Will More Music Labels Go DRM-Free?

It looks like the dam is finally starting to burst. First, Apple announced last month that it would start selling tracks from record label EMI free from copy protection on iTunes; then yesterday, Amazon jumped on the bandwagon, announcing that it would open a DRM-free music store this year featuring—yep, you guessed it, EMI (plus 12,000 smaller labels). Now, all eyes are on the experiment, and the salient question is simple: will DRM-free music sell better than the copy-protected variety? And will that force the hand of the other big labels?

CNET News.com points out that Warner Music, Universal and Sony BMG—in other words, three of the four major labels—are sitting on the sidelines for now, waiting to see how the DRM-free trial shakes out. But all the labels, including EMI, are feeling the heat; as News.com reports, fewer and fewer people are cracking open their wallets for actual CDs, and sales are down 17 percent this year. If the Apple/Amazon/EMI venture turns out rosy, one or more of the other big guns—under pressure from slumping sales and declining profits—may break ranks and go the DRM-free way as well. Indeed, Universal has been tinkering with DRM-free music in Europe, according to the New York Times.

But will consumers actually go out and buy DRM-free music—especially if it's being sold at a premium, as it is on iTunes ($1.30 a song, versus 99 cents for protected tunes)? That's the big question, and not everyone is convinced. My fellow curmudgeon (oops, did I just say that out loud?) Chris Null thinks Apple's DRM-free pricing scheme offers "absolutely nothing" to consumers except yet another chance to be gouged. He's got a point—it's ludicrous that we should have to pay extra for the right to play our tunes on any music player we see fit, rather than just on an iPod or a Zune. Then again, paying the extra 30 cents for a DRM-free song sends a clear message to the record labels: we're sick of constricting copy protection, and we'll pay to make it go away. It's like paying the accordion player at your dinner table to shut up. Sad, but there it is.

So, here's a multiple-choice question: would you rather a) pay less for a DRM-encoded song, b) pay more for DRM-free tunes, or c) go absolutely copy-crazy once your buddies shell out the cash for non-copy protected music?

Related:
Amazon's tune: no DRM [Reuters, via Yahoo! News]
Apple, Amazon may hold future of DRM-free music [CNET News.com]
Amazon to Sell Music Without Copy Protection [The New York Times]