iTunes music: The cost of removing Apple's copy protection
When Apple announced Tuesday that it was finally lifting the so-called digital rights management (DRM) restrictions that iTunes music customers found so onerous, it left one thing out: the cost of doing so — in money and, as we learned overnight, time.
“We are thrilled to be able to offer our iTunes customers DRM-free iTunes Plus songs in high quality audio," said Steve Jobs in a press release.
"It's really easy," said senior vice president Phil Schiller in his Macworld keynote address, "to go in and convert your entire music library" with one click.
He didn't mention that it would cost you 30 cents per song, 60 cents per music video, and 30% of the cost of an album to do it.
Leave it to Apple (AAPL) to turn the lifting of restrictions into a profit center. If users convert every one of the 6 billion songs purchased from the iTunes Store over the past six years, a rich new revenue stream will flow toward Cupertino. Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld calls it a "$1.8 billion music tax."
Of course, not all of those 6 billion songs will be converted. Apple's DRM protection scheme made it difficult to move music from one computer to another, share it with friends or play it on a non-Apple music player, such as SanDisk's (SNDK) Sansa Fuze or Microsoft's (MSFT) Zune — restrictions that don't affect every iTunes customer.
Besides, as AppScout helpfully points out, you can still make your songs DRM-free by burning them on a disk and ripping them back into iTunes.
But the burn-and-rip process is cumbersome and wastes a lot of plastic, so we decided to try the Schiller one-click method.
The first thing we learned was that it's not quite as easy as he made it sound.
When I went to the iTunes store, the little "Upgrade My Library" button, which usually appears at the bottom of the Quick Links box in the upper right hand corner of the front page, was mysteriously missing.
It took some time to figure out why. If you have several iTunes accounts — as I do — you have to log in on the account you used to purchase your songs before you can convert them. (Note to Steve: Removing a button is not the best way to send this message to a user.)
When I finally situated myself in the proper account, the button appeared. I clicked it and held my breath. I have a lot of stuff in my music library — 4,579 songs, to be precise. Converting all that music could be prohibitively expensive.
As it turned out, the bulk of my songs had nothing to do with Apple. Most of them were copied legally from my — and my friends' — CD collections.
But 231 songs — consisting of 100 individual titles and 6 albums, according to iTunes — had been purchased from the Apple store and were eligible for conversion at a cost of $50.60.
OK. At 12:25 a.m. PST, I clicked and waited.
Seven hours later, I'm still waiting.
"Your iTunes Plus upgrade is now processing," my computer tells me. "When your iTunes Plus music is ready to begin downloading, you will receive an email with download instructions and other information about your upgrade."
Either a lot of people decided to convert their music Tuesday night, overburdening Apple's iTunes servers, or this is a more cumbersome process than I — or Phil Schiller — imagined.
UPDATE: Three days, six error messages, three phone calls to Apple, two intercessions by iTunes customer support and $109.47 later, I've successfully update all the copy-protected items in all my accounts — 473 songs and 14 albums. I think I may need a better sound system to hear the difference in audio quality.
I think the comments here on copyright law are pretty far of base. It’s not an agreement or contract, it’s not about being a man of your word, and it really doesn’t have much to do with the true legal definition of theft either. Copyright law (in the US, at least) simply gives the author of an original work certain exclusive rights (such as the right to reproduce the art, distribute, perform, make derivative works, etc…). The key word here is exclusive. The author can exclude others from (among other things) reproducing, distributing or performing the work. Of course, to make money, authors enter into contracts and permit certain people (ie- record labels, publishers, etc) to reproduce, distribute and sell their work.
When you buy a song, you don’t enter into an agreement with the artist or whoever actually owns the copyrights. Agreements are contracts generally governed by the common law. Copyright is federal statutory law. Plus the basic elements of contracts don’t apply (ie- meeting of the minds, definite terms, etc.)
Profit has nothing to do with it. Copyright is an exclusive right not predicated on an author losing out on profits. As far as buying a song/record/cd and making your own copy, that is allowable under fair use doctrines. Fair use does not extend to peer-to-peer sharing. And yes, cover bands (actually, the bar they play in) must pay royalties to the copyright holder. (See BMI, ASCAP).
