iTunes 4.7.1 Suggestion: Let Users Download Lost Purchased Songs

James Katt argued in the comments of another of my posts that "Apple is right in that you should not get a second copy from them, just as you should not get a second copy of a CD from a music store if you lose the first copy." But there are two fundamental differences between a consumer getting a free replacement of a hard product and getting a free replacement of limited-usage digital file: the cost and the potential for abuse.

Let's say you go to a store where you bought a shirt which you lost. Obviously they're not gonna give you a free replacement. First, there is the cost of getting the shirt to you. Even assuming no costs, there is immense potential for abuse. Anyone could say they lost a shirt when really they just have it at home. Even if not intentional, they might find their original shirt after they get their free replacement.

None of these issues exist in the iTunes Music Store. Let's say your hard drive crashes and all your protected AAC files disappear. First, the cost is minimal; as you've already paid for the rights to listen to the song, the only cost to Apple is going to be the bandwidth required to download the files you've lost. My guess is that, as a portion of all bandwidth of the iTunes Music Store, such replacements would be almost negligible. Second, there's no potential for abuse at all. iTunes and the iTunes Music Store can easily monitor which songs you've purchased and thus which songs you have the right to listen to. Moreover, it's irrelevant with how many copies you end up with as you can copy protected AAC files once on your computer anyway. So even if you discover your lost files on a back-up you forgot you had, it's irrelevant.

So there's three basic positions that can be taken:

1. The consumer pays nothing for replacement files. This is the most pro-consumer position and the one that Napster takes. Napster's Terms and Conditions lays out how Napster takes care of this for you:

   Sync/Restore. Napster will maintain a record of your Purchased Tracks. You may use the "Sync/Restore" function to obtain another copy of those Purchased Tracks for up to two (2) additional computers that you own.

   Note that this is talking about tracks attained in the purchase model. If Napster can do this, Apple sure as hell can. And, clearly, with Napster doing it, it's not cost-prohibitive.
   
   To bring in a dose of economic analysis, this position is just much more economically efficient at the systemic level. Having every consumer create additional back-up copies as James suggested waste tons of resources across the system when Apple and other retailers have the files already backed-up with all the benefits of economies of scale.
2. The consumer pays the full download price for replacement files. This is the most anti-consumer position and the one that the iTunes Music Store takes.
3. The consumer pays less than the full download price for replacement files. This is a compromise position between the two extremes. An obvious place to set the price is at the cost of bandwidth. This would mean that consumers would have the benefit of getting songs that they've already paid for by paying only for the cost their misfortune bears upon Apple. Obviously there's also the potential for retailers to take some profit off the top. Nevertheless, this is still a step up from Apple's current position.

Obviously, my position is that Apple follow Napster and be consumer-friendly rather than hard-ass and move to the first position rather than their current position.

Related Posts

• Napster v. iTunes: By the Numbers (Part 2)
• Napster v. iTunes: By the Numbers