iTunes Plus DRM-free, not free of annoying glitches

iTunes updates always seem to come with some growing pains, and yesterday's release of iTunes Plus and iTunes 7.2 doesn't look like it's any exception. We're hearing reports that the new iTunes Plus "Upgrade My Library" feature doesn't work as expected (when it works at all), that Plus downloads are incredibly slow and frequently time out, and that the preference to always see iTunes Plus tracks when they're available occasionally resets itself. On top of all that, the intrepid Apple sleuths over at TUAW have discovered that while iTunes Plus tracks might be DRM-free, they still contain your name and account information -- which seems like a fair piracy-prevention compromise to us, but has apparently rubbed a few people the wrong way. We're not sure if the various iTunes Plus problems are in iTunes 7.2 itself or just the result of pent-up demand for DRM-free EMI tracks overwhelming Apple's servers, but you can bet that Steve's minions are busy getting iTunes 7.2.1 ready as we speak.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 7:26PM]

I have a question. What happens in the following scenario?

1. My husband buys a DRM-free song with his info embedded in the song.
2. He shares it with me, as we are on the same family, but we don't use the same computers/iTunes/iPods or have the same iTunes accounts.

If RIAA asks for info about which song is registered with which user and who actually uses that song with his iTunes, can I be sued? You see, my surname is not the same as my husband's (so it's not obvious that we are married) and our marriage papers were done in France, not USA (although we LIVE in USA).

So, while I do believe that eventually such a lawsuit would be dropped if it were to exist, what guarantees do I get that RIAA's lawyers won't make the mistake more than once after analyzing data that Apple gave them?? I mean, it's very ambiguous what can happen if you share a song with a non-authorized iTunes installation, no?

[bscout @ May 31st 2007 7:49PM]

Marriage has nothing to do with RIAA copyright infringement. There is no allowance for your husband to be able to "share" a song with you because you are in the same family.

If the song exists concurrently in two or more places at once with the same tagged data, you are infringing. The exceptions to this are those that are granted by Apple's terms of usuage (such as placing copies on 1 iPod, etc.)

[Kichigai Mentat @ May 31st 2007 10:55PM]

You know, my guess is that in this case it's moot, since you're married, and essentially you two (in some legal sense) share everything.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 7:32PM]

BTW, I am not interested in using utilities for removing the info. I only like to use solutions that work out of the box, with no extra work and no legal headaches. So, please don't reply in my query with a "re-encode it or use that XX utility", cause I am not interested in doing that. My query was purely a legal question.

[Nilay Patel @ May 31st 2007 8:08PM]

ELQ, while I am a copyright attorney that has defended RIAA filesharing lawsuits, this is not legal advice and should not be construed as such -- I'm only speaking as an Engadget blogger.

It doesn't look like Apple is tracking what music you have on your machine -- my guess is that it's only embedding account info per song to track illegal activity on p2p networks. So it's highly doubtful that Apple even knows what you and your husband are doing in your household with your music, let alone compiling that information in preparation for some RIAA subpoena. I wouldn't worry about it.

We've put in a call to Apple to confirm, and we'll be following up shortly. Thanks for reading!

[kingofwale @ May 31st 2007 7:34PM]

I'm not liking this. Apple right now is telling us "What would you prefer? DRM or Spyware"

Gonna try better, Apple.

[Kevlar @ May 31st 2007 9:14PM]

@kingofwhale:

Tagging your info onto songs is NOT spyware. Spyware is any application that violates your privacy by TRANSMITTING your info BACK TO A COMPANY without your knowledge. Nothing is being transmitted, unless YOU share the songs. Since they are DRM free, the info won't even be checked unless the song is found on file-sharing networks, or other grey-area distribution channels. This info isn't even resident in memory, like some other spyware applications, so it won't hog resources, or nag you with pop-ups.

Think things through a bit mmkay?

[nryder @ May 31st 2007 7:50PM]

Wasn't info already on the "DRM'ed" purchased songs? I believe it is.

[ThaddW @ May 31st 2007 7:51PM]

Come off it. The point of iTunes Plus DRM-Free music is so that 'you' (the purchaser) can use the media on whatever AAC enabled device 'you' (the purchaser) want. It is for personal use. You are not paying the additional fee so that you can share/distribute the content everywhere and anywhere. The tagging of the content with your information is absolutely reasonable. If you don't like this offering from Apple (or any other provider) then: stop bitching, get off your butts, go to a retail store, and buy a CD. Some of you people act like you don't have a viable alternative.

[elan @ May 31st 2007 7:52PM]

Personally, the 7.2 update has only been a nuisance. iTunes still can't remember my view preferences, it still looks crazy when I load it (with fonts and strange bold text), and whats more, it's completely rendered my last.fm plugin useless.

I'm probably going to get ranked low for this...

[mike @ May 31st 2007 7:56PM]

Everyone who doesn't like this new option from Apple was gonna steal anyway.

Obviously.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 8:04PM]

"Everyone who doesn't like this new option from Apple was gonna steal anyway."

No, this is not true. I had a real question, I even called Apple to clear it up. I don't like this tagging because it does not give me any indication that users of the same family can use a song. It can still end up in a messing up.

Whoever replied like you do, you are either an Apple fanatic, or you don't have a family.

In fact, in my case, the DRM version is better, because it can be locked to work for up to 5 ITunes installations. The DRM-free version doesn't, and so as a user in a FAMILY, it is even more restrictive than the DRM version!

I think that Apple should REALLY clear this thing up.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 7:57PM]

>

I see. Then, clearly, this is not the product we should be using. We will continuing buying CDs and ripping them for both our iPods, as this is something that's allowed under the fair use law.

HOWEVER, I did call Apple earlier today, and he told me that members of the same family should be able to use the same song. So, I still think that the whole thing is ambiguous.

[John K @ May 31st 2007 8:37PM]

First, it's funny that you think there is a "fair use law."

Second, what world do you think we live in that the RIAA would sue you for listening to a song owned by your husband? How would they even know in the first place? The only way they find out now is because stupid people upload their songs freely (without making their identity anonymous) and the RIAA just downloads from them.

Third, Apple is not a company that will share your data with anyone without a court order. So even if the RIAA asked, I HIGHLY doubt Apple would just ablige.

[angelsvairwaves1 @ Jun 1st 2007 11:16AM]

Well you dont HAVE to buy the DRM free songs, there's still the protected versions on there, right?

[Bloobie @ Jun 1st 2007 8:46PM]

The RIAA would not even know about your files, or the fact that you are sharing them internally (within your household), unless you deliberately shared that file with the rest of the Internet. In that case, Apple is not responsible for covering your ass, nor should it be.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 8:11PM]

Many thanks Nilay! :)

[Cupajo @ May 31st 2007 9:41PM]

Nilay Patel : "ELQ, while I am a copyright attorney that has defended RIAA filesharing lawsuits"


Let me ask a question. When you sell your soul to the devil, who pays the closing costs? You or the buyer?

[otamywy @ May 31st 2007 8:17PM]

If you open the non-DRMed file in a hex editor (I used a free trial from UltraEdit), you'll see that all the information is in plaintext. If you modify it, that modification shows up in iTunes and the song still plays. I then deleted my name and my email address, and the song still played.

Now, even a beginner VB coder could write a small application to remove this information, so I wondered why put it there?

My next experiment was to download a DRMed track and run the same test. Sure enough, the information was in plaintext. However, this time when I modified my name, by changing a single letter, iTunes said I needed to authorize my computer to play the song. I did, but still didn’t work. Once I changed my name back, the song played fine.

I’m no expert, but my opinion is that people generally don’t like reinventing the wheel, especially software engineers (they have entire classes on software reuse). Therefore, they had a file delivery system in place, so why change it. That system embedded information for authorization reasons, which served a purpose on DRMed songs. In the rush to get the non-DRMed songs out, hundreds of thousands of songs that needed to be re-encoded and tested in two months, Apple probably never even considered the consequences of leaving the user data embedded. Or they did, figured it is useless for non-DRMed songs and considered it a non-issue.

