Earlier this month EMI hinted it would be the first major music label to rid many of its songs of DRM. This isn"t exactly "too good to be true", but there is a catch. EMI is willing to lose the DRM, but they demand a considerable advance payment to make it happen. Online music giants Apple and Microsoft, joined with smaller players including RealNetworks and Yahoo! Music, sought to indulge EMI"s demands but the monetary offerings weren"t enough. As a result, EMI has put the talks on hold. If a "non-DRM tax" of sorts were applied to music, online retailers would have no choice but to increase the cost of downloadable music. Why exactly should DRM-free music cost more? More importantly, would the majority of users pay more to get DRM-free content?