Slashdot Mirror
Apple Negotiates For Unlimited iTunes Downloads
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Bloomberg reports that Apple is in talks with record companies including Vivendi SA (VIV)'s Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group Corp. (WMG) and EMI Group Ltd. to give iTunes music buyers easier access to their songs on multiple devices. The deal would provide iTunes customers with a permanent backup of music purchases if the originals are damaged or lost and would allow downloads to iPad, iPod and iPhone devices linked to the same iTunes account. The negotiations come as iTunes is facing competition from new Web-based services such as Spotify Ltd., Rdio Inc. and MOG Inc. that focus on letting customers listen to songs from anywhere with an online connection, instead of downloading tracks to a hard drive. 'Long-time iTunes users know that one of the more obnoxious differences between music and app downloads on the iTunes Store is the fact that apps can be re-downloaded a seemingly infinite number of times,' writes Jacqui Cheng. 'In contrast, users can only download music tracks once — if you find yourself without backups and your music disappears, you must beseech the iTunes gods to let you re-download all your music—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, should they hear your prayers.""
I just got an iPhone 4. I really don't know why I waited so long. I suppose I was just happy with my previous phone.
But one of the key reasons I bought the iPhone was because of its MP3 capabilities. I have a lot of CDs and wanted to listen to them on the road, so I decided to burn all the CDs to the iTunes.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that buying the CD gives me something that iTunes music downloaders don't get. That is unlimited access to my music without DRM and without having to pay some online service for it.
I really like the Genius automatic playlist generator. I use it to all the time. If you're buying an iPhone, I recommend you also buy CDs so that you don't have the DRM problem mentioned in the article.
Well, since the music you download from Apple is DRM free, I would say yes.
I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
a move in the right direction.
As long as they make it harder to be legit then not, I'll never be in the basket with the other apples...
And even the cheeper DRM tracks, will continue to work, as they are not dependent on an internet connection to work...
And, you can burn them all to cd anyhow.
This is why I stopped using iTunes completely a few years ago, other than to put podcasts on my (now defunct) iPod nano.
You know who lets you download your songs as many times as you want?
The Pirate Bay
Since you only have a license for the content, then there is no reason why you should not be able to re-download it again. That license that you bought and paid for should not disappear just because you didn't perform a back up. If you have a physical copy such as a CD then there should be a replacement cost, but you can also sell and give away that CD, unlike a digital purchase which is tied to the account.
Erm, you seem to think iTunes has DRM. It doesn't.
You are correct about CD rips, Amazon MP3 purchases, and newer iTunes Store music purchases. But older iTunes Store music has DRM, and the iTunes Plus deal with the record labels doesn't include converting existing m4p files to m4a. Movies on iTunes Store still have DRM because of the six major movie distributors' wishes. Applications on iTunes Store still have DRM despite some developers' wishes.
So, I take it you don't have any backup system for any of your other data, either? That'll show 'em!
I've never used the ITMS largely because early on the DRM scheme was only available for iPod or iTunes and by the time they removed the DRM I was pretty angry for the bad behavior. But, this seems to be pretty bad, if they're advertising that you've bought these tracks, then you should be able to download them again it's not like CDs where they'd have to make and send you a new copy.
Not gonna happen. I've seen people attempt to negotiate unlimited redownloads, the big four labels will balk at this like mad, and then they'll demand that this only be enabled on DRMed content, and only for a limited amount of redownloads (7 or so).
The big four labels will see this as an attempt to renegotiate the royalties, and they'll fight tooth and claw to let royalties drop further.
Experiments and other stuff
What cheaper DRM tracks? NO TRACKS on the iTunes store have DRM on them at all. Back in the day they did, then there was a time where some of them didn't, now ALL of them do not.
The music industry has pretty much given up on DRM for copies of tracks they sell (as apposed to provide on subscription services etc)..New tracks bought from itunes, amazon etc are drm free and itunes DRM tracks could always be bunt to CD (which are DRM free though the quality loss and/or size increase that results from this method of drm removal is annoying). AAC isn't quite as common as mp3 but there are still loads of decoders and players out there for it.
It's other types of media that are getting locked down to the hilt.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I don't see what's "bad" about this. It's inconvenient, I'll grant you, it would be nice if the iTunes store acted as a backup for all my purchased music, but the idea makes sense when you consider the former paradigm. If you bought a CD in the past and lost, broke or damaged it, you went and bought a new CD. Was one of the ways the music companies kept making money on old stuff. This simply extended that concept to non-physical music purchases. If you "lose" them, you have to rebuy them. Since Apple's music has been DRM free for years and it's extremely trivial to backup the music, the risk of loss actually seems much lower to me that the risk of loss for a physical CD.
