There Had to be a Catch, Eh?

[steven8]

DRM Free iTunes have a hidden center:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6711215.stm

[Tuna-Fish]

And? Sounds perfectly reasonable. If songs you bought make it to p2p networks you have most likely committed a crime, and deserve to get sued.

My problem with DRM isn't with the concept of actually following the license agreements, it's with the way DRM limits legal, ordinary use. Watermarking tracks seems to be a perfectly functional way to monitor legal use without in any way hurting the possibilities of the consumer. Yay for apple for finding an alternative to DRM that in no way harms the consumer.

[starcraft.man]

Well, while thats nice tuna, there's always the case of someone stealing your ipod or losing it... then I'd like to see what ya think when your being sued by the RIAA (unless apple has a lost redemption for these songs or something?).

Anyway, I guess I don't really care. I don't buy/use any Apple products, I don't feel the need to support them (and their DRM). I get my music the old fashioned way, with nothing extra/DRM in them. I don't have time/energy to waste on all these useless schemes (they have been proven to only annoy regular users).

The bottom line IMO is I don't see any reason why songs sold on the net should have anything CD's don't.

[Adamant1988]

Actually, that sounds like a perfectly good alternative to DRM. I don't share my music, etc. so I could definitely stand my music being 'digitally signed' with my name. It allows for fair use, but with enough of a safety net to catch people who are actually breaking the law, I like it.

I suppose that the stolen iPod scenario is covered, if you report it stolen that shouldn't be an issue.

[bonzodog]

I have to say it, but I agree. Watermarking is a good way of doing music legitamately, but with out the DRM restrictions. This way, it's still possible to prevent out-and-out file sharing.

I fully support the idea of paying for music as long as my use of it is not restricted in any way. I don't mind having my username and email address embedded within it.

[Lord Illidan]

While I don't like it that much, probably they had to do it to appease some media people, not to mention alleviate the risks of filesharing.

[Adamant1988]

While I don't like it that much, probably they had to do it to appease some media people, not to mention alleviate the risks of filesharing.

It's better than DRM...
I can now do whatever I want aside from anything illegal with my music. I can put unlimited copies on CD, etc. for personal use. What I can't do is send that file to a few hundred thousand people, I'll get caught doing that.

[starcraft.man]

It's better than DRM...
I can now do whatever I want aside from anything illegal with my music. I can put unlimited copies on CD, etc. for personal use. What I can't do is send that file to a few hundred thousand people, I'll get caught doing that.

You can always buy a regular CD..........

[Adamant1988]

You can always buy a regular CD..........
Which I do do occasionally, but typically I'll only buy a CD if I know I love the whole thing.

[jgrabham]

Should have known EMI would be behind it!

[zenwhen]

http://www.geeksrus.com/2007/06/01/apple-embeds-user-data-in-itunes-plus-songs-so-what/

This is a good response article.

My issue with the people who are annoyed by this is that they are really being hypocritical. The same people who said they hated DRM because it limited their ability to use it with different software and devices are now still mad because the DRM free music is harder/more dangerous to share with other people.

I don't think there is anything wrong with labels and artists expecting to get paid for every copy of their song that is distributed. This MINOR compromise is not really a big deal.

[igknighted]

This is great news... if it is true it lets record industries get what they want (cutting down pirating), but it also lets end users have complete control of their music. Hopefully others will follow.

[saulgoode]

This is better than DRM in the same sense that America's Japanese internment camps were better than Germany's concentration camps. They both presuppose a level guilt that is unsubstantiated, one just takes the prosecution further.

[Adamant1988]

This is better than DRM in the same sense that America's Japanese internment camps were better than Germany's concentration camps. They both presuppose a level guilt that is unsubstantiated, one just takes the prosecution further.

I just knew someone would ring in with something completely off base. The embedded information does not imply guilt, it implies ownership. It implies that you were the original purchaser of that file, which can be both good and bad. It can be BAD if you choose to do something illegal with it.

In my opinion this embedded information is no worse than having a license plate on your car that can be used to track that car back to it's owner. That license plate is absolutely no danger to you until you start doing something illegal with your car.

[saulgoode]

If this rumor ends up being true (and I remain skeptical) then the "goodness" of the approach should be openly recognized. The fact that the data is surreptitiously embedded without the user's knowledge suggests that there may be some "badness" underlying its usage. If it is intended as a "license plate" then it should be clearly visible to all, especially the owner of the car.

[juxtaposed]

Aparently it isn't watermarking, it's just metadata (the same way the the title, album, track name, etc are stored) and can be easily removed.

[Adamant1988]

If this rumor ends up being true (and I remain skeptical) then the "goodness" of the approach should be openly recognized. The fact that the data is surreptitiously embedded without the user's knowledge suggests that there may be some "badness" underlying its usage. If it is intended as a "license plate" then it should be clearly visible to all, especially the owner of the car.

To that extent I agree, I should know about it if information is being embedded in the song. But, at the same time, I completely understand why Apple didn't mention it or make it obvious. People would have thrown a fit if Apple had said, "Look, we're going to remove restrictions, but we're going to make it much more dangerous for you to try to share these songs"