April 02, 2007

Apple iTMS to sell DRM-free EMI tracks... as luxury items


Do you know the difference between a CD record with its jewel case and it's digipack version? Easy, the digipack version is more expensive, probably in a limited edition, because you're paying for it as a luxury item. Think on books, and why are hardcover books so much expensive than their trade paperback versions. Well, Apple and EMI are now doing the same with music.

The good news for EMI: they can now sell music for more than $0.99 ($1.29, to be exact), something they were trying to achieve for a long time.

The good news for Apple: they are now selling some music without DRM. Maybe they can use this to postpone the court decisions on those European countries that will sue them if they don't stop selling DRM'd files. They can even argue that they're giving an alternative to users. Until then, they'll keep telling "hey, give us time - we dealt with EMI, maybe in the future we'll do the same deal with others". They'll keep "forgeting" that lot's of indie labels want to ditch DRM files and sell only DRM-free music. They'll keep forgeting that they're still signing new deals about new businesses (video and movies instead of music), and those deals are only in DRM'd formats - no DRM-free files there.

The good news for music lovers: uh... good news? Nah. This is an attempt of turning the "standard" music (DRM-free, where "consumers" have rights such as the "personal copy" and "fair use" ones) into luxury items, making the DRM items the standard.

So, excuse me, but FUCK YOU Apple and EMI. DRM is absurd and non-acceptable. Music lovers won't accept that YOU decide that music should be defaulted as DRM'd, and that RIGHTS that we have now can be turned into "extras" we can, sometimes, purchase.

Your proposition on a new music world keeps unaceptable. You're still not giving a fuck to music artists and lovers - those that give you money - so we'll keep telling you to fuck off until you take US into consideration.


Apple's press release
EMI's press release
Announcement Podcast

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:53 PM

    This is the old bullshit argument. You already have a choice: don't buy it.

    It amazes me that giving choice to consumers is seen as a "fuck you"-move just because you don't like the choices.

    Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:54 PM

    I can't edit my previous comment but "Just one more thing":

    you also get AAC at 256kb for the extra 30 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course I have the "don't buy" choice, and of course that it is the course I'll keep on taking. The issue is that what they're putting up as giving you more choices (whatever they are and who likes them) aren't more choices at all.

    There are some rights you have when you purchase music. You might want to use them or not - it's your choise - but you have those rights. With DRM, you're being restricted. Now, they're selling those rights as something "extra", or, as they put it, "premium service".

    So, like it or not, what they're doing is decieving YOU, the customer.

    I know that you don't care about it, like you don't care about the consumer rights that you're being restricted of each time you purchase one DRM'd song. Still, Apple and EMI in this move are decieving consumers and the market. It has nothing to do about "liking the choices". I don't say "fuck you" to Rap-only labels just because I'm not a fan on Rap music. But this kind of acts are affecting the music industry and the music world, musicians and music lovers. Fucking up a form of art like they keep on doing, from me, gets a well-deserved Fuck You.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:33 PM

    I don't know where you live (well, I do, but sometimes I'm not sure).

    For now, you can buy songs at 128kbps with DRM. In May you'll be able to *choose* to buy 128kpbs with DRM as always, *or* 256kpbs without DRM for an extra .30€. That's choice. Pure and simple. You cannot argue that now you have one option only to buy music at iTMS and in May you'll have two choices.

    When you buy music, you have the rights that the contract underlying that transaction gives you, nothing more, nothing less. There are no "rights" that magically you have on your side, only those that where part of the contract that you entered by your own free choice. So stop whining that "they took my rights away". There weren't freaking any!

    When you *by your own free will* buy a track with DRM, you are accepting the terms, stated by the DRM rules. It's childish to then complain "Oh I should be able to do this, this is unfair, I have rights". That's idiotic! The rights you have where clearly stated before you bought the song...

    If you find that stating the rules of the game at front, before you buy, deceiving the customer, you have a different dictionary than I have.

    Regarding the part of "I know you don't care about consumer rights", I now know you don't know nothing about what I care or not. I'll try and educate you about that one in a future opportunity.

    Best regards,

    ReplyDelete
  5. > I don't know where you live

    Yeah, sometimes Lisbon is a weird place to live ;-)

    Of course that if I buy (I don't) crippled stuff (DRM'd tracks, for instance) I can't complaint, even if most times the regular buyer does not expect to have those kinds of restrictions (take Vista as an example), but yes, you can say that it is legal to sell products with DRM, and that if someone doesn't take enough care, well... it's his problem.
    Same with the rest of your "freedom" arguments: while it's expectable for you to be free to have all those rights you're used to in previous formats (like the right to make a personal copy), when you buy a DRM'd track you can't say it is violating your by law rights (if you could, they would be selling illegal stuff, right?).

    I think it is somewhat obvious that I understand those statements, and I don't want to fool anyone (not even myself) about it. What you're failing to understand is the scope of my affirmations.

    I think that DRM is wrong. You might agree with me or not (I even think that our oppinions on the issue, if debated, aren't that far from agreement), that's not the issue here. The thing is that the rights you legally have "by default" with copyrighted material, such as music or books or movies, are redefined when those products are DRM'd. It's written on the law, plain and simple: if stuff like DRM is there to stop you from doing the acts needed to put in practice those "by default rights", then you don't have the right to circumvent DRM. So, _in_this_terms_, DRM is taking away the rights I have. Not that it is illegal or something like that - not that you said any lie on your comment. I'm just against DRM, per se.

    And yes, I can simply boycott them, and I do. "If you don't like any of the things they're selling, just don't buy them" - check. What is pissing you off in this matter is that I'm also publicly stating that I don't like those products and that I think that they shouldn't be bought (or so it seems).

    Finaly, regarding the "I know you don't care about consumer rights", maybe that sentence doesn't show what I wanted to say there. You once stated that you don't care about DRM as a consumer. You buy DRM'd tracks, you know what your buying, and you think you're doing the right thing for you. And that's completely acceptable - you have the right to choose where you spend your money :-) But just because you are one iTMS consumer that _knows_ what's at stake (the file has those restrictions associated with it), others don't. It's not about those like you that I care of - you can take care of yourself ;-) Anyway, I'll gladly talk with you about these issues in person when an opportunity comes ;-)

    ReplyDelete