Most of my friends don’t pay for their music. Sure, they’ll buy and receive CDs for birthdays and Christmas. But when they hear a song on the radio that they like, they simply download it for free from one of the hundreds of peer-to-peer, torrent or pirate networks.
These friends enjoy access to the most comprehensive music catalog in the world that includes The Beatles and many obscure acts. They own tens of thousands of songs. They can play their music on any computer, stereo, automobile or portable device without worrying about copy protection or play limits. Their music is high-fidelity 256 kbps MP3s, a sound that’s fairly close to the original recordings. They own their music forever, with no expired subscriptions to worry about. And the best part is they didn’t have to pay a cent for this incredible restriction-free collection of music.
Then there’s me. No doubt I am the stupid one of the group for actually paying for my music. Every one of the 5,645 songs in my catalog was fully paid for, either by purchasing a physical CD or a digital download from Apple iTunes.
In return for my honesty, I’ve had to deal with restrictions on which PCs I could play my music, having to authorize and de-authorize PCs and songs in a constant shuffle. I’ve been locked to the iPod, unable to play my iTunes copy-protected music on the Microsoft Zune MP3 player I received for Christmas. I’ve put up with the slightly tinny and hollow sound of the copy-protected 128 kbps AAC-encoded digital iTunes. I had to purchase physical CDs because the Beatles hadn’t yet gone digital. I’ve had to go without some of the more interesting older blues songs that are out of print. And all this hassle has cost me about $5,000.
So you can imagine my joy when I heard that Apple iTunes is finally ditching its copy-protection scheme. Now all songs for sale on iTunes are “iTunes Plus” songs. This means that every song is available in high-fidelity 256 kbps format without digital rights management (DRM). There are no burn limits, and iTunes Plus music will play on all iPods, Mac or Windows computers and many other digital music players.
Not only is this a great thing for my future purchases, I also couldn’t wait to upgrade all my old digital songs and get out of DRM-jail. But then I saw this personalized message from iTunes:
After paying over $600 for my iTunes music, I now need to pay another $176.07 to “upgrade” my copy-protected low-fidelity songs to what my friends have been enjoying all these years for free. That’s right, Apple iTunes and the music industry are rewarding its best honest customers with a big fat “Screw You” bill.
I’m a believer that everyone should be paid for their honest work. If something has value, we should pay for it. Unlike many socialists, miscreants and criminals on the Web, I’ve always been a proponent for paying a reasonable fee for music, movies and software.
“Software, music and digital content take real effort to produce, and therefore have real value. In a civilized society and market economy, people trade goods and services for a reasonable fee in order to make a living. Society benefits because individuals can specialize, raising the value of each individual and the entire economy collectively, resulting in more innovation, personal wealth and chance for a better life for most people.”
But enough is enough. Apple iTunes and the record companies are punishing their customers for being loyal and honest. I find it really hard to swallow a $176 bill to free myself from the shackles that iTunes locked me into in the first place. Call me naive, but I believe a better solution would have been for iTunes to reward its loyal customers with free upgrades or even a 5-cent rebate to upgrade each song. They could call it the “I wish I had a nickel for every song I could’ve stolen” iTunes customer loyalty campaign.
People should not pirate music, but in this case, perhaps we are justified to steal the music for which we have already paid. Nahh, I’ll grumble but I’ll pay, and Apple knows it. The record companies need as much revenue from honest citizens as they can get, especially at a time when so many others get their music for free.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Related posts:
- Music Industry Wants Fees from iTunes 30-Second Free Previews
- iTunes Genius: Not So Smart After All
- Apple Removes $1000 Do-Nothing Application from iPhone Store
- No, Silly, Piracy is Theft
- Kiss Talks About Music Piracy
August 25th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Wah, wah, wah! Serves you right for actually paying for your music. If you would just steal your music like the rest of us you wouldn’t be having all these problems.
You could’ve taken that $5,000 you wasted on the rich record companies and instead donated it to a local music school where it would have done alot more good.
And now iTunes has raised its rates on many songs to $1.29. I like “free” much better.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
[...] the whole story here: timm aggregated by [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 11:25 am
[...] Read the rest at DevTopics >> [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I don’t pirate, but I caught on to their scheme on my first $.99 purchase that could only be played on an IPod or Itunes. And these are the forerunners of accusing M$ of locking its customers into products.
Everything they accuse M$ of doing they do in a way more dubious manner… all their commercials ever appeared to as me is… “Your not cool unless you use our stuff.” All they did was market to the half-intellegent by saying their stuff was cooler, sleeker, and more hip. I laugh at all my friends that call me and complain when they get their repair bills cause their Mac OS crashed or it had some kind of hardware failure. Things they thought Macs weren’t gonna do.
Apple Inc is a huge batch of hypocrites that make half-arsed products. I think things like this point to why Google stepped away from them and went in their own direction.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
[...] Read the original post: Apple iTunes Rewards its Honest Customers with a Big Fat Bill [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I feel for you. My bill for this “upgrade” was $127 and change. I was so mad at itunes that I asked my frends where they were getting their music, and found an awesome torrent. I replaced my protected itunes songs, but let me tell you, it was really hard to stop there. After seeing how easy and free it is to download whatever I want, it’s really tough to go back to paying 99 cents and now $1.29 at itunes, especially given how they treat their loyal customers like s***.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
yoho yoho a pirates life for me
August 25th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Considering the junk music labels put out these days… and the prices they charge… and the expensive lifestyles these artists believe they are inclined to and flaunt just cause they can make one decent song…
I say stick it to em!
August 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
No offense, but you must be over 30, right? The reason I ask is I don’t know anybody under 30 who actually pays for their music. Sure we buy discs and gift cards for birthdays and stuff like you say. But I can’t remember the last time I paid for music for myself. Probably back in the late 90s when I got my first CD player as a teen.
What Apple and the record biz fails to realise is their whole market is a house of cards. Eventually all you geezers will grow too old to buy music, and then there will be nobody left to pay their ridiculous prices.
Im sorry that you played by the rules and got burned. That’ll teach you to stop trusting Apple.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
[...] Originally posted here: Apple iTunes Rewards its Honest Customers with a Big Fat Bill [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Are all of you people serious?
On one hand half of you complain that the music is not good enough to pay for but on the other hand you are willing to brake the law to steal it. HUH?
All of this and then bash on Apple, which is the company that forced the record industry to get to the point of selling digital DRM free music (which most of you will still not purchase).
Now you are upset about being charged to “UPGRADE” your music collection when you knew what you bought when you spent your $600 and had no reason to believe it would ever be more than what it was. Did you picket Warehouse Records when CD’s came out demanding that you get copies of CD for all of your Tapes? When formats change you pay! Just be glad that Apple is offering you a low cost upgrade.
If you don’t like the labels music, buy independent music and really stick it to the man, but don’t steal music and justify it by saying it is not worth the buck that is being charged.
Think about this! potatoes are one of the cheapest foods on the planet but you pay 2 bucks for half of one sliced up and deep fried. Talk about over charging, maybe you should break into a McDonalds I mean it is their fault for over charging RIGHT!
August 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@”Did you picket Warehouse Records when CD’s came out demanding that you get copies of CD for all of your Tapes?”
There’s a big difference: What you mention is an industry-wide technology upgrade. What Apple did is just remove its own licensing restrictions.
But in a way you’re right. The author did knowingly pay for a crippled product, even though it was the only viable legal option at the time. And so now he must pay again to uncripple it. Even though it’s the same company who crippled and uncrippled it (smart move, Apple!)
But I think his bigger point isn’t about the upgrade, but a broader lesson how playing by the rules and paying for music is currently a losing proposition. The people who actually pay for music should be rewarded and not treated like sh**, then maybe the rest of us would actually pay.
But probably not… the genie is already out of the bottle, and these precedents only reinforce our position.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
It’s a sad day on Planet Earth. Honesty is no longer it’s own reward. People want to be paid to be honest.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The other Steve is right. Everyone knows it doesn’t pay to be honest. In fact, you are often punished to be honest, like in this case.
Lie, cheat and steal, that’s the answer. Not.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The solution is simple. Buy your MP3s from Amazon.com! Always DRM-free, and usually cheaper than iTunes.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
When you upgrade your songs from FairPlay to the new unlocked files, you also get a new version that is *twice* the fidelity of the previous version. So for 1/3 the price of your original purchase, you can double the quality of your music, and gain increased flexibility in how you use it.
How is that not a good deal? When have you ever received a 70% discount when moving from one music format to a higher quality one? If the song was worth 99¢ at 128kbps with known restrictions, it’s not worth 30¢ to double the quality and loose the restriction?
Think of it this way — if initially there’d been the DRM-restricted, 128kbps for 99¢ *and* the unrestricted 256kbps $1.29 songs for sale, which would you have bought?
August 25th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I also have thousands of songs that are legal and I will continue to buy songs. I am not going to sacrifice my integrity just because it is free to steal. It is also free to steal firewood from my neighbor, to fill my gas tank and just drive off, to put things into my pocket at the grocery store, to watch a movie and then sneak into the movie next door, to walk out of a restaurant without paying, to pull a knife on a little lady on the street and ask for her wallet, to copy software that has a paid license. I don’t do any of these things and I don’t steal from musical artists.
I find it a bit disingenuous to blame Apple for the Beatles. Paul, Ringo and the various estates are the reason that you cannot download their songs – not Apple Inc.
It is also a bit BS to blame Apple for the quality and price of the music that it sells. The vast majority of that money goes straight to the record companies (and then a small portion to the artists). Blaming Apple for music quality and the price is simply not fair and shows a lack of knowledge of what the world that they live in. Even the selling of songs in AAC format is in their contract. Of course what is NOT in their contract (I think) is the non-licensing of AAC to other players (not sure about this – there is some speculation that this was in the original contract and may still be in there and, if so, would probably benefit the record companies AND Apple).
I suggest those that complain about Apple and the record company should have tried to live in the 60s, 70s, and 80s when our music media wore out. Yes, I am over 30 and I cannot believe how cheap music is and why in the world you would want to steal it.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
It’s not a “bill” – it is an offer to upgrade at a discounted cost.
Bills have to be paid, while you are completely free to ignore this offer.
Everything will work exactly as it always has.
While I appreciated the convenience of buying albums and especially individual tracks via iTunes, I generally avoided it and purchased a (preferably used) CD to rip instead because I did not like the modest restrictions that came with the old FairPlay DRM.
So for me, upgrading to DRM-free tracks was a trivial cost.
In my opinion, the only reason that you can buy major-label DRM-free music online today (including at places like Amazon) is because Apple amassed a *lot* of clout and drove a very hard bargain with the record labels to make it so.
You got what you paid for – if all you are concerned with is the DRM, I believe there are tools available to strip that off. I won’t use them myself, but I personally view such things as much less morally questionable than outright piracy, which you offer as an “alternative” method you could have used to acquire your music library. As screwed up as the music industry is, I still don’t view piracy as a moral or ethical option.
But if you want removal of the DRM *and* improved audio quality, I’d say the $0.30 per track is a reasonable price. YMMV.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Geo Said:
>There’s a big difference: What you mention is an industry-wide technology upgrade. What Apple did is just remove its own licensing restrictions.
<
Is it really that different? Apple agreed to DRM to get the music industry to allow for download purchases. It was not Apple's choice, it was a compromise that the entire industry required. As apple gained power they convinced EMI to go DRM free (before there even was an Amazon MP3 store). And got them to agree to allow users to upgrade. These were not Apple's "licensing restrictions". These were the industries licensing restrictions.
I also disagree with your assertion that "it was the only viable legal option at the time". He always had the option of CD's which he obviously exercised much more often than iTunes if only 600 of 5000 songs were from iTunes.
One question you never seemed to ponder is who the author is paying? We have no idea how much of that price is going to Apple and how much is going to the labels do we? But we know dam well it is not all going to Apple.
