NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like they're seeing the future (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17902329/) of music distribution.
EMI Group PLC on Monday announced a deal that will allow computer company Apple Inc. to sell the record company's songs online without copy protection software.

The agreement means that customers of Apple's iTunes store will soon be able to play downloaded songs by the Rolling Stones, Norah Jones, Coldplay and other top-selling artists without the copying restrictions once imposed by their label.

EMI said almost all of its catalog, excluding music by The Beatles, is included in the deal.

I think it's just another way of ripping people off for downloading music.

An extra 20p a track just to play the music you've already bought on another machine?

About time.

I'm sick of downloading my songs, burning them to a CD and ripping the CD, just to get legally acquired music onto my MP3 player.

It's disgusting that they hamper my legal use of music so aggressively. I'm sick and tired of being punished for following the rules.

I'm sick and tired of being punished for following the rules.

Exactly. When they make it so hard and so expensive to do things legally, it's no wonder so many people turn to other options.

Finally. The end of DRM :D

This is good.

But they still have to work on the price and the quality... A quid and you still only get 256kbps? Come back allofmp3, all is forgiven! For that much money per track you'd expect something really special; it isn't economical compared to just buying the music on CD.

Exactly. When they make it so hard and so expensive to do things legally, it's no wonder so many people turn to other options.

It's not like this will bring an end to illegal downloading, but it will make it more likely that people who worry about the issue in their private practice will start to buy them.

Oh, I can bitch about another pet peeve of mine too, courtesy of the BBC Article on this subject (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm). Goody:
On iTunes EMI tracks free of digital rights management (DRM) software will cost $1.29 (99p).

According to Google, $1.29US is 65.76p. You add VAT to that (17.5%), and you get 77.27p. That's less than they charge for normal, shit quality, DRM infested downloads here!

Money-grubbing bastards, the lot of them.

I guess it's good that they realise people are pissed off with DRM, but as Compulsive Depression pointed out, it's still not value for money to buy and download from iTunes when you can go and buy the CD for less.

And he nicked my point about the US DRM-free downloads being cheaper than UK downloads with DRM. Bastard. ;)

And he nicked my point about the US DRM-free downloads being cheaper than UK downloads with DRM. Bastard. ;)

Maybe touch-typing has got me something, after all :p ;)

Maybe touch-typing has got me something, after all :p ;)
Heh. Or maybe I just came to this thread late...:)

I guess it's good that they realise people are pissed off with DRM, but as Compulsive Depression pointed out, it's still not value for money to buy and download from iTunes when you can go and buy the CD for less.

And he nicked my point about the US DRM-free downloads being cheaper than UK downloads with DRM. Bastard. ;)

I imagine the market will force those prices downward.

I imagine the market will force those prices downward.

But there isn't much of a market. The choice is basically iTunes or illegal downloading.

I imagine the market will force those prices downward.
Possibly, although the price of tracks with DRM has been stable for quite a long time. And I think there are enough people who don't want to download illegally or their music to have DRM to keep the price at that level.

About time.

I'm sick of downloading my songs, burning them to a CD and ripping the CD, just to get legally acquired music onto my MP3 player.

It's disgusting that they hamper my legal use of music so aggressively. I'm sick and tired of being punished for following the rules.

I've found it's much less hassle to just steal music. After a windows glitch wiped out all of my DRM data and I lost access to a small mountain of MP3s I opted to instead just download 'em all off the file sharing networks.

I imagine the market will force those prices downward.

As Stalin says, there's not much competition... I did a search around for legit music downloads a while ago, and they were almost all 79p/track, rubbish quality, with DRM. I wouldn't pay 79p/track for 320kbps without DRM, frankly. There is the occasional subscription-thing (I think you pimp one? Or is that NERVUN? I forget.) which isn't worth it when you only download the odd track here or there.

So I just buy CDs and stuck a tenner on allofmp3 before the banks stopped card transactions to them. Screw 'em :rolleyes:

As Stalin says, there's not much competition

I said that!

I said that!

Yeah, you did. Sorry :s

I wasn't very accurate with my words... I meant that, as Stalin says, the price has been the same forever, and nobody seems to want to offer them cheaper.

But there isn't much of a market. The choice is basically iTunes or illegal downloading.

but the downloads are competition, making it a market (if a very limited market) :p

As Stalin says, there's not much competition... I did a search around for legit music downloads a while ago, and they were almost all 79p/track, rubbish quality, with DRM. I wouldn't pay 79p/track for 320kbps without DRM, frankly. There is the occasional subscription-thing (I think you pimp one? Or is that NERVUN? I forget.) which isn't worth it when you only download the odd track here or there.

So I just buy CDs and stuck a tenner on allofmp3 before the banks stopped card transactions to them. Screw 'em :rolleyes:

It's really not a big deal for me as I don't listen to any major label stuff anymore anyway. I have an emusic subscription which is less per song--couldn't tell you about the quality--and has never had DRM.

I'm sick and tired of being punished for following the rules.
QFT.
They movie industry needs to follow suit. I was in HMV today, looking through their TV DVDs.
They had Dr Who series two in Chinese for less than 1/2 the price than the English version Dr Who II.
To compound this, it lacked the Xmas special, which they're selling seperately for almost the same price as series II (English version).
One 50 minute show for the same price as a 5 disc set of 13 episodes + a load of extras.


Yet I'm the villain if I d/l it

but the downloads are competition, making it a market (if a very limited market) :p

I suppose they could be, if you think that illegal downloaders can be tempted to go legal by the right price. But I would have thought that anyone who was going to have a 'crisis of conscience' about downloading would have done so by now, so I don't know whether the two should be counted as a single market.

Yeah, you did. Sorry :s

I wasn't very accurate with my words... I meant that, as Stalin says, the price has been the same forever, and nobody seems to want to offer them cheaper.
I'm not sure there's that much profit for Apple in a 79 pence download, once you've taken into account hosting costs, transaction costs and the percentage they have to pay to the copyright owners, so it's not much of a surprise nobody offers cheaper than 79p.

I'm not sure there's that much profit for Apple in a 79 pence download, once you've taken into account hosting costs, transaction costs and the percentage they have to pay to the copyright owners, so it's not much of a surprise nobody offers cheaper than 79p.

79p is about $1.29 American, right? With emusic, even at their lowest subscription rate, you get 30 downloads a month for ten bucks, which works out to 33 cents a download. If you want more downloads, you get them for less. Difference is, it's a smaller, more eclectic catalogue and there's no rollover for unused downloads, but they are making a real go of it with a much lower price.

This is good.

But they still have to work on the price and the quality... A quid and you still only get 256kbps? Come back allofmp3, all is forgiven! For that much money per track you'd expect something really special; it isn't economical compared to just buying the music on CD.


One thing I like about iTunes though (compared to buying on CD), is I can buy only the songs I like, so when I do burn a CDR, I don't have to skip past tracks I don't want to listen to.

Seems like they're seeing the future (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17902329/) of music distribution.
EMI is. Apple is still in antitrust mode.

I think it's just another way of ripping people off for downloading music.

An extra 20p a track just to play the music you've already bought on another machine?
What I read is they are only increasing the price of single tracks - not entire CDs (even entire CDs without copy protection). And considering you would already have to get a really, really short CD to make buying single tracks worth it, I don't see a problem. Besides, most people that use iTunes have an iPod making your contention moot - they can burn it no problem or use it on their iPod no problem. I bet the music is still in an unconvertible format and iTunes still doesn't support non-iPod mp3 players.

What's more, if they want to end DRM, they can make it so iTunes holds user purchase information serverside (which it does already I think) and then use it to let you re-download stuff you already purchased as many times as you want. It's your god damn music and you have the right to duplicate it in case of emergency. Until dealers in electronic media realize that the only way to fight pirating (ironically) is the removal of all restrictions but a reasonable cost, it will still persist.

Finally. The end of DRM :D

well, not really. more like the end of DRM for people who are willing to pay extra for a service that should be standard and which everyone else can get for free anyway.

it's a pretty hollow gesture as far as i'm concerned.

79p is about $1.29 American, right? With emusic, even at their lowest subscription rate, you get 30 downloads a month for ten bucks, which works out to 33 cents a download. If you want more downloads, you get them for less. Difference is, it's a smaller, more eclectic catalogue and there's no rollover for unused downloads, but they are making a real go of it with a much lower price.
Closer to $1.45 (might not sound much, but it's nearly 15% difference). Emusic probably makes a fair bit of its profit from people who pay for the subscription then don't download all the music they're entitled to.

79p is about $1.29 American, right? With emusic, even at their lowest subscription rate, you get 30 downloads a month for ten bucks, which works out to 33 cents a download.

30 songs or 30 albums? Because if it's the former then, fuck me, I download more than that in a couple of hours! Yesterday was 6 albums. :eek: