iTunes Music Store DRM Summary

[a9mike]

I like it

This DRM is slick - period.

Anyone who is complaining about it's implementation doesn't know what Apple went through to get it approved. I'm frankly surprized that the labels agreed. I feel bad calling it DRM. It's so easy to bypass it's laughable, just switch your iTunes encoder (BUILT-IN) to AIFF or WAV and convert the file (via Advanced menu) - DRM gone & no loss in quality - re-encode to MP3@192Kb or AIFF and you've lost practically/absolutely nothing in quality and can do ANYTHING you want to your files, even if you want to burn 1,000,000 copies of Enya and throw them from the rooftops while yelling "Freedom!!!" and lighting your hair on fire. I don't understand the complaints on how they "restrict" you?!?!?! You want a $.99 song that you can play anywhere (and yes I mean anywhere), fire up iTunes and get it in 30 sec. - You need better quality and zero DRM? - go buy a cd for $17. Simple really.

I worked as an encoding engineer for an unnamed music website back in the days of milk and honey (er... I mean the days of throwing money at anything with a .com). We had all of these startup companies trying to sell us some encryption method to apply to our MP3s. The basic rule is that no encryption is full proof - of course. I had a rep come in and demo his software and when he was done he asked me to "crack" it and get the file to play on a machine that wasn't authorized. So I grabbed me a 1/8" cable and a copy of SoundEdit and made a new AIFF file. From there I could do anything I wanted with it. He called me a cheater. I told him we wouldn't be purchasing their software. This is the cold hard truth that the labels understand now. You can't protect it, only make it a little more difficult.

Make it easier, faster, and with a better selection than the "free/stolen" option and people will buy it.

I guess my point here is that I believe they did it right... or at least are off to a really good start. We tried to do this 5 years ago and it didn't work. A lot of companies have tried it but didn't understand the whole process as much as I think Apple does now.

A few other items:

However, I notice that no menu option exists to export my new AAC's to MP3 format, so DRM must also apply in this scenario.

Actually no - goto your prefs under "import" and choose the encoder (such as MP3) you want iTunes to use. Then go back to your file and in the "advanced" menu choose to "covert selection". iTunes will make a copy in the new format - no burning required. This is not the cleanest way however, there will be some loss to the MP3 version. The best way is to re-rip all of your CDs to AAC, but if time is a bigger issue --> set up iTunes to do your whole library and walk away.

I ran my purchased CD through the AAC compressor in iTunes. It sounds EXCELLENT when I compress my CD to my iTunes library with AAC at 128Kb/s. Literally CD quality. I must admit indistiguishable. Just the version on Apple Music is terrible! it sounds like a degenerated version.

The 30 sec. sample does not represent the downloadable version - though it should confirm this somewhere in the Music Store yet doesn't. I was worried when I first heard the samples because yes, some do sound like crap... with lots of high end swashing in the hi-hat and guitar. These are lower bitrate streaming files though.

My biggest complaint... More songs! More selection!!! Sooner than later, please!!!! Excited... and getting my first iPod soon...

Back to my Kool Aid...

 

[Perceptes]

Quick question before I start the bulk of my post: How can Winamp play AAC's encoded with iTunes if Apple claims these files will only work with iTunes or the iPod? Are they referring to only the protected AAC's? I want to be able to rip on the Mac and play on the PC.

And now for my real post:

Good posts, Jeff. Let me say again that I do think this new service is great, it's a huge step forward and going in the right direction, as Apple once again leads the way into the future.

I was planning to start ripping my CD's to AAC instead of MP3, but I just did a test and was totally unimpressed. I encoded an AIFF of my music to AAC at 128 Kbps, and not only was it the exact same size as the 128 Kbps MP3 encoded from the same AIFF file, but I could detect no difference in quality listening to the two back to back. And yes, I'm sure that I encoded it as an AAC and not another MP3. Did I miss something? I'm not surprised that I can't tell the difference in quality, but why are the two files the same size?