Of course, who’s to say this isn’t just a diversion from the fact that the same information isn’t encrypted somewhere else in the file. In my opinion, if you don’t plan to pirate, you should be ok, and even if you do, I don’t think Apple has any legal recourse based of easily modifiable plaintext.

[Mr. Vage @ May 31st 2007 8:21PM]

Why don't people like the fact that their information is kept in the audio file. Hymn did the same thing. The makers of Hymn wanted people who bought the music to use it how they wanted, but not share the music with others. Apple is doing nothing different. Besides, what privacy issues arise? As long as you aren't sharing the file on Bittorrent, no one should even see your information in the file.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 8:30PM]

"As long as you aren't sharing the file on Bittorrent, no one should even see your information in the file."

That's the part that you don't get. Apple does not guarantee that iTunes itself won't become spyware and "tag" people with the same file on multiple machines, EVEN if they are from the same family or even the same user on multiple computers! In the DRM songs, this is an easy obstacle to overcome because the second/third iTunes machine must be authorized, but in the DRM-free version this does not happen and so Apple has no way of knowing that a song is installed within the same household or not. THAT's the problem, not that we have any real problem with some info being embedded in the song. I wouldn't care less if my whole bio was in there.

[Matt @ May 31st 2007 8:46PM]

Bscout,

That's totally, completely, ludicrously wrong. Your right to speak should be revoked.

If the computers are communal property, it's perfectly okay for the music to end up on any of them. The license says a file can be on up to five computers. Provided they don't exceed those limits, there's no problem whatsoever.

[Kevin @ May 31st 2007 8:47PM]

From iTunes' ToS:

DRM restrcitions:

(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time.

(iv) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod, at a time.

(v) You shall be authorised to burn an audio playlist up to seven times.

As applied to iTunes plus:

(xii) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such Products, and Usage Rules (iii) – (vi) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.

[Matt @ May 31st 2007 8:52PM]

Straight from the license: you can put files you download on any number of computers, so long as you are reasonable:

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

"(xii) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such Products, and Usage Rules (iii) – (vi) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use."

So you're not even limited to five devices--you can have it on every electronic device you own.

[Alex @ May 31st 2007 8:56PM]

Well....nice to see someone honest about Apple stating their bugs and problems, instead of the usual Microsoft complaints.

[elan @ May 31st 2007 9:07PM]

Also straight from the iTunes terms of service:

"15. You also agree that you will not use these products for the development, design, manufacture, or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

[Standingfast @ Jun 1st 2007 8:57AM]

It does not say that in the iTunes TOS, I checked.

[Pastor of Muppets @ May 31st 2007 9:13PM]

I don't really care about the info tagging, I'm just pissed that I can't pick and choose which songs or albums I want to upgrade. I have 56 songs and 24 albums (so far) available to upgrade to Plus. That's $74.25 in one shot! And that's only a very small fraction of all my iTunes purchases...I can imagine what will happen in the future when more labels jump on board. I just wanted to test a few tracks to see if there was any discernible difference in sound quality, but apparently that's too much to ask. I've been an Apple advocate for a long time, but they're starting to piss me off more and more with stunts like this.

[Bloobie @ May 31st 2007 9:16PM]

Let's whine about this even further and only purchase music using cash so that no one will ever be able to link you to your music (purchases). :P

[travis @ May 31st 2007 9:29PM]

alls i know is it shouldn't take 36 hrs to download one song...

maybe i should switch back to dial up. steve's bring retro isp's back.

[William @ May 31st 2007 9:30PM]

In other news, the latest version of iTunes obliges with my request to open video files in a seperate window, as opposed to always viewing them in the 640x640 box in the lower left pane.

