From the first generation iPods, the easy-to-use platform of iTunes quickly became the default music library on most people's PCs. And with its own copy protection software codes (also known as DRM), it has kept the spoils for itself . . . virtually forcing people to buy the iPod.

But all good things must come to an end and it appears the good times are over. Finally, it would appear, real competitors are emerging.

Last week, as Apple launched its first UK television download service, Nokia, the Finnish mobile operator, announced a product to rival iTunes. This came amid a flurry of similar announcements including a joint venture from a revamped MTV. Will any of them dislodge iTunes as the dominant player?

It's no coincidence competition is finally arriving as the iPhone is prepared for its European release. The phone is perhaps the most important battleground for the sale of music and it's as if the phone companies have realised if the don't do something quick they may quite literally be vanquished.

But they have already given themselves a mountain to climb as not only is iTunes firmly ensconced in the digital-music market it also benefits from the cachet and undying love all Apple products seem to elicit from their customers.

Nokia, the world's largest mobile phone company, will launch its Ovi service to coincide with four new handsets to be released in time for both the iPhone's launch and the Christmas market. It will price its downloads at 99 cents, the same as iTunes, but they will come with a different type of DRM, which is bad news for iPod users.

Betting that people will want to use their mobiles as fully functioning music players represents a big gamble for the firm. Despite selling one in every three mobile phones on the planet, the company is reliant on operators to carry its music onto its phones and Nokia is sure to face resistance from the main mobile operators who have, or plan to have, their own music services.

Will Vodafone, O2, Meteor and 3 really be willing to sell a product that is a direct threat to their own burgeoning music-download business? Already Orange has refused to go along with its plans in the UK unless it allows trials of the new phones. Talks between the two are currently at an impasse.

This year has seen movement on the DRM issue gather pace and it appears there's no going back now. Last week a certain newspaper offered a DRM-free track from the forthcoming Bruce Springsteen album free of charge and there's even change afoot in the illegal market.

Lime Wire, a company that is synonymous with illegal downloading, is planning to go legit with its own DRM-free service. In a surprise about-turn, the company, which has this year been hounded by record-company copyright lawsuits, is taking a big risk as it will need the cooperation of the major labels in its efforts to keep the significant business it has already. It plans to keep prices at 99 cent per track . . . the same as iTunes.

And almost every day there is an announcement of a new rival to iTunes. Earlier this month there were two. Wal-Mart, the giant US retailer, published its plans to sell DRM-free downloads, crucially at a significant discount to iTunes (94 US cents per track), while MTV announced a joint venture with online music provider Real Networks and mobile operator Verizon, again to rival iTunes and the iPhone.

MTV's original Urge service was launched around the same time as Microsoft's Zune player.

Both failed to take off and are hardly household names. They and all the others have some serious ground to make up if they are to knock iTunes off its perch. But at least with copyright restrictions finally being lifted they have a chance.

WOULD YOU BUY A SINGLE FOR /150?

HOW do you put a price on music? Why do some new releases cost almost 25, others cost no more than a tenner, downloads cost 99 cents regardless of how old or new they are and yet others, such as Prince's new album (right), are given away for free through dodgy rightwing newspapers?

It's a bizarre situation but then the economics of the recording industry are far from simple. The biggest problem is that, deep down, you and I now expect music to be free.

The record companies, ie, those losing the most, blame the digital revolution and the pesky newspapers who began giving away music for free around the time the first iPods were being sold. And their fears have gradually been borne out by the data over the past few years as CD sales have continued to fall at alarming rates. While legal download sales have risen the shortfall in revenue is huge.

The price of a download, which obviously doesn't need packaging, artwork and distribution, costs is around 1 per song. EMI this month agreed to release DRM-free tunes (songs without copyright protection) with much better sound quality for 1.25 per song, therefore putting a price on inter-operability. But why are good songs the same price as bad songs? And why aren't long songs (like 'Bohemian Rhapsody') more expensive than short ones (anything by the Sex Pistols)?

The problem is nobody can really put a price on music because it doesn't follow the normal laws of what economists call utility . . . pleasure to you and me. Music is art, you see, and as everyone knows the price of art is in the eye of the beholder.

As if to underline this point, Dan O'Connell, a relatively obscure Canadian artist who goes by the name of the Thurston Revival, has announced he is to release a single. . .each one costing the princely sum of 150.

The record company behind the move is releasing only 100 copies of 'Somewhere There's An Angel', with 10 different covers by up and coming British artists.

"Underneath the surface it's an arrogant and outrageous statement. There's only one song, not even a B-side, " O'Connell told the BBC last week. "But given that, it's ironic that the goal of the whole project is to force people to describe music as art."

So, a contrived move to force people to examine their attitudes to the value of music.

This week Hard-Fi release an album with "No Cover Art" written on the front. This statement is saying much the same thing albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum. Where will it all end? Now that the average fan has got used to the idea that music can, and possibly should, be free, it will all end in tears for the poor record companies who have long seen it coming but told themselves it wasn't really happening.

By the way, at the time of writing O'Connell had sold 70 of his 100 expensive singles, already covering the costs of production.