Concerning the limitations of the protected AAC's, I don't want to get into a big debate on the morality of music sharing, but here is my justification for my position:

I have downloaded lots of music that I don't own. After listening to it, I have subsequently deleted what I didn't like and eventually bought a real copy of the ones I do. While this is not legal in the black and white sense of the law, I don't have a guilty conscience about doing this. As an artist myself, I in no way support stealing from artists, and as a person with decent morality, I don't believe in stealing from record companies either, as bloodthirsty as they might be.

I just don't like the fact that you are actually purchasing a copy of the music and yet are still limited in some way. If I'm paying for it, I want it. Not a limited version of it. With MP3, although it is not legal to share files you don't own, you have the moral choice to make that decision on your own. To illustrate my point, here are two somewhat philosophical quotes:

"Goodness comes from within. Goodness is chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."

"I don't like what he does. But I like the fact that I live in a country where I have [the choice to do it or not.]" (I forget the exact phrasing, it's been a while.)

Again, I am not saying any of this makes illegal sharing any less illegal, just saying that I feel comfortable with what I do and I don't think something you rightfully pay for should be limited.

I would love to jump on the bandwagon with both the music service and AAC. Just a little wary of it before I begin...

Feel free to flame me, and let me know if admitting or discussing this sort of behavior is against the rules of the boards or anything.

 

[a9mike]

How can Winamp play AAC's encoded with iTunes if Apple claims these files will only work with iTunes or the iPod? Are they referring to only the protected AAC's? I want to be able to rip on the Mac and play on the PC.

Yes, the protected ones only. You can encode from CD (or MP3 or any other supported file on your HD) to AAC through iTunes and play it on any player that supports AAC/MP4/MPa.

For a protected AAC, you would have to "strip" the file by converting to AIFF/WAV/burn a CD, then re-encode it to AAC. Easy, just time consuming and a loss of quality because of the re-encoding.

I encoded an AIFF of my music to AAC at 128 Kbps, and not only was it the exact same size as the 128 Kbps MP3 encoded from the same AIFF file, but I could detect no difference in quality listening to the two back to back. And yes, I'm sure that I encoded it as an AAC and not another MP3. Did I miss something?

[Edited]Everytime the AAC should be (exactly the same size) and have better high end clarity without as much hiss and with less of a "swishy" (is that a word) sound. MP3 often compensates for a lack of high end clarity by applying more frequency gain above 4k (high end). Also AAC has better bass response, the MP3 format is good at providing bass - but not bass response, ie. a tighter solid tone without the distorted rumble.

To hear the difference you need to listen through better speakers than the average computer. <generally>That's why MP3 was such a hit, not many people cared/care about the difference between a CD and an MP3 on their computer because you can't hear the difference (as much) on a pair of $8 speakers. Now people are hooking up better speaker systems and are starting to notice more.</generally>

Now the ogg people are after me... gotta go.

 

[GBRocksFan]

My understanding is that the sample rate dictates the size of the file. Ogg Vorbis, AAC and MP3 would all be the same size at the same bit rate.

The difference is that a 128kbs AAC is supposed to sound equivalent to (say) a 160kbps MP3. And there's the size difference.

Anyone confirm/deny that?

 

[Perceptes]

Ohhhhhhh... Thanks for the replies.

GBRocksFan: I seem to recall that now. That makes perfect sense. Better quality for the same size, or smaller size for the same quality. Same as Ogg Vorbis.

a9mike: GBRocksFan seems to have answered the question about the file size, unless there is something both he and I are missing. Also, I actually have Roland speakers that are intended for pro audio, although not great ones- I'm not using cheesy Best Buy type computer speakers. I also listened on my Sony studio headphones and couldn't tell the difference.

 

[a9mike]

I'm sorry but it's late and I'm bored, so I'll post some more...

My understanding is that the sample rate dictates the size of the file. Ogg Vorbis, AAC and MP3 would all be the same size at the same bit rate. The difference is that a 128kbs AAC is supposed to sound equivalent to (say) a 160kbps MP3. And there's the size difference. Anyone confirm/deny that?

My bad... you're right. What I ment is that for the same quality you have a smaller file. All my MP3s are @ 192kbps and my new files that I've encoded since yesterday are all smaller (because they are @ 128kbps AAC).

A 128kbps MP3 has a lot of the junk in it, and at 192kbps a lot of the artifacts are not very noticable. A 192kbps MP3 is very similar to the 128kbps AAC. So... 128/192=.66 = 66% of the size for similar if not better quality. Try it, i did. I took my Powerbook to my sound studio tonight & the AAC sounded a lot clearer, in the high end and bass response especially.

I have downloaded lots of music that I don't own. After listening to it, I have subsequently deleted what I didn't like and eventually bought a real copy of the ones I do. While this is not legal in the black and white sense of the law, I don't have a guilty conscience about doing this. As an artist myself, I in no way support stealing from artists, and as a person with decent morality, I don't believe in stealing from record companies either, as bloodthirsty as they might be.

I have downloaded my fair share as well. I too am a musician and I too have gone out and purchased the CDs I liked and thrown away 1,000s of MP3s I didn't - but I'm not going to lie and tell you I don't have a lot of singles that I would never buy the whole album for. Yes I feel remorse for stealing, believe it or not - BUT, and that's a big but... we are living in a single serving society (yea, I know I stole that quote too) and things are changing.

If the average person was on the street corner and saw a McDonalds, and a guy named Joe with a hot dog cart was right out in front of it giving away free Big Macs... He'd be really busy! People would go for the free Big Macs everytime. People would even wait in line longer for the free burgers. Why? Because they're free! Free wins!!! I know the guy stole the Big Macs and is reselling them... and I've given more than enough $$$ to McDonalds, they're a huge corporation... should I feel bad, yes. But I'd grab me one of those Big Macs and chow down.

What's going to change this? Morality? No, I don't think so. I think I'm a pretty moral guy and most people have a fair share of morality rolling around in their heads, but we still have illegal matieral on our hard drives. How does it change? It's simple and Apple's doing it... easier, faster and a better selection than the free stuff. You don't ban P2P, you can't. You don't pass laws that allow "internet officials" to raid IRC channels. This is the right way. It's the future and it's inevitable, whether Apple succeeds or someone else does in a few years. They need to work on that last part about the selection...

I guess I'm a thief, but not a liar.

 

[mustang_dvs]

Authorization and Multiple Users

Here's my question about authorization:
Is the authorization key specific to the user OR the computer?

What I mean by this is if a given Mac has multiple users (via separate logins), does the authorization apply globally to all users, or a per user basis.

For example, I have a few interns who have iPods, but PCs at home. If they purchase music on a Mac in the office, while individually logged-in, (to transfer to an iPod), does everyone else who logs in as a separate user have to de-authorize iTunes or does it treat separate users separately?

I guess what this boils down to is: does iTunes maintain the authorization information in the individual home folder or in the global library folder?

This has some serious implications (either way) for some uses, such as networked-home folders, family computers and workstations with multiple users and I am keenly interested in discovering the answer. I will give it a shot on my Mac at work and let you know the answer, if no one responds before I arrive in the office.

 

[rundevilrun]

buying songs and then albums later

One thing I have not heard about yet is how they handle it if you buy a few individual songs and then decide to buy the whole album. I read somewhere that the system keeps track of what you have bought so you don't download duplicates, but if you buy say 3 songs for $3 and then buy the album do they charge you $8 instead of $11 for it?
If they do that I'm going shopping tonight!

 

[evoluzione]

Re: buying songs and then albums later

Originally posted by rundevilrun
One thing I have not heard about yet is how they handle it if you buy a few individual songs and then decide to buy the whole album. I read somewhere that the system keeps track of what you have bought so you don't download duplicates, but if you buy say 3 songs for $3 and then buy the album do they charge you $8 instead of $11 for it?
If they do that I'm going shopping tonight!

i was wondering this, if you buy a song off an album, and then you decide that you really should buy the whole album, do you still have to pay the $10? i hope not

 

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by grahams
Are you absolutely sure about that? I note that when ripping from my own CDs .m4a files are created on my hard drive, which I think may be the DRM variant of .mp4 files.

