TUAW Reader Feedback: DRM-free Fallout Predictions

Let's settle one thing here: DRM does not stop piracy. At most, it stops casual trading between consumers. Most music is already sold without DRM as it is, so Apple selling without it has minimal impact.

One problem with the music industry is that it is signing fewer and fewer bands and releasing fewer new titles every year. The sales per title have increased, but not enough to offset the reduction of sales because of the fewer number of titles released each year.

Quote:
------------
And where the @#$%^ did you get the idea that the music comes over the wire without the DRM and it's added at your computer. Damn you people are stupid.
-------------

It's counterintuitive, but at least for a time it was true. The first anti-DRM hack to iTunes intercepted and recorded the AAC stream, and it did not have any DRM attached until the local software added it. This was used to prove that it was the user-side added DRM.

@ Annoyed #20;

I'm too lazy to site multiple refernces but the from the one below you can find all the other credentials you may need.

The irony of calling people stupid and this classic line: "I'm so tired of idiots thinking that they are not idiots". I bet you wish you could edit your post now. Eh, moron.

"RM in iTunes
Of course, there’s no mandatory DRM in iTunes or the iPod; for DRM free operation, users can simply refuse to buy iTS content, and use MP3, AAC, or lossless files ripped from their own CDs or bought from MP3 stores.

When protected content is bought from the iTS, iTunes establishes a secure connection to Apple's servers and downloads a plain AAC file with no DRM.

The actual FairPlay lock is created locally by iTunes. That's why Apple doesn't support third party or open source software downloading content from the iTS.

That's also how hacks previously bypassed DRM on iTS downloads: they pretended to be iTunes, and simply downloaded unprotected songs from Apple.

Once Apple realized this might risk the ire of labels, it released a new version of iTunes and started performing certificate based security checks between iTunes and its store servers.

Since iTunes does all the work in encrypting tracks into FairPlay protected versions, Apple's servers aren't taxed with processing the billion and a half songs users have purchased. The iTS just serves up plain AAC songs, and the processing to add individual locks to every song is handled locally by the idle processor on client's machines.

This design puts all the demands of DRM enforcement into iTunes, simplifying both the Apple store and the iPod, and leaving fewer nuts to crack open.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/728B5C4B-0A35-40BE-A2E7-E5464C68B80A.html"

#20
I agree with you on everything except the last part about he DRM being added on your Computer that is a fact and has been proven while they tried to build an iTunes Clone for Linux, however that could have been changed since then.

I would be willing to pay a little more for higher quality songs without DRM. I don't buy that many new singles anyways, so in my case I would probably be paying the same amount when buying a mix of old and new songs.

Annoyed, you are 100% right. Most comments in this post seem to come from utterly ignorant people. Learn something about audio, folks!
For people with good audio equipment, 224 is still not enough. I do not see myself buying in iTunes until it sells lossless.

I'm so tired of idiots thinking that they are not idiots.

- "CD Quality" isn't the same as studio quality.
- How is raising prices the DUMBEST thing in the world? I can think of dumber things. Additionally, I'd happily pay $0.30 more for high quality and DRM free. Just because you're a cheap f!@# doesn't mean the rest of us are.
- How is a Powerbook G4 a valid test of the sound quality? Even if you're not an audiophile, those speakers sound like shit.
- Why do dipshits assume that everyone else listens to music only on our iPods and HDTVs?
- And where the @#$%^ did you get the idea that the music comes over the wire without the DRM and it's added at your computer. Damn you people are stupid.

Just because you have an opinion or think you know something, doesn't make you right.

Heres something that most people don't know. The iTunes tracks have the DRM done on your computer. The actual transfer from the Apple servers to your computer is not encrypted. I expect with this code added to iTunes there will be a simple hack that makes iTunes think all purchased tracks do not require DRM when downloaded.

one-tierd pricing isn't dead. that's utter bs. you are paying more for higher quality downloads with no DRM, compare this to the REAL multi-tierd pricing, which is more poplular artists are more money while the less popular are cheaper (or cost as much as they do now.)

Alright, so About the Apple Lossless stuff, So I took the song "Do you want to" by franz Ferdinand. I ripped the song in 128-bit and 256 bit AAC, Apple Lossless, and 192 MP3.....
bit and A
Soo,, on my Powerbook G4, through the speakers, me and my 2 friends could tell the difference between the the 128 and 256 bit AACs. We could not between the 256 bit and the apple lossless.... But then i looked at the file size. About 6 MB on the 256 bit AAC, and 26 MB on the ALC.

That's why The songs aren't released in ALC. for the 80% that will see the extra 5 mins to 2 hours of download time before they noticed the minor upgrade in audio quality.

ITunes store music on P2P networks:
It's possible for Apple to encode the AAC files with an inaudible, digital signature. One that can be found by specialize program looking for these self-imposed anomalies.

AAC (lossy) vs. Apple Loseless:
"CD Quality" music when compressed is typically associated with MP3 format at 320kbps. If you can tell the differnce between 320kbps and 256kbps then you have very sensitive ears AND a very excellent sound system. And it's not even possible to tell teh difference with your HDTV's speakers or your iPod headphones so don't even pretend that it will. SO why the need for Apple Lossless. Apple is already doubling the storage required (actually they're tripling it since they are still keeping the old files), which in turn doubles the transfer size and time required.

128,000 (128kb) x 210s (3.5minutes) = 26,880,000kbps
Seems high, eh? That is because the OS/programs typically register as "Bits" not "bytes" so divide that total by 8 to get a file size of 3,360,000 or 3.36MB.

I'm lazy and wanted to keep it relatively simple so I kept with BASE-10 instead of BASE-2.

Moving on...
This means the same song in 256kbps will take up twice the space, approx. 7MB. As for Lossless, the bitrate varies but for most songs you'll have over 1000kbps. That means a 3.5 minute song will over 25MB.

Consider the bandwidth and storage expense and imagine how much extra Apple would have to charge. And what a hassle for most customers whos HDDs and iPods can now hold a fourth of the songs it previously could. And all for something that isn't discernible from 256kbps AAC.

Twice the bitrate and without DRM all for a 30 cent premium. Songs like a deal to me.