Jason Jenkins

Jason loves anything tech-related and drives his partner crazy by bringing home the latest gadgets to play with. So crazy, in fact, she has finally persuaded him to buy a new place to house all the junk -- sorry, life-changing consumer technology -- he has amassed over the years

RSS feed

Back to Jason Jenkins' Blog

Wednesday 7 January 2009, 12:47pm

Apple shouldn't charge for DRM-free upgrades

How many of you did the same as me and visited the iTunes store yesterday to find out how to upgrade your music library to a DRM-free version? And how many of you felt like you'd been taken for a mug?

I certainly did -- Apple's charging me for music I've already paid for. Any copy-protected music previously bought from the iTunes store that is now available in the iTunes Plus format without DRM can be downloaded again, but at a cost. Apple is charging £2 for each complete album or 20p per song. It might not sound like much, but even an incredibly infrequent iTunes user like me managed to rack up a £12 bill -- because you have to upgrade everything, or not at all.

Paying to upgrade tracks made some kind of sense to me under the old system in the UK. EMI tracks used to be available without DRM for 99p, as opposed to the normal copy-protected price of 79p. I didn't mind paying extra to upgrade to a DRM-free version of the song, because anyone that bought the album from iTunes for the first time had to pay extra too.

But all the copy-protected albums I bought for £7.99 a few months ago are still £7.99 today, so I feel like I'm being punished for giving Apple my money in the first place.

You could argue, as our digital audio expert Nate Lanxon did this morning, that Apple is providing you with a new product. iTunes Plus songs aren't just DRM-free, they are also double the bit rate of normal iTunes songs.

I can see his point, but in that case, why doesn't Apple give you the option of choosing which songs you upgrade to iTunes Plus? You either have to upgrade your whole library, or not bother.

Do I want a higher bit rate version of Do They Know It's Christmas? (2004) I bought in a weak moment? No I don't, but I've got one now, simply because I wanted DRM-free versions of a couple of decent albums I'd bought in the past.

Harrumph!

Update: Apple has now changed its mind, allowing you to pick the songs from your library to update to a DRM-free version. But this is little consolation to those that have already spent their money in the belief they had no choice but to re-download everything.

10 Comments | Post a comment

Back to Jason Jenkins' Blog

Comments on this post

Of course, it could be said that the mug is the one who paid for low quality, DRM-crippled tracks in the first place...

Posted by Rick on Wed 7 January, 2009 3:27 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

Yeah well, I'm a frequent itunes user, and my bill is already at 125 euros... ok it's for more than 550 songs in total, that's a heck of a lot of money to pay when you already paid for the music in the firt place. I suppose that the little number next to the link in the itunes store means how much of my library is available as itunes plus now. yesterday it was 75% now it's 95% I suppose by tomorrow it will be 100% and the final bill will increase too :P

Posted by Rafael on Wed 7 January, 2009 10:23 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

Just thought I'd reply this this bit of your post: "You could argue, as our digital audio expert Nate Lanxon did this morning, that Apple is providing you with a new product. iTunes Plus songs aren't just DRM-free, they are also double the bit rate of normal iTunes songs. " Again, this is Apple restricting freedom and choice. The increased bit-rate for DRM free tracks is a con. They are throwing out more bits as a carrot to make you pay for DRM free. This seems the clearest interpretation to me, seeing as they could just as easily supply a DRM free copy with an equal bit-rate to that of the DRM infected music. It begs the question, what would they charge for the high bit-rate copies if they still had DRM as well? Also, places like 7Digital charge less for albums while still supply an even higher bit-rate than Apple does. I am very pleased to NOT be an Apple customer.

Posted by David.R.Gilson on Thu 8 January, 2009 12:12 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

it's the fact that 'plus' tracks are available at the same price as 'DRM' tracks that makes you feel ripped off when upgrading. Anyway itunes may be great for downloading selected tracks but if you want a whole album, you're far better off going to Amazon or similar where you can get a full CD, artwork and information for much the same price - and of course you can add it to itunes in minutes with no need to buy blank CDs and print off /cut to size itunes artwork. The only downside is speed... itunes is good for impulse purchases. If you think that's worth paying for then your choice... Apple films are even worse value...

Posted by Lenny P on Thu 8 January, 2009 12:58 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

This is exactly why I won't buy off music off ITunes. CD's have no DRM, the best quality and can be ripped over and over again to accomadate the newest codecs and bit rates. I wonder if this will go to a consumer court

Posted by Rich on Thu 8 January, 2009 3:11 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

Why do people believe that they should get upgrades for free? DRMed music was bought as DRMed music. Its hardly like Apple forced you into purchasing it when it was DRMed. I do agree that not being able to upgrade selected songs does seem wrong.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 9 January, 2009 2:49 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

Google for a programme called Sound Taxi that will convert all your DRM tracks to non-DRM. Now I use the Amazon mp3 store where all music is DRM free AND about 10p per track cheaper than iTunes.

Posted by Calomax on Wed 25 February, 2009 12:12 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

It is wrong, and they should just let you upgrade for free, but then, it is apple and like the first post said the mug is the one who paid for low quality, DRM-crippled tracks in the first place. There are DRM free alternative sites out there and some are cheaper and have a higher bit rate than itunes. I for one will not buy any music online unless it is in a lossless format.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 11 March, 2009 9:22 AM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

pity the good citizen. ha. ha. ha.

Posted by budee budinski on Mon 16 March, 2009 10:28 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment

@ the person who thinks people should pay. Many poor idiots who know nothing about technology bought I pods instead of decent mp3 players and subsequently used I tunes as it was the only service they knew of. Its a bad business decision losing apple consumer goodwill. Its like arguing that creative was justified when it used to charge for alchemy. Though in the end anyone who hasnt realised by now that apple are shameless price gougers, charging over the odds for every product they sell needs to re evaluate reality.

Posted by John on Sat 23 May, 2009 5:13 PM

Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment