“The last time Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs took on major recording companies, he refused to budge on his 99-cent price for a song on iTunes,” Alex Veiga reports for The Associated Press.
“As a new round of talks ramp up this month, however, Jobs has opened the door to higher prices – as long as music companies let Apple Inc. sell their songs without technology designed to stop unauthorized copying,” Veiga reports.
“Last month, Britain’s EMI Music Group PLC, home to artists such as Coldplay, Norah Jones and Joss Stone, agreed to let iTunes sell tracks without the copy-protection technology known as digital-rights management. The DRM-free tracks cost 30 cents more than copy-restricted versions of EMI songs and feature enhanced sound quality,” Veiga reports.
“‘At this point, no one can ignore Apple or what Apple wants, given its position in the marketplace,’ said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst with Jupiter Research. ‘The fact that they were able to do this deal with EMI puts more pressure on some of the other labels to follow suit,'” Veiga reports.
“For their part, at least two of the recording companies will ask Jobs to sell a wider variety of content in digital bundles of songs, videos and other multimedia, according to two recording company executives familiar with their companies’ plans. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the negotiations,” Veiga reports.
“Apple already sells some bundled tracks, but the music companies hope expanding those offerings will boost online revenue and help offset lagging CD sales,” Veiga reports.
“Last year, the main issue that dominated iTunes licensing talks was pricing, as some of the big music companies urged Jobs to entertain charging more for some songs than others,” Veiga reports. The dispute percolated for months, but Jobs didn’t budge, not wanting to complicate iTunes’ simple pricing scheme for singles. Eventually, the music companies each agreed to one-year deals, which expire this spring.”
Veiga reports, “Critics of the recording industry have argued for years that the labels are alienating customers by placing copy restrictions on legal music downloads, especially as many CDs have been sold without them.”
Much more in the full article here.
I’ve never bought one of the $1.29 EMI (non-DRM crippled) songs iTunes. Has anyone on this thread bought one? Does anyone know of anyone who has bought one? I’ve yet to meet anyone or hear of anyone (other than folks in the digital music business whose job it is to test these things) who has.
“
Apple is the ONLY viable digital music distributor. “
Why do you say that ? Can you explain.
If a guy like me decide to open a better store with better price for the records label. Could they stop me ?
I don’t thing so.
What I could see is Steve giving the concession about selling music subscriptions at the iTunes store. Steve will put it on the site, wait a year, state that it doesn’t work and take it off.
My cite is, of course, my own arse.
Some things that sucks with ITunes :
-you need a desktop appz to get the music
-you could’t directy download it to your phone
-you need tier application to convert it in mp3
and what if one day mp3 player become wireless ?
my two cent
@Alexandre
Why the hell would you convert from AAC (mp4) to the older inferior mp3 format? The files are larger because mp3 has an inferior compression codec.
” And this is besides the point that file sharing is still infringement (not stealing) of the copyright.
Apple is making it easier for you to manage your music; no more treating you like a criminal, restricting how many machines you can play it on, etc…”
blah blah fucking blah
Sharing a single song with a friend, burning a mix CD for a friend, etc SHOULD all fall under fair use. There should be nothing criminal about that.
Sharing a song with millions of people on P2P, burning hundreds of copies of your CDs and giving them out to anyone, etc are criminal.
Failure to understand the difference between the two is stupid.
You idiot. Do you know why no one you know has bought DRM free music from Apple at $1.29?
It is because Apple is not selling it yet.
Moron.
Twilightmoon@mac.com
You misunderstand me! I started by using the immortal disclaimer ‘IF’.
I am not in favour of DRM and therefor stand squarely behind Apples ethos & model.
What I was trying to portray by my argument was that perhaps that is the only way they can get Apple inc. to even begin to consider their request.
If & again I use the ‘IF’ the iphone does become a roaring success as it appears it will, and the record companies are stubbornly entrenched in their greedy demands, they could find themselves on the slippery slope to oblivion at which time they will have no choice but to grasp at any straws that Apple inc. offer them.
Crabapple:
“they will have no choice but to grasp at any straws that Apple inc. offer them.”
Now over 1.5 billion songs sold, and on pace to sell close to 2 billion a year now, that’s not enough for them? That’s like free money, they don’t have manufacture anything, or distribute or keep track of inventory, just send Apple a file and collect a check.
What’s this about straws? To me it seems like Apple is already taking good care of the record labels, no thanks to themselves.t
Don’t under estimate greed twilightmoon@mac.com it can scramble even the finest of minds when the minds find they don’t have to lift a finger to make money.