This is a total non-story.

But remember, by purchasing DRM-crippled music (from anywhere), you are getting exactly what you wanted (or were willing to settle for) at the time. You have no built-in right to a free upgrade unless the company says so - and Apple has never said so.

So you'd buy a crippled, low-quality song for $0.99, but you won't pay $1.29 for a high-quality, uncrippled song? Hell, in today's legal marketplace, $1.29 is a good price for that.

I think what's causing the most consternation is that *all* iTunes Plus tracks aren't $1.29 - Apple is (and always has) charging a little extra for the upgrade, but if the song was already available in Plus, it would have cost the same as the crippled version.

It's still not a ripoff - you got what you paid for, and Apple always charges money for upgrades.

I still HAVE iTunes. I still have an iPod. I'll wait and see what happens.

@Belabras: They're not charging you for something you've already bought. If you bought a song from iTunes, what you bought was something with DRM. You knew that going in. If you were content with those files before, then this announcement changes NOTHING.

@HogwartsAlum: If you're only deciding now to abandon the iTunes store, then that makes no sense-- they have just removed the part that you don't like! And no one said you had to pay $0.30 for all of your old songs; they're just offering you a $0.30 upgrade to DRM-free, only if you're interested. Geez.

I won't steal. If it comes out in a different format, and I want that format, I'll just buy it. I might have a better player/stereo or whatever then anyway.

BUT . . .

If I've paid for the album, then I'll rip it onto my 'puter and also feel completely free to cut/alter/fold/spindle/mutilate any track on that album for skating purposes.

@Fenders-Stratosphere: *AAC not ACC content.

@randombob: See reply post to LinetteEspionate above.

@LinetteEspionate: I saw this information earlier in reply to another post I made and again want to thank you along with the other person for the information. I never changed the playlist (just added songs but didn't remove any) so of course I hit the limit on some songs that were there for a long time and had been burned. I'll try making a new playlist with some of the "locked" tracks and hopefully I'll have access to burn them once again. Thanks!

@AlannaHizanyous: Thanks for the info. I always burned by playlist and never changed (except for adding songs to it) the list. I'll have to try making a new list with a few of the songs that I hit my burn limit on and see what happens. If it works, then my only complaint with the DRM imposed by iTunes is the 5 computer thing but I can survive that because I know that I can deauthorize all computers once a year if any of them takes a crap and I can't deauthorize it (have one now that the HD crapped out on and can't deauthorize it because its a new HD and new OS installed but I don't use it frequently enough to worry about it right now). Once again, thanks for the info!!

@miss_roxxan: Only problem with that is that you're loosing quality because you're going from AAC to MP3 format. Also, this isn't an option for some that don't have a CD burner (mine blew up 4 months ago and I don't have money to replace it; luckily I've got more than one computer and can use a burner on one of those, but with the vast library I have it would take numerous disks and many, many hours to do the burn and re-upload senario.)
In my case, it isn't the cost, it's the price point (30 cents per track and 30% of an album...too rich for my blood). Also, it's not like this is a sale thing; eg: buy 10 slice loaf of bread for $1.00 on Monday. Tuesday store has sale and offers 15 slice loaf of bread for $1.00. Ok...it's my loss that I bought the bread on Monday but in the case of iTunes, it's me bringing back my loaf of 10 slice on Tuesday and asking for the 15 slice for the $1.00 price and the store telling me I have to pay 30 cents more for the 15 slice while those that didn't purchase the 10 slice loaf on Monday get the 15 slice loaf on Tuesday for $1.00. That's the pisser.

i rip the songs i downloaded from itunes to a cd and then reupload them from the cd and BAM, no DRM.

If you don't like it, why did you buy it from them???

Vote with your money.

That should answer your question.

I wish they were getting better instead of moving to a new field and getting worse overall.

While the analogy isn't perfect, it's more like you having bought a song on cassette and then being given a discount when you bought the same song on CD. In both cases, you could have done the conversion yourself (with some potential quality losses), but you're presumably getting higher quality version for your .30. Apple is incurring new costs when you get the new version, just as a CD costs some non-zero amount to create.

It's also worth noting that this upgrade offer isn't new but dates back to when Apple first intro'd iTunes Plus (of course, at the time of introduction all iTunes Plus tracks cost 1.29.)

Canada has a Notice and Notice system. This means when your ISP gets a notice from the MPAA/RIAA/whoever that you are a pirate, they may (at their discretion, although they are legally better protected by forwarding it) forward the message to you, the user.

You as the user can then throw the message away, since the referenced laws in the messages don't exist here. :) I would say a similar number of people here get the letters. It's just the impact is so low, it's wasted breath.

We don't get many copyright infringement lawsuits. The ones that come to mind are generally related to so-called pirate websites (mostly torrent trackers like Demonoid, or NZB providing sites). Individuals are rarely challenged, especially since the last challenge resulted in the judge deciding that the levy means free music downloading over the internet.

Some ISPs may choose to terminate your connection if you are too much of a problem for them, but I don't hear much of that. An investigation of you, as a suspected pirate, requires police participation here since privacy laws will not allow the ISP to give your IP out to anyone except law enforcement with a court order. The police here are too busy putting people in prison for paying for DirecTV (Yes, that's a jailable offense here, don't think Canada's a panacea, free speech is NOT an absolute defense at all).

The media levies are higher than the cost of media when it is on sale, leading people to suspect stores find ways around them. From wikipedia--Canada's current levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.21 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio). In 2009 the levy on CDs and MiniDiscs will rise to $0.29.

I often buy a stack of 100 CDs on sale for $20, so as you can see, it isn't being applied very well. It is to be paid by the manufacturer upon manufacture of the goods inside Canada, or the importer upon import of the goods into Canada.

Just before levy's introduction into Canada, it was nearly impossible to find a single CDR in Canada. I recall asking the guy working at Costco where they all were and he said someone came with a truck and bought all three skids they had of them the other day. Similar stories everywhere else, too. I remember I ended up having to preorder a few hundred CDs from a store 3 weeks ahead to get some discs. The boxing day before the new year, I found one damaged pack of 3 CDs misplaced in a grocery store. As I carried them with me people were eyeing them, seeing if they could pull them out of my cart. Incredible to see firsthand what damages taxes to not only to the economy, but to morality in general. If it were a tax on bread, I'd probably have been knifed over the last loaf in the grocery store, and that's despite that person having 50 loaves hoarded in his freezer.

There are no levies presently on internet use, MP3 players, hard drives, memory cards, or anything not mentioned previously. CRIA has tried extremely hard to get that done. At the rates they were proposing (Wikipedia doesn't mention it, but I believe they proposed a by-the-byte levy), it would be cheaper to take a flight to, well, anywhere that isn't Canada to buy a 1.5 TB HDD and smuggle it into Canada.

The blind, religious organizations, law, advertisers, and universities are exempt from the levy, and I believe they can apply to be reimbursed for any media they buy.

The levy presently pays most of its income to operations and, IIRC, a small handful of Canada's richest artists since the criteria for distribution is based entirely on CD sales and radio airplay. Smaller groups don't see even a penny from the levy, since they don't get airplay and the majority of their sales are at concerts and online.

For another little joke, Bryan Adams has a law in Canada nicknamed after him so we could adjust MAPL (Canadian Content) requirements for him so he could continue to be overplayed on Canadian radio. Also 100% no BS. Americans hate US radio so much because it's all owned by one company. Imagine if you had to listen to 30% (or more) Canadian music at all times on the radio. *cries*

A bit offtopic: Having a C-Band dish at one point I noted the most ironic thing ever. Due to Cancon rules, TechTV in Canada didn't play Max Headroom at all, despite the US beaming it for play over here (unencrypted!) via C-Band. Rather, TechTV Canada cut the feed off and instead played a rerun of "Call for help", which was Canadian at the time (I think). Of all things to not be played due to government control of media, Max Headroom. If you haven't seen the show, I do suggest watching it, you'll quickly realize just how sad this is.

Oh well, sorry for the sermon. This is one of those topics that gets me all wound up. :D

Don't think of the 30 cents as a "remove DRM" fee. Think of it, as Apple covering it's costs for allowing you to re-download all your music at twice the size.

This is just like Apple charging an extra dollar to convert songs that you bought into ringtones.

That's not ever really been true. The restriction was that you could only burn a PARTICULAR PLAYLIST 7 times. Change the playlist, add a song, delete a song, even the same song, and you can reburn to your heart's content.

It was never a limit on the song itself, but the playlist. easily gotten around.

Two, you pay the 30 cents and you redownload the songs at 256 kbps DRM free (meaning you can play them on any device you have that supports AAC and they'll sound close to CD).

Sounds like a fair trade off to me. Licensing fees cost money you know.

and dont give me the amazon store argument that they are all 99 cents. the recording industry cut them a deal and did that on purpose to prop up an itunes competitor. otherwise itunes would be basically the only legit download store on the block (no napster, zune dont count) and then apple would have the RIAA by the balls, which is a situation im sure the RIAA is not used to.

@HogwartsAlum: as far as im concerned, once ive paid for an album, it is mine forever.
i WILL NOT pay again for the same damn content to use it in a different format or higher bitrate or with removed DRM.

i will willingly pirate / steal / whatever they want to call it, when ive paid for it ONCE.

so yes, i mean that if i bought a tape of the beatles, i feel entitled to every new reformatting of that same album, be it vinyl / cd / mp3 / aac / flac

i've gotten quite a laugh out of everyone
who is so incensed against apple
"they are making me pay again!!!"
like several commenters have said
no one made you do anything
i'd hate to be with you when you find a coupon
for something you purchased recently
"damnit! there's a coupon for corn flakes!
kellogg's better send me back a quarter!"
(not the best analogy, but still, calm down)

You never should have bought DRM'd music anyway, but giving the benefit of the doubt, if you've been purchasing DRM'd music from iTunes since Amazon MP3 launched with their high* quality DRM free music, you are completely at fault. Enjoy paying for your "upgrade!"

I am comfortable with that because I for one do notice a difference. Most of my library is at 192 bit rates, but when I've had to, 128. Not all songs at low quality sound bad to me, but there are many that make make my ears cRiNgE with a high pitch squeal. In addition, I may not always hear the difference on my computer, but definitely in the Lexus with a great system + subwoofer. The 128's in the car can be loud with volume, but lack the feeling higher bit rates engulf you in. There is a fulfilling depth only higher bit rates seem to achieve.

Thanks for pointing that out GUY.

You purchased the song while it had DRM. That's what you own. If you didn't like DRM, you shouldn't have bought it.

Apple is letting you re-purchase songs now (you keep both versions!) at a discount if you want the higher-bitrate, non-DRM'd version.

Why would you pay or AAC content? Well, because AAC is higher quality than MP3. The 256kbps AAC files being tendered by iTunes Plus are vastly superior to anything you'll get from Amazon or other MP3-serving stores. And none of them come with the ubiquity and simplicity of iTunes, iPod, et al. which is where Apple really did it right.

I don't like the fee to "upgrade" to something that shouldn't have been there in the first place (DRM) but you ARE getting more than just DRM removal for your $0.30 per track. You're getting an upgraded copy of that song in MUCH higher quality (as everything was 128kbps AAC before, save for a select handful of iTunes Plus tracks available previously.)

