iTunes Scraps Copy Protection, For A Price

Apple Announces The End Of Digital Rights Management At Macworld 2009; Upgrading Your Library Could Be Costly

(CNET)  Apple and the three largest music labels didn't take any half steps in walking away from copy-protection software at Macworld 2009 Tuesday.

Apple could have announced, as expected, simply that the iTunes Store would begin offering songs stripped of digital rights management from now on. Instead, the country's largest music retailer secured licenses that will enable users to upgrade their existing DRM-wrapped music and strip it of the controversial software, but it's going to cost you.

An Apple spokesman offered more details: Users of iTunes can now upgrade their music libraries with a click of a button. For and additional 30 cents per song, a user can receive a DRM-free version of their existing tracks at a 256-kbps bitrate.

---

Click here for more Macworld Expo coverage from CNET News.

---

Starting Tuesday, Apple will offer 8 million DRM-free songs and another 2 million by April. The hold-up for the remaining songs is due to licensing issues, according to my sources.

I'm not going to gripe about that. Those kind of details work themselves out and it's impressive that Apple and the major labels -- Universal, Sony BMG, and Warner -- worked out a deal for the 8 million.

With the move, Apple's iTunes is also making its strongest foray into interoperability. From now on, iTunes' music should play on any digital player and this means iTunes users don't have to worry about their music libraries being locked out of some future digital music player.

Apple had already offered DRM-free music from EMI, the fourth-largest music label, at a higher bit rate for a premium price.

[vranger]

You are correct that the quality of new product is appallingly bad. However, that is a separate issue from the theft of their product. They are entitled as an industry to protect themselves from bootleggers, whether small time or big time.

Just because people are uncomfortable with being labled with the tag of criminal when they steal something doesn''t excuse them from being criminal.

And there is no way to tell the extent that the theft of product has kept the music industry from being able to identify and develop new talent, by depriving them of capital needed to fund those efforts. I''m quite certain that there has been SOME effect on that which can be traced to loss of income, however.

[bhrater-2009]

In the last ten years the music industry has shown about as much innovation as the American Automobile industry.
Going after people who swap music, rather than producing good cd''s at a reasonable price. Using enhanced cd''s with video and interviews to give a person a reason to but the cd, not copy protection software.
CD sales are down because the music industry hasn''t promoted the medium, it''s just complained like a spoiled child who isn''t getting it''s way. But digital downloads are up, and I don''t hear them saying anything about that revenue; they are getting money from them??

[vranger]

"My best friend and I have literally traded entire CD collections from 2,000 miles apart. Cost to do so - $0. Money to big music conglomerates - $0"

Seems so harmless and "Robin Hood", doesn''t it? And when two guys do this. what''s the big deal?

The big deal is that when millions of people do this you have to add to your silly little list:

Money to studio technicians - $0
Money to secretaries - $0
Money to store clerks - $0
Money to janitors - $0
Money to back up musicians - $0

The list goes ON and ON. These are people who are NOT rich or big companies (tho they may work for them) who lose their jobs or have them jeopardized because you think that becoming a criminal for your own convenience is "cool and smart".

Hell, you may even know some of the people you''ve helped put out of work. I''m sure they''ll understand that they had to lose their job because you are so clever.

[ibzjem]

Sorry to burst some of your bubbles here, but Apple is NOT the only company with DRM music files. Windows WMA have the same deal. I''m more into a functioning music player and not much into copyright infringement. So I choose an iPod. It was the right choice for me.

I once thought Apples were too expensive, but then I built a Dell with every option I could choose that would make it the same as a MacBook (was still short hardware and software features) and it came out to be as expensive or more than a MacBook. Simply put, you get more with the MacBook than an any notebook and you don''t have to run windowZ. But if you want to run WindowZ, the MacBook will do it better than any notebook and if you really want to, you can run both at the same time.

[quartersaw]

All that I use on my iPod is MP3''s.
Sounds like you don''t know how to use an iPod
The Zune is a buggy piece of ***....
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The mp3 format is much better since it has little to no compatibility issues with most programs and can be transferred to any number of players. It makes ripping CDs quick and painless - select the

[shanev137]

Come on. 30 cents a song? Really? That''s hysterical.


People...the program is called -SoundTaxi-


It costs about $40 and removes DRM from anything.


Geez o''man.

[black1691]

I find Apple and interesting Company. They paint themselves as the underdog and champion of the little guy yet their products are always the most expensive, most closed and most inflexible. I started with an iPod and quickly found the Zune to be a MUCH more open, flexible and reliable platform. I do not believe Apple had a choice on this latest move, people would have left them in drives as they have realized that they were supporting a solution that was inflexible and not geared toward the customer.

[ndg1979]

I agree with tmittelstaed. There is no reason to download songs at a huge premium from a service which keeps the tools you can use exclusive to prevent other companies from profiting. In business, this is known as a monopoly. The mp3 format is much better since it has little to no compatibility issues with most programs and can be transferred to any number of players. It makes ripping CDs quick and painless - select the song(s) you want to copy or "rip", hit the burn CD button and you are done.

As for not being allowed to "rip" music for others, that is something the industry just cannot simply control thanks to the availability of the CD burner for the average person. It is physically impossible to do so. My best friend and I have literally traded entire CD collections from 2,000 miles apart. Cost to do so - $0. Money to big music conglomerates - $0. Lifetime of listening pleasure - priceless.

Sorry Apple for not buying into your fleecing (marketing) and sorry Mac users for being taken for a ride.

[tmittelstaed]

Churches do not need to pay license fees for congregational songs, that is utter nonsense. Any church can use any of the tens of thousands of royalty free arrangements of hymns that are available. For any song composed over a century ago you can find arrangements of it that have expired copyrights and are royalty free.
Churches pay these fees for the simple reason that doing so is cheaper than having the church''s music director spend the time to make sure that the music they are using isn''t under copyright, AND it allows them to use "hymns" and music that were composed very recently. I suppose if you worship by singing AC/DC "Highway to H e l l" then being able to use recently composed music is important to you. But that is a decision your church (and I use the term very loosely) is CHOOSING to make. Your church DOES NOT NEED to use such music, there''s far more church music out there that predates copyright than is under copyright.

[tmittelstaed]

If you walk into a record store and buy a CD you CAN put it on your ipod, mp3 player, phone and computer. It''s done by a process called "ripping" but as a Mac user your probably not familiar with that. Seems that most Mac users think that they can only buy CD''s electronically by downloading them from iTunes Store. Sheesh. Grab a clue phone, baby.
As for the legalities, it''s legal to do this under Fair Use. The VCR wars settled this with a series of court cases back in the 70''s. It''s just not legal to rip an mp3 and give it to someone else.

[docadams3]

Elvis has left the building.

[dovestar]

We can howl all we want to, but the bottom line is that the record companies have every right to restrict what the law considers "their" property. Copyright law is an invention of the US Constitution and our Founders intended that to encourage the development of culture within our flegling nation. However, these days, people have taken copyright beyond the intent of the Founders. This abuse has let to among other things, your church being forced to pay license fees for congregational songs, etc. Think I''m kidding? Next time you go to church, look for the letters CCLI on the title slide of your congregational song. That costs your church money. This has gotten way out of hand.

[dnamj]

I agree that they are totally greedy. You can tell because the artists end up getting screwed.

[toolmangler-2009]

Greedy pigs that should be taken out and shot. While were at it lets get the members of congress too.
Posted by cbscrash072 at 06:35 PM : Jan 06, 2009




I tend to agree. Two wrongs don''t make a ''right''.

[cbscrash072]

Greedy pigs that should be taken out and shot. While were at it lets get the members of congress too.