[shifuimam]

My boyfriend's parents bought an iMac a couple years ago after getting tired of the problems they had with their Windows machine. Their iMac "crashed" (I don't know what happened), and the Apple Store where they took it for service ended up doing a full reinstallation of OS X (I'm assuming; I haven't seen the iMac myself yet). They've since lost all the music they've purchased - which amounts to at least $500 in legally purchased iTunes downloads.

After some googling, it turns out that there isn't a single music service in the United States that allows legally redownloading your music after purchasing it. Apple apparently offers a one-time-only-for-as-long-as-you-live option to get all your purchased music back after data loss, but that's it.

Does anyone else think this is completely insane? The RIAA is intent on prosecuting people who download music illegally, but apparently downloading music legally means that you're only entitled to a single copy of the music you've legally purchased.

Where is the incentive to purchase your digital downloads? If I download off BT, I can get everything back if something happens to my hard drive. If I buy and download through iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon, etc., I'm totally SOL if I lose my data.

I get that you should make backups, but not everyone does that. People don't know any better, and don't realize until it's way too late that their hundreds or thousands of dollars in music has disappeared into oblivion, never to be seen again.

I'm two steps away from showing them how to use BitTorrent and PeerGuardian to get their music, because this is ridiculous.

Is this an RIAA or an iTunes thing? I know that all other services do it, but if iTunes is doing it, it's inevitable that other services are going to follow suit...

[Dork.]

The only incentive to purchasing digital downloads is the convenience. If you lose your digital library, technically, you're SOL according to how most music is licensed. The only reason Apple lets people re-download at all is to avoid bad press. (Since it is the Apple Store that performed the system wipe, I think you have a bit more leverage. Ask Apple nicely to reinstate the music, then if they refuse, go post on consumerist.com or talk to your local media. Seriously. These folks need to be shamed into doing what is right.)

Then again, if you bought copies on CD, and your entire CD collection died in a fire, you'd be SOL, too.

Do they own an iPod? There are several ways to get your music off your iPod and back into your music library.

[shifuimam]

As we speak, I'm getting the music off his dad's 16GB touch. Unfortunately, that isn't all their music. It's a start, at least.

After some more questioning on my part, it sounds like their purchased music was missing when they got their iMac back from the Apple Store, but their ripped music wasn't. Makes me think that the purchased music is somewhere on the hard drive, and maybe iTunes isn't authorized to use it yet. I don't know anything about iTunes downloads, since i've never bought any music through it.

I'm also going to have them buy a 1TB external hard drive to use as a Time Machine volume, so that they have some form of backup.

It's just really, really, really shitty that you can't get your music back after you've lost it. While your point about losing a CD collection is somewhat valid, part of the benefit of going digital is that it's not a physical medium that can get lost or damaged. You've purchased the music; you should be allowed to get what you've purchased. Non-US websites (e.g. Tonlist, which is an Icelandic music service) let you download tracks multiple times, even though sometimes there's a limit. All-indie music services seem to be much more willing to let you get your songs back.

I'm betting the RIAA had a hand in this. No matter how you spin it, it's BS.

[exca1ibur]

The ONLY service I know of where you can re-download is the Playstation Network. Your downloads links to your account not your hardware, so you can re download as much as you need to in a 'crash.

The 'Digital Copy' movies are worse. Not only can you download only once, you have a limited time to do it. What is the point of having the digital copy disc, if it just forces you to download from iTunes? I will continue to BT a better copy for my legally purchased movies.

I'd still rather take my chances with a physical CD, especially for the same price. More so with a DVD, as I also get the special features and more for the same price. I can then put it on any media I want, without DRM hell. iPod, iTunes, PSP, phone, etc. at the optimal quality.

[turtle777]

Did BF parents sign the repair waiver w/o reading it ?

Before Apple repairs anything, you need to sign that your data might be lost, and that you should have backups of everything. It's standard practice.

