Universal Refuses To Renew On iTunes

UnknowingFool writes "It appears for the moment that Universal will not renew its long term contract with Apple for content on the iTunes store. While the details are not known about the exact nature of the dispute, many speculate that it has to do with Apple's stance on fixed pricing and Apple's refusal to license their DRM. The worse case scenario may include Universal pulling its entire catalog from iTunes. Both sides stand to lose out with 1/3 of of new releases coming from Universal and an estimated 15% of Universal's sales coming from digital downloads. Apple's market share is about 75% of digital downloads, and digital downloads are growing while CD sales are shrinking."

Universal?

[Karganeth (1017580)]

Aren't they also the only company exclusively backing the doomed HD-DVD format? Stupid businesses make stupid decisions.

Re:Universal?

[illegalcortex (1007791)]

Wiki says HD-DVD is exclusively backed by The Weinstein Company/Dimension Films (through Genius Products), and First Look Studios. A number of Warner's releases have been HD-DVD only. And then there are the non-content companies who are exclusively backing HD-DVD: Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, Microsoft, RCA, Kenwood, Intel, and Memory-Tech Corporation.

Personally, I think it's a bit early to be deciding who is doomed and who isn't. I think it's just as likely that both formats are doomed and there will be a "winner" only in the same way that laserdisc "won" the battle to be the next video medium after VHS. It was the format to use, there were just a low percentage of people interested in it.

Re:

[sl3xd (111641)]

There are a lot of PS3 fanboys who play up Blu-ray, since that's about all the PS3 can do with the current PS3 game selection. Since the PS3 is generally being outsold by the Wii, 360, and PS2, making premature claims about the one thing that seems to be going the PS3's way (ie. Blu ray is doing well) seems to be a major outlet for fanboys who can't seem to grasp that the PS3 isn't going to dominate the market the way the PS2 did.

In terms of standalone Blu-ray vs HD DVD player sales, HD DVD has a wide lead

Re:

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

Pssh. First off, who wants HD Porn? Some thing's are not meant to be seen in high def. 'Nuff said.

Secondly, who the hell buys porn on hard media anymore? Far far far more people download porn than get it any other way. The internet is, indeed, for porn.

The whole "Porn decides all format wars" line would be a lot more useful and relevant if we had a pool of results that was larger than, you know, one. Just because adoption followed porn once, doesn't mean it will ever do so again.

Re:

[Chyeld (713439)]

Porn has decided more than once, it's just that the main round that you remember is the VHS vs Beta arguement.

Porn was the bulk of what drove the penny arcades, which in turn promoted the old silent movies (themselves started mostly as a vehicle for porn). Most of the visual entertainment media used throughout history either started out, or was heavily fininanced at the start by porn.

And they've decided today as well. You youself made the point without realizing it.

BOTH formats have lost, it's not about har

This is nothing more than

[Pendersempai (625351)]

empty posturing. What does Universal lose by signing a short-term contract instead of a long-term one? Probably nothing. What do they gain? Marginally more credibility in the back-and-forth threats between Apple and the record companies. Wake me up when they explicitly threaten to cancel their contract and remove their media from iTunes if an express list of demands is not met. Until then, it means nothing. And even then, they'll likely return to the bargaining table before pulling the plug. Both sides know where their interests lie, and neither wants to pull the plug.

My long-term prediction? More of the status quo. Both sides are winning, and there is no external stimulus that seems like it might upset the equilibrium that has developed. Apple doesn't want to lose a third of its collection, and Universal doesn't want to be tied to the misfits and rejects that compose the rest of the playing field.

Re:This is nothing more than

[TubeSteak (669689)]

Wake me up when they explicitly threaten to cancel their contract and remove their media from iTunes if an express list of demands is not met. Until then, it means nothing.

When heavy hitters engage in diplomacy, they usually make lots of small incremental steps.

It isn't enough to show Apple that they're serious, they want the rest of the industry to see that these steps can be taken without ruining their business. The ultimate goal is to restructure Apple's relationship with the entire music industry, not just with Universal.

If you see this as just an empty threat, then you aren't looking very far down the road.

Most likely negotiation tactics or...

[theolein (316044)]

The most likely answer is that Universal, whose bean counters are not dumb enough to drop fully 15% of their sales to spite Apple, is simply making noises to negotiate a better deal.

