Universal signs deal with imeem. imeem now has deals to stream music from all four major labels. I like imeem, especially for embedding playlists in this blog, but Wired claims only 30-second samples will be available with embedded players (and sure enough, the playlist they show only has samples); imeem wants you to go to their site and see the ads before you stream whole songs--which makes sense if rumors that imeem is paying a per-song fee and not a percentage of advertising revenue are true. However, Ars Technica's article has an embedded song which streams fine. So I'm hoping that imeem's filters just aren't letting all songs stream yet, but eventually will.

Unfortunately, it looks like imeem's main problem remains: songs are still uploaded by users, so not everything is available, and quality and accuracy isn't always assured. It would be nice if the record labels provided the sites with their catalog, but still, the ability to upload and share with others any major label song is a nice thing to have.

I'm not sure how imeem is doing signing up indie labels; I just checked some previous posts, and it looks like Lee Hazlewood's last album is now streamable, but Porter Wagoner's last album still isn't streamable.

Universal to sell DRM-free music. According to this article, Universal's "test" of DRM-free music downloads begins August 21st, and Amazon will be among the vendors selling the files; I guess this means the Amazon music store launches this month.

The one merchant excluded from this new DRM-free product is iTunes. Which seems silly to me. People will go to Amazon or the Universal website if they're looking to buy music by a major artist (advertising will let people know that 50 Cent, for instance, is available DRM-free at Universal's website), but for back-catalog stuff, I don't see people flocking to a new online merchant to buy songs. If something pops into my head, and I want to buy some music, I first check eMusic, then I check iTunes; if I knew the artist recorded on Universal, I would check the Universal site, but who knows on what label an artist records? Thanks to eMusic, I'm more aware of indie labels, but except for a few huge acts, I don't know one major label from another. If people don't find it DRM-free on iTunes (or at all; if I was Apple, I'd consider pulling Universal's catalog, to make them rethink their stance), they'll download it illegally (or, if they're like me, hit up their local library).

To be fair, though, I should thank Universal for keeping the price at 99 cents. Which is actually an odd decision; iTunes Plus has given the labels the variable pricing they've been begging for, sort of, and now the largest label is throwing the gesture right back in Apple's face.

Universal reportedly not renewing its contract with Apple to sell its music in iTunes. Time will tell if this rumor is true, and just what it means if it is true, but I have to wonder what Universal is thinking. Picking a fight with a powerful adversary when their business model is in the toilet should just serve to remind everyone of just how impotent they are. iTunes is responsible for approximately 15% of Universal Music Group's revenues. And iTunes has little incentive not to let Universal walk away, as the profits from iTunes pales in comparison to their profit from the iPod. They want their customers to be happy, and have access to as much music as possible in iTunes, but they also know that if they reach an impasse with Universal, Universal will get the blame.

So, yes, I think this will most likely blow up in Universal's face, depending on how this purported showdown goes down. But I'll keep an open mind. For one, we don't know what will be the length of any short-term purchasing agreement between the two parties. The Wall Street Journal suggests that "short-term" means under one year. So, if they reach a six-month agreement, it may postpone an ugly stand-off long enough that Universal may, down the road, find themselves in a better bargaining position. And perhaps Universal is ready to imminently announce their abandonment of DRM, which they have been rumored to be considering. This would take the sting out of their departure from iTunes for iPod users, who would then be able to buy iPod-compatible files from other sources. Really, removing DRM is such a transparent means of combating Steve Job's influence on digital music distribution, it really baffles me why the labels are so slow to accept that losing DRM is vital for their survival. It would certainly be a smarter move then pouting and threatening to take their toys and go home.

Let me just remind Universal of one thing: People don't mind stealing from you. It's wrong, yes, I truly believe that stealing music is wrong. But I believe that gambling and drinking are wrong, too, and, well, I've been known to partake in a snifter of brandy after an evening of penny-stakes bridge. Or something like that. My point is, many people who buy music think stealing is wrong, but will gladly do so anyways if they can somehow justify it to themselves. The argument that, because Universal stopped selling on iTunes, I'm now justified to steal from them with impunity, is of course faulty. But it's an argument I would nonetheless embrace, and gladly pilfer Universal music with little compunction. So just don't do it, Universal; don't give me an excuse to do bad.