Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Music Media Media (Apple) The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

EMI Says ITMS DRM-Free Music Selling Well 239 239

An anonymous reader writes "'The initial results of DRM-free music are good' says Lauren Berkowitz, a senior vice president of EMI, at a music industry conference in New York. Berkowitz went on to say that the early results from iTunes indicate that DRM-free offerings may boost revenue from digital albums as well as individual songs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EMI Says ITMS DRM-Free Music Selling Well

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't it ironic ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by for_usenet (550217) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @01:53PM (#19597507)
    that with 2 earlier articles - making DVD copying even more illegal (if that were at all possible), and a "desire" for a Canadian DMCA, that we "now just find out" people are willing to pay for DRM-free content. I did my part and paid for a couple of tracks that I bought with DRM and "upgraded" to the DRM-free version, and will continue to do so as more become available, and as content I want becomes available DRM-free. Let's really show them where we willing to spend our $. Seems to be the only thing they listen to ...
  • Of Course It Is..... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by queenb**ch (446380) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @01:57PM (#19597587) Homepage Journal
    Wow, you mean I can put music the same music on my laptop, desktop, MP3 player, and burn a CD to listen to in my car with out having buy the same song 4 times???

    Hmmm....this sounds a whole lot like Napster back in the day. Sheesh, it's only taken them six years to come up with a business model that works. Charging us for what we were doing on Napster anyway.

  • Sad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thesupermikey (220055) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @02:01PM (#19597635) Homepage Journal
    I had bought about 200 songs off iTMS in the 2 years i have been using it. Not a single song was from EMI.
    I don't know what that is important to this discussion, but if felt like sharing.

  • I have a soft spot for artists getting screwed by technology. Every technological advance seems to fall on artists particularly hard, so, while I really do hate the RIAA and the music industry and movie industry, I still think there might be a place so someone could show pictures of their work on the internet without having them stolen.

    My wife used to use Napster (pre-lawsuit), and Kazaa, but she switched to iTunes because iTunes was more convenient and not choked full of ads, and paying a $1 a song is not so bad. If you add the threat of RIAA letters, then, iTunes seems like a pretty good deal indeed. She also feels a need to support the artists.

    But really, the value of iTunes is the convenience and cleanliness, and there's no reason someone could not make a similar, ad-free thing but for file sharing writ large. Really, DRM free on iTunes is predicated on the fact that the recording industry must feel like it is getting some sort of handle on musical file sharing - that is, RIAA lawsuits to music downloaders must actually be working. Were there REALLY no DMCA or copyright controls on music, though, someone would eventually make something with a really cool user interface, like iTunes, but where music would be genuinely free.

    Then, musicians would starve.

  • Re:Double Shock! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by clifyt (11768) <sonikmatter@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday June 21, 2007 @02:31PM (#19598093) Homepage
    Actually, they didn't raise the prices unless you are buying individual tracks.

    I *RARELY* buy individual tracks unless I am evaluating a single and want to see if I want to buy the next one. In which case, I have like 6 months to buy the rest of the album at the cost of said album minus the cost of the tracks I've already bought.

    If you want singles, feel free to get hosed. Singles have ALWAYS been the way the industry made money until recently (in which time they decided albums were pretty much going to be one single mixed with lots of shit).
  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @04:14PM (#19599515) Homepage Journal
    "Have you actually given yourself a blind listening test? 256 kbps AAC is very, very good. I have never seen a study where anyone could tell the difference between 256 kbps files and uncompressed files a significant fraction of the time. Many people claim that they don't like the sound of MP3 or AAC compression, even at such a high bitrate, but they don't back it up with a real test to prove it."

    I've got a pretty decent home system. I can hear the difference of good vs bad recording on it...even with ears not being what they used to be.

    I prefer to have the best quality I can have for home listening, and to rip to lossy formats for horrible listening environments like the car and on the portable for the gym. I mean, why would anyone not want the best possibly copy for perm. storage, and then rip from that to suit needs? Seems like a no brainer for me. I don't have the fastest connection at home (about 7mbit down), but, its fast enough that downloading a whole uncompressed cd isn't THAT bad...lossless AAC would not be a big deal.

    I've got good speakers [] and a decent amp [] to run them on and a decent subwoofer [] and soon to get a newer processer []. I've got klipsch center channel, and some day hope to round out the surround with klipsch heresey's or the like.

    No, I didn't plunk down a bunch of $$ all at once, but, have been building my stereo since I was 12...a piece here and there, swapping out things over the years. It is very efficient and I can hear differences in music on it. On good recordings, you can hear people breathing in the background...

    I'm not an 'audiophile'...I don't freeze my stereo cables...but, I do and always have as a kid, appreciated good sound reproduction...I bought what sounded best to my ears. Others that have heard my system agree often that it is good. So, for people out there (there has to be more than just me) that want good sound for home listening...they want the best source they can get for that.....and go from there for poorer listening environments.

  • Re:I wish (Score:3, Interesting)

    by niceone (992278) * on Thursday June 21, 2007 @05:20PM (#19600623) Journal
    Heh, click the link in my sig - it is all there as MP3's.

    But the problem I have with giving it away is that I never find out if anyone actually likes it! Sure, they can say it's great, but then if they don't think it's worth paying 10 bucks for I've got to wonder how sincere they're being!
  • Re:Shock! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UncleTogie (1004853) * on Friday June 22, 2007 @06:24PM (#19614677) Homepage Journal

    ...but you do come across as the sort of whiny twat who will always find something to complain about when it comes to distribution of payed content, thereby 'justifying' your piracy habit.

    Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious, but if you'd read my post, I'd made it pretty clear that I have NO intention of redistributing music. Let me rephrase my issue with the tagging, and I'll use your example:

    Why would I need a metatag to tell me something's mine? I know it's mine. I was there when I bought it. Does Apple sticker your name and email address inside your iPod when you buy it? What about any of their computers? Any indication that the iPhone will have the user's information stored anywhere on the phone, or inside? Of course not. This tag isn't there to tell you the song is "yours."

    I don't care for piracy, but I also don't like corporations trying to yank my chain.

The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.