The other possibility is that Bill Gates, in utter desperation because the Zune is such a piece of crap, has offered to pay Universal for exclusive content for the Zune. I would seriously not put it past Bill G and Steve B to do something like this. It would be a really bad day for Apple if this did happen, because it would make the Zune more popular and the iPod less popular.

Of course, it could backfire heavily against both Microsoft and Universal if Zune sales don't grow significantly.

Re:Most likely negotiation tactics or...

[russotto (537200)]

Apple, on the other hand, probably IS willing to drop Universal's catalog from iTunes if Universal gets unreasonable. Which is the more likely thought process?

1) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll buy this piece of crap Zune instead of the cool new iPod Femto

or

2) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll have to <strike>pirate it like there's no tommorrow</strike> rip it from CD onto my iPod

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

The third possibility of course is that Universal could do an EMI & go down the DRM free path - selling iPod compatible mp4s/mp4s on amazon / whatever.

I think that's a reasonable bargaining chip to bring to the table - imagine the launch of ipod compatible, variable priced music on Amazon - launched with a live concert by universal artists such as U2 & Elton John....

Re:Most likely negotiation tactics or...

[Phroggy (441)]

1) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll buy this piece of crap Zune instead of the cool new iPod Femto

or

2) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. I'll have to <strike>pirate it like there's no tommorrow</strike> rip it from CD onto my iPod

or

3) Oh, Universal's music is no longer available on iTunes. Hey, here's a cool song on iTunes, from some other label, I was thinking about getting this one too, I guess I'll just buy it instead. I don't really need that other song I wanted.

or

4) Universal conspires with two or three other big labels to also drop iTunes if their collective demands aren't met. Apple accuses the labels of forming a dangerous anti-consumer cartel, while the labels accuse Apple of being a dangerous anti-consumer monopoly, and because the labels have deeper pockets and are much more experienced at spreading ridiculous lies and deceit, few people hear Apple's side.

or, as another poster pointed out,

5) Universal sets up an iTMS competitor selling DRM-free tracks; they offer an introductory price of $0.89/track for the first three months, then jack it up to $1.99 per track for the tracks more than a handful of people want, while still offering crap nobody likes for $0.89/track (which is the price they'll advertise, of course). Throw billions of dollars at promoting it, and they'll convince some people to switch away from iTMS.

That'll sure help the A/R folks out...

[EricTheGreen (223110)]

Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So, we sign with you...and our record won't be up for sale on iTunes?"
Universal A/R dude/dudette: "Yep, that's right."
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So any unit sales revenue we see from you will be from Wal-Mart and Best Buy sales, nothing else?"
Universal A/R dude/dudette: "Uh huh."
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "Losers. Next!"

Re:That'll sure help the A/R folks out...

[badasscat (563442)]

Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So, we sign with you...and our record won't be up for sale on iTunes?"

You're assuming major labels are still out there trolling nightclubs for "unsigned bands with break-out potential".

More often what they're doing is hitting up their local malls and "recruiting" teenage girls (or in the case of boy bands, teenage boys) to actively "break" as the next pop star. These girls and guys had nothing going for them (except cheerleader looks) before, so why would they turn down the promise of riches just because the songs some producer wrote for them to lay their heavily processed vocals over won't be on iTunes? If they do, hey, there's plenty more at the mall they came from.

Re:

[EricTheGreen (223110)]

Oh, they're still trolling the bars, absolutely, and that won't change anytime soon. What the greenlighting people _are_ doing differently now, for certain, is closely qualifying what "breakout" means to them, in terms of risk of the act. As many others have noted, it's a lot harder these days to get signed and nobody, no one, is given any development runway anymore--disc #1 needs to sell {x} units minimum or your toast. It's a sad loss all the way around.

To your point...the recruiting/packaging you ment

Re:

[The One and Only (691315)]

I don't think that's been true since the 90's. Or, ever. Some top-selling artists are bands that came to fame as bands, some are solo acts that split off from groups, and a very few are people with previous experience in the entertainment industry being developed--but the specific formula you're describing is an exaggeration that never even applied to the worst of the pop acts from the late 90's.

Re:

[morari (1080535)]

Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So you'll bring in your own producer and mixer to push our style more toward what you think people want to hear?"

Universal A/R dude/dudette: "Yep, that's right!"

Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "We'll loose all creative control and have next to no say in what we put out, but we're guaranteed to have at least one initial single because you own all media outlets like radio stations, television and most stores?"

Universal A/R dude/dudette: "Uh huh."

Unsigne

Minor correction(s)

[Overzeetop (214511)]

Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So any unit sales revenue we see from you will be from Wal-Mart and Best Buy sales, nothing else?"

Universal A/R dude/dudette: "No, of course not. You will never see sales revenue because we will cook the books so that you never see a penny. But you are othewise correct - the unit sales revenue you will never see will only come from Wal-Mart and Best Buy."

Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "Where do we sign?"

Universal shoots itself in the foot. Film at 11.

[sehlat (180760)]

Let's see: Universal is unhappy with Jobs' position on pricing and want to have their OWN Digital-Consumer-Disablement crippled service with higher prices than Apple and, since Apple won't license the DCD, it will have to be incompatible with the iPod, which is as close to a player monopoly as you can get without the Feds landing on you with an army of antitrust lawyers.

They think this is good for them HOW?

Re:Universal shoots itself in the foot. Film at 11

[Cadallin (863437)]

Hold on, Hold on. The iPod is NOT a prosecutable monopoly. It's a natural Monopoly. Which is to say, it arises because that just what consumers are buying. There is not illegal about that at all. It is 100% legit. It is only illegal to use a monopoly in one area to force a monopoly in another. Like Microsoft using their Monopoly in Operating Systems to shut Corel out of the market for Office Suites. Like Microsoft using their Monopolies in Operating Systems and Office Suites to secure a Monopoly in the Browser Market. That's illegal. iPod/iTunes is not, despite complaints by overzealous European prosecutors. There are LOTS of (legal even) ways to get music onto an iPod. Buying CDs for one. Plenty of Musicians are distributing music themselves in MP3 or FLAC (which can't be played on an iPod Shame on you Apple! But FLAC can be converted to other formats that can be played on an iPod). iTunes Music Store "Lock-in" in pretty poor to be honest. The vast majority of iPod users are not filling up their iPods on ITMS purchases.

Load of Hooey

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Edgar Bronfman Jr., the chairman of Warner Music Group, reinforced that idea at a recent investor conference, saying "we believe that not every song, not every artist, not every album, is created equal."

And yet you sell all your CD's at $16.99 regardless of that fact now, don't you?

At the same time, Mr. Jobs has refused the industry's calls for Apple to license its proprietary copy restriction software to other manufacturers. Music executives want the software to be shared so that services other than iTunes can sell music that can be played on the iPod, and so that other devices can play songs bought from iTunes.

Another load of crap. iPods can play music from any other DRM-free music seller. This joker wants you to believe iPods only play iTMS music, which is a lie. And iPod owners would likely buy music from other sources if: 1) It didn't have yet another, incompatible, version of DRM; 2) It was priced right; 3) It was the music they wanted to hear; 4) It had a nice interface to easily purchase and load said music onto their iPod. The record companies themselves are the ones to blame here.

You know, It's the DRM, stupid!

I just don't see it working out for Universal

[MikeRT (947531)]

Losing 15% of your income is a lot of money when you are that big. That's about the point that shareholders want to hear about cost-cutting measures to regain what they have lost--namely downsizing and such. For Apple, it would be a blow, but it would also not be nearly as bad because they still have so many content providers to work with.

If Apple and Universal cannot come to an agreement, Apple should bide its time, wait for them to weaken and strike. Buy out their catalog for a cool few billion dollars in cash and license it exclusively through the ITMS.

Re:Whoda thunk?

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Jobs is a clever, clever man.

More to the point, Jobs is an arrogant bastard, who simply will not back down or compromise when he thinks he is right. You'd have thought the other CEOs would have learned by now that bluffing (or even looking like you're bluffing) is a really, really bad thing to do when negotiating with Steve. As ATi learned, he has absolutely no problem with damaging his company in the short term if he thinks it will strengthen its position in the long term.

short term vs long term

[falconwolf (725481)]

As ATi learned, he has absolutely no problem with damaging his company in the short term if he thinks it will strengthen its position in the long term.

Though I don't have an opinion on whether Steve Jobs is doing this, I do prefer a company executive that looks, years down the road, to the future instead of to this or the next quarter. That's a shortsightedness it seems too many corporations have now.

Falcon

OK - Here's a thing

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

But some music executives have been chafing at the flat rate

Well, Universal, here's *my* new flat rate for any of your artists.

$0.00

I call it the Interwebs Discount.

Happy now?

And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Which DRM to use?

[Animats (122034)]

The problem with music DRM, from the music distributor perspective, is that it's too closely tied to player vendors. There's the iPod and the Zume, and in both cases the player manufacturer takes a cut of the revenue. UMG, reasonably enough, wants to cut the player manufacturer out of the revenue stream.

Microsoft has orphaned "PlaysForSure", which, for a while, looked like an option. Or at least Microsoft tried. WalMart went with PlaysForSure, and they might insist that Microsoft keep supporting it.

What really matters is what WalMart does. If the music industry doesn't come up with a good solution, Bentonville may dictate one. Their site currently says The Apple iPod and Microsoft Zune digital media players do not currently support protected WMA-format files, and will not play Wal-Mart Music Downloads. Walmart.com has a large selection of WMA-/DRM-compatible digital music players available at great prices.

WalMart, remember, sells online music at $0.88/song, below Apple and Microsoft. And they're not going to raise their prices.

Re:

[UnknowingFool (672806)]

The problem with music DRM, from the music distributor perspective, is that it's too closely tied to player vendors. There's the iPod and the Zume, and in both cases the player manufacturer takes a cut of the revenue. UMG, reasonably enough, wants to cut the player manufacturer out of the revenue stream.

If anything, music companies benefit revenue-wise from digital sales. Unlike physical medium like CDs, the distribution and manufacturing costs are minimal. And any infrastructure costs are borne by these

Record industry is dying

[athloi (1075845)]

It was never a sane business model. The value of most CDs is their novelty and hype potential, not the music inside, which is mostly pointless goop for easily-distracted people. They're not going to make a killing any longer, since the means of distribution have now surpassed the means of production. Universal and Apple fighting over a miniscule advantage in a collapsing industry is a sure sign that the entertainment industry has no clue where to go now that its product is no longer scarce by the nature of its distribution.

Middlemen

[petehead (1041740)]

Great, two big companies fighting over their middleman territory. The artist who creates the product and the user who purchases it are just collateral damage.

DRM Licensing

[sagefire.org (731545)]

Apple's refusal to license their DRM

Oh, if only Apple would license their cross-platform DRM! I know this will be modded as off-topic BUT I wish Apple would license its DRM to the BBC! That way, the BEEB would have an easy way of distributing their content in a non-Windows environment and still satisfy their perceived DRM need. It still would not make a native Linux method of playing BBC content, but it is pretty easy to get iTunes (for example) to run under wine. So, though it is not a perfect solution, at least it would be better than what the BEEB is doing now

So, go ahead, mod me off-topic, but I am hoping to at least also get to be modded as interesting as well.

Poor Universal

[Trogre (513942)]

So now no more iTunes sales for:

        * Baby Boy Da Prince
        * Bee Gees
        * Drake Bell
        * Black Child
        * Brandon
        * Big Tuck
        * Big Tymers
        * Blak Jak
        * Bloodhound Gang
        * Mutya Buena
        * Vanessa Carlton
        * Jamie Cullum
        * Domination
        * Down AKA Kilo
        * Dispatch
        * Drake Bell
        * Godsmack
        * Gotan Project
        * Chris Gotti
        * Pat Green
        * Harry O.
        * Heavy D.
        * Infinite Mass
        * Ja Rule
        * Elton John
        * Jack Johnson
        * JoJo
        * Juvenile
        * Jordan Flynn
        * Kaiser Chiefs
        * Brie Larson
        * Murphy Lee
        * Lindsay Lohan
        * Lloyd
        * Damian Marley
        * Stephen Marley
        * Mika
        * Mushroomhead
        * Mystic
        * Natalie
        * Pharoahe Monch
        * Prince
        * Rakim
        * Rammstein
        * Scissor Sisters
        * Strive Roots
        * Sunland

The rest are here [wikipedia.org].

I'm not a fan of iTunes and have never bought anything off them, but Universals reasons for ditching them can only be nefarious. Okay so Prince isn't going to care, and Elton probably won't either. But if anyone knows the other artists it might pay to tell them what their label has done and that now might be a good time to think about their future with Universal.

Re:Worst case?

[Doctor_Jest (688315)]

DRM free?

HAH. don't hold your breath... and it _will_ be more expensive than iTunes, and it _will_ be more DRM-crippling than iTunes.

Yeah, competition's great.

Re:

[twitchingbug (701187)]

Guess who wins? EMI.

If Universal thinks that people will buy from another online source than iTunes, let them try. That's competition. EMI felt differently, and will win and grab a larger market share. Honestly I've never paid any attention to which labels musicians signed with before. But now it'll becoming blindingly obvious who's in what camp.

Re:Worst case?

[LordVader717 (888547)]

No. Look where people go for their downloads. Especially, look at which store people buy DRM'ed tracks from.

If they want to keep the DRM, good look trying to sell it on anything other than iTunes with Fairplay. They'd be excluding themselves from the biggest market.
If they're prepared to sell DRM-free, and want more than Apple's $1.29, they're screwed too, cause customers don't like being fucked by price hikes.

The fact is that by breaking their relations with the biggest distributor of downloadable music, they're only screwing themselves.

Re:

[Altus (1034)]

Universal is going to demand DRM with their new provider. They will be cutting themselves out of that market (which I doubt is actually a huge consumer of online music since those players probably contain mostly ripped CDs, but that is besides the point) no matter what.

They just want more money and they dont want to give up DRM to get it. If they went somewhere else and sold their music DRM free I would probably buy it (assuming they have anything I want) but if its got some other DRM I wont buy it, becaus

Re:Worst case?

[acvh (120205)]

"BTW, Magnatune with Amarok is far better deal then iTunes. Just in case somebody is interested. "

There IS the issue of just how large their respective inventories are: I believe iTunes wins there.

Hey, there are many sources of cheap, independent music. I use them. I like them. But to say that 500 albums at 5 bucks each represents "a far better deal" requires some suspension of reality.

Re:Worst case?

[Sancho (17056)]

Who exactly is selling a more crippled DRM?

Interesting choice of words.

I'd like to know who is selling less crippled music? With Microsoft's solution, to play on the PC, you need Windows Media Player, correct? Music from the Zune store only plays on the Zune. Allofmp3 is closed.

Apple does let you burn their DRM'd songs to CD, meaning you can play them in any CD player. You can also rerip. It's a crappy solution to get it onto a non-iPod player, but it's possible. Do other solutions offer this?

Re:Worst case?

[anotherone (132088)]

Universal already has the option of going DRM-free with iTunes, and they haven't taken the bait. Anyway, they don't have an exclusive contract with iTunes. Your whole post makes no sense.

Re:Worst case?

[astrosmash (3561)]

Yes - because they don't like what Apple was offering them, DRM-free or not.

Right. And what exactly do they not like about their deal with Apple?

They want to charge you more for their music. They'd like you to purchase multiple tracks for each device you own, and they'd really like it if you couldn't burn those tracks to CD.

Your post makes no sense because Apple has no say in the dealings that Universal does with other on-line retailers. Yes, competition is great. Theoretically, if Universal was uncomfortable with iTunes' dominance in the marketplace they would make sweetheart deals with other on-line retailers to provide cheaper music with more freedom to drive people away from iTunes, and the consumer would win. But that is not what is happening, because they're just too greedy, and the other tech companies too easily roll over to the whims of the entertainment industry. iTunes is successful in part because they're the only ones who have stood up to the record companies.

Instead, Universal uses its dominant position to strong-arm more money out of companies like Apple and Microsoft -- you'll recall that Universal stayed out of the Zune music store until Microsoft agreed to give then a cut of the Zune hardware sales. That's all that this is about.

Re:Worst case?

[LordVader717 (888547)]

It's not "Apple's" AAC tech, AAC is an open MPEG-standard, and anyone can implement it. A lot of Phones can play the files, and the only reason your $30 MP3 player can't is because the manufacturer decided not to pay for the license to decode AAC (which is significantly cheaper, simpler and safer than MP3 anyway)

Anyway, I believe that DRM-free iTunes tracks can be converted to MP3 by simply right-clicking them and selecting "convert to MP3" in iTunes.

DRM-free tracks are the ultimate compatibility to other players.

