.. I haven't paid for music in 3 years. hahahahahahahahahahaha

Yo Giz, Why don't you post a list of EMI recording artists? The more information, the better.

now go buy the new LCD Soundsystem record.

I still can't pay money for a inferior product, i.e. compressed music, when it can easily be had on CD or DVD.

Nevermind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_signed_to_E...

so, why haven't all the tiny little labels that distribute via itunes done this? or the independent filmmakers? that question is why i think job's "on music" letter is highly dubious. it's was all one part the label's fault, one part apple.

Not sure if anyones up on Def Jux but they seem to be hitting a lot of free download tracks around the net along side of Adult Swim. The tracks are pretty good quality at 190 rate. I think that Def Jux may bea good place to contact in terms of following these steps.

I'd definitley support this move by EMI and buy more music, but since I don't have an iPod and generally disagree with the price the Apple charges on iTunes I guess I'm S.O.L until other lables or online stores release non-DRM tunes to the public.

It is progress, but there is still a 'tax' levied to free oneself of the DRM, even if it does mean better quality sound. It's just a way for the music companies to encourage Apple to raise rates. Buying a CD is still a better option.

hmmm, too bad EMI doesn't seem to have many artists that I'm interested in listening too. Maybe I'll go pick up the new LCD Soundsystem album.

The sounds of Cory Doctorow weeping with joy can be heard all over LA.

Seriously though, this is a good start. If they keep this up, someday they'll almost be competing with AllOfMP3!

That Wikipedia link doesn't quite match the official EMI link:

http://www.emigroup.com/About/Music/Default.htm

Meh. They've put out a feeler to see if people would pay more for non-crippled files.

I'm not going to pay more money for non-crippled files. $1 a song is too much as it is.

Now I'm trying to find old news on wreckless lawsuits on behalf of EMI.

A full DRM-free, near-CD quality album costs the same as their current/previous inferior version: $9.99. Cheaper than a CD, same quality, don't have to go to the store. I'd say it's a win.

Its a very good start :)

The same product at a higher cost is *NOT* a win of any kind. It's just the same attempt to get honest people to pay for their nonsense, only in a prettier wrapping. Why must they charge me to *not* add DRM? o.O

It's moves like this that actually push me to want to rip all my friends' CD & MP3 collections. I have been waiting to buy legit copies without being presumed a theif, but if they insist that I must be.... 8o

Can't say I've ever heard a pitch quite like "hey, the manufacturer has just instituted a massive price increase for their product, go out and buy more to encourage them and their fellow manufacturers." Panthershade has it right. This is a 30% price increase for a product that is still compromised in terms of audio quality (and does not include a booklet (lyric sheet, artist photos) etc.). Plus, it's coming at a time (1) when the perceived value by consumers of a single track is much, much lower, (2) consumers have shown they want to acquire significant quantities of music (not buy fewer tracks at a higher price per track), and (3) if anything has been shown by the digital music initiatives to date, it's that consumers vastly prefer singles to entire "albums." Why would anyone file trading stop because of this in order to buy what are now more expensive digital tracks?

This is great . . . I will finally be able to get that new album from Falco that I've been jonesing . . . sans DRM!

PantherShade:

Consider that you're also paying for the cost of the music being re-encoded at twice the bitrate of currently available iTunes offerings in addition to the increased bandwidth spent delivering that music to you. They're not charging you purely for a lack of DRM, and it's pretty obtuse for you to imagine that to be the sole reason for a price change.

And your second statement is the kind of stupid rhetoric that damages any sort of case for DRM free downloads. You are now being offered legit copies without being presumed a thief. Don't be a jackass and ruin this for the rest of us.

It is not more expensive. The same quality file will still exist for $0.99. And it will no longer have DRM. They are ALSO adding higher quality DRM-free files for $1.30.
So the extra price is for the increase in bitrate. That's it.

Cheaper than a CD, same quality

No, not the same quality. They have thrown away over half the data. I setup a blind test on my system when I was deciding how to encode my CD collection, and I could pick out the lossless file every time. If they are going to give me half the product, they should charge half the price.

Ripping CDs is a pain the ass, but I'll keep doing it until they offer a product of equivalent quality at a similar price. It also gives me a built-in backup.

superbad:

Just because you can tell the difference doesn't mean the rest of us can.

superbad:
You are correct! I can buy CDs online, and then rip or copy them for my own personal use. I have no need to buy inferior quality music.

As for the post, this is only good if all (or ~99%) of the portable music players can play these files. I don't use an iPod (Creative Labs Zen if far superior IMHO).

And superbad, can you pick out the difference everytime when you are sitting on a subway car in NYC or walking along 5th Ave or running in Central Park? I would be surprized if you could. And these are the situations were most of us listen to our music, out in the real world, not in an hermetically sealed room.

I think the commentators are correct that quite a lot, if not a majority of consumers, won't really care about the increased audio fidelity of 256kbps tracks. But what that really goes to is the meaningless of this whole announcement, since it does not lower the cost of the product for most consumers. As a result, it is hard to forsee this having any impact on the level of file sharing.

