Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Amazon to Open DRM-Free MP3 Music Download Store

Posted by samzenpus on Thu May 17, 2007 07:02 AM
from the learning-to-share dept.
mtnlion1 writes "Amazon.com announced it will launch a digital music store later this year offering millions of songs in the DRM-free MP3 format from more than 12,000 record labels. EMI Music's digital catalog is the latest addition to the store. Every song and album in the Amazon.com digital music store will be available exclusively in the MP3 format without digital rights management (DRM) software. Amazon's DRM-free MP3s will free customers to play their music on virtually any of their personal devices and burn songs to CDs for personal use."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Anti-DRM Activists Take On the BBC 200 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Activists from Binary Freedom Boston have launched a campaign calling on the BBC to release their content online without DRM or proprietary formats. You might remember the BBC asking us about this earlier and even though the public chose not to use DRM by a landslide, they still decided to use it. EMI and Amazon have already ditched DRM. How long before the BBC does?"
[+] News: Amazon Invests In Dynamic Pricing Model For MP3s 280 comments
NittanyTuring writes "Amazon recently closed a Series A financing deal with Amiestreet.com, a startup selling DRM-free MP3s with a demand-based pricing model. All music starts out free, and prices increase for popular tracks. Jeff Blackburn, Senior Vice President for Business Development, Amazon.com: 'The idea of having customers directly influence the price of songs is an interesting and novel approach to selling digital music.' What does this mean for Amazon's own intentions to sell music?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • You will not be missed.
    • by HawkinsD (267367) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:11AM (#19159223)
      You know, I'm about as big of an Apple fanboi as you're likely to meet... But even I am excited about this, and am hopeful that it's the beginning of a change in the industry.

      And it could be even bigger: If the music industry can start treating their customers like clients, instead of vermin, then perhaps there's hope for the airlines (motto: we fucking HATE our customers).

      A boy can dream.

  • Premium? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by niceone (992278) * on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:07AM (#19159177) Journal
    From TFA:

    Eric Nicoli, EMI CEO: "They have been an important retail partner of ours, and we are delighted they will be offering consumers EMI's new premium DRM-free downloads in their new digital music store..."

    Hmm, what does the word "premium" mean in there? More expensive? Just some subset of their catalog?

    • Re:Premium? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:13AM (#19159239) Homepage
      I believe 'premium content', as used by the ahem 'content industry', means "content that we need to recoup advertising dollars on"
    • Re:Premium? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dogtanian (588974) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:22AM (#19159353) Homepage

      Hmm, what does the word "premium" mean in there? More expensive? Just some subset of their catalog?
      Oh, I fucking *hate* that word now. It's been devalued by tossers in marketing who'll slap it on anything to give them an air of luxury and use it as an excuse to charge a lot more for marginally better (at best) products.

      It's one of those words like "heritage" that has been soiled by its overuse in certain contexts.
    • Re:Premium? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cathoderoytube (1088737) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:26AM (#19159399)
      Non premium songs are displayed in the form of sheet music, and can be played an unlimited number of times, provided that number is 5. Songs may only be played on RIAA approved Xylophones, which can be leased at $70 a month.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "Amazon's DRM-free MP3s will free customers to play their music on virtually any of their personal devices and burn songs to CDs for personal use." I love how we as a society now have to specify that our MP3s are "DRM-free" just like we do with food products. Steroid-free, DDT-free, pesticide-free... And then they go on to specify all the wonderful capabilities of DRM-free MP3s.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I cringe when I read phases like "our consumers".

      Consumers - mindless drones, who have a singular purpose (to consume)
      Customers - that's a little better.

      "our consumers" - the people (yes, people) who are put here to consume our products (and this time they will pay a premium to do so!)
  • by Churla (936633) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:07AM (#19159187)
    I wonder what strings they were able to pull to get this moving faster/better than iTunes has... hurm....

    Will it only be music from the EMI catalog?

    They have the section of their site where individuals can sell things as "used" , will they expand this so that unsigned bands can sell their MP3's without a recording label behind them?

    • The 'used' section couldn't support mp3 sales... how would you tell if a 'metallica.mp3' file was really used or not? Basically if they allowed the used section to exist, all their profits from 'new' sales would immediately disappear as 80 zillion kids upload "used" mp3's for sale for 1 cent.
      • by Churla (936633) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:17AM (#19159311)
        What I meant was more if they would modify the end user selling something functions they have already. (i.e. the "buy new and used from...") to allow for end users such as bands to sell their own original MP3's over amazon.

