Lame: Apple Charging $0.30 Per Song To Ditch DRM
from the do-it-yourself dept
In the initial news about Apple going DRM-free, I saw it reported that Apple would let you convert your existing files to DRM-free. However, what was left out of the reports I saw (though, people in our comments pointed it out) was that Apple wants to charge you $0.30 for the privilege of getting rid of the DRM. Of course, you can just get rid of the DRM yourself if you don't mind going through the conversion process (though, even that's a bit of a pain). Either way, it's pretty lame to charge people to get rid of DRM. Why even offer that as an option? Are people really going to pay more?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
Yeah, I'm definitely glad I'm not a complete moron to support this company as others are.
Karma, Steve. Enjoy your trips to the hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
You're a monster. A large corporation wants to charge a whopping $0.30 so your spoiled ass can have music a little more conveniently -- music you can easily live without -- and you wish poor health on the company's CEO? You are vastly out of touch with reality.
You might not be a moron (or might be, I don't know you), but you're a monster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
As for calling me the monster, you had best understand what the hell you just read in the blog. Here, let me break it down for you:
Steve Jobs: "Hey, consumer! Thanks for spending $0.99 each for all your songs, encoded with DRM. We've treated you like a criminal, and now we're going to screw you over again by charging you $0.30 per song to unlock your DRM tracks. Hey, it's the $1.29 we're after! How about that!"
And you call me the monster?
Thank you for that wonderful compliment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
in the first place i'm pretty sure its all the major studios that are those demanding drm on their music.
in its early years itunes was a pioneering service and a step away from actually buying the CD. Sure piracy existed and those that wanted could bittorent, but Cd's was the mainstream way to get music. In putting music availible for download this concerned studios thinking it would make it much easier to pirate music and many people who wouldnt do this before, would just send the file to their friends. Hence itunes initially had drm.
recently times have changed and the major studios are recognizing drm has no future, so they are much more amenable when apple and other companies want to offer drm free services.
by allowing users to upgrade their music apple are doing them a favour, the price is there so only people who want it have it, if every single user upgraded their whole itunes library at once (with many users having 1000's of songs and hours of video) i'm pretty sure their servers would crash as that would be like everything ever download of itunes being re-downloaded in the space of a week.
the studios have probs had a say in it as well, with regard to cost etc, apple may even be planning to raise the cost of stuff on itunes now it is drm free, and just kept the prices the same temporarily, so it doesn't rain over their drm-free party
granted it has some apple spin and controllingness - -like not being able to upgrade individual songs - -- but hey, what can you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
Of course, that's how I would devise a simple fix. Who knows how Apple is really doing it and therefore justifying the 30 cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple scores ANOTHER -200 on this move.
What a good boy. Want a treat? A candy bar for your effort?
Karma, Steve. Enjoy your trips to the hospital.
There's a difference between a business strategy and wishing someone dead. Twinrova, you may have Bad Juju yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the other hand
The new songs are a higher bit rate, and what you are paying is the difference between the higher cost of the new version and what you paid originally for the old DRM'd lower bit rate version. At least you are getting some credit for what you already paid!
If it were up to the RIAA, they'd make you pay the entire cost all over again, just for the privilege of getting a higher bit rate song.
Geez, Apple finally dumps DRM, as folks have been clamoring for for years, and they still get dumped on. Can't make anybody happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: on the other hand
Yes, the higher bitrate is a bonus, and yes the RIAA would love to re-charge the whole song fee. It's still extortion though, and yet another reason why I'm glad I ignored any of these DRM-peddling idiots. Going forward, it's nice that Apple are removing DRM, but this is an absolutely anti-consumer move for which they're rightly being criticised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: on the other hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: on the other hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: on the other hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: on the other hand
There are other music store out there, but none of them are well known, so most people don't even know where to begin looking. What's more, most such places have vastly limited selections -- not to say the bands they do have are bad, but if i hear a song on the radio and want to buy it, odds are better that I'll find it at iTunes rather than MP3Store.com. (I'll further note that neither of you have yet named your preferred iTunes alternative.)
As for buying the CD... why? I haven't needed or wanted a CD in years. If I want something physical to last 'forever' (and get lost, scratched, and broken), I can pay about $0.15 and buy a blank CD to burn for myself. Or I can just back up my music on an external hard drive and manage it like every other piece of digital material I own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: on the other hand
relevant quote:
we can't make a difference until capitalism falls.
but for now lets do some shopping to comfort ourselves.
or somthing like that
banksy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chill!
