Upgrading to a DRM-free iTunes library will cost you

Apple's Macworld updates

Here's a basic rundown of everything Apple announced Tuesday. For more details, read our summary here.

iTunes
DRM-free and cheaper songs

MacBook Pro
New 8-hour battery

iLife '09
Photo geotagging and music lessons

iWork '09
Online syncing, Keynote Remote

Updated at 4:30 p.m. PST with details on the file formats Apple is using.

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 them.

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

The iTunes files will still be in Apple's preferred AAC format, not the more widely supported MP3. But as Matt Rosoff points out, a lot of recent digital music products do support the AAC file format, including Sony's newer Walkman players and Microsoft's Zune and its next version of Windows Media Player.

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

Photos: Jobs fill-in touts media, MacBook updates

View the full gallery

I'm not going to gripe about that. Those kinds 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, meaning 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.

Click here for more Macworld Expo coverage from CNET News.

[erictbar]

Gonna cost me $80 if I decide to do it :( And I haven't checked my account from before I had a Mac yet

[Penguinisto]

...or it could cost you $0.00 if you rip them to CD and them re-import them back into your library.

[rapier1]

Why does everyone think that is a valid option? Let's say someone has 1000 DRM protected tracks. They copy them all to CD. If they average 20 songs per CD - assuming optimal packing - thats 50 CDs. Now you sit back down and re-rip them all. Of course, in the process you also lost of your ID3 tagging, embedded album art, and so forth. So now you have to re-enter all of that. Mayeb the PUID from MusicBrainz will be of some service with some of the songs but you're still probably left with several hundred you need to retag by hand. Of course, you can try burning them back into album collection format but gracenote (cddb) may or may not be able to find the matching ID3 data because your offsets may be different than the published material. This also only works if you bought full albums. So great solution if you have a few DRM tracks, not so good if you actually have more than a hundred or two and the OP seems to have around 266 DRM tracks.

[jag0]

@ rapier1:

People keep saying to just burn to a CD and rip them again b/c it WORKS and iTunes has no problem finding all the correct information for all the songs. I did this and had to use 30-35 CD-Rs and there were only a handful of songs where I had to manually find the info and that was because they were obscure tracks.

Quit drinking the Apple iTunes kool aid...

[rapier1]

Me? Apple iTunes Koolaid?

Wow...

I think I'm blushing now.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto wrote:

"..or it could cost you $0.00 if you rip them to CD and them re-import them back into your library. "

That requires a LOT of CD's in my case. I'd be looking at 5-6 spindles of CD's to fully convert. Now add to that all the time to burn the CD's and then rerip them. Now I'm looking at months of nonstop work.

No thanks, I'll just stick to any of the other alternatives out there. Thankfully I buy my music from Amazon and other DRM free sources so I won't have to deal with the CD burn/rerip argument. What a hassle that would be. It just isn't a workable solution.

[bpgveg14]

If Apple let me do this on a PER SONG basis, I'd think about it. Some songs I don't listen to all that much, and it's not worth paying for those songs I DON'T want "UPGRADED", just to get a few that I DO.

For those songs, or some that were inadvertantly deleted, it'll be cheaper finding the ones I'd like upgraded on Amazon, and pay PER SONG, which is the "RIGHT THING TO DO".

Thanks, Apple for AGAIN, NOT doing the "Next Right Thing"!

[gsmiller88]

Only going to cost me $3.60.

I may upgrade so there are no issues when I switch back to Windows in a month or so.

[ballmerisanape]

Why would there be issues when you "switched back" any way?

[JabberWockey]

Consider yourself lucky. I've been using the iTunes store for 4 years after getting sick of filesharing apps, and now I have roughly 2100 songs. That is $630.

$630.

THANK YOU FOR REWARDING YOUR FREQUENT CUSTOMERS ITUNES!

Thankfully, DRM stripping software only costs $30, and it costs nothing to take my business to Amazon.

[Hep Cat]

Why did it take you until the bottom of your third paragraph to mention the second, and possibly more important benefit of the iTunes Plus upgrade - namely, 256kbps bitrates per song?

[servermaker]

can you imagine what it would be like to have someone sitting next to you all day long watching you do your job and providing their opinion constantly when you do something differently than they would? That would get REALLY old, REALLY fast. I would hate being a CNET editor...but I guess you learn to just tune out all the blah blah after a while. You can't please all the people all the time...

[gsekse]

I don't own DRM products for this reason, but I expected the loss of DRM to cost iTunes people much more. At $30 per 100 songs, you can go through and update the music you want. Except for those who have bought huge libraries and actually listen to it all, it shouldn't matter much to most. The convenience factor is affordable. Those who refuse to pay will just rip their copy from a CD they probably already own. Remember RIAA's goal is just to resell the same song over and over and over. Right now I know they are just wishing some new version of media comes out that they can yet again sell you the same songs you already bought in vinyl, CD, Digital, etc, etc... I really have NO sympathy for that organization and hope to hear it go bankrupt in my lifetime. At least when you buy a copy of a Rembrant, it's yours to keep or sell!

[sriggins]

I paid $52. I also think they charged me for some of the free starbucks or song of the week songs, but I could be wrong on that, I didn't notice it at the time I upgraded, only when downloading

[ekracinski]

Is there confirmation that these songs will be MP3 format instead of AAC? If not, then interoperability is still limited.

I am a Mac user and have several iPods in the family, but we buy from Amazon since those songs are MP3 and therefore almost universal.

[drwam]

You are right. Other media players have been slow to adopt AAC. Since AAC cost is no different from any other non-MP3 codec (like WMP), there is no reason for them to continue to lock themselves out of the largest music seller in the world. That is, if they are sane.

[jjcpro]

Any AAC file can be easily converted to MP3. iTunes even has a built in converter, so this should not be an issue.

[Riquez-001]

The continuing ignorance over AAC & MP3 is getting tiresome now.

AAC is the latest version of MP3 - its the successor format. If you're buying & preferring MP3 over AAC then frankly you need educating. AAC is higher quality at less file size. Almost everything that plays MP3 plays AAC. Even if you do have some out of date player that only plays MP3 you can convert AAC files to MP3 in about 3 seconds flat.

[subslug]

There never seems to be any shortage of "successor" formats to replace the mp3 format. They're all the next greatest thing when for 90% of the population all they know is mp3. Ask most of them what an AAC file is and they'll stare blankly without a clue.

No thanks to Apple's format, for all you know after you get done buying the rights to the music you've already bought they'll change to another next great thing and there you'll be.
Stick to the tried and true mp3 format. If you want your music to be cd quality, buy the cd, don't believe the hype that AAC format is any better.

[MSSlayer]

AAC is not the latest version of MP3. They are completely separate.

You need some education.

[Pete Bardo]

Only $.30 to listen to a track I've already purchased? What a deal!

[Penguinisto]

...at a higher bitrate...

[rapier1]

If you have the ability to differentiate then its worthwhile. A lot of people, in blind tests, don't have that ability depending on the type of music, the encoder used, the playback equipment and so forth. The JND for audio is very personal. No one can say that higher bitrate *will* sound better than a lower bitrate - there are a lot of factors involved.

[zekemiller]

I am paying a premium for patronizing itunes before apple worked out a sweeter deal with the record labels. Apple should get rid of the 30 cent premium as a sign of appreciation to its loyal customers, who presumably would have to pay quite a bit for the DRM-free music.

[Hep Cat]

"I am paying a premium for patronizing itunes before apple worked out a sweeter deal with the record labels."

You obviously thought the price was worth it when you bought before today's announcement. I think what you're experiencing is called "buyer's remorse", something experienced by just about everyone in their lives.

Take heart. You've been enjoying that music all this time for a fair price. Now you can get other features added to the same music for a little extra - or not. It's up to you.

[milrtime]

So they are going to charge 30 cents for every song...even the ones that can now be bought DRM free for 69 or 99 cents?

[jag0]

...or you can just buy your music from AmazonMP3.com instead. All the songs there are .89-.99 cents a piece, it drops the songs directly into iTunes AND they've always been at a higher bit rate then iTunes.

[DH-1]

I've been buying from Amazon for a few months now: here are some neat facts.
1) All files are at least 256K, meaning they're quality is at least twice as good as iTunes
2) They are, and have been, DRM free. I can put them on whatever device or PC I want to
3) They're at least a dime less then iTunes. 89 cents is the norm.
4) Every Friday Amazon puts some really good albums out for $5.

There's one downside I can see:
1) sometimes there's a really obscure song or group that I can find, but can find on iTunes.

All in all, I'm glad that I haven't had to use iTunes for anything in 2008. The software, the DRM stuff and Apples 800 pound gorilla attitude all made want to stop using ASAP, and amazon made the decision easier then ever.

[jaxstephens]

Agreed. During 2008 I stopped used iTunes and switched to Amazon because of the DRM issue. Sadly, though, Amazon's music-browsing facilities suck, so I would usually browse in iTunes and buy on Amazon. I'll still probably do that even now because all my music is in the MP3 format, and I don't really want to start buying AAC format songs now. Digital music can really bite sometimes--so much more complicated than the old days.

[AllenKids]

But of course when 256kbps AAC vs. 256kbps MP3, AAC wins hands down.

It doesn't matter how high the MP3 bitrate goes, it lacks any frequency higher than 16K, period. Even LAME Encoding still can't save the details. Sorry, Classical in MP3 is barely acceptable.

Now the only justification for buying from Amazon is their price still cheaper.

But one wouldn't even consider AAC offer from iTMS? Really?

[st430]

pay apple 30 cents more for songs I already have?
I am pretty sure there is some hacker software that can remove that DMR for free.
As for my collection, most are rip from my CD, so all DMR free.
2% from apple...which I don't care much about.
10% from amazon...which is DMR free and cheaper.
Go amazon man.
89cents a song and no DMR...better than apple and their $1.29 a song without DMR
or 99cents with DMR...
either way, amazon is a better deal.

[bjb7293]

DMR = Distance Medley Relay, a track and field race consisting for four people each running one of the following four events in the following order: 1200 meter run, 400 meter run, 800 meter run, one mile run.

DRM- Digital Rights Management

Not trying to be a pain, but I run track and I'm a tech fan, therefore that pushes my buttons .

[macp00pie]

Uh.. 256kbit MP3? Yeah, that's going to sound just like a CD...NOT
Even someone as old as I am, can tell the difference between an MP3 at 256kb
and PCM.

They embed a means of tracking the source of every MP3 file downloaded through iTunes, so
those of you thinking about sharing a track or two with friends, better think again. This has
been known for a long time. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, and only time will tell what other suprises they have in-store.

The free market is a myth.

[subslug]

Never downloaded anything from iTunes but I wasn't aware it was even in the mp3 format...?

BTW: your thinking of the mp3pro format, there's no tracking ability in regular mp3 files.

[craigd999]

Um... The difference between a 256kb MP3 and the CD original is indeed miniscule. - virtually indistinguishable for most discerning listeners. Those who would truly care about such a divergence in quality probably would be better served not purchasing pre-compressed audio online. Also I'm not sure how the odd comment about free markets applies to the conversation.

[jbirge]

To all those suggesting you can just burn and rip: you either have terrible ears or a completely misunderstanding of lossy compression. If you decode lossy compressed audio, and then recompress it with another lossy encoding, the results are usually quite dismal, even if you used a higher rate the second time. For 30 cents, Apple really is giving you something you didn't have before: a higher quality sound file. I'm not saying that's a reasonable price, but the result of upgrading a file will be MUCH better than had you burned and ripped it from a 128 kps AAC file.

[jag0]

Not everyone is a snobby audiophile but either way it is still better to go with Amazon then iTunes.

If you're going to lecture everyone about how bad their hearing is...at least recommend a service that is far superior and better priced...instead of drinking the Apple kool aid.

[kineticarl]

jag0, this is not audiophile snobbery. If you burn and then re-encode a 128kbps track it really will sound noticeably worse. Like 64-96 kbps terrible. You don't have to be an audiophile to know that the quality is barely acceptable, and that you've just flushed $0.99/track down the drain.

If i were an itunes customer, which I'm not, I'd swallow hard and begrudgingly pay the $0.30.

What's one major factor that makes other superior services superior? For many of us, it's some combination of bitrate, price, and format (drm-free MP3).

[random truth]

Their was a script that I downloaded off the internet that used imovie to remove the drm...

[jaxstephens]

Is anyone else here sick like me of people talking in the Apple-themed article discussions about "drinking the Apple or Microsoft Kool-Aid"? Man, people, give it up already. There are pluses and minuses to each platform, and I happen to like both of them for equally good reasons. I also dislike them both for equally valid reasons. The tired Kool-Aid comments by biased fanboys or whatever they are add no value to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

"yeah rite, u need 2 just stop drinkin the apple koolaid, bro."

Not so helpful.