I have to laugh at John in Dallas: he reckons his back no one has heard of will loose lots of money because everyone will be copying John's music rather than buying it.
It's all part of my rock & roll fantasy…
Funny, I have a ton of vinyl to convert to MP3 and was NEVER presented with a contract either verbally or in writing by the publisher, artist or anyone else stipulating what John in Dallas suggests. On the contrary, when cassette tape machines came out, this issue was clearly settled in the courts to specifically allow individual non-commercial copying of music. In today's world there are a number of legitimate reasons why you need to be able to copy from one computer to another. For example, if my relative dies and wills me their iTune library, I need to copy it to my computer. (After all it is bought and paid for.) Too narrow for you? How about this, when I buy a new computer I need to copy all my music to the new computer without interferance from big brother since no transfer of party occurs. Cynik in Switzerland is exactly on the mark with his explenation that you don't have to worry about copying if it for private individual use.
When you purchase an album/CD you are entering into an agreement with the publisher, artist, etc. You buy the album or CD with the stipulation that you will not reproduce or distribute the material in way shape or form.
You can argue the differences between theft and copyright infringement all day long, but the truth is that you are still violating the agreement you made when you purchased the album, CD or DVD or whatever.
If you want to get picky about what the laws state and how they should be interpreted, then go ahead and argue it till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. People who make arguments such as these are only trying to find an excuse or loophole that will help ease their own guilt. An agreement is an agreement, and if you don't like it, then don't buy it.
It's not about theft, its about honoring your agreement. Be a man of your word.
The only theft that occurs in todays music is the price they charge for most of the so called "music" on the radio these days.
Alot of what I hear is simply an assault on the eardrums
"Funny how stealing music from artists and their labels has become “cool”. This makes me sick."
Don't be sick, Nick. Be cool, and learn something about the law. For example, theft and copyright are very, very different things. Learn the difference, and heal thyself of thy sickness:
Theft requires that the owner of something is deprived of it by the unauthorized removal of it from their possession.
So when something is copied, the owner is not deprived of its use. And when the item was shared, theft is even less clear. The analogy of choice is Jesus Christ sharing the loaves and the fishes with the multitude. The big guy only had a couple of fish and two breadsticks, but he was good enough to copy and share, and so everyone ate.
Imagine if one person in the crowd had accused Jesus of STEALING the fish and bread he created by understanding how to get around the DRM on such items?
I hear you say that would be outrageous, and I agree.
"A generation of entitled brats that justify their theft with bogus arguments of borrowing."
I sense your anger. Let me explain copyright law.
Copyright law, like other law, will only ever act as a remedy to restore you to the position you would have been in, had you not suffered a wrong from someone else. It is a commercial remedy, not a divine moral position to be enforced by the state.
OK? OK. Now what that means is that IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY…… and SOMEOBODY ELSE MAKES THAT MONEY BY COPYING YOUR STUFF…
… then you can say "Hey, that money should be mine! I worked for it, he got it. I claim it."
That is copyright. And so you can see, file sharing lacks the crucial element of PROFIT.
All those folks sharing information, none of them are profiting from it. No profit is being made by one party at the expense of another. Hence, the commercial remedy is not available.
What has happened is that technology has taken away the crucial market advantage held by those privileged enough to own record and distribution empires. Now anyone with a PC is a distribution and recording empire.
But it does not follow that the pre-existing recording and distribution empires have been WRONGED. Not at all. Their time ran out. There was nobody wronged when the technology to record music created these massively profitable PRIVATE BUSINESSES. And there is nobody wronged when technology taketh away such opportunities, placing them in the hands of the despised masses.
It is just technology moving on, and it has nothing to do with theft, or moral outrage. What you consider your righteous moral outrage is actually just vented frustration at the collapse of pipe dreams.
Let me break it to you gentle: Your music never was worth a damned thing, Nick. It was the distribution, marketing and copying technology that made the money.
Ask anyone in a cover band.
Funny how stealing music from artists and their labels has become "cool". This makes me sick. A generation of entitled brats that justify their theft with bogus arguments of borrowing. Borrow a candy bar and throw the shit back at the store and you won't have to pay for it either, right?
Upgrading to DRM-free tracks has been possible since iTunes Plus was introduced when EMI agreed to remove DRM about 18 months ago. There was a cost to do that and it's the same to do it now for everything else, so this should not be a surprise to anyone.
What I see as a problem, now that there is so much to upgrade in one go, is that there is no way to select what you wish to upgrade – it's all or nothing.
Sorry your experience sucked, but i'm sure most people were able to upgrade their collections without any hassle as I did.
I think the initiation woes of the app store and mobileme have taught us all that you don't attempt to take advantage of things like this within 24 hours of Apple's announcements.
i really want to update my itunes. I have a pretty good collection, the total for upgrade is over $220.00, which is not the problem. I was reviweing the grades, and there not the same songs as a bought. Like Tha Carter III wants to upgrade to a clean copy when i bought a explict. Does anyone else notice this.
I have quite a few songs that I downloaded "illegally" but that I actually have on (probably long-oxidised) cassettes and even vinyl. Converting these myself was too tricky/expensive.
I OWN over 930 cds, 1300 vinyls, but…times like this make me glad I have over 11,500 stolen songs. I produce, record, sell my own music on iTunes. Sorry, but I won't pay $0.99 for absolutely nothing.
you're welcome philip, but it still says 9 billion in the next paragraph…
Of course, not all of those 9 billion songs will be converted.
ex ped: Aargh. Fixed now. Thanks again.
Philip said:
Techcrunch’s Erick Schonfeld calls it Apple’s “$1.8 billion music tax.”
False. Erick's actually calling it the labels' (not Apple's) music tax. Read the linked article:
But it looks like the labels prevailed in sticking it to consumers on one last point. [...] That’s a music tax, plain and simple. No wonder the music companies finally relented.
Some of you folks (e.g., Pete H. or Keith from DC) need to read a tad better. The author "struck out" the word "legally" which, as most of us understood, meant that he knew it wasn't legal to do that.
So it's illegal to rip your friend's CDs? What about CDs you check out from the local library? Presumably their fair use is to lend it to you, and while it is in your possession, aren't you extended the same license as was granted to the library?
Really? Pay to remove this? Are you guys serious? Look, simply use another program to convert the music into a different format (like to the MP3 format which still works on the Ipod). Its magic – ITS GONE!
A great way to convert your music for free and not waste plastic is to burn your songs out to a rewritable CD-RW. I've been using that method for a few years and am still on the same disc.
Just use Apple's Disk Utility to erase the disc after each import to continue the process.
My favorite statement was that "Apples was finally lifting the DRM" … puhlease … it was the music companies that insisted on DRM in the first place and only after Apple dominated the market did they start to lift that restriction …
Leave it to Apple (AAPL) to turn the lifting of restrictions into a profit center.
Is there a basis for asserting the profits go to Apple? Or could this be what the Record Labels are charging Apple to allow Apple to do this? Either answer is possible, but I'd like something to back up the assertion the money from this goes to Apple, as opposed to the Record Labels.
I had 47 songs and a couple of albums and it cost my about $20. It took about 15 minutes to download everything and it gave me an option to backup my original DRM files.
On a side note, I've removed the DRM from a number of songs via hymn(when it worked) and the Burn-and-Rip technique and removed the original DRM'd files. iTunes still offered to remove the DRM from them based (I assume) on their records.
Some perspective?
Anyone remember the cost to "upgrade" from vinyl, to cassette, to CD? (yes, the order of "upgrade" is arguable! I LOVE the sound of VINYL through a nice hifi!, but can't carry that in my car, or jogging, etc. Also, you can't have shuffle or playlists with vinyl. So everything carries some level of compromise. Welcome to life!)
Does anyone remembe seeing signs to come in with our vinyl, and get the CD for .30 cents a track, since we had already purchased the "intellectual property?
No, I don't remember that either!
