# iTunes DRM To iTunes Plus Weirdness



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I also posted this at DSLReports in the Mac section as well. This is more of a rant then anything, and stuff like this really makes me regret owning multiple iPods, an iPhone, using the iTMS and giving Apple a dime of my money. Sometimes I really regret my decision to stop pirating music.

I'm in the process of redownloading all of my iTunes purchased songs with iTunes Plus, so far about 490 of my ~530 songs have been made available DRM free and I've downloaded them all, some content I have downloaded originally with DRM is no longer available from iTunes, such as German metal band, Rammstien, their 'Reise, Resise' CD and the Du Hast single, comic John Valby's song 'One More Beer', Country artist Clay Walker's CD 'Live, Laugh, Love'. Other content from these artists and bands are available for download, and DRM free but why would these be gone? Also Linkin Park, I redownloaded my music collection over a period of a few days and just hit the Buy button at random, I got all the tracks I wanted off of Linkin Park's first CD, Hybrid Theory, except for the big hit, In The End, now I see that CD is no longer offered in iTunes Plus. So I have 6 tracks off the CD DRM free, but one not. What gives?

Another thing I'm not too happy about is, 'High School Never Ends' from Bowling For Soup, I originally downloaded the track off the unedited CD, the song has the 'Explicit' label next to it in my iTunes Library, the album artwork has the Parental Advisory label on it, but the song is the edited version. Same goes for the song 'Nextel Chirp' by Maceo, but this is a bit stranger. The only song I ever downloaded by the guy was that song, but in 'Upgrade My Music To iTunes Plus' a different song on the same CD is offered for me to download for 30 cents. So I said screw it and just download Nextel Chirp DRM free for the full 99 cents, again the album and song are clearly marked Explicit, but the song is edited.

And perhaps the thing that burns me most, this is probably my own fault for giving in, about 50 of my DRM infected songs never showed up under 'Upgrade To iTunes Plus', All of my Billy Joel tracks, Better Days by Goo Goo Dolls, anything off of Metallica's Master of Puppets CD and a bunch of others. If I would search the iTMS for those songs it would show up as being in iTunes Plus, if I bought it I'd get something along the lines of 'You've Already Downloaded This Song with DRM, Go To Upgrade to iTunes Plus to download it DRM fee'. But how could I have done that when the songs never showed up there? So I bit the bullet and paid the full 99 cents for all those songs. I'm not to happy about spending 50 bucks on something I should have got for $15.

I'd just like an explanation on why all of this happened.


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

i have an ipod, and use itunes, but i'm far from an expert on it. 


could you explain why it is you're having to redownload your music?

i'm not understanding what exactly has happened here.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

As of January of this year, iTunes started converting all of their music to what they call iTunes Plus. These are DRM free tracks at 256K as opposed to DRM tracks at 128K, so no copy protection and higher sound quality. If you want to upgrade previousley purchased music that has DRM it costs 30 cents per song and you have to redownload it.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1711?viewlocale=en_US

All of my issues involve upgrading from stardard iTunes music to iTunes Plus, which should be free, IMO, but it's not, but I still end up getting screwed by the corporate greed at Apple.


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

I just did this also over the weekend, but I swear it worked for "Master of Puppets" songs, as I had dups in there yesterday when I was cleaning up. I will double check when I get home.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Some of this, (and I'm not letting Apple off the hook at all about it) is the fault of the record labels. They are still very paranoid about having their warez (snicker factor intended) out there with no protection. So they make Apple take them off iTunes until a better agreement can be reached. 'tain't pretty and it tain't right.

As for some of the weirdness in trying to upgrade songs/albums to Plus, I've noticed the same thing, but it seems to clear it self up in a day or two for each one that I've had problems with. I'm assuming it's just bad data entry that takes a while to get caught and cleaned up.

I noticed in the latest version of iTunes that they're touting improved sample quality when ripping CDs......


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Here's another oddity, I noticed another song on my 'Upgrade To iTunes Plus' just now. Did My Time off of Korns's Take A Look In The Mirror CD. So I downloaded, and that reminded me to get 'Alone I Break' by Korn but off of a different album. I never downloaded that song before. I did a search for it, no iTunes Plus version of the song showed up. I went to Korn's Artist Page on iTunes and looked over their albums and sure enough on the second page the album that song is on is offered DRM Free, but it won't show up in a search.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I am a little upset at Apple as well charging 30 cents per song that I already purchased before. Kind of greedy.

Luckily my collection wasn't that big so it only cost me about $15 to upgrade everything. There were a few albums and didn't bother with. I simply burned them to CD and then re-ripped them. Viola! No DRM for free! Yes I know, the sounds quality got somewhat diminished but I didn't want to take the chance on getting a different version of the songs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have to sit on the fence on this one...

They had to reconvert all the songs to the newer/better format, so I'm not sure why that should be free. Consider the analogy to buying a CD at Best Buy, then the artist releases a new remastered CD a year later with higher quality audio... should that be free too?

I haven't actually bought any MP3s or otherwise online yet. I still prefer to buy actual CDs in the store. I use iTunes to make high quality digital versions from the CDs I own and go that route, which lets me set the quality too.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Looking at my credit card statement, $152.88 is what I spent last month on iTunes, that includes no new songs, just upgrading to iTunes Plus for 30 cents a song or redownloading the song for the full 99 cents because it wouldn't show up. So far this month I'm up to $14.79, but that includes two new songs and an iPhone app.

My biggest issue with reburning is album artwork and ID3 data. When I first got an iPod three years ago, it took me weeks to go through my pirated music collection to get all the meta data correct, and I just did song, artist and genre, didn't do album and didn't go out and get album artwork. Biggest reason I wanted to upgrade to iTunes Plus was for the increased sound quality and being able to playback songs using Winamp. You can do a lot of stuff in iTunes, but personally I think it's a godawful media player. I guess I'm paying for the convenience to get things to my liking and organizational standards if you will.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I have to sit on the fence on this one...
> 
> They had to reconvert all the songs to the newer/better format, so I'm not sure why that should be free. Consider the analogy to buying a CD at Best Buy, then the artist releases a new remastered CD a year later with higher quality audio... should that be free too?


Yes it should. Despite everything I wrote, I really don't believe in paying for music. And if you must pay for it, I believe you should only pay for a song once. If I buy let's say Metallica's Black Album on CD, they already got their cut from me for their music. I shouldn't have to rebuy it every time a new format comes out. I know that's not how it is, nor will it ever be that way, but that's what I believe.

Not to get too far off, it's my topic and I really don't care about going off on tangents here, but I believe in paying for things once. Hence one of the reasons why I have cable not satellite, I don't see why I should have to pay $10 a month extra for channels like A&E HD, ESPN HD and the rest when the SD feeds are included in my programming package. Paying twice for the same content boggles my mind. Taxation on used goods also comes to mind. Over the summer I bought a used 2005 Lincoln Aviator, now the state and county already got their cut on the sale of this SUV back in 2005 when the original owner bought it. The factory sticker was in the glove box, original price was $47K, so NY and the county got a decent chunk of change off of this, why do they deserve to get money from me on the same exact item they already made money on a few years ago?

Back on to music, I have never in my life purchased a CD (except for CD-Rs). I used to tape songs off the radio, then when I was into country music, I'd record CMT on VHS for hours a day, find songs I like, record them on to audio cassette, then play the tape back in my Walkman which was hooked up to the line in of my computer, recorded them as wav files then burned to CD, then came Napster, then Morpheus, then Kazaa Lite, then Limewire. Then I started listening to my iPod in my car on road trips and got really annoyed with the varying audio quality from the songs I've downloaded. Some songs were super loud, some quiet, some sound highly compressed even though they were 192 or 256K. So I just said screw it and started to get everything from iTunes.


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> Yes it should. Despite everything I wrote, I really don't believe in paying for music. And if you must pay for it, I believe you should only pay for a song once. If I buy let's say Metallica's Black Album on CD, they already got their cut from me for their music.


as someone who's worked professionally in music and still has friends touring and making albums, i have to strongly disagree with you.

what do you do for a living? suppose i thought i shouldn't have to pay for your services? would you then perform that service for free?

making music is an artists job. its how they feed their families.

an album is a product, and you most definitely should have to pay for it.

as for purchasing a new format; when you first bought the song, you purchased a specific file type. the new type is a different product; it cost money to create it, so you must pay money to have it.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

probably wrong but I thought you had said earlier you got them w/o paying.
maybe I read wrong.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Nice try but, I don't perform services, I'm a machine operator in a private factory. Don't care if you disagree with me or not, that is my opinion. Bands and artists make enough on tour and with merchandise, I shouldn't have to pay for the same stuff twice just because the medium changes or quality of the recording gets better. I am so F'ing sick of these crybaby millionaires. Wah! Lars Ulrich can't afford a little paper umbrella in is drink as he floats around in his pool because I didn't pay for Kill 'Em All on vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD, SACD, DVD-A, iTunes DRM and iTunes DRM Free. I feel so bad for him. NOT! Besides the RIAA gets most of the money not the artists. Only reason I even pay for music at all is because like I said above, I was sick of the varying quality of P2P downloaded content.



> as for purchasing a new format; when you first bought the song, you purchased a specific file type. the new type is a different product; it cost money to create it, so you must pay money to have it.


Incorrect music man. When I purchased the file I didn't purchase a song or a file, I purchased a license to play said music file as per the RIAA. Now it is my belief that the license should be tied to a specific song or album, regardless of the format, thus meaning it should only have to be purchased once. How much more 'work' (and I use that term very loosely) did Metallica or Bon Jovi or Madonna have to do to make their songs encoded at 256K DRM free? Absolutely none. Now that I think about it, I hope 100% of that 30 cents per song went to Apple, I hope the artists or labels dodn't see a penny of it, they didn't do nothing to deserve it. At least with Apple they had to re-encode the music and since the file sizes are so much larger it takes up more room on their servers.

Again the only reason I support these crybabies and the satanic empire called the RIAA is for quality and organizational purposes.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

David MacLeod said:


> probably wrong but I thought you had said earlier you got them w/o paying.
> maybe I read wrong.


All, what am I up to 536, of my iTunes purchased music have been paid for, and most of them, twice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

So, the solution is to stop paying for music... then all the musicians will stop making music and get new jobs. No more paying for music because it will no longer exist.

Problem solved.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So, the solution is to stop paying for music... then all the musicians will stop making music and get new jobs. No more paying for music because it will no longer exist.
> 
> Problem solved.


Cut the sarcasm and read!

Everything I read indicates artists and bands make very little off of album sales. The RIAA gets most of it. Most of an artists or bands revenue comes from concerts and merchandise.


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> Cut the sarcasm and read!
> 
> Everything I read indicates artists and bands make very little off of album sales. The RIAA gets most of it. Most of an artists or bands revenue comes from concerts and merchandise.


to a certain extent. most artists make the majority of their money off tours and merch early in their careers.

once you reach a certain amount of sales, you have more flexibility in contract negotiations for what you will earn off the albums.

steve, your opinion is pretty f'ed up, if i may use that word here.

cry-baby millionaires? it takes a lot of hard work to get there, and once you do, your damn sure not going to give it away. lars ulrich is a prick, but don't judge _everyone _in music by his attitude.

in the end, music is a business, and its purpose is like any other business; to make as much money as possible.

as for your license, it was for the first file you downloaded.

and how can you say the artists didn't do anything to deserve the additional money? THEY MADE THE FRIGGIN SONG. I hate to scream it at you, but why is that fact escaping you?

lastly, you can never make too much money. if you think an artist has made too much, then stop buying their product and contributing to their wealth.

the music belongs to someone; its not yours. you can't have it for free. someone made an effort to create it. they have to be compensated. no matter your opinion.

i hope you don't think i'm trying to be an a-hole towards you; i'm honestly just floored by your opinion. and really, its no different than satellite hacking. if you think charlie ergen or the networks have made too much money, is it your right to hack their signal and watch for free? is music so different from television? i see no difference in this line of thought and yours. i think brad pitt is too rich, so i'm going to steal HBO's signal and watch for free.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Like any parasitic entity, the RIAA will do whatever it can do to ensure its own survival, without regard for the well-being of the host.

If they give up the fight - the one they are losing - they cease to be.

Their days are numbered, but they're going to ride it out for as long as they can. It's not like they have something else to do.

With every service, protocol, and method of digital distribution that they shut down, two more pop up. The cat is way out of the bag now.
Somewhere out there, there is an undetermined number of artists who will follow pioneers like Radiohead as they castrate the RIAA with free to try releases and mass distribution via the Internet. When that number reaches critical mass, and the new distribution methods become the rule, rather than the exception, the RIAA, and itunes for that matter, will become nothing but a footnote in music history.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

My wife has over 40,000 mp3 tracks, all legally purchased. Before license-free mp3 downloads at Amazon, we bought CD's in almost all cases. But some had to be downloaded from iTunes or a site that gave licensed WMA format. She burns every download, regardless of source, to audio CD's. The iTunes downloads and any WMA's had to be ripped back to mp3, a process that results in loss.

Fortunately for us, we're old so this works fine. We just took the hearing test linked on the Test your hearing! thread here at DBSTalk. It further confirmed what we already knew, that when you get old the sampling rate doesn't matter any more, so we won't be paying iTunes for the better quality audio.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I agree with Steve when it comes to bands and artists who are big time, like Metallica. I have only bought 2 CDs in the last 10-11 years. They were both local bands who I am friends with both lead singers. They gave me free cds, but I chose to support them as up & coming artists. Up & comers need that support, unlike Lars and his rich buddies.

As for the 2 bands, *Eli Young Band* has finally gained national notoriety with videos and award nominations on CMT & CMC. *Exit 380* is an excellent rock band from Texas. Check out these two & support your local up & coming artists.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> Cut the sarcasm and read!
> 
> Everything I read indicates artists and bands make very little off of album sales. The RIAA gets most of it. Most of an artists or bands revenue comes from concerts and merchandise.


Perhaps... but if they only did the concerts, and didn't release the CDs/digital downloads then how many people would go to their concerts?

CDs are advertising to get people into concerts and concerts are advertisements to get people to buy CDs. One hand feeds the other.

A debate on how studios vs artists make their money on the music is a completely different debate than whether or not you should pay for a different version of a song.

Taken to a logical extreme... IF you pay to go to a concert in Raleigh, and the same band on the same tour goes to Los Angeles would you think your same ticket stub from the Raleigh show should gain you free admittance to the Los Angeles performance? After all, it'd be the same band performing the same songs you already paid for.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

brant said:


> steve, your opinion is pretty f'ed up, if i may use that word here.


That's alright, what other people think of me and my opinions is not something I care too much about. I will never be on the side of artists or actors. They're just a bunch of entertainers who breath and fart just like everyone else on the planet but expect to be treated like Gods and catered to.



> as for your license, it was for the first file you downloaded.


That may be true, but I don't believe it should be. And BTW I really don't agree with 'You're purchasing a liecence not a song' BS the RIAA tries to spew, I was just making a point.



> and how can you say the artists didn't do anything to deserve the additional money? THEY MADE THE FRIGGIN SONG. I hate to scream it at you, but why is that fact escaping you?


Answer me this, what additional work did the artist or band do to deserve that extra profit by repurchasing music? Using me as an example as you did, I earn money for doing a job, I am physically doing something, if I want more money, I'll do more stuff. When it comes to repurchasing music specifically what I'm doing, repurchasing music at a higher bite rate, those said artists and bands didn't do anything, they already were in the studio and recorded the album once. They're not the ones physically reencoding songs, they don't have to go back into the studio to rerecord the album, people at Apple are taking care of that. Thus they deserve no additional profit.



> the music belongs to someone; its not yours. you can't have it for free. someone made an effort to create it. they have to be compensated. no matter your opinion.


Considering other then my XM and Sirius subscriptions, I never paid a dime for music up until a few months ago, I'd say music is free. My 5th generation iPod has over 1800 songs on it that were free.



> i hope you don't think i'm trying to be an a-hole towards you; i'm honestly just floored by your opinion. and really, its no different than satellite hacking. if you think charlie ergen or the networks have made too much money, is it your right to hack their signal and watch for free? is music so different from television? i see no difference in this line of thought and yours. i think brad pitt is too rich, so i'm going to steal HBO's signal and watch for free.


I don't see that as the same thing. With satellite TV you're paying for a vast array of content, there's always something new, always something different. You're not paying for the exact same content twice or more.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Perhaps... but if they only did the concerts, and didn't release the CDs/digital downloads then how many people would go to their concerts?


Quite a few probably. You've always got loyal fans who are willing to go and new fans looking for a good time. Personally, I'd like to go see the Blue Man Group, I have no intention of buying any of their tracks off of iTunes though.



> CDs are advertising to get people into concerts and concerts are advertisements to get people to buy CDs. One hand feeds the other.


That's what radio air play is for. And if channels like MTV and VH1 actually aired music related programming that would hellp as well.



> Taken to a logical extreme... IF you pay to go to a concert in Raleigh, and the same band on the same tour goes to Los Angeles would you think your same ticket stub from the Raleigh show should gain you free admittance to the Los Angeles performance? After all, it'd be the same band performing the same songs you already paid for.


For live events such as concerts and sporting events, I've always looked at it as paying for an experience, not a good or a service.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I really don't believe in paying for music.





Steve Mehs said:


> My 5th generation iPod has over 1800 songs on it that were free.


Are you aware that the internet is public and that you're using your real name? 



Steve Mehs said:


> That's alright, what other people think of me and my opinions is not something I care too much about.


We all understand by now that you're not worried about what we think about you. That's all well and good. Do you have any concerns at all about these people?

http://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php

Or these people:

http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/

Or any other number of agencies commissioned with finding people that are flaunting their habits of breaking the law?

Mindboggling. Absolutely mindboggling.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

No not really. Real name is irrelevant, my IP is logged here, a subpoena can be issued and the feds can find out my ISP is Time Warner and track me down that way. I'm just eliminating a step for them  I hope the FBI has better things to do then waste resources on crap like this. Terrorism is a pretty big topic these days, they can focus on their Top 10 List among other things. And if worse comes to worse when the FBI comes knocking on my door I can just quickly sych the iPod up and restore it :lol:


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Since this is going nowhere useful, closing.


----------

