Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SirCastor · Feb 22, 2007, 05:45 PM

I was just reading about Puretracks going all non-DRM, and it got me to thinking about Apple's situation. I'm a believer generally in the All-or-Nothing concept that Apple needs to make it's library either All DRM-free, or not at all.

Anyway, this idea occurred to me as a compromise. I know none of us are interested in the price of music going up, but suppose the cost were a bit higher for a non-DRM version of a song. So you can either get the non-shareable version for cheap (under a buck), but the shareable one costs more. ~ $5

Would you do it?
Now, before you cry insanity, understand my reasoning for saying $5 for the Non-DRM version. Sure, it's insanity, nobody should be making this kind of money off a single song, but consider that, buy paying this much for this song, you'd have a sharing right to it, some limited degree or something like that. File sharing it online would still be a violation of the copyright, but burning it to a disc and handing it over to a friend would be legal. Or slapping it on a dozen iPods, or who knows what... what do ya think?

My own opinion: I personally don't mind the current DRM situation from Apple. I can burn it to a disc and get some freedom, but I don't take my music on anything else other than an iPod, and I'm a bit of a fanboy anyway, so I'd be willing to go with the cheap-but-limited situation.

Dakar² · Feb 22, 2007, 05:52 PM

Not really. DRM isn't screwing me (yet).

brassplayersrock² · Feb 22, 2007, 05:53 PM

maybe .25 cents more, but 4 bucks? no way. i don't mind the current way things are right now, there are work a rounds (which i wont get into detail to drm)

-a

ort888 · Feb 22, 2007, 06:00 PM

When a CD is $13, paying $5 for a single song would be pure insanity. How did you get that number?

SirCastor · Feb 22, 2007, 06:03 PM

I made up the $5 figure, honestly because I can't see the Record industry doing it for less. It has no factual supporting data behind it.

olePigeon · Feb 22, 2007, 06:20 PM

I'll continue to buy CDs second hand off eBay and Craig's List and rip them to a better quality than I'll ever get from iTunes.

Millennium · Feb 22, 2007, 06:23 PM

Why should I pay more for the fair-use rights that the law already guarantees me?

mduell · Feb 22, 2007, 06:42 PM

Since DRM adds cost, I think the price should go down when they dump DRM.

RAILhead · Feb 22, 2007, 06:44 PM

I wouldn't. In fact, I still but most of my music on physical disc so that I can burn at a higher rate. Point being, digital tracks are still to expensive for me.

slugslugslug · 02:38 PM

I've bought way more on eMusic in the last six months than I had on iTunes for the 3 years prior. Especially since I started doing most of my portable listening on a phone after Apple broke jhymn. I was already disinclined to pay money for tracks I couldn't walk around with...

Anyway, where was I going with this. Oh yeah: eMusic's* tracks are all DRM-free, and cost me less than iTunes tracks. Same goes for CalabashMusic.com. There's obviously going to some stuff unavailable, but the selection of great music on indie labels is vast enough that I can happily go a while without patronizing the majors. They're sure not gonna lure me back by charging me extra for un-DRM'd downloads.

*If you're thinking about joining eMusic, why not PM me so I can refer you and we both get some extra free downloads?

peeb · Feb 24, 2007, 01:38 PM

Yep, buy the cd.

Eug · Feb 24, 2007, 03:47 PM

No I wouldn't pay more for a non-DRM'd track.

I don't pay much for DRM'd downloaded music now either, cuz the value just doesn't seem to be there: 128 Kbps AAC with DRM locked to iTunes/iPod.

I'd be more inclined to buy if it were 160 or 192 Kbps AAC though, esp. if it were non-DRM'd, but not if it cost more. (I encode all my music off CDs at 192 Kbps AAC.)

P.S. We pay 99¢ CAD for songs here on iTunes, and that's about 85¢ US.

Railroader · Feb 24, 2007, 04:20 PM

More for non-DRM music? NO WAY! I'll pay more for higher quality bit rates though.

But when I do buy MP3s...

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Anyway, where was I going with this. Oh yeah: eMusic's* tracks are all DRM-free, and cost me less than iTunes tracks. Same goes for CalabashMusic.com. There's obviously going to some stuff unavailable, but the selection of great music on indie labels is vast enough that I can happily go a while without patronizing the majors. They're sure not gonna lure me back by charging me extra for un-DRM'd downloads.

This has been the route I have been going lately. But only for items that I want right now or don't care as much about the quality. I still buy 50%+ of my music on CD and then rip into 256(?) bit rate.

But with eMusic I get my tracks at less than 30 cents per track.

