A few years ago my hard drive blew up and I lost everything. I submitted my problem to Apple and they allowed me to redownload every song and video I lost. I don't know if it's the correct policy but it was a pretty big request. I had to redownload about 10GB of stuff.
it is a bit pathetic that the deals currently don't permit this - after all, the labels' motivation behind it is the idea that customers, on losing their tracks, will purchase new copies to replace the lost ones.
i doubt that many people would happily want to do this with 1s and 0s
A few years ago my hard drive blew up and I lost everything. I submitted my problem to Apple and they allowed me to redownload every song and video I lost. I don't know if it's the correct policy but it was a pretty big request. I had to redownload about 10GB of stuff.
I wish there was more clarity on that particular issue. Some say it's a one-time deal, others say they've done it a few times.
Maybe the deal in question will make this a thing of the past, but I doubt it will happen. Forcing people to re-purchase tracks probably makes a lot of money for the music industry. I could see it only if it came as part of an iTunes music subscription service.
I wish there was more clarity on that particular issue. Some say it's a one-time deal, others say they've done it a few times.
Maybe the deal in question will make this a thing of the past, but I doubt it will happen. Forcing people to re-purchase tracks probably makes a lot of money for the music industry. I could see it only if it came as part of an iTunes music subscription service.
Wow, a bunch of these post have shocked me. I have an iMac, MBP and a home-built W7 machine, each of which has a full copy of my music library on it. In addition I have time-machine backups of the macs and a weekly backup of the Windows machine. Plus I have a iPod classic that has a full backup of my music. Yes it's a pain to keep all my iTunes libraries in sync, but I have no sympathy for people who lose an important digital file with the technology available today.
I don't see Apple's desire to change the policy as being driven by the fact that people have crappy data retention habits, but as a way to solve the issue of having to manually move files around between multiple devices. Think about this. If Apple were to get permission for you to download your purchases to any of your devices, which of these approaches would you choose: 1. Buy physical CD, rip to file, copy file to multiple computers, phones, iPods, etc. 2. Buy on iTunes and sync to all devices. I think that's an easy choice for most people.
The other issue is that this permission would set the stage for allowing Apple to host files and let people access them anytime that they want. For many years I have been saying that eventually no one will store any media content locally. It will all be on the cloud (I wasn't using the term cloud years ago, but the ideas was the same). Somewhere, there will be a server that tracks ever piece of media that you have the rights to. When I go to my friend's house and we want to watch a movie, I authorize his display device to play content that I have rights to. We're not there yet, but that's where we're heading once fast internet is ubiquitous and someone figures out how to consolidate our media rights.
So, Apple is on the right track for this, they just have to get the labels out of the previous century's mentality.
Before 0's and 1's made music easy to exactly duplicate; if you lost, destroyed, wore out or otherwise found your vinyl LP album, 45, cassette or 8-track unusable, your only option was to suck it up or go down to the local record store and BUY another copy of whatever was lost. If your record collection was stolen, you sucked that up too or called your insurance company and filed a claim. The fact that Apple (or any other digital reseller) has access to past purchases and MIGHT be willing to allow access to lost data should be seen as a gracious gift, not as some divine right. The music industry is NOT asking for (retaining?) something new here. Unless it was proven to be manufacturing defects, the music industry has NEVER replaced after sale lost or damaged music - EVER! Everyone who owns and runs a computer should be backing up their data, period! If you have thousands of dollars of music that you can't afford to lose, then YOU need to invest in a proper backup system and use it. It's not Apple's or the 'the music industry's' fault when you lose your data, it's YOUR fault for not having a backup.
Your argument works in the case where the consumer is purchasing a physical copy of the media. The agreements right now are that the music is licensed which is an agreement that you have now purchased a license to this music (in your format of choice) - the loss of the digital 1s and 0s should not impact your license to listen/move that music around. The RIAA is trying to have their cake and eat it too.
And for as much as I'd love people to have triplicate backups (one live, one spare, one offsite) of everything, I'm a realist and know that won't happen. It's obtuse to blame the end-user in a situation that shouldn't have arisen.
Your argument works in the case where the consumer is purchasing a physical copy of the media. The agreements right now are that the music is licensed which is an agreement that you have now purchased a license to this music (in your format of choice) - the loss of the digital 1s and 0s should not impact your license to listen/move that music around. The RIAA is trying to have their cake and eat it too.
And for as much as I'd love people to have triplicate backups (one live, one spare, one offsite) of everything, I'm a realist and know that won't happen. It's obtuse to blame the end-user in a situation that shouldn't have arisen.
Actually, there is no difference in what you are purchasing. You never can buy music or movies, or software for that matter. You always are buying a license to use it. The fact that it came on a vinyl platter, or as 1s and 0s on a CD makes no difference. All you were paying for was the use of the material. If you copied your record on to a cassette and then sold it to a used record store (I guess I'm really dating my self) you were in violation of the agreement you entered into with the copyright holder. If your record got scratched and you had your friend make you a copy of his on a cassette, you are fine because you bought the right to listen to that piece of material.
So, to extend it to today, if you lost your iTunes purchase, they don't owe you anything, but you could get it from a torrent site and not be in any violation. The only difference between a CD and an iTunes download is that there is no incremental cost for allowing one more download as there would be for replacing a CD. But that fact doesn't mean that they owe you another physical copy (in this case 1s and 0s), you still own what they sold you which is the right to listen to it.
I've never understood this limitation. Music companies don't have any real loss from allowing this. Their business model is not seriously premised upon the same customer repurchasing the same item (re-releases and special editions being a different thing). It's stupid that Apple even has to ask.
Before 0's and 1's made music easy to exactly duplicate; if you lost, destroyed, wore out or otherwise found your vinyl LP album, 45, cassette or 8-track unusable, your only option was to suck it up or go down to the local record store and BUY another copy of whatever was lost. If your record collection was stolen, you sucked that up too or called your insurance company and filed a claim. The fact that Apple (or any other digital reseller) has access to past purchases and MIGHT be willing to allow access to lost data should be seen as a gracious gift, not as some divine right. The music industry is NOT asking for (retaining?) something new here. Unless it was proven to be manufacturing defects, the music industry has NEVER replaced after sale lost or damaged music - EVER! Everyone who owns and runs a computer should be backing up their data, period! If you have thousands of dollars of music that you can't afford to lose, then YOU need to invest in a proper backup system and use it. It's not Apple's or the 'the music industry's' fault when you lose your data, it's YOUR fault for not having a backup.
How dare you assume I take responsiblity for my own actions!
I've never understood this limitation. Music companies don't have any real loss from allowing this. Their business model is not seriously premised upon the same customer repurchasing the same item (re-releases and special editions being a different thing). It's stupid that Apple even has to ask.
Yes, it is stupid, but the entertainment industry has a horrible track record of being at all forward thinking. Again and again they are caught off guard by technology. Their business models are stuck in the last century and they will likely deal with any and all changes kicking and screaming, rather than being proactive.
Apple already does this they just don't advertise it. If you're hard drive dies and you contact support they will give you a special link which will redownload everything you have purchased from itunes store.
I've seen it done.
Good to know. However under the new system if you don't sync one of your songs to your iPhone you could go to the iTunes store to download it if you want to
listen to it. This would be really great for movies because video takes up so much space that I just don't put any video on my phone. However if I could download a movie I owned whenever I wanted to watch it, that would be great.
Comments
i doubt that many people would happily want to do this with 1s and 0s
Currently, Apple's iTunes Music Store does not offer free re-downloads of previously purchased music.
Wow... I never realized that. (I've never lost a copy so never had to try.)
Even though I get that I'm just 'licensing' the music, I thought it was the music, not the physical bits that I was just licensing.
I feel sorry for Apple having to deal with RIAA. What bunch of d-bags.
A few years ago my hard drive blew up and I lost everything. I submitted my problem to Apple and they allowed me to redownload every song and video I lost. I don't know if it's the correct policy but it was a pretty big request. I had to redownload about 10GB of stuff.
I wish there was more clarity on that particular issue. Some say it's a one-time deal, others say they've done it a few times.
Maybe the deal in question will make this a thing of the past, but I doubt it will happen. Forcing people to re-purchase tracks probably makes a lot of money for the music industry. I could see it only if it came as part of an iTunes music subscription service.
I wish there was more clarity on that particular issue. Some say it's a one-time deal, others say they've done it a few times.
Maybe the deal in question will make this a thing of the past, but I doubt it will happen. Forcing people to re-purchase tracks probably makes a lot of money for the music industry. I could see it only if it came as part of an iTunes music subscription service.
Wow, a bunch of these post have shocked me. I have an iMac, MBP and a home-built W7 machine, each of which has a full copy of my music library on it. In addition I have time-machine backups of the macs and a weekly backup of the Windows machine. Plus I have a iPod classic that has a full backup of my music. Yes it's a pain to keep all my iTunes libraries in sync, but I have no sympathy for people who lose an important digital file with the technology available today.
I don't see Apple's desire to change the policy as being driven by the fact that people have crappy data retention habits, but as a way to solve the issue of having to manually move files around between multiple devices. Think about this. If Apple were to get permission for you to download your purchases to any of your devices, which of these approaches would you choose: 1. Buy physical CD, rip to file, copy file to multiple computers, phones, iPods, etc. 2. Buy on iTunes and sync to all devices. I think that's an easy choice for most people.
The other issue is that this permission would set the stage for allowing Apple to host files and let people access them anytime that they want. For many years I have been saying that eventually no one will store any media content locally. It will all be on the cloud (I wasn't using the term cloud years ago, but the ideas was the same). Somewhere, there will be a server that tracks ever piece of media that you have the rights to. When I go to my friend's house and we want to watch a movie, I authorize his display device to play content that I have rights to. We're not there yet, but that's where we're heading once fast internet is ubiquitous and someone figures out how to consolidate our media rights.
So, Apple is on the right track for this, they just have to get the labels out of the previous century's mentality.
*snip*
Your argument works in the case where the consumer is purchasing a physical copy of the media. The agreements right now are that the music is licensed which is an agreement that you have now purchased a license to this music (in your format of choice) - the loss of the digital 1s and 0s should not impact your license to listen/move that music around. The RIAA is trying to have their cake and eat it too.
And for as much as I'd love people to have triplicate backups (one live, one spare, one offsite) of everything, I'm a realist and know that won't happen. It's obtuse to blame the end-user in a situation that shouldn't have arisen.
Your argument works in the case where the consumer is purchasing a physical copy of the media. The agreements right now are that the music is licensed which is an agreement that you have now purchased a license to this music (in your format of choice) - the loss of the digital 1s and 0s should not impact your license to listen/move that music around. The RIAA is trying to have their cake and eat it too.
And for as much as I'd love people to have triplicate backups (one live, one spare, one offsite) of everything, I'm a realist and know that won't happen. It's obtuse to blame the end-user in a situation that shouldn't have arisen.
Actually, there is no difference in what you are purchasing. You never can buy music or movies, or software for that matter. You always are buying a license to use it. The fact that it came on a vinyl platter, or as 1s and 0s on a CD makes no difference. All you were paying for was the use of the material. If you copied your record on to a cassette and then sold it to a used record store (I guess I'm really dating my self) you were in violation of the agreement you entered into with the copyright holder. If your record got scratched and you had your friend make you a copy of his on a cassette, you are fine because you bought the right to listen to that piece of material.
So, to extend it to today, if you lost your iTunes purchase, they don't owe you anything, but you could get it from a torrent site and not be in any violation. The only difference between a CD and an iTunes download is that there is no incremental cost for allowing one more download as there would be for replacing a CD. But that fact doesn't mean that they owe you another physical copy (in this case 1s and 0s), you still own what they sold you which is the right to listen to it.
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1382
Before 0's and 1's made music easy to exactly duplicate; if you lost, destroyed, wore out or otherwise found your vinyl LP album, 45, cassette or 8-track unusable, your only option was to suck it up or go down to the local record store and BUY another copy of whatever was lost. If your record collection was stolen, you sucked that up too or called your insurance company and filed a claim. The fact that Apple (or any other digital reseller) has access to past purchases and MIGHT be willing to allow access to lost data should be seen as a gracious gift, not as some divine right. The music industry is NOT asking for (retaining?) something new here. Unless it was proven to be manufacturing defects, the music industry has NEVER replaced after sale lost or damaged music - EVER! Everyone who owns and runs a computer should be backing up their data, period! If you have thousands of dollars of music that you can't afford to lose, then YOU need to invest in a proper backup system and use it. It's not Apple's or the 'the music industry's' fault when you lose your data, it's YOUR fault for not having a backup.
How dare you assume I take responsiblity for my own actions!
I've never understood this limitation. Music companies don't have any real loss from allowing this. Their business model is not seriously premised upon the same customer repurchasing the same item (re-releases and special editions being a different thing). It's stupid that Apple even has to ask.
Yes, it is stupid, but the entertainment industry has a horrible track record of being at all forward thinking. Again and again they are caught off guard by technology. Their business models are stuck in the last century and they will likely deal with any and all changes kicking and screaming, rather than being proactive.
Apple already does this they just don't advertise it. If you're hard drive dies and you contact support they will give you a special link which will redownload everything you have purchased from itunes store.
I've seen it done.
Good to know. However under the new system if you don't sync one of your songs to your iPhone you could go to the iTunes store to download it if you want to
listen to it. This would be really great for movies because video takes up so much space that I just don't put any video on my phone. However if I could download a movie I owned whenever I wanted to watch it, that would be great.