[Nodnarb]

Link to download MP3 "downloader"

This actually seems pretty cool to me. No DRM, 256kbps MP3, and either $.89 or $.99 per song. I don't see a downside. It says it imports it directly into iTunes for you. I may have to look into this next time I'm looking to buy some music, as the prices are better (way better than iTunes Plus) and its an open MP3...hmm...

Anyone else going to use this?

[Atheist]

Competition is a good thing!

[ort888]

They had me at "DRM free".

I'll try it out for sure.

[Mastrap]

This is good news. Amazon seems to be doing everything just right and I'll definitely be using the service.

Edit: Looks like this is not (yet) available in Canada.

[mdc]

I just searched for an album I bought yesterday on iTunes but it isn't there.
The fact that the songs are not low quality or Windows Media means that I'll definitely give it a try sometime.

[starman]

Poor selection.

[Mastrap]

^ At this moment in time, yes.

[Nodnarb]

It's most likely just a poor selection because AFAIK, this is it's first day out to the public, and it's only in beta still so not technically "released"

They could be adding stuff every day as iTunes once did when it had little content

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Edit: Looks like this is not (yet) available in Canada.

Silly Canadian! Of course it's not available up there. You have to wait your turn as always.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by starman 

Poor selection.

Maybe it doesn't have all of the songs that you want, but it might have some you haven't heard of and they may be worth trying for $0.89.

[starman]

I judge an online service based on hard-to-find items. If it doesn't have any of them, I'll stick with Apple.

[SpaceMonkey]

The question is whether the selection will ever be any better than eMusic, the other no-DRM MP3 site. With no DRM, I suspect not.

[ort888]

Since eMusic only deals with independent labels, Amazon is sure to have a lot that eMusic never will.

I'll always go to eMusic first, since I already subscribe (and more importantly since the songs are only about 20 cents each) but Amazon will be a nice backup.

I never use iTunes because I hate the DRM.

[Mastrap]

I like eMusic. A lot of jazz and the more obscure stuff, which works for me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Since eMusic only deals with independent labels, Amazon is sure to have a lot that eMusic never will.

I'll always go to eMusic first, since I already subscribe (and more importantly since the songs are only about 20 cents each) but Amazon will be a nice backup.

I never use iTunes because I hate the DRM.

Maybe I'm missing something (I haven't downloaded the Amazon software), but who but an independent label would offer their songs free of DRM? Surely the realistic candidates for Amazon's service are much the same as those of eMusic. I'm not expecting to see any Sony or Warner Brothers music on Amazon's service, but it would be a pleasant surprise.

Edit: just read the MacNN article -- forgot about the EMI deal, and I didn't know about Universal's DRM-free trial. Interesting.

[irunat2am]

I don't even know what DRM is, and I buy stuff from iTunes. What am I missing out on? Digital...rap music. Digitally reproduced mimes? Don't roofie mommy? Meh.

[Nodnarb]

Seriously?

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

[starman]

DRM never bothered me because:

1) I already have an iPod
2) I'm not giving the music to anyone
3) I can burn a CD if I really had to

[Captain Obvious]

A worthy alternative to iTunes but with Universal being involved the minute they turn a profit and become an entrenched competitor to Apple you can kiss those .89 cent downloads goodbye.

[besson3c]

The "DRM doesn't bother me personally, so I'm fine with it" is exactly what companies like Apple count on to continue doing the kind of thing they are doing.

The fundamental question is this: when you buy something, do you think it becomes your property, and you should be able to do whatever you want with it so long as it is legal?

[- - e r i k - -]

You don't buy music. You licence it.

[mdc]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The "DRM doesn't bother me personally, so I'm fine with it" is exactly what companies like Apple count on to continue doing the kind of thing they are doing.

The fundamental question is this: when you buy something, do you think it becomes your property, and you should be able to do whatever you want with it so long as it is legal?

That's the thing, I am doing what I want with it. I'm listening to it on my iPod, my Mac, my AppleTV, and in my car on burned cds.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You don't buy music. You licence it.

The way I understand it: traditionally when you buy music, your physical copy is your property you can use as you wish. The only limitations are copyright laws and other legalities. If you want to back up your copy, alter it, use it for personal projects where a royalty payment is not required, this is fair game.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mdc 

That's the thing, I am doing what I want with it. I'm listening to it on my iPod, my Mac, my AppleTV, and in my car on burned cds.

That's like saying "I'm okay with that batch of poisoned food that McDonalds was selling last week, because it didn't affect me". If you're the kind of person that believes that DRM is fundamentally wrong, whether or not the restrictions affect your usage personally is somewhat irrelevant, no?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The way I understand it: traditionally when you buy music, your physical copy is your property you can use as you wish. The only limitations are copyright laws and other legalities. If you want to back up your copy, alter it, use it for personal projects where a royalty payment is not required, this is fair game.

You don't own the music itself. You own the medium you bought it on. The music is licensed to you and gives you certain rights and restrictions, some of which are covered under fair use. But "fair use" (in the US and now also the EU) has been vastly eroded by the DMCA.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The way I understand it: traditionally when you buy music, your physical copy is your property you can use as you wish. The only limitations are copyright laws and other legalities. If you want to back up your copy, alter it, use it for personal projects where a royalty payment is not required, this is fair game.