        This would be a huge boon for local unsigned and independent bands as they could have people just look them up on amazon. A band could have it's own website, which links to amazon to sell the MP3's , saving them bandwidth costs, and the need to manage/deal with e-commerce on a promotional website, while also allowing them to make money from the sale of their music.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yes, but if it's EMI + 12,000 labels that are hosted out of someone's garage then it's basically just EMI... The question would be which of the other big labels will get on this train. And if they did, they would have been mentioned by name I would believe.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Yes, but volume sales make online music stores viable. Keeping the stores viable opens up the door for independents to use them as well.

            As much as the "great music" may be from smaller artists and labels, if the profits don't roll for Amazon on a venture they can and will pull the plug. Having the widest possible selection would be optimal for highest volume. Even if it means also having crappy choices.

            But of course, to each their own on tastes and preference.
  • by drhamad (868567) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:13AM (#19159241) Homepage
    OK seriously, are people going to live in the past forever? While I don't intend on getting rid of the mp3's I do have, it isn't mp3's that people should be making, and especially, buying, now. MP4/AAC has been around for a while now, and there is no excuse for non-WMA stores to not be selling it... the quality at any given bitrate is significantly better... and even if you can't notice it because of poor ears, a poor audio system, or just general lack of caring... it's the future.

    As for people saying things like "Goodbye iTunes"... why do you think this is any different than what iTunes is doing? iTunes is adding the EMI catalog plus a ton of independant labels (and of course, the other big ones as long as they sign on. Why do you think the Amazon store is any different? I think you can pretty much rest assured that near-everything Amazon gets will be on iTunes... and I have a hard time imagining that anything Amazon releases could beat the integration and ease of use of iTunes and iTunes Music Store... and from there, the iPod.
    • People don't get rid of MP3s because they're still the lowest common denominator of music file formats. Everything plays them, unlike AAC or Vorbis or WMA or whatever else.

      It would be nice to have the option to choose a format that suited the user, though. Presumably the only reason they've not done that is to avoid confusion (Apple can offer AAC as their "only choice" since they only support iTunes and iPods).

    • Likewise, there is no excuse for devices and stores to not support OGG Vorbis.

      Really, why wouldn't you want to use a high quality, patent free codec? MP3 and AAC are patent infested, though AAC is slightly better (with mp3 you have to pay to sell mp3s).
      • by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:49AM (#19159665) Homepage
        Well, as far as devices goes, here's the reasoning. Because it's currently very expensive (or impossible?) to get chip decoders for OGG Vorbis, because of lack of demand. So, the other option for decoding OGG Vorbis is a generic processor, which if you want one with enough power also costs extra dollars, and requires a lot of extra electricity. In the small-is-good, and our-player-plays-for-54-hours world of portable music players, supporting tons of formats isn't the best idea. Supporting the one format that everybody uses is the best idea.
        • by yuna49 (905461) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:03AM (#19159853)
          Seems like Cowon [cowonglobal.com] (aka iAudio) has figured these problems out. Many of their players support Ogg and FLAC. I nag them from time to time to add Matroska to the list of formats their video players support.
        • by mgpeter (132079) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:29AM (#19160355) Homepage

          Because it's currently very expensive (or impossible?) to get chip decoders for OGG Vorbis, because of lack of demand.

          That may have been true a few years ago, but most of the current Portable Media Players are more than capable of handling the decoding of OGG files and would be pretty trivial to add support to their players. I really think their is a more of a "politcal" reason for not supporting OGG files anymore (not sure what it is, but for some reason companies don't want OGG files catching on).

          BTW: I just purchased a Sandisk Sansa e260 series player to be used with my entire collection of OGG Vorbis files - the trick is to simply install Rockbox [rockbox.org] on it to use instead of the crap firmware it comes with.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        No one has really ever verified the assertion that Ogg Vorbis is not covered by any patents. The patent situation for Vorbis is a big unknown whereas it is well established for MP3 and AAC (and WMA for manufacturers that use it). If a big manufacturer researched Vorbis' patent situation and found it infringed on some patents somewhere they would have spent all that time and money for nothing. If they avoid Vorbis all together it costs them nothing. An insignificant number of people even know what Ogg Vorbis
        • From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

          Licensing and patents

          As with the MP3 format [3] , no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. [4] This reason alone makes AAC a much more attractive format for distributing content, particularly streaming content (such as Internet radio).

