NBC soon to be out of iTunes. Seems like a poor move on their part, as purchasing TV shows is pretty much an impulse decision, and putting any roadblocks up should cut revenues severely. I know I've bought several TV shows iTunes; mostly episodes of The Office I missed before I got a DVR (or when my crappy cable-company DVR malfunctioned), as well as a few very-special-episodes of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. But if I can't get it for $2 from iTunes, I'll probably give up (I can get it for the same price on my Xbox 360, but that requires buying points in an oddly-priced bundle, and I can't load them on my iPod, so that probably won't happen). I have noted a fair amount of current TV shows are now available for streaming on Netflix, but I don't think the current season is available, so it doesn't help with playing catch-up. So NBC will now be out $2 when I miss a show I like, and if its a show where continuity is a big issue, I'll probably stop watching the show (missing an episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip finally gave me an excuse to bail on that train-wreck). So way to go, NBC, good luck getting people to pay $5 for something they can get for free.

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.

Sara Bareilles a success story for variable pricing on iTunes. Coolfer observes one omission from the article: Her track "Love Song" was a free single of the week. I think I missed that one, though possibly I downloaded it and just never listened to it (I checked, it's on my iPod, so I guess, like most of the free stuff I download from iTunes, I just didn't bother to hear it). One other thing I would add to the coverage of iTunes "Next Big Thing" price cut: Variable prices for albums on iTunes is nothing new. The WSJ article certainly implies that the "standard $9.99" price for albums is nearly inviolable, yet as I kvetched about previously, iTunes has no problem jacking up the price of random albums (even those readily available on CD at or below the $9.99 price point), and they have been discounting albums featured through the "single of the week" program for some time. When labels talk variable pricing, they're talking singles, not albums. You know, the product they'd rather you didn't buy. If the labels are serious about protecting album sales, and moving people away from the singles purchasing model, they would use the price freedom iTunes apparently offers on album price more aggressively. I certainly understand the impulse to charge $12.99 or $14.99 for a hot new CD, but if you choose to do so, please stop complaining when people choose to buy the one hit single, instead. Because pricing that new hit at $1.99 won't make people buy the album instead of the single, it will make them download the song illegally. Now, at this stage in the game, I don't know how much album pricing versus singles pricing matters, as I think many of those whom have fallen into the habit of buying singles will continue to do so, regardless of album price. But I have a crazy hunch, if the record industry really does want to alter the singles/albums purchasing ratio, that the best way to do so would be to lower album pricing, not raise singles pricing. I don't even think the more consumer-friendly lower variable pricing on back catalog singles would matter much; once I'm looking at the album to buy the song, I'm probably going to buy it, whether its 99 cents or 49 cents; but if I were to see the album containing the single I'm looking at is $5.99 or so, I just might take a chance on the whole album.

Anyway, I'm sure the music industry really cares what I think about variable pricing; I just wanted to mention it, as an excuse to mention that the Greencards' new album is available as part of the "Next Big Thing" promotion, at $5.99. Almost as good a deal as eMusic (though you're stuck with DRM at iTunes). Rodrigo y Gabriela's eponymous debut is also available, at $6.99 (I've seen the album on sale at Best Buy pretty consistently at $7.99, and now it, too, is available at eMusic). Hard to go wrong with either of these, wherever you buy them.

UPDATE: I've added a playlist of the artists mentioned in this post via iMeem. First time I've written about artists available for streaming through their service. Lots of Sara Bareilles, less Rodrigo y Gabriela, and nothing from the Greencards' latest album, so I through in their only song available from iMeem, "Time." I'll look into the whole uploading thing later, and see if I can update the list with more of their stuff.

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.

iTunes launched their DRM-free iTunes Plus service today. A nice milestone on the road leading to the death of DRM, though in actuality it was a little underwhelming. According to Apple's "upgrade to iTunes Plus" page, I actually only bought two albums from EMI: One by Lily Allen (don't you judge me!) and one by the Little Willies (a Norah Jones country side-project). I bought a handful of singles as well. I did go ahead and upgrade what I owned to iTunes Plus, though I was disappointed to see there was not an option to upgrade on a song-by-song basis. The upgrade was actually a good value to me, as I lost a few files from a hard drive crash awhile back, and was able to replace them in the process. And other then the site moving as slow as molasses, I didn't have much trouble upgrading. But I was disappointed to learn that I would have to pay a 30% surcharge to upgrade full albums I'd purchased, even though the DRM-free albums cost the same as the protected albums (an effort to encourage consumers to purchase full albums--a smart move, methinks). But I have a large credit balance at iTunes currently (Best Buy had a "$60 in gift cards for $45" sale recently), so didn't begrudge them the $7.50 or so I spent to upgrade.

One concern that I have about this experiment in DRM-free music is that it might, in fact, lead to a small up-tick in piracy. Much of the reportage about this new development describes the change as involving selling music free from usage restrictions. Not true. Copyright is a usage restriction. Just because a file is free from technological protection from copying doesn't mean that any and all copying of said file is legal. That's one reason why I think the thirty-cent surcharge for DRM-free files is a bad idea; it will confuse consumers, who think they are paying for the privilege to copy a file freely, without regard to copyright law. But I can offer one warning to those planning to share their iTunes Plus songs on P2P networks: Your iTunes account information and e-mail address is encoded within your iTunes-purchased music files. Though, as that article notes, I doubt this information is being used to track down pirates.

If you're anything like me, you've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of DRM-free tracks at iTunes, which we were told would arrive in May, which will soon be over. But fear not, as sources say the May deadline will be met. No assurances the infrastructure will be in place for new-music Tuesday, but I suppose waiting another 48 hours or so won't kill me. Besides, it's not like there's a ton of EMI artists I've been dying to purchase, it's more the symbolism of the moment.

As rumored, the Apple/EMI press conference was to announce that EMI was dropping DRM on iTunes. Good news. Higher-fidelity, DRM-free songs for an extra $0.30/song. I dislike having to pay extra to not receive a crippled product, but the enhanced sound eases the pain a bit (not that I've ever had a problem with the sound quality from the iTunes store). And in an effort to move consumers away from just purchasing singles, the wholesale price of albums will not change; I mostly buy full albums on iTunes, so this means I'll get improved sound quality and no DRM, and it will only cost me $0.30 on the infrequent occasions when I just download select tracks. I'd say this qualifies as good news, and hopefully the other major record labels will follow suit.

I do hope that the move away from DRM doesn't bring the majors to eMusic. I imagine the presence of major studios would drive the cost per song up quite a bit.

EMI and Apple plan to make a major announcement tomorrow. The early rumor was the arrival of the Beatles catalog on iTunes, which would be pretty sweet. But the Wall Street Journal reports (apparently, I got home from work before I heard this, and no longer have access to the Journal archives) that the real announcement is DRM-free music downloads from iTunes. Which makes more sense, considering the promise of a live musical performance at the press conference. Good news, in any case.