That will indeed work, but you are still converting from one compressed format (m4p) to another compressed format (mp3) that uses a different compression algorithm. So you will lose sound quality.

Are they discussing charging taxes on bandwidth or hard drives or MP3 players, since people are moving away from physical mediums? The only time I burn a CD these days is to make a bootable OS disc.

The iTunes situation is more like paying for replacing the low rolling resistance tires that only work in the summer when it's dry with better designed all weather tires that have the same rolling resistance as the originals, but also work in the rain and on snow.

This is adding functionality to an existing purchase, where you had all the terms of use beforehand, and those terms were fairly obvious in both the large and small print. If the tracks had an unannounced defect that Apple wanted to charge to fix, that would be a problem.

Then again, she could just email the songs back like a picture of a spider. Actually, I bought a crappy song from iTunes by accident and didn't think to ask for a refund right away like I should have. I might just be sending sjobs@apple.com an attachment soon.

Since disk space is bound to rise more and more, making the difference remain somewhat trivial, users won't bother changing over. Plus, CDs are almost always ripped in a bitrate, rather than a "quality rate," so a 256 kbps AAC file and a 256 MP3 file are pretty much the same size. VBR tries to average it at a bitrate, so it's also guilty of that. Still, quality is subjective and complicated when it comes to lossy music compression, so there may never be a good metric.

I'm a bit confused by your Flac comment. I don't really see it becoming the standard, as I've never really met anyone who cares about lossless file storage. The audiophiles I've met tend to consider playback from an MP3 player lousy to begin with, so they think loseless compression would be a waste of disk space. I'd say the majority of people with players probably stick to MP3, WMA, and AAC, simply because that's what ripping software usually rips to, and that's what's on Limewire/Bit Torrent. Loseless takes more time to download, and more space on the player, so few want that. Plus, it takes a lot of battery life for increased disk usage alone.

What's interesting is that codecs change often and with little fanfare for video files, simply because people want smaller files for the same quality but they also want video to be compressed so that their computer and devices can still play on the fly it without problems. HD video is hard to play even in a larger format, but high quality H.264 is even harder and can stress even a dual core CPU. Better codecs are welcome because they mean people can do more with their disk space and existing hardware.

@Kelly Karnetsky: Windows XP isn't crippled - you know that you can only install it on one computer. It's not like upgrading to Windows Vista will allow you to put Vista on 4 or 5 or more computers in your house/office/anywhere else. You can still only install it on one computer. This was a totally shitty comparison as to what is going on with the DRM removal/stripping and upgrading of ACC content in iTunes Plus.

You might have to update iTunes, though. When I clicked it, it asked me to do so, and I decided not to, because I was only curious how much it would cost to change over my library.

Now if only Spore would let users do this.

In this case, Apple realized a lot of people would be willing to pay $.30 to lose the DRM. Perhaps they needed to pay for a cut to the record companies, but I think the fact of the matter is that people either hate iTunes DRM enough to pay for it, or people don't care that much. Since Apple could make money on the removal of existing DRM, they went for it, as they'd be leaving a revenue-source untapped if they did it for free.

Lacking strong competition, they can do that.

I'm half-wondering if maybe they'll pull a PR stunt by then apologizing for the fee and dropping the rate, like with the original iPhone. Apple looks good for giving the customers what they want, and they made money on the people who extremely wanted to get rid of the DRM.

Your guess that Apple isn't getting the vast majority of money from the upgrade is pure speculation with no evidence at present to support such a contention.

The irony of this statement can't escape you. Saying something like this doesn't reflect well on your maturity.

That being said, defending Apple in this case does display either a serious affinity for the company or a financial connection to it. While Apple wasn't responsible for the DRM initially, they are responsible for the charge placed on getting a DRM-free copy. They could allow free replacement or replacement for a far lower fee. The fee is what people are taking issue with Apple about, not the initial presence of DRM.

That being said, I never purchased from iTunes because of the DRM, and this overpriced replacement fee only confirms that it was the best choice not to give Apple my money in this case.

Given that some of the songs are some that I long since deleted, thinking, "WTF was I thinking when I bought this!?!" I really don't want to pay a penny to get another copy, DRM free or not.

Imagine there is a software program that you use lets call it "Windows XP" and then there is a newer version of this software called "Windows Vista." You have to pay to upgrade even though they are made by the same company but you do it anyway.

Thats what is going on here.

(mad because Consumerist blocked my account for no reason, having to post from Facbook)

(I posted the link to that BBC story, which was reposted on BoingBoing, because they incorrectly stated that Apple was moving to a two-tiered pricing structure, when they are in fact moving to a three tiered pricing structure, and what you're paying for is not just DRM-free, but higher quality.)

@TVarmy:" A song can be burned to CD an infinite number of times..."
This is not the case. If you bought your music in iTunes then the purchased track could only be burned to a CD 7 times and then you were SOL. It was the biggest thing about iTunes that pissed me off; 2nd thing to piss me off was that I could authorize only 5 computers to allow to play the music I purchased in iTunes - which blows since I have 6 computers in my house and I use them all at some time and have another 4 at my office which I use and 2 at my fiance's house which I like to listen to my music on. Unless I want to keep dragging my iPod to work and the man's house or keep CDs around (and hope that they don't get screwed up because I can only burn each song 7 times), then I'm being punished for paying and downloading music legally from this souce.

@xwildebeestx: Last time I checked, that won't work for iTunes DRM'd songs.

A clever script that looks up the same track on Amazon's DRM-free store.

At about 160 songs per CD, and CDs around $.28 a piece, this means you can convert for around $.00175 a song. Not in Verizon cents. That's actually a real fraction of a penny. If you don't want the higher bitrate, here's a totally legit way to strip the DRM for almost free. Plus, there's a good chance your car stereo or DVD player will play the MP3 CDs you've just made.