          However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs. [5] It is for this reason FOSS implementations such as FAAC and FAAD are distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement.

          AAC requires a patent license, and thus uses proprietary technology. But contrary to popular belief, it is not the property of a single company, having been developed in a standards-making organization.
    • by pla (258480) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:39AM (#19159507) Journal
      As for people saying things like "Goodbye iTunes"... why do you think this is any different than what iTunes is doing?

      Because many of us, myself included, will not, ever, intall iTunes or use the iTMS.

      Amazon, OTOH, as evil as we may all consider Bezos' 1-click patent, has the right idea. When you buy digital media from them (or if you buy physical items with a digital manual), it just goes into your account's Media Library. Totally platform (as well as specific-machine) agnostic; If you can run a web browser on any machine anywhere in the world, you can log into your Amazon account and download what you have in your account (and as many times as you want).



      I have a hard time imagining that anything Amazon releases could beat the integration and ease of use of iTunes and iTunes Music Store... and from there, the iPod.

      Exactly - And I don't want any of the three of those, much less all three.

      Not to mention the obvious Slashdot cry of protest, "iTunes on Linux?"
      • by tfoss (203340) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:16AM (#19160095)

        I have a hard time imagining that anything Amazon releases could beat the integration and ease of use of iTunes and iTunes Music Store... and from there, the iPod.

        Exactly - And I don't want any of the three of those, much less all three.


        Especially ease of use. I hate that.

        -Ted
    • by weinrich (414267) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:13AM (#19160039)

      MP4/AAC has been around for a while now, and there is no excuse for non-WMA stores to not be selling it...

      Excuse #1: Cannot play MP4's on an MP3 player

      Explaining to the average music consumer that they need to upgrade their MP3 player to an MP4 player is like explaining to a person with cataracts that they need to upgrade from regular TV to HD. Sure, it's the future, but don't expect them to run to the store any time soon. Without a groundswell of new consumers flocking to MP4, retailers are hard pressed to justify moving to MP4. Again, think HD.

      Perhaps someone should find a legislator to sponsor a bill to require music retailers to move to MP4 by 2010 so we can be forced to pay for high-definition music along with our high-definition video.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        He's wrong. The big difference?

        "One Moment Please.

        Connecting to the iTunes Store.

        Loading

        We are unable to find iTunes on your computer. "

        You apparantly cannot buy MP3 (or anything else) without the iTunes application installed. I cannot do that on my workplace machine (well I could, but I won't). I cannot do that on my home machines because they're linux. Well, if I could, I would not. But if I can access a huge library of MP3 for a reasonable price and use just my web browser...well pretty much a given
  • Would work for most people for simple convienience. but I personally would not pay unless the quality was at least equal to that of a cd which i could order perhaps for less or same anyway with the actual packaging

    lossless (eg FLAC) is not so unreasonable with broadband these days
  • Price not set. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s31523 (926314) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:19AM (#19159325)
    No mention of price in the article. While this sounds great, each song could be .50 or $5.00. This will dictate how cool it really is.
  • ...is to simply make CDs cost a reasonable amount. Oh, and have more than 1 good song on them.

    Let customers then encode as they see fit. I certainly don't want to pay for stuff that is lower quality, and cannot be used as a master to re-encode in different formats, or the same format with VBR, etc.
  • by owlman17 (871857) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:05AM (#19159893)
    It doesn't say in TFA if it will be. I do assume it will be available through the other Amazon channels: www.amazon.co.uk, www.amazon.de, www.amazon.co.jp, www.amazon.fr, www.amazon.ca, etc.