Just because you think it should be free does not mean apple has to pay for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: on the other hand
The Jobs' "manifesto" from a year ago about how upset he was that he couldn't sell DRM free music was complete BS. If he was a man of his own principles, he'd only sell DRM free music on iTunes, which of course would net zero support from major record labels, and make Apple's precious media strategy non-existent. Apple needs the RIAA more than anyone, so the notion that they are a true supporter of DRM free music is laughable. Giving consumers a choice between two types of music is one thing, but selling one format and then charging for an upgrade is another.
I agree with tack's comment below....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All or nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All or nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All or nothing
"Can I upgrade previously purchased music to iTunes Plus?
Yes. Any available upgrades will be shown on the Upgrade My Library page (Music received for free is not eligible for upgrade). You can upgrade all music at one by using the Buy button. This replaces all music you've bought previously on iTunes with available iTunes Plus versions of the same music. You cannot choose which songs, music videos or albums to upgrade individually. Song updates are available for 30¢, video upgrades for 60¢, and albums for 30% of the album price. iTunes Plus music will continually be added to iTunes, so check back often to find new music available for upgrading."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All or nothing
I see that if you have DRM infected tracks that you got for free you're stuck with them. Using [I]those[/I] will be a joy when the DRM servers are pulled. (gag)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That gives me an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That gives me an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That gives me an idea
Perhaps you are thinking of sample rate.
But the bit rate of a musical recording done in a modern digital studio has a bit depth of 24, a sample rate of 96khz, and thus a bit rate of at least 4.4Mbps.
That's why even FLAC and other "lossless" formats are still compressed formats. They just do so in a way that reduces the file size while trying to maintain sonic fidelity as best as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That gives me an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That gives me an idea
My point was just that music is recorded at extremly high bitrates. Even the numbers I cited (96/24), are not the outside limit, just what is commonly used. There are studios, and plenty of available gear and software used by musicians who do their own recording, that is done at 192/32, which I guess is useful for people who spend all their time in a recording or mastering studio, but I think that's more out of a concern for retaining sonic fidelity as the files go through the process(es).
I think that's why SACD and DVD-A kind of fell flat -- 99.9% of people out there cannot possibly perceive any difference, it's so far beyond even the "psychoacoustic" outer reaches of the spectrum, and most home audio systems won't give you that range anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That gives me an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who says it is all Apple?
Don't forget it wasn't Apples idea to use DRM, the RIAA insisted. You can breath near music without paying these extortionists.
Remember the reaction when Jobs first insisted he would like to get rid of DRM back when it was DRM everywhere. Half the major record labels said Never. Microsofts ZUNE mouthpiece said Jobs was nuts...
Yet here we are today...
BTW I don't own any Apple products and my MP3 player is a Sandisk. I just think the knee jerk Apple hating gets old after a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fashionable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fashionable
It basically comes down to what PaulT said, you already paid for the music. this is liking bringing in a car under warranty and having to pay for a 1/3 the car again.
- to the apologists, bashing apple does not mean they are letting the RIAA off the hook, they suck much more than apple ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fashionable
Except, there is no warranty on music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny?
Replace "not pirates" by "gullible consumers", and we'll agree.
But wait - aren't "gullible" and "consumer" pretty much the same thing? I really hate being labelled a consumer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Requiem
I wonder, Apple used to let you redownload everything if there was a critical failure on your end and you lost everything. So now if you do it, would the songs be downloaded in Itunes Plus format? I wonder if that would be a way to get around the $.30 DRM tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Requiem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think 30 cents is a reasonable price to pay for much higher quality sound.
No one has mentioned what else this change does for Apple:
-suddenly everyone's music files are twice as big. An iPod that held 1000 songs now holds 500, giving people more reasons to upgrade their iPods
-DRM-free music means that the iTunes store is now available for anyone using any recent music player. That opens a huge new market for iTunes.
As an Apple investor I am happy about this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
didn't they stop that though and replace it with CD backup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why pay at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now you're taking the opposite position that Apple should not charge whatever it wants. I say you were right the first time, if people are willing to pay 30 cents to get rid of DRM on their music collection, let Apple charge it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitch and Moan
For years you bitched and moaned about having DRM in the first place, then you get your wish and DRM is going away and now you are bitching and moaning because Apple expects to be compensated for the bandwidth of downloading the shit a second time.
You bitch because the music industry expects to be compensated for the thousands that they spend on sound studios, recording and editing, and researching and bringing the talent to market. You bitch that you have to pay for the music that has been edited and recorded, and now you bitch that you have to pay to get the DRM free versions...