Also, since selecting Tom Petty Greatest Hits ($7.99) to my Shopping Cart this morning, I haven't been able to access my shopping cart to actually purchase the item.

So, for me, the latest update has one positive and one negative effect.

[Dragod @ May 31st 2007 9:31PM]

See, it's this kind of stuff that makes me not want to buy any of their products. They give you a choice, but they don't *really* give you a choice. "Take your pick. DRM or Non-DRM with all of your info on it. Go ahead, pick!"

If you ask me, Apple needs to make an iPod that doesn't get scratched to hell right out of the box, a better interface, and stop with all the DRM bullshit. Damn, I just buy the CD's, but if I decide "Hey, I think I like this exclusive, I'll buy it." I don't want people telling me "Don't use it in too many places!" or "Sorry, this file can't be opened because it is tied to another music player!"

[sendeth @ May 31st 2007 9:51PM]

even the basic video's are sucking right now. i can't even download movies and shows whithout clicking repeatedly on the tv show or movie links for 15 minutes. it's everything right now. maybe you should consult a regular itunes user before jumping the gun about them infringing on their drm promise. don't get me wrong, i despise drm with everything i am, but itunes has been having problems for a couple weeks now. what you are reporting is nothing new to current users. maybe if you had noticed 2 weeks ago you would have a story.

[Dan @ May 31st 2007 9:56PM]

i hate itunes!!!!!!!!

[mike @ May 31st 2007 10:03PM]

It doesn't look like Apple is tracking what music you have on your machine -- my guess is that it's only embedding account info per song to track illegal activity on p2p networks. So it's highly doubtful that Apple even knows what you and your husband are doing in your household with your music, let alone compiling that information in preparation for some RIAA subpoena. I wouldn't worry about it.
--

Kudos, and ELQ, I'm not a lawyer, and I JUST TOLD YOU, if you're worried about your name getting 'out'... don't use filesharing networks. Get it?

As for the rest of your complaint, it was too convoluted to even address.

[ELQ @ May 31st 2007 10:45PM]

"ELQ, I'm not a lawyer, and I JUST TOLD YOU, if you're worried about your name getting 'out'... don't use filesharing networks. Get it?"

I DO NOT USE file sharing. We have 400 CDs in our home. Yes, WE ARE RICH ENOUGH to buy our media. You are very disrespectful, and remember, assumption is the mother of all f*ckups. So, when you talk to me, don't think you are talking to your likes of your own family. You didn't even understand what my concern is, but you took the easy way out by making this disrespectful comment.

[William @ May 31st 2007 10:12PM]

Cupajo:

Defending and Prosecuting are two seperate things. The Prosecution (in this case, lawyers representing the RIAA) brings charges against a person (the defendant), the defendant then hires an attorney who defends them in court.

Nelay stated he defends filesharing lawsuits, making me think that he would be one of your good guys.

[David @ May 31st 2007 10:35PM]

WHO CARES?! Don't share the files over the internet and you'll be fine. I think that this type of thing is good because YOU can use the file anyway YOU want as long as you're not giving it out to hundreds of people. It will hopefully keep people honest. The only way you're going to get in trouble for sharing with a family member is if they upload it to the interenet. The RIAA is not going to pull up on you while you're joggin and throw you in their van and check out your ipod. JEEZ.

[Jacob Kennedy @ Jun 1st 2007 10:40AM]

The bottom line is that any action against file sharing within a family would be laughed out of all courts (regardless of your last name). If you don't care if your entire bio is included in a file then I wouldn't worry about sharing a file with your husband. As many have stated before, even non-Plus files are allowed to be shared up to 5 times. As divorces have proven, ownership in a marriage becomes infinitely close to 50/50 in a short matter of time (and I have yet to hear about a CD or mp3 collection in a prenup). Worst case scenario you'd be able to claim that you own half of the songs you've shared ;-)

[Zach Fichtler @ May 31st 2007 10:56PM]

Wow, ELQ.... you didn't sound like a complete asshole at ALL...

