iTunes going primarily DRM free? (Update: yes, it is! 3G downloads, too)
By Paul Miller 
posted Jan 6th 2009 1:31PM
posted Jan 6th 2009 1:31PM
[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.
So I have to pay for a song I already have?
yes, if you want twice the bitrate and no DRM.
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?
Only if you want a legally DRM-free version of it.
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.
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.
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."
@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.
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...
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.
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.
@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.
@Tim
Yes, Yahoo did. But their music download service is also out of business now.
@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?
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...
Too bad I can still download 320kbps music from torrents for $0.00...
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.
Exactly, why pay more for something you paid for before? Talk about greed!
"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).
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/
"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 "steve.jobs@apple.com" in the metadata... ;)
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.
One minor correction. iTunes sells AAC files....not MP3. :)
You're an idiot. iTunes Plus are actual MP3 files, which can used for other devices.
News at 11: Stone hurled in glasshouse, wreaks havoc...
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
@???
They are fairplay DRM free AACs, no MP3s are ever sold from itunes.
AAC is better than MP3, as long as there is no DRM
but AAC works in most (if not all) MP3 players out there.
No, AAC plays in most dap's (digital audio players).
MP3 is merely a synecdoche.
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.
i thought they were MP4A's, or are they the same thing? enlighten me
I understand the need to charge something for the re-download, but it should be something like 10 cents...not 30.
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!
@JerJer: The liveblog said more would be at the .69 level than the .99 level.
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.
Damn those Russians and their "rock bottom" song prices ;^)...
@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?
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...
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.
Can't agree with you more!
I actually printed that comic out and put it on my fridge. xkcd is awesome.
What comic are you talking about, guys? I am new to xkcd.
Any link?
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."
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.
How much were the songs originally, and how does that compare to mp3s on Amazon? Or the cost of the DRM-free versions?
Sounds to me like an 'upgrade' charge of such a large percentage of the original price is a slap in the face.
There, I said it!
apple fans love being slapped around
So where are the calls of Apple being "late to the party" or "playing catch up"?
Or does that not apply to them?
This is the work of the content providers (the labels) rather than the stores themselves.
Apple is playing catch up.
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.
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.
Actually, Zak, this is Apple bowing to the record companies who have indeed got their own way. Gone is the unitary model.
Oh, so you think Apple controls the pricing of the songs? Really? Then why aren't they still all 99 cents? That's right, because the RECORD LABELS would only agree to allow their music to stay on the store DRM-free if Apple sold their music at a higher price.
Are you clear on that point yet? The LABELS are the ones deciding which songs get sold at $1.29, NOT APPLE.
The only reason Amazon had a DRM-free library first is because they allowed the labels to charge variable pricing right off the bat. Apple didn't. You see how that works?
They both made concessions. Apple agreed to three price points, and the labels agreed to let their music go DRM-free. If the pricing were up to Apple, it would have stayed at $.99. Is anybody still confused, or do you get it now?
This is insane..
You will pay to remove DRMs ?
I mean there are zillions of software which can do that for free, and no one will ever be able to proove you used it so why on earth would someone pay for such a rape ?
You also get an upgrade from 128Kbps to 256Kbps.
Um, because it's illegal?
Actually Matt. It is legal to download songs you already own. If you cannot remove the DRM to play it on the player of your choice, you can download the song by alternate means as long as you can prove that you own the song.
@JAmerican
JAmerican must not live in the US. The only exception to the DMCA that allows for downloading an alternative digital copy of a copyrighted good is if product was DRM protected and the hardware neccesary to read the media is out of manufacture and considered unavailable for purchase. Also that exception are for software, not music. The only DMCA exception concerning music is the go ahead to break DRM if the CD has a rootkit built in. More info on DMCA exceptions can be found on the US government's website.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/fedreg_notice.pdf
I think it is going DRM-free
Instead of wasting my life criticising iTunes, I actually went on the Store, and 20 of my tracks (almost all of them - don't laugh!) are availale AAC 256kps
Yippey!
This is why I still buy CDs. Can pretty much get them for the same price as the iTunes store and I don't have to deal with this crap. Also, I have a real back up and art work too.
AND better sound quality.
CDs FTW!
Agreed on the CD thing. It is amazing to me how many suckers there are in this country.
I know, people want stuff when they want it and the download link is right there. Ok, fine, but then don't come complaining when your crap either stops working one day or you're forced to pay extra to download it again. That was YOUR choice. You traded all your freedom away, not to mention sound quality, a physical archive and real artwork for the privilege of having the song in most cases only like 30 minutes before you could have if you'd bought the CD at your local store. And if you could have waited a bit longer, you could have bought it on Ebay and saved a bunch of money too. (Most used CD's there are available for like $2-$3).
My fair use freedoms are not worth giving away for the tiny bit of convenience a download provides. And the extra value I get from CD's still makes them more worthwhile even than a DRM-free download.
I'll be sad and disappointed the day one of my favorite bands decides not to release their latest album on CD. Though that will also be the day I stop buying their music. I don't *need* to buy music - I have plenty of it as it is - and there's lots of other stuff I can spend money on.
@Jeff, I'm glad someone finally said it. I thought I was taking crazy pills over here. $0.30 add'l to own a song you already bought? Suckers.
Next they'll be selling you album artwork and lyrics.
Discs take up space and --as a physical object--have more of an eco impact. That's why I generally prefer downloads these days. Note that my way is not the best way for all...just the best for me at this time. But I'm sure someone will still take umbrage and call me a jerk for not buying CDs or using a Zune (whatever that is).
In some cases you also have the 5-12 other, horrible tracks on the CD just to get the 3-5 songs you actually want to listen to. So there's that.
>and --as a physical object--have more of an eco impact.
I lol'd.
@Forrest
If the artist you're buying has only 2-3 good tracks out of 10+, then you're probably listening to a shitty artist. Good albums are meant to be listened to as a whole.
@Tim, yeah, because Apple owns the music and Apple dictates the contracts to the record labels companies. Apple is bad. Apple makes all the money and the labels and the artists get next to nothing.
As far as I'm aware, Yahoo is hawking Rhapsody, which is a subscription bases service. All you can eat got $13 a month, until you stop paying, then you have none of it...
In other words, you think apple had absolutely nothing to do with the 'upgrade' price?
Or you go with a Zune pass, get all-you-can-listen music, and 10 DRM free tracks a month for $14.99.
On the contrary, Apple has enabled artists to bypass the 'evil' recording contracts of big labels and sell their tunes directly to consumers. The artist gets 70% percent of every sale - which is a much better deal than music labels! Plus you don't have to sign your life away for the next five years locked into multi-album contracts with pre-negotiated compensation scales.
grifmusic.com
Once again, makes me glad I switched to Amazon. They've been DRM free all along. And considering they're standard mp3s, it just makes my life easier. I could never quite get even DRM iTunes Plus AACs to work with everything, and eventually converted them to mp3s anyway (not to mention, freedom from iTunes).
I will pay extra for less compression and no drm when hell freezes over.
Until lossless drm free downloads are the norm: buycd-riptoflac-repeat
It's saying the item you tried to buy is no longer available.
I like how everyone is saying its worth it since it doubles the kbps from 128 to 256.
You can download music on TPB in higher quality -FLAC- for free.
People actually buy music rather than "download" steal it. Pirates should be shot. No questions.
@BobS, As much as I agree with you on your last point...
Oh?
Ready normal people?
Ready!... Ready!... Ready!
My question is what's going to happen to all my DRM'd tracks if I don't upgrade them? At some point will I be unable to authorize a new machine to play those tracks?
Sigh. This is exactly why DRM should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.
Bemused- You need more than 5 computers authorized? If you are at 5 already, you just need to de-authorize them all and then re-authorize the ones you want. Pretty painless.
@rick
I think he is wondering if Apple will shut down the authorization servers once all the music is available DRM free.
And I would say that is a real possibility.
Just managed to upgrade three songs here in the UK - two had random errors that didn't let me download them. 20p per song, 25% of the album price and 40p per music video for Brits.
I literally bought two albums on saturday (Taylor Swift's) and now I'm supposed to pay $3 to upgrade them? Shouldn't there be a 2-week "return" period like all their hardware?