CleoW · Feb 24, 2007, 10:40 PM

No, I wouldn't---DRM hasn't caused me any problems. Ask me in 3 years or so, though. I might change my mind.

HackManDan · Feb 24, 2007, 11:54 PM

No. In fact, I would pay less.

mp3stor.com

DuckRacer1 · Feb 25, 2007, 01:32 AM

I wouldn't even pay an extra quarter for no DRM. Removing it is quick and easy, and even still I have no desire to do that.

mrtew · Feb 25, 2007, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by HackManDan

No. In fact, I would pay less.

MP3 Download, Free MP3 music downloads. mp3stor.com - MP3 Download

Hey that site looks too good to be true. What's the catch? Is that legit? (they even have the damn album dates right... why the f does the itms list them wrong 90% of the time?)

Wiskedjak · Feb 25, 2007, 09:32 AM

No I wouldn't pay more for a non-DRM'd track.

Though, if a track were not bundled in DRM, I might actually consider buying it.

Paco500 · Feb 25, 2007, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by mrtew

Hey that site looks too good to be true. What's the catch? Is that legit? (they even have the damn album dates right... why the f does the itms list them wrong 90% of the time?)

Don't know the catch with that site, but I believe I read somewhere that so many Album dates are "wrong" on iTMS as they put the release date of the album as sold on iTMS, not the original release date. So some albums have been re-released, or re-mastered, etc, and that is the date iTMS uses. I get their logic, it would be misleading to put the original date if the product has somehow been altered, but they should also list original release date for informational purposes.

Paco500 · 04:30 PM

And for the record, I would not pay more for a non-DRM track. Still buy most music on CD, and the ones I've bought from iTunes have not caused me any pain with the DRM that they have.

E's Lil Theorem · Feb 26, 2007, 09:46 AM

No, I would not pay more, though I would consider paying less than what I do now for CDs and vinyl.

kmkkid · Feb 26, 2007, 12:06 PM

I never understood DRM. The people who pirate music will do it regardless, and the people actually buying the songs wouldn't be buying it if they were pirates. It's punishing your true customers because of someone elses actions. I think they learned that from MS.

mitchell_pgh · Feb 26, 2007, 12:36 PM

~$5 per song? That would make a full CD around $60!!!

I would be interested in paying $2 a song for lossless SACD quality audio (which will never happen).

zerostar · Feb 26, 2007, 01:02 PM

It should be cheaper, they don't have to mess with the file as much, so less work should equal less money.

mdc · Feb 26, 2007, 01:42 PM

I wouldn't since I don't mind apple's DRM. The only time it has ever bothered me was when I wanted to make an mp3 CD of a few albums I bought, so I could play them in a friend's car. They didn't have an ipod connector in their car.

I ended up burning the albums as audio CDs. Used more CDs but still got the end result.

All in all, I don't find the apple DRM hindering me in my everyday music listening.

lindsay3119 · 08:50 AM

Deleted

HackManDan · Mar 14, 2007, 02:00 PM

Also, if you're going to use mp3stor, make sure you use a virtual CC # to prevent against ID theft.

Cipher13 · Mar 14, 2007, 11:08 PM

I wouldn't pay a cent more for a non-DRM'd track.

That said, I won't pay a single cent at all for a DRM'd track.

butterfly0fdoom · Mar 14, 2007, 11:16 PM

DRM or none, I don't care. If a single song costs more than 99 cents, I'm not buying.

That said, one song I got on iTunes, by some odd mystery, came in the form of a non-DRM'd MP3 file.

mrtew · Mar 14, 2007, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cipher13

I wouldn't pay a cent more for a non-DRM'd track.

That said, I won't pay a single cent at all for a DRM'd track.

What are you saying? You only steal music off the internet? You subscribe to a service? You buy/steal CD's? You listen to the radio? What? Don't be so cryptic.

Railroader · Mar 15, 2007, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by mrtew

What are you saying? You only steal music off the internet? You subscribe to a service? You buy/steal CD's? You listen to the radio? What? Don't be so cryptic.

I hope he doesn't leave you to cipher that one out for yourself.

highstakes · Mar 15, 2007, 02:24 AM

If its $5 for one song, then no. $1.50 is the highest I would pay for a non-DRM song.

Strix · Mar 15, 2007, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by mrtew

Hey that site looks too good to be true. What's the catch? Is that legit? (they even have the damn album dates right... why the f does the itms list them wrong 90% of the time?)

The problem with Russian MP3 sites is that they don't pay the artists any royalties (hence the low prices). There was talk last year of the record companies seizing the credit card details of people who have purchased the music, and then pursuing them for payment....