As for you"broader lesson". I hope you are not an adult or god forbid a parent. Because the lesson here is if you would have just taken responsibility for your own actions you would have seen this action by Apple as the gift it really was.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Geo sez, “…playing by the rules and paying for music is currently a losing proposition.”
Somebody must have some pretty awful taste in music. The music that I buy, I can hardly wait to get a little quiet time and bliss out on it. Or get excited. Or just enjoy. I dunno if the SF Symphony doing Mahler’s 8th will top any others, nor do I care as long as the SACD comes close enough to evoke the live performance. Anything on top of that is gravy.
And for all the pleasure I get out of it, I’m supposed to begrudge some musicians who’ve dedicated their lives to being the best, a decent living? Maybe I should boost coffee @ Starbucks because their greedy owners are the ones who make those caramel lattes so pricey? (Never mind that I’d hardly be a disinterested observer of what was fair.)
Here we are, in the richest damn nation on the planet, and we have to listen to whiners who only have 5000 channels on their little shiny toys and none of it’s worth listening to. Don’t like the news? (…or the music?) Go out and make some of your own.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Like most topics in life, there are two valid ways of looking at this issue:
Corporate Perspective:
Apple used to sell low-quality, DRM-locked songs for 99 cents. Now they sell high-quality, DRM-free songs for 99-129 cents. That’s an upgrade, so customers should pay for it.
Customer Perspective:
I am one of the honest people who has been paying for low-quality, restricted music while my friends were getting high-quality, unrestricted music for free. Now they want even more money from me. I shouldn’t be penalized for my good behavior.
Who wins? As always, the one with the most power, in this case, Apple and the record companies.
It would’ve been a grand gesture for Apple to reward its loyal customers, but that’s not the way the world works. As a public corporation, Apple has a fiduciary duty to wring as much cash from its customers as possible. Its decisions are not based on right or wrong or fair, but on profit (within the confines of the law).
In this case, Apple is offering a superior service to its customers who are willing to pay. That’s how capitalism works.
Whether you steal music or not is a decision you have to reconcile with your conscious, your local law enforcement, and your god.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Grandy, I’ll pose it to you too. Do you really believe Apple was allowed to give away the higher quality versions of the songs? Or do you think they had to pay the labels and negotiated a deal.
Normally when formats change the consumer is asked to pony up full price (or even a higher price) again to get access. This time it came at a discount and I’m betting you have Apple to Thank for that.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
>> “Blaming Apple for music quality and the price is simply not fair and shows a lack of knowledge of what the world that they live in.”
Re: music quality. 256K MP3s were available long before itunes was formed. Apple made a conscious decision to sell lower-quality 128K AAC format. They definitely deserve the blame for this decision.
Re: price. If you’ve kept up with the history, Apple dictated the 99 cent price. The record companies have complained for years about the fixed price, so much that Apple finally relented and started charging variable price. Amazon.com does the same, but almost always at the same or lower price than itunes.
What cannot be denied is that itunes and the record companies have and will continue to punish honest, legitimate customers with restrictions, limitations, and expenses. Although this doesn’t excuse music thieves, it gives them one more reason to rationalize their wholesale theft of digital music, which I agree is wrong, but I can see their point.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I hate to be the apple apologist here but in regard to apple choosing 128K AAC format I have to call BS. Not in so much as I know that they didn’t but in so much as there is no way you know that they did.
Lets get some perspective. Prior to the iTMS you could not purchase downloadable music for the major labels PERIOD! Apple negotiated a deal with the labels that I’m sure was fraught with compromise and got the labels to allow access to the music for Mac users only. It was months before they convinced the labels to open to Windows users (with more negations I’m sure).
Now lets be clear, Apple is not doing this because they care about the consumer. They are doing it because the better deal they can cut the more attractive their products look. That tied with the fact that they have called for the removal of DRM and ditched DRM as soon as they were allowed lead me to think Apple is the good guy in this equation.
NOTE: Amazon was given DRM free music before Apple as a way for the Labels to prop up a second player in the market so that Apple could not strong arm them. I’m just saying, I think your anger is misplaced.
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Apple is not the bad guy here. It’s just a public company trying to make money. That’s the free enterprise way.
