Apple courts indies with DRM break

[AppleInsider]

The iTunes Store is lending an ear to smaller labels, hoping to muster support for its anti-DRM movement by cutting indies treatment similar to that given to EMI.

An e-mail circulated by Apple yesterday confirms that the company is offering the smaller labels the ability to submit DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to its customers through iTunes, reports MacRumors.

Though short on details, the communication made it clear that music agencies will receive the same DRM-free privileges negotiated between Apple and major publisher EMI.

"Many of you have reached out to iTunes to find out how you can make your songs available higher quality and DRM-free," Apple wrote in the communication. "Starting next month, iTunes will begin offering higher-quality, DRM-free music and DRM-free music videos to all customers."

The declaration serves as a gateway to indie record producers looking to drop safeguards from their music. Many publishing houses beyond the four majors already sell music and other media from artists without the software restriction in place, whether through smaller stores such as Beatport and eMusic or self-managed outlets.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[nagromme]

And according to MacRumors, Apple has also extended the battery warranty on all MacBooks/MBPRos to 2 years, to cover issues that software can't resolve.

[Buck]

Ah nevermind. Battery topic has moved.

[SpamSandwich]

Nice move, Steve! Keep giving 'em what they want, even before they know they want it!

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by Buck

Ah nevermind. Battery topic has moved.

Sorry -- the story turned out to be much bigger than initially thought. Since it may affect a large number of readers, we broke it out into its own article.

-K

[Cleverboy]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Conspicuously absent in the e-mail were mentions of different pricing systems for indie labels.

Conspicuously absent? Olive branch? I don't think its "absent" and I don't think its "war".

Very weird framing to put this in, AI. They already SAID they were offering to everyone (including Indies) in the speech with EMI. You guys posted a transcript! They were EXPLICITLY ASKED afterwards if the 1/2 of iTunes being DRM-free included just the other majors, or the independents, and Steve said YES, that this figure included the independents they would expect to be on-board. The $1.29 product is THE new/additional product, as much as the $.99 per track product is the only CURRENT product. Why is anything "conspicuously absent".

I can appreciate adding a certain sense of "drama" and politics to things to spice them up, but I'd actually started to expect more "reporterly" and *informed* reports from Apple Insider... and not "we don't really remember what was said, and we've been reading too much Engadget to voice a reasonably rational report."

Meh.

Hey, in other news... here's a fresh new idea. With the NEW AAC's being DRM-free, how can Apple continue to support a feature distinction that let's you take your "purchased music" and back it up, from your iPod? How will they be able to distinguish a normal AAC track from a "purchased" one? I think a tool highly sought after, will be one that modifies unpurchased tracks (or the iPod index system) to assume that ANY aac you want, is an AAC that can be "backed up" off the iPod FROM iTunes. It's still a silly limitation Apple seems hamstrung into perpetuating (intended to insure iPod isn't a wholesale pirated music carrier/spreader), but this might make it less painful for non-thieves.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by Cleverboy

Conspicuously absent? Olive branch? I don't think its "absent" and I don't think its "war".

Very weird framing to put this in, AI. They already SAID they were offering to everyone (including Indies) in the speech with EMI. You guys posted a transcript! They were EXPLICITLY ASKED afterwards if the 1/2 of iTunes being DRM-free included just the other majors, or the independents, and Steve said YES, that this figure included the independents they would expect to be on-board. The $1.29 product is THE new/additional product, as much as the $.99 per track product is the only CURRENT product. Why is anything "conspicuously absent".

I can appreciate adding a certain sense of "drama" and politics to things to spice them up, but I'd actually started to expect more "reporterly" and *informed* reports from Apple Insider... and not "we don't really remember what was said, and we've been reading too much Engadget to voice a reasonably rationally report."

Meh.

Hey, in other news... here's a fresh new idea. With the NEW AAC's being DRM-free, how can Apple continue to support a feature distinction that let's you take your "purchased music" and back it up, from your iPod? How will they be able to distinguish a normal AAC track from a "purchased" one? I think a tool highly sought after, will be one that modifies unpurchased tracks (or the iPod index system) to assume that ANY aac you want, is an AAC that can be "backed up" off the iPod FROM iTunes. It's still a silly limitation Apple seems hamstrung into perpetuating (intended to insure iPod isn't a wholesale pirated music carrier/spreader), but this might make it less painful for non-thieves.

Thanks for your comments. We recently brought in a new editor. It will take some grooming.

Best,

K

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Cleverboy

How will they be able to distinguish a normal AAC track from a "purchased" one?

That is easy... Metadata.

[reallynotnick]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That is easy... Metadata.