I'm surprised more people aren't pointing this out after this new feature came out. It's totally within the EULA and cheap, showing that it's safe to blog without a disclaimer, and it appeals to pretty much anyone who bought more than one protected file.

@Trai_Dep: Yep, and I've got one in every one of my vehicles (sorry, didn't have another 64,000 dollars to buy another Lincoln Navigator that had an iPod/MP3 player hookup installed in it) and I have one on each of the 6 computers in my house and the 4 at my office and the two at my fiance's house. I prefer to use my iPod but sometimes having a mix CD for a certain mood or time frame (light music at dinner; make out music for backseating in the car with my man; etc) is nice. Guess I'm still hanging on to some of that old technology.....

While I do see the Apple is now charging additional for upgrading the quality of the music, I would like to point out that they could provide a tool in iTunes to remove it off the music that you already have downloaded.
I will also give you this example.
I bought music on Monday for 99 Cents. Came with DRM on it. Then on Tuesday they announced that they are going to remove DRM from that song, give it to you in 256Kbps for the same price but charge people like me an additional .30 to do the same thing. So people that now pay .99 cents for it will get it without DRM while people like me that paid .99Cents for it are going to have to cough up an additional .30 just to get it without DRM.
Cost for the Song
Me = 1.29 Monday
You = .99 Tuesday
How exactly is that fair now?
The best solution is as I discribed. Apple won't do it though and I expect a class action lawsuit to see to it that they do it.

However, the DRM becomes readily apparent behind other services, such as monthly subscription services that will shut you out of the tracks you've downloaded, or protected WMA tracks that ask about licenses when you try to play them. Because the DRM is completely integrated into iTunes, it's invisible to most users. I imagine a good 80% of iTunes users don't even know where iTunes keeps the files on their hard drive.

Of course, the glaring problem is trying to play the songs on another player. AAC is a pretty common format, so I imagine that's going to be less of an issue, aside from the fact that iTunes won't automatically sync other players.

But that's avoided because most people consider iTunes something for iPods by default.

I think safe and sane DRM may be the future of at least a few areas of online commerce. Valve has very low levels of piracy on their games because of the DRM on Steam, but few people complain about it because it offers them a good interface to buy new games, keep their games automatically patched, co-ordinate online games with friends, and they can reinstall a game as many times as they want, and play on other computers with the same account. It's very much a system by gamers, for gamers.

Still, that works because most of Valve's games are innately online so people are fine with logging into a service that sends patches and finds servers, while banning cheaters and abusive players. Plus, people consider Valve's games worth paying for.

My ears! They bleed!

No, really, a factory I worked at played Summer of '69 every shift change. I can't listen to that song without being reminded of how horrible that place was. :D

Burn an audio disc in iTunes of the album that has DRM on it.

Re-import the files into iTunes as mp3's. The DRM will be gone.

Considering you're putting in 256 AAC files, those are usually on par with CD quality sound for most listeners. The MP3 is just compressing that again, and if it's at 256 as well, it'll still be pretty close to CD quality for most people's ears. Personally, I usually can't tell the difference between 128 and up, but I usually encode in 192 just to be safe for the rare song that stresses the codec.

If you can tell the difference, don't worry. You'll go deaf enough not to care soon enough thanks to aging. It's a great deal, actually. With all the $10,000 speakers you won't be buying, you can almost afford healthcare!

Second: DRM means Digital Rights Management. If Apple/Fairplay is not managing your rights digitally, it IS fair to say that the DRM is not there.

Third: The article you cite at tuaw.com backs up the claim that DRM won't be on the music. See the sentence, "Sure, you can now download music from the iTunes store without DRM...." and "DRM-free doesn't mean that Apple suddenly supports piracy." And nobody ever said that they did, really. Like I said above, there are still copyright laws which now enforce limits on copying etc.

So, by all accounts, the DRM *IS* being removed. Apple has not removed *tracking* nor have they claimed to do so (though it is sneaky).

:)

It will be called "Jailbroken iPod" or something.

That is all.

@Hank Scorpio: you are teh fanboy!!!1

I don't understand. You people were fine with 128kbps AAC files and DRM for almost half a decade now.

In fact, when Plus was first introduced, they gave you the option to upgrade and you still didn't feel the need to.

Now, they are promoting the fact that they have fully switched to the Plus format and lowered the prices down to 99 cents and NOW you're complaining about "new" features that have been there the whole time.

You could ALWAYS upgrade your whole collection at once. The button was on the home page of the iTunes Store. You could always upgrade single albums or songs. The button is on the album pages.

For those of you who bought 1000+ songs off of iTunes and the upgrade is costing you $300, just don't upgrade. You clearly have no problem with your current files, so what's your complaint?

Apple is not ripping you off. iTunes Plus is a better product that costs better product money.

It's like if you had a whole collection of VHS tapes and all of Blu rays became available and you want to upgrade for free. I'm sorry, but that's not how upgrades work.

iTunes plus is not just DRM free. In fact, the DRM-free part is just an added bonus to the real bullet point that it's higher quality.

Plus was introduced as an answer to claims that 128kbps AAC files were not a viable option for people with high quality listening devices (like a nice stereo or high quality headphones). the 256Kbps is very high quality while retaining a reasonable file size.

I myself rip my CD collection at 256kbps AAC to retain quality, keep the file size manageable and enjoy my music on my speakers and on my SC GI headphones

I almost miss tapes. All you had to do was get a dual cassette deck (which a lot of stereos came with) and you could make mix tapes til the cows came home.