Apple says you can use the non-DRM files for personal, noncommercial use... why don't YOU try and determine what that means, rather than coming here and bitching about it, and talking about how rich you are... and while you're at it... shove a head of lettuce up your ass... maybe it will make you a better person.

[Pastor of Muppets @ May 31st 2007 11:22PM]

I have a sudden urge to download "Paranoid" from iTunes.

This one's for you, ELQ...

[kornchild2002 @ May 31st 2007 11:24PM]

I am sure married people can share the same music as Apple states that you can copy purchased tracks to a unlimited number of iPods. Besides, I think the rules apply for one household, not one person. You can share your music as long as it is in the same household. On top of that, Apple allows you to authorize up to 5 different computers to play your legally purchased material. As long as your computer is authorized then it is no big deal. You can have his content on your computer. THE END.

FYI - You probably shouldn't talk about how "rich" you are, that isn't a good way to gain favor with people especially when you are trying to get an question answered.

[Dan @ May 31st 2007 11:38PM]

@Dragod:

> See, it's this kind of stuff that makes me not want to buy any of their products. They give you a choice,
> but they don't *really* give you a choice. "Take your pick. DRM or Non-DRM. Go ahead, pick!"

There, fixed it for ya!

All your info on it doesn't mean jack unless you intend to steal music ("Don't steal music") or let others steal music from you ("Don't steal music".)

If you don't trust your friends not to peer-to-peer music you shared with them to expose them to, well...

1. Strip the info out first.
2. Burn an Audio CD.
3. Find new friends.

Otherwise, keep beating that dead horse - 'If only Apple would blah, blah, blah I'd pay for music....' (yeah, right - you know you never will you hypocrites.)

[midas360 @ Jun 1st 2007 12:00AM]

@ELQ

I say share away and don't worry about it. Life's too short to worry about sharing songs illegally with loved ones. Have Fun! =0}

[John Doe @ Jun 1st 2007 2:30AM]

Apple software glitchy? Say it ain't so. As arrogant as that company is their software sure as hell doesn't warrant it. And this isn't a MS fanboi, its a frustrated as hell Mac users who has been using a Mac now since Feb of '06. I am NOT impressed.

[simeon @ Jun 1st 2007 3:46AM]

Yesterday at about 6PM PDT, I started looking at what was available in iTunes Plus. The interface was slow and buggy. When I tried to sample songs, they just wouldn't play. I selected a newer album from a band that I like, and bought it without listening. 30hrs later, I am still trying to get the last four songs to finish downloading. What happened to Apple's Akamai servers? This really makes Apple look bad.

As for the watermarking, who cares? It isn't spyware, it is embedded lines of text. The music you buy is high quality and not DRM crippled. You can remove the watermark with a text editor, or you can change the format of the music to an MP3 or something and loos the watermark that way. Or, just leave it. What is the big deal?

[mullingitover @ Jun 1st 2007 4:03AM]

Wow, this is a very large tempest for such a small teakettle.

As someone already mentioned here, it's absolutely trivial to write a script that'll remove any identifying information from your entire iTunes library. I give it a week before it's on del.icio.us/popular, slashdot, et al. Calm down, kids.

[Chinthaka @ Jun 1st 2007 6:05AM]

"It Just Works"... LOL

[Paul Parent @ Jun 1st 2007 6:29AM]

Three days and counting. Tried to update 280 songs, still getting a plethora of errors. Apple tried to help by resetting my account but... 504 is trying to become my best friend right about now.

[mvn @ Jun 1st 2007 6:29AM]

Some people forget or do not know but this information is encoded on all itunes tracks since the store first opened, it was emi that decided (with some prompting from Jobs) to remove drm from their tracks and apple agreed to provide the platform, other online stores will follow suit.

Everybody who uses this service clicks on an agreement before they can upgrade their tracks so should know these tracks are for their own personal use. Its great I can now transfer these tracks to my mobile or windows media center etc...Not sure the sound quality has improved much (at least through headphones, need to check on hifi) but thats a different debate..