Your whining gets old...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch and Moan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch and Moan
If people who don't think like you do raise your blood pressure... well... maybe stop scrolling past the articles and reading the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch and Moan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch and Moan
You really do make yourself sound like an idiot, let's see why:
"For years you bitched and moaned about having DRM in the first place, then you get your wish and DRM is going away and now you are bitching and moaning because Apple expects to be compensated for the bandwidth of downloading the shit a second time."
It's quite simple. This is a blog that comments on news stories. Many people (Mike included, I believe, as well as myself) have stated *from the very beginning* that DRM would not work. It's anti-consumer and does nothing to stop piracy.
So, when stories appeared about DRM being implemented, Mike and other bloggers point out how it's dumb and would not work. This continues for many years, with fools like yourself attacking Mike as foolish and/or pro-piracy for pointing out the obvious failings of DRM.
Now that the dust is clearing and DRM is finally disappearing, profiteers like Apple are charging consumers extra *for the product they should have been sold in the first place*. Instead of being given full access to their own music, there is an extortion charge. That's wrong, I don't see how people like you can support being charged twice for the same product.
"You bitch because the music industry expects to be compensated for the thousands that they spend on sound studios, recording and editing, and researching and bringing the talent to market."
No, the blog entries here are always supporting the music industry's right to make a profit. What they attack is the *methods* by which they do it. Please re-read the articles on the music industry to avoid sounding like a fool, because you have just claimed that Mike believes the exact opposite of what he has continually stated.
The actions of the music industry are rightly criticised aa counter-productive. Nobody criticises the idea that they should make money, only the idea that they have some kind of right to do so without adapting to the modern world.
"You bitch that you have to pay for the music that has been edited and recorded, and now you bitch that you have to pay to get the DRM free versions."
Yes, exactly right. Again, the customer has been presented with an artificially restricted file. It should cost nothing to unlock that file, yet Apple are re-charging 1/3 of the original fee to remove their restrictions. It's extortion. As you say, the music has already been edited and recorded. Ignoring the higher bitrate (Apple could surely provide the same bitrate free of charge?), the only difference between the DRM and DRM-free file is the DRM. No further editing or recording is required, so why do they get to receive a 30% tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch and Moan
It's not "crying and moaning." It's pointing out things that are unfair so that people recognize it. Would you prefer that people shut up and pretend everything is good when it's not?
For years you bitched and moaned about having DRM in the first place, then you get your wish and DRM is going away and now you are bitching and moaning because Apple expects to be compensated for the bandwidth of downloading the shit a second time.
We didn't "wish" DRM would go away, we pointed out that it was damaging and simply would naturally go away eventually. That has nothing to do with Apple's decision.
You bitch because the music industry expects to be compensated for the thousands that they spend on sound studios, recording and editing, and researching and bringing the talent to market.
We have done *NO* such thing. We complain about the industry choosing a bad business model. We have no problem that they expect to be compensated. We're just letting them know they're doing it wrong.
You bitch that you have to pay for the music that has been edited and recorded, and now you bitch that you have to pay to get the DRM free versions...
No. We're not bitching that "we have to pay." We're pointing out that they're using a really bad model that only pisses people off.
Is it really THAT difficult to mentally process the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch and Moan
I don't know how you managed to stay so restrained. :)
Perhaps this poster is just a troll, I dunno.
Yes, Apple and the RIAA and it's members (not the whole music industry) are extorting money from the plebs that bought this DRM shit in the first place. Period.
Don't ever stop exposing the corruption in big business and government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have a bit of downloadable software that even loads your purchases into iTunes.
So, why I'm expected to switch to iTunes at this point baffles me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whining always gets old. I'm tired of hearing about how much it costs for the RIAA to bring music to market. Any musician can do it relatively cheaply now, with the exception of advertising and promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not an Apple fan (at all) but...
Can any object iTunes-savvy individuals clear this up for us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not an Apple fan (at all) but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not an Apple fan (at all) but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a big deal
Now that the market has taken off and everyone is a little more secure with the concept of digital music files they need to charge more to get rid of the DRM in order to stay in compliance with their contracts that allow them access to the music libraries that they currently have. There's nothing unsavory about this at all. It makes total sense and I appreciate everything they've done to make this industry happen including this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before they shut DRM servers down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long before they shut DRM servers down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long before they shut DRM servers down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lame considering you can set up programs to do it all for you for free,
or that it actually costs money to implement the DRM and maintain the
verification servers and it is actually cheaper for iTunes to serve
their music DRM free (which is why Walmart, yahoo, and microsoft all
want to or have killed their DRM servers). By upgrading to DRM free
versions of the songs you own you are doing apple a favor so that they
can shut down their servers (or convert them to a new purpose) sooner
and yet they want you to pay for the privilege of helping them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Itunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Itunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon Music is DRM free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you actually paying for the SONG or the bytes that make up a song? Are you paying for the quality level, etc?