Also; it's been reported if you no longer have the DRM version of track offered for upgrade and you choose to upgrade and it looks for it in your library and doesn't find it iTunes will error out and your update WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Get it together Apple. Total dick move forcing a bundled upgrade. Way to stick it to those of us who made iTunes what it is by giving you our business.

@GearheadGeek:

Then again, she could just download freeware that removes the DRM. It's out there, but if your going to do that, you might as well be downloading from a free P2P, or bit-torrent site, as the punishment, if caught, is the same.

That said, it still sucks. The fact that the audio quality is higher only partially mitigates the sting of having to shell out $0.30 per song.

$0.99: This bought you a DRM'd track, and was the price for just about every track in the store.
$1.29: This bought you the Plus version, which was simply DRM-free. Isn't it M4A instead of M4P or something? I forget.

They started this quite a while ago. When it was first introduced, you also had the same option to convert your $0.99 DRM copies into $1.29 DRM-free copies for just $0.30. You could also "upgrade" (I think that's what they called it) your entire library with a single button click and a few payment dialogs. Yep, that totally unfair 30 cents is just paying the difference for DRM-free music. They had the option to make you pay the entire $1.29 to redownload the song, but decided to be nice about it. Boo Apple, I suppose.

The only new thing here appears to be the $0.69 option, which I wonder if it is a discount for unpopular tracks. They probably will still sell DRM'd music with the option to upgrade, all at the same prices.

Is it fair? Well, yeah. You buy knowing full well the consequences, and they can offer music at whatever price they're comfortable with. Is it stupid? Yes. Does JHymn still work? At least it did a year ago.

@Thataboy:

ACC the current standard? For who, Apple fanboys? There are a lot of players that don't support ACC, and they're not "Korean knockoffs" as you refer them to be.

More people use MP3 than ACC. At least out of those those who rip their own music to their players, that is.(...and face it, the majority who download for free. I guess we can't leave them out either.)

The majority of people who use DAPs and MP3 players, do not even use an online music store. Out of this majority, most prefer to use MP3 and .flac. More and more players are supporting lossless .flac, and that will be the standard. Apple lossless sucks.

No offense to your post, i'm just pointing this out. The rest of your post is fine.

And I did get the impression that the upgrade was an all or nothing thing. Until I see which songs are affected I can't tell how bad a bargain this is.

You are paying for a new file. One that is twice the bitrate of your current file and is actually DRM free.

Now here's where you all seem to get a little confused. While the DRM is removed from the file, allowing you to share it with whatever and whoever you want, the files still have your iTunes account info attached to it.

My best guess is that this is for account verification purposes and also a way to keep the honest folks honest and keep the pirates on check. I mean, how likely are you to post music online for others to download if it had your iTunes info attached to it?

All in all, it's a good system. I paid $11 to update my entire purchased collection. I think that anyone that actually cares about unencumbered, higher quality audio that they can do whatever they want with, will own more CDs than digital downloads (as the whole concept moves against honest music lovers) and will probably only be spending $10 - $20 for the library upgrade.

The folks that have been buying music through iTunes since 2003, will likely ignore this altogether.

@Raiders757:

Um "copyright infringement" that is. Not sure what infengement is. Doh!

@david.c: Hate to say it Dave, but if you lose your digital music, thanks to the DMCA, you still don't have a right to obtain said music from any unapproved sources. Not that I wouldn't do as you said myself, but i'm just sayin'.

Also, once you pay for a song, it's not yours for a lifetime. You only obtain the licence to use a copy of the song, and that licence agreement ends once the song is lost unless the provider is willing to give you another copy. A copy from any other source is copyright infengement.

Just because I own an album on vinyl, it doesn't mean I have the right to download a digital lossless copy from a bit-torrent site, and burn a CD-R of it. That that I wouldn't, but once again, i'm just sayin'.

@Rey:

Pony up $0.30 and be happy?

Screw that. How about these people just logging onto a bit-torrent site and downloading an MP3 version instead? It's free, and their not getting reamed twice for the same song.

Sure, it's still copyright infringement, but that's the risk they'll have to take for being stupid enough to buy from iTunes to begine with.

@lodleader:

Hell yea. I'm with you on that one. I'll take EAC or CDex over anything else. Screw iTunes, and any of the other online music stores for that matter. They have yet to get it right, and charging the same for lossy music files as their counterparts on CD, is just plain crazy.

When they start selling lossless .flac files with album art for 25 cents a song, I might consider online music stores. Until then, i'll stick with good ol' vinyl and CDs.

I did pay the extra $.20-.30 for non-DRMed versions when they started offering that as an option.

- Still more expensive than other 100% legal methods of obtaining the music (I'm in Canada, that means as long as I buy CD-Rs I am legally entitled to "pirate" as much music as I like :P )

- Charging already overcharged customers to remove DRM? LOL!

- Even if you aren't in a country that condones "pirating" music, 69 cents a track is still too much.

- eMusic was way better back when it was unlimited. If that still existed now, despite the CD levy, I'd pay for eMusic. Would have been nice to see Apple offer some sort of subscription deal like eMusic had.

This has been going on for a while, but just the music that was from EMI, as they were the first ones to provide DRM free music. The music was listed at 1.29 vs. the 0.99 price tag b/c of the higher bit rate and lack of DRM.

Yes it may seem silly to pay just to unlock the DRM, but what in fact you are doing is REDOWNLOADING the songs from Apple. You're downloading newer versions which are at the higher bitrate and stored as AAC format vs. the m4v(DRM) format.

Personally, I buy the CDs and then make my own mp3s. Set the quality to my standards and don't need to worry about fair-use or not.

Its Advanced Audio Coding. And it was developed as a replacement for MP3 both because it produces a better quality audio signal in compression than MP3 and more importantly because unlike MP3s which you have to license to use, its FREE.

The .99 cent songs were bought under a different contract then the one going forward. Under the old standard, if you wanted DRM free, you had to do the pricier upgrade. Making up the difference doesn't seem that egregious to me.

I tried the iTunes Plus stuff when it came out, and noticed a decent quality improvement, so last night I upgraded my library.

It just depends. I would suggest you test a few songs first and see if you like the change.

Now, apple is offering an upgrade to something better - higher bit rate and lack of DRM - for less than a third of the cost of buying the product new. Nobody is forcing you to pay 30 cents to upgrade to the DRM free version. The version you have still works and you can continue to use it in the way you initially agreed to use it when you first bought it.

When the primary media for movies switched from VHS to DVD did you people expect to get free upgrades to DVDs for all your movies you owned on VHS?

@ben_linus: Most people won't notice, but the people that do notice this sort of thing are probably pretty pleased.

@Belabras: Dude, no one is making you do anything. You don't *need* to pay the extra money or have the DRM removed if you do not want to.

This is BS and why I don't use iTunes. I expect there will be a class action suit because essentially people will be pissed that they are being charged twice for something they already purchased.

Replacing your file involves bandwidth charges, server maintenance and hardware costs, DB maintenance and the money they pay to keep the file available through the high speed AKAMAI network, just like any normal purchases. The expenses are small, but they are real. Meanwhile just keeping track of what you've purchased/updated adds additional expense.

There's certainly profit included here, but they DO deserve to get paid for their work.

@VandykeBunting: I take exception to this part of your post - "If you don't like it, you can burn it to a CD and play it anywhere, or re-import in a different format. You have always had that option. Now you have the option to pay $0.30 to upgrade the song to a higher quality (256 kbps) with no DRM."
Before the "upgrade" option of iTunes Plus, you could only burn a purchased song 7 times and then it was locked. I like to keep several cd's of music in my cars, house, work area, and other places and also want some pieces of music on more than one cd; I've also had times when a cd got scratched and had to be reburned and if I already had 7 copies of that song burned I was just SOL. That is something that should not have been a part of iTunes (and I didn't use iTunes because I liked it but because it was the only way I could get music tracks on my Motorola ROKR phone at the time).

But before we praise CDs too much let's not forget that they too have had their share of intrusive DRM schemes. Those of which were far far worse than anything iTunes has ever done. Yes I'm talking to you Sony.

The only solace I can take is the knowledge that they'll eventually [shut down their authentication server/introduce a mandatory new version of FairPlay/Steve Jobs goes on an acid trip/who knows] and be forced to offer DRM-stripped versions of purchased songs. I'll sit in my rocking chair, clutching my shotgun and yell "See ya whippersnappers, I saved $60 big ones!"

In similar concept, what if museums were going to start sub-charging for each painting you look at and stating rules for the time allotted to viewing said painting? Repeated viewing is subject to a fee and extending your usage onto another person is subject to a $200,000 fine. Rights and usage may be changed at any time. This item is not redeemable. You are not allowed to discuss or share paintings with any other patrons or non-patrons and will be held liable for federal charges by the FBI. Copying the ideas, name, or content of any painting is also a federal charge and punishment could lead to 20 years in prison and/or a $500,000 fine.

Sounds a little ridiculous right? Isn't this the same exact concept as rights of media use? It's just music, why don't they back off?

The Fairplay system (a form of DRM) enforces the limit via software. Copyright law will now enforce the limits.

So wait all you people complaining about the $0.30 to remove DRM which was not imposed by Apple but by the record companies chill for a second and read this post. You knew there was DRM and paid $0.99 for a song which you received, still own and works as designed. No one is forcing you to pay the $0.30 per song to remove the DRM and it's not like the songs no longer work unless you pay $0.30. So if you purchased a car and then the dealership notified you they could put in a better engine a year after you bought it for $2000 would you rant and rave about how you are mad at the dealer? No you'd realize you got what you paid for at the terms you agreed to.

So in short; you knew what it was when you bought it. DRM was not imposed by Apple it was imposed by the terms of their contract from the record companies. If you want anyone to be mad at be upset with the record companies for forcing us to deal with DRM for so long. You want DRM free music? Pay the price, burn and re-rip, go back in time and buy your music elsewhere, or quit your griping and live with it since it's what you paid for.

All you people complaining about "paying again" for music you already "paid for" BOUGHT THE DRM-LADEN MUSIC. AND YOU KNEW IT HAD DRM. Maybe not the first one or first few, but eventually you figured it out and kept buying DRMed songs. DEAL WITH IT. You still get to play your DRMed music. Nothing has been taken away. You can either get some kind of DRM-stripping software, burn audio CDs and re-rip the songs as MP3s, or suck it up, and pay the "DRM stripping fee" of 30 cents a song. It's just a service charge and most people won't need to pay it.

I must point out, I hate apple, macs, iPods, iPhones... everything apple makes and stands for. However, I still have to point out that this was a great strategy.

@Trai_Dep: Then why were they using DRM on the same tracks that other stores were selling without DRM at the same time?

@Sunflower1970: I third this...I've purchased <$50(USD) of music from the iTMS, and, while this recent change got me to look at them again...I likely won't be buying anything from them unless:

1 - It's $0.99 (or less)
2 - It's DRM-free and of a decent bit-rate
3 - If the iTMS is the only place I can get that track via download

I think they are on to something here. They can make it the corporate model. Buy a Macbook, and for only 30% more, you can transfer your data files to another machine. Buy an ipod, and for only 30% more, you can let your friend listen to it also. Hey, maybe McDonalds can use this model. Buy a Big Mac, and for only 30% more, you can eat it. A brilliant marketing strategy. It is this kind of thinking that makes Apple the leader that they are.

