iTunes going primarily DRM free? (Update: yes, it is! 3G downloads, too)

While Phil hasn't mentioned it in the keynote just yet, it looks like iTunes might be getting a big catalog overhaul, with most major labels finally offering up DRM free tunes. Our tipster mentioned DRM free goodies from Virgin, Sony BMG, American Recording and more (iTunes Plus has mainly been limited to EMI and some independents so far), and that most previously purchased songs are now upgradable for the same old price of $0.30 a song. We're still digging around on the iTunes Store trying to figure this out -- it's offering to upgrade our library, but the transaction won't go through yet -- and we'll obviously know more if it gets a keynote mention. Let us know if you have any luck picking up those non-EMI MP3s on your end.

[Thanks, Greg]

Update: As you've you probably noticed in the liveblog, Apple just made this very much official, and announced that some 8 million songs from all the major labels will indeed be DRM free, with a full ten million planned by the end of the quarter. As if that wasn't enough, it's also announced a new pricing structure for tracks, including a new $0.69 tier and a $1.29 one, which music companies will apparently be able to use at their own discretion. And, to keep things really spicy, the company has also announced that music store downloads are now finally available over 3G, and at the same price and the same quality.

[Pat @ Jan 6th 2009 12:54PM]

So I have to pay for a song I already have?

[BadFlounder @ Jan 6th 2009 12:57PM]

yes, if you want twice the bitrate and no DRM.

[Tim @ Jan 6th 2009 12:57PM]

Yep. Only Apple can get away with charging someone to an "upgrade" to the product they should have given away in the first place. Didn't Yahoo do this for free a year back?

[ProfessorDex @ Jan 6th 2009 12:57PM]

Only if you want a legally DRM-free version of it.

[Dave @ Jan 6th 2009 1:08PM]

Still one problem...those aren't MP3s they're selling. DRM free or not they're AAC music files that I wouldn't spend a penny on. Amazon seems to STILL have the best offering.

[LiqwidZero @ Jan 6th 2009 1:13PM]

You could always burn a $0.15 CD-R full of tracks and then rip them as MP3s to your computer.

It's such a simple work around, really.

[Joshua Ochs @ Jan 6th 2009 1:17PM]

Why a problem with AAC? It's open, royalty-free, and has better sound quality than MP3. Quoting from DaringFireball:

"MP3 is ubiquitous, yes, but it is not a free standard. The rights to MP3 in most countries, including the U.S., are held by Thomson Consumer Electronics, and companies must pay them licensing fees for any hardware or software product that plays or encodes MP3 audio. Audio playback in hardware costs $0.75 per unit, for example; encoding costs $1.25 per unit.

AAC is not “unique” to Apple. It’s not even controlled or invented by Apple, or any other single company. It is an ISO standard that was invented by engineers at Dolby, working with companies like Fraunhofer, Sony, AT&T, and Nokia. Licensing is controlled by Via. For up to 400,000 units per year, AAC playback costs $1.00 per unit; for more than 400,000 units per year, the price drops to $0.74 per unit.

In terms of licensing costs, patents, and openness, AAC is very much comparable to MP3. MP3 does have the advantage of near-ubiquitous support in consumer electronics and software; AAC has the advantage of slightly better audio quality at the same encoding bitrate. Additionally, MP3 requires a royalty fee of 2 percent for “electronic music distribution”, AAC requires no royalty fee for distribution."

[David Gates @ Jan 6th 2009 1:29PM]

@Dave: The quality loss on Amazon's MP3s is very obvious, for me, so I'd rather have the more advanced AAC codec. It's easy to convert to MP3 or WMA, if you prefer. That said, I still only buy downloadable music if I can't find the CD anywhere.

[earle36 @ Jan 6th 2009 1:44PM]

So is this going to change how iTunes handles the library and transferring it? What about syncing iTunes with devices (like iPhone or iPod) - is there still going to be the same limitations with ensuring the library matches up with the songs on said device? This is the biggest pain in the rear for me - not being able to do anything with my library unless I'm plugged into my computer at home...

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Jan 6th 2009 1:56PM]

Higher bit rate? DRM-free? Not bad. So, now it's a case of MP3 vs. AAC and pricing.

Btw, has anyone tried accessing the iTunes store over 3G yet? I have and it works! Figured there would have to be an update to access it. Can't believe Apple has the ability to just "block" something like that. That's crazy.

[Dave @ Jan 6th 2009 2:19PM]

earle36,

Why not load RockBox onto your iPod if your iPod is compatible? That way you can just dump files on and off your iPod as if it were just being used as a hard drive and still be able to play the music.

[Precurse @ Jan 6th 2009 2:23PM]

@LiqwidZero

You can... But expect a fairly noticeable drop in quality after you re-rip it. You're converting an MP3 -> Wav (burning), then Wav -> (lossy) MP3 again.. Some people would rather spend a few cents per track and get BETTER quality than before.

[Matt @ Jan 6th 2009 2:30PM]

@Tim

Yes, Yahoo did. But their music download service is also out of business now.