But the underlying message of this article holds true: it pays to be a music pirate and sucks to be a paying customer.
In most other industries, pirated products typically provide less value for their lower or free cost. Pirated movies typically have poor sound and video quality. Pirated handbags don’t carry the true Gucci tag and can be spotted as fakes and often fall apart quickly. Pirated drugs may be ineffective or even deadly.
But with pirated music, the pirate enjoys a far superior product and experience for free than the customer who pays. The pirate has a virtually unlimited catalog, higher-quality sound, and no restrictions on where the music can be played.
Until the music industry figures out how to reverse this equation, the music industry will continue its free-fall.
For the record, I have a good job and pay for my music. But I know very few others who actually pay for music anymore.
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Sorry I have to disagree again.
Ok, so all pirated products are cheaper if you throw out the whole THEFT/illegal aspect of it. But your other points about music just aren’t true.
Finding music on the iTMS is faster and easier than even the best P2P networks (notable exceptions exists but they are very few).
As for quality, you would be hard pressed to consistently do better than the 256bit AAC encoding done by apple.
Oh ya! and there are no restrictions on purchased music on iTunes.
Sure, this has not always been true, but easy to use P2P has not always been true ether. I know a lot of people with Crap mp3’s from the good old days. And let me tell you, there is no simple button to press to make sure all of those files are updated to the newest versions like on iTunes.
So the underlying message I see is that it pays to pay for your music in a digital format more than in any other format that you have ever been able to pay for music and stealing is still wrong.
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
OK, so I think it’s obvious to everyone here that Doug Petrosky is an Apple shill.
“Sure, this has not always been true”
Isn’t that the whole point of the article? It wasn’t until very recently where legal music started to approach the quality, availability and portability of pirated tunes. But the horses left this barn long ago. It will take years to readjust attitudes, if that’s even possible.
“but easy to use P2P has not always been true ether.”
Napster nearly a decade ago was one of the easiest music products even to this day. Quality and selection were never a problem until the record companies started (rightly) sabbotaging the catalog with junk music. IMO, itunes is one of the more bloated, klunky music programs available today.
“stealing is still wrong”
About the only thing I agree with.
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Yes that was the point.
The counter point was that for the first time ever you were given credit for a previous purchase of music! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
But some specific statements were made that seemed misleading.
>> the pirate enjoys a far superior product and experience for free than the customer who pays<<> higher-quality sound, and no restrictions<> Until the music industry figures out how to reverse this equation,<<<
Give the devil his due, they have it figured out. What they offer through iTunes and Amazon is a superior buying experience and a high quality product without restrictions.
I'm no shill, and I don't think our point of views are actually much different. It is more of a half full vs half empty sort of a thing. Just as you see a negative from this I see a positive from this. It will be even more interesting once we see what happens with cocktail. Apple may again offer (at a discounted price) additional features for albums I have already purchased. They don't need to but it would make my choice to purchase through iTunes a higher value proposition, not a lower one (even though it might cost me money) because my existing investment is being carried forward.
It is hard to compete with the value of stolen if you are ok with that.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:06 am
People want to be paid to be honest.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am
[...] know anyone who gets their music just by listening to these short clips. Most people just steal their music outright. AKPC_IDS += "936,";Popularity: unranked [?]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Music Industry Wants Fees [...]
September 18th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Lesson in life: It’s often easier to steal. But as most criminals know by the time of their death: Crime does not pay.
You are right to bitch about this, but that’s the way it is. Being honest costs sometimes.
Let’s complain about stuff that really matters in life, like health care, war, energy, climate change, clean water, families. And whether Kanye West was a jackass.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:01 am
[...] Apple iTunes Rewards its Honest Customers with a Big Fat Bill [...]
October 11th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Thankfully Apple has gone DRM-free with it’s music which allows more flexibility with where and how you listen to the music you paid for. I actually read that many companies are profiting from the piracy of their own music by sending small fines to owners of pirated music servers. They get an average pay rate of 25% which exceeds the cost of full blown legal pursuit. Isn’t that something?