Which we can strip and edit!

Anyway I really want this good quality DRM free songs but I am not crazy about the price hike. Though I guess iTunes is still the best option out there.

[Cleverboy]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That is easy... Metadata.

True, presumeably one idea. But, I'm thinking more specifically about the form the metadata solution might take. I'm assuming metadata is the easiest most straightforward method (whether in the file or in the index), but I was also wondering if they've been experimenting with digital watermarking too. I just don't know that a digital watermark can be read as quickly as file or index based metadata. There's been a lot of discussion lately on watermarking as a better method of tracking DRM-free music, so I wonder if that's the stuff discussed in the backrooms that we consumers don't get to hear about.

Thanks for your comments. We recently brought in a new editor. It will take some grooming. Best, K

Hope I didn't sound too shrill. I think I'm at my snark limit for the day.

~ CB

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by reallynotnick

Which we can strip and edit!

Anyway I really want this good quality DRM free songs but I am not crazy about the price hike. Though I guess iTunes is still the best option out there.

I think it's still a worthwhile improvement. The iTunes model is still a lot cheaper than buying single CDs to get the track you wanted, or buying an album to get the 2-3 tracks that you wanted, $3-$4 vs $10-$15 for the prices I usually paid for a CD.

Not that it matters, I still generally just buy the full CD, the iTunes equivalent is the same price. My take is that if I only like 10-20% of a given CD, then the artist isn't really very good in my opinion.

[JavaCowboy]

How will non-DRM'd tracks/albums be distinguished from DRM'd tracks/albums? I'm hoping Apple will make this distinction as obvious as getting hit by a two-by-four. Also, will Apple allow iTunes users to use the DRM -ness as a search criteria.

I will only purchase non-DRM'd music from iTunes, and I want to be able to easily search for non-DRM'd tracks and albums, to the total exclusion of DRM'd music.

Hopefully, Apple understands that there are lots of people like me out there waiting to get on board.

[palegolas]

They have said the songs will be DRM free, that they can be played without any DRM decryption. But they haven´t said what else they´ll do. Might be encrypted tags embedded in the tracks, such as who bought the song, etc. Might not be so intriguing to file share a song if it has your name tag on it.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

How will non-DRM'd tracks/albums be distinguished from DRM'd tracks/albums?

They'll cost 30¢ more than DRMed songs. Duh! I think will allow you to search for these particular songs.

My rationale:

• This was one of the first people asked when the deal with EMi was announced
• Apple is incorporating an auto-search of your Library to allow you to upgrade your compatible audio to the higher priced, DRM-free audio so I adding this feature for user seraches is a cake walk in comparison
• Apple is encouraging DRM-free music so making it easy to find--and subsequently buying--is a primary goal

Originally Posted by palegolas

They have said the songs will be DRM free, that they can be played without any DRM decryption. But they haven´t said what else they´ll do. Might be encrypted tags embedded in the tracks, such as who bought the song, etc. Might not be so intriguing to file share a song if it has your name tag on it.

They could very well do that, but I don't think they will. Tagging songs with user specific data will be discovered immediately as AAC, like MP3, is a well known and documented format. There will be a unproar and within an hour there will an iTunes Store Unprotected-AAC Metadata Cleaner available for free on the nets.

They could bypass metadata altogether and use a hidden audio watermark, but that would require some additional processing, slowing down the transfer and really pissing off a lot of people once it was found out. I'm certain this has been thought up and discusses by EMI and Apple at some point, and I'm certain it has been knocked down too. It's just too Big Brother for Apple's taste.

[Cleverboy]

Originally Posted by palegolas

Might be encrypted tags embedded in the tracks, such as who bought the song, etc. Might not be so intriguing to file share a song if it has your name tag on it.

Originally Posted by solipsism

They could bypass metadata altogether and use a hidden audio watermark, but that would require some additional processing, slowing down the transfer and really pissing off a lot of people once it was found out. I'm certain this has been thought up and discusses by EMI and Apple at some point, and I'm certain it has been knocked down too. It's just too Big Brother for Apple's taste.

If they do anything (and as I noted earlier), it WILL BE digital watermarking. Lots of people have talked about this as a much better idea than "DRM". Being able to track down the original owner of the file is one mark towards the music studios further tracking what is going on with file distribution. I personally doubt there'll be any "de-watermarking". I'd imagine its more trouble than any concievable "reward". Whether its downloads or via CD, competant theives would just use a stolen identity anyway. It's the normal joes that don't realize their file is out in the wild that probably have more to be concerned about.

~ CB

[SpamsSandwich]

Apple and Steve Jobs are totally awesome!