Also interesting to note that these .m4a files cannot be previewed (ie. played) in the Finder, whereas MP3s can. This suggests DRM is being used as playback is restricted to the iTunes application.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

The article said AAC files can only be played in the iPod and iTunes so that means the finder can't play them AFAIK.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Originally posted by Kid Red
The article said AAC files can only be played in the iPod and iTunes so that means the finder can't play them AFAIK.

Fortunately, you're wrong about this. AAC files come in two flavors: m4a (MPEG-4 Audio) and m4p (MPEG-4 audio protected). Both can be played by any application that uses QuickTime for the job. That means you can play AAC files in the Finder, or in the iLife applications, or Final Cut Pro, or whatever you like as long as it uses QuickTime.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Originally posted by Perceptes
I want to be able to rip on the Mac and play on the PC.

According to some folks who should know, the full install of WinAmp includes AAC playback support. I don't have a PC, so I can't personally confirm this. Can somebody else, maybe?

I'm not surprised that I can't tell the difference in quality, but why are the two files the same size?

Because a 128 kbps file will be the same size no matter how it's encoded. That's the definition of a 128 kbps file: that it's encoded with 128 kilobits per second. (QuickTime 6.2's AAC encoder uses an adaptive bit rate scheme, I think, that means the file probably won't be EXACTLY 128 kbps per second, but it should average out to 128 kbps over the length of the song.)

The magic happens when you rip (not convert, but re-rip from scratch) your CD library to 128 kbps AAC instead of 192 or 256 kbps MP3. You get the same or even better audio quality in 25% or 50% less disk space. I'm converting my entire collection, and based on what I've seen so far it looks like a 35 GB library is going to become about a 26 GB library, even with album art embedded in every file. That means I can fit about 25% more songs on my iPod at a given time without sacrificing sound quality. That's REALLY cool. It's like trading in my 5 GB iPod for a 7 GB iPod for free.

(On preview: Oops. Others have answered this one already. Sorry.)

I just don't like the fact that you are actually purchasing a copy of the music and yet are still limited in some way.

Fair enough, though I think it's kind of silly. No offense intended, of course. From everything I've seen so far, you can do everything with an .m4p that you're allowed to do with a CD. So as long as you don't try to do anything illegal, you'll never notice that you're dealing with .m4p files.

But if it bothers you, simply burn your .m4p's to audio CD. At that point, they become simple AIFF files that you can do whatever you want to or with, up to and including stuff that's illegal if that floats your boat.

There's zero reason to take a moral stance here. If you don't want to use protected files, don't. Burn CD's of your purchased music and stick 'em on your shelf, then delete the .m4p's or back 'em up or whatever.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: I like it

Originally posted by a9mike
It's so easy to bypass it's laughable, just switch your iTunes encoder (BUILT-IN) to AIFF or WAV and convert the file (via Advanced menu) - DRM gone & no loss in quality

For the record: no. You get an error message that says the song "could not be converted because protected files cannot be converted to other formats."

even if you want to burn 1,000,000 copies of Enya and throw them from the rooftops

If by "1,000,000 copies" you mean "10 copies," you're right.

The best way is to re-rip all of your CDs to AAC, but if time is a bigger issue --> set up iTunes to do your whole library and walk away.

I did a test, and found that the sound quality of a 192 kbps MP3 converted to an AAC is unacceptable. For me, it's worth the time to re-rip my 400+ CD's. Luckily, I have a G4, so it's a simple matter of setting iTunes to batch mode and feed it CD's while I do other things. Two CPU's, no waiting.

 

[mustang_dvs]

re: Multiple Users and DRM Authorization

Well, I finally got the chance to buy a couple of songs, put them in a shared folder and log in as a different user on my computer...

Well, it seems I should have taken a cue from the fact that the iTunes menu item is "Deauthorize Computer."

It seems that the user authorization key is global.

Personally, I do not believe that this is a Good Thing™ -- it prevents multiple users from accessing their music accounts easily from the same computer.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: re: Multiple Users and DRM Authorization

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Personally, I do not believe that this is a Good Thing™ -- it prevents multiple users from accessing their music accounts easily from the same computer.

What? No, it doesn't. My girlfriend has an iBook and I have a G4. Both of our computers are authorized to play both of our music collections. A given computer can be authorized on more than one Apple ID at a time.