I'll be happy if they change this, it will be nice to know that I have yet another layer of backup in addition to the copies on my phone, computer, laptop, and backup disk, but realistically I'm not exactly worried as things are. Anything that wipes out every copy I have of most of my music has probably destroyed a lot more valuable things as well (not to mention the music I still do have on CD).
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
My experience represents just one customer but I have never had an issue getting Apple to reissue downloads to me after losing all my data. They happily obliged after a hard drive failure and after my computer was stolen. Shame on me for not having backups, but Apple has always been very accommodating.
Even if you dismiss the app store as being completely due to the iphones head start, Androids advantages are all subjective and nearly all are trade offs. Androids interface can be very nice and very configurable but isn't nearly as simple to use for the non technical. With iOS you dont have to depend on the phone manufacturer to feel generous and give updates, unless the hardware simply cannot support the new features with apple you just get them. With an apple device you know exactly what your going to get there is no consistent experience across android every phone manufacturer seems to do just do their own thing. As last week showed the "openness" of the platform makes it a target for malicious apps, I saw a quote last week that sums it up...Apple has a walled garden but its a nice garden with lots of pretty plants and no snakes.
Their music could always be burned to CD and is now DRM free. I'd post anonymous too if I was going to make totally uneducated comments about iTunes.
But ... I bought it on my iPod! How do I make a backup of it?
You sync it in iTunes.
What's iTunes?
The software that you have to install to use the device.
Where does that install?
On your computer.
But ... my computer broke down last month and I haven't gotten it fixed!
And?
And you have to get the music back for me!
No. Backup is your own responsibility.
But how?
Through your computer and possibly by copying it to an external hard drive as well
So why didn't I get a computer and hard drive with my iPod?
Because you didn't pay for it.
But YOU should provide it!
No.
Yes!
Why?
Because it's the law!
What law?
You have to!
Does Ford also have to provide you with every single tire your car will ever need, the gas it consumes, the oil it uses, the wiper fluid etc?
Well, don't be stupid, that's not the same thing!
Why not? Compared to the price of a new car, those things are minor. Compared to the cost of your iPod the computer and backup hard drive cost more than it does.
But you have to do it for me!
That is more or less the conversation I've had with a customer who was complaining about losing the two tracks he had bought from iTunes Store, nine months earlier and hadn't ever listened to since.
Personally I don't understand why the music execs are so greedy, but then again, they're not the ones having to tell customers that they have to handle their copies responsibly. Things might have a different tune, if every person who ever bought a scratched CD or LP had called the record company instead of returning to the store.
Plus, do your homework, Apple blatantly ripped off Xerox's PARC designs for their paperless office and made it into their Lisa and Mac offerings.
If by "blatantly ripped off" you mean "paid them good money to get access to" then you are absolutely correct.
It may be 7 digits, but at least it's a semiprime
and how about the "we want 30% off all the profit from content you sell on iDevices." bullshit. It's like a Junior Mafia Guy negotiating with the bighead Mafia chiefs, slowly scheming his way to be the Godfather...
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
I've regularly found tracks on the Japan ITMS that are only available in DRM form.
You want to have songs on your iPod AND your iPhone? No deal! Buy it twice!
Not true at all. 100% false. Truth this is not.
I've got my songs on 3 iDevices, paid once.
What mysterious flamebait are you spouting? You say Apple killed the album by allowing a la carte downloads of individual tracks. I say Apple finally allowed consumer freedom and choice since most people buy an album for only one song anyway. Ever listened to the awful filler on the rest of Britney Spears' albums after track 1 ends?
My wife who is very non-technical finds Android easier to use than the iPhone. I can't really get her to explain it though. A pity that, I'm truly interested in why. That knowledge could help me and others when making interfaces on phones.
-]Phreak Out[-
Not on spotify. Spotify is essentially a net radio where you get to choose what songs you want it to play. But if it goes off the air, you don't get to keep anything just like with the radio.
Of course, it's also free with advertisements and cheap without. But it does require "always on" internet, and a fee if you want to use it on things other then PC, though fee is minimal. Of course, considering that a month of ad-free access with right to use on any device supported by the client costs about as much as one album on itunes... why should I care?
Honestly, the main reason why itunes has never taken off around here in Northern Europe is because no one buys their music anymore. You just listen to it on spotify.
And if you absolutely must, you can just record line-out. But generally speaking, pirating would probably be easier and faster.