I don't see this pricing lasting long because of consumer baclklash.

@tande04: I just think that's shady. It's like trying to squeeze extra money out of something someone already legitimately owns. This type of thing should just be a goodwill gesture on Apple's part. It could go like this: "Sorry we had to sell you DRM encrypted music. Now that we've fought it off and can sell you unencrypted stuff, here's a thank-you from us for being valuable iTunes customers." Tons of good press, fanboys get something to talk about, the world is a better place.

I wish Apple got a quarter of the scrutiny any other company gets. "Ooooh, you will let me use my music that I bought from you the way I want for only a third of the price if I bought it new? You are soooo kind Apple."

For the record I have never downloaded Itunes, its a resource hog and I don't want it on my computer, I want to keep it away for as long as possible.

Me either. I tried to make them MP3s and it didn't work.

I still haven't figured out how to "convert" something to the non-DRM format...has this feature even been turned on in iTunes? I only have two songs that I bought, but want to see the process...

Yeaaaaahhh but...

When I buy a CD, I can rip it onto my 'puter as an MP3, which will play on my computer, on my iPod and on any mix CDs I subsequently make. I have bought iTunes songs before and ripped them onto a CD and then put them in Windows Media Player, and was able to burn a mix CD. The last 10 songs I bought, I could not do that. So I had to go to Amazon and get them AGAIN.

I already paid for them TWICE. I'm not paying any more. I'm also not buying from iTunes anymore.

DRM for downloaded video is not going anwhere anytime soon.

Your correct. You should not have had to pay the artists and the music labels again for the same song ... only the cost to produce the medium in which it was produced.

Albums, 8-Tracks and even cassettes all have extremely finite life spans and the Music Industry was used to people buying the same music several times. Along came CD's and Back'ups and violia ... a HUGE revenue stream was lost (re-buying what you already own).

This FACT is what has lead to the loss of income in the music industry, plus the fact that people don't have to buy an album filled with 10-12 bad songs to get the 1 or 2 good songs on it.

The issue was never DRM, it was a broken model. Unfortunately, they educated us sooooo much we all realized that once we have paid for the song once, it's ours for our lifetime. If I were to lose any of my legally purchased songs at this point? I would just download them. You can't steal what you already have a right to posses.

It just galls me that Apple (and the music industry as a whole) seems to think that it's ok to charge people again and again and again for something they've already bought.

Last week I buy a song, encumbered with DRM.

This week I buy a song, unencumbered with DRM.

Both songs *cost* .99 cents. In both cases Apple and the Music companies got "payed" for the song.

This week, I have to pay .30 cents to have the song unencumbered? Didn't everyone already get paid? What's the .30 cents for?

DRM is "broke" my music, the fix should be free!

Yea, Yea, Yea, I know how to remove the DRM manually, but that's not the point. The point is "Same Song, Different Week, Surcharge is a Rip-Off".

ratattak is right, the artist (or the record company, or the publishing company) owns the music.

It's a fine distinction, but an important one to make.

Although, judging from what you wrote, it's awfully nice that the record labels are refusing to take their usual majority cut from this. I mean, it IS just Apple that's receiving the $0.30, right? No server/bandwidth people either?

Its from when iTunes plus first launched you could upgrade your tracks for the same $.30. Back then it made sense because at the time apple was charging $1.29 for the plus tracks. Now that they've been $.99 for awhile and seeing as how they might be $.69 it doesn't make sense. No one at apple apparently took the time to think it through (or they did and just didn't think people would care).

There is a lot of ignorant whining here.

1. AAC is the current standard. iPods, Zunes, Walkmen, even WMP is about to support it. What half-baked Korean knockoffs are you people buying that don't support AAC?

2. Bandwidth costs money... not 30 cents a track, but there is still a cost. Apple should eat this for the billions of tracks already purchased? And I have a strong feeling the record labels get the vast majority of this 30 cent charge. You think the record labels aren't demanding the bulk of this fee?

3. You pay 99 cents for a DRM track. You knew what you were getting. Now there is an upgrade, and you want it for free because you feel somehow duped or regretful you made the purchase in the first place?

4. You are getting a file that is twice the bitrate -- that is an upgrade. You didn't get free upgrades when you went from tape to CD did you? There is a difference between physical and digital media, sure. That is why you are paying a relatively small upgrade fee, and not buying it all over again full price. We are talking about record companies here -- I am personally very surprised they are offering an upgrade at all.

5. If removal of DRM + 256kbps upgrade is not worth the fee to you, then don't buy it. You're not being forced. I don't believe Fairplay DRM is getting "shut off" anytime in the near future. Again, if you bought a DRM'd track, you knew what you were getting, and there was a small risk that someday it would get shut off.

The poll choice is a bit cheeky. First, it is not just paying to remove DRM... Second, who WANTS to pay for anything?

The only criticism I have of the whole process is that you cannot selectively upgrade -- I have some iTunes tracks I ended up buying on CD for lossless rips, so it is irritating to have to pay 30 cents for a track I'm just going to trash. But hey, it is what it is... take it or leave it. It's worth it to me, so I'm paying.

what about non-music files purchased from the iTunes store? Eg: Movies/Tv Shows. Is/Will the DRM still be present on those file types when a user downloads a new file? Can the DRM ever be removed from these files (assuming DRM is present on them)

Not sure, as I don't use iTunes to purchase tv/movie shows. But it's something to wonder.

When iTunes plus first launched and they were $1.29 a track this made sense. Now iTunes plus tracks are only $.99 and in the future it looks like they could be even cheaper (or admittedly more expensive but I think the $1.29 price point is going to be reserved for the hot new songs).