I hope that the data is not lost and that this is just an iTMS authorization issue, but maybe they also need to learn not to sign stuff w/o reading and understanding it.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm betting the RIAA had a hand in this. No matter how you spin it, it's BS.

That'd be right - blaming the evil RIAA for your incompetence.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

While your point about losing a CD collection is somewhat valid, part of the benefit of going digital is that it's not a physical medium that can get lost or damaged.

All the pieces are there for you to learn that this is simply entirely wrong.

You just need to put them together.

[turtle777]

-t

[Gankdawg]

I think the RIAA is a piece of crap organization. That being said, I'm sure you have to sign a waiver at the Apple Store that says they may have to format your hard drive. I think they even offer to back up your data before they do that (for a fee, of course). Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the owner to have already backed up their stuff.

So what's the incentive for digital downloads? For me, it's buying only the tracks I want and not having to store a physical medium, case, and liner. I also back up via TM and clone the hard drive once a month to two different hard drives (one is store off site). Oh, and all the music is on my iPod and my laptop. Overkill? Maybe but I don't think so.

[iMOTOR]

Lose a CD = lose your music

Lose an mp3 = lose your music

[Eriamjh]

The lesson is clear: If you use a computer, you should backup your data or be prepared to lose it.

I do like the concept that music should be downloaded to one's account and not computer, but that means that Apple has to track it and they probably don't want to say they do it even though we all know they do.

Steam uses this concept. You can download any program you've paid for to any number of machines, but you can only use one machine to play any game at any one time.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Lose a CD = lose your music

Lose an mp3 = lose your music

From an intellectual property standpoint, it should be that CD=MP3=CASSETTE=LP=WHATEVER COMES NEXT . But that's not working out yet. As soon as some court interprets it that way, the DVD bidness is FUBARed.

I buy very little on iTunes for this very reason.

[mduell]

Why wouldn't you recover from backups? They're so easy to make

The lack of redownloading makes sense for non-DRM files; it's just like a physical product. If there's DRM then redownloading should be unlimited a la Steam.

[Gankdawg]

Originally Posted by mduell 

If there's DRM then redownloading should be unlimited a la Steam.

Perhaps. But I'm sure that the stance from the record companies is that there is significant cost to providing unlimited redownloads and therefore they will have to charge more. IMHO, $1.29 at the iTMS is too much for a single song. It has cut my purchases down.

[shifuimam]

It doesn't cost the RIAA a cent for a file to be available to a customer to re-download.

When you buy software online, you are presented with a digital download that you can redownload later. I don't know if this is the case for buying through Microsoft or Adobe, but I know that it's the case for lots and lots of software on the Internet.

Buying thing on the App Store for your iPhone or iPod touch gives you the ability to re-download those apps later for free. There are indie music stores that allow you to redownload purchased tracks.

This kind of policy screams of the control freak mentality the RIAA holds over its "intellectual property". I realize that RIAA fanboys such as Doofy will come up with all kinds of reasons why it makes perfect sense that you can't redownload the digital content you've legally paid for. That doesn't change the fact that this policy is incredibly hostile to the customer.

Yes, they should have backed up their data. The fact is, they didn't. Buying songs on the Internet is not synonymous with buying songs on CD. Your average user is not going to think "Oh, the RIAA has a chokehold on my property, so I'd better make sure I specifically back up my iTunes library folder, because I'm never going to see my music again if something happens to my computer or my hard drive!". Instead, they're not going to find out until it's too late that their hundreds of dollars in legally purchased music is gone.

I'm not really interested in hearing from the RIAA fanboys here about how great this policy is, so you can just move right along. I'm sure that you agree with Sony's lawyer who decided that making a copy of a CD you own in order to put said music on a digital audio player is synonymous with stealing.

