to be competitive with the non-DRM sites. <sarcasm>Wow</sarcasm>

The last time I checked, the DRM eBook sites are not doing very well.Versus what? Sony announced not to long ago that they have been astounded by the success of their Connect eBook store and it beat all of their projections.

Many people do not understand that a DRMed eBook is a rental - not a sale.And many people, like me, don't care.

And those billions of songs sold represent a small percentage of the music on MP3 players - as Steve Jobs knows and has stated.What does that have to do with how they are priced?

Anyone who has been on this board for a bit is well aware of your stance against DRM, and that is fine. DRM is a disadvantage to be weighed against the advantages according to a person's needs. Even though I don't buy DRM-controlled music in iTunes I can see why other people might. And I do buy DRM-controlled eBooks because for me the advantage is greater than the disadvantage. Apparently that is not the same for you, but I wish you could at least realize that your situation is not the same as everyone else's.

Versus what? Sony announced not to long ago that they have been astounded by the success of their Connect eBook store and it beat all of their projections.

Sony Board Member 1: So how many people do we think will be suckered into paying hardcover price for an eBook that they can't read on any other device?
Sony Board Member 2: 10 maybe 20 max.
--- a few months later ---
Sony Board Member 1: Hey! 30 people paid money to rent our overpriced eBooks.
Sony Board Member 2: 30! Wow, this beat all our projections!

What does that have to do with how they are priced?

Prices are set based primarily on 2 factors:
1. How much does it cost?
2. What will consumers pay for it?

If people are aware that they don't buy DRMed content, they will demand a much lower price for it.

Anyone who has been on this board for a bit is well aware of your stance against DRM, and that is fine. DRM is a disadvantage to be weighed against the advantages according to a person's needs. Even though I don't buy DRM-controlled music in iTunes I can see why other people might. And I do buy DRM-controlled eBooks because for me the advantage is greater than the disadvantage. Apparently that is not the same for you, but I wish you could at least realize that your situation is not the same as everyone else's.

I don't believe you are accurately aware of my stand on DRM.

When media has DRM on it, it's not a "sale". When I purchase a paper book, it's a sale. I can do whatever I want to with that paper book - read it wherever I want, use it however I want, resell it, etc. I own the physical book.

If I pay money for a DRMed eBook, it's a "license" - not a sale. All my rights to use that eBook are eliminated by that license.

Now, if I know that from the start, I take that into consideration when I decide my purchase. But (IHMO) most eBook stores are committing fraud. They are telling consumers that they are "buying" an eBook when what they are actually doing is "renting" it.

As I said before, "how many people would pay purchase price to rent a video from Blockbuster?" I doubt you'd find many people who would do that.

That's what I'm taking about.

I take this stand on DRM to make people aware. If you want to waste your money, you are free to do so. It's your money. If you see some advantage (sorry, I can't see any) to DRMed eBooks, then that's your decision. But you are aware of what you are doing. Most people who pay money for DRMed content aren't aware of what they paid money for - and would probably be shocked to see how little they received for their money.

As I said before, "how many people would pay purchase price to rent a video from Blockbuster?" I doubt you'd find many people who would do that.I think a better analogy would be "how many people would pay purchase price to rent a video from Blockbuster that they can download from the comfort of their couch in a matter of minutes and that is easier to watch and you can re-watch as many times as you want for a period of two or three years or maybe even longer". I think a lot of people would do that.

If you see some advantage (sorry, I can't see any) to DRMed eBooksI pointed out at least four in my original post. :P

We are just going in circles. That's fine, different strokes for different folks. :) I think we can both agree the original news, EMI offering non-DRM music finally, is good news.

I think a better analogy would be "how many people would pay purchase price to rent a video from Blockbuster that they can download from the comfort of their couch in a matter of minutes and that is easier to watch and you can re-watch as many times as you want for a period of two or three years or maybe even longer". I think a lot of people would do that.

But now you are getting off the topic of DRM and into the topic of "piracy".

So, staying on the topic of DRM, my original analogy was correct.

Which has better value?

Paying $20 for a paper book that can be resold (or gifted), read anywhere, and will be guaranteed that can be re-read a year from now (or more).

Paying $20 for a paper book that can't be resold (or gifted), can only be read on one device and has no guarantee that can be re-read 1 year from now.

Ask anyone and that question will pretty much be a no-brainer.

To drift into the "piracy" issue a bit: if no company provides what I, as a consumer, want, then I must look elsewhere.

It's not a matter of getting what I want for free. Most people want to pay for value. But if all the legal routes are bad value, "piracy" is the only other option.

I think we can both agree the original news, EMI offering non-DRM music finally, is good news.

Good news because it's a step in the right direction. But it still falls short.

The iPod is pretty much the only device that supports AAC. iTunes still doesn't sell MP3 (which is the standard) and therefore doesn't sell what I want.

For $1.30 (which is 30% higher than what the market charges), I expect to get exactly what I want.

The iPod is pretty much the only device that supports AAC.
Yeah, I was recently suprised by that too since AAC is an open standard. I know iPods and the Zune support it, but most of the "2nd tier" manufacturers like Creative and Sandisk don't.

The iPod is pretty much the only device that supports AAC. iTunes still doesn't sell MP3 (which is the standard) and therefore doesn't sell what I want.

Don't forget: You can always burn iTunes music onto a CD, and make DRM-free MP3s from that. I simply start a sound recorder, play the song from iTunes, and save that as an MP3. It's not hard, I save my CDs for albums, and I don't even own an iPod.*

I think we ALL agree that no-DRM music (and e-books) are good, and that both still have a ways to go to be great. We may argue about the proper price for an MP3 single, but we ALL agree that e-books' average price should be considerably less than they are.

And obviously, all this is being done because of business, and the pursuit of profit... not for altruistic motives. But that doesn't mean we can't still applaud their efforts and encourage them to do more.


*Just wanted to make sure no one here thought the matching initials were more than a coincidence... ;)

The iPod is pretty much the only device that supports AAC.Yeah, I was recently suprised by that too since AAC is an open standard. I know iPods and the Zune support it, but most of the "2nd tier" manufacturers like Creative and Sandisk don't.The Sony Reader does. :beam:

Maybe this development will convince the U.S. (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9901) and U.K. (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9790) governments to reconsider their support for DRM to bolster and protect the music and book industries.

So, in other words, iTunes has bought their prices down to be competitive with the non-DRM sites. <sarcasm>Wow</sarcasm>

What other non-DRM sites with music from mainstream labels would those be?

What other non-DRM sites with music from mainstream labels would those be?

Audio Lunchbox comes to mind.

But I wasn't talking about "mainstream" music. I was talking about music in general.

But what is "mainstream" music anyway? The drivel on the radio (which - at least in my area - seems to be rehashing alot from the 1980's) maybe?

With the radio getting worse and worse, and people leaving it for their MP3 players, what plays on the radio isn't "mainstream" to me.

But what is "mainstream" music anyway?

These days, the phrase doesn't mean much. The online music market is opening up everyone's horizons beyond the stuff (and saying "stuff," I'm being kind) they push in traditional markets. Being a jazz fan myself, I get my music online or from satellite radio... and I record more and more of my vintage vinyls into my MP3 player.