Uncategorized

iTunes Selling EMI DRM Free But Attaching Purchaser’s Info

UPDATED:  iTunes yesterday began selling thousands of higher quality EMI tracks DRM free and added an upgrade option for previous purchases. But the offering dubbed iTunes Plus comes with some major Itunes_2
baggage that may not please consumers.

First, iTunes Plus requires a software upgrade and then asks users to choose an option that allows them see available DRM free tracks when searching for an artist or album.  But once consumers choose the iTunes Plus option and look for an EMI act, the results will only show the $1.29 DRM free download.  The original $.99 EMI track with DRM is no longer available to iTunes Plus consumers unless they go back and switch their settings before each search or purchase.

But that’s just the beginning…

Applelogo_3
Apple is permanently attaching the purchaser’s name and email address to every download for the whole world to see. Apparently, iTunes does this even with non-DRM free tracks. But the info like the track was encrypted; and who was going to try to trade a restricted track anyway?

The move is apparently aimed at stopping piracy.  But with the info open to spoofing how reliable is it? And how will Apple use or share the information?  Thus far Apple has not commented, but the blogs are burning with indignation. "Apple and EMI can’t cover up the fact that they’re fucking with us.  This is WORSE than restricted/DRM/copy-protected music!" cried Bob Lefsetz.

HYPEBOT COMMENTARY: How could Steve Jobs not have understood that there would not be consumer backlash at adding personal info to each track? And what made Apple think that consumers don’t sometimes want to pay more for DRM free tracks and at other times prefer the $.99 version? 

Is Job’s desire to control each transaction so great that he doesn’t care if he pisses off the consumer?  It makes one wonder if all of the pontification from Jobs about a DRM free music world isn’t a smokescreen and his real endgame is to make sure that EMI’s DRM free experiment fails.

After all, if the iPod and iTunes combo remains a closed loop; the consumer is forced to buy there.

Please tell us that this isn’t part of Amazon’s mp3 plan…

(Apple press release)

Share on:

7 Comments

  1. Sounds fine to me. I am one of the weirdos who actually wants only DRM-free files. I never go to the iTunes store because of this, but I shop with Boomcat and Nettwerk and other DRM-free stores regularly. I am excited to check the new Apple store out. I am also a huge fan of FLAC files, so I am hoping that these will be available from the iTunes store as well.
    You have a great site! I really appreciate all the industry news that I have learned here. Thank you and keep the great work!

  2. DRM or no DRM – iTunes is only selling use rights, NOT music.
    And I fear this will also be the case if the tracks from the independents will be added to “itunes plus”.

  3. Could be a condition from the RIAA to do DRM-free music.
    I have no problem with it. Not going to share my files anyways. I care more about being able to play the file on any AAC player.
    Why do you assume Apple is always the bad guy? I think it is to get more hits.

  4. It interesting that some readers seem unbothered by Apple adding purchaser info to each track. When you buy a CD that don’t etch your name onto it. And if this was EMI or Apple’s intention why did they not tell people in advance. DRM free means free.

  5. What – you’re just discovering this now?? This has *always* been there with the purchased music, for over four years now – every single song sold through the iT(M)S since it opened in April 2003 has clearly, plainly shown the purchaser’s name and account name (generally the email address) in the same pane in the “Get Info” window that shows the running time, file size, bitrate, sample rate, play count, date modified, etc. It’s not news, and certainly not something they just instituted as a trade-off for offering stuff without DRM.

  6. I am reminded of the old maxim…never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
    First of all it is a cinch to remove or modify this information, thereby closing any chance of going after the identity embedded in the copy in the wild.
    Second, if Apple really wanted to do this (why???), they could have easily embedded a much more inscrutable watermark.
    I’ll bet that the folks at Apple just didnt think about this when they blithely moved all the m4p tags to m4a.

Comments are closed.