The reason Apple wouldn't license their Fairplay DRM is because that would endanger the "safety" of the DRM, and the record companies would be angry if it was easily cracked (or so they say)

No-DRM is better than licensed-DRM, however you put it.

Re:Uh... what are you thinking?

[drhamad (868567)]

Uhh... Universal has deals with others. This doesn't change that. This makes LESS options, not more. It certainly isn't a positive for DRM-free music, where iTunes leads the charge, as far as major labels go, since signing the EMI deal. Universal definitely wants DRM.

Universal wants to be able to up prices where it thinks it can get more money. Apple isn't letting them do that. How do you see it as a positive that they're going to go to someone who does?

Uh, this is what I'm thinking.

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

Like I needed one more reason to download all my music via bittorrent from my favorite trackers.

Re:

[chuckymonkey (1059244)]

In all seriousness I have stopped supporting the Music industry all together. I don't buy music, I don't download music, and I barely listen to the radio. When they fix their business model maybe I'll think about actually doing it again. As it is, I love classical, sympony orchestra and live blues/jazz so I can get my fix with live shows and for everything else it's public domain.

Re:Uh... what are you thinking?

[norminator (784674)]

Universal wants to be able to up prices where it thinks it can get more money. Apple isn't letting them do that. How do you see it as a positive that they're going to go to someone who does?

Not to mention, Universal wants money from each iPod sold [slashdot.org], just like they get from the Zune [slashdot.org], (and they've been asking for that since before the Zune deal was announced). For some reason, they think that they deserve that, even though they didn't design the electronics, or the UI, and iPods are not sold with any Universal Music on them, and don't in any way require Universal Music to function correctly.

Re:Uh... what are you thinking?

[CastrTroy (595695)]

MS need to give money to people just to jump on their bandwagon, because the service wasn't popular, and they needed to give the labels a reason to join their service. iTunes on the other hand is extremely popular, and doesn't need to make stupid deals like giving away a percentage of iPod profits to music companies. Universal is already getting a percentage of the music sales they get from iTunes, and that is all they should get.

Re:Uh... what are you thinking?

[Khaed (544779)]

What a shitty deal -- "We get money from every Zune sold!"

That's like what -- a buck fifty total now?

Re:Worst case?

[Drawkcab (550036)]

iTunes isn't the one pushing DRM, its the record labels like Universal who insist on it. Apple knows its customers don't like DRM and they'd sell more without it, but the copyright holders are the ones worried about losing revenue in the long term without DRM. You've got it completely confused.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I really don't understand this. Almost all the CDs sold in the last 20 years had no form of DRM. And they weren't scared then. What all of a sudden makes them want to sell everything. If they'd focus more on making quality music, and delivering it at a fair price, then they wouldn't have problems with people pirating music.

Re:Worst case?

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"I really don't understand this. Almost all the CDs sold in the last 20 years had no form of DRM. And they weren't scared then."

Well, remember back when CD's came out...there really was no way to rip them...hell, not many people had a harddrive big enough to hold all a CD's data. At that time, a CD was a safe, one use medium...you could record off it to cassette, but, that was lossy and they didn't care that much about it.

Then...came larger harddrives, cd burners and cd drives on computers...and compression techs (mp3, etc). Well, what was once 'secure' to do consumer's hardware limitations, wasn't any more.

The music companies hate that...and with digital music and DRM, are trying to close that hole. They'd fix the CD's to be read only if there were only some way they could...trust me. They're gonna be happy to get rid of CD's if ONLY they can lock the users down in a way they screwed up on and didn't do with CD's.

They do not want to repeat the non-DRM mistakes they made with CD's.

Re:

[jcr (53032)]

Wow, time warp. I haven't seen a Mac 8600 or a 486/66 in about a decade. Where are you, in a barn next to a Model T and a steam tractor?

-jcr

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

> 90% of CD content blows I'm guessing that a typical CD store contains something like 20,000 CDs. (That's a very rough guess.) That means you think 90% of those CDs blow. That means you think 2,000 CDs in a typical music store don't blow. Which is kinda interesting. If you put me in a typical music store I could imagine finding, say, 50 CDs I like. Like many other people, I can spend an hour in a CD store and not find any CDs I'd like to listen to, even when I'm in a mood to spend, spend, spend. If you