[Fred M. @ Jan 6th 2009 2:39PM]

@LiqwidZero: "You could always burn a $0.15 CD-R full of tracks and then rip them as MP3s to your computer.

It's such a simple work around, really."

And a stupid one, too.

You're proposing that people take tracks that were encoded in a lossy format, expand them with all of the degradation from their lossy encoding, record them to a media with essentially no error detection and correction (Redbook audio CD), read them back off of that media as WAV files, and then encode them into a different lossy format adding to the degradation. Do you realize that psycho acoustic models on which lossy encoding are based rely on their being a single encoding from uncompressed to lossy (data reduced is the technically correct term for lossy)?

Read: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transcoding

Now, even ignoring the stupidity of transcoding lossy to lossy, why would you burn a CD? Why wouldn't you just expand from AAC to WAV and then compress the WAV files directly to MP3? Did you figure that it would be better to get both audible artifact from the transcoding and the potential errors inherent in reading the CD?

[Tom @ Jan 6th 2009 2:35PM]

In response to earle36:

The iTunes "plus" tracks I currently have all handle like regular files I would have imported off of a CD. I can burn them for friends without restriction, put them on multiple computers without having to go through the rather ridiculous "authorization" process, back them up in multiple places, and drag-and-drop them onto any DAP that supports the AAC codec (and there are a lot more of those than you think).

The main difference is that the file will have your e-mail and name attached to it's metadata to prevent piracy (in iTunes, right click on a song, select "Get Info", and it will list your personal info right along with the bit-rate and date modified/ imported information). So if you upload your "plus" songs to Bittorrent, don't say I didn't warn you...

[Shinigami @ Jan 6th 2009 2:35PM]

Too bad I can still download 320kbps music from torrents for $0.00...

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Jan 6th 2009 2:58PM]

Which makes me also think why can't there be an offer for a lossless version of the same music too? Lossy for portable use, lossless for serious music collectors and audiophiles. Sure, the rise in bit rate is pretty nice, but it's still going to be lossy no matter what. Might as well buy the CD, but that negates the purpose downloading it in the first place.

[cellhead @ Jan 6th 2009 3:33PM]

Exactly, why pay more for something you paid for before? Talk about greed!

[Lars @ Jan 6th 2009 4:37PM]

"So I have to pay for a song I already have?

yes, if you want twice the bitrate and no DRM."

You iTunes folks are so silly... I didn't have to pay a dime extra to rip my CD's to Ogg Vorbis. Nor did I have to pay any extra to get DRM-free downloads from Amazon (on those rare occasions I wanted only a single song from an album).

[tenaciousJk @ Jan 6th 2009 5:52PM]

You don’t have to buy the song or album again. Just pay the 30¢ per song upgrade price. (Music video upgrades are 60¢ and entire albums can be upgraded for 30 percent of the album price.)

http://www.apple.com/itunes/whatsnew/

[Ryan Gardner @ Jan 6th 2009 11:40PM]

"The main difference is that the file will have your e-mail and name attached to it's metadata to prevent piracy (in iTunes, right click on a song, select "Get Info", and it will list your personal info right along with the bit-rate and date modified/ imported information). So if you upload your "plus" songs to Bittorrent, don't say I didn't warn you.."

The metadata isn't signed or hashed in any way, correct? Editing metadata does not require a CS degree..

I think I'm going to start posting files on Bit Torrent with "Steve Jobs" and "[e-mail]" in the metadata... ;)

[nicole @ Jan 8th 2009 8:36PM]

I will NEVER buy another Apple product again. I feel like sleeping beauty who bit into the "poison" apple. They are the greediest corporation I know. Bought a laptop, screen got a crack in it, I was quoted $1,000 for the repair. Just got it fixed at Mission Repair for $200. The i-pods only last 1 year for the battery has no life in it. Now you have to re-purchase a song. NO.....there are plenty of other products that provide higher quality and are significantly lower in cost. Pretty soon they will be sending me another invoice for the laptop I purchased.

People send the corporate management a message don't spend money on any Apple products.

[BadFlounder @ Jan 6th 2009 12:58PM]

One minor correction. iTunes sells AAC files....not MP3. :)

[??? @ Jan 6th 2009 1:07PM]

You're an idiot. iTunes Plus are actual MP3 files, which can used for other devices.

[L @ Jan 6th 2009 1:11PM]

News at 11: Stone hurled in glasshouse, wreaks havoc...

[BadFlounder @ Jan 6th 2009 1:12PM]

lol....you might want to get your facts straight before calling someone else and idiot.

"iTunes Plus refers to songs and music videos available in our highest-quality 256 kbps AAC encoding (twice the current bit rate of 128 kbps), and without digital rights management (DRM)."

Straight from Apple's site.....who is the idiot now? lol

[scooler @ Jan 6th 2009 1:15PM]

@???
They are fairplay DRM free AACs, no MP3s are ever sold from itunes.