Folks, don't shoot the messenger if you don't know the rules either. A one-off copying of music from a friend is not illegal–it generally falls under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright meaning that the user who legally purchased it has the right to use the purchased material in most any way possible. This is dramatically different from BitTorrent and all of the other file-sharing sites whose sole purpose is allowing tens of thousands of copies.
One might argue that its nearly impossible for DRM to keep up with technology, but it's funny that the DRM police have ingrained their side of the argument so deeply (any copying of music is illegal and immoral), likely through suing of students using Napster/BitTorrent and the like, that people don't really know what they can do.
you know you all could probably save a fortune by just buying some software that automatically exports your itunes library on to a "cd" and re-imports it after it "burns" the music… for as little as 25 bucks… i have over 3,000 songs and it cost me 30 bucks to get rid of the DRM…
While there is occasionally use the iTunes store to buy one song off an entire album. Most of the time I still prefer buying the CD.
Take an iPod and hook it up to high-quality stereo equipment, I'm talking $5,000 plus kind of system and the real shortcomings of music played over an iPod are very plainly obvious.
The amount of compression used to make the file size OK for downloading to fit it on an iPod sounds OK with ear buds or a small docking system from the likes of Bose or others. But if you really enjoy listening to music that gets close to concert quality, an iPod hooked up to quality equipment misses the mark by a lot.
Buying a CD gives you the best of all worlds. You can rip it into your iPod for the convenience of listening to the music anywhere (convenience is after all what iPlod is really all about), while also being able to enjoy music the way the artist intended, and with no Digital Rights issue.
Buying your music exclusively on iTunes is easy for sure, but it is like adding a little water to a bottle of wine to make it last longer. Some people won't notice, but there is something wrong with it.
iPod's slogan should be, "Music restricted and watered down and sold to you for just 99 cents over the Internet. We know you won't care cause it's easy." Maybe a little long but it hits the mark.
One point not mentioned is that not only does the upgrade remove DRM, but it also replaces the 128kbps AAC with a better quality 256 kbps AAC file.
I upgraded my library, but there are still more songs that are waiting for '+' status.
I found I had 8 albums and individual 51 songs for a total of 141 songs. I didn't have much trouble purchasing the ~$35 update.
The problem was the downloading. It took all night to download just a few dozen songs. The bottleneck appears to be in the importing of the song into iTunes once it's downloaded. I don't know if this is related to the archival of the old DRM'd file or not, but it's very slow.
I still have about 80 songs to download.
I went through the same process and have well over 1,000 songs to upgrade. I've been now waiting for over 12 hours for my mysterious email from Apple to let me know when I can download the songs. I'm annoyed that there wasn't a better explanation of how long it will take.
re: "Most of them were copied legally from my — and my friends’ — CD collections." Um, no… songs copied from your friends' CD collections were likely not copied legally, just DRM free.
Quote: "As it turned out, the bulk of my songs had nothing to do with Apple. Most of them were copied legally from my — and my friends’ — CD collections."
Copied music from "my friends" CD collections… Does that sound legal??
If your going to be reporting on digital rights management, learn the law!
any thought that perhaps the music labels required such terms? and ripping your friend's cd collection isn't legal, btw.
I performed the upgrade on my library and it took less than 5 minutes. I have been upgrading the songs as they switched over the last several months, so only 10 song were available for update as of last night. Cost was around $3.00. The better format will be appreciated by my ears.
This is a big "why bother?" Unless, you're unsatisfied w/ iPods and switching to a Zune, but who is going to do that? But, if this allows you to suck songs off of your friends computer via iPod and transfer them to your own I suppose it may have a use. Could you do that? It's unclear.
Yikes! It'll cost me about $45 to upgrade my library.
What irks me most is not the inability to choose which music to convert. What irks me is that in almost every case I will have to pay $3 to upgrade albums that were purchased for $10 and that are currently worth $10.
Yes, I know that it's cheaper to upgrade than to re-purchase the album, but it feels like adding an extension to your home only to find out that it's worth no more than it was before.
Oh wait, I see. Apple figures that in today's economy the average person would hardly expect more.