News Apple Plus files contain lots

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/06/04/apple_plus_files_contain_lots/1

The new Apple iTunes Plus AAC files don't contain DRM - but they do contain a lot of other stuff.

 

Still isn't going to tempt me to get out the plastic. I can get the CD for the same money which is lossless audio, I expect the same when I buy off iTunes; not 128kbps AAC shite.

 

I guess you forgot a link in there brett...

And this sounds great to catch the ones that spread illegal music..

 

Although I'm not a music listener, I honestly do not see the problem with adding user information to the music. If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem, you shouldn't be sharing your music online anyway. If it helps compatibility then its good news.

As Glider said, great for catching the naughty ones. A benefit as a whole imo.

 

Meh...this isn't that bad IMHO. I mean, it's not monitoring you (I think ). It's only really bad if you're posting these all over P2P networks or something. At least it'll give some comfort to EMI that their iTunes Plus thing may actually work, and maybe even encourage other labels to put their music on it, too.
I'm sure people will be finding ways to rip the extra data off the song soon, anyways

Question, though...does anyone know if these tables stay on the file even if they're burned to a CD?

Edit:

Just FYI, the iTunes Plus store has higher quality files than the regular iTunes store, something like 192 or 256kbps.

 

as a friend pointed out: how can apple put personal information into a track that is "above what Apple is normally entitled to"? either they're entitled to your personal data, or they're not. if not, don't give it to them!

 

this is also being discussed here: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=134176

there is no way apple would do the same as Sony did, they are not that stupid.

 

Yawn. I'm perfectly happy having extra data added to my music files from iTunes. I don't/won't share them... I paid for them, so why would I?

 

I dont have a problem with it as long as this data wont be misused by RIAA and related useless groups.

No DRM means that I can play it on any device I want in any way I want .... Now if only movies would come out like this.

 

Seems OK to me.
If you get raided and police see a huge stash of music on your PC, you can say "hey look, my files are encoded with my personal information to prove I own it"
This way there is identifiable info in the files for proof of purchase, plus you can move it to whatever device you want. The only worry is that someone could get on your PC, copy your music to a USB stick and then nick it and share it. How are they gonna get round that because previously if someone did that, then DRM wouldnt let them play it on another machine/account.

 

So why are we having to pay so much more for them? I thought we were paying more for them BECAUSE they had no added information; that they were expecting us NOT to share them BECAUSE we paid more for them. Anyways, price alone has been putting me off buying music online for ages, not the DRM so much. Though this is good news for music lovers, I am still not going to buy music online when I can continue buying used CD's for half the price as regular CD's AND they're lossless w/o DRM. Hmmm..... tough decision....

 

QFT. People are just looking for a reason to hate on Apple. In any case, all of the pre-release leaks and uploads and warez and crap come from CDs, not from someone stripping the DRM off of a lossy AAC file from iTunes (or, now, straight uploading a not-as-lossy file from iTunes Plus).

I'm still waiting to hear that artists are getting a fair cut before I start snapping up tons of music. Once that happens, I'll buy every CD I've downloaded that I actually listen to. After having dealt with DRM on some early iTunes purchases, I quickly decided 'never again' on that front, so this is a major step in the right direction. It's not like the DRM-encoded files didn't have this same information in them as well, and supposedly this is being done, at least in part, for the reverse-syncing off of iPods for purchased music (if this header wasn't in there, you couldn't identify the tracks as purchased versus ripped from CD).

 

I think if we're to be honest about it, the very fact that people are getting up on their high horses about a few hundred KB of extra data in a legal .m4a file just belies their intentions with the file.
As others here have said, if it's just personally-identifying information, then there's no problem, since you're not supposed to share it, and people getting pissy about that just does the Anti-DRM cause more harm than good.
It would make the Anti-DRM campaign as a whole look a lot less legitimate if people start getting pissy at personally-identifying info in the files, when that info would obviously only be for the sake of tracking down illegal sharing.

I'm no M£tallica and I detest the RI/MP-AA as much as everyone else, but if we want a fair and legal DRM-free industry, then we'll have to live up to our own side of the deal too.

I remember the first time I bought and installed my first legal or non-preinstalled copy of Windows, and I felt a distinct sense of pride at using something legitimate and legal, knowing that I wasn't breaking any laws to use my PC, even if I had to pay through the nose to get to that point.
I don't know about other people, but I'd feel the very same again after buying & downloading some DRM-Free, legal music from Apple, and knowing that I got my hands on some music at a dirt-cheap price (when compared to paying €25-30 for an album in HMV or Virgin), legally and legitimately.
I'd feel a lot better about listening to legally-downloaded albums since at least *some* of the money I spend might be getting to the people who deserve it (that 0.0001% or so that goes to the actual artists), as opposed to downloading albums off P2P and contributing nothing to the industry or the artists, regardless of my ethical stance.

Like everyone else interested in the matter, I'm curious to see what else is stored in the files.
Maybe it's naieve of me to think so, but I don't think Apple would be stupid enough to walk the same road as Sony and end up with a PR nightmare on their hands.....at least I hope not.

Maybe someone could enlighten me as to why it really matters what personal information is stored in my .m4a files if nobody else is ever supposed to get their hands on my files anyway, since that's illegal and is the 'our side of the deal that we have to live up to' that I mentioned earlier?

In response to the fear that someone could steal your mp3s and distribute them, getting you into trouble...well, it's just a matter of being careful.
You don't leave your credit/debit card lying around for people to take it and use it to buy illegal items on the black market or somesuch, so why would you let anyone get their hands on your legal, non-shareable songs?

 

meh, i dislike the thought of audio files being tracked to my computer.. .i'll stick with buying CD's I think.

 

Good post Zurechial. Very well put!


pendragon, do you buy your CDs from high street stores with a debit or credit card? The marketing companies know what you're buying. Big brother is watching you.

 

its really the principle of the thing though. sure, if youre not planning on illegally distributing the music then you wont mind right? in theory thats fine. but then i suppose you wouldnt mind having a camera planted in your house to watch you and see if youre doing anything illegal? or how about having your phone lines tapped so we can know if youre saying anything bad? how about random drug tests on the streets?

i guess im saying that its just not nice to be constantly treated like a criminal when youre doing nothing wrong. whether or not it invades your privacy.

 

Noone treats you like a criminial? Haven't you ever put your name on something to mark it as "yours"? Same here...

 

It's not that bad. I remember a few years ago (I actually had more money as well) that I would pirate everything (photoshop, games, even Norton IS *shudder*).

Now I try and pay for all of my software, I've realised it's not so good for the industry and pirating often leads to a bunch of problems. I don't need photoshop, paint.net is perfectly reasonable.

On this issue I support Apple, it don't work but better than some shitty DRM.

 

Thanks Quack

There's a significant difference though, between having some personally-identifying details stored in a song file that nobody else is supposed to see in the first place (if you obey the law), and being under constant surveillance.
It's not a black/white comparison, and I don't think Big Brother fears can really be applied to this unless we see something genuinely disturbing in the unaccounted-for data, a la Sony's Rootkit.

I think it's safe to say that a large portion of the people who use Itunes, or would use it in the future, are people who have been availing of the free, convenient and illegal music on filesharing networks within the past few years and recently made the switch.
I don't advocate treating innocent music-listeners like criminals, but then, when offered the option of downloading free but illegal music from p2p networks, the majority of people in the past couple of years didn't turn that offer down, and they are, technically, criminals.

Apple have offered their side of the deal, and by doing away with DRM at all, regardless of the added price (a few extra cents in currency, or a few hundred kilobytes in filesize and ID info), they've made a step in the right direction.
I think it'd be immature of the opponents of DRM to not recognise that, and to not act accordingly in a fair and legal manner.

This reminds me of the recent debate in Ireland over whether random breathalyzer tests on drivers by the police should be allowed, in an effort to combat drink-driving.
I don't drink-and-drive, and apart from the minor inconvenience of having to stop for the procedure in the rare, off chance that I'd be one of the few drivers chosen to be tested, I don't mind.
I'd be glad to prove my innocence, and proud that I'm a sensible, conscientous driver who isn't as likely to kill someone else on the road because of alcohol.
Of course, in the interests of "human rights and freedom", this proposal was strongly opposed by many here.
Whatever happened to the human rights of the victims of drunk-driving accidents?
The freedom and human rights of someone who has done no wrong and who is a victim of illegality are a lot more important to me than a minority of criminals who can negatively impact on the rights of others, and I'll gladly compromise some of my own rights to protect those innocent people.

The same rings true, for me, with Apple's ID information in the songs, while it's a far lesser inconvenience than being stopped and breathalyzed.
I have nothing to hide if I don't share the songs illegally, and some innocuous ID info in a song that nobody else will see isn't the same as having my every action surveilled.
Sure, my money is going to the 'big, evil' corporations like Apple, and the detestable RIAA, but some of it is also going to the artists, and no laws are being broken nor any harm done, when someone buys and downloads a song from iTunes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fascist, and If the unnaccounted-for data turns out to have anything bearing even remote resemblance to a rootkit, or anything that genuinely compromises the consumer's rights in some way other than merely identifying them, then my stance would change, but until then I'd be comfortable with that extra data in the songs.

 

That's the start of a slippery slope there. Governments all around the world are currently encroaching on our personal freedoms with just that argument.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with encrypting the purchasers name in the song as that's only a good thing to stop piracy - however we should be being told what else is there and then having the choice whether to use this service or not (personally I don't use iTunes at all - I'd rather listen to quality music).