Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Set to Unlock EMI Songs, Too

Posted by Zonk on Fri Apr 06, 2007 08:43 AM
from the very-brave-new-world dept.
linumax writes "Microsoft has stated that it may be close to reaching a deal with EMI to sell songs without anti-piracy protection via the Zune platform. This, from comments made by head of marketing for Zune Jason Reindorp. They come hard on the heels of EMI's announcement that a deal with Apple to sell songs without DRM protection through the iTunes Music Store has been struck. Mr Reindorp said: 'We've been saying for a while that we are aware that consumers want to have unprotected content. This does open things up a little bit. It potentially makes the competition more of a device-to-device or service-to-service basis, and will force the various services to really innovate.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Steve Jobs Announces (some) DRM-free iTunes 838 comments
Fjan11 writes "Steve Jobs just announced that starting next month on you can buy higher quality 256Kbps AAC encoded DRM-free versions of iTunes songs for $1.29. Upgrades to songs you've already bought will be available at the $0.30 price difference. Currently EMI is the only publisher participating, accounting for about 20% of the songs available." There's also reports from Reuters and ABC News. The deal excludes the Beatles. You can also read the official press release from Apple if you still think this a late joke; this story confirms earlier speculation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by rs232 (849320) on Friday April 06 2007, @08:45AM (#18633407)
    Not only that but they innovated the idea before Apple ever did !!
    • by AVee (557523) <slashdot&avee,org> on Friday April 06 2007, @09:10AM (#18633683) Homepage
      Hi, i'd like to welcome you all to our monthly bussiness strategy meeting. The agenda of this months meeting is basically the same as last month:
      1. What has Apple been doing this month?
      2. What has Google been doing this month?
      3. Are there other interesting things to copy?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Because apple/google(or $random_company) have never been guilty of copying something other companies are doing. Shouldnt that be the secondary focus of EVERY company? What is the competition doing and how can we do it better?
    • by ClosedSource (238333) on Friday April 06 2007, @10:06AM (#18634401)
      Apple was the first company that ever offered DRM-free downloads, right?
      • Of course! Remember, you have to sell something WITH DRM first, and then you can claim it's DRM-free. Otherwise, it's just a file.
    • by kjart (941720) on Friday April 06 2007, @12:48PM (#18636699)

      Not only that but they innovated the idea before Apple ever did !!

      Claiming this is Apple "innovation" is as ridiculous as claiming this is Microsoft "innovation". Give credit where credit is due - bravo EMI.

  • Now, let's hope the albums cost less than the current store CDs, given the reduced material and sales costs. I'm sure that's what will happen, right?
    • Some facts to accompany your quip:

      Coldplay's album "X&Y" is an EMI release.

      Full album from iTunes Store = $11.99
      Full album from Amazon = $11.97 + S&H
      Full album from Best Buy = $13.99 in store
      Full album from Caiman via Amazon Used & New = $11.93 with shipping

      Sure iTunes isn't the absolute cheapest way to get it, but the tradeoff of price/convenience seems reasonable to me. Get it within minutes from iTunes, or pay $2.00 more and pick it up at Best Buy, or save $0.06 and get it in a few

      • by animaal (183055) on Friday April 06 2007, @11:08AM (#18635317)

        Sure iTunes isn't the absolute cheapest way to get it, but the tradeoff of price/convenience seems reasonable to me.
        I would have thought that until recently, but now I appreciate having:

        1) lossless sound encoding on my good audio equipment
        2) a physical backup, also lossless
        3) an asset that can be re-sold when I no longer want it.

        The way I look at it, with a CD I get all three of the above, and it costs no more than a lossy data file from iTunes that can't be re-sold.
  • by romanval (556418) on Friday April 06 2007, @08:46AM (#18633419)
    would they have do so even if Apple didn't convince EMI to drop DRM?

    I think not.
  • Like all Microsoft products, it will blow chunks until 3.0 so keep waiting. It has nothing significant to offer over iPods, let alone 90% of the more recent non-Apple players. This just isn't all that important in the world of music hardware...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Like all Microsoft products, it will blow chunks until 3.0 so keep waiting.

      I agree, although I would be more inclined to say that, like the vast majority of Microsoft products, it will always blow chunks. Worse, because Microsoft is kow-towing to the media companies, it will probably always be more restricted than competitive products.

      It has nothing significant to offer over iPods, let alone 90% of the more recent non-Apple players.

      Dead on. As a "recent non-Apple player" owner, I have a SanDisk San
    • Like all Microsoft products, it will blow chunks until 3.0 so keep waiting.

      That's completely untrue.

      Word blew chunks until 6.0

  • Man, I hope so. That makes two very important gadget co.s and one major label...

    Part of me wants to continue boycotting their stuff anyway, as punishment for years of bad behavior
  • Here's what I see... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by foodnugget (663749) <eric-slashdot@ericfeldman. c o m> on Friday April 06 2007, @08:48AM (#18633451)
    So there are a few directions this could take, here's the ones i can think of:
    1) They unlock certain songs, and shortly thereafter, claim these songs are now more-heavily pirated, and use it for justification to sell more DRM to recording agencies
    2) Same as #1, except they claim the songs are not selling better, and declare that DRM isn't an obstruction
    3) they still include some kind of DRM but call it something else
    4) They've actually seen the light, and are now going to try to innovate instead of regulate.
    Did I miss any?
    P.S. I don't have a lot of confidence in 4).
    • by RDW (41497) on Friday April 06 2007, @08:53AM (#18633519)
      5) They release the tracks as unprotected (but iPod-incompatible) WMA and find they don't sell any better, then claim that consumers aren't really interested in DRM-free tracks.
      • EMI ran a test with DRM free tracks last year and found users preferred DRM free 10 to 1... ... sounds like a commercial but I read that in an article the other day...
          • Re:.wma in iTunes (Score:4, Informative)

            by acidrain69 (632468) on Friday April 06 2007, @11:35AM (#18635673) Journal
            I think you're missing something. Not everyone can really hear the difference. It may be obvious to you, but not to everyone else. Just be happy you have good hearing. Or feel cursed because only you and a few other % of the population qualify as "audiophiles" that would notice.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      ahh. The beautiful visual effects of the Slashdot reality distortion field.

      so in the case of 2, what would we have to complain about? *If* people don't care and don't preferentially buy DRM-free, do you expect major labels to remove DRM restrictions despite the fact they would have proven that the market wasn't interested? They aren't sitting up in their offices working out how to make Slashdot-ters happy, y'know.

      And even more telling, option 4 seems to define the word 'innovate' as 'do exactly what we want
  • no thanks to MS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yagu (721525) * <<yayagu> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday April 06 2007, @08:49AM (#18633459) Journal

    It probably goes without saying, but this isn't some initiative on MS' part. It's riding Jobs' coattails, crying "me too!, me too!", as if MS is some kind of crusader for consumers' rights around music and DRM.

    Interesting how MS plays this as "opening up" things for the consumer. We'll see. I wonder how much progress MS has really made unencumbering consumers' music.

    • have they opened up the wireless sharing at all (ahem, "squirting")
    • have the at least allowed for non-drm music to be shared indefinitely?

    I don't hold my breath waiting for MS to do anything for me. I cringe they are jumping on this as a potential PR windfall for them and their Zune. Fortunately, the Zune was pretty much issued DOA, and this doesn't make a whit of difference.

    • Re:no thanks to MS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Friday April 06 2007, @08:55AM (#18633549) Homepage
      Interesting how MS plays this as "opening up" things for the consumer. We'll see. I wonder how much progress MS has really made unencumbering consumers' music.

      Even for Apple and EMI this isn't opening things up for anyone. It's charging more for the same fucking shit you would get from a CD while approaching or even surpassing the cost of the physical media while not having the physical media to keep or uncompressed and high quality audio.