So paying $.30 a song in most cases puts you just about in the same spot financially as if you'd bought the CD and ripped it yourself of course your still without the case or album artwork if that's your thing.

But I still agree it should be provided free, DRM never did anything for the consumer, why should they pay to remove it.

they should be paying me for crippling my songs for so long.

Hmm, I'm a bit undecided on this. I don't really need the music to be DRM free but, since it does get you a higher quality file, I may do it. I haven't purchased very much from them, most of my mp3s came from converting all my cds to mp3s. I think it's great that the records companies finally allowed Apple to do this and that they now have different prices. It's kind of a pain to have to pay for the upgrade, especially if you purchased a lot from them. Of course no one wants to pay more for something they already have.

@Cyclokitty: But the downside of the "burn and rip" method is it can really kill audio quality.

@morganlh85: That's what I ultimately had to do. I bought several TV seasons over iTunes, but iTunes' video player has mixed performance (scaling, resizing, etc) on both my laptop and high end gaming system. I torrented high quality rips of the seasons so I can play them over VLC and easily stream them via Boxee.

I don't mind paying for digital distribution... but I do mind being locked into poorly performing software.

This comic sums it up best
[xkcd.com]

Well, besides having legal rights to do almost anything you want with the song

Well I wouldn't say that's true.

and allow you to play it on anything that supports aac (not just Apple's players that support Fairplay DRM), you can also download a higher quality version of it.

And that's about it. I'm willing to bet that when you pay the upgrade, you find out that you've clicked on something that says you still only own a "license" to play the music on your own personal equipment, and that you don't really own it outright and can't give it or sell it to others. That right will always be reserved for the original songwriter, and recording artist {and record company} who did the recording of the song. Apple can't transfer that right to you.

I think the point of charging ¢ per song is to prevent everyone who's ever purchased music from iTunes rushing in all at once to upgrade their libraries. Imagine what that would do to Apple's servers.

It's entirely up to you if you want to pay to be able to play your existing files on something other than your iPod. Most people don't care, and likely, won't bother.

And, also, stop blaming Apple for DRM in the first place. It wasn't them, they never wanted it - it was the record companies. Remember, Apple jumped at the chance to sell DRM free music when EMI allowed them to. The other companies were just holding out for variable pricing, which Apple didn't want to allow. They finally compromised on that issue, which is why both DRM-free and variable pricing were announced the same day.

Get your history on the issue straight. If it was up to Apple, there never would have been DRM in iTunes in the first place.

Also, first person to call me a "fanboy" needs to grow the eff up!

@JustThatGuy3: I think that's something people forget, you're getting a higher quality song (from a bitrate standpoint).

As to the DRM- like it not, its there, and so if you want more freedom with your music, then you'll need to pay for it. Should it be there? No. But that's what you're dealing with and I doubt the labels are going to change that anytime soon. The good news is that going forward, you can pay a bit extra and have it be "yours."

Personally, I don't mind paying for the better quality and non-DRM'ed upgrade from iTunes. As long as they let me CHOOSE which tracks/albums I want to upgrade (right now it's an all-or-nothing proposition, which is unacceptable.)

@Hank Scorpio: That would be next to nothing. It certainly doesn't cost them 30 cents for someone to download a 5 meg file from their server. It's fractions of a cent.

This is a money grab, pure and simple.

@xwildebeestx: Conversion usually entails a re-compression. AAC is lossy like MP3, so even if you use the same bitrate (or higher), you'll still be losing data.
That being said, Hank's pointing out of my error about AAC's compatibility makes that complaint a moot point.

Now you have the option to pay $0.30 to upgrade the song to a higher quality (256 kbps) with no DRM. No one is requiring it, and the file you have is fine. Your not "paying for the privilege to use the product you PAID FOR" - you already use it, and can continue to for as long as you want. IF you want to upgrade, you may. It's not unreasonable to pay for an upgrade.

So quick to comment without even a little research.

This is a big win for consumers. Apple was required by the labels to DRM all tracks when iTunes launched.

Now that battle appears to have been won and there are some technical details to take care of.

If you're not happy with your DRM tracks or the encoding, you can pony up the $0.30 per and be happy. If it's never made a big deal to you, status quo!

Don't make me wave my cane at you and tell me how much you remind me of all of the bellyachers in the late 80s who complained and whined and stomped that they were now going to have to spend $x replacing all of their beautiful albums (or cassettes!) with those new-fangled CDs. "But I already bought that album! I shouldn't have to pay more now that the technology has changed!"

I think the point of forcing to pay for the "upgrade" to the DRM-free files is to actually prevent people from doing it en masse. Imagine if everyone who purchased music from them in the past all decided to upgrade their libraries all at once, what that would do to Apple's servers.

Most people don't really care all that much, and probably won't bother.

Amazon mp3 downloads rock. Windows media works great (plus streams all my music to my PS3 in my living room *goodbye crappy non working airtunes*. If it was still in AAC I could not enjoy this feature). Eat a d!ck apple.

*side note: I used to be an apple fanboy. I got over that real quick.

I really, REALLY doubt it costs 30 cents for apple to remove the DRM. This is stupid. If they're going to charge, they should charge like two or three cents, if that. The actual cost of doing this is next to nothing.

Paying 30¢ for the privilege of doing so is entirely up to you.

But yeah, it does suck to have to pay them to remove their crappy DRM.

I get my music from Amazon. I never have to deal with this BS with them.

I'll go with live with it and not care.

Most of my music I get from library cds.

You don't just get the DRM removed, you get the higher-bitrate song. So, you're just "buying up" to the next quality tier.

95%+ of people using itunes doent know what DRM really is, means or care about it.

They just want to buy a song and use it on their iPod. As long as it still works, they really dont care.