I like how you talk about "using as you wish" and in the same breath mention "limitations" like copyright laws "and other legalities", such as royalty payments. It's like you *know* you're not making sense.

Of course the physical disk is yours to do with as you please - nail it to a tree, by all means - but you yourself realize that THE CONTENT is not.

"Unauthorized duplication or broadcast is a violation of applicable laws".

The only people who OWN the content and can thus determine what may happen with it are the copyright and performance right owners. The former own the song, the latter, that particular recording of the song.

[dawho9]

The question I'm curious about is, will this force Apple's hand with the pricing of music on iTunes?

Sure they are not going to lose the giant lead over night but some people out there are going to start noticing that you can purchase songs for up to 40% cheaper somewhere else and it still magically makes it way into iTunes and onto your iPod so why not try it? Or does Apple only care as long as they are buying iPods to put the music on?

I would be curious to see if/when Apple does anything with their iTunes Plus stuff. (Of course if they do reduce the price lets say to $.99 cents to match Amazon does that mean everyone would complain and want their money back?)

dw9

[mdc]

I wonder just how tied are Apple's hands when it comes to pricing?
I'm not saying that Apple is flat out lying, but we hear about labels wanting to increase prices, but Apple says no. Now Amazon comes out with songs 10c less.

Maybe Apple got the go ahead for flexible pricing on songs, but wanted 99c across the board.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by mdc 

I wonder just how tied are Apple's hands when it comes to pricing?
I'm not saying that Apple is flat out lying, but we hear about labels wanting to increase prices, but Apple says no. Now Amazon comes out with songs 10c less.

Maybe Apple got the go ahead for flexible pricing on songs, but wanted 99c across the board.

Maybe the labels get the same price, regardless of price. Amazon has shown a willingness to have low margins; Apple has not. So, Amazon is willing to pay $.70/song at $.79, $.89, or $.99, whereas Apple is not willing to have reduced margins. Apple wants the record companies to eat the cost of a lower price, and the record companies want Apple to eat it.

[analogika]

Labels have gone on record as wanting to charge *more* than what Apple is taking, with lower-demand material being cheaper.

I'd see these low prices on Amazon as the industry's desperate attempt to break a partner who's gained too much power because they've actually understood how the business can work today.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by starman 

DRM never bothered me because:

1) I already have an iPod
2) I'm not giving the music to anyone
3) I can burn a CD if I really had to

It never bothered me either for the same reasons. Apple's DRM implementation is by far the least restrictive and the most unobtrusive. But I found myself being frustrated by my inability to use my ITS music on other devices outside of the Apple ecosystem. As far as digital media players are concerned, I only roll with an iPod so that wasn't the problem. It's when I wanted to use the music on my home stereo or on my cell phone that it became an issue. I waited for years for the AppleTV to easily get my music onto my home theater system (was getting tired of having to get the laptop out to use the Airport Express approach) ... only to find that it was designed for a widescreen HDTV. So a $300 purchase I would have gladly made became significantly more because I would then need to upgrade my entire home theater system (at least the TV) to really make use of it. Other media servers that better supported my existing setup weren't an option because they wouldn't play 1/3 of my 6000+ song music library because of the DRM. I would love an iPhone but really prefer T-Mobile's pricing plans. I also prefer Sony Ericsson's bluetooth support on their cell phones ... but again, they won't play ITS music because of the DRM. So while I agree that Apple's DRM is pretty painless when you consume your music primarily on an iPod and CDs ... once you go beyond that it does become a PITA.

OAW

[turtle777]

Why the hell does Amazon get the credit, and people think that Apple is the BAD guy who likes DRM.

It's the MI, and the MI's attempt to break Apple's pole position.

Trust me, this has NOTHING to do with the MI liking the consumer soooo much that they are willing to give them DRM free music. It's only about politics / hurting Apple.

-t

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by dawho9 

The question I'm curious about is, will this force Apple's hand with the pricing of music on iTunes?

Sure they are not going to lose the giant lead over night but some people out there are going to start noticing that you can purchase songs for up to 40% cheaper somewhere else and it still magically makes it way into iTunes and onto your iPod so why not try it? Or does Apple only care as long as they are buying iPods to put the music on?

I would be curious to see if/when Apple does anything with their iTunes Plus stuff. (Of course if they do reduce the price lets say to $.99 cents to match Amazon does that mean everyone would complain and want their money back?)

dw9

I'd say no. 10 cents isn't really anything to most people. It may add up but when you are talking about the sort of impulse buying that happens when people purchase songs it won't make enough of a difference to teens and young adults who don't plan on switching from iPods.
Since they have to use iTunes anyway they are more likely just to keep on using it to buy songs rather than go to Amazon and deal with the whole process.
Where it may hurt Apple is on the sales of entire albums. But I don't really know many people who buy those online. I am sure there is a demographic who does but with me if I am interested in an entire work I would rather have the CD.
So even if Amazon eats up as much as a quarter or a third of the market I doubt it would be enough to cause Apple to raise prices. They made the store to sell iPods not because they wanted big revenue from the iTMS. And as I said, I really doubt Amazon will be able to keep on selling songs for .89 when all the labels want variable pricing. Amazon has already shown a willingness to do that and its only going to go up, Apple won't budge from this for quite a few years until the value of a dollar is diminished.