      I'm tired of this entire EMI thing. I'm not fucking impressed at all.
      • Re:no thanks to MS (Score:5, Informative)

        by porcupine8 (816071) on Friday April 06 2007, @10:10AM (#18634463) Journal
        DRM-free albums (not individual songs) will still be $9.99 in iTMS. If you can always get major release CDs for less than that, you must have a relative who works for EMI or something. Sure, maybe it's technically lower quality - but I know I sure as hell can't tell the difference between 256 kbs and a CD (which I'd just rip anyhow).
    • The thing that I don't like is that they've been bending over backwards to give everything that copyright owners have asked for. The Zune was a stab in the back of all their PlaysForSure partners, they assumed they could get it right themselves and make their own walled garden.

      As much as I didn't like how Apple did things, they did it a lot better and with very few restrictions in comparison. I really don't believe Steve Job's stated reasoning for not wanting to licence "FairPlay" either, people have mana
      • people have managed to decrypt Apple's stuff despite not being a multi-party encryption scheme

        Not for the past year or so. The iTunes 6-7 AES-based scheme is unbroken, much to my dismay (of being able to buy stuff from iTunes and use it on my devices without taking a quality hit).

        There's an attack against Windows to intercept the data stream, but that's not actually an encryption break.
    • Re:no thanks to MS (Score:5, Informative)

      by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75@yah o o . c om> on Friday April 06 2007, @09:33AM (#18633935) Homepage
      It probably goes without saying, but this isn't some initiative on MS' part. It's riding Jobs' coattails, crying "me too!, me too!", as if MS is some kind of crusader for consumers' rights around music and DRM.

      I think you need to go back and read EMI's announcement [emigroup.com]. Some relevant quotes (emphasis added):

      "From today, EMI's retailers will be offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality."

      "EMI's new DRM-free products will enable full interoperability of digital music across all devices and platforms."

      "Apple's iTunes Store (www.itunes.com) is the first online music store to receive EMI's new premium downloads."

      EMI had always planned to make its catalog available to anyone that wants it, not just through iTunes and not just AAC files. The only exclusivity Apple ever had was in making the co-announcement.
    • Re:no thanks to MS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SilentChris (452960) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:36AM (#18633973) Homepage
      Actually, it's not even Apple's initiative. It's EMI's.

      In interviews after the announcement EMI said it was them, not Apple, that initiated the push for DRM-free music. They had already experimented with smaller versions of the program in the past. Internal tests said their own employees preferred the option to buy DRM-free tunes.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the timeline was: discussed it with Steve Jobs sometime in 2006, they were close to inking a deal, Jobs publishes his "Thoughts on Music", EMI and Apple push the new initiative. Jobs looks like a visionary, EMI looks like a marketplace innovator.

      In other words, how Jobs usually plans things: to make it look most appealing marketwise.
  • What about "squirting" device-to-device? I didn't see anything about this in the article, but then again I didn't read it very carefully (this is /., after all...) I can only assume that because the Zune DRM-izes just about every song on your device when sharing, even those that you recorded yourself, EMI songs will probably still suffer from the 3-days/3-plays restriction...though I suppose MS could just argue that lifting the restriction would just encourage piracy.

    Still, I don't think it's fair to c
  • by Zetta Matrix (245803) on Friday April 06 2007, @08:50AM (#18633481)
    If I'm not mistaken, Bill Gates has paraded around in recent times saying that "customers want [DRM]"? It's ok to say you're wrong, Bill.
    • Just for the record (Score:5, Informative)

      by Taagehornet (984739) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:24AM (#18633827)

      If I'm not mistaken

      But you are [techcrunch.com] (well, at least the real picture is a bit more muddled)

      Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.

      His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      How is bgates the bad guy here? Because his new OS plays bluray? Take that up with the bluray people and Sony. If you want the worlds worst DRM offender, look at the ITMS. ITMS has made DRM and everyday thing for Joe and Jane Sixpack.

