Friday, June 1st 2007

Apple’s DRM-free music has a twist

Now that Apple has finally led the way and launched its DRM-free downloads for EMI music, you could be forgiven for thinking music fans should be happy. Unfortunately, Apple has removed the protection only to give downloaders another surprise: the tracks still contain data about who bought them. Apple launched the DRM-free service two days ago, which allows iTunes users to download higher quality music without DRM-protection (the technology that prevents music from being played on certain devices in an attempt to combat file sharing) for a higher price of $1.29. However, even tracks without any DRM have the user’s account information, including the buyer’s email address, embedded into them. Apple hasn’t given any comment yet, but music fans fear that Apple is not respecting their privacy and are worried it could be used to identify them if the songs end up on file sharing sites. Obviously this would be useful to prevent illegal sharing, but if the data could be easily spoofed then it may lead to people being wrongly accused of sharing music.Source: BBC News
Add your own comment

17 Comments on Apple’s DRM-free music has a twist

#1
rhythmeister
Idiots, they need a good slap the lot of them. It's called file sharing not stealing, apple you muppets!
Posted on Reply
#2
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Yeah, they only call it that so as to lessen the naming burden on the pirates. If you share files, chances are, its an illegal file sharing. Otherwise, the whole industry, music and movies, wouldnt even care.


I dont see this as being really a bad thing, only those who may pirate the music (though I dont see anyone paying $1.29 a song and giving it away for free, just doesnt make sense) could complain.
Posted on Reply
#4
Benpi
The other catch is, the files are .M4A files. If your MP3 player doesn't accept AAC files, then it DEFINATELY won't accept .M4A files. This whole Plus DRM-free program is shit. If it sold high res .MP3 files, that'd be a different story. Amazon FTW!
Posted on Reply
#5
Nemesis881
Ipods suck, Itunes suck, APPLE SUCKS!!! hahaha

Seriously though, if you're gonna pay $1.29 a song, you should be able to do what you want with it.
Posted on Reply
#6
pnice
Jhymm Anybody?
Posted on Reply
#7
GJSNeptune
by: Benpi
If it sold high res .MP3 files, that'd be a different story.
High bitrate mp3s are still compressed. ;)

If you want higher quality, you'll need to look to another format.
Posted on Reply
#8
GJSNeptune
by: Nemesis881
Ipods suck, Itunes suck, APPLE SUCKS!!! hahaha
Bandwagon or actual experience? You don't need iTunes for an iPod, so hating one because of the other is silly.
Posted on Reply
#9
d44ve
by: Nemesis881
Ipods suck, Itunes suck, APPLE SUCKS!!! hahaha

Seriously though, if you're gonna pay $1.29 a song, you should be able to do what you want with it.
Shht, I love my ipod and I do not use Itunes.
Posted on Reply
#10
GJSNeptune
by: d44ve
Shht, I love my ipod and I do not use Itunes.
Ditto.
Posted on Reply
#11
zekrahminator
McLovin
When will they learn that people will only be want to pirate music more if they make it harder to own legal music...:shadedshu .
Posted on Reply
#12
Dippyskoodlez
by: zekrahminator
When will they learn that people will only be want to pirate music more if they make it harder to own legal music...:shadedshu .
srsly, people act like the ITMS is already hard to bypass the drm.

If this is a simple M4a... and not DRM protected... how long do you think it'll take for a program to come out that just strips the information out and converts it to whatever you want? :rolleyes:


Think smarter not harder people, come on.
Posted on Reply
#13
Benpi
by: GJSNeptune
High bitrate mp3s are still compressed. ;)

If you want higher quality, you'll need to look to another format.
Yes. So are AACs, WMAs ATRACs, WAVs etc.etc.etc. 192kb/s MP3s sound great. A 192kb/s MP3 is worth more than a 128kb/s DRMd AAC or AAC with your name imprinted on it.
Posted on Reply
#14
XooM
FLAC for lossless plz. ogg vorbis for lossy. Oh, and iTunes sucks because its clumsy, awkward, and limiting. iPods suck because they're of a mediocre build quality and scratch like a mofo, but with rockbox are a moderately respectable player. apple is not a lousy company, though i dislike their advertising and loathe their obnoxiously loud fanbase.
Posted on Reply
#15
wazzledoozle
by: Benpi
Yes. So are AACs, WMAs ATRACs, WAVs etc.etc.etc. 192kb/s MP3s sound great. A 192kb/s MP3 is worth more than a 128kb/s DRMd AAC or AAC with your name imprinted on it.
These (sort of) DRM-Less AAC files are 256kbps.
AAC and WMA are far superior codecs to MP3, which has long outlived its time.

The industry just needs to get together on a modern, standardized, and open codec. AAC is a good start, the Zune and 360 play it along with iPod hardware. But it still has licensing fees...
OGG is alright. I havent used it much, but it isn't going to be adopted by any major music store because of its open source nature; hectic and always changing.

Personally, I rip cd's to FLAC and then transcode that to 128kbps AAC for my ipod.
Posted on Reply
#16
GJSNeptune
by: Benpi
Yes. So are AACs, WMAs ATRACs, WAVs etc.etc.etc. 192kb/s MP3s sound great. A 192kb/s MP3 is worth more than a 128kb/s DRMd AAC or AAC with your name imprinted on it.
WAVs are typically uncompressed. Just sayin', someday there'll be a FLAC music service or something. :D

Someday...when everyone has at least 1TB. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
by: wazzledoozle
These (sort of) DRM-Less AAC files are 256kbps.
AAC and WMA are far superior codecs to MP3, which has long outlived its time.
Agreed, 100%. I no longer use mp3's myself. I hate them. FLAC and AAC, FTW!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment