I coulda told you this, though I am a little surprised that we've seen the results so fast. Despite iTunes having put the new tiered pricing into effect just last week, Billboard is reporting that they've already seen sales drop on the higher-priced tunes. The iTunes Top 100 chart has 40 different songs with a new price of $1.29, and one day after the changes, those songs dropped an average of 5.3 places on the chart, while cheaper songs moved up on average. And on the second day of the price change, ten of the tracks that saw their prices rise within 24 hours dropped a huge 12.4 chart positions on average.

Of course, we're talking only a matter of days here, and there are all kinds of things that could have affected this average drop -- lots of the tracks that became expensive were from a Rascal Flatts album, and it could be just that the album has lost popularity, bringing the average down. And don't forget that even though these sales figures may be dropping, they haven't dropped nearly enough to show a loss of revenue (though fewer songs may be selling, they're still making more money).

But for those convinced that higher prices mean lower sales numbers, these first few days of figures will seem to connect all of the right dots. We'll have to wait and see if the long-term effects match up to the figures Billboard has seen so far.

In the never-ending battle of where to spend your George Washington's (the paper ones, that is) some battles are won and some battles are lost. In this case, however, it's turned into a bit of a draw. As we previously mentioned the day hath befallen on which iTunes now "features" a variable pricing structure. The three flavors available are $0.69US, $0.99US, and $1.29US with, according to Apple, "many more songs" available at the $0.69US price point.

The idea of a DRM-free iTunes is definitely a popular one that has been requested for years. The unfortunate side-effect, as imposed by the record labels, is that more popular songs are going to be charged a premium over the tried-and-true $0.99US price point. On the other side, however, is the $0.69US price point for songs that nobody wants are less popular. This is unfortunate because, as Victor mentioned, a single dollar is an easy impulse buy to swallow. I'll add to that the fact that it's easy to understand that 3 songs = 3 dollars; while a price of $1.29US is a little bit more challenging for those of us without calculators in our brains.

In my opinion, record labels are going to see a decrease in sales due to this decision. Many people have iTunes account balances and gift cards that are now going to get them less "tune for their buck." The result of that is consumers will buy less (they have less to spend) and they will be more meticulous in deciding what to purchase. DRM-free, iTunes Plus tracks are a novel idea, but the main benefit will be lost on many consumers. The only change they will notice is that the bill has gone up.

Via Macworld

Wired has a story up about an interesting tactic The Presidents of the United States have put into action (no, not the Commanders in Chief, the pop punk trio from the '90s). While they already do have their music in the iTunes Music Store, one of the band's members has joined a company that makes iPhone software, and they're also putting all of their tunes into the App Store as well. The app sells for three bucks and allows you to listen to tracks from the four albums of material that the band owns themselves -- though only through a stream, which, according to the reviews, can sound pretty bad at times.

So interesting idea, pretty poor implementation. Still, this might be a good way for even smaller bands to get their music out there and into people's hands -- the only up-front cost on the App Store is the $100 registration fee, and Apple's fine with whatever you put out there. As Wired notes, they get paid their 30% whether you're selling your tunes via an app or through iTunes. Plus, with a dedicated app, you can add in news, throw in interactive extras, and put whatever else you can think of in there.

I doubt this is the last time we'll hear about an artist (or even a corporation) selling an iPhone app with content built-in to promote themselves. The only issue is that anyone releasing "promoware" like this should be required (either by Apple or just by consumers) to offer some actual functionality along with the promotion.

Phil Schiller today outlined Apple's new pricing scheme for iTunes music, and announced additional music that will be available DRM-free.

In April, depending on the label, songs will be available at three price points: 69 cents, 99 cents, and $1.29. Apple says many more songs will be priced at 69 cents than $1.29, but new releases will likely cost more. Albums will mostly remain at the $9.99 price point.

69 cent songs will have greater restrictions on how they can be used: For each song, users will only be able to download it to one Mac, burn it to one CD, and copy it to one iPod. Turns out this was idle speculation from one of our colleagues, and not part of the changes today. Sorry about that. -- RP

More songs will be also be made available as part of the iTunes Plus program, which features higher-quality, DRM-free music files. Eight million (of 10 million total) songs will be available through iTunes Plus today, and every track will be available DRM-free by the end of March. (Thanks, Chris!)

iPhone users that connect to the Internet via 3G also got good news: They will be able to connect to the iTunes store via both WiFi and 3G starting today. Update: Others with first-generation iPhones here in the Media Center report that the iTunes store appears to work over EDGE, too, but weren't able to test it.

As many expected, Schiller announced new sales figures for the iTunes store, saying Apple has 75 million accounts, and is now the number-one music retailer in the United States.

Yesterday, our buddy David Chartier at Ars and Sam Oliver at AppleInsider both publicized an issue that's been burning up the support boards for a while now: iTunes video rentals and purchases in HD are flagged for HDCP control, and in cooperation with the new Mini DisplayPort connector on the MacBook and MacBook Pro unibody models, those movies and TV shows are refusing to play back on non-compliant external displays.

In this case, 'compliant' means HDMI or recent-vintage DVI, but even monitors or TVs that support HDCP may not properly negotiate with the DisplayPort connector to give iTunes and QuickTime the all-clear signal (if so, quitting and relaunching iTunes once the display is hooked up may clear the playback hold). Equally annoying: HDCP is only supposed to apply to 'high-value' digital streams, meaning standard-def purchases and rentals on the iTunes store should be out of scope... but some reports indicate that both the HD and SD instances are flagged, blocking playback on anything but the laptop's internal display or a straight-thru HDMI connection. Argh!

While Apple TV users with unconventional output setups have been dealing with this aggravation since the beginning of the year, MacBook and MBP owners have largely steered clear, even as the HD content on iTunes became available for playback on the laptops. Now that the hardware and software have come into sync on the unibody models, Apple's compliance with HDCP -- a necessary but appalling condition of the content companies that deliver the HD movies and TV shows -- is beginning to close out the 'analog hole' and cause real aggravation for laptop owners with legitimate use cases. Talk about a bag of hurt.

Yet another MMO on the Mac -- EVE Online and World of Warcraft are already there, of course, and now NCSoft has announced that City of Heroes is coming to the Mac. Unfortunately, they're using Transgaming's Cider software to port the game, and as we've said before, the software isn't only unreliable, but it's got the dreaded SecuROM DRM attached*, as well. Not to mention that even the MacBook can basically run any game through BootCamp now, making a separate Mac version unnecessary in many cases.

But there is one thing we really like about this release, and that's that NCSoft is actually releasing the game on the Mac as a "special edition": players who buy the Mac expansion (which apparently will be a digital-only release) will pick up a free ingame teleporter item, as well as a special "Valkyrie" costume set usable on their superhero character. So if you do go for Transgaming's software, at least you can pick up some free ingame stuff for it. We're not so much for the DRM-laden emulation, but the free stuff we do like.

There's no set release date yet (they say it'll launch with the game's upcoming "Issue 13" update), but they're taking applications right now for an open beta, so if you're interested, sign on up.

[via Massively]

Update: NCSoft has contacted us to say that the Mac Special Edition of City of Heroes will not contain the SecuROM DRM. It was our understanding that all Transgaming releases would use the technology, but NCSoft says that theirs won't, so there you go.

As if Mac gaming needed more problems getting off the ground. Transgaming has proudly announced that in the future, their games will include Sony's SecuROM digital rights management software. They don't mention which games will be getting the extremely restrictive DRM (that some folks have compared to malware), but we're guessing all of them, which means the Mac version of Spore will be on that list, as well as those upcoming Ubisoft titles, and anything else produced with the Cider technology.

Bummer. Why is it a bummer? Because all the evidence we can see actually shows that DRM hurts sales. While Transgaming is obviously proud of this decision, claiming that SecuROM will help them prevent piracy and unauthorized copying, most of the evidence shows that piracy will happen in spite of, and sometimes even because of restrictive DRM setups like Sony's. Transgaming is making a serious mistake here -- they want to protect their games, which is fine. But choosing DRM, especially SecuROM, as a way to do it is a mistake. It'll cause more problems for the company and their users before it prevents piracy in the way they think it will.

[via IMG]

Let me start this post off by pointing out that I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. I have, however, been called for jury duty a few times, so I know my way around a courthouse.

Melvin Rivera isn't a lawyer either, but he and his wife own two iPhones. Melvin knew that iPhone apps are wrapped with Apple's delicious flavor of DRM called 'FairPlay' that has some fairly open terms of use. You can authorize up to five computers to access items purchased from the iTunes store (that aren't iTunes Plus tracks, since they don't have any DRM on them) and you can then play those tracks (and one assumes applications) on any unlimited number of iPods and iPhones.

Melvin, being the clever man that he is, realized that he shouldn't have to purchase two copies of Super Monkey Ball: one for his wife's iPhone and another for his. FairPlay makes it clear that those apps should be able to run on multiple iPhones, so after some poking around Melvin got it to work. Check out his blog for the blow by blow account.

Clearly, this approach is kosher as far as the DRM is concerned, but do iPhone apps have licenses that supersede the FairPlay wrapper? I haven't agreed to any per app licensing agreements when installing something on my iPhone (as of yet) though that doesn't mean they don't exist (as I pointed out above I'm no Perry Mason).

Yesterday, I was reading through our sister site TV Squad and saw this post about Broadcast Flags that prevent PCs from recording shows. Broadcast flags, which are signals sent in a digital TV data stream, indicate whether shows should or should not be recorded by third party equipment such as PVRs. Curious, I shot off an email to Nick Freeman of Elgato to see whether my Mac-based EyeTV would block flagged recordings.

Turns out that my Macintosh is a libertarian. I can continue recording any shows I receive. Phew.