      Or you can sit around and complain about microsoft, thus making sure no one knows how wrong Apple is and, as usual, continue to accomplish nothing but whine and moan.
  • Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)

    Of course they're aware that that's what consumers want. I think it's also pretty obvious that they don't like it, though, because it goes against their traditional strategy of vendor lockin.
    • It really must be hard for MS to go from a position of willingly forcing DRM onto consumers and then have to admit consumer don't want it when they backtrack to a certain extent.

      I'm not holding my breath too much on any of the other DRM stuff. It isn't likely that MS would reverse a position on anything that didn't already have some viable competition involved. MS has been able to push the DRM from the aspect that they control the access users have and decided to create a business model out of that control.
  • Since when? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vivaoporto (1064484) on Friday April 06 2007, @08:52AM (#18633499) Homepage
    'We've been saying for a while that we are aware that consumers want to have unprotected content.'

    Since when? As far as I know, what they are trying is to provide the ultimate protection to content, from the file format [microsoft.com] to the media player software [microsoft.com] to the output hardware [microsoft.com].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2007, @08:54AM (#18633533)
    ...are done rejoicing, can we appropriately tag this article as irrelevant and slownewsday?
  • I'm curious... Does this mean that EMI is dropping the DRM requirement on wireless Zune to Zune transfers as well? Without that insipid "3 day, 3 play" DRM rule, the wireless song transfer option on the Zune just became a hell of a lot more useful!

    Of course, it would also make it a hell of a lot easier to pirate songs as well. Something tells me that the RIAA would never let this happen :(
  • by straponego (521991) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:10AM (#18633687)
    I went from buying about 10 CDs/month a few years ago to about 0 CDs/month because of RIAA tactics, the fact that buying spinning metal media discs is silly these days, and that the price was ridiculous. So I've got about 650 of those things in a closet, about the same bumber I had five years ago.

    If I can buy uncrippled, high quality media files, I will. ~256K VBR mp3 is about the lowest I'll consider. Yes, I can hear the difference, consistently. Apple's 256K AAC should meet this spec, though I haven't listened to much AAC.

    Now, it's time to optimize the price. I'm aware that the actual costs of distribution over the net is very low, and I don't care about marketing costs, because virtually nothing I listen to is marketed at all. I don't like being ripped off. $1/song is still a ripoff, but for uncrippled content I'll probably buy a few albums I've been wanting, just to encourage them.

    But. At $.50/song and $5.00/album, I'd buy 100 albums today. I've got a five year backlog to catch up on. Probably be good for another 10/month, too.

    Come on, music labels. Talk to your artists, see who's willing to experiment with the prices. Healthy industries with real competition experiment with prices to find the most profitable price points. You're pricing like a monopoly, but you're forgetting that we do have alternatives: Free legal music, free illegal music, boycott, video, games, books, etc. I suspect you'd make a lot more money if you weren't so greedy, scared, contemptuous and contemptible. Why not find out?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        No, and if they were $100/album, I wouldn't buy 5 albums and one more every two months. I think that the field of economics has a term for this phenomenon. Maybe you could look that up. Or you could read my original post. This time see if you can't manage to glance at every sentence.
  • by blueZhift (652272) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:15AM (#18633729) Homepage Journal
    I think that this is just more evidence that Apple's success with iTunes with respect to market share really put the record companies over a barrel. They've wanted to raise the price of tracks from 99 cents for a long time now, but apparently didn't have the leverage over Apple to make them do it. Without higher per track prices on iTunes, there was no way they could get it at any competitors, who were already at a huge disadvantage anyway.

    So when Jobs started talking about removing DRM, probably not just a coincidence, it set the stage for EMI to offer DRM free tracks, but at a higher price per track. It looks as if stripping DRM was the price of raising the price per track. Perhaps the record companies are realizing that removing DRM is the only way in the near term of loosening Apple's grip on the digital music market. Of course it is interesting to note that the DRM-less tracks from iTunes will be in AAC format which, while other players can support it, will tend to keep most people in the iPod fold since converting to other formats like MP3 is a hassle most consumers would prefer not to be bothered with. So I would look for growth in the number of AAC supporting players.
  • by blueZ3 (744446) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:15AM (#18633743) Homepage
    Every time someone does something cool, Microsoft always has to chime in. It's like the annoying little brother who is always following you around; whenever you say anything, he always says "Me too!" and then goes on to explain how what he did is even better. For anyone who didn't have a younger sibling growing up, it's hard to overstate the annoyance factor.