It's all a big scam. If you bought a song, you bought it. End of story. Regardless of if they shipped you a lower quality version in the first place, you should be able to get that higher quality version for free (or the actual cost it takes for them to send it to you.)
Keep in mind I'm talking strictly digital delivery here, where it literally costs them nothing to give you a higher quality/non-DRM'd product. At least, not .30
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do I have a legal right to back up a CD to MP3/MP4 format if I want to, for my own personal use?
Ask questions..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't lame
If the market will support this kind of a fee per song, then let them be. If the sheeple refuse to look for better player/music options then so be it. And besides, as it was noted, you have always been able to get around their DRM by burning a CD and converting it back to an MP3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying more
Yes. You might not, but the average person probably will, and will think it's pretty cool that they can get DRM-free music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
The people that were stupid enough to buy music with DRM now have the opportunity to mend their erroneous ways and their music collection for a pittance, and now they are complaining that they have to pay to undo their own stupidity?
But of course it takes no resources to remove the DRM, right? And I'm sure that the music companies are not riding Apple on this one for a cut of the $0.30, right? And I'm sure it would be totally worth the extreme pain in the ass to waste your own time doing the conversion manually, right?
Listen you whiny bitches, you made the mistake of purchasing music with DRM, and now you have the opportunity to correct that mistake for practically nothing. Just quit your bitching and do it, and then thank Apple for giving you the opportunity to do what you have been asking for for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Car Analogy
Actually, you're trading up to the brand new '09 model, with more capabilities and twice the quality level.
Besides, if people had large iTunes libraries then, for the most part, their music was working for them... and still does. Upgrading is simply an option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Car Analogy
Only now imagine that the new model and all it's features don't cost the dealer anything...not only to create the new model, but actually giving it to you doesn't reduce any of his "stock". I know I would be saying "Why am I paying for this...why would you not just give me this new model, because I have bought several hundred of these and plan on buying many more"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Car Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost for DRM-Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI not MP3 format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FYI not MP3 format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FYI not MP3 format
Probably should point out that the MP3 format (MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3) is also an ISO and IEC standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FYI not MP3 format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahaha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahaha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess I should amend that. Some percentage of the people who do this via Apple are those who value their time highly. For them, it's economically rational to pay for the service, same as a lot of other services people choose to pay for.
Personally, I don't care. Almost everything I have is in one or another 'lossless' format, and what I convert to lossy compressed files are things I either don't care much about, or just want to check out a couple tracks to see if I like that artist's stuff enough to want more and in a better quality format. But at home, I don't stream compressed files, and that's where I do most of my real music listening. And with storage getting cheaper and cheaper, there's really no need for me to bother at all anymore with lossy files. Most people I know who insist on having every track they own on their portable player, never even listen to 95% of what's on it; most don't even know half of what they have on it. I'd rather put fatter files on mine, and just change it up once in a while to keep things fresh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMFOA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understanding that Apple is not a 501(c)(3) Charity...
Besides, after credit card processing fees and any miscellaneous licensing fees levied by the record companies (Admit it- surely there are some), it's possible that Apple collects only 5¢ to 7¢ to cover the bandwidth, which isn't bad to ensure consistent iTunes experience. But overall, 30¢ seems like a reasonable price to pay for those who desire to extend the ability to play their music beyond what was originally-agreed upon when iTunes Users originally bought the song. Face it, as the Music Distribution model is changing, the technology is changing too. At least they offer the option.
I don't get the hatred for Apple here. I mean, when they dropped the price of the iPhone, they passed out $100 vouchers. Name another technology company that stands up for their customers like that, and is that fair.
[Waits Anxiously]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can buy iTunes Music and play it on your Zune Now!
This is great for someone who changes to Zune from iPod!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More of the Same
Stunning insight, Bozo. I suppose the mere fact that gas stations sell gas makes them solely responsible for the price of gas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
Let's look at iTunes largest competitor, eMusic.
Offers DRM-free music since its launch, and you can download an "already" purchased song as many times as you like without repaying for it.
Please explain to me where this makes sense? Yes we are getting a higher "quality" song, but the real question is, are these just 190 converted up, or are they recorded at 320?
Yes, their DRM is easily bypassed, but why force your user base to upgrade all of their music. This is ludicrous, I agree it is the best move, but it just seems like another one of Apple's marketing ploys.
"Please, we don't want DRM, but since it will make us lots of money - we will use it - and when the time comes, we can get rid of it and make even more money... muhahaha"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]