    I'd like to be able to buy DRM-free, major tunes online aside from Emusic.com, where, except for a few selected tracks, everything is generally available for purchase anywhere in the world. iTunes, Napster, etc, DRM-infested as they are, would have made a killing by not limiting purchases to the US alone. Until they do open up, and I hope Amazon does, my purchases (and I know I'm not alone) would be limited to Emusic.com and several indie sites.
  • MP3s became very popular because the files were relatively small and hence, easier to download. There was a huge boom in downloaded and shared MP3s. But that was then (some 5-8 years ago), and this is now. We gots bandwidth. Why not offer the tracks in a lossless compressed formal, like FLAC? Or heck, uncompressed PCM? If I'm going to pay for the actual song, I want it in the best quality possible.
    • The reason is that MP3s play in every player without conversion. Most players can't convert on the fly. Media Monkey can, though not to MP4 yet, and even with a fast machine its slower than a straight copy,

      I would prefer FLAC (or even APE, since I just transcode to FLAC), but to be popular you have to be simple. MP3 is simple. You also need to appear to be "compact", so they'll proabably send them out at 128 or - if we're luckly 192kb. That may sound silly, but imagine the iTMS commercial that touts "If you download from iTMS, your player will hold twice as many songs as the leading competitor." Stupid but true.

      Now, if they were to offer a FLAC option, that would be awesome - but I'm not holding my breath. Somebody needs to swipe the AllOfMP3 engine, if you want to know my opinion. Now that the DRM beast is retreating, you may as well let people download whatever bit rate they want.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I've heard a lot about this ape and it's the reason why I'm mp3 only. Basically I've read up about ape, sounds really good, sounds interesting. However I've tried using ape which contained a japanese artist. Let's just say no player or converter worked 100 percent of the time.

        I couldn't find a single way to batch these files to Mp3, I saw .ape and .cue files as well, which if ape allows is just frightening.

        As you said Mp3s are simple, small and easier to use. OGG, FLAC, and APE have annoyed me in the p
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          You need to get Media Monkey [mediamonkey.com] and set up your portable devices with custom convert-on-the-fly sync rules. It's easy - even I managed to do it. If you've got a pretty static collection, you can convert-sync to another directory. That's what I did when my wife got an ipod - converted the 80GB of FLAC to 15GB of MP3, then let her sift it down to the 8GB of her device memory by cutting out the chuncks of my collection she never listens to. She's happy with iTunes, and I rip all our CDs and just give her an MP3 c
    • There must be some kind of trick here, I think. Why is this coming so late? It seems to good to be true, but I really hope it's true :)
      What bitrate will it be? What will it cost? Will iTunes follow? Why is EMI the latest addition, not the first?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:59AM (#19160915)

        What bitrate will it be? What will it cost? Will iTunes follow? Why is EMI the latest addition, not the first?
        Where's my wife and family? What if I die here? Who'll be my role-model? Now that my role-model is gone, gone...
            • Check those downloaded 384 kbps songs again. Most of them (if you believe some people, ALL of them, although I can't confirm that) are transcoded 128kbps mps3, sometimes 160 or 192. If you put them into any audio software that gives you a spectral frequency picture, you'll the clipping that results when a lower-bitrate mp3 is transcoded into a higher one.

              I know, hard to believe that allofmp3 can't be trusted, right?

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                They actually make it fairly clear when the source is from WAV (thus you get a good transcode) or "other" (usually 128Kbps MP3).
                If you purchase based on the available information, you can usually but the best possible quality, without spending more.
                -nB
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                While I am shocked... shocked. The fact is, what I downloaded sounded good enough to keep me coming back for more business. The nature of the product means if they had cheated so that I could see it then I would have stopped.
      • Those EULAs apply to Amazon Unbox, Amazon's VOD service that runs on TiVO. Who knows if you'll even be required to use a special client program to access Amazon's online store?
    • Re:What's the trick? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday May 17 2007, @07:29AM (#19159423) Homepage
      Well, eMusic already has MP3 songs available, although most of the music is from independent artists. They only charge about 30 cents a song. This is my biggest problem with iTunes. They charge almost the same price as the physical CD for a file transfered over the internet. Cutting out the entire distribution chain, along with losses due to breakage and theft, and there's no physical materials required, and they are still charging $11 for an album. I imagine that Amazons pricing will be right inline with iTunes, which will be either 99 cents a song, or 1.29 like the iTunes songs that they will be releasing in MP3 format.
        • $11 for an album is the same as an actual CD price?
          Except for perhaps some 1980s Michael Jackson albums, the portion of an album that has been on top-200 radio typically costs about 4 USD at iTunes Store, if that.

          How long has it been since you've looked been in an actual music store, anyway?
          My music store is Lev's Pawn Shop. If I buy two CDs there and one at Pest Buy, then yes, I am averaging less than 11 USD per CD.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          While not all the CDs I see are cheap, I see the majority of albums in the store to be between $8 (yes, many are that cheap) and $15. For examples of prices, check out Amazon.Ca [amazon.ca]. While most of the CDs are above $11, it's not a significant amount, usually $2 or $3. So, yes $11 is way too much for a collection of digital files that probably costs them 50 cents in bandwidth to transfer to me.
          • Re:What's the trick? (Score:4, Informative)

            by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:52AM (#19160793)
            50 cents in bandwidth??? Even at S3 prices ($0.13/GB in bulk), which are surely more than they are paying, a whole album in WAV format would cost about $0.09. MP3 format will be a fraction of that. Their only real cost of distribution is the cost to run the store. Most of the money must be going directly to the record companies.
        • by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday May 17 2007, @11:01AM (#19163329) Homepage
          Yes, and although there are a lot of people who will pay $.99 for a digital music file, I am not one of them. I think that as people start to have a larger variety of things to spend their money on, they'll see that the $11 they are spending on an album of digital files isn't worth it anymore. They are already complaining that teenagers aren't spending as much on music as they used to. And thats because they have other stuff that they'd rather buy, like video games, designer clothes, cell phones, and a whole bunch of other stuff that kids didn't spend their money on 30 years ago.
    • by Ngarrang (1023425) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:02AM (#19159827) Journal
      There doesn't have to be a trick. Amazon is late to the party, so they are trying to play this up as much as possible. I like to call it "Viral Marketing". They are playing the DRM-FREE card, but, so is everyone else now. Meh. Is this really news? Amazon has always been about expanding what if offers. This is simply another product.

      What might make this special, though, is if charge less than 99 cents or less. That iTunes is charging 30 cents more for DRM-free is a crock. "Look, it is DRM-free, surely that is worth 30 cents more?!" Um, no, it isn't.

      I am not the tarket market here, though. I only buy used CDs and have never purchased an MP3. The pricing of new CDs is still too high for my tastes and 99 cents for one song is far too expensive.

      Maybe if my money was going to a charitable cause, I might pay 99 cents. I am curious, though, with MP3 over the net distro being the future, what is holding more artists back from being indie and reaping more profit on their own hard work?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The difference from what I understand is that Amamzon is going MP3 only. While Apple has some stuff available in MP3, as do other services like Puretracks, they also sell mostly DRM encumbered music. Wading through all the music on these other services to find the stuff that is DRM free can be a real pain. It really sucks with 95% of the content they offer is only available with DRM. For those that are only interested in DRM Free music, a store like Amazon, or eMusic, where all the music will be DRM fre
    • The point is moot if all those devces are iPods.
    • by Keyslapper (852034) on Thursday May 17 2007, @08:01AM (#19159803) Homepage
      It's probably a bit premature for that declaration.

      Quality notwithstanding, people are trying to buy music they like, not music they can play anywhere or in whatever format they want, or even the best possible quantity. Naturally those things are important, but if someone wants a single song off an album, they'll buy the DRM version at iTunes if they can't get it anywhere else. They are not going to buy some track they don't know or care about just because it's available at high quality with no drm in their favorite format. Content is of the first importance.

      I have to admit, I was pretty taken up with ITMS until a good while back, but then I found eMusic (Thanks to a /. post :). I've since found a great deal of music I never knew I liked (or loved). Now, I have $14.11 credit at ITMS that has been there for about 6 months and will proabably never be used. Oh well.

      Another thing: I've actually replaced a pretty good deal of the music I already paid for at ITMS. Some single songs I purchased there were from albums I initially didn't want to purchase whole, but when you cruise the used disc section at Newbury Comics or (in a pinch, since they're more expensive) Strawberries, you find some surprising stuff.

      One day, maybe I'll use my ITMS credit for something, but over the last year, I've spent more on hard copies and on eMusic than I've spent on ITMS, and my ITMS spending still adds up to a LOT more than I spent in the 10 years prior to getting an iPod.

      Bottom line though, while I'm still more interested in buying music I like than buying formats, I have changed my method of buying that music. That's what's eventually going to put a damper on the ITMS juggernaut. It is certainly not going to happen because a single (or even a few) of the big companies made special deals that allow customers to spend an arm and a leg to get a moderate quality, DRM free copy of the music they steal from the artists. Besides, as mentioned by a previous poster, Jobs is trying to get rid of DRM, he's just dragging his feet about it and seems to be willing to increase the price, rather than dropping it.