[Andy @ Jan 6th 2009 3:28PM]

AAC is better than MP3, as long as there is no DRM

[Viakenny @ Jan 6th 2009 1:51PM]

but AAC works in most (if not all) MP3 players out there.

[Jason @ Jan 6th 2009 1:58PM]

No, AAC plays in most dap's (digital audio players).

MP3 is merely a synecdoche.

[utahnkid @ Jan 6th 2009 2:04PM]

That one who actually cared enough to come and "defend himself" on an Engadget forum? I dunno, just sayin..

For all you know he was being sarcastic, either way it's just as meaningless.

[ugg.tryptophan @ Jan 6th 2009 3:27PM]

i thought they were MP4A's, or are they the same thing? enlighten me

[Stormsurge @ Jan 6th 2009 12:58PM]

I understand the need to charge something for the re-download, but it should be something like 10 cents...not 30.

[JerJer @ Jan 6th 2009 1:40PM]

not only that but they bumped up ther pricing from 0.99 to 1.29!

what company is honestly going to sell songs for the 0.69 mark?

sure there are some reasons but the majority of songs will now be 30 cents more! hooray!

[scooler @ Jan 6th 2009 1:55PM]

@JerJer: The liveblog said more would be at the .69 level than the .99 level.

[Shadow08 @ Jan 9th 2009 1:31AM]

Sounds like the record companies got their way. They've been fighting with Apple for a few years over this new $1.29 pricing model. Pretty much every new song is going to cost that. Knowing the labels, all other songs will remain at $0.99 and only the songs that nobody wants will probably dip to $0.69.

A win for the record companies. :-\

Also, why should I have to pay 30 cents for a DRM free track when it is pretty much moving towards the standard? Amazon and Rhapsody have had these for a while at the same or lower price.

[Frankenstein Black @ Jan 6th 2009 2:27PM]

Damn those Russians and their "rock bottom" song prices ;^)...

[fmaxwell @ Jan 6th 2009 4:09PM]

@JerJer:

"what company is honestly going to sell songs for the 0.69 mark?"

One that has songs which are not selling at the higher price. Suppose Apple had chosen the price points of $0.69 and $199.99: Would you expect all of the labels to try to charge $199.99 per song because it's a bigger number?

A study showed that, last year, 80 percent of all online music revenue came from the sales of a mere 52,000 songs, a tiny fraction of the 13 million available. Ten million of those tracks did not find even a single buyer! If you were a record company, would you rather sell no tracks for $1.29 or some tracks for $.69?

[JerJer @ Jan 6th 2009 5:22PM]

fmaxwell i see your point but the fact is that those 52000 or whatever songs that made the most money will now cost more.

yes, all the junk songs wil be 0.69 cents but hey, i want the good song and now that song is 1.29...darn. see my point?

yeah yeah 0.69 is nice for some rare gems but majority wise...

[Mobius_1 @ Jan 6th 2009 12:59PM]

I guess the best thing to do, as suggested by xkcd, is to just pirate it in the first place if you want a music library that is yours to keep :P

I'll stick to buying CDs, thank you very much.

[EricR @ Jan 6th 2009 1:45PM]

Can't agree with you more!

I actually printed that comic out and put it on my fridge. xkcd is awesome.

[Electromodo @ Jan 6th 2009 2:10PM]

What comic are you talking about, guys? I am new to xkcd.
Any link?

[dazjorz @ Jan 6th 2009 2:23PM]

http://xkcd.com/488/

Also read the info:
"I spent more time trying to get an audible.com audio book playing than it took to listen to the book. I have lost every other piece of DRM-locked music I have paid for."

[Electromodo @ Jan 6th 2009 2:43PM]

Thank you, dazjorz!

Great comic!!!

It's getting old though. I promised to myself that I would never buy a DRM-laden music, and I did not buy any until Amazon started selling MP3s. Then I bought a lot, and though people argue here that quality is lower than iTunes, I am completely fine with it.
And the price on Amazon (average $0.89 per song, plus big savings if you buy by album) appears cheaper than on iTunes.

Anyway, I welcome that Apple has finally got DRM-free, though charging extra for converting your music is pulling a leg of your customer, IMHO.

[fred @ Jan 6th 2009 12:59PM]

So where are the calls of Apple being "late to the party" or "playing catch up"?

Or does that not apply to them?

[fanman @ Jan 6th 2009 1:02PM]

This is the work of the content providers (the labels) rather than the stores themselves.

[DP @ Jan 6th 2009 1:05PM]

Apple is playing catch up.

[Esteban @ Jan 6th 2009 2:31PM]

its really funny how Microsoft will get blamed for "playing catch-up" all the time, but when Apple does something that has been done before they get a standing ovation... I'm glad im not the only one that noticed though.

[Zak @ Jan 6th 2009 2:32PM]

Fred gets low ranked for being a moron. The record labels control which songs get sold in what format and for how much. Apple is a storefront, they don't own the music. Get a clue.

[Mark Anderson @ Jan 6th 2009 2:35PM]

Actually, Zak, this is Apple bowing to the record companies who have indeed got their own way. Gone is the unitary model.