If they are MP3 files and not AAC files that doesn't make him an idiot. It makes Apple the idiot for messing up the whole marketplace in the first place. So you can go ahead and place the blame squarely on Apple for all the confusion. Even if they are MP3 files I'm not going to reward Apple for their hard headedness they've displayed the last few years regarding their sub-par music offerings. I still would rather support Amazon simply for the stance they've taken on the DRM issue.
They aren't MP3 files and never have been on iTunes. All iTunes Plus tracks are 256 kbps AAC files.
actually, Apple took a rather public stance about DRM in the form of an open letter or something, and started offering DRM free tracks (from EMI) before Amazon had a download store. It's just that they had contracts with the labels, and they couldn't exactly close their store to renegotiate with the labels now could they?
Everyday, these companies' CEOs wake up and think: "How can lock our customers in, so they don't have any choice?", then they have a meeting and decide important question: "What useless and completely effortless (on our part) service can we provide, once we got them in position of no choice?", and most importantly: "What's the most money can we charge for such 'service', so that stress levels don't go above 3.6"..
Apple has you chained in a stall, and now they're milking you.
"It just works" - apple
Hasn't this been a well-established option in iTunes? I recall being able to purchase a track for $.99 or a 'DRM-free' track for 30 cents more (although my memory could be a bit off here). This just seems like a convenient way to convert your entire catalog to DRM-free.
Except the DRM-free tracks haven't been 30 cents more for some time now.
yeah, i upgraded tracks to itunes plus months ago for free...wtf is with charging now...all this means is that tracks that used to be .99 will now be 1.29, and the garbage no one buys will be .69
itunes blows, i'll take amazon, thanks
When I want to upgrade a single track or an EP iTunes forces me to upgrade the whole libary?
This is a joke. Why not allowing upgrade for single tracks or albums?
Not only would burning AAC files to CDs and then ripping them to MP3s be two long and tedious extra steps. It would result in lower quality results due to the fact that you'd essentially be recompressing audio that has already been compressed. You Apple lovers that need to figure out how to FIX your music libraries now that Apple has woke up have fun. I've been enjoying my DRM free 130GB+ library of MP3s for a decade now. I'm proud to say that while I've owned six different iPods over the years I've never spent one penny on iTunes.
And why would I want to convert AAC files to MP3?
Haha... Why are you bragging about MP3? I have a feeling you don't know a damn thing about the difference between the two...
Well, there's your reason.
Apple just caved to the major labels demands for variable pricing.
for all you Amazon fans, Amazon was just a pawn of the labels to get higher, variable pricing out of Apple. That's the only reason Amazon was set up in the first place, DRM free, for the labels to bring the biggest music store (iTunes) back in to like with what they wanted. Now Amazon is slightly behind because their music catalog is more limited and in a lower bit format. Apple has a slightly higher price to offer the higher quality tunes.
I'm happy because my tunes will now play on my Linux boxes without breaking DRM for only a small bit more. Apple is moving on to Video now that rental is firmly secured and doing well. Lock-in isn't worth their time anymore for music.
iTunes still sucks! Unless they go to a DRM free, higher quality, subscription base model like emusic, I will continue to never download a pricey album from them much less a single track. Amazon is a better alternative by far.
That sounds a lot like fanboism. iTunes Plus has a better bitrate and is DRM free now, yet Amazon is still better?
It's all about economics and personal preference, really. I WOULD buy CDs, but the nearest Target is 4 miles away, and the nearest Best Buy is 16 miles away. So instead, I walk a block to the nearest Radioshack, get iTunes gift cards, and return home to purchase albums with a click of a button. As a result, over half my library is iTunes purchased AAC format.
So, I don't care if I sound like a tool. 30 cents a song is well worth me sharing my music (and my love) with my friends. And of course, 30 cents a song is well worth sending "Never Gonna Give You Up" to all my enemies.
4 miles? Are you not of age to drive yet? 4 miles takes just a few minutes to drive. ...And paying $0.30 extra per song is stupid for something that you could've gotten for free from buying the cd.
@sean:
How much does the gas and time cost you to drive 4 miles? How much does a CD cost compared to the iTunes cost? After all, that 30 cent increase is, as far as I can see, only for
A) upgrading tracks to iTunes+
or
B) Premium tracks (singles, I'm guessing)
All other songs will be either 99 cents (as always), or in the case of music older than 6 years, 69 cents... which will actually be good for a lot of people.