This is an anti-customer policy that gives me just one more reason to not buy music anymore. Why the hell should I pay a dollar for a song that, in the unfortunate event that I suffer some kind of data loss (and I have backups, but even backups can fail), cannot be recovered? At least the software I buy online can be re-downloaded at a later date if necessary.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Gankdawg 

Perhaps. But I'm sure that the stance from the record companies is that there is significant cost to providing unlimited redownloads and therefore they will have to charge more. IMHO, $1.29 at the iTMS is too much for a single song. It has cut my purchases down.

Why would it cost the RIAA anything extra to allow customers to re-download their music? The RIAA is not paying for the disk space, the bandwidth, the Internet access, or the other hardware necessary for the music service to run its business.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Did BF parents sign the repair waiver w/o reading it ?

Before Apple repairs anything, you need to sign that your data might be lost, and that you should have backups of everything. It's standard practice.

I hope that the data is not lost and that this is just an iTMS authorization issue, but maybe they also need to learn not to sign stuff w/o reading and understanding it.

-t

I understand that, but they didn't. I don't know what their experience was at the Apple Store. I don't even know exactly what Apple did to their computer. His mom is going to mail me the sheet they gave her when they returned her iMac, so I can see what was actually done.

It sounds more like an authorization issue than the files being gone - she said that their ripped stuff was there but their ITMS purchases weren't. I'm betting the files are on the hard drive; they're just not in the iTunes library.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This is an anti-customer policy that gives me just one more reason to not buy music anymore. Why the hell should I pay a dollar for a song that, in the unfortunate event that I suffer some kind of data loss (and I have backups, but even backups can fail), cannot be recovered?

Then don't. Buy CDs. Problem solved.

Other than that: please continue with your typical "Ra Ra - consumer choice" tirade, as it surely never gets old.

-t

[shifuimam]

Do you think it's fair that a song you buy and download can't be redownloaded?

Would you be okay with not being able to re-download app store apps to your ipod touch? What about not being able to re-download eBooks to your Nook or Kindle? Being banned from re-downloading Wii Ware games or other downloaded games (e.g. onto the PSP)? How about not being allowed to download your Steam purchases more than once?

Does this seem customer-friendly to you?

Digital content simply isn't the same as physical merchandise. It's a completely different game. There are very little production costs to creating and distributing a digital download. Sure there's bandwidth and the computer hardware, but that's nothing compared to having to produce millions of individual products in a factory somewhere in China.

This policy is just another indicator of how the entertainment industry is desperately trying to force the digital media market into the old physical media market, by treating digital content the same as (or with more restrictions than) its physical counterpart. It flat-out is not the same. There is precious little technological reason to prohibit re-downloading purchased digital entertainment. It is, however, a great way to strongarm your customer into blowing even more money when they want to replace something that disappeared for whatever reason.

You notice that other companies don't do this. Steam is a great example. We're talking about hundreds of megabytes or even several gigabytes per download, and Steam allows you to download as many times as you please. They certainly have no problems with that model, technologically or financially. What's to say that the entertainment industry would have some horrible mess on their hands if they let their customers redownload purchased content?

[Gankdawg]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Why would it cost the RIAA anything extra to allow customers to re-download their music? The RIAA is not paying for the disk space, the bandwidth, the Internet access, or the other hardware necessary for the music service to run its business.

I didn't say the RIAA, I said the record companies. I should've been a little more clear, I know that neither the RIAA or the record companies pay for disk space, bandwidth, etc. Bottom line is that the content providers (iTMS, Amazon, etc) would charge more if they were forced to allow unlimited redownloads.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Do you think it's fair that a song you buy and download can't be redownloaded?

What does that have to do with fair ?

And why would it have to be fair ?

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Shif, shout all you want, but please realize that licensing fundamentals for personal use of music haven't changed in a hundred years: lose or destroy your copy of the purchased medium, and you live with your personal backup, such as you managed/bothered to create one.

Of course it'd be great to be able to place the entire responsibility for keeping track of your property into the hands of the seller, because it's comparatively less work than it would have been twenty years ago.

It's also just as little their responsibility as it would have been twenty years ago, while keeping a full backup of your licensed media is TRIVIAL compared to any previous point in history.