I stand corrected.... I didn't know that. :-)
Essentially any modern phone can play mp3s. Even nokia's S40 "dumbphones" that go for 50-ish without contract can play it. Often in better quality then iphone due to specialized DSP on board for cases when they're branded as "music phones".
I use Mog and couldn't be happer. I listen to a lot of new releases and it's a lot better to just download however much I want. I used to buy and rip CDs but that's kind of a waste of time IMO. I hate using iTunes to manage and sync files.
I remember, and I'll bet the record executives remember, a certain MacWorld keynote. If memory serves, an nVidia exec spilled the beans about the new Power Macs the night before the speech. When Steve got on the stage, those new Macs had ATI cards in them. It might not be a bluff, if they decide to kick one or more labels out of the iTunes store.
What do you mean, unlimited music downloads? You mean until now the tracks that you bought weren't available indefinitely?
Now i know why i never even looked at the iTunes store...
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
I never understood the appeal of buying one song. I'm much more comfortable with a subscription service like spotify (which i use) and wimp where you pay a sum each month and can listen to whatever song you want. I wish the movie and tv industry would go for this model as well and let you play anything as long as you subscribe on any device you want.
I used to have to visit MacRumors.com separately - thank you for saving me time by cross-posting all the latest Apple scuttlebutt here!
#DeleteChrome
So you blame Apple for this... who are the people who are currently working on making the deals necessary to remove this limitation?
Let's not forget the fact that they attempt to maintain complete control over your device. There's an App we don't approve of? Too bad! You can't have it.
The Android way: There's an app we don't aprove of? Just download it from one of the other stores - where there is even more malware than on our store.
Fandroids hate facts.
I must admit that I've bought (and downloaded free) apps from the App Store and had to re-download them later for free (due to reseting the hardware). On three iPod Touches connected to the same iTunes account. I just assumed that music tracks were like that, too (never bought one from ITMS). If this gets implemented, then it's a positive step forward.
Squirrel!
You mean "like eMusic did", unfortunately. They changed it recently - you are no longer able to re-download things.
Try going to one of those albums from your list. Notice how the button above the album now reads "re-purchase album".
Also, she's having an affair...with an iPhone-owner.
The problem with your argument is that this old paradigm applied to both CDs with application software and CDs with music. The new paradigm of online purchase with unlimited download is being applied by Apple to applications, the logical next step is to apply this to music as well.
The Android way: There's an app we don't aprove of? Just download it from one of the other stores - where there is even more malware than on our store.
You know that Android isn't the opposite of Apple, right?
(There are more than 2 big players in the smartphone market. For example, RIM, according to the most recent Nielsen report, has as many post-paid subscribers as Apple!)
Additionally iOS isn't immune to malware -- and "apps" aren't the only attack vector smartphone users should be worried about.
Last August, for example, simply visiting a website was enough to jailbreak your iPhone. If that can be done by visiting a website, what can't be done?
The illusion of perfect security that Apple provides is really quite dangerous for their users. This becomes increasingly more important as Apple gains market share and becomes an larger/more attractive target for malware authors.
Required reading for internet skeptics
DRM tracks could always be bunt to CD (which are DRM free though the quality loss and/or size increase that results from this method of drm removal is annoying)
No quality is lost in burning to a CD, and neither is it necessarily lost in re-ripping from a CD. Re-encoding the rip using a lossy codec (which is a reasonable expectation), does result in quality loss, but is not likely all that noticeable if you rip back to 256kbps AAC. iTunes has an options to transcode tracks to 128kbps AAC when songs are transferred to iPods/iPhones/iPads, and the quality difference is not generally apparent.
I just got an iPhone 4. [...] one of the key reasons I bought the iPhone was because of its MP3 capabilities. [...] I really like the Genius automatic playlist generator. I use it to all the time.
I was under the impression that all Android-powered phones could play MP3 music as well. So of all the advantages that Android has over iOS, it appears you gave them up for Genius playlists. I acknowledge that you may have found it worth it, but my priorities happen to differ.
Any advantages you think Android has over iOS are 100% opinion, just as any advantages iOS has over Android are 100% opinion (even things that are objective, like "Android has WiFi tethering, iOS does not" (no longer true, but it was) or "iOS supports 'Retina' display resolutions, Android does not", are subjective in terms of whether they are an advantage and/or how important such an advantage is to each individual person)). What makes one thing an advantage, and to what extent, it relative. For most people, iOS is a far better solution. For some, *especially* a certain type of geek, iOS is entirely out of the question. Presumably, you are one of these people. That is completely fine. However, you must understand that there are other people who *aren't* like you.
It's not just one feature (like the Genius feature, which is fantastic btw). The fact that you think he chose an iPhone simply because of that one feature, in spite of "all the [other] advantages" you think Android has over iOS is extremely self-centered. You need to learn to realize that other people can have wildly different opinions about things, even things which are polarizing, like the App Store. Very, *very* few people actually care about the lock-in, many (who are even aware of this "issue"), find it a plus, and a few find it to be (their words) "evil" and "akin to slavery". I think the people in the last category are more than a bit mad, but I don't generally try to convince them otherwise, it's their life, let them live it how they want. To each his own. But I do try to point out that their opinion is nowhere near universal, and that most people feel quite the exact opposite. I point this out to them because far too often these people think Android is going to win out because of this one singular issue.
The really annoying thing, however, is if he said he bought an Android phone, you wouldn't find me questioning the choice *he* make for *his* phone with *his* money. It's none of my fucking business, and none of yours. Yet *I'm* the one that gets called the "fanboy".
No matter what the interface, as long as it's sufficiently reasonable, there will always be some people from each broad category (like "geeks" and "non-technical", etc.) who like each interface. The question isn't whether there is one non-techie who finds Android easier. What matters is that category in aggregate.
I do trust you don't think that your wife is representative of this category as a whole. Simple observation of society outside of your immediate household does tend to show that your household is the anomaly here. In fact, I'm being overly reserved here, what I should say is that it's extremely rare to hear *anyone*, even a hard-core geek, claim that Android is easier to use than iOS. The closest you'll ever really hear is that, for the geek, Android offers flexibility that allows them to go beyond the confines of the interface (similar to how command-line jockeys will describe the CLI compared to the GUI. It's not that the CLI is generally easier, but that it's easier to do more advanced things).
If I were to make a completely wild guess, I would guess that it's the notifications system/lock screen information that your wife finds easier. I've not used Android much, but I can see that that is something that a lot of regular people would find compelling.
What is this fascination with the cheapest possible device that can do some specific function? BadAnalogyGuy didn't say he bought an iPhone because it's the only phone that can play music, he said it bought it because it can. No matter which phone he chose (including a $50-ish Nokia), he would have had the same reasoning. It's not that he bought an iPhone specifically, but that he got a new phone in order to play music.
What bothers you so much about him buying an iPhone anyway? I never give people shit for buying a Droid or whatever. It's none of my business, and a silly thing to get worked up about.
The Android way: There's an app we don't aprove of? Just download it from one of the other stores - where there is even more malware than on our store.
You know that Android isn't the opposite of Apple, right?
So your point is a platform is free as long as there is enough malware, and Apple isn't free enough.
Fandroids hate facts.
So your point is a platform is free as long as there is enough malware, and Apple isn't free enough.
I don't recall anything saying anything about freedom.
Reread my post, it's mostly about how iOS also has malware and how iOS users should be aware of the problem. You know, so that they can be careful to avoid it. The false sense of security they have from the "Apple doesn't have malware" myth can be dangerous for them.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Once in a lifetime ought to be enough for anybody.
What do the Slashdot crowd think of how the Music industry is playing one company off against another?
Since about Day One "The Labels" have been pure evil, while surely its understandable that they DO NOT want Apple to control the present and future of music, should they be able to severely disadvantage one player for being stronger as of the present?
I'm curious after reading some of our other comments. That Apple shot ahead, no questions about it, and dominated the music industry with iPod, but now things are very slowly (for mainstream) swinging to "streaming" services, is it fair to basically hold Apple back, and let all the other smaller companies suddenly shoot ahead? Due to nothing but a grudge against Apple's past success? This almost sounds like Apple would have won a "small victory", owning music since the mid 2000's until now, but the entire future will be streaming, they'd have been forced into losing "the war" by being too successful early on? It seems utterly BS if Apple can shoot ahead, working through innovation and low prices, and then held back by the failing music labels, while others can then copy and knock off the Apple approach after seeing how it should be done, and then offer additional services. Imagine iPod, iPhone, iPad etc, really ground breaking new products, and then one day, lets say a Facebook or Netflix type company can just decide, "nah, you cant use it on iOS devices now, hey little company making knockoffs, come with us!"
Surely its better if all music providers, Apple's iTunes etc are offered the same terms and conditions for the same music? And that they compete based on their own profit margins, offerings?
I say this as an Apple user, but also a consumer. I dont like the idea of a cartel blackmailing the services and companies I support.
---
They aren't on Amazon, either.
No, this is nothing like Zune's "Pay monthly or lose it all" subscription model.