[aka_tripleB]

So, are we to take the lack of a format mentioned that everything is still .AAC? That's ok because it's going to cost me nothing because I don't use iTunes for almost anything. I rented "Soylent Green" because it was the most convenient way to get the movie to watch. I use Amazon for my purchasing needs. Then I import the songs into the Zune software and update the tags, because it does much better at tagging than Amazon (in my opinion). Then all my music gets put onto my Zune. The Zune might be able to handle unproteched .AAC, but Amazon was cheaper, and now much cheaper, than iTunes.

[Imalittleteapot]

See all the confusion in the comments? Yeah, that's why people download illegally. So much simpler.

[jaxstephens]

Sad but true, brother, sad but true. And if the recording industry could realize this, then maybe they'd actually have a chance at regaining control of their runaway market again. Until digital music is as simple as CDs, cassettes, etc., there is a problem. Why does technological progress have to result in such a crapped up and confusing process? It doesn't have to be that way if the system is designed well to begin with.

[open-mind]

Folks griping at Apple seem to be assuming that Apple is keeping the 30 cents. I'd be willing to bet that money goes straight to the RIAA and Apple has no choice in the matter.

[JBSimmons]

ONLY 256Kbps? I never import at any rate lower than 320Kbps VBR. It DOES make a difference between headphones and a REAL stereo system. The reader above talking about PCM is right. I cut from my own CDs. The whole idea is to save space on the degraded iPod Classic 160Gb which has been lowered to 120Gb. Plus the new conversion codec strips out MORE content to make it fit. I don't know why Apple settled for 256Kbps rather than Amazon's 320Kbps VBR. Thank goodness I waited before cashing in in $120 in iTunes cards.

Just went to Target and most new albums downloads are now being sold at $12.99. Just $3 higher than a standard PCM CD. I wonder what the bitrate those are at and will they also be DRM free. What would Apple charge for stripping DRM from a $12.99 album, which at last look had 17 tracks, including a bonus music video? How much is it to strip DRM from an entire almbum? How much for the music video? Or is there ONE price on an entire album rather than track by track? I hope they did this thinking in advance. There is no sense in making tracks DRM free when the album issue hasn't been addressed.

I'm also one of those who has played 128Kbps and 256Kbps tracks on my stereo and did an A / B comparison. Awful. Then tried 320Kbps, much better, not quite there, but close. The whole idea is that an iPod is designed to be used with headphones, and cheap docking desktop stereo units.

But HiFi systems is a different matter altogether. I'd rather buy a full CD and cut from that in MP3 or AAC format at 320Kbps. Have been doing my own conversion of my CD library. Haven't asked iTunes to find artwork and all that. How much does iTunes charge for that? Or better put, how many will they allow for free before they charge for that service? Apple is not clear on that.

What I worry about is that Apple is using the RIAA AudibleMagic to find the name and artwork for that tract, and then imposing the DRM limit on those that I cut from my own. They simply said that PURCHASED tracks will be DRM free for a price, but what about my own CD tracks imported that I ask Apple to get the artwork for me? That is still a gray area. Not one gray area but one of many considering all they can do in iTunes.

Speaking of iTunes, I wish they could have kept the iPhone and iTouch junk out of it. and provide another means for them. The iTunes software is getting very bloated. Now with the new pricing, you can bet the Genius function will pull in the most expensive tunes to be sold first before catalog tunes.

Let's have a little more transparency here. Apple i<object> owners deserve it. Not drips and drabs of things and find out others by complete surprise.

[etiahwhite]

I don't mind paying the $.30 for the upgrade but what I do mind is that it all needs to be upgraded....Some of the songs I purchased clean versions of were just for work or some of it I barely listen to if at all....I just wish I could pick and choose because right now to upgrade will cost $92 which definitely ain't gonna happen. I wouldn't even consider myself a heavy itunes user so I can only imagine how much it will cost people who use it more frequently to upgrade.

[iBuzz]

I've been saying this for years... it's only a matter of time before Apple pulls the plug on their DRM servers and all of those older DRM iTunes songs that people bought will no longer be able to be transfered/played on new computers and iPods. It costs money to keep those DRM servers going at Apple. And how long do you think they will keep those running once their only function becomes to re-license old songs that were purchased years ago. The writing is on the wall.

DRM is/was this century's 8-track tape.

[AppleSuxLeo]

As usual Apple costs more. Amazon`s "premium songs" are .89 (many are less) and many full length albums are only $5
Funny how Apple tries to make you feel good as they are ripping you off ;) Oh thank you Mr Apple for letting me remove my DRM for 30 cents. Never used iTunes , never will. Mac experts have called it a "bloated , monolithic spreadsheet"