    Netscape revolutionizes the Web -- MS creates free Internet Explorer. OSX introduces Expose, the Dock, and Widgets -- four years later Vista "innovates" with duplicate features. Apple rakes in millions with the iPod -- Microsoft creates poo-colored, squirting Zune. Google goes IPO -- MS announces "all-new, improved, better-than-ever" MSN search. Apple announces DRM-free music -- you guessed it: Me too! Me too! Me too!

    I don't hate Microsoft (though sometimes it seems like they work awfully hard to make people hate them) but I'm not buying their "We want to eliminate DRM too" PR either. Microsoft's media file format, software, hardware player, and store are all strong arguments that that's a load of monkey excrement.
  • Microsoft has hinted that it may be close to reaching a deal with EMI to sell songs without anti-piracy protection via its Zune platform.

    Surely nobody still thinks that digital restrictions management provides "anti-piracy protection"? It's about control.
    Even the MPAA knows that current DRM encourages piracy [freshdv.com] by making paid-for music more of a hassle.

    • Yeah, the article summary is totally NPOV...

      It reads like a press release from Microsoft, and without having RTFA, I can't say whether or not it actually is.
  • Microsoft in various media statements, has declared that if there is going to be piracy, they want it to be done on their platforms, and TO their platforms. Anything that keeps marketshare from competitors is a good thing, as far as they are concerned.

    The truth is, were Linux accessible to the masses, Windows would be free.

  • Zune Wireless (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PixieDust (971386) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:45AM (#18634093)
    One interesting way this could play out is taking the Zune's wireless sharing abilities from a sort of novelty "That's kinda neat" feature to something actually marketable (not to mention a legal quagmire for Microsoft). They sell unprotected music, with 0 DRM, and then people start sharing songs between Zunes like crazy. I had a Zune for a while, and loved it, it's actually a great little device. If MS would make a few tweaks to it's usability and features, it would really be a great product. It's already better than an iPod (imho) of what it can do, usability, and features. The real question, however, is if Microsoft is just changing to adapt to what is really becoming a truly consumer driven market, or if they're actually trying to go after Apple's complete dominance of the MP3 device market. Either way, should make for an interesting show.

    I can't help but wonder when the first RIAA lawsuit is brought forth against Apple or MS for "Enabling Filesharing" by "Failing to protect copyrighted content". And then going after the HDD manufacturers for making access to the files so easy.

  • I'm having a hard time believing it, but apparently it's true....

    Yes, I guess they are still selling Zunes.
  • Almost there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JumperCable (673155) on Friday April 06 2007, @09:52AM (#18634183)
    Give us lossless FLAK or WAVs and I'm sold. Enough of this lossy compression crap.
    • Ya, mp3s can't touch 50~75meg wave files! Seriously though, I think I'll keep using mp3...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Hence the request for FLAC. My FLAC files average 20-30MB (far smaller than WAV/AIFF) and the tradeoff in CPU power for encoding/decoding is more than acceptable. Testing on an AMD64, encoding a 12-track album takes about 5 minutes or less. Encoding on a G5 Quad (albeit as a single-threaded process) takes even less time.

        I was skeptical of "off" formats for a long time, sticking with MP3 for its playability and widespread compatibility. Once I discovered RockBox, though, along with Cog and Foobar2000 (th
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      While i do object to microsoft's use of a proprietary format even for DRM free music... I don't object to Apple's, since AAC is a standard format, the only non standard component Apple used was the DRM, without that AAC is simply a newer and improved version of MP3.
      If your player doesnt support it, there's nothing to stop you converting the file, although you will suffer a slight drop in quality due to transcoding and MP3 being an inferior format. Alternatively, you can wait for more players to support AAC,