For those of us who care about audio fidelity, it strikes us as odd that we have to pay for a level of audio fidelity that we believe we should be getting for the price in the first instance. If my cable company stopped offering me HD for a year, but then once that period of time passed, they offered to provide me HD - or better yet, not HD but closer than a regular tv signal - again but for 30% more, I'd tell them to stuff it. I don't see this as being all that different.

There's an amazing amount of stubborn ignorance floating around, even in the comments here. Sometimes cynicism, sometimes stupidity, sometimes trolling. If buying the album, or "whole CD" under this new deal gets you twice the quality with no-DRM, why is still going out and buying the CD "better" when the CD will likely cost you more and take longer to arrive (especially if you want it delivered to you)?

Sure, a digital "single" (and ONLY the digital single) will cost more sans-DRM than the DRM version (@99 cents). Big deal. Those people still suckling off of peer-to-peer or piracy need a dopeslap. You'll pay MccyD's 99 cents for a double cheeseburger you'll forget in 20 minutes, but its too much for something that used to cost $4.99 a pop?

I know independant artists who're surprised their Cd-Baby album hits iTunes at $9.99 instead of the $12.99 they would have liked to charge. Should those people be selling their tracks for 20-30 cents a pop? Maybe they should just go play in the subway and beg for pennies, eh? GodDAMN some of you! Damn you to hell. --Everyone else is ok.

Now if only EMI had any music I actually wanted to buy then I might actually purchase some of their stuff.

Anybody know if they are going to start watermarking? Could dear Steve, all the while looking like a DRM savior, actually be playing right into the RIAA's grandma-suing, child-candy-stealing, dog-kicking…hands? Just imagine if they tried to nick your grandma a buck for every copy they found with her GUID...ouch.

Glad to see this is happening, finally! I think April 2nd marks the beginning of the end of the DRM era.

Ewwwwwww hippies!!!

as many have already said, fuckin eh... its a great thing, if you want digital music it won't get much better than this, no fucking drm, but you still find something to bitch about.

If you don't want to pay for your music you're not a goddamn pirate, those people risked their lives to steal shit with their bare ass hands in the middle of the goddamn ocean, and they were fucking crazy. If you sit at your computer all day stealing music and jerking off to internet porn, you're not a pirate, you're a coward, and a petty thief, but not a pirate, I'm so tired of people thinking they're badasses cuz they know how to torrent.... Go eat some cheetos

Crux said:

"It is not more expensive. The same quality file will still exist for $0.99. And it will no longer have DRM. They are ALSO adding higher quality DRM-free files for $1.30.
So the extra price is for the increase in bitrate. That's it."

Nope. In fact, the 99 cent file will still have DRM on it while the $1.30 file will be higher quality and lack DRM.

I'm pretty sure that the pricing worked out this way because of the other labels. They made an agreement with secret terms to enter in to the iTMS. I'll bet you that one of those terms is that all tracks on the iTMS must be treated the same at the same price point. This is why the indies couldn't have DRMless versions of their tracks on the store while the labels had ones with DRM for the same price, and this is why they have to keep EMI's original files while adding a new price point for the better files.

Ripping CD's is the best solution... if you own the CD's. I haven't bought a CD in pro'ly ten years so that doesn't fly. But to be able to grab the single good tune from a mediocre album, and to have some choice in quality, and to be able to do it with a clear conscience (which is very important to some) is definitely progress. Yes, all these tunes will be floating around for free the day after they are released, but those who want to be 'legit' about their tunes, can be. This still saves me a ton over buying those crap tracks tied to the one good tune on that CD.

And all of you saying you are going to keep ripping CD's… you are probably shelling out the most of us all. Even used CD's don't make sense to me.

Yea, it's still compressed, but most of us (my whole freakin extended family for one) don't care enough to dismiss this step in the right direction. If you're waiting for the perfect solution, you're going to be living a pretty dissatisfied life. Anyone who cares about true audio reproduction, shouldn't be on iTunes anyway. It's not meant for you.

All of this is kinda' pointless though, as the next generation is definitely used to the Napster 'something for nothing' mentality…

I'll keep buying CD's 'till they take the option away from me. I prefer paying for something I can physically hold onto. I like the fact that I have an instant harcopy backup of my music. I do read the liner notes, and like the fact that I get the additional artwork associated with a CD as apposed to just cover art. I definately can hear the difference between lossy and lossles compression. I don't mind waiting a couple days to get them via USPS, UPS, FedEx, Whatever, and I can usually buy them used for much less than iTunes, especially if it's older stuff.

Call me old school but that's why I'll keep buying CD's.

Rumor has it that Microsoft is making some arrangements in order to loosen up the DRM on the Zune marketplace.

Congratz Gizmodo for your efforts!

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but in a recent article it was actually EMI which came up with the idea of DRM-Free music. Apple just ran with it. But its good that the idea is spreading.

And superbad, can you pick out the difference everytime when you are sitting on a subway car in NYC or walking along 5th Ave or running in Central Park?

No, I can't. Even with good headphones, an iPod just isn't that good. But I work from home, so most of my music gets listened to here, on a real stereo. I don't claim to represent a majority of opinion- I know most people don't give a shit about quality, and not just in regard to music.

-- Blades of Glory: Although enjoyable, it's the first time I've said after watching something: 'You know what would have been funnier? More incest."