Currently if you buy a song and it is deleted, the only* way to get it back is to purchase the song again. This is not just on iTunes, Amazon works the same way.
Apple is trying to allow their customers to redownload songs for free, just like they already can for Apps.
There is nothing forcing you to even use iTunes to play the media once you download it from the store.
*For special circumstances they would allow a redownload, it took speaking to customer service.
Sounds like the speaker cables that you've been using aren't very danceable.
I acknowledge that you may have found it worth it, but my priorities happen to differ.
You need to learn to realize that other people can have wildly different opinions about things
I thought I had said that. If not, that's what I meant; how should I have worded it?
What is this fascination with the cheapest possible device that can do some specific function?
I think it might have something to do with the fact that some of us prefer to have money left over to buy other toys. For example, that's why I stick with a dumbphone + PDA instead of a smartphone: cheaper service for the few calls I do make means an extra $50+ per month in my pocket.
eMusic subscription credits not rolling over was a deal-breaker for me though, whatever other intriguing aspects of their service.
I tried for a few months, got some nice albums out of it, but still...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Plus, do your homework, Apple blatantly ripped off Xerox's PARC designs for their paperless office and made it into their Lisa and Mac offerings.
If you did any research you'd know what Apple learned from Xerox was the idea of a GUI for example using icons to represent files and using a mouse as an input device. The actual implementation of GUI of Xerox was far different than Apple's designs. For the most part Xerox's system was a prototype whereas Apple would put in the effort required to have a fully functioning system. As an example, in the Xerox system, the windows could not overlap whereas Apple figured out a way to do it.
The second thing you'd learn if you did any research was that Apple paid Xerox with stock for their time and ideas.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Just read the review. What rarefied bs. Nobody's ears are that good.
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
I think it might have something to do with the fact that some of us prefer to have money left over to buy other toys.
But the experience counts for something, too. I owned a factory refurbished Sansa Clip I got for $20. It's 1 GB of storage is enough for me for the most part and I liked that it had a screen and got good battery life. But it was a pain to deal with as far as transferring files because I had to use Windows Media Player. I already had my entire music collection up and running in iTunes and WMP didn't recognize things like compilation albums correctly. I also had all my purchased CDs ripped to AAC, which the Clip couldn't play. So I ended up buying a used iPod Nano for $90. It really came down to the extra work I had to go through to use it than the AAC file support, I could have reripped my CD's after all.
The $50 Nokia S40 feature phone may be able to play mp3 files, but are you going to have to work with a specialized Nokia file transfer app, or navagate your collection in a tiny awkward interface on your phone screen verses flipping through with Coverflow? This is exactly why Apple is leading in the digital audio player market.
I acknowledge that you may have found it worth it, but my priorities happen to differ.
You need to learn to realize that other people can have wildly different opinions about things
I thought I had said that. If not, that's what I meant; how should I have worded it?
Maybe, but I did not get the impression that you realized his opinion could be *wildly* different than yours, and instead that he simply valued Genius so much that it overwhelmed everything else, when in reality I suspect that a lot of the things that you see as "advantages" of Android over iOS are not the same to him as they are to you.
But my main issue is that you seemed so eager to question his choice in device/OS. It really doesn't concern you (or me). I never give anyone shit for buying Android. I understand they had their reasons. Sure, if they ask my opinion, I'll chime in. Otherwise, to each his own. Life's too short to worry about such things.
I still don't understand why someone would want to live the cheapest life that money can buy. You only get one shot at life. You get no credit in the end for having saved money. What good is a life if one doesn't splurge now and then? I understand there are times when splurging is either irresponsible, or perhaps even outright impossible, but that's obviously not the situation the OP finds himself in. Clearly he can afford the iPhone.
But more importantly, my issue is when someone chimes in giving someone static over spending more than the minimum absolutely necessary. It's not like he was spending *your* money. He was spending *his* money. As long as he's happy, what's it to you one way or the other?
It's not like he was spending *your* money. He was spending *his* money.
The situation I fear is that so many people buy iPhones that non-Apple phones and/or non-phone media players lose their economies of scale, or so many people buy iPads that netbooks lose their economies of scale. At that point, people for whom splurging is irresponsible or who require features that Apple is known to deny end up with no options other than tough shit.
I don't know... i only buy CDs once in a while. However I know Steam and GOG.com (the only stores where i buy stuff online) have unlimited redownloads and i still don't understand why a music store doesn't have...
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
I'm really not surprised at this. One big business ploying against another. IMO both Apple and sony entertainment have lived up to their big names in my experience. Kind of sad to see how things work below the scenes but thats business for you i guess.