Is the first wave of legal, DRM free music downloads swelling at last? It sure appears to be, given Apple's press release, and a conference call transcript posted on Engadget. Here's the story from ABC News, as well as from Reuters.
It's no April Fool's Joke: EMI is going to make their entire catalog (sans Beatles for the moment) available in a new DRM-free, higher audio quality format that will hit the iTunes Music Store in May 2007. The new 256kbps AAC files with no DRM are going to cost $1.29. If you already bought the song for $.99 (for the 128kbps DRM'ed AAC), you'll be able to upgrade for the $.30 difference.
Steve Jobs portrait by *tumb on deviantART
Engadgeteer Thomas Ricker notes of the beginning of the Apple/EMI conference call: "The next big step forward -- the move to completely DRM-free music. EMI is first, entire catalog available DRM-free -- globally -- in May."
When asked during the Q&A "When are the Beatles tracks going to be online?"
Steve Jobs said "I want to know that too." and chuckled. EMI Chairman Eric Nicoli followed with, "we're working on it, hopefully soon."
Sharing and DRM
The way I have always seen it, "music sharing" as a pass-time and interpersonal-connector between friends and family was and will always be a normal part of how music fans live and breathe. We always used to make cassettes of vinyl albums and give them to each other, it was how we heard new music that a friend wanted us to check out. It was a normal part of life, and things that I actually liked and ended up listening to, I went and purchased my own vinyl copy of because I wanted to. Sharing - making mixes or burns or sharing MP3s - is how music fans spread the word about new artists. It's also how we revive excitement in a friend who was a one time fan of so-and-so and the thus-and-such-band gone sour on a less then stellar recent release. It's how people come to love a band and then become a customer of that band (in the form of CD sales, videos, live shows, merch at those shows, special editions of releases, etc.) At the core and root of it all, music is intended to be heard. I'm pleased to see things heading in this direction. I also love what Eric Nicoli said in the Q&A regarding EMI's customers. He was asked "Is this a green light for piracy?" and replied, "no, we take the view that we have to 'trust consumers.' Some will disappoint us. The idea is to give them the best music experience to grow sales and not diminish them."
It's important to remember though, that DRM is a technology that allows corporations to charge mainstream consumers again and again for the same content. It was not created or designed to prevent digital piracy. That's what they say it's for, sure, but to me, that's just a justification for DRM. And one without an awful lot of legs. Digital files can be copied and shared. There's really no way around it. Whenever a way is discovered to prevent digital files from being copied, someone invents a way around it. It's digital. It's not a physical item.
Hey, ever since the Napstallicaster debacle I have been saying (and I'm a recording musician) that I think artists, labels, indies, everyone ought to consider giving their music away (under Creative Commons license or something similar) and just think of getting the tunes out as their main marketing asset - designed to attract new fans who will come to live shows and pay $20-$80 for a ticket to the concert. Additionally, these fans might pay a little more to buy a "special version of the music" which means, something beyond the digital files. Like a printed book of lyrics, photos of the band, behind the scenes making-of-the-record DVD, posters, shirts, hats, for-pay podcasts, extended re-mixes, out-takes, anything you name. If people like the MUSIC they will like the BAND/ARTIST and buy things from them. Even within this context, I understand digital music sales, and I think $1 or so a song is very reasonable for something I will actually listen to. The DRM on these files just makes it a pain in the ass to listen to the music the way I want to where I want to when I want to. Seeing DRM go away is what I would vote for. Not a new scene of easily heist-able, artist-injuring, copyright breaking, free-floating, P2P and BitTorrent surf-able, songs to steal and be sued over. Just want to be able to use the music and hear it and enjoy it anyway and anywhere I want to, and not have it be illegal for me to try to get a file to play on some device when I already bought the file.
My problem has never been paying for music, it's always been not being able to play the music I bought in a way that strikes me in the moment to be able to do. That control belongs to the consumer not to the commercial machine.
Don't they understand that the more people that hear the music, the more fans there'll be? Oh - I guess that means that "content would be king" then wouldn't it. As in, sucky bands will never make it if people can hear that there's only 1 good song on that record before buying it. Said another way, the most talented, appealing, beloved artists will rise up and the sell-out schmoes will go the way of the dodo. Ahhh... Mutopia.
I was very impressed by this announcement - I think its very interesting that they not only made DRM-free a (small) premium but also doubled the quality of the content being delivered. I bet their are audio files who would have paid 30 cents extra even with the DRM.
And surely the other labels are watching and waiting to see what happens - it seems like a no brainer that they would fall in line and make the same deal.
Oh, one last thing - where are my Beatles tracks??