Metue.com

On Tuesday, Disney’s ABC Television group announced it would make available, beginning immediately, episodes of some of its popular programs, including Grey’s Anatomy, Lost and Ugly Betty to video-equipped phones on the Sprint network. The four most recent episodes of programs will be available to subscribers who use participating data-plans at no extra charge. At some point in the future, commercials will be added to the content.

The deal will be the first attempt by major media to offer full-length programming on phones, or over cellular. (Verizon has been offering short form video content).

In a statement that clearly shows Sprint made the deal in an effort to compete with the upcoming Apple iPhone (which can play video’s, including TV shows, downloaded through iTunes) Sprint’s VP for wireless data services said “You won’t need to buy episodes individually or sync to a PC to access this kind of content.”

Personally, I’m still not convinced that consumers will find much more than a novelty factor in having TV available on-demand on their phones. With so called time-shifting devices (Tivo, DVR’s etc) allowing consumers to watch programming at times that suit their schedules and not only when originally broadcast, the market for ultra-portable on-demand services seems small. If i can see a program anytime on a much bigger screen, why watch on my cell phone? It’s hard to believe this kind of service will appeal to anyone beyond the extremely bored, or the die-hard fan.

In a separate, unrelated announcement that was timed to coincide with press releases for Motorola’s next generation phones, Music subscription service Napster announced it was making its music service available on Motorola phones. The companies will share promotional efforts in North America, the UK and Germany. It was not clear how, or if, the partnership would include cellular carriers. In either case, as with the Sprint/Disney announcement, this release is another clear effort to compete against Apple’s upcoming iTunes and iPhone combination.

“Here we are now; contain us?” …or was Kurt Cobain singing “Here we are now, entertain us?”…hmm…

Ever wonder what the right words were to some song? Ever been positive the words were one thing, only to find out they were actually something else?   If so, you’re not alone.  Mishearing song lyrics is a common phenomenon.  It is so common, in fact, there’s a word for it: mondegreen.  There’s a website where you can submit your errors; or laugh at other misinterpretations (the site’s name is amusingly based on a misinterpretation of a Jimi Hendrix lyric).  There’s even a book of collected mondegreens (amusingly it’s titled after the same Jimi Hendrix misappropriation though there seems to be no relationship to the website).   Now, there’s also a way of finding out the definitive answer.

Yahoo and Emeryville, California based Gracenote, a music database and information company, announced a partnership today for the distribution of a music industry supported song lyrics database.   

Though lyrics are routinely among popular searches on the web (according to various Buzz indexes), this will mark the first lyrics catalog to be released under licensed approval from the music industry.  (There are a wealth of free lyrics sites, many of which contain mistakes, and many of which have been shutdown for unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted material).

Last summer Gracenote initiated the process when it secured the rights to the lyrics from the North American catalogs of BMG Music, Universal Music Publishing Group Click to Read More

Over the past few years, downloadable forms of content have been eroding the traditional domain of retailers (CD and DVD sales). Today, in an effort to embrace those changes, big-box retailer Circuit City announced it was joining with Los Angeles based Napster on a new co-branded music download service.

The new service which is called Circuit City+Napster will compete with iTunes, Rhapsody, and other download services. The offering will launch April 29th and use Napster’s established subscription based model. For $14.95 a month subscribers will gain unlimited access to songs provided through the service. The music will be playable on PC’s, compatible cell phones (via Napster 2 Go) and compatible MP3 players. (Because Napster uses Windows WMA Digital Rights Management protections its music is not compatible with iPods which run on Apple’s Fairplay DRM system). In addition to the subscription service, individual songs will be sold for 99cents.

Partnerships have been an important part of Napster’s subscription growth. Click to Read More

Rumors were swirling that there was about to be a new British invasion, that the Beatles were coming to iTunes.  Instead, at yesterdays much hyped Apple press conference in London new ground was broken in a different direction.  Apple announced that in partnership with label EMI, for the first time, there will be DRM-Free music at the iTunes store.

As part of a deal, the digital catalog of EMI music will be sold in two forms:

• The standard DRM-laden 128kbps AAC file that’s defined iTunes will remain at .99 cents.
• An alternate, higher sound quality (256kbps AAC) download free of any DRM restrictions will be sold at a premium price of $1.29/song

After initially selling through Apple, EMI plans to offer similar rights-free music (and video) through other outlets.  Retailers who participate will be able to choose several levels of quality (including options which may exceed the iTunes peak of 256kbsp). Retailers will also be able to choose between offering the music in MP3, AAC or WMA formats.  

The combined effort will increase the portability of music across different platforms and may influence the market opportunity for smaller player manufacturers.

Click to Read More

The following is a copy of an essay Steve Jobs, Chairman of Apple, posted last week on Apple’s website about issues of DRM with music downloads. There has been a lot of commentary, including my own, on what Mr. Jobs had to say. It’s an eloquent, detailed speech worth reading. I am reprinting Mr. Jobs words here only to keep them available in the event that the link to them on Apple’s website is not maintained.

Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007

With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.

To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.

Click to Read More

Yesterday, I commented (in an extremely long post) on Steve Jobs essay about DRM systems in the music industry.  I was impressed with his post, and lauded it.  Having slept on my thoughts, I still feel that way, but one thing irks me – Jobs’ numbers were bad.

I noted yesterday that Mr. Jobs numbers were, in a few instances, exaggerated and simplistic but I didn’t say much more than that.  Today, partly in reply to an email I received, I am going to focus briefly on his numbers.

What Jobs Said:
Through 2006, 90 million iPods were sold along with 2 billion songs from iTunes.  That yields an average of 22 songs purchased from iTunes per store.

Reality:
That math may be factually accurate but it’s misleading.  The iPod has been around for many years and any given single owner has probably gone through more than one iPod in that time.  (I, for example, have had two break and am on my third. I also have a Shuffle that I received as a gift. That means, I account for 4 of those 90 million, not just 1).  Extrapolating song purchases based on total units is far less telling than doing it by unique buyers.

Better Math:
Recalculate those numbers based on the songs purchased per unique iPod owner rather than total units. Something like this example:
Click to Read More

One of the few loud and outstanding criticisms of the iPod player and iTunes service is the closed Fairplay Digital Rights Management system (DRM) employed for music bought through the iTunes store. 

On February 6th, Steve Jobs posted an essay on Apple’s website addressing those criticisms.  The posting, which can be read here is factually informative, articulate and worth reading.   Even so much as Jobs has Apple’s interest at heart, and has to be diplomatic given Apples relationships with the music industry, the content of the essay outweighs the bias. It is relevant to anyone watching (or seeking to understand) the changing music landscape. I might even reprint it instead of my own posting later this week.  (I think it’s that insightful.)

In his address, Jobs points out that the existence of the Fairplay system was not by choice but necessity.  The Big 4 of record companies (Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI) control distribution on  over 70% of the world’s music.  Absent DRM tools, these distributors wouldn’t allow their libraries inclusion in download services. Absent Fairplay (or equivalent), the iTunes store, and arguably much of the landscape of legal downloadable music, would be barren.

The music industry has forced those handling electronic distribution to accept DRM tools.  Unfortunately, in doing so the music industry has also created a climate where the incentives are for closed proprietary systems rather than portable open ones.  Specifically, in Apple’s case, failure to respond to a breakdown of the DRM in a rapid amount of time would void Apple’s right to sell most of the music they offer.  Apple has to maintain the integrity DRM system above all else.  Considering the best security is to keep something as tightly controlled as possible – and DRM systems are always under attack – opening the code to more eyes by licensing it increases the likelihood of those attacks being successful.  Apple can’t afford to do that, nor can Microsoft, Sony or others in similar situations.  Each company’s best shot at maintaining the integrity of the DRM is to keep it proprietary.

Click to Read More