Col. Hapablap Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/...i-apple.html?hp Apple to Sell EMI Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 LONDON - EMI Group PLC on Monday announced a deal that will allow computer company Apple Inc. to sell the record company's songs online without copy protection software. The agreement means that customers of Apple's iTunes store will soon be able to play downloaded songs by the Rolling Stones, Norah Jones, Coldplay and other top-selling artists without the copying restrictions once imposed by their label. EMI said almost all of its catalog, excluding music by The Beatles, is included in the deal. Singles and albums free from copy-protection software and with a higher sound quality will be offered as a premium product, the companies announced at a London news conference. Consumers will pay a higher price for the premium singles, but the same price for albums either with or without the copy protection software. The announcement follows calls by Apple Chief ExecutiveSteve Jobs earlier this year for the world's four major record companies, including EMI, to start selling songs online without copy-protection software. The software, known as DRM, is designed to combat piracy by preventing unauthorized copying, but can make downloading music difficult for consumers. The software used by Apple does not work with competing services or devices, meaning that consumers can only download songs from iTunes to iPod music players. The linkages between the download services and players has drawn criticism from European industry regulators, who argue that it limits buyer choice. Jobs argued there was little benefit to record companies selling more than 90 percent of their music without DRM on compact discs, then selling the remaining percentage online with DRM. Some analysts suggest that lifting the software restrictions could boost sales of online music, which currently account for around 10 percent of global music sales. EMI has acted as the distributor for The Beatles since the early 1960s, but The Beatles' music holding company, Apple Corps Ltd., has so far declined to allow the Fab Four's music on any Internet music services including iTunes. The situation was exacerbated by a long-running trademark dispute between Apple Inc. and Apple Corps. That legal feud was resolved in February when the two companies agreed on joint use of the apple logo and name, a deal many saw as paving the way for an agreement for online access to the Fab Four's songs. Apple Corps was founded by the Fab Four in 1968 and is still owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Kind of stupid that we have to pay more for two things that should have always been there (or, in DRM's case, not been there). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 As long as you buy albums, there is no price hike. So $9.99 for DRM free albums encoded at 256 AAC (which is significantly better than 256 mp3) I'd say thats not bad at all. It's a little push from apple and EMI to buy albums, not songs, I think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a.miller Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I definitely think this is a good thing. I always felt kinda ripped off when purchasing the 128kpbs downloads. I usually bought them out of convenience more than anything. Hopefully more record lables follow this example. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
froggie Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 hmm, maybe remasters could be on the way Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Hapablap Posted April 2, 2007 Author Share Posted April 2, 2007 hmm, maybe remasters could be on the way If you mean Beatles remasters..... The current Beatles cds sound like crap. More Neil Young remasters would be great too, but the archives set will come out before that happens, and i'd rather have the archives set first. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Back in the '80s, we used to marvel how good the Beatles CDs sounded, but they are certainly due for a modern remastering. Hopefully, they will not screw them up in the process. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I never heard them until the mid 90s and I have always thought they sounded like crap. I doubt EMI is in a hurry to do anything since those Capitol boxes came out. It is not very fun to buy a whole bunch of cds twice - I have bought all the Beach Boys cds two times now. I have not bothered with the Dylan re-masters - as I own them all (almost) and that would be a lot of money to spend. While where at it - the Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty cds need re-mastered too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Is Chicago Is Not Chicago Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I never heard them until the mid 90s and I have always thought they sounded like crap. I doubt EMI is in a hurry to do anything since those Capitol boxes came out. It is not very fun to buy a whole bunch of cds twice - I have bought all the Beach Boys cds two times now. I have not bothered with the Dylan re-masters - as I own them all (almost) and that would be a lot of money to spend. While where at it - the Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty cds need re-mastered too. the levels on Greetings from Asbury Park are atrocious! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.