the beginning of the end for DRM?

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

no, not the Digital Rendering Manager, i'm sure that'll be here to stay for a while. i'm referring to EMI offering a DRM-free version of their songs on iTunes. whilst i don't download songs (i prefer CDs), anyone who read my rant the other day will know that i support this move. yes, it's 20p more, however i believe that you're getting added value to the tune of not having to play it on an iPod. full story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm

[carlosponti]

doubt it just become some companies have decided they might make more money off drm-less offering doesn't mean there are going to be a DRM free world. However like i was saying there are companies that still feel like they need to protect their product from theft to the detriment to consumer choice.

And by the way how is it that iTunes can charge 30 cents more to be free of extra encryption?! That just seems like extortion to me.

[techieMoe]

However like i was saying there are companies that still feel like they need to protect their product from theft to the detriment to consumer choice.

It's debatable whether DRM actually protects their products to begin with, but I digress.

And by the way how is it that iTunes can charge 30 cents more to be free of extra encryption?! That just seems like extortion to me.

Read the article. They're charging more for files that are twice the existing bitrate (256kb). The no-DRM thing is icing on the cake. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $0.30USD for higher-quality tracks.

[carlosponti]

I don't think it protects anyone but the DRM solutions software companies which have a thriving business.

Also I wasn't aware it was of higher quality. I thought they were charging for the pleasure of no DRM. I thought that because when EMI first stated they would consider dropping DRM they stated it would be expensive, so they said they needed to get paid first. I assumed that apple paid them to remove it and was passing that on to consumers. I didn't agree with that because it shouldn't cost more to remove DRM I see that as extortion. Since its better quality i think it is better and hopefully those with iTunes will take advantage of boycotting the DRM music and only buying the non-DRM music to send a message.

[tech_man]

*Cough*QTFairUse*Cough*. Sorry, had something caught in my throat.

[Vergil83]

Read the article. They're charging more for files that are twice the existing bitrate (256kb). The no-DRM thing is icing on the cake. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $0.30USD for higher-quality tracks.

True, the extra cost makes sense with the bitrate because of extra storage/network costs. But, I as a non-audiophile, don't care about higher bitrate. I do care about drm. I will have to pay more for no drm. No drm should be cheaper!

Frankly, I could see these not selling well, so the RIAA could claim it as proof people don't care about DRM (which sadly is kinda of true currently).

[bigtomrodney]

Is this just for AAC format tracks?

[techieMoe]

Is this just for AAC format tracks?

iTunes music store doesn't let you download any other format. The ones with no DRM will still be AAC files, just unprotected ones.