I'm sure you'll either just ignore my post or brand me an RIAA fanboy in a page-long rant, but neither tactic will bend reality.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This kind of policy screams of the control freak mentality the RIAA holds over its "intellectual property". I realize that RIAA fanboys such as Doofy will come up with all kinds of reasons why it makes perfect sense that you can't redownload the digital content you've legally paid for.

Why would I do that? My label ain't in the RIAA. You know, since I'm missing the last "A" from my operations and all that.

Strange thing is, Apple applies this policy to my stuff too - even on Euro sales. Damn dirty RIAA!

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yes, they should have backed up their data. The fact is, they didn't.

Tough titties then.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This is an anti-customer policy that gives me just one more reason to not buy music anymore.

I'm sure Avril will be devastated.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm sure Avril will be devastated.

LOL!

[lexapro]

If all your CDs burned in a fire would you then demand the RIAA give you new, free CDs?

[Shaddim]

Bah, I can see them charging 10 cents to redownload something you bought before, but not to buy the whole thing again. Doesn't matter to me, we buy LPs, CDs, and SACDs >99% of the time, just seems cheesy to charge double for a digital purchase.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

If all your CDs burned in a fire would you then demand the RIAA give you new, free CDs?

Probably.

[TETENAL]

iTunes asks you to backup your purchased music in regular intervals.

While it would be nice and convenient to be able to re-download your purchased items from the iTunes store, your parents knowingly risked their investment in music data by not making a backup.

Anyway, it can't harm to mail the iTunes store and explain the situation. There is always the chance for a goodwill decision.

[Gankdawg]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Bah, I can see them charging 10 cents to redownload something you bought before, but not to buy the whole thing again.

I like this idea.

[Phileas]

Expectations like this are the reason that we have so many ridiculous warning labels around. Hot liquids will burn you, too many burgers will make you fat and data loss will happen.

Take responsibility for your own life already.

Having said this, I do see a gap in the market here. Were I Apple I'd probably offer an insurance add-on where for a one time payment I'd get all my music backed up for future re-download. The app store already works like this, of sorts. Delete an app and you can re-download it for free.

Of course, with more and more data moving into the cloud and software as service this will become less and less important. These days I stream 90% of the music I listen to from pandora.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It doesn't cost the RIAA a cent for a file to be available to a customer to re-download.

That's not entirely accurate. You're right that there probably isn't any expense to the RIAA, however there is an expense to Apple. Bandwidth, while quite cheap per download, isn't free and will start to get very expensive across multiple downloads.

[Wiskedjak]

After reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the people in the music industry have at least as much a sense of entitlement as people like Shif do.

As far as I'm concerned, the music industry can do whatever it wants. If I don't like it, I won't consume their products (which is what I'm currently doing).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

After reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the people in the music industry have at least as much a sense of entitlement as people like Shif do.

Yeah, how dare we expect to get paid for doing our jobs. Disgusting!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Shif, shout all you want, but please realize that licensing fundamentals for personal use of music haven't changed in a hundred years: lose or destroy your copy of the purchased medium, and you live with your personal backup, such as you managed/bothered to create one.

If that is the case, why are other digital media providers (Steam, the Amazon Kindle store, the Nook store, the iTunes App Store, indie music stores, etc.) willing to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between a digital copy of something that costs next to nothing to distribute and a physical copy of something that costs much more to distribute?

Sure, Apple pays for bandwidth. However, that's a lot cheaper per song than, say, the cost of making, marketing, distributing, and selling CDs through retail channels. When you're selling through Apple, the profit from a 99 cent download is much closer to 100% than the profit from a $15 CD, where the profit has to be doled out to the retail outlet, the distributor, the manufacturer, and the label.

You can claim all you want that there's some massive technological or financial barrier keeping music services from allowing multiple downloads of purchases, but clearly other companies have managed to find ways around that - which is why the services I've listed above are miraculously able to offer the ability to reacquire your purchases in the event of a data loss.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Having said this, I do see a gap in the market here. Were I Apple I'd probably offer an insurance add-on where for a one time payment I'd get all my music backed up for future re-download. The app store already works like this, of sorts. Delete an app and you can re-download it for free.

And yet, Apple (and the App Store members who make the apps) isn't losing hundreds of thousands of dollars by allowing re-downloads! GASP!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And yet, Apple (and the App Store members who make the apps) isn't losing hundreds of thousands of dollars by allowing re-downloads! GASP!

Apps take significantly less bandwidth and storage space than music. You should know that.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Same with Kindle books - quite apart from the fact that most book usage is read-once, and thus redownloading is a rare thing, but an entire book is a few hundred K.

Also, oddly, consumption patterns for music are somewhat different. People tend to have more music.

Lots of people have a couple hundred or thousand LPs/CDs, but very few people have that many books anymore (that don't ALSO have comparable discotheques).

It really only makes sense to compare music distribution with other forms of music distribution.

Comparing it with other media is useless.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, how dare we expect to get paid for doing our jobs. Disgusting!

Absolutely you should get paid for your job. The sense of entitlement that I see is the expectation from the music industry (perhaps not you) that they be paid multiple times from one customer for the same thing.

QUESTION: when I purchase a CD of music, what *exactly* am I buying?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Shif, shout all you want, but please realize that licensing fundamentals for personal use of music haven't changed in a hundred years: lose or destroy your copy of the purchased medium, and you live with your personal backup, such as you managed/bothered to create one.

That's nice, in theory. but, the music industry is already not too happy about backing up. they would like to make illegal the tools necessary to back up physical CDs. they were really unhappy when Apple enabled us to back up our CDs to iTunes. I have no doubt they'll eventually want to make it illegal for us to back up our MP3s as well. Backing up is copying, and copying is bad. they'd probably rather we buy backup copies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

QUESTION: when I purchase a CD of music, what *exactly* am I buying?

You're buying a container and the right to listen to the piece of music contained within it until such a time that the container ceases to function, or is stolen, or is burned in a house fire, or is sold to some unsuspecting punter in a garage sale.

Same with those little containers you buy off iTunes. You're buying the container and the right to listen to the music contained within it until such a time that the container ceases to function. If the container is lost because the punter neglects to adhere to the first rule of computing (which is, of course, back everything up at least once a week) then how is it anyone but the punter's fault?

Unlike software... where you're buying a right to use said software until it becomes incompatible with your latest operating system upgrade in three weeks' time.

This is all solved by following Doof's first rule of acquisition. When you buy something... ...anything... ...operate like the company who sold it to you is going to go out of business in the next five minutes. Back up your software installs, back up your music downloads, if you like a pair of shoes then buy two pairs, if you like a car then get a spares package for it, if you think they're going to discontinue a guitar you like then buy six of them, etc..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're buying a container and the right to listen to the piece of music contained within it until such a time that the container ceases to function, or is stolen, or is burned in a house fire, or is sold to some unsuspecting punter in a garage sale.

Same with those little containers you buy off iTunes. You're buying the container and the right to listen to the music contained within it until such a time that the container ceases to function. If the container is lost because the punter neglects to adhere to the first rule of computing (which is, of course, back everything up at least once a week) then how is it anyone but the punter's fault?

Unlike software... where you're buying a right to use said software until it becomes incompatible with your latest operating system upgrade in three weeks' time.

This is all solved by following Doof's first rule of acquisition. When you buy something... ...anything... ...operate like the company who sold it to you is going to go out of business in the next five minutes. Back up your software installs, back up your music downloads, if you like a pair of shoes then buy two pairs, if you like a car then get a spares package for it, if you think they're going to discontinue a guitar you like then buy six of them, etc..

Well said. I like your idea about buying containers, it makes a lot of sense.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're buying a container and the right to listen to the piece of music contained within it until such a time that the container ceases to function, or is stolen, or is burned in a house fire, or is sold to some unsuspecting punter in a garage sale.

and, you have no problems with the buyer copying the piece of music into multiple containers? because, that would seem to violate the original agreement which specifically prohibits any kind of duplication.

[besson3c]

Are you sure that duplication for personal use violates the copyright agreement?

[Wiskedjak]

oh, and what if I want to sell the original container that I purchased? the music industry seems to want to prohibit resale of the container.

all of these misunderstandings could be easily resolved if the terms of the agreement were explicitly outlined at the point of sale.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you sure that duplication for personal use violates the copyright agreement?

Originally Posted by a CD jacket

WARNING: All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws

It's a pretty broad agreement and, unfortunately, doesn't define what an "authorized" duplication is. It's certainly not as detailed as Doof's description.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

and, you have no problems with the buyer copying the piece of music into multiple containers? because, that would seem to violate the original agreement which specifically prohibits any kind of duplication.

I personally have no problem with that at all as long as they've bought it to start with. And I've not met anyone in the industry who does have a problem with it.

You know who's most likely to have a problem with you copying your purchases to another format instead of re-buying them? Those peeps on the receiving end of sales tax.

And thus, this is where the problem lies. Of course, In Canada it's completely legal to back up your stuff. You pay a tax on blank media to cover this. In the UK it's seen as "acceptable use". In the US you'll prolly get a local bored SWAT team kicking down your door. It's all dependent on how much of a bunch of money-grabbing bastards one's politicians are, rather than anything directly to do with Sony or Warner. The record companies can only do what the law allows them to do, and the copyright treaties and conventions are applied differently in each country.

[Chuckit]

I think we can all agree that Apple will allow Shif unlimited use of their space and bandwidth as soon as she allows them unlimited use of her bank account. Until then, we've got what we paid for, so I don't see how we have a right to complain.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And thus, this is where the problem lies. Of course, In Canada it's completely legal to back up your stuff. You pay a tax on blank media to cover this. In the UK it's seen as "acceptable use".

For now. The music industry is actively lobbying to make DRM circumvention tools illegal and, since all CDs are DRM'd, it'll soon be illegal to backup anything.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If I download off BT, I can get everything back if something happens to my hard drive. If I buy and download through iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon, etc., I'm totally SOL if I lose my data.

Correct. And you should be SOL if you don't have a backup plan for your data.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I get that you should make backups, but not everyone does that. People don't know any better, and don't realize until it's way too late that their hundreds or thousands of dollars in music has disappeared into oblivion, never to be seen again.

See above. Call this an expensive learning experience for your boyfriend's parents. This is no different from someone using a wet cloth to wipe off their laptop keyboard and causing damage as a result. The user didn't know what was acceptable thing to do and as a result damaged or destroyed a piece of electronics. It's just like not knowing your parking brake is faulty and finding your car across the street smashed against the neighbor's tree one morning. Mistakes, whether made in ignorance or indifference, have repercussions. Your boyfriend's parents made a mistake that resulted in loss of something valuable to them. They now have to spend money to replace that valuable item (their digital music collection).


Have you actually worked with them yet to buy an external hard drive for backup purposes? That would be a better use of your time than showing them how to steal music.
(And yes, I think it is stealing if you replace their "lost" music with versions from BT. They bought specific digital versions of songs. The digital versions they bought come with the right to play those specific digital versions, not just any old digital version of the same song. Them's the rules. Not saying I agree with them--I don't; That's why I buy all my music on CD--but just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean you don't have to follow them.).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think we can all agree that Apple will allow Shif unlimited use of their space and bandwidth as soon as she allows them unlimited use of her bank account. Until then, we've got what we paid for, so I don't see how we have a right to complain.

Agreed. For my part, I will continue to avoid any such products that take such anti-consumer positions. Yes, there is a bandwidth cost for Apple. A pro-consumer stance would be to charge the customer only for the cost of redownloading something that the customer has already purchased the right to listen to.