By June 1, 2007 4 Comments Read More →

DRM-free music 30% more expensive

In a bold move, EMI and Apple are making music by some EMI artists — including Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones and Coldplay — available on the iTunes music store free of DRM (Digital Rights Management) controls and at a higher quality of audio encoding (256kbps, AAC).

While this looks and sounds like a move in the right direction, there is a cost increase of 102% 30% over the normal iTunes per-song charge.

Update: I mistakenly applied the DRM-free video price as the DRM-free music price — hence the earlier miscalculation of a 102% increase in price.  The correct increase is 30%.  I have corrected the body and title of this post.   Thanks, Marc, for catching that.

avatar

About the Author:

Mark Blevis is a digital public affairs strategist and President of FullDuplex.ca, an integrated digital communications, public affairs and research company. His work focuses on the role of digital tools and culture on issues and reputation management. He also leads research into how Canadian opinions are shaped through online content and interactions.
  • http://ad-supported-music.blogspot.com/ Marc Cohen

    This is the real reason behind the elimination of DRM. DRM is meaningless to the labels and the listeners so removing it and charging more was a no-brainer.

    Check your math though – I think the increase is more like 30%. Check out the Ad-Supported Music Central blog at: http://ad-supported-music.blogspot

  • http://www.brocasarea.ca Dave Brodbeck

    It is meaningless to listeners? You say that until you buy content and then it can only play on one players. That, to me, is pretty damned meaningful.

    A higher quality song plus DRM free, hell that is worth the 30 percent increase.

    I’ll listen to ad supported music on my own player the day Toronto wins a Stanley Cup….

  • http://www.markblevis.com Mark

    Ooops… I confused the DRM-free video price ($1.99) as the DRM-free music price ($1.29). So my calculation of 102% is quite incorrect. It is indeed 30% more for the DRM-free music.

    Note that I am completely in favour of this move. It is *one small step for mankind, one giant leap for the music industry*. I question the need for a greater charge to have unresricted access to one’s purchase.

  • http://www.markblevis.com/ Mark

    Ooops… I confused the DRM-free video price ($1.99) as the DRM-free music price ($1.29). So my calculation of 102% is quite incorrect. It is indeed 30% more for the DRM-free music.

    Note that I am completely in favour of this move. It is *one small step for mankind, one giant leap for the music industry*. I question the need for a greater charge to have unresricted access to one's purchase.