 

[Dave Marsh]

Authorization/Deauthorization

OK, this is getting clearer. So, we now know that the computer authorization is global. That suggests the Apple Music server downloads encrypted keys unique for that computer and user when the user authorized the computer, and probably saved it somewhere in the common Library.

We also heard above from one poster that the purchasing user's Apple ID is embedded in the songs they purchase. So this suggests multiple users are handled like this:

Click on a song. ITunes checks the ownership embedded in the song. It then looks for a central key on that computer for the identified user. If the central key matches the ownership embedded in the song, it plays the song. If not, it asks for your Apple ID/password and attempts to setup an authorization for the new user.

It does this by connecting to the central Apple Music server, which then confirms fewer than three authorized computers are associated with that purchased song. If this is true, it creates an additional encrypted key for that user/computer combination and downloads it to the user's Mac into whatever Library directory has been setup for these computer keys.

This arrangement suggests there must be a common Library directory for these central keys. It also suggests these keys identify both authorized Apple user IDs and a unique identifier for that Mac (e.g., firmware embedded serial number). It also explains why each purchased song has the purchasing user's Apple ID embedded in it.

This would easily accommodate the local network streaming scenario. Click on a song in a Rendezvous mounted playlist from anywhere on your subnet. If you have the central key for the song's owner on your local Mac, the song plays. If not, it requests you login to get the central key. When you login, the Apple ID you use must match the one embedded in the song. The Apple Music server performs its authorization check, downloads the central authorization key for the new Mac, and plays the song. The next time that user on that Mac makes the request, the key's there.

 

[old_macpro]

I know this has been touched on before, but it is worth mentioning again. AAC is a better format, and at 128 bits, it is equal to a 160 bit MP3 or better in terms of dynamic range. When you master the AAC files to an Audio CD - you are getting very very close to the sound of the original CD.

Now, when you decide to RIP the CD back to an MP3 (say using the older itunes or such), you will experience very little loss. In fact, if you use something higher than 128K (like VBR) setting for your MP3 - the entire round trip will still sound better than a normal 128K MP3 you ripped yourself.

I have seen people are already testing AAC -> WAV -> MP3 to see how it works (same thing as moving it to a CD first).

So...
- If you have an original CD, AAC ripping is best at the same bit rates.
- If you need an MP3 file, re-rip or convert the AAC to a higher value MP3. It would also be useful to use some of the key presets of the encoder (like LAME) to get the best possible results.

 

[Doctor Q]

I interpret the comment from Perceptes as saying he wants to have the same rights with downloaded music as he has with audio CDs from a store: unlimited personal use. Most practical uses seem covered with minimal interference, so it may be simply a matter of principle. But I can see both sides. Apple couldn't offer this service without some kind of DRM. But you can't as easily lend music to someone (such as letting them borrow your new "Dolly Parton sings Marilyn Manson" CD for the weekend) if your music is computerized and you have to give them a password and they have to have Internet access to enable it, and you can't be as confident that your music is safe should your computer die or Apple suddenly decide to go out of the music business. To get this safety and freedom, however, you can simply make your own CDs out of everything you download. So I'm happy with Apple's solution.

 

[Perceptes]

Originally posted by old_macpro
In fact, if you use something higher than 128K (like VBR) setting for your MP3 - the entire round trip will still sound better than a normal 128K MP3 you ripped yourself.

Can anyone else confirm this? If that's true, I'm definitely all over AAC.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Originally posted by Perceptes
Can anyone else confirm this? If that's true, I'm definitely all over AAC.

I can confirm it subjectively. I downloaded an album from the Store today (U2's "Achtung Baby," if anybody cares). I immediately burned it to CD, so I could put the CD on my shelf with my other CD's. Then, for fun, I ripped the new CD into iTunes. So now I have a set of M4P files that I downloaded and a set of M4A files that I ripped from the CD produced from the M4P files. Does that make sense?

I can't tell the difference between the first-generation M4P's and the second-generation M4A's. On my equipment (which is medium; I have SoundSticks on the Mac and a decent stereo downstairs), they sound slightly different, but I can't tell which is the first-generation and which is the second.

 

[brhmac]

BUYER BEWARE - Songs Mislabeled

Apple had mislabeled a song I'd bought in the Apple Music Store. In keeping with their policy, of course, no refunds.

Apple:

"Based on our Music Store policy we are unable to offer any refunds on purchased music. We do offer a preview function to eliminate issues such as this."

Problem is: The song was supposed be a studio version -- not a live version with some obnoxious person yelling at the beginning.



Three days into the new service and Apple won't acknowledge the possibility of a flaw in its system.


UPDATE: Apple, this evening, gave me a credit as a "gesture of goodwill."

 

[Doctor Q]

I understand the letter of the law: you can authorize up to three Macs. I'd like to know the intent too.

Does Apple intend that my authorized Macs be three semi-permanent Macs in my household, used by my family (or maybe my personal Macs in three locations)? Or is it perfectly fine for me to share with as many friends on as many Macs as I like as long as I only have three authorizations active at any given time? By adding and removing authorizations constantly (I wonder if you can AppleScript this?), I could use my music on whichever Mac I was close to, even if I had more than 3 of them.

A simpler case: Suppose my two friends and I have exactly the same musical taste. Is it OK with Apple and the music publishers who agreed to Apple's contracts if my friends and I share one Apple ID and all of the music we buy, on our three separate home computers?

 

[Jeff Harrell]

I think the intent would probably be that you should be able to listen to your purchased music on all your computers. For the majority of people, that amounts to one Mac at home, one laptop, and one Mac at work, or two Macs at home and a laptop, or something like that. I don't think the intent of the three-Mac limit is that you should be able to give copies of your purchased music to your friends.

This is where I differ oh-so-slightly from Apple. I think anybody should be able to stream any song, protected or otherwise. Right now, only unprotected songs can be streamed by anybody. Protected songs can only be streamed to authorized Macs.

It seems to me that letting people stream music is a good way to give people the ability to easily share their tunes in a way that doesn't violate (or at least doesn't seriously violate) any copyright laws. Copying: bad. Streaming without copying: good. So I'm not sure what I think about that just yet. I reserve the right to change my mind, of course.

In general, I think the intent of Apple's FairPlay is to give the artists the protection they deserve, but give the consumers the ability to do everything they are legally entitled to do with the minimum of hassle. I think they've done a better job of accomplishing that goal than anybody else so far.

(Oh, as for your simple case, if you can get together with three friends and agree on a way to deal with the credit card charges, I think it would be possible to share one Apple ID. But it would probably be more trouble than it's worth, so anybody trying to do that would probably just choose to steal their music anyway. I'm just guessing about that last part, obviously.)

 

[Fireball1244]

Re: just to add

Originally posted by tYNS
Just the version on Apple Music is terrible! it sounds like a degenerated version. listen to it.. you can here the typical high frequency guitar compression wavers. TERRIBLE.. my ear picks this up instantly and it annoys me.

Apple (or the record company) needs to REALLY monitor this.

Were you listening to the stream? Chances are the stream isn't as high quality as the file itself, in order to cut down on streaming costs. All the .m4p files I've downloaded have been very formidable in terms of sound quality.

Kirk

 

[rockman2023]

Re: Playing Protected AAC files

Originally posted by mjtomlin
"Only the iPod and Apple's iTunes currently allow playing of these Protected AAC's."

Actually the QuickTime Player, iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD can play them also. And i suspect any application that utilizes the QuickTime layer.

Another thing to add...

- You can only use iTunes 4 to authorize and deauthorize your system.

mikey T.

Maybe that's why we needed to DL QT6.2.....

Originally posted by Kamu-San
Suddenly a realisation dawned. If this works with music, then the next thing we can expect is on-line film buying! Not DVD-quality & encoding, but DivX.

I'm so happy that I have broadband ;-) But even then it will take days to dl a DVD...

Definetly off topic, but I saw something on TechTV's TechLive a short while back, where it was mentioned that some guys had transfered 2-6GB from the USA to Europe in about 19 sec!!!

"Trying to make the internet faster", something like that. Too bad I still have 56k