Not only did Nick get right back to me, he put up this handy info page about Elgato's position on broadcast flags: EyeTV doesn't restrict recording. EyeTV (and Elgato's software in general) ignores voluntary DRM, the kind that asks you to shoot yourself in your own foot if you don't mind thankyouverymuch.

I was blissfully ignorant of these flags until yesterday. In a world of product placement and in-screen logos, does it really make sense to keep people away from watching your shows? It's not as though I don't get the concept -- a return to appointment television where people go to the bathroom during commercial breaks instead of fast forwarding -- but it just struck me as so incredibly brain-dead in its execution.

What a pity that Microsoft chose to support this silliness with Media Center. And bravo to Elgato for deciding not to. What kinds of voluntary DRM can you think up? Let us know in the comments. Mine is broadcast-approved earplugs. Stick them in whenever you encounter sounds that might be copyright.

Over at the Guardian there's an interesting article on How Apple is Changing DRM. While there's not a lot that's new here, it does usefully cover what has happened over the last few years with Digital Rights Management and how DRM has basically come to bite the record companies in the, um, keister.

Way back when the iTunes (Music) Store started, the record companies were clamoring for DRM to protect against Napster and other P2P sharing, and Apple obligingly complied with FairPlay. Over time, as the iPod became the portable device of choice, the record companies basically found themselves beholden to Apple, painted into a corner by that self-same DRM. Now they're giving up DRM on services like Amazon MP3 precisely to get access to the iPod without Apple.

The question for the future of DRM is whether subscription models like Rhapsody will take off and whether a hitherto reluctant Apple might embrace the subscription model as a response to the rise of other DRM-free download stores. In any case the article is worth a read for anybody interested in the future of digital media.

[via Digg]

I don't think anybody likes DRM. Customers certainly don't like it: they want to listen to music and watch video where and when they please. I don't think it's that popular with the content providers, either, because it's not a perfect solution. It might cut down on some piracy, but by no means eliminates it entirely.

DRM has come up recently in a few places, and companies have set up camps at two ends of the spectrum. Amazon.com is doing a booming business selling DRM-free music, sometimes for better prices than at the iTunes Store. On the other hand, we have NBC, who may or may not be partnering with Microsoft to create device software that (somehow) determines if a particular music or video file has been stolen.

As much as I'm sure that both Zune users would appreciate having access to NBC's video library, the problem remains of how exactly Microsoft would do that, aside from splashing giant watermarks across everything. My money's on unicorn tears.

How much more investment will there be in DRM before content providers realize it's an inefficient, ineffective way of deterring piracy? Sound off in comments.

Wow. Good thing that DoubleTwist is waiting in the OS X wings for anyone who wants to rip DRM from their iTunes purchases. Apple just issued a C&D off to the ISP hosting the Hymn-inspired Requiem software. DrmBytes, a hymn moderator, posted that hymn-project.org will no longer allow links to DRM-stripping software, writing "We've complied with the C&D and removed all DRM breaking software from the site."

The Hymn Project was established to allow people to use the music they'd purchased on the device of their choice. DrmBytes suggests you avoid purchasing your music from vendors who mandate DRM. You should still be able to use burn-and-rip solutions like MyTunes and DRM Dumpster for now.

Today's Times Online reports that DVD Jon has introduced new software that allows you to break iTunes DRM and play back your iTunes purchases on any device. Apparently this new anti-DRM software works with an unsual analog-hole. It replays songs in fast-forward and copies the audio track. The Times articles says that this tool can convert about two hundred tracks per hour. More info is at the DoubleTwist site.

At the moment the software is Windows only, but an OS X version is promised soon. Cool and possibly illegal stuff.

After Effects 7 users, take note: there have been some interesting and unfortunate developments with the recent release of the QuickTime 7.4 update. Apparently, it disables After Effects 7 and will not permit users to complete rendering videos. There have been some arguments about what is causing this error, with some claiming it is related to DRM issues (let's hope not), while others claim it is nothing more than a preferences bug.

Nevertheless, you can not revert back to a previous version of QuickTime once you have updated. In short: After Effects 7 users, beware! Avoid the QT7.4 update at all costs, unless you want to deal with a major headache.

The thing about DRM is that there are always exceptions to the rules-- while Apple has released lots of DRM-free music, lots of it is still bogged down by DRM, and if you're like me, you disagree that any music you purchase should be limited in the ways that you use it.

Fortunately, as long as you can hear the music you buy, there'll always be a simple way around the DRM, and 5thirtyone has put together this simple writeup explaining how to break iTunes DRM with a tool you've already got on your Mac: iMovie. Essentially, you load the DRM-ed file as a soundtrack in iMovie, export it as an .aiff file back into iTunes, and then convert it in iTunes back to AAC. Simple enough.

This makes you question why DRM is there in the first place. Sure, the record companies might be pushing it on Apple, but if it's this easy and simple to do